Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The timeline of the Bible
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 31 of 316 (500382)
02-25-2009 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Peg
02-23-2009 6:28 PM


Peg writes:
quote:
A. The whole family travel to Canaan without Terah
B. The whole family travel to Canaan with Terah
C. Terah dies in Haran and then Abraham Travels to Canaan
D. Terah doesnt die and Abraham travels to Canaan
None of the above.
The whole family travels to Haran:
and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.
Terah dies there:
and Terah died in Haran.
But before Terah dies there, Abraham leaves:
and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
Now that I've answered your question, will you please answer mine:
Are you saying that 70 + 75 = 205?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Peg, posted 02-23-2009 6:28 PM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Daniel4140, posted 03-11-2009 8:04 PM Rrhain has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 32 of 316 (500392)
02-25-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Rrhain
02-25-2009 6:01 AM


rrhain writes:
As I pointed out in the original post, claims that Gen 1:1 is not immediately followed by Gen 1:2, Gen 1:3, etc. are not going to be entertained.
Sorry; I read the original post too quickly the first time and missed this. I won't press issue this further, but you won't find the meaning of the text if you ignore such implications.
You seem to be misreading the account in a number of other ways:
rrhain writes:
Incorrect. The earth is specifically described as being created on the third day:
No, Day 3 describes a separation of dry land from water. It does not describe the original creation of the planet. What do you think the waters of Day 2 were resting on? Or the "deep" of Gen 1:2?
rrhain writes:
Incorrect. The text immediately starts out by saying the earth did not exist
No, "formless and void" does not mean "non-existent", it means "barren" or "desolate". The same phrase ("tohu w' bohu" in the Hebrew) is used this way in Jer. 4:23:
[23] I looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void;
And to the heavens, and they had no light.
...
[27]For thus says the LORD,
The whole land shall be a desolation,
Yet I will not execute a complete destruction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Rrhain, posted 02-25-2009 6:01 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Coragyps, posted 02-25-2009 10:57 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied
 Message 34 by Rrhain, posted 02-27-2009 4:00 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 37 by ICANT, posted 02-27-2009 12:50 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 33 of 316 (500394)
02-25-2009 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by kbertsche
02-25-2009 9:42 AM


What do you think the waters of Day 2 were resting on? Or the "deep" of Gen 1:2?
That's certainly the simplest "plain reading" of the text, and compatible with what else we know of middle eastern cosmology from the olden times.

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by kbertsche, posted 02-25-2009 9:42 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 34 of 316 (500534)
02-27-2009 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by kbertsche
02-25-2009 9:42 AM


kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
you won't find the meaning of the text if you ignore such implications.
I am not ignoring them. I simply do not want to get sidetracked. The topic is the direct statement by some that the Bible "doesn't say the earth is 6000 years old" as if there were no indication of any sort of timeline in the Bible. Clearly, the Bible does have a timeline and that timeline can be hooked to an historical event. Ergo, we can then trace back the timeline to determine how old the Bible is.
This isn't a thread about whether or not the "day" mentioned in Genesis 1 is meant as a literal, 24-hour day. I claim it is. There are others who claim it isn't. Neither of us is going to change the other's mind.
quote:
Day 3 describes a separation of dry land from water.
Incorrect. Day 3 describes much more than that. The land comes out of the water and is specifically called by god to be "earth." Since the earth did not exist at all in any way, shape, or form (being "without form and void"), this clearly means the earth came into existence on Day 3.
quote:
What do you think the waters of Day 2 were resting on? Or the "deep" of Gen 1:2?
Nothing. That's the point. There was no earth. The description shows that the earth came out of the water, just as life did. This is a very old mythological concept.
quote:
No, "formless and void" does not mean "non-existent", it means "barren" or "desolate".
Incorrect. The phrase "without form and void" specifically means "non-existent." You are forgetting that you are not being presented with a single word but rather with a specific phrasing of multiple words. Therefore, you cannot take the words in isolation and expect to have a correct interpretation.
The phrase is "to.hu va.vo.hu." Now, "bohuw" individually means "emptiness," "void," "waste." "Waste" in this context does not simply mean "desloate" as if it were a desert with no life in it. Instead, "waste" is more connected to the Greek concept of "chaos" meaning "emptiness." You will note that "emptiness" is one of the meanings.
While it is true that "tohuw" can be interpreted to mean that sort of "barren desert" concept of "waste," it's primary meaning is that of "nothingness." And when combined with "bohuw," that serves to reinforce the meaning: "Nothingness and emptiness."
In fact, in the Bible, this specific combination is used three times, each time to refer to nothingness: Gen 1:2 as previously mentioned.
Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
Once again, the imagery is of an earth that does not exist for the heavens are empty here, too.
Isaiah 34:11 But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness.
Again, the implication of "emptiness."
The idea that a phrase of "nothingness and emptiness" can possibly be interpreted to mean "actually exists and has a form" is naught but trying to rationalize things away.
"Black" does not mean "white."
Now, once again, you are completely off topic. If you want to discuss what Genesis 1 says, start your own thread.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by kbertsche, posted 02-25-2009 9:42 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by kbertsche, posted 02-27-2009 12:19 PM Rrhain has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 35 of 316 (500573)
02-27-2009 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Rrhain
02-27-2009 4:00 AM


quote:
Incorrect. Day 3 describes much more than that. The land comes out of the water and is specifically called by god to be "earth." Since the earth did not exist at all in any way, shape, or form (being "without form and void"), this clearly means the earth came into existence on Day 3.
Hebrew uses the word 'eretz to refer to land, earth, and ground. The ancient Hebrews had no concept of "globe" or "planet". On Day 3, the land was separated from the water, as you say. Before this there was no dry land. But in modern language, there was obviously a planet underneath the water.
quote:
Nothing. That's the point. There was no earth. The description shows that the earth came out of the water, just as life did. This is a very old mythological concept.
...
Incorrect. The phrase "without form and void" specifically means "non-existent." You are forgetting that you are not being presented with a single word but rather with a specific phrasing of multiple words. Therefore, you cannot take the words in isolation and expect to have a correct interpretation.
You are ignoring the grammar of Gen 1:1-3. Verse 1 describes an event, the creation of "the heavens and the earth." Verse 3 begins with the preterite (waw-consecutive), describing a subsequent event. Likewise, the following Days each begin with the preterite, describing subsequent events. Grammatically, the first event in the series is the creation of "the heavens and the earth" which occurs BEFORE Day 3. Verse 1 is not simply a heading, as many wish it to be; the grammar is not consistent with this.
quote:
The phrase is "to.hu va.vo.hu." Now, "bohuw" individually means "emptiness," "void," "waste." "Waste" in this context does not simply mean "desloate" as if it were a desert with no life in it. Instead, "waste" is more connected to the Greek concept of "chaos" meaning "emptiness." You will note that "emptiness" is one of the meanings.
This is an anachronistic reading. You are importing much later Greek notions onto the meaning of the text.
quote:
While it is true that "tohuw" can be interpreted to mean that sort of "barren desert" concept of "waste," it's primary meaning is that of "nothingness." And when combined with "bohuw," that serves to reinforce the meaning: "Nothingness and emptiness."
In fact, in the Bible, this specific combination is used three times, each time to refer to nothingness: Gen 1:2 as previously mentioned.
You can claim that black = white if you wish, but that doesn't make it true.
quote:
Now, once again, you are completely off topic. If you want to discuss what Genesis 1 says, start your own thread.
You are the one who keeps erroneously claiming in THIS thread that the planet did not exist until Day 3. I am merely responding to your erroneous assertions regarding the text. If you really want to know "the timeline of the Bible", you need to read the text correctly. Otherwise you are only discussing "the timeline of Rrhain's interpretation of the Bible."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Rrhain, posted 02-27-2009 4:00 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Coragyps, posted 02-27-2009 12:47 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 43 by Rrhain, posted 02-27-2009 11:54 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 36 of 316 (500576)
02-27-2009 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by kbertsche
02-27-2009 12:19 PM


But in modern language, there was obviously a planet underneath the water.
That "obviously" doesn't appear to belong there, Kbertsche. Our planet was not a "planet," a "wanderer," to any of the ancient middle easterners. It was where we lived, and was variously set on pillars or foundations or "suspended on nothing," but appears, in all cosmology from around there, to have been surrounded by water. Perhaps there was a turtle or two below the surface of that water, but there is no hint of anything resembling a planet, whether in ancient or in modern language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by kbertsche, posted 02-27-2009 12:19 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by kbertsche, posted 02-27-2009 1:20 PM Coragyps has not replied

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


Message 37 of 316 (500578)
02-27-2009 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by kbertsche
02-25-2009 9:42 AM


Re Timeline
Hi kbertsche,
kbertsche writes:
Sorry; I read the original post too quickly the first time and missed this. I won't press issue this further, but you won't find the meaning of the text if you ignore such implications.
If you will notice this was directed at me.
Rrhain has no intention of discussing the Bible timeline.
He only wishes to discuss a Bible timeline of around 6000 years by the generations of Adam.
When no one has any idea when Genesis 1:1 took place. Or at least no one that I have ever asked yet.
The timeline that is always discussed is the one of the man created in Genesis 1:27 by following his generations which may or may not be complete.
I will now leave you guys to your fun.
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 32 by kbertsche, posted 02-25-2009 9:42 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by LinearAq, posted 02-27-2009 1:28 PM ICANT has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 38 of 316 (500583)
02-27-2009 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Coragyps
02-27-2009 12:47 PM


quote:
That "obviously" doesn't appear to belong there, Kbertsche. Our planet was not a "planet," a "wanderer," to any of the ancient middle easterners. It was where we lived, and was variously set on pillars or foundations or "suspended on nothing," but appears, in all cosmology from around there, to have been surrounded by water. Perhaps there was a turtle or two below the surface of that water, but there is no hint of anything resembling a planet, whether in ancient or in modern language.
Point taken. The original understanding may not have assumed anything under the water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Coragyps, posted 02-27-2009 12:47 PM Coragyps has not replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 39 of 316 (500585)
02-27-2009 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by ICANT
02-27-2009 12:50 PM


Re: Re Timeline
quote:
He only wishes to discuss a Bible timeline of around 6000 years by the generations of Adam.
When no one has any idea when Genesis 1:1 took place. Or at least no one that I have ever asked yet.
  —ICANT
It doesn't matter when Genesis 1:1 took place. There was no light until the first day. The subsequent 5 days were used to create the things we see on Earth and in the sky.
quote:
The timeline that is always discussed is the one of the man created in Genesis 1:27 by following his generations which may or may not be complete.
All we have of the genealogies is what is written in the Bible and that shows approximately 6000 years from Adam to us. If the stars were made 2 days before that, so what? Effectively, our universe was created 6000 years ago, by a literal reading of the Bible.
Is there something in your argument that I am missing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ICANT, posted 02-27-2009 12:50 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 02-27-2009 2:39 PM LinearAq has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 40 of 316 (500587)
02-27-2009 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rrhain
02-14-2009 5:34 AM


quote:
So, some very simple questions:
Is this the timeline listed in the Bible?
Are these events actually linked from one to the next such that all we have to do is add the years up to get the timeline?
Assuming that the days mentioned in Gen 1 are literal, 24-hour days, would this not be indicative of life, the universe, and everything being less than 6000 years old?
Hopefully these comments are considered on-topic (?)
You assume that the Bible intends to present a "timeline" with its chronologies. But I suspect that this is an anachronistic understanding of the text, assuming that it is similar to modern historical accounts. It needs to be read in the context of the day, e.g. in context of the Sumerian King List. The purpose of the Sumerian King List was apparently to establish descendency, thereby legitimacy for the throne. Likewise, the purpose of the biblical chronologies seems to be to establish descendency, not to present a literal timeline.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rrhain, posted 02-14-2009 5:34 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Rrhain, posted 02-28-2009 12:04 AM kbertsche has replied

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


Message 41 of 316 (500589)
02-27-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by LinearAq
02-27-2009 1:28 PM


Re Timeline
Hi LinearAq,
LinearAq writes:
Is there something in your argument that I am missing?
Sure you are missing a lot but I am not allowed to talk about it here per Rrhain.
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 39 by LinearAq, posted 02-27-2009 1:28 PM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Admin, posted 02-27-2009 3:10 PM ICANT has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 42 of 316 (500590)
02-27-2009 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ICANT
02-27-2009 2:39 PM


Re: Re Timeline
ICANT writes:
Sure you are missing a lot but I am not allowed to talk about it here per Rrhain.
Actually, more per the Forum Guidelines which request that participants stay on topic, which Rrhain was careful to clearly define.
There's nothing preventing anyone from proposing a thread to discuss why there's a break in time between Gen 1:1 and what follows.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 02-27-2009 2:39 PM ICANT has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 43 of 316 (500609)
02-27-2009 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by kbertsche
02-27-2009 12:19 PM


I have asked you nicely twice to please take your arguments about what Genesis 1 "really" means to a new thread. For the purposes of this thread, when Genesis 1 says, "the beginning," it really means "the beginning" and not "later" and the "days" mentioned are literal, 24-hour days.
We get it. You don't agree. Fine. Start your own thread.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by kbertsche, posted 02-27-2009 12:19 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 44 of 316 (500611)
02-28-2009 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by kbertsche
02-27-2009 2:11 PM


kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
You assume that the Bible intends to present a "timeline" with its chronologies.
No, what I assume is that the chronologies presented in the Bible can be used to construct a timeline. If you have a series of statements saying, "Event X happened Y years after event Z," then you might not have been trying to create a chart, but to claim that it cannot be done would require that such statements don't actually refer to time and/or events.
quote:
The purpose of the Sumerian King List was apparently to establish descendency, thereby legitimacy for the throne.
And thus the use of years is "metaphorical"? So this is one of those times when the Bible is not actually saying what it says but needs to be "interpreted"? Isn't it convenient that whenever the text says what you want it to say, it's supposed to be taken at face value but whenever it causes trouble for your pre-conceived notion, it has to be interpreted?
quote:
Likewise, the purpose of the biblical chronologies seems to be to establish descendency, not to present a literal timeline.
Then why provide a timeline of any kind?
Clearly, your "interpretation" of the Bible is fallacious for the Jewish calendar starts from "the beginning" and counts every single year from the moment of creation to now.
It is the year 5769.
Are you about to say that Jews don't understand their own religion?
Edited by Rrhain, : a "serious" of statements?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by kbertsche, posted 02-27-2009 2:11 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by kbertsche, posted 02-28-2009 1:52 AM Rrhain has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 45 of 316 (500614)
02-28-2009 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Rrhain
02-28-2009 12:04 AM


quote:
And thus the use of years is "metaphorical"? So this is one of those times when the Bible is not actually saying what it says but needs to be "interpreted"? Isn't it convenient that whenever the text says what you want it to say, it's supposed to be taken at face value but whenever it causes trouble for your pre-conceived notion, it has to be interpreted?
The Bible ALWAYS must be interpreted. A literal, "face value" interpretation is still an interpretation.
quote:
Then why provide a timeline of any kind?
You have not established that the Bible presents a timeline. You have assumed/declared it based on an anachronistic reading of the text.
If you want to understand what the biblical authors really meant to communicate, you need to read the text in its cultural context, not anachronistically. Let's see you at least address the analogs from neighboring cultures (e.g. Sumerian King List). In this cultural context, what are the biblical authors trying to communicate? What are the similarities and differences between the biblical and other accounts?
quote:
Clearly, your "interpretation" of the Bible is fallacious for the Jewish calendar starts from "the beginning" and counts every single year from the moment of creation to now.
It is the year 5769.
Are you about to say that Jews don't understand their own religion?
As you are probably aware, many biblical scholars (even Jewish scholars) don't accept the Jewish calendar as authoritative.
But you DO seem to think that the Jewish calendar is authoritative. If so, why start this thread? Why not just look at the Jewish calendar for your timeline?
I'm getting the impression that you're not so interested in discovering "What does the Bible really mean?" (the subtitle of this forum) as you are in setting up a straw man that you can easily knock down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Rrhain, posted 02-28-2009 12:04 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Rrhain, posted 02-28-2009 2:34 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 63 by Daniel4140, posted 03-11-2009 7:00 PM kbertsche 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