Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 526 of 607 (583573)
09-28-2010 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 524 by ringo
09-27-2010 9:59 PM


Re: Day
Hi ringo,
ringo writes:
Since you're the one making a positive claim, it's up to you to back it up. But sure, here's a comment from Answers in Genesis:
You never trust AIG until it backs your position.
You do realize the article was written by one man. So that pits me against him.
So let me introduce you to Judaism 101. Here
Scroll down to the prefixes and the second one is the Bet they call it Beit. My vocabulary calls it Bet.
Here the Bet that was called a preposition in the article is not as presented.
It is a prefix.
When added it modifies the meaning of the word it is placed in front of.
ב
In, on, with, by, etc.
Beit as a prefix sometimes makes the soft sound (v). Bereishit (in the beginning); u'vayom (and on the day).
ringo writes:
It's one of the few things AiG ever got right.
It seems like Paul James-Griffiths, didn't get it right so AIG didn't get it right either.
So it can be in or on but nowhere can it be when.
ringo writes:
ICANT writes:
But Hebrew has no such phrase in it.
Yeah, they do. See above.
Well no Hebrew has no such phrase as "in the day".
That is not a Hebrew construst but an English construct that we have used to convey what was said when ביןם appears in the Hebrew text.
ringo writes:
ICANT writes:
Do you have any references to scholars that state that the phrase "in the day" means an indefinite period of time?
Yup. See above.
How many times over the years have you ripped me up for presenting such flimsey evidence.
Especially when it is incorrect.
So do you want to try again?
ringo writes:
It was the first hit on my Google search.
Did you google in the day?
I googled with and without quotes and could not get your reference on the first two pages.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by ringo, posted 09-27-2010 9:59 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 527 by ringo, posted 09-28-2010 1:24 AM ICANT has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 527 of 607 (583574)
09-28-2010 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 526 by ICANT
09-28-2010 12:36 AM


Re: Day
ICANT writes:
You never trust AIG until it backs your position.
That's exactly the point. I'm biased against AiG and I can still use them as a reference. It's like hiring Robert Todd Lincoln to defend John Wilkes Booth.
ICANT writes:
You do realize the article was written by one man.
No. He gives references, e.g.:
quote:
Translation and commentary by Klotowitz R.M., Overviews by Scherman, R.N., Bereishis, Genesis: A new translation with a commentary anthologised from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic sources, vol.1 (a); Art Scroll Tanach Series, Mesorah Publications Ltd., p. 113, 1977.
ICANT writes:
Here the Bet that was called a preposition in the article is not as presented.
It is a prefix.
A prefix used as a preposition, yes.
ICANT writes:
So it can be in or on but nowhere can it be when.
No. Your reference gives two examples, Bereishit (in the beginning) and u'vayom (and on the day). My refererence gives the example, beym (in the day). R.M. Klotowitz and R.N. Scherman say it does mean "when".
ICANT writes:
How many times over the years have you ripped me up for presenting such flimsey evidence.
Your problem is that you usually misunderstand what you quote. In this case, you haven't even quoted anybody who agrees with you.
ICANT writes:
Did you google in the day?
No, I Googled "genesis 2:4 rabbis day" (without the quotes), which is what we're talking about. First hit (though I don't know if Google produces the same results for everybody).
ICANT writes:
I googled with and without quotes and could not get your reference on the first two pages.
So your case is built on failure to find any counter-evidence in one Google search? When I did find counter-evidence in one Google search? You might gain some credibility if you worked a little harder at falsifying your own hypothesis.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by ICANT, posted 09-28-2010 12:36 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 532 by ICANT, posted 09-28-2010 8:55 PM ringo has replied

greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 528 of 607 (583581)
09-28-2010 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 522 by hERICtic
09-27-2010 5:52 PM


Re: Literal interpretation of the bible
Sorry to jump in...but I will take you up on this challenge. Sort of. From my understanding, every single time yom is used with a number, it refers to a single day. Everytime "evening and morning" are used or some variation, it also refers to a single day.
If you know of a verse that differs, I would love to know about it.
OK, I'll give it a go - although this will take some time. It may be next weeked if I'm going to make a proper go of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by hERICtic, posted 09-27-2010 5:52 PM hERICtic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by hERICtic, posted 09-28-2010 6:53 AM greyseal has not replied

hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4517 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 529 of 607 (583598)
09-28-2010 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 528 by greyseal
09-28-2010 3:11 AM


Re: Literal interpretation of the bible
Greyseal writes:
OK, I'll give it a go - although this will take some time. It may be next weeked if I'm going to make a proper go of it.
Take your time. Although in the meantime, perhaps you can clear something up for me. I have read both sides, each claiming how its written that it either can mean a long period of time in that instance or can ONLY mean a 24 hour day. Yet, from the evidence, why would you believe it means anything but 24 hours? There are multiple words that do denote long periods of time, yet they are not used in this instance. But they are used elsewhere in Genesis. Also, the fact "evening and morning" are used would be in indicator its 24 hours. If the author wanted to convey a long period of time, wouldnt it have been easier/more clear do not add "evening and mornig" as well as using a word that means a long period of time? Exodus also states the earth was created in six days. The wording again excludes any words that would show a long period of time.
And to quickly touch on what I mentioned earlier, I believe there are over 330 instances where yom is used with a number and "evening/morning" or some variation are used....
...in each case where a literal time period is being conveyed it always refers to a 24 hour period.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by greyseal, posted 09-28-2010 3:11 AM greyseal has not replied

greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 530 of 607 (583651)
09-28-2010 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 525 by ICANT
09-27-2010 11:42 PM


"day" has many meanings
I don't want to discuss this particular aspect too much further. I will seek out what qualified scholars of hebrew say about "yom", but it will take time to make something coherent enough to be worthwhile.
In the meantime, I will address a couple of things still relevant here...
All languages have certain rules concerning the words of that language.
If I am not mistaken even in English a word that is singular can not mean more that one.
You are mistaken, and the dictionary itself should have been your first source. I am telling you now, with absolute certainty, that the phrase "in Grandpa's day" refers NOT to a single day, but to an amount of time we could call "an age" and which means the same as "in the days of Grandpa".
We could even write it "in the day of Grandpa" and it would still mean an age, but such use is rather ambiguous and should be avoided. It still doesn't mean it is wrong, however.
If you won't believe me, and you won't believe the dictionary, there's not much I can do.
Wikipedia? Well, this is Wikipedia:
"The human hand has four fingers and one thumb(site source)".
It can be very, very accurate, and it can also be very, very lacking. The only reason I can fish up for you using it rather than, say an actual dictionary, is you didn't like what the dictionary's said. In this case, it is lacking, as the "in the day/days of" meaning is completely absent even though we both agree that, at least with "days" it is valid. That should tell even you that your source is suspect.
Let me remind you if you did not read the OP of what the guidelines for this thread is in Message 1.
OP writes:
In this thread the KJV, LXX and Hebrew text will be used.
The Bible will be the final authority as that is what we will be discussing.
that's all well and good, but god did not define the meaning of the word itself directly in the bible, did he? He might have defined the thing itself, and I see where you're going with this "he defined the thing, therefore he defined the word" idea but I don't buy it. God doesn't say "the word yom as written in this book means this and that, but never the other" - as such, we've got humans writing words down (even if they are inspired) using language defined outside of the bible.
But very well, I will search for "yom" being used in other fashions inside the bible. I find it hard to believe that - if these other scholars I keep hearing about are right - the word yom could not have been used in these alternate and apparently valid meanings.
I know one thing evening can't bring a dark period to an end.
jews, and muslims, define a day as starting in the evening. that means the day starts in the evening. This is why the bible says "it was the evening and the morning of". The evening started the day and the morning ended it.
greyseal writes:
which up until then had been something that only god and his angels could do...however they weren't quite gods.
Are you saying they did not know good?
yes, I am. The fruit was of the tree of the knowledge of good AND evil.
Without that knowledge, they could do no evil - but they could not purposefully do good either. they did only good, if you want to put it like that, because they were limited by god, but it was the good of the natural world.
lions kill their rival's cubs to bring the female into heat. If we thought this was murder, we would be trying lions in a court of law.
They know not what they do.
Adam and Eve were in this same state, ignorant - and ignorance is bliss.
Nevertheless, god made it possible for them to do something he could deem wrong. god made a creature which could tempt them to do something wrong. god allowed that creature to tempt them into committing that act and god allowed them to commit it.
No, I don't understand why either.
If you paint god as omnipotent and omniscient, the whole apple-thing could never have occurred without god knowing about it and allowing it. Strangely enough, the god in the OT is often not omniscient and rarely omnipotent. He has to travel to get to places, he has to ask questions to find things out, he has to rest on day seven, he takes six days to do the job...but this is OT.
greyseal writes:
They were *like* gods, but they were not immortal
When did they become like God?
Are you telling me they would have died had they not eaten of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?
They became "as gods" (like god and his angels) when they ate the fruit - that's rather obvious - and they would have become moreso if they'd eaten the fruit of the tree of life.
To be honest, genesis is rather confusing for a literalist because it has an imperfect god acting out his little power fantasies with creations which can't fight back until the snake gave them that power - maybe to spite god, sure.
God may have been angry at the knowledge-fruit-eating or he may have been worried about the immortality-giving fruit of life eating which he stopped from occuring as well (or instead), either way he kicks them out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by ICANT, posted 09-27-2010 11:42 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by ICANT, posted 09-29-2010 12:15 AM greyseal has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 531 of 607 (583692)
09-28-2010 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 495 by ICANT
09-24-2010 11:58 AM


Re: Hand cock waving
Catholic Scientist writes:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Does these words say God created the heaven and the earth?
Yes, they does.
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Does these words say: "these are the generations (history) of the heavens and the earth."?
Does these words say: "when they were created in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens."?
Yes, they does. So what?
Well if they does then one claims to be the history of the other.
Not necessarily!
It does allow for that but it doesn't necessitate it.
Especially when they're two different storys from generations apart. Even assuming Moses wrote them doesn't mean that thats the only conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by ICANT, posted 09-24-2010 11:58 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 535 by ICANT, posted 09-29-2010 12:26 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 532 of 607 (583775)
09-28-2010 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by ringo
09-28-2010 1:24 AM


Re: Day
Hi ringo,
Whether they are right or wrong does not make any difference.
ringo writes:
No. He gives references, e.g.:
Did you check the references?
I googled, Klotowitz R.M. and found:
This
I find your mention of Klotowitz R.M and your sources mention.
There are two other entries but I can not find where they cite his paper/book.
ringo writes:
A prefix used as a preposition, yes.
It is the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet. That when used as a prefix to a Hebrew word requires we use our preposition in, on, with or by to express it's presence.
ringo writes:
No. Your reference gives two examples, Bereishit (in the beginning) and u'vayom (and on the day). My refererence gives the example, beym (in the day). R.M. Klotowitz and R.N. Scherman say it does mean "when".
Under meaning the sou says: In, on, with, by, etc.
Then gave the following comments and examples:
Beit as a prefix sometimes makes the soft sound (v). Bereishit (in the beginning); u'vayom (and on the day).
So the examples are that in Genesis 1:1 it should be "in the". and in Genesis 2:4 "on the". The latter being the interpertation you have been demanding that I use to mean what I wanted it to say.
ringo writes:
Your problem is that you usually misunderstand what you quote. In this case, you haven't even quoted anybody who agrees with you.
I see no disagrement with יןם being translated on the day in Genesis 2:4 with my view.
A day (symbol d) is a unit of time equivalent to one entire revolution of a celestial body such as a planet. One day on Earth (approximately 24 hours) is not an SI unit but it is accepted for use with SI.[1][2] The SI unit of time is the second.
The word 'day' can also refer to the (roughly) half of the day that is not night, also known as 'daytime'. Both refer to a length of time. Within these meanings, several definitions can be distinguished. 'Day' may also refer to a day of the week or to a calendar date, as in answer to the question "On which day?".
Source
I don't see where that disagrees with a light period being a יןם.
I don't see wehre that disagrees with a light period and a dark period being a יןם.
1. The period of light between dawn and nightfall; the interval from sunrise to sunset.
2.
a. The 24-hour period during which the earth completes one rotation on its axis.
b. The period during which a celestial body makes a similar rotation.
3. (Abbr. D) One of the numbered 24-hour periods into which a week, month, or year is divided.
4. The portion of a 24-hour period that is devoted to work, school, or business: an eight-hour day; a sale that lasted for three days.
5. A 24-hour period or a portion of it that is reserved for a certain activity: a day of rest.
6.
a. A specific, characteristic period in one's lifetime: In Grandmother's day, skirts were long.
b. A period of opportunity or prominence: Every defendant is entitled to a day in court. That child will have her day.
7. A period of time in history; an era: We studied the tactics used in Napoleon's day. The day of computer science is well upon us.
8. days Period of life or activity: The sick cat's days will soon be over.
Source
Definition of DAY
1
a : the time of light between one night and the next
b : daylight 1
c : daytime
2: the period of rotation of a planet (as earth) or a moon on its axis
3: the mean solar day of 24 hours beginning at mean midnight
4: a specified day or date
5: a specified time or period : age often used in plural
6: the conflict or contention of the day
7: the time established by usage or law for work, school, or business
day after day
: for an indefinite or seemingly endless number of days
day in, day out
: for an indefinite number of successive days
Source
Even this agrees with my definition of יןם . Of a light period being a יןם
and a light period and a dark period being a יןם
Despite the mention of "in Grandfather's day". Grandpa had a plural of days unless you specify one specific day in the life of Grandpa.
Besides our English idioms have no effect on what יןם means as our English words is what we use to represent what יןם means.
ringo writes:
So your case is built on failure to find any counter-evidence in one Google search? When I did find counter-evidence in one Google search? You might gain some credibility if you worked a little harder at falsifying your own hypothesis.
But your evidence is tainted.
Can you refute that Genesis 1:5 says: "God called the light Day"?
Can you refute that Genesis 1:5 says: "the darkness He called Night"?
Can you refute that Genesis 1:5 says: "the evening and the morning were the first day"?
And here it is so you don't have to look it up.
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
So no my case is built on what the text in the KJV Bible has recorded in it.
I needed no Hebrew or confirmation from anyone when I came to the conclusion in 1949 That in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth, and everything in Genesis 2:4-25 took place in the same day. I didn't know how or why only that the Bible said so.
It still says so whether anybody believes it or not.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by ringo, posted 09-28-2010 1:24 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 533 by ringo, posted 09-28-2010 9:31 PM ICANT has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 533 of 607 (583777)
09-28-2010 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 532 by ICANT
09-28-2010 8:55 PM


Re: Day
ICANT writes:
Did you check the references?
Try Googling the title of the book. (There's some question about the author's name. I'm guessing he may have changed it.)
ICANT writes:
Beit as a prefix sometimes makes the soft sound (v). Bereishit (in the beginning); u'vayom (and on the day).
So the examples are that in Genesis 1:1 it should be "in the". and in Genesis 2:4 "on the".
Non sequitur. You've given us no reason to conclude that Genesis 2:4 "should" be translated "on the day" instead of how it is translated.
ICANT writes:
The latter being the interpertation you have been demanding that I use to mean what I wanted it to say.
I'm not demanding anything from you. I'm just pointing out how silly your misunderstanding is.
ICANT writes:
Besides our English idioms have no effect on what יןם means as our English words is what we use to represent what יןם means.
There are Hebrew idioms too. In fact, a lot of our English idioms came from Hebrew, through the Bible. Despite your repeated "Nuh uh," Hebrew scholars translate the Hebrew idiom beym as the English idiom "in the day".
ICANT writes:
Can you refute that Genesis 1:5 says: "God called the light Day"?
Can you refute that Genesis 1:5 says: "the darkness He called Night"?
There's no need to refute that. The meaning of yom in Genesis 2:4 is different, as any Hebrew scholar will tell you. Show us at least one Hebrew scholar who agrees with you.
ICANT writes:
I needed no Hebrew or confirmation from anyone when I came to the conclusion in 1949....
My father had a saying for people like you, "Don't confuse him with facts." It's obvious that facts have no bearing on your conclusion. The KJV certainly does not support your conclusion. You just don't understand English.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 532 by ICANT, posted 09-28-2010 8:55 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by ICANT, posted 09-29-2010 12:57 PM ringo has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 534 of 607 (583796)
09-29-2010 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by greyseal
09-28-2010 12:00 PM


Re: "day" has many meanings
Hi greyseal,
greyseal writes:
I don't want to discuss this particular aspect too much further. I will seek out what qualified scholars of hebrew say about "yom", but it will take time to make something coherent enough to be worthwhile.
Take your time. I been working on it for 45 years.
greyseal writes:
You are mistaken, and the dictionary itself should have been your first source.
Well when you are looking for the definition of a Hebrew or Chaldee word you have to consult a Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon.
greyseal writes:
I am telling you now, with absolute certainty, that the phrase "in Grandpa's day" refers NOT to a single day, but to an amount of time we could call "an age" and which means the same as "in the days of Grandpa".
If "in Grandpa's day and in the days of Grandpa" are the samething,what is the fuss?
Because all you are saying is that when we use "in Grandpa's day" is that we are being lazy and not adding the plural to day.
greyseal writes:
We could even write it "in the day of Grandpa" and it would still mean an age, but such use is rather ambiguous and should be avoided. It still doesn't mean it is wrong, however.
Here is the Definition from Source
The Hebrew word חלד
which means 1) age, duration of life, the world. Agrees with our English age.
But our English age does not agree with the meaning of the Hebrew word יןם until you start streaching יןם beyond the breaking point.
greyseal writes:
If you won't believe me, and you won't believe the dictionary, there's not much I can do.
But I do believe the Hebrew dictionary which is called a Hebrew Lexicon. I just don't agree that our English extensions of the definition which disagrees with the definition found in the Hebrew Lexicon which agrees with the definition in Genesis 1:5.
greyseal writes:
that's all well and good, but god did not define the meaning of the word itself directly in the bible, did he? He might have defined the thing itself, and I see where you're going with this "he defined the thing, therefore he defined the word" idea but I don't buy it. God doesn't say "the word yom as written in this book means this and that, but never the other"
Did God call the light in Genesis 1:5 something that Moses recorded as יןם ?
Did God call the light period that ended with evening coupled with the following dark period that ended with morning something Moses recorded as יןם ?
greyseal writes:
But very well, I will search for "yom" being used in other fashions inside the bible. I find it hard to believe that - if these other scholars I keep hearing about are right - the word yom could not have been used in these alternate and apparently valid meanings.
You can do your search
Here
It will give you the number of times day is used in the Bible as a definition.
It will not tell you the actual Hebrew word that is in the Hebrew text and as you can see from what I have presented there are several with different meanings.
The problem with the search is it will not show you the actual word that is in the Hebrew text, as it shows no inflected Hebrew words.
But have fun and point out any that are interesting and post the texts where they are found. Then I will look the word up in the Hebrew text and we can discuss it.
greyseal writes:
jews, and muslims, define a day as starting in the evening. that means the day starts in the evening. This is why the bible says "it was the evening and the morning of".
So they define a day from evening to evening. So What?
No the Bible says the evening which is the close of a light period and the dark period when it ended with morning was the end of the first day.
greyseal writes:
The evening started the day and the morning ended it.
Do you ever read what you write?
If evening begins at 6 PM and morning begins at 6 AM you have a day composed of 12 hours of darkness.
Let me try something here I have never tried. I will use 6 PM for evening and 6 AM for morning for ease of reference.
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Starting with the morning that ended the sixth day and going backwards through the dark period to the preceeding evening I have 12 hours. Preceeding backwards through the light period to morning at 6 AM I have 12 hours which constituted the sixth day.
1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Proceeding backwards through the dark period to 6 PM I have evening, 12 hours. Proceeding backwards through the light period to 6 AM I have morning, 12 hours. The fifth day.
1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Proceeding backwards through the dark period to 6 PM I have evening, 12 hours. Proceeding backwards through the light period to 6 AM I have morning, 12 hours Which is the fourth day.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Proceeding backwards through the dark period to 6 PM I have evening, 12 hours. Proceeding backwards through the light period to 6 AM I have morning, 12 hours which is the third day.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Proceeding backwards through the dark period to 6 PM I have evening, 12 hours. Proceeding backwards through the light period to 6 AM I have morning, 12 hours. Which is the second.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Proceeding backwards through the dark period to 6 PM I have evening, 12 hours. The first day.
I got a problem because I am not starting out with a יןם I am starting out with a period of darkness.
Now if I add a light period as declared in:
2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
I now have 6 light periods and six dark periods in which God created the Heaven and the Earth.
greyseal writes:
yes, I am. The fruit was of the tree of the knowledge of good AND evil.
What properties of that fruit was that knowledge stored in?
I maintain they knew good as God is good.
I maintain they did not know what evil was until the man disobeyed God.
Eating the fruit is just the law that God gave to the man who was told not to break that law without dire consequences.
If you will check you will find the womans eyes were not opened by eating the fruit. Her eyes were opened when the man ate the fruit.
greyseal writes:
Without that knowledge, they could do no evil
Actually the woman did no evil.
The man willfully disobeyed God as he was not deceived by the serpent.
He ate because the woman had and he chose to eat with her. Now I'll speculate a little. He had been by himself so long before God made the woman for him when she told him what she did he just said I will eat and die also I don't want to be alone. Remember the statement he made when God brought the woman to him.
2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
He meant what he said and gave up everything for the woman.
It teaches good when I am counsling young people who are preparing to get married. Because I want them to make the same kind of commitment to each other.
greyseal writes:
Nevertheless, god made it possible for them to do something he could deem wrong. god made a creature which could tempt them to do something wrong. god allowed that creature to tempt them into committing that act and god allowed them to commit it.
Yes the man was given a choice eat and die. He chose to eat and die.
Yes God provided the creature that deceived the woman.
The creature had nothing to do with the man's decision. He made that decision all by himself.
So no God allowed that creature to deceive the woman but that had nothing to do with the man making his choice.
God allowed that man to make his choice just like He lets us make our choices today.
greyseal writes:
No, I don't understand why either.
If that man had not disobeyed God we would not be here talking about it. He would still be in the garden.
greyseal writes:
If you paint god as omnipotent and omniscient, the whole apple-thing could never have occurred without god knowing about it and allowing it.
Nothing has ever happened that God did not know was going to happen.
Just like he knew you were going to write this sentence and I would answer it as I have.
He did not make you write nor did He make me answer but He knew it before He formed that first man and place him in the garden.
God resides in an eternal now. He sees the beginning and the end simultaneously. I know that is hard for us mortals to grasp.
greyseal writes:
Strangely enough, the god in the OT is often not omniscient and rarely omnipotent. He has to travel to get to places,
Such as.
greyseal writes:
he has to ask questions to find things out,
What makes you think God did not know the answer before He asked the question?
Didn't Jesus answer questions before they were asked?
greyseal writes:
he has to rest on day seven,
Actually He did not rest. He ceased from doing creative work.
The Hebrew word שבת
translated rested is a verb that means 1) to cease, desist.
So no God did not get tired.
greyseal writes:
he takes six days to do the job...but this is OT
Well actually it took a lot longer than that. It took those six days to clean up the mess found in Genesis 1:2, create the fish for Jonah and create mankind in His image/likeness, but creation began in the beginning of eternity past. If you ever figure that out let me know when it was.
greyseal writes:
They became "as gods" (like god and his angels) when they ate the fruit - that's rather obvious
Glad we can agree on something.
greyseal writes:
and they would have become moreso if they'd eaten the fruit of the tree of life.
Well if they had eaten of the fruit of the tree of life they would be living in the garden in a sinful condition forever.
greyseal writes:
To be honest, genesis is rather confusing for a literalist because it has an imperfect god acting out his little power fantasies with creations which can't fight back until the snake gave them that power - maybe to spite god, sure.
Sorry to see you don't believe in God. He is perfect.
He don't have little power fantasies. He has all power.
The man had the power to eat the fruit from the moment God placed him in the Garden. It was there and he was there what else was necessary?
greyseal writes:
God may have been angry at the knowledge-fruit-eating
God was not angry at the eating of the fruit.
God was angry because man disobeyed a diret order and the man chose to disobey.
greyseal writes:
or he may have been worried about the immortality-giving fruit of life eating which he stopped from occuring as well (or instead), either way he kicks them out
.
Why would God worry about anything.
I learned from God there is no need to worry about anything.
If you can change it just change it and don't worry about it.
If you can't change it there is no need to worry about it.
The only difference is that God can change anything He desires to change.
So He did, He kicked them out of the garden so they could not eat of the tree of life and live for eternity with sin in them.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by greyseal, posted 09-28-2010 12:00 PM greyseal has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 535 of 607 (583798)
09-29-2010 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 531 by New Cat's Eye
09-28-2010 2:25 PM


Re: Hand cock waving
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes:
Not necessarily!
It does allow for that but it doesn't necessitate it.
Especially when they're two different storys from generations apart. Even assuming Moses wrote them doesn't mean that thats the only conclusion.
Please explain:
The KJV says "In the Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth". You agree.
The KJV says: "these are the generations (history) of the heavens and the earth." You agree.
So Genesis 2:4 is the history of Genesis 1:1 but yet you claim they are two different stories.
Why?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 531 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2010 2:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2010 10:17 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 537 by jar, posted 09-29-2010 10:18 AM ICANT has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 536 of 607 (583841)
09-29-2010 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 535 by ICANT
09-29-2010 12:26 AM


...yet you claim they are two different stories.
Why?
Firstly, at face value they just plainly look like two different stories. They're written differently in style, explain things differently, and describe god differently.
It seems very obvious that they are two different stories. From what I understand, the Bible is a collection of different books from different people that were all put together, not something that one man wrote the first 5 "chapters" of. Having these two lines with similiar phraseology does not mean that the first two chapters are one big story, nor that the second is in any way referring to the first.
But I did take a look at what the Catholic Encyclopedia had to say:
quote:
Attention, however, must be called to the fact that the story of the Creation is told twice, viz. in the first chapter and in the second, and that while there is a substantial agreement between the two accounts there is, nevertheless, a considerable divergence as regards the setting of the narrative and the details. It has been the custom of writers who were loath to recognize the presence of independent sources or documents in the Pentateuch to explain the fact of this twofold narrative by saying that the sacred writer, having set forth systematically in the first chapter the successive phases of the Creation, returns to the same topic in the second chapter in order to add some further special details with regard to the origin of man. It must be granted, however, that very few scholars of the present day, even among Catholics, are satisfied with this explanation, and that among critics of every school there is a strong preponderance of opinion to the effect that we are here in presence of a phenomenon common enough in Oriental historical compositions, viz. the combination or juxtaposition of two or more independent documents more or less closely welded together by the historiographer, who among the Semites is essentially a compiler.
source
emphasis added
So there you go: It looks obvious to me and a trustworthy source says that scholars from every school agree with me.
QED

This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by ICANT, posted 09-29-2010 12:26 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 539 by ICANT, posted 09-29-2010 1:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 537 of 607 (583842)
09-29-2010 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 535 by ICANT
09-29-2010 12:26 AM


The newer and older myths of Genesis
ICANT writes:
Please explain:
The KJV says "In the Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth". You agree.
The KJV says: "these are the generations (history) of the heavens and the earth." You agree.
So Genesis 2:4 is the history of Genesis 1:1 but yet you claim they are two different stories.
Why?
God Bless,
Cause they are two different stories written by different authors living in different cultures to serve different purposes, revised and redacted by even later people.
the NIV says
quote:
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Adam and Eve
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
This appears to be the actual end of the newer story that begins in Genesis 1. The placement as we see it today is a remnant of the early redactors that were editing and modifying the stories around the time the first five books of the Bible were first Canonized.
Then the old part of Genesis 2 story starts.
quote:
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
You can see this clearly in the NIV version of Genesis 2 because there is an unusual indentation and break between the two section.
quote:
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Adam and Eve
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
They are two different stories, the older beginning at Gen2:4b {When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-}, the newer younger story running from Genesis 1-2:4a.
Two different stories, two different cultures that were hundreds if not thousands of years apart meant to convey two entirely different messages and both factually wrong.
Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by ICANT, posted 09-29-2010 12:26 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by ICANT, posted 09-29-2010 1:16 PM jar has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 538 of 607 (583882)
09-29-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 533 by ringo
09-28-2010 9:31 PM


Re: Day
Hi ringo,
ringo writes:
Try Googling the title of the book. (There's some question about the author's name. I'm guessing he may have changed it.)
Did you google the title of the book?
I found 3 referenes to Translation and commentary by Klotowitz R.M., Overviews by Scherman, R.N., Bereishis, Genesis: A new translation with a commentary anthologised from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic sources, vol.1 ); Art Scroll Tanach Series, Mesorah Publications Ltd., p. 113, 1977.
AIG, Creation.com and Evc.
I found many books by many different authors over the last 30 years named A new translation with a commentary anthologised from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic sources. With all kinds of volume numbers and years printed.
But not the one cited.
ringo writes:
Non sequitur. You've given us no reason to conclude that Genesis 2:4 "should" be translated "on the day" instead of how it is translated.
I presented evidence from Here that gives the meaning of the prefix ב
which gives an example of how the prefix placed in front of ביןם
would be translated. U'vayom (and on the day).
That is from an Intermediate Level text book.
ringo writes:
I'm not demanding anything from you. I'm just pointing out how silly your misunderstanding is.
Well I have been translating it in the day and you kept telling me as you did in Message 521 where you said:
ringo writes:
Or he would have used the phrase "in the day", which means an indefinite period of time. That's what he did.
Every translator and Hebrew reader understands that. Why don't you?
But when I presented evidence that it should be on the day you say I have not presented any evidence that supports that it should be translated "on the day".
The use of the definite article requires a specific day it makes no difference whether you use in or on.
ringo writes:
There are Hebrew idioms too. In fact, a lot of our English idioms came from Hebrew, through the Bible.
Would you like to present some of those idioms from the Bible?
ringo writes:
My father had a saying for people like you, "Don't confuse him with facts."
Well that is the problem at 10 years old nobody had confused me with their facts that was wrong. So when I read the Bible I was able to understand what it said as I had no pre-conceived ideas of what it was supposed to say.
ringo writes:
It's obvious that facts have no bearing on your conclusion. The KJV certainly does not support your conclusion. You just don't understand English.
Lets examine the facts:
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
God called the light Day?
God called the darkness Night?
God called the evening that closed that light period combined with the dark period called night that ended with morning Day?
That supports my position.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The text says:
In the beginning God.
Created the Heaven and the Earth.
That supports my position.
Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
This verse says it is the history, of the heavens and the earth.
In the day יןם
That Hebrew word is singular thus can refer to only one day. Either a light period or a light period combined with a dark period, which is called day by God.
They were created.
So the text in the KJV Bible supports the statement that In the day God created the Heaven and the Earth that the history that begins in Genesis 2:4 took place that same day.
So the facts do support my position.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by ringo, posted 09-28-2010 9:31 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by ringo, posted 09-29-2010 1:50 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 539 of 607 (583895)
09-29-2010 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 536 by New Cat's Eye
09-29-2010 10:17 AM


Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes:
Firstly, at face value they just plainly look like two different stories. They're written differently in style, explain things differently, and describe god differently.
This entire thread had been about affirming that there is a story of creation events in Genesis 1:2-Genesis 2:3 and a different story in Genesis 2:4-4:24.
So I have got no problem with there being two different stories.
I believe it.
But there is only one beginning as told in:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
That was the beginning back in eternity somewhere.
Genesis 2:4 claims to begin the history of that event.
My conclusion is that ביןם
translated "in the day" was a single light period that began at the beginning and lasted until the darkness we find at Genesis 1:2.
All the evidence I have is the definite article in front of a single day. Which means a specific single day.
Catholic Scientist writes:
So there you go: It looks obvious to me and a trustworthy source says that scholars from every school agree with me.
Well I agree that there is two different stories.
I do not agree that they were written by anyone other that Moses.
I will agree that many people have copied them over the many years and could have made many changes along the way.
From your source:
quote:
It must be granted, however, that very few scholars of the present day, even among Catholics, are satisfied with this explanation,
That is why I have spent the last 45 years trying to find the answers to prove what that 10 year old boy presented in a prayer meeting in 1949.
There is two stories and they have to make sense. The alternative is that the Bible is a lie and nothing in it is true.
I think my version makes sense.
There was a light period that began in the beginning in which God created the Heaven and the Earth. During that light period the history given in Genesis 2:4-4:24 took place. The man formed from the dust of the ground and all his descendants dies in that light period as none existed when evening came which is listed at Genesis 1:2 as the Earth was covered with water. There is no history of how or why this condition existed at Genesis 1:2. God then began to clean up the mess the Earth was in and make it inhabital for modern man. He replaced the vegetation from the seed that was upon (in) the ground. He called forth all creatures after their kind. He did create a great sea monster for Jonah and then mankind in the image/likeness of God. Mankind and creatures were told to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. They were told that all fruit was for their food and nothing was forbidden. Mankind multiplyed as did the creatures and the history goes on.
Now I have combined the two stories into one continious story of two seperate events that took place over a tremendous period of duration.
God Bless,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2010 10:17 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 542 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-29-2010 1:53 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 540 of 607 (583898)
09-29-2010 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 537 by jar
09-29-2010 10:18 AM


Re: The newer and older myths of Genesis
Hi jar,
jar writes:
They are two different stories, the older beginning at Gen2:4b {When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-}, the newer younger story running from Genesis 1-2:4a.
I agree they are two different stories thus the title of this thread which I have affirmed.
I disagree with your division of Genesis 2:4.
You want to put the words, "2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created".
For this statement to refer to Genesis 1:1:-2:3 it would have to be the first verse in the Bible.
In all instances in Genesis the statement "These are the generations" appear before the history as in Genesis 5:1 of the mankind created in the image/likeness of God.
So just saying there is two stories in the two chapters does not answer the question I asked Catholic Scientist.
He had agreed that the text in Genesis 1:1 said, " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
He then agreed that the text in Genesis 2:4 claimed to be the history of the day the heaven and the earth was created.
Which would agree with what I have been saying throughout this thread.
But he then stated they were two different stories.
So I will ask you if Genesis 2:4 claims to be the history of the day God created the heaven and the earth when they began to exist which was in Genesis 1:1 how can those two be two different stories?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by jar, posted 09-29-2010 10:18 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 543 by jar, posted 09-29-2010 2:09 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024