|
Author
|
Topic: The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science?
|
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4936 days) Posts: 277 Joined: 06-22-2006
|
|
Message 121 of 133 (408962)
07-06-2007 7:22 AM
|
|
|
Lets get some things straight.
2 THINGS WILL BE SETTLED A- Genesis 1-11 (in its current form) is NOT a LATE tradition (as people swear around here like it is somehow "fact") and the scholarly view is that it could be as old as any EXTANT Mesopotamian creation and flood legend.Genesis 1 could very well have developed and transmitted seperately- in a parallel fashion- from all others though they could be based a specific event and surely are based on a specific proto-tradition if not proto-text which branched out (and the oldest form of Genesis 1's strain of tradition could be very similar to the extant Genesis 1 of today) B-"Firmament" = ATMOSPHERE according to scholarly concensus One more complicated issue is whether the sun was present in day 1 of the Genesis Cosmology.I will show that sound philology demands that it be read as present after the event of day 1. First issue FIRMAMENT (SEE posts 104 and ESPECIALLY 105, plus the discussion starting around post 97 or 98) Lets see what the scholars say (we already have heard what the best ones ever have said but now lets get the mainstream concensus)....... (we will kill two birds with one stone actually, the Genesis age will be covered also).......
Dictionary of the Ancient Near East EDITED BY PIOTR BIENKOWSKI AND ALAN MILLARD PENN University of Pennsylvania Press Philadlphia VIII .... Additional contributors ... Douglas Biard .... Jeremy Black .... Paul T. Collins.... Stephanie Dalley ... Anthony Green...... Gwendolyn Leick... Roger Matthews..... ...
Thats about half the list (I elided their post and university).The University of Pennsylvania (like U Chicago) is top of the line in Cuneiform scholarship mind you. The ONLY ever Sumerian Dictionary in English (vastly imcomplete, 4 volumes so far out of what looks like 50+ required to finish) is being produced by this university. Now lets FINALLY bury the turd we keep seeing float around.
ibid. pp 81-82,119-120 Creation legends and cosmogonies ....... In Genesis God creates by command in six days, in sequence, light and darkness, the atmosphere, land and plants .......Splitting Tiamat to make heaven and earth is like the dividing of the two in Genesis 1, 3-5, but this idea is found in creation stories from oher societies, too. .... The Hebrew narrative has more in common with the older Babylonian poem, Epic of Atrahasis(see Flood). .... Flood and flood stories ... Babylonian tradition did know of one flood ...... recalled in literary and historical references..... .... Anciet Israels story of Noah preserves a similar memory.... Evidently the Hebrew and cuneiform narratives share a common source.The later date of the Hebrew as preserved does not prove it is derived from the Babylonian.
(I will provide a link after this post which leads to a more complete quote of the creation article-though still just a two partial paragraphs out of many were quoted) Dont forget to see my quote of William Hallo in post 102(or 103) ("Hoah" should read Noah, my typo).William Hallo mentions that the specific themes of Genesis occur in all the worlds ancient traditions and literature and that it may be from diffusion of a common source.He also sees justification for looking for the flood in the archaeological record. Notice that "atmosphere" is the plain scholarly understanding of Genesis "firmament". Sumerian texts (the oldest extant creation stories) clearly have "air" (atmosphere) represented as what holds the "waters" up.And waters cleary refer to "universe" (again see post 104 and 105) .And many diverse creation legends have the theme similar to Tiamat/Tehom. Notice that Genesis has NOT been proven to have come later than the oldest "Babylonian" (term that includes ancient Sumer) texts: contrary to the popular B.S. which CLEARLY comes from people who have never read the Mesopotamian stories.If they did then they would see the differences(see my link in next thread for a better quote). anyway Genesis 1 is (perhapss)the oldest cosmology and ALL were descended from a common tradition as a source. Tehom =universe Firmament=atmosphere And Genesis likely came from a text that descended from proto-semitic IMO. "Possibly" can be substituted for likely and it would be true (see post 104 and 105) NEXT "evening" in Day 1
The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament Study Edition Volume I BRILL LEIDEN.BOSTON.KOLN 2001 Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner pp877-878 ... 'RB(134 times)SamP.ereb; Sec. with B Baarb(Bronno 125f): Vulg 'RB; MHeb. DSS (Kuhn Kornkordanz 169f); Heb. inscr. (Jean-H. Dictionnaire 221); Ug. 'rb sps(Gordon Textbook 19:1915) correspondig to Akk. ereb samsi(ereb cstr. of erbu AHw. 233b) descent (of the sun):
(some scripts,subscripts, and symbols above needed to be altered or left out. For example "s" often meant SH with the circumflex) (expect the same below)
A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian edited by Jeremy Black. Andrew george. Nicholas Postgate 2nd (corrected) printing Harrassowitz Verlag p77 erbu(m)II,erbu "(sun)set" Bab. in ereb samsi (dUTU.SU.A; SU.20) of time"sunset" of place "the west", Mari also without samsi erebu I (used at times in Mari) means "to enter"
Theological Dictionary Of The Old Testament Volume XI Edited by Johannes Botterweck Helmer Ringgren Heinz-Joseph Fabry Eerdmans 'erev 335-341 ..... III. 1. Extrabiblical Occurences. In East Semitic the root 'rb is represented by the verb erebu, "sink", and the construct phrase ereb samsi, which means sunset." In Northwest Semitic we find Ugar. 'rb, "sunset", and m'rb, "sinking".Comparable are Aram. m'rb, "sinking,west", and Syr. 'rb, "sink", m'rb, "west", and m'rby, "western". ........
The all-important North-West Semitic reference (using Ugaritic ) referenced to J. Aistleitner Worterbuch der ugaritische Sprachen "sunset" is the clear definition for evening in day 1. And there were plenty of other words to use other than "sunset" if it ddidnt refer to the sun.It has a specific definition.Infact sunset IS THE definition. (the context is super clear though I feel that "day" could be a word that in the extant Hebrew text got confused due to a transmission issue of translation an ancient word/concept down through multiple languages and ages.) NEXT "morning" in day 1 is more difficult to pin down as far as etomology.
Theological Dictionary Old testament volume II BoQeR 217-229 1.In the Ancient Near East. 1. Egypt.The usual Egyptian word for "morning" is dw'(w) or dw'(y)t.Another word is bk', which occurs less frequently. ...... The religious life of the Egyptians is in many ways oriented to the rising sun.Even in prehistoric times it is possible to trace the practise of burying a corpse with the face toward the east, which agrees completely with the custom in the Old Kingdom.Thus, East is the holy direction and morning the holy time, which is confirmed again and again by the sun theology, which gradually became more and more predominat. Usually a temple was built with its long sides in an east-west direction .... This indicates that the Egyptians put a great deal of stock in the east and in the morning.... .... II. Etymology .... d.The Egyp. bk', "morning", presents another possible root from which boqer could have been derived. The reason boqer has no cognates outside Hebrew could be that it is an Egyptian loanword unknown in the other Semitic languages.If this is the correct explanation, the sound and manner of writing boqer are still big problems
Anyway, even without teh specific etomology of the word for "mourning", we have enough context and sound philology to get a clear meaning. Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given. Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given. Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
|
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4936 days) Posts: 277 Joined: 06-22-2006
|
|
|
Message 122 of 133 (408973)
07-06-2007 9:13 AM
|
|
|
Link to more complete quote.
EvC Forum: The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1 http:// EvC Forum: The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1 --> EvC Forum: The Unacknowledged Accuracy of Genesis 1Updated: 07/06/2007 09:08:20 More Post 223. (its difficult to past on WebTV, I will need to paste the entire page and tthen SLOWLY delete every last bit 1 letter by letter) Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
Re: please find a subtitle that makes sense
quote:
then why is it the overriding structure, instead of simply a breif mention, like "oh, by the way, this happened when time started," like chapter 2 has?
Time is ushered in with a calendar, like a timepiece, and when it can be reciprocated to - by humans, and this comes later in Genesis. The 'it was evening and morning one day' is not time focused - these are separation tresholds, which become superflous as time indicators: for who's benefit? Note that time (calendar) is given to man, and is preceded by time-effective commandments (laws): the rule is there can be no superfluous entries in the OT.
quote:
though ch 1 introduced cosmic time, please stop making stuff up. just stick to the text.
The term cosmic days, admittedly, is relatively recent, but it is a logical application: the 24-hour day was not applicable without the sun's luminosity. I don't know how to make this more clear: I mentioned that the hebrew calendar does not include these cosmic or pre-luminosity days. This is verifiable and can be checked out: the first day of the calendar begins with Adam's earthly birthday.
quote:
Ch 1 is about CREATIONISM, and percieved as such by the current negation of this premise by non-creationalists. no. this is an entirely anachronistic thought. "creationism" wasn't invented until more than a thousand years after the text was written. in 600 bc judah, that god created the world was simply a no-brainer. of course god created the world. who else would have? it was simply accepted. the position that there need not be a god, and thus the religious opposition to it, don't come about until... well, i don't know when exactly, but certainly after the enlightenment.
This is fine and a reasoned point. Still, genesis ch 1 is describing a Creator Creating Creation.
quote:
There is no sun creation; this occured in v1. Its blatant. no, it occurs in verse 16. just like verse 16 says. god made the sun. please explain to me why you think the sun was created and then made, and what you think the "blatant" difference is, and how something can exist before it is made? because the only thing blatant here is the fact that you are ignoring the obvious meaning of verse 16 for an extremely contrived reading of verse 1, which actually says nothing like what you think it does.
This is where your error is: the sun was not created in day 4, because vegetation was already created in the previous days, and yet did not sprout/grow - meaning it was static ('Now nothing grew..etc'). Sprouting occured when the 'rains' came, and when humans appeared ('to till the land'), which occurs after the sun's luminosity began, and the vegetation becomes dynamic (sprouting occurs). Vegetation could not have been created before the sun being created - which is what you are describing. The sun was not created in V16 but in V1: 'IN THE BEGINNING GD CREATED THE HEAVENS (GALAXIES/STARS/SUN) AND THE EARTH'. Only here the term created ('bara') is used, not in V16, with the galaxies listed before the earth.
quote:
uh, no. first god creates light. then god creates heaven. then god creates earth. then god creates the sun, moon, and stars and places them in heaven. that's what the chapter says. it cannot be any more plain.
Its not a simple chapter, and requires deliberation, with numerous issues overlapping. The 'LET THERE BE LIGHT' - IMHO - is not sunlight, but a Pre-Sun Light. This light precedes the sunlight (Luminosity) which is clearly described in day 4. This light is both, an actual, essential light (the sun could not produce light if it never existed in essence) - and is also a metaphoric expression, ie: 'the wisdom of Gd's Light' (light is later described as signs and omens). Your reading would allow two of the same light: in v4 also in v 16, rendering one of the verses superfluous.
quote:
you are the one requiring a "dual reading." you say first everything is created in verse 1... and then everything is created again in the rest of the chapter. it's far, far simpler to recognize that verse one refers to the rest of the chapter.
A very valid point, and one which I too had problems with, but it was resolved later. Yes, everything was created in one instant ('There is nothing new' - K. Solomon); yes, the pivotal producs are mentioned again as being created. But there is no 'dual' creation - the creation of animals, for example, was not a dual creation, but listed retrospectively, namely it must be read as 'the animals which were created in the aforesaid V1'. This is grammatically sustained when deliberated with, to the extent it need not be extended upon because there is no other reading possible; it is now given as an order not of 'time' priority (the OT is NOT chronological but contextual), but of an order of applicability, based on activation. The static vegetation is going to be activated before animals. Here you will also see that the 'time' factor being applied to the first creation chapter is incorrect - because the order of lising in this chapter is not chronological but contextual.
quote:
None of the other stars were created on the 4th day either. again, the text says they were. you're not fighting with me; you're fighting with the text. you are plainly contradicting what it says.
Not so if the luminosity is referred to; any other reading calls for a dual creation or a superfluous entry.
quote:
uh, no, that's plainly not the case. biblical hebrew actually LACKS tenses, period. verbs do have a few forms, but far, far fewer than most other (western) languages. as for adverbs, as they are grammatically identical to adjectives, i think it's fairly safe to say hebrew is rather lacking there, too.
The grammar is based on relevency and applicability. Hebrew is a pristine language, operating in minimilist form. There are only 22 alphabets, which includes numerals, and functions without separated vowels, and utilises 'nuances' and 'gamatria'- namely, it takes the shortest route between two points. The verb 'created' is a perfect tence, meaning past/present/future - this is signified by 'AND IT STOOD'; 'AND IT WAS SO' - a nuance for all time, as with the command with Light - there is light then, now and the future. It is wanting and short to read this chapter as plain and straightforwar: one must not forget the hedy issue being described, and that the descriptions are applicable to all generations of humanity. This is highlighted by its debating here and now, as it would have been 3000 years ago in the deserts and will be 2000 years in the future. Thus it is in minimlistic structure, which is directed for all generations ('He openeth the eyes of the blind').
quote:
"heavens" does not mean "galaxies." the text also provides a definition for that word: a solid object that separates the waters above from the waters below (creating an air-pocket). the word itself is derived from the word for "water." heaven is created on day two and not before.
This disregards V1. Also, re heaven referring to the galaxies in V 1, I refer you to later in genesis where Abraham is told: "LOOK NOW AT THE HEAVENS AND SEE IF YOU CAN COUNT THE STARS..ETC'. This explains Heaven in V1 referring to the universe - including the sun.
quote:
no, it mentions "ground" or "land." "earth" is a typical rendering, but it literally means "land" as in an area. in modern hebrew, it means "country." ever hear of the israeli newspaper ha-aretz? same word. it doesn't mean "universe."
I'm aware that earth can mean both planet earth and physical, material matter. This is also the case with the word 'Adam', which doubles up as generic human being, and a Pronoun. It requires contextual application.
quote:
in fact, there isn't even a word in biblical hebrew that means "universe." i know, i looked. the modern word for it means "eternity" in biblical hebrew.
Universe is seen in the description to Abraham ('galaxies of stars'), denoting contextual application.
quote:
read it again. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 1:3
—, ; - v'y'amar elohim, "yehey 'or!" v'yehey 'or. and god said, "be light!" and there was light. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the verse is literally god telling light to exist. the word used means exist. it is the same word that forms the grammatical basis of god's own name. how can you propose to claim that light existed before god commands it do so? it is after this point that light is separated from darkness.
This is discussed above. It means, 'the light which was created in V1', but here it becomes contextually applicable, listed prior to its subsequential separation from darkness. There is no alternative reading possible when the chapter is appraised in its entirity. It requires deliberation. The same applies with light - it was created in V1, and later on directed with a specific application ('I shall give you your rains in its due time - the early rains and the later rains').
quote:
1:1-2:4a is (the lengthiest addition) in the "P" document
Forget it - this P distiquishings are insane stuff applied by newage scholars to justify different authors and writing dates. Its nonsense.
quote:
in all the torah i have studied, i have never once heard anyone discuss "cosmic days" or any such garbage.
This is the current vernaculars used. Previously, it was referred to as pre-calendar days. The meaning behind the word applies.
quote:
"first" means "first." and you ignore the dozen or so translations i posted that actually render it this way, and my points about hebrew stylistics. instead, you just go on reciting this made-up stuff of yours, creating a false distinction between "first" and the definition of "first." no! the text does not make any such distinction.
But it does: it is written as DAY ONE, not FIRST DAY; while the follow-up days are written as SECOND DAY; THIRD DAY, ETC. If there was no distinction between ONE and FIRST, why would it be written so? To be first in a race means first among many; while ONE has no precedents. It is mirrorwed by the statute GD IS ONE. Not FIRST.
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
|
Message 124 of 133 (409057)
07-07-2007 12:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 121 by Nimrod
07-06-2007 7:22 AM
|
|
Re: Lets get some things straight.
quote:
Nimrod: A- Genesis 1-11 (in its current form) is NOT a LATE tradition (as people swear around here like it is somehow "fact") and the scholarly view is that it could be as old as any EXTANT Mesopotamian creation and flood legend.Genesis 1 could very well have developed and transmitted seperately- in a parallel fashion- from all others though they could be based a specific event and surely are based on a specific proto-tradition if not proto-text which branched out (and the oldest form of Genesis 1's strain of tradition could be very similar to the extant Genesis 1 of today)
The independent Meso flood report affirms genesis' credibility. The pivotal factor between the Meso and OT depictions are not any commonalities but the difference. This is the difference between an array of head-bashing dieties battling for suprmecy - and the pure, pristine Monotheism introduced via Abraham, who had to flee Ur, Meso with a death sentence upon his head. The OT caused great controversy and challenge to its spacetime, greater than Galileo and Einstein. It must be seen not retrospectively from today - but from within the context of its own spacetime, to understand the enormity of breaking every ancient held treshold. The OT, more than any other factor, changed the world.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 121 by Nimrod, posted 07-06-2007 7:22 AM | | Nimrod has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 125 by Nimrod, posted 07-07-2007 2:36 AM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4936 days) Posts: 277 Joined: 06-22-2006
|
|
|
Message 125 of 133 (409064)
07-07-2007 2:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 124 by IamJoseph
07-07-2007 12:59 AM
|
|
Source you statement.
That IS the point of this site mind you. When science isnt being discussed, then we engage in social studies which the bulk of the discussion then is documenting in the ancient record (written plus the additional issue of un-written archaeological discoveries) that certain events could have happened a certain way. "Certain events" generally includes the Biblical texts that make up the "OT" (which you mentioned) and NT. I have yet to see you back up any Biblical text (I wont hold my breath waiting for you to back-up whatever your were just mingling in with the OT).Infact,you have brought disgrace to Genesis by you antics.Its no wonder so much B.S. and smack is commonly assumed about Genesis from BOTH sides of the debate.There have been persistent misconceptions due to the clear similarities (suggesting a common origin) in the Mesopotamian texts (which I consider Genesis to be one via an "Amorite" branch) which outdated scholarship took to mean that Genesis was borrowed from some later Babylonian texts.The misconception has continued for several reasons but people like YOU are the main reason.You spew endless B.S. in the Bibles name when you should be making good,honest study. I could literally listen to you for 100 years (God help me) and learn nothing.Any casual web surfer would have to conclude that Genesis is just some worthless old rag after listening to your projections.Most do.Because you do represent (albeit in a slightly more absurd form) the vast vocal-majority of Genesis "supporters" I have seen online. Why are you on a science website anyway? Is somebody paying you to discredit Genesis and you figured this would be far more economical spot than the typical fundi sperm-banks where you would hardly be noticed? (I have nothing against fundamentalism at all so long as the typical arrogance can be mitigated somewhat infact most people would find absolute-fundamentalism charming if it didnt almost always seem to be represented by ignorant jerks who had no interst in learning even the most basic of issues relative to the debate). I disagree with these guys here on ALOT but honestly you would be better off actually agreeing with them for now (their shoes are much bigger than yours) then slowly learning more later.It ironic, because you and me might be much closer on the issues (I guess), but you are so ignorant that we have a situation where you would be far better off disagreeing with me much more if it meant you could learn something.Your constant "debating" (as if!) and arguing isnt getting you anywhere. Just go ahead and listen to them and keep asking questions.Dont be afraid to learn something.You cant learn anything if you dont learn to study from various viewpoints and angles.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 124 by IamJoseph, posted 07-07-2007 12:59 AM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
|
Message 126 of 133 (409081)
07-07-2007 8:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 125 by Nimrod
07-07-2007 2:36 AM
|
|
Re: Source you statement.
quote:
nimrod
I have yet to see you back up any Biblical text (I wont hold my breath waiting for you to back-up whatever your were just mingling in with the OT).
Back up what - ask?
quote:
Infact,you have brought disgrace to Genesis by you antics.Its no wonder so much B.S. and smack is commonly assumed about Genesis from BOTH sides of the debate.There have been persistent misconceptions due to the clear similarities (suggesting a common origin) in the Mesopotamian texts (which I consider Genesis to be one via an "Amorite" branch) which outdated scholarship took to mean that Genesis was borrowed from some later Babylonian texts.The misconception has continued for several reasons but people like YOU are the main reason.You spew endless B.S. in the Bibles name when you should be making good,honest study.
I believe I'm keeping to the thread subject and responding to posts - as you can see in the last few posts, and the subject was not unrelated to science. Disgrace of genesis - not from my answers and understandings of it - its my favourite document. You are in error about the amorites - this peoples never had writings - where's your evidence of it? You also are wrong for assuming the OT as copied from any other document - this is because the differences are more important than the commonalities. There are many laws in the OT which prevailed before - circumcizion predates Abraham. The OT came relatively late in the scene, and contains laws which were around before - but it does not contain laws which are wrong: these were discarded. The power of the OT is knowing which laws are right and not: anyone can study MC2 - but how many can correct it? And if your referring to the Hamurabi writings - its dating is in dispute. This document was found much later in Iran, and is not in alphabetical script - nor is there any evidence Israel and Babylon interacted pre-3300 BCE. Nontheless, the OT does not claim to be first.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 125 by Nimrod, posted 07-07-2007 2:36 AM | | Nimrod has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 127 by Nimrod, posted 07-09-2007 1:08 AM | | IamJoseph has not replied |
|
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4936 days) Posts: 277 Joined: 06-22-2006
|
"science"
I see you feel that you have knowledge of science and are qualified to comment along those lines. So tell me..... What books have you read related to science fields and subjects? Taken any post high-school classes? Read any journal articles? (I generally dont comment on science issues since I dont know a frekin thing about science.O sure I have heard some mainstream geologists or so mention a few possibilities and such but I would never speak on an issue I know nothing about) Back to the book issue; please give a 250-1000 word review of each book you read so I know Im not completely wasting my time reading your posts. (I didnt come here just to read somebody dump slime, or whatever might stick, onto any darn topic they see before them )
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread. AdminPD Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 126 by IamJoseph, posted 07-07-2007 8:44 AM | | IamJoseph has not replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
|
Message 128 of 133 (409390)
07-09-2007 8:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 121 by Nimrod
07-06-2007 7:22 AM
|
|
Re: Lets get some things straight.
quote:
One more complicated issue is whether the sun was present in day 1 of the Genesis Cosmology.I will show that sound philology demands that it be read as present after the event of day 1.
The sun was created in V1 of genesis, along with the entire cosmos, there called 'Heaven': 1. 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'. This includes the stars (The Sun). The follow-up verse signifies that the descriptions of creation in the 6 days will refer to earth, the focus of the entire OT, including Genesis: ch. 1/2 'Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep'. The latter verse is immediately referring to earth, which establishes this chapter's references. The 4th day refers to Luminosity, as per its texts, and that the focus is not on the sun, but its impact on earth, namely fish, birds, animals etc; and day and night lights, signs (astronomy) and omens (astrology). These are all earth impacting items. That this heaven refers to the stars and galaxies is explained in a later genesis verse: 15/5 'And He brought him forth abroad, and said: 'Look now toward heaven, and count the stars, if thou be able to count them'. Here, we see that heaven refers to the stars (Incl The Sun in ch 1, day 4), and their vast numbers, which can be seen but not counted, are evoked in the text. Thus heaven in V1 refers to the stars being created here, and the sun is one of these stars. It is logical: the vegetation, fish and birds - listed prior to day 4 - could not be precedent of the sun's creation. All the items created occured in one instant, as per V 1, and declared as such by all OT sages and commenters, including the wisest of them all: 'THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN' (King Solomon). That all creation was ceased is also declared at the end of the 6th day. Henceforth, all what emerges are already created, but revealed in its due time; this includes futuristic inter-galaxy travels ('GO, HAVE DOMINION OF THE UNUVERSE'/Gen). Creation would not have been ceased otherwise, nor would a verse appear and be deemed superfluous or contradicting anything else. Scholars (?) have almost always been proven wrong in their determinations of the OT. Re. What books have I read, and why am I in a science thread. Muchly have I read of science, almost all popular wirks, but this can come to naught without proper comprehension of texts, applicable to science and religion. I believe the thread subject is about the interpretation of texts, namely if religious texts are in conflict with science: Genesis is not in conflict.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 121 by Nimrod, posted 07-06-2007 7:22 AM | | Nimrod has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 129 by Nimrod, posted 07-09-2007 8:19 PM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4936 days) Posts: 277 Joined: 06-22-2006
|
If I was a MOD, then I would ban you.
Consider yourself lucky that I am not. You made a claim about all ancient commentators somehow supportin your typically unsupported comments. I suppose you read them then? You sure have claimed as much. Start by telling me in detail (with quotes) what Philo of Axexandria said then.Then get on with all the rest.Start quoting man! p.s. There is a book that specifically covers Philo's views on the cosmos.Not that I expect you to read it (or anything else related to the subjects that you slime) Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 128 by IamJoseph, posted 07-09-2007 8:57 AM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
|
Message 130 of 133 (409516)
07-10-2007 12:05 AM
|
Reply to: Message 129 by Nimrod
07-09-2007 8:19 PM
|
|
Re: If I was a MOD, then I would ban you.
quote:
nimrod
p.s. There is a book that specifically covers Philo's views on the cosmos.Not that I expect you to read it (or anything else related to the subjects that you slime
Why would you ban someone for a different textual understanding and a logical one? Your last 3 posts are not a response to posts - what do you disagree with/why? I have read philo, more so I have studied Josephus as a thesis - but these are better quoted for historical factors than interpretation of textual meanings. As you would know, there are several understandings of Genesis 1/1, even of the opening first verse. I found that it is insufficient to decipher the first chapter without intergrating it with the entiire five books, and here I underwent numerous re-evaluations after studying the sages' comments - which modern scholars tend to disregard, but which are vital. The preamble has to disclose whether one accepts creationism before proceeding an interpretation of the texts - which it is aligned with, and that it is an intergrated document, and it has to thus not be in contradiction with science, history or math. Scholars usually interpret the OT was written by numerous figures and various times, nd that creationism is in contradiction with science: I don't. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 129 by Nimrod, posted 07-09-2007 8:19 PM | | Nimrod has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 131 by Nimrod, posted 07-10-2007 1:02 AM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
Nimrod
Member (Idle past 4936 days) Posts: 277 Joined: 06-22-2006
|
|
|
Message 131 of 133 (409521)
07-10-2007 1:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 130 by IamJoseph
07-10-2007 12:05 AM
|
|
This guy is a troll.
He is changing the subject to side-step having to quote ANY text or source anything. He made a sweeping comment about "all" ancient commentators then when I suggest he actually present the quotations, he attempts to snake right past the issue. (just like he slithered past my request that he name and describe sources of his "science" research) This clown clearly isnt going to source anything (ever), and I honestly question whether he actually believes in Genesis (Im saying he is here to troll and lead us along because it could be a fetish of his; I would bet he goes to fumdamentalist sites and pretends to be a non-believer). This guy is going to ruin every thread he can with endless disruptive comments. Im done speaking to him.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 130 by IamJoseph, posted 07-10-2007 12:05 AM | | IamJoseph has replied |
|
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: 06-30-2007
|
|
|
Message 132 of 133 (409540)
07-10-2007 2:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 131 by Nimrod
07-10-2007 1:02 AM
|
|
Re: This guy is a troll.
I did'nt change the subject. You are carring on, and I have not a clue what about.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 131 by Nimrod, posted 07-10-2007 1:02 AM | | Nimrod has not replied |
|
Adminnemooseus
Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: 09-26-2002
|
|
|
Message 133 of 133 (409547)
07-10-2007 3:22 AM
|
|
|
Topic closed
If someone wants to make a case for why it should be reopened, go to the "Thread Reopen Requests" topic, link below. Adminnemooseus
Admin writes: It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source
|
™ Version 4.2