Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 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 46 of 316 (500616)
02-28-2009 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by kbertsche
02-28-2009 1:52 AM


kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
You have not established that the Bible presents a timeline. You have assumed/declared it based on an anachronistic reading of the text.
Huh? "X event happened Y years after Z event" is "anachronistic"? It isn't talking about the events? The number of years doesn't actually mean the number of years? There isn't any actual information in such a statement?
quote:
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.
And what is the "anachronism" of reading "X event took place Y years after Z event" and coming to the conclusion that a specific number of years passed between the events?
quote:
Let's see you at least address the analogs from neighboring cultures
You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
quote:
As you are probably aware, many biblical scholars (even Jewish scholars) don't accept the Jewish calendar as authoritative.
And thus, you show you've completely missed the point.
The Jewish calendar marks the number of years from "the beginning." Clearly they are aware of how many years have passed. And, indeed, the Jewish calendar is based upon totting up the geneologies mentioned in the Torah and attaching them to a specific date, thus resulting in a calculated number of years from the beginning of life, the universe, and everything.
Lo! and behold! It's about 6000 years.
Are you saying Jews don't know their own religion?
quote:
But you DO seem to think that the Jewish calendar is authoritative.
(*sigh*)
What I do seem to think is that the Jewish calendar is authoritative for Jewish theology. What I do seem to think is that the Jewish calendar is based upon the chronology expressed in the Torah. If we were talking about Hindu theology, then we would be using the Hindu calendar. If we were talking about the Mayan theology, we would be using the Mayan calendar.
The Western calendar is based upon an event in Christian theology. It is based upon a religious text that makes mention of historical figures and thus we can hook it into a real point in time.
Why are you making an exception?
quote:
If so, why start this thread? Why not just look at the Jewish calendar for your timeline?
Because the chronology needs to be hooked onto an actual point in time in order to see where we fall in the chronology. The Jewish calendar has changed a few times regarding exactly where things line up.
quote:
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.
No, I am interested in people not playing dumb. The original claim is, as Peg had said, "The Bible doesn't say the earth is only 6000 years old."
Well, yes, it does. If you add up all the specific and direct statements that event X happened Y years after event Z and hook it onto an actual event in time, you can then determine exactly how old the Bible claims the earth to be. Now, it requires that we take the phrases at their word: That when it says, "the beginning," it really means the beginning and not "later," that when it says, "day," it really means a day and not "thousands of years," that when it says, "And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos," it really means 105 actual years.
Are you claiming that there is no such thing as "young earth creationism"? Why do you think there is even a term, "young earth creationism"? Haven't you noticed that those who claim a "young earth creationism" say that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Did it never occur to you to wonder where they got that number?
In order to claim that the Bible doesn't claim a young earth, you need to explain why "And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos" doesn't actually mean Seth was 105 years old. That's the subject for another thread. For the purposes of this thread, I am simply trying to make sure that we have all the numbers and haven't made any math errors in adding them up.
Again, we all know you don't agree that when the text says, "day," it really means a day despite being phrased in such a way that only means, "literal, 24-hour day." All I'm asking is that we identify that the Bible describes a story that moves through time and that there are markers in the story with reference to time.

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 45 by kbertsche, posted 02-28-2009 1:52 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by kbertsche, posted 02-28-2009 11:02 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 47 of 316 (500655)
02-28-2009 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Rrhain
02-28-2009 2:34 AM


quote:
Huh? "X event happened Y years after Z event" is "anachronistic"? It isn't talking about the events? The number of years doesn't actually mean the number of years? There isn't any actual information in such a statement?
...
And what is the "anachronism" of reading "X event took place Y years after Z event" and coming to the conclusion that a specific number of years passed between the events?
There are a number of steps in the process which you seem to be conflating:
1) First you've got to determine what the text really SAYS. What is the best reading of the original languages? What is the best way to translate this into English?
2) Then you've got to determine what this really MEANS. Not just what the words mean to you today, but what they meant to the original authors. For this, you've got to get into the head of the authors and understand their cultural and historical context. The translators try to do this to some extent in Step 1, but they can't do it all (and sometimes they mess up).
3) You've got to determine what the author was trying to TEACH. For example, his words might imply geocentrism, and he might have meant and actually believed this. But that doesn't mean that he's trying to TEACH it in the passage.
quote:
You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
Based on the surrounding narrative, there seem to be no gaps in the Gen 5 genealogy between Adam and Enos. But after Enos, there could be:
K.A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (IVP, 1966) p. 38-39 writes:
The phrase 'A begat B' does not always imply direct parenthood. ... Terms like "son" and "father" can mean not only '(grand)son' and '(grand)father' but also "descendent' and 'ancestor' respectively.
...
So in Genesis 5 and 11, 'A begat B' may often mean simply that 'A begat (the line culminating in) B'; in this case, one cannot use these genealogies to fix the date of the Flood or of earliest Man.
Kitchen gives a number of examples to support these claims. The best-known is from the NT (Mt. 1:8), which says that "Joram begat Uzziah.' But comparing with the OT, it is clear that Uzziah was actually the great-great-grandson of Joram. Other examples are the children that "Zilpah bare to Jacob" in Gen 46:18, but which actually include great-grandchildren, and Jehu the son of Nimshi (1 Kings 19:15; 2 Kings 9:20) who was really a grandson. Kitchen also provides examples from Babylonian and Egyptian texts, showing that this was the cultural norm. The important thing was to show descendency, not to provide a numerically accurate record in the modern sense.
quote:
No, I am interested in people not playing dumb.
Really? Then why do YOU want to ignore the cultural context?
quote:
The original claim is, as Peg had said, "The Bible doesn't say the earth is only 6000 years old."
Well, yes, it does. If you add up all the specific and direct statements that event X happened Y years after event Z and hook it onto an actual event in time, you can then determine exactly how old the Bible claims the earth to be.
It appears that you've already made up your mind about what the text both says and means, ignoring its context.
quote:
Now, it requires that we take the phrases at their word: That when it says, "the beginning," it really means the beginning and not "later," that when it says, "day," it really means a day and not "thousands of years," that when it says, "And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos," it really means 105 actual years.
This is not taking phrases "at their word." It is yanking phrases out of their cultural and historical context and interpreting them anachronistically.
quote:
Are you claiming that there is no such thing as "young earth creationism"? Why do you think there is even a term, "young earth creationism"? Haven't you noticed that those who claim a "young earth creationism" say that the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Did it never occur to you to wonder where they got that number?
In order to claim that the Bible doesn't claim a young earth, you need to explain why "And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos" doesn't actually mean Seth was 105 years old. That's the subject for another thread. For the purposes of this thread, I am simply trying to make sure that we have all the numbers and haven't made any math errors in adding them up.
You are reading the text in a naively literal manner, just as the YECs do. Both of you ignore the cultural and historical context. This may be a good tactic for debating YECs, but it is not a good way to find the real meaning of the Bible.
quote:
Again, we all know you don't agree that when the text says, "day," it really means a day despite being phrased in such a way that only means, "literal, 24-hour day."
Leading Jewish and Christian theologians for centuries have seen the days as something OTHER than 24-hour days. This includes Augustine in the 4th century, long before the rise of modern science.
You can pronounce that the text can only mean a literal 24-hour day if you wish, but many who have spent their lives studying the text disagree with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Rrhain, posted 02-28-2009 2:34 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Rrhain, posted 03-01-2009 3:42 AM kbertsche has replied

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


Message 48 of 316 (500670)
03-01-2009 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by kbertsche
02-28-2009 11:02 PM


kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
First you've got to determine what the text really SAYS.
So when the text says, "And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos," it isn't really Seth? It's a different "Seth" from the one that Adam sired? "An hundred and five" is some number other than 105? "Years" doesn't mean actual years but some other length of time? "Enos" isn't really Enos?
Your argument is that words don't actually mean anything.
quote:
Then you've got to determine what this really MEANS.
Same problem: "And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos" doesn't actually mean that there was a person Seth (son of Adam) whose age was actually 105 real years before siring a son named "Enos" who would then be described next?
Do words actually mean anything?
quote:
You've got to determine what the author was trying to TEACH.
So what you're saying is that when the text specifically and directly mentions event X happened Y years after event Z, we're just supposed to ignore that middle part? Then why on earth mention it?
quote:
The phrase 'A begat B' does not always imply direct parenthood.
In short, no, words don't actually mean anything.
quote:
The important thing was to show descendency, not to provide a numerically accurate record in the modern sense.
The problem is that they provide a specific number. If the numbers weren't important, why bother providing such precise numbers? The examples you give don't provide numbers. It simply says that "A begat B." But in Gen 5 and Gen 11, we are given specific, precise numbers. It isn't that Jared sired Enoch. It's that he was specifically and precisely 162 when Enoch was sired and then lived another 800 years after that.
To claim that Gen 5 and 11 can't be used to create a timeline is to claim that all of that precision was of no use: That quite literally two-thirds of the verses can be discarded out of hand. This immediately leads one to wonder why on earth the authors went to so much trouble to provide such specific and precise timekeeping if it were irrelevant. If there were no point to how old everybody is, why spend a verse to specifically and precisely point out how old they were when they died?
quote:
Then why do YOU want to ignore the cultural context?
Who says I'm ignoring it? I asked you a direct question about it and you haven't answered it. This will make twice I have asked it of you. Are you about to become the latest person I have to ask the same question over and over again and we thus spend 300 posts of you avoiding a direct question?
You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
quote:
It appears that you've already made up your mind about what the text both says and means, ignoring its context.
Since you haven't actually proferred any context and have actually avoided my direct request for you to provide it, I will take this to mean that you're simply blowing smoke up my ass.
Third time:
You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
quote:
This is not taking phrases "at their word." It is yanking phrases out of their cultural and historical context and interpreting them anachronistically.
And still you don't actually provide any.
Fourth time:
You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
quote:
You are reading the text in a naively literal manner, just as the YECs do.
Congratulations! You found the point! The reason why young earth creationists claim the earth is only 6000 years old is because the Bible says it's only 6000 years old. There is a timeline in the Bible.
Now, for the third time: Please take your argument that words like "day" don't actually mean "day" to another thread. This thread assumes that "day" means "day," "year" means "year," and numbers are important.
quote:
Both of you ignore the cultural and historical context.
And still, you don't actually provide any.
Fifth time:
You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
quote:
Leading Jewish and Christian theologians for centuries have seen the days as something OTHER than 24-hour days.
You seem to be of the opinion that I am providing my personal take on the subject. You would do better to stop making this so personal. You don't know me from Adam. Don't presume to understand what I think. While I am always entertained by people who seem to think they are capable of psycho-analyzing me over the internet, I have yet to meet anybody who is actually psychic and capable of reading my mind.
Now, fourth time: Take your topic about what the word "day" means in Gen 1 to another thread. THIS thread assumes that "day" means "day."

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 47 by kbertsche, posted 02-28-2009 11:02 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by kbertsche, posted 03-01-2009 6:09 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 49 of 316 (500672)
03-01-2009 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Rrhain
03-01-2009 3:42 AM


quote:
Your argument is that words don't actually mean anything.
Not true.
quote:
Do words actually mean anything?
Yes.
quote:
So what you're saying is that when the text specifically and directly mentions event X happened Y years after event Z, we're just supposed to ignore that middle part?
No, I am not saying that.
I quoted Kitchen, "The phrase 'A begat B' does not always imply direct parenthood" which you twisted to mean:
quote:
In short, no, words don't actually mean anything.
which is NOT what I (or Kitchen) said.
quote:
The problem is that they provide a specific number. If the numbers weren't important, why bother providing such precise numbers? The examples you give don't provide numbers. It simply says that "A begat B." But in Gen 5 and Gen 11, we are given specific, precise numbers. It isn't that Jared sired Enoch. It's that he was specifically and precisely 162 when Enoch was sired and then lived another 800 years after that.
To claim that Gen 5 and 11 can't be used to create a timeline is to claim that all of that precision was of no use: That quite literally two-thirds of the verses can be discarded out of hand. This immediately leads one to wonder why on earth the authors went to so much trouble to provide such specific and precise timekeeping if it were irrelevant. If there were no point to how old everybody is, why spend a verse to specifically and precisely point out how old they were when they died?
There's a difference between claiming that these numbers are not useful in establishing a timeline and claiming that they have no purpose AT ALL. You seem to assume that establishing a timeline is the only possible purpose for these numbers.
quote:
I asked you a direct question about it and you haven't answered it. This will make twice I have asked it of you. Are you about to become the latest person I have to ask the same question over and over again and we thus spend 300 posts of you avoiding a direct question?
You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
I thought I answered this question in my previous post, but perhaps my answer was unclear. I'll try to spell it out more clearly:
It means that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of the line culminating in Enos. But in this case, the line was only one long; Enos was the literal son of Seth. We know this not from Gen 5:6, but from the surrounding narrative. The words in Gen 5:6 are ambiguous. They mean that Seth begat the line culminating in Enos, but do not specify how many people were in this line.
Let's look at Gen 5:9:
And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
In the cultural and historical context, this means that 90 years passed between the event of the birth of Enos and the event of the birth of a line of descendents which led to Cainan. This "line" could have been Cainan himself (as in Gen 5:6), or could have taken many generations.
The verb "begat" is more literally "fathered", which in cultural usage meant "ancestored" (i.e. became the ancestor of).
quote:
Since you haven't actually proferred any context and have actually avoided my direct request for you to provide it, I will take this to mean that you're simply blowing smoke up my ass.
Though I saw no "direct request" to provide this, I summarized the cultural context from Kitchen for you. If you wish, you can read more from him or from many other scholars of the ancient near east.
quote:
Third time:
You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
...
Fourth time:
You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
...
Fifth time:
You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
You seem to enjoy repeating yourself. Did you even read my previous post, where I tried to answer this??
quote:
Now, for the third time: Please take your argument that words like "day" don't actually mean "day" to another thread. This thread assumes that "day" means "day," "year" means "year," and numbers are important.
...
Now, fourth time: Take your topic about what the word "day" means in Gen 1 to another thread. THIS thread assumes that "day" means "day."
This is NOT the argument that I am making in this thread. I did not raise the issue of the length of the days--you did! It's fine to say that we won't discuss the topic in this thread, or that we will assume it to be 24-hours for this thread. But if you really mean this, why did you raise the issue? You not only mentioned it, you went further; you claimed in this thread that "day" in the text can ONLY MEAN 24-hours. I merely pointed out that this is not universally accepted by textual scholars.
Edited by kbertsche, : My original wording could have been seen as more antagonistic than I intended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Rrhain, posted 03-01-2009 3:42 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Rrhain, posted 03-06-2009 8:14 PM kbertsche has replied

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


Message 50 of 316 (501585)
03-06-2009 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by kbertsche
03-01-2009 6:09 AM


kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Your argument is that words don't actually mean anything.
Not true.
But you're saying that the direct and precise statement that Jared was 162 when he sired Enoch doesn't actually mean we can conclude 162 years passed between the birth of Jared and the birth of Enoch.
Fifth time:
If there were no point to how old everybody is, why spend a verse to specifically and precisely point out how old they were when they died?
How many times do I need to ask you the same question before you answer it?
quote:
quote:
Do words actually mean anything?
Yes.
Then why do the specific and precise declarations of the number of years that pass between events not indicate a number of years that passed between those events?
Sixth time:
If there were no point to how old everybody was when a certain event happened, why go to all the trouble to precisely point out how old they were when it happened?
How many times do I need to ask you the same question before you answer it?
quote:
quote:
So what you're saying is that when the text specifically and directly mentions event X happened Y years after event Z, we're just supposed to ignore that middle part?
No, I am not saying that.
I quoted Kitchen, "The phrase 'A begat B' does not always imply direct parenthood"
But that's irrelevant. Whether or not Jared was the direct father of Enoch or the great-great-great-great-great grandfather has no bearing on the fact that it says Jared was specifically and precisely 162 years old when Enoch was born.
The problem is that they provide a specific number. If the numbers weren't important, why bother providing such precise numbers? The examples you give don't provide numbers. It simply says that "A begat B." But in Gen 5 and Gen 11, we are given specific, precise numbers. It isn't that Jared sired Enoch. It's that he was specifically and precisely 162 when Enoch was sired and then lived another 800 years after that.
To claim that Gen 5 and 11 can't be used to create a timeline is to claim that all of that precision was of no use: That quite literally two-thirds of the verses can be discarded out of hand. This immediately leads one to wonder why on earth the authors went to so much trouble to provide such specific and precise timekeeping if it were irrelevant.
Seventh time:
If there were no point to how old everybody was when a certain event happened, why go to all the trouble to precisely point out how old they were when it happened?
Will this be the time you actually answer the question?
quote:
quote:
This immediately leads one to wonder why on earth the authors went to so much trouble to provide such specific and precise timekeeping if it were irrelevant. If there were no point to how old everybody is, why spend a verse to specifically and precisely point out how old they were when they died?
There's a difference between claiming that these numbers are not useful in establishing a timeline and claiming that they have no purpose AT ALL. You seem to assume that establishing a timeline is the only possible purpose for these numbers.
But you haven't answered the question. If you're going to claim that they aren't useful in establishing a timeline, you have to explain why.
Eighth time:
If there were no point to how old everybody was when a certain event happened, why go to all the trouble to precisely point out how old they were when it happened?
How about now? Will you answer the question now?
quote:
It means that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of the line culminating in Enos.
Huh? That's not what it says.
Genesis 5:18:
:- -
va.ye.khi-ye.red she.ta.yim ve.shi.shim sha.na u.me.at sha.na va.yo.led et-kha.nokh:
And Jared lived a hundred sixty and two years, and begot Enoch.
This is not a statement that Jared was 162 when he had a kid who would have a kid who would...who would have Enoch some many years later thus indicating that there weren't 162 years between the birth of Jared and the birth of Enoch. It is a statement that when Enoch was born, Jared was 162.
That's what "yalad" means. It is very caught up in the context of bearing, bringing forth, midwifery, labor (as in giving birth).
Again, the problem is that they provide a specific number. If the numbers weren't important, why bother providing such precise numbers? The examples you give don't provide numbers. It simply says that "A begat B." But in Gen 5 and Gen 11, we are given specific, precise numbers. It isn't that Jared was simply an ancestor of Enoch. It's that he was specifically and precisely 162 when Enoch was sired.
quote:
quote:
Since you haven't actually proferred any context and have actually avoided my direct request for you to provide it, I will take this to mean that you're simply blowing smoke up my ass.
Though I saw no "direct request" to provide this
I don't have to request it. You are the one making the claim therefore it is your burden of proof to provide the justification. And since this entire thread has been about providing specifics to indicate the timeline, let's not play dumb and pretend that you didn't realize it.
Of course, the claim that you weren't directly asked isn't exactly true, now is it?
Message 45:
Rrhain writes:
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"?
Message 46:
Rrhain writes:
And what is the "anachronism" of reading "X event took place Y years after Z event" and coming to the conclusion that a specific number of years passed between the events?
...
You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
Let's not play dumb and pretend that you didn't understand me directly asking you to explain how the use is metaphorical, what the "anachronism" was, or that you don't know what "please elaborate" means.
quote:
You seem to enjoy repeating yourself.
No, I don't. But so long as you continue to avoid the question, I will continue to ask it.
quote:
Did you even read my previous post, where I tried to answer this??
I wouldn't have repeated the question if you had answered it. You will notice that my posting style is pretty much to respond to every single sentence you write. Many people consider it overbearing and pompous, but it is quite thorough.
Sixth time:
You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
quote:
This is NOT the argument that I am making in this thread. I did not raise the issue of the length of the days--you did!
(*sigh*)
You're missing the point. Your argument is that words don't have actual meanings: That when the text says Jared was 162 years old when Enoch was born, that means some number of years other than 162 passed between the time Jared was born and the time Enoch was born. This is iconically shown by those who claim that "day" doesn't actually mean "day."
That said, your claim isn't exactly true, now is it:
Message 29:
kbertsche writes:
You seem to be making the questionable assumption that Day 1 begins at Gen 1:1. All of the subsequent days begin with "And God said". So from a literary perspective, Day 1 starts with the "and God said" of Gen 1:3. Gen 1:1, the creation of "the heavens and the earth" (a merism for "everything") occurred BEFORE Day 1. As further evidence of this, note that the account of the six Days nowhere addresses the creation of the earth itself; the account assumes that the earth is already here before Day 1 begins.
Thus, even with a 24-hour day assumption, there is a break in the timeline, and an indeterminate amount of time, between the original creation of the heavens and earth (Gen 1:1) and their final completion, which begins at Day 1 (Gen 1:3).
You are clearly indicating that direct statements about the "first" day aren't actually about the "first" day but instead are about some time later.
quote:
It's fine to say that we won't discuss the topic in this thread, or that we will assume it to be 24-hours for this thread. But if you really mean this, why did you raise the issue?
Huh? You do realize that the answer to your question is right in front of it: I raise the issue in order to set the parameters of this thread: If we're going to establish a timeline, we need to have a common understanding of how time is measured. For purposes of this thread, statements of time are going to be taken directly unless there is a compelling reason to take it metaphorically.

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 49 by kbertsche, posted 03-01-2009 6:09 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by kbertsche, posted 03-07-2009 1:01 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 51 of 316 (501608)
03-07-2009 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Rrhain
03-06-2009 8:14 PM


quote:
Huh? That's not what it says.
Genesis 5:18:
:- -
va.ye.khi-ye.red she.ta.yim ve.shi.shim sha.na u.me.at sha.na va.yo.led et-kha.nokh:
And Jared lived a hundred sixty and two years, and begot Enoch.
This is not a statement that Jared was 162 when he had a kid who would have a kid who would...who would have Enoch some many years later thus indicating that there weren't 162 years between the birth of Jared and the birth of Enoch. It is a statement that when Enoch was born, Jared was 162.
But you asked what it MEANS. What it MEANS is that when Enoch's LINE was begun, Jared was 162. It doesn't mean this to you, because you are still trying to ignore the cultural context and to read it anachronistically.
quote:
That's what "yalad" means. It is very caught up in the context of bearing, bringing forth, midwifery, labor (as in giving birth).
Except that it only applies to males, I agree. (It is the father's version of "giving birth".)
It means that Jared was 162 when he fathered his first male child, whose line led to Enoch.
quote:
Again, the problem is that they provide a specific number. If the numbers weren't important, why bother providing such precise numbers? The examples you give don't provide numbers. It simply says that "A begat B." But in Gen 5 and Gen 11, we are given specific, precise numbers. It isn't that Jared was simply an ancestor of Enoch. It's that he was specifically and precisely 162 when Enoch was sired.
Again, what this means is that he was 162 when Enoch's LINE was sired. (Your "specifically and precisely" is also anachronistic, of course; the Hebrews were much less concerned about precision than we are today).
Why are the numbers important? In the middle east, it was (and still is) very important to father a son. Men who do not have sons are looked down upon. Fathering one's first son gives a man a large status boost in the society. That's probably why the father's age when he sires his first son is mentioned; this is a big deal for the father in the culture.
quote:
Sixth time:
You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
It means that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of the LINE that led to Enos.
quote:
You're missing the point. Your argument is that words don't have actual meanings: That when the text says Jared was 162 years old when Enoch was born, that means some number of years other than 162 passed between the time Jared was born and the time Enoch was born.
Words DO have meanings. But to understand what was actually MEANT by the words, we need to understand the culture in which the words were spoken and what the words and phrases meant in this culture.
My argument is that words DO have meanings, but not the meanings that you want to anachronistically place upon them.
quote:
This is iconically shown by those who claim that "day" doesn't actually mean "day."
That said, your claim isn't exactly true, now is it:
Message 29:
kbertsche writes:
You seem to be making the questionable assumption that Day 1 begins at Gen 1:1. All of the subsequent days begin with "And God said". So from a literary perspective, Day 1 starts with the "and God said" of Gen 1:3. Gen 1:1, the creation of "the heavens and the earth" (a merism for "everything") occurred BEFORE Day 1. As further evidence of this, note that the account of the six Days nowhere addresses the creation of the earth itself; the account assumes that the earth is already here before Day 1 begins.
Thus, even with a 24-hour day assumption, there is a break in the timeline, and an indeterminate amount of time, between the original creation of the heavens and earth (Gen 1:1) and their final completion, which begins at Day 1 (Gen 1:3).
You are clearly indicating that direct statements about the "first" day aren't actually about the "first" day but instead are about some time later.
What?? My comments had nothing to do with the LENGTH of any of the days. They hold true whether the days were 24 hours or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Rrhain, posted 03-06-2009 8:14 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Rrhain, posted 03-07-2009 4:03 AM kbertsche has replied

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


Message 52 of 316 (501615)
03-07-2009 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by kbertsche
03-07-2009 1:01 AM


kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
What it MEANS is that when Enoch's LINE was begun, Jared was 162.
How do you have "Enoch's line" without Enoch? If the person being begotten when Jared is 162 isn't Enoch, why on earth call it "Enoch's" line? Lines are defined by the person at the front of the line, not the end. "Enoch's line" is defined as the children of Enoch, not the parents. That's why the text talks about Jared.
Note what it is you are trying to do: Despite the exact same phrasing used to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth, you try to engage in special pleading by saying the phrasing means one thing there but when it comes to Jared and Enoch, it means something else. You don't get to have it both ways. If Adam is 135 when Seth is born, then Jared is 162 when Enoch is born.
quote:
It doesn't mean this to you, because you are still trying to ignore the cultural context and to read it anachronistically.
And where is the "anachronism"? Where on earth are lines defined by the last person in the chain and not the first? After all, how can you possibly know what line you are in if the person who defines it hasn't been born yet? Nowhere else do we find this interpretation and even you don't use it when it doesn't suit you.
quote:
quote:
That's what "yalad" means. It is very caught up in the context of bearing, bringing forth, midwifery, labor (as in giving birth).
Except that it only applies to males, I agree. (It is the father's version of "giving birth".)
Incorrect. The very first time "yalad" is used in the Bible, it is used to describe the punishment of Eve ("in sorrow thou shalt bring forth [yalad] children").
The second time? Eve again, saying how she gave birth to Cain.
Third time? Eve again, saying how she gave birth to Abel.
Fourth time? Cain's unnamed and unexplained wife saying how she gave birth to Enoch.
Fifth time? Well, we finally get to a man but in a passive sense: "And unto Enoch was born Irad."
It's only the sixth time that we finally get into "yalad" being used directly with reference to men: "And Irad begat Mahujael."
quote:
It means that Jared was 162 when he fathered his first male child, whose line led to Enoch.
Incorrect. Nowhere else is it interpreted this way. Not even you do it when it doesn't suit you. If Adam is the direct father of Seth, then Jared is the direct father of Enos.
quote:
Again, what this means is that he was 162 when Enoch's LINE was sired.
But that isn't what you said before. The exact same phrasing was used for Adam and Seth and you claim it means Adam was Seth's actual father. Now you're saying that the exact same phrasing means something else. Are we now through the looking glass and are you now Humpty Dumpty where words means precisely what you choose them to mean, neither more nor less?
You don't get to have it both ways.
If Adam is the direct father of Seth and Adam is 135 when Seth is born, then Jared is the direct father of Enoch and Jared is 162 when Enoch is born.
quote:
Why are the numbers important? In the middle east, it was (and still is) very important to father a son.
That's not an answer. Your response is indicative of why there's a genealogy in the text. The question, however, is why the text is giving the specific ages of the people involved. In the previous chapter, we were given the generations of Cain but no ages are given.
quote:
That's probably why the father's age when he sires his first son is mentioned; this is a big deal for the father in the culture.
So why do we find so many generational lists without ages? We don't learn of the ages of Cain's line (note how it is defined by the head of the list, not the tail.)
quote:
It means that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of the LINE that led to Enos.
But that isn't what you said before. The exact same phrasing was used for Adam and Seth and you claim it means Adam was Seth's actual father. Now you're saying that the exact same phrasing means something else. Are we now through the looking glass and are you now Humpty Dumpty where words means precisely what you choose them to mean, neither more nor less?
You don't get to have it both ways.
If Adam is the direct father of Seth and Adam is 135 when Seth is born, then Jared is the direct father of Enoch and Jared is 162 when Enoch is born.
quote:
But to understand what was actually MEANT by the words, we need to understand the culture in which the words were spoken and what the words and phrases meant in this culture.
But you keep changing them to suit your mood. The exact same phrasing is used to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth as to describe the relationship between Jared and Enoch. You don't get to then claim they don't mean the same thing. You don't get to have it both ways. If Adam is the direct father of Seth and Adam is 135 when Seth is born, then Jared is the direct father of Enoch and Jared is 162 when Enoch is born.
quote:
What?? My comments had nothing to do with the LENGTH of any of the days.
What part of "first" are you having a hard time handling? The events of Genesis 1 detail the specifics of "the beginning" and specifically describe what happens on the "first" day. For you to claim that some length of time other than 24 hours passed between "the beginning" and the end of the "first" day, then you necessarily claim that the words don't mean what they mean. You directly claim a "break in the timeline," and thus a "day" means something other than a day.

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 51 by kbertsche, posted 03-07-2009 1:01 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by kbertsche, posted 03-07-2009 6:13 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 53 of 316 (501623)
03-07-2009 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Rrhain
03-07-2009 4:03 AM


Cultural and historical context!
quote:
Note what it is you are trying to do: Despite the exact same phrasing used to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth, you try to engage in special pleading by saying the phrasing means one thing there but when it comes to Jared and Enoch, it means something else. You don't get to have it both ways. If Adam is 135 when Seth is born, then Jared is 162 when Enoch is born.
No, no special pleading at all. The wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual. It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.
I wrote:
It doesn't mean this to you, because you are still trying to ignore the cultural context and to read it anachronistically.
quote:
And where is the "anachronism"? Where on earth are lines defined by the last person in the chain and not the first? After all, how can you possibly know what line you are in if the person who defines it hasn't been born yet? Nowhere else do we find this interpretation and even you don't use it when it doesn't suit you.
The anachronism is that you persistently ignore the cultural context, the way these words and phrases were used by the Hebrews and neighboring cultures. Instead, you read them as if they were spoken today, in our culture. This is the anachronism.
I have given you cultural and historical references but you have not engaged them at all. If you disagree with Kitchen give objective reasons why he is wrong, e.g. counterclaims of the cultural practices from other archaeologists or something on that level. Logical arguments regarding what it means to you today are not sufficient.
I wrote:
That's what "yalad" means. It is very caught up in the context of bearing, bringing forth, midwifery, labor (as in giving birth).
Except that it only applies to males, I agree. (It is the father's version of "giving birth".)
quote:
Incorrect. The very first time "yalad" is used in the Bible, it is used to describe the punishment of Eve ("in sorrow thou shalt bring forth [yalad] children").
The second time? Eve again, saying how she gave birth to Cain.
Third time? Eve again, saying how she gave birth to Abel.
Fourth time? Cain's unnamed and unexplained wife saying how she gave birth to Enoch.
Fifth time? Well, we finally get to a man but in a passive sense: "And unto Enoch was born Irad."
It's only the sixth time that we finally get into "yalad" being used directly with reference to men: "And Irad begat Mahujael."
Oops--you're right. It IS the same word used for both mothers "giving birth" and fathers "siring". I don't know what I was thinking.
I wrote:
It means that Jared was 162 when he fathered his first male child, whose line led to Enoch.
quote:
Incorrect. Nowhere else is it interpreted this way. Not even you do it when it doesn't suit you. If Adam is the direct father of Seth, then Jared is the direct father of Enos.
No, the wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual. It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.
I have given you cultural and historical references but you have not engaged them at all. If you disagree with them, show us from ancient near eastern history and culture that this wording REQUIRES a length of only one. Not from the way you would like to read it, not from logic, but from the history and culture of the writer's day.
I wrote:
Again, what this means is that he was 162 when Enoch's LINE was sired.
quote:
But that isn't what you said before. The exact same phrasing was used for Adam and Seth and you claim it means Adam was Seth's actual father. Now you're saying that the exact same phrasing means something else. Are we now through the looking glass and are you now Humpty Dumpty where words means precisely what you choose them to mean, neither more nor less?
I may have been unclear or misspoke before. The phrasing is the same in both places and means the same. The wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual. It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.
But I was very clear before in saying that it is the surrounding narrative, NOT this phrasing, that leads us to conclude that the length of the line from Adam to Seth was 1.
The words do not mean what either you or I choose them to mean. They mean what the author understood them to mean, and this requires understanding the history and culture of his day, which you persistently ignore.
quote:
You don't get to have it both ways.
If Adam is the direct father of Seth and Adam is 135 when Seth is born, then Jared is the direct father of Enoch and Jared is 162 when Enoch is born.
The wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual. It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.
The words do not mean what either you or I choose them to mean. They mean what the author understood them to mean, and this requires understanding the history and culture of his day, which you persistently ignore.
I have given you cultural and historical references but you have not engaged them at all. If you disagree with them, show us from ancient near eastern history and culture that this wording REQUIRES a length of only one. Not from the way you would like to read it, not from logic, but from the history and culture of the writer's day.
I wrote:
That's probably why the father's age when he sires his first son is mentioned; this is a big deal for the father in the culture.
quote:
So why do we find so many generational lists without ages? We don't learn of the ages of Cain's line (note how it is defined by the head of the list, not the tail.)
Good question. There are probably good reasons for this, but I don't know what they are. At some point we will have to allow the writers some artistic license in how they phrase things.
I wrote:
It means that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of the LINE that led to Enos.
quote:
But that isn't what you said before. The exact same phrasing was used for Adam and Seth and you claim it means Adam was Seth's actual father. Now you're saying that the exact same phrasing means something else. Are we now through the looking glass and are you now Humpty Dumpty where words means precisely what you choose them to mean, neither more nor less?
You don't get to have it both ways.
If Adam is the direct father of Seth and Adam is 135 when Seth is born, then Jared is the direct father of Enoch and Jared is 162 when Enoch is born.
I may have been unclear or misspoke before. The phrasing is the same in both places and means the same. The wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual. It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.
The words do not mean what either you or I choose them to mean. They mean what the author understood them to mean, and this requires understanding the history and culture of his day, which you persistently ignore.
I have given you cultural and historical references but you have not engaged them at all. If you disagree with them, show us from ancient near eastern history and culture that this wording REQUIRES a length of only one. Not from the way you would like to read it, not from logic, but from the history and culture of the writer's day.
I wrote:
But to understand what was actually MEANT by the words, we need to understand the culture in which the words were spoken and what the words and phrases meant in this culture.
quote:
But you keep changing them to suit your mood. The exact same phrasing is used to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth as to describe the relationship between Jared and Enoch. You don't get to then claim they don't mean the same thing. You don't get to have it both ways. If Adam is the direct father of Seth and Adam is 135 when Seth is born, then Jared is the direct father of Enoch and Jared is 162 when Enoch is born.
I may have been unclear or misspoke before. The phrasing is the same in both places and means the same. The wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual. It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.
The words do not mean what either you or I choose them to mean. They mean what the author understood them to mean, and this requires understanding the history and culture of his day, which you persistently ignore.
I have given you cultural and historical references but you have not engaged them at all. If you disagree with them, show us from ancient near eastern history and culture that this wording REQUIRES a length of only one. Not from the way you would like to read it, not from logic, but from the history and culture of the writer's day.
I wrote:
What?? My comments had nothing to do with the LENGTH of any of the days.
quote:
What part of "first" are you having a hard time handling? The events of Genesis 1 detail the specifics of "the beginning" and specifically describe what happens on the "first" day. For you to claim that some length of time other than 24 hours passed between "the beginning" and the end of the "first" day, then you necessarily claim that the words don't mean what they mean. You directly claim a "break in the timeline," and thus a "day" means something other than a day.
As I explained before, the textual structure indicates that Day 1 begins at verse 3. Verses 1 and 2 are prior to this. This does not affect the meaning or length of Day 1. (BTW, the text does not say "first day". It uses the cardinal number, "day one" instead of the ordinal.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Rrhain, posted 03-07-2009 4:03 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Rrhain, posted 03-07-2009 8:03 AM kbertsche has replied

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


Message 54 of 316 (501640)
03-07-2009 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by kbertsche
03-07-2009 6:13 AM


!
kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
No, no special pleading at all. The wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual.
But you say that when the phrase is used to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth, it means Adam was the direct ancestor of Seth and that he was precisely 135 when Seth was born. But now you say that when the exact same phrase is used to describe the relationship between Jared and Enoch, it means that Jared was not the direct ancestor of Enoch nor that he was precisely 162 when Enoch was born.
That's special pleading.
quote:
The anachronism is that you persistently ignore the cultural context
And yet you persist in refusing to provide this context. No other description of a "line" uses the person on the end to describe it. So what is this "anachronism" you keep returning to?
quote:
I have given you cultural and historical references
No, you haven't. You gave a single author with absolutely no justification. Assertion is not justification. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.
"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
quote:
If you disagree with Kitchen give objective reasons why he is wrong
Simple: Assertion doesn't make it so. You have not provided any evidence.
quote:
No, the wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual.
You said it did with Adam. Why are you demanding special pleading?
quote:
It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.
Why? "Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
quote:
I have given you cultural and historical references
No, you haven't. You gave a single author with absolutely no justification. Assertion is not justification. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.
"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
quote:
If you disagree with them, show us from ancient near eastern history and culture that this wording REQUIRES a length of only one.
Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. The text says that Jared begat Enoch. It is up to you to provide actual evidence that it doesn't mean what it directly says but is rather a metaphor. "Kitchen says so," is not evidence. It is simply assertion. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
quote:
I may have been unclear or misspoke before. The phrasing is the same in both places and means the same.
So now you're contradicting yourself. If the phrase means the same in both places and it means that Adam is the direct father of Seth, then it means that Jared is the direct father of Enoch.
You don't get to have it both ways.
quote:
But I was very clear before in saying that it is the surrounding narrative, NOT this phrasing, that leads us to conclude that the length of the line from Adam to Seth was 1.
And since the following verses follow immediately upon the declaration of Adam being the direct father of Seth, how does the context change so that every single instance after is not also a direct statement of direct parentage? Especially since the last passage in the chain of Noah's begetting of Shem, Ham, and Japheth is an example of direct parentage?
How convenient that it only means not a direct parentage when it becomes inconvenient for you.
quote:
They mean what the author understood them to mean, and this requires understanding the history and culture of his day, which you persistently ignore.
How? You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
"Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
quote:
The wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual.
You said it did with Adam. Why are you demanding special pleading?
quote:
The words do not mean what either you or I choose them to mean. They mean what the author understood them to mean, and this requires understanding the history and culture of his day, which you persistently ignore.
How? You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
"Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
quote:
I have given you cultural and historical references
No, you haven't. You gave a single author with absolutely no justification. Assertion is not justification. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.
"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
quote:
If you disagree with them, show us from ancient near eastern history and culture that this wording REQUIRES a length of only one.
Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. The text says that Jared begat Enoch. It is up to you to provide actual evidence that it doesn't mean what it directly says but is rather a metaphor. "Kitchen says so," is not evidence. It is simply assertion. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
quote:
quote:
So why do we find so many generational lists without ages? We don't learn of the ages of Cain's line (note how it is defined by the head of the list, not the tail.)
Good question. There are probably good reasons for this, but I don't know what they are.
The numbers mean nothing?
quote:
At some point we will have to allow the writers some artistic license in how they phrase things.
So we are through the looking glass and you are Humpty Dumpty.
quote:
I may have been unclear or misspoke before. The phrasing is the same in both places and means the same.
So now you're contradicting yourself. If the phrase means the same in both places and it means that Adam is the direct father of Seth, then it means that Jared is the direct father of Enoch.
You don't get to have it both ways.
quote:
It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.
Why? "Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
quote:
The words do not mean what either you or I choose them to mean. They mean what the author understood them to mean, and this requires understanding the history and culture of his day, which you persistently ignore.
How? You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
"Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
quote:
I have given you cultural and historical references
No, you haven't. You gave a single author with absolutely no justification. Assertion is not justification. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.
"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
quote:
If you disagree with them, show us from ancient near eastern history and culture that this wording REQUIRES a length of only one.
Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. The text says that Jared begat Enoch. It is up to you to provide actual evidence that it doesn't mean what it directly says but is rather a metaphor. "Kitchen says so," is not evidence. It is simply assertion. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
quote:
I may have been unclear or misspoke before. The phrasing is the same in both places and means the same.
So now you're contradicting yourself. If the phrase means the same in both places and it means that Adam is the direct father of Seth, then it means that Jared is the direct father of Enoch.
You don't get to have it both ways.
quote:
It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.
Why? "Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
quote:
The words do not mean what either you or I choose them to mean. They mean what the author understood them to mean, and this requires understanding the history and culture of his day, which you persistently ignore.
How? You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
"Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
quote:
I have given you cultural and historical references
No, you haven't. You gave a single author with absolutely no justification. Assertion is not justification. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.
"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
quote:
If you disagree with them, show us from ancient near eastern history and culture that this wording REQUIRES a length of only one.
Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. The text says that Jared begat Enoch. It is up to you to provide actual evidence that it doesn't mean what it directly says but is rather a metaphor. "Kitchen says so," is not evidence. It is simply assertion. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
quote:
As I explained before, the textual structure indicates that Day 1 begins at verse 3. Verses 1 and 2 are prior to this. This does not affect the meaning or length of Day 1.
Huh? You mean the first day doesn't begin at "the beginning"? Then it isn't the first day, now is it? By your logic, the first day happens "later." That certainly affects the meaning of Day 1.
quote:
(BTW, the text does not say "first day". It uses the cardinal number, "day one" instead of the ordinal.)
How does "day one" mean something other than "first day"?
And by the way, no, actually it says, "one day," "a second day," "a third day," if one wants to take a literal translation. But let's not play dumb and act as if that makes a difference. "In the beginning."

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 53 by kbertsche, posted 03-07-2009 6:13 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by kbertsche, posted 03-08-2009 12:00 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 55 of 316 (501823)
03-08-2009 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Rrhain
03-07-2009 8:03 AM


Re: Cultural and Historical Context!
(Note: I dislike all of the repetition of questions and answers; I find it annoying and hard to wade through. But Rrhain apparently likes this repetetive point-by-point style, so I will try to follow it.)
quote:
But you say that when the phrase is used to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth, it means Adam was the direct ancestor of Seth and that he was precisely 135 when Seth was born. But now you say that when the exact same phrase is used to describe the relationship between Jared and Enoch, it means that Jared was not the direct ancestor of Enoch nor that he was precisely 162 when Enoch was born.
False. As I said (repeatedly) in Message #53:
I may have been unclear or misspoke before. The phrasing is the same in both places and means the same. The wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual. It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.
Is ths not clear enough? Do I need to repeat this more times? Say it in different words?
quote:
That's special pleading.
Don't be ridiculous. The meaning is general enough to include both cases. This is no more "special pleading" than any other general statement that you or I may make.
I wrote:
The anachronism is that you persistently ignore the cultural context
quote:
And yet you persist in refusing to provide this context. No other description of a "line" uses the person on the end to describe it. So what is this "anachronism" you keep returning to?
In message #47 I provided two quotes from an expert, provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context, and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations. You persist in denying that I did so and in ignoring this data.
I wrote:
I have given you cultural and historical references
quote:
No, you haven't. You gave a single author with absolutely no justification. Assertion is not justification. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.
I provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations. You persist in denying that I did so and in ignoring this data.
quote:
"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.
I wrote:
If you disagree with Kitchen give objective reasons why he is wrong
quote:
Simple: Assertion doesn't make it so. You have not provided any evidence.
In message #47 I provided two quotes from an expert, provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context, and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations. This is evidence.
I wrote:
No, the wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual.
quote:
You said it did with Adam. Why are you demanding special pleading?
False. As I said (repeatedly) in Message #53:
I may have been unclear or misspoke before. The phrasing is the same in both places and means the same. The wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual. It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.
Is ths not clear enough? Do I need to repeat this more times? Say it in different words?
The meaning is general enough to include both cases. This is no more "special pleading" than any other general statement that you or I may make.
I wrote:
It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.
quote:
Why? "Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.
I wrote:
I have given you cultural and historical references
quote:
No, you haven't. You gave a single author with absolutely no justification.
Are we making progress? is this finally an admission that I DID present some cultural/historical evidence??
quote:
Assertion is not justification. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.
No, the cultural meaning of the grammatical construct is very general, encompassing both direct sons and distant descendents.
quote:
"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.
I wrote:
If you disagree with them, show us from ancient near eastern history and culture that this wording REQUIRES a length of only one.
quote:
Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. The text says that Jared begat Enoch. It is up to you to provide actual evidence that it doesn't mean what it directly says but is rather a metaphor. "Kitchen says so," is not evidence. It is simply assertion. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
In message #47 I provided two quotes from an expert, provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context, and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations. You persist in denying that I did so and in ignoring this data.
When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.
I wrote:
I may have been unclear or misspoke before. The phrasing is the same in both places and means the same.
quote:
So now you're contradicting yourself. If the phrase means the same in both places and it means that Adam is the direct father of Seth, then it means that Jared is the direct father of Enoch.
You don't get to have it both ways.
False. The cultural meaning of the grammatical construct is very general, encompassing both direct sons and distant descendents.
I wrote:
But I was very clear before in saying that it is the surrounding narrative, NOT this phrasing, that leads us to conclude that the length of the line from Adam to Seth was 1.
quote:
And since the following verses follow immediately upon the declaration of Adam being the direct father of Seth, how does the context change so that every single instance after is not also a direct statement of direct parentage? Especially since the last passage in the chain of Noah's begetting of Shem, Ham, and Japheth is an example of direct parentage?
How convenient that it only means not a direct parentage when it becomes inconvenient for you.
The cultural meaning of the grammatical construct is very general, encompassing both direct sons and distant descendents.
(Perhaps I was unclear when I said that the "surrounding narrative" tells us that the line from Adam to Seth had a length of 1. I was referring to the narrative OUTSIDE of Gen 5. For Adam and Seth, it is Gen 4 which clarifies the length of this line.)
I wrote:
They mean what the author understood them to mean, and this requires understanding the history and culture of his day, which you persistently ignore.
quote:
How? You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
This DOES have a meaning, which I've explained (repeatedly) in message #51:
It means that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of the LINE that led to Enos.
quote:
"Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.
I wrote:
The wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual.
quote:
You said it did with Adam. Why are you demanding special pleading?
False. As I said (repeatedly) in Message #53:
I may have been unclear or misspoke before. The phrasing is the same in both places and means the same. The wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual. It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.
Is ths not clear enough? Do I need to repeat this more times? Say it in different words?
The cultural meaning of the grammatical construct is very general, encompassing both direct sons and distant descendents. This is no more "special pleading" than any other general statement that you or I may make.
I wrote:
The words do not mean what either you or I choose them to mean. They mean what the author understood them to mean, and this requires understanding the history and culture of his day, which you persistently ignore.
quote:
How? You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
This DOES have a meaning, which I've explained (repeatedly) in message #51:
It means that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of the LINE that led to Enos.
quote:
"Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.
I wrote:
I have given you cultural and historical references
quote:
No, you haven't. You gave a single author with absolutely no justification. Assertion is not justification. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.
"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.
I wrote:
If you disagree with them, show us from ancient near eastern history and culture that this wording REQUIRES a length of only one.
quote:
Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. The text says that Jared begat Enoch. It is up to you to provide actual evidence that it doesn't mean what it directly says but is rather a metaphor. "Kitchen says so," is not evidence. It is simply assertion. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
In message #47 I provided two quotes from an expert, provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context, and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations. You persist in denying that I did so and in ignoring this data.
When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.
quote:
The numbers mean nothing?
??? I neither said nor implied this.
I wrote:
At some point we will have to allow the writers some artistic license in how they phrase things.
quote:
So we are through the looking glass and you are Humpty Dumpty.
??? I neither said nor implied this.
I wrote:
I may have been unclear or misspoke before. The phrasing is the same in both places and means the same.
quote:
So now you're contradicting yourself.
No. I'm clarifying my earlier statements.
quote:
If the phrase means the same in both places and it means that Adam is the direct father of Seth, then it means that Jared is the direct father of Enoch.
You don't get to have it both ways.
False. The cultural meaning of the grammatical construct is very general, encompassing both direct sons and distant descendents.
I wrote:
It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.
quote:
Why? "Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.
I wrote:
The words do not mean what either you or I choose them to mean. They mean what the author understood them to mean, and this requires understanding the history and culture of his day, which you persistently ignore.
quote:
How? You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
This DOES have a meaning, which I've explained (repeatedly) in message #51:
It means that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of the LINE that led to Enos.
quote:
"Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.
I wrote:
I have given you cultural and historical references
quote:
No, you haven't. You gave a single author with absolutely no justification. Assertion is not justification. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.
"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
In message #47 I provided two quotes from an expert, provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context, and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations. You persist in denying that I did so and in ignoring this data.
When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.
I wrote:
If you disagree with them, show us from ancient near eastern history and culture that this wording REQUIRES a length of only one.
quote:
Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. The text says that Jared begat Enoch. It is up to you to provide actual evidence that it doesn't mean what it directly says but is rather a metaphor. "Kitchen says so," is not evidence. It is simply assertion. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
In message #47 I provided two quotes from an expert, provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context, and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations. You persist in denying that I did so and in ignoring this data.
When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.
I wrote:
I may have been unclear or misspoke before. The phrasing is the same in both places and means the same.
quote:
So now you're contradicting yourself. If the phrase means the same in both places and it means that Adam is the direct father of Seth, then it means that Jared is the direct father of Enoch.
You don't get to have it both ways.
False. The cultural meaning of the grammatical construct is very general, encompassing both direct sons and distant descendents.
I wrote:
It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.
quote:
Why? "Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.
i wrote:
The words do not mean what either you or I choose them to mean. They mean what the author understood them to mean, and this requires understanding the history and culture of his day, which you persistently ignore.
quote:
How? You mean a specific mentioning of the number of years that passed between two events is dependent upon culture? Please elaborate:
Genesis 5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
Why does that not mean that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of Enos? Clearly, there is an estalishment of paternity, but are you truly saying that the specific mention of the age of Seth when he sired Enos doesn't actually have any meaning?
This DOES have a meaning, which I've explained (repeatedly) in message #51:
It means that 105 years passed between the event of the birth of Seth and the event of the birth of the LINE that led to Enos.
quote:
"Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.
I wrote:
I have given you cultural and historical references
quote:
No, you haven't. You gave a single author with absolutely no justification. Assertion is not justification. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.
"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
In message #47 I provided two quotes from an expert, provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context, and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations. You persist in denying that I did so and in ignoring this data.
When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.
I wrote:
If you disagree with them, show us from ancient near eastern history and culture that this wording REQUIRES a length of only one.
quote:
Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. The text says that Jared begat Enoch. It is up to you to provide actual evidence that it doesn't mean what it directly says but is rather a metaphor. "Kitchen says so," is not evidence. It is simply assertion. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
In message #47 I provided two quotes from an expert, provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context, and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations. You persist in denying that I did so and in ignoring this data.
When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response. Simply dismissing an expert because you don't like what he says is both unscholarly and anti-intellectual.
I wrote:
As I explained before, the textual structure indicates that Day 1 begins at verse 3. Verses 1 and 2 are prior to this. This does not affect the meaning or length of Day 1.
quote:
Huh? You mean the first day doesn't begin at "the beginning"? Then it isn't the first day, now is it? By your logic, the first day happens "later." That certainly affects the meaning of Day 1.
Day 1 begins at verse 3, after "the beginning," which is in verse 1.
I wrote:
(BTW, the text does not say "first day". It uses the cardinal number, "day one" instead of the ordinal.)
quote:
How does "day one" mean something other than "first day"?
And by the way, no, actually it says, "one day," "a second day," "a third day," if one wants to take a literal translation. But let's not play dumb and act as if that makes a difference. "In the beginning."
Ordinals and cardinals are different, as I'm sure you know. They have different meanings. If the author had wanted to say "first day" he would have said so, using the ordinal.
"Yom echad" is literally "day one", but "one day" would be an equally acceptable translation. "First day" is NOT a good translation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Rrhain, posted 03-07-2009 8:03 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Rrhain, posted 03-08-2009 3:55 AM kbertsche has replied

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


Message 56 of 316 (501836)
03-08-2009 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by kbertsche
03-08-2009 12:00 AM


kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
I find it annoying and hard to wade through.
Then answer the question and you won't be asked the same thing over and over again. For example:
quote:
I may have been unclear or misspoke before. The phrasing is the same in both places and means the same. The wording does not specify the length of the line leading to the named individual. It may be a length of 1 or may be much longer.
Is ths not clear enough? Do I need to repeat this more times? Say it in different words?
It obviously isn't clear enough because I end up responding the same way:
So now you're contradicting yourself. If the phrase means the same in both places and it means that Adam is the direct father of Seth, then it means that Jared is the direct father of Enoch.
You don't get to have it both ways.
The only reason I am repeating myself is because you haven't responded to the issue: You claim that Adam is the direct father of Seth. But the exact same phrasing is used to describe the relationship between Jared and Enoch. So if Adam is the direct father of Seth, then Jared is the direct father of Enoch. You keep ejaculating "anachronism!" as if that explains anything while continually avoiding to provide any specifics as to why the exact same words mean two different things.
quote:
The meaning is general enough to include both cases.
How? How can the exact same statement mean two different things? Where is your justification? "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient. "Anachronism!" is not an answer. You have to explain why.
quote:
In message #47 I provided two quotes from an expert
Argument from authority? That doesn't fly. Your quotes did not provide anything other than assertion. "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient. What is the justification? How does anybody, you or Kitchen, account for the fact that the exact same description of the justification between Adam and Seth means they are direct relations while Jared and Enoch are not?
Assertion is not justification. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.
"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, is it?
quote:
I provided Scriptural examples illustrating the cultural context and summarized the cultural and historical context of surrounding nations.
No, you didn't. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.
"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, is it?
quote:
When the author is an expert in the field, his opinion deserves an intellectual and scholarly response.
And if you provided anything other than, "Kitchen says so," you'd get one. Your quotation provided no justification for the conclusion, just bald assertion. Assertion is not justification. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.
"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, is it?
quote:
Are we making progress? is this finally an admission that I DID present some cultural/historical evidence??
No, because you didn't. You gave a single author with absolutely no justification. Assertion is not justification. In all of the examples you gave, not one included specific ages of the people involved. If you're going to claim that Jared was not the father of Enoch (despite the exact same phrase being interpreted to mean Adam was the father of Seth), then you need to provide evidence that this phrasing means something other than that.
"This author here says so," is not evidence. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, is it?
quote:
No, the cultural meaning of the grammatical construct is very general, encompassing both direct sons and distant descendents.
Why? How can the exact same statement mean two different things? Where is your justification? "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient. "Anachronism!" is not an answer. You have to explain why. If Adam is the father of Seth, why is Jared not the father of Enoch? The descriptions are exactly the same. Why does everything change just because it's inconvenient for you?
quote:
Perhaps I was unclear when I said that the "surrounding narrative" tells us that the line from Adam to Seth had a length of 1. I was referring to the narrative OUTSIDE of Gen 5. For Adam and Seth, it is Gen 4 which clarifies the length of this line.
So since the descriptions of the rest of the generations follow immediately upon the description of Adam and Seth, how does the context change? Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote:
quote:
The numbers mean nothing?
??? I neither said nor implied this.
When you were asked why the lineage of Cain doesn't include numbers, you said you didn't know.
So the numbers are insignificant? They don't mean anything? Clearly they do or they wouldn't be so specific and precise. It isn't that Jared lived "many years" before siring Enoch. It's that he was 162 when it happened. That's not an accident. That's not a nice, round number. That's a statement with a specific purpose. Nobody traces their lines back through Cain so the generations of Cain are not as important. But by going out of their way to provide specific, outrageously precise ages of the generations of Adam, that is a clear indication that they were providing a timeline.
quote:
quote:
quote:
At some point we will have to allow the writers some artistic license in how they phrase things.
So we are through the looking glass and you are Humpty Dumpty.
??? I neither said nor implied this.
Did you or did you not just say that "we will have to allow the writers some artistic license"? How is that not a perfect example of Humpty Dumpty claiming that "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less"?
quote:
No. I'm clarifying my earlier statements.
Where? Are you saying Adam wasn't the father of Seth?
quote:
Day 1 begins at verse 3, after "the beginning," which is in verse 1.
Doesn't "the beginning" mark the start of the first day? If the first day doesn't start with "the beginning," then how can it be the first?
quote:
Ordinals and cardinals are different, as I'm sure you know. They have different meanings.
Indeed. But context allows you to use cardinals as if they were ordinals. "In the beginning." Why on earth would the descriptions that follow such a direct and important point be about something that happened "later"? If "day one," didn't happen at "the beginning," why bother talking about "the beginning"? We are told that the heavens and earth are created "in the beginning" and then we get a description of the exact sequence of events that resulted in the heavens and earth coming into existence.
Why do you keep insisting that it happened some time "later" rather than at "the beginning"? It's the very first thing the text says.

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 55 by kbertsche, posted 03-08-2009 12:00 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by kbertsche, posted 03-08-2009 8:30 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 57 of 316 (501857)
03-08-2009 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Rrhain
03-08-2009 3:55 AM


Cultural and Historical Context!
quote:
The only reason I am repeating myself is because you haven't responded to the issue:
I HAVE responded to you regarding this many times. I don't know if you truly don't understand what I am saying, or if you just want to ignore things for which you have no scholarly or intellectual response. I suspect the latter, but I will hope for the former.
Let's try again to resolve this issue, which seems to be a central one:
quote:
You claim that Adam is the direct father of Seth.
Yes, based on the narrative in Gen 4. But this is outside the passage in question, which is Gen 5.
quote:
But the exact same phrasing is used to describe the relationship between Jared and Enoch. So if Adam is the direct father of Seth, then Jared is the direct father of Enoch.
This phrasing is in Gen 5. The cultural/historical meaning of the phrases is that Adam is the ANCESTOR of Seth, and Jared is the ANCESTOR of Enoch.
quote:
You keep ejaculating "anachronism!" as if that explains anything
I keep saying this because you persist in ignoring the cultural/historical context, where "begat" meant descendency, not direct sonship. You keep insisting that it meant to the author what it means to you today (i.e. direct sonship).
You need to address the cultural/historical context. If you believe that my claims of said context are wrong, please provide cultural/historical evidence to the contrary. You have not done this; you have simply provided logical arguments and ignored the cultural/historical issues. I could provide more such cultural/historical context, but first you need to deal with what I have already provided rather than simply ignoring or dismissing it.
quote:
while continually avoiding to provide any specifics as to why the exact same words mean two different things.
...
How? How can the exact same statement mean two different things?
As I've said repeatedly, they DO NOT mean two different things. They mean an ancestor/descendent relationship in both cases. In one case it may be father/son and in another it may be great-grandfather/great-grandson. This is not an inconsistency or a special pleading. In both cases "begat" means "ancestored". The exact same words mean the exact same thing in both cases.
quote:
Where is your justification? "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient. "Anachronism!" is not an answer. You have to explain why.
I've given you quotes from an expert which explain this. Though you are not an expert in the field, you have simply dismissed this evidence out-of-hand. Expert claims (as opposed to non-expert claims) deserve an intellectual and scholarly response, not simple dismissal.
I've given you examples from Scripture where "begat" is clearly not direct sonship. But you reject this because of irrelevant differences (one text has numbers, one does not) which do not affect the meaning of "begat".
I've mentioned that the surrounding cultures used these terms in the same way, to refer to ancestor/descendent relationships which may have gaps. I could provide more concrete examples of this, but would it really help? I think you would again dismiss the evidence rather than dealing with the cultural/historical context, which you seem to be allergic to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Rrhain, posted 03-08-2009 3:55 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Peg, posted 03-08-2009 10:10 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 59 by Rrhain, posted 03-09-2009 5:03 AM kbertsche has replied

Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 58 of 316 (501959)
03-08-2009 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by kbertsche
03-08-2009 8:30 AM


Re: Cultural and Historical Context!
kbertsche writes:
As I've said repeatedly, they DO NOT mean two different things. They mean an ancestor/descendent relationship in both cases. In one case it may be father/son and in another it may be great-grandfather/great-grandson. This is not an inconsistency or a special pleading. In both cases "begat" means "ancestored". The exact same words mean the exact same thing in both cases.
except that in the case of Seth, he really was one of Adams own sons.
Eve named him Seth because, as she said, 'God has appointed another seed in place of Abel, because Cain killed him.'
this along with the fact that Lukes geneology lists Seth as the 'Son of Adam'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by kbertsche, posted 03-08-2009 8:30 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Rrhain, posted 03-09-2009 6:10 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 62 by kbertsche, posted 03-09-2009 10:14 AM Peg has not replied

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


Message 59 of 316 (501977)
03-09-2009 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by kbertsche
03-08-2009 8:30 AM


kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
Yes, based on the narrative in Gen 4. But this is outside the passage in question, which is Gen 5.
You act like Genesis has chapters. You do realize that those are impositions placed upon the text, yes? The books of the Torah do not have verse lines and chapters. It simply starts and does not stop until the end. The breaking down of the text into verses and chapters was done long after the words had been developed.
Why do you think the story of Genesis 1 continues on into Genesis 2? The second story of creation doesn't start until Gen 2:4. The chapter breaks are completely arbitrary and do not mean anything.
Thus, the context of Genesis 5 is still the same as that of Genesis 4. Thus, if the context hasn't changed, why do you insist that the exact same words used to describe the relationship between Adam-and-Seth and Jared-and-Enoch don't mean the same thing both times? Especially since there is no break in the description?
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
This is the second time I've asked you this question. How many times do I have to ask before you respond?
quote:
This phrasing is in Gen 5.
Indeed. But it keeps going. "Adam begat Seth who begat Enos who begat Cainan who begat...." At what point in that non-stop narrative does the context change?
Third time:
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote:
I keep saying this because you persist in ignoring the cultural/historical context, where "begat" meant descendency, not direct sonship.
Incorrect. I keep asking you to justify it. "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient and your quotation did not provide any justification other than bald assertion. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
Fourth time:
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote:
You need to address the cultural/historical context.
Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you. You're the one making the claim that the description of the relationship between Jared and Enoch is distant rather than direct even though the exact same words are used to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth which you claim is direct and not distant. Therefore, it is your responsibility to provide the evidence for it. So far, you have not done so. Your quotation of Kitchen did not provide any justification other than bald assertion. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
Fifth time:
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote:
If you believe that my claims of said context are wrong, please provide cultural/historical evidence to the contrary.
How can I when you haven't provided anything other than assertion? I've got the text backing me up. What do you have?
Sixth time:
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote:
You have not done this; you have simply provided logical arguments and ignored the cultural/historical issues.
Incorrect. I have provided the text. All you have done is made a bald assertion that the text doesn't mean what it directly and plainly says. You have not provided any justification as to why this particular section does not mean direct lineage and, in fact, insist that the exact same phrasing means two different things. Yes, Adam is the father of Seth, but the exact same phrasing used to describe Jared and Enoch is to be interpreted differently. Your quotation of Kitchen did not provide any justification other than bald assertion. I can say that black is white, but surely that won't be sufficient for you to say that there is a controversy over it, are you?
Seventh time:
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote:
I could provide more such cultural/historical context, but first you need to deal with what I have already provided rather than simply ignoring or dismissing it.
Incorrect. You are the one making the claim. Therefore, you are the one who needs to justify it. I have the text backing me up. What do you have?
Eighth time:
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote:
As I've said repeatedly, they DO NOT mean two different things.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? If the description of Adam and Seth is to be taken to mean direct lineage and the exact same words are used to describe Jared and Enoch but aren't to be taken to mean direct lineage, then how can you possibly claim you aren't saying they mean two different things?
If Adam is the father of Seth, how is Jared not the father of Enoch?
Ninth time:
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote:
They mean an ancestor/descendent relationship in both cases.
So now you're saying Adam is not the father of Seth? Will you make up your mind?
quote:
In one case it may be father/son and in another it may be great-grandfather/great-grandson.
But it's the exact same passage with only the names changed. How could it possibly mean something other than the exact same thing?
Special pleading.
quote:
This is not an inconsistency or a special pleading. In both cases "begat" means "ancestored". The exact same words mean the exact same thing in both cases.
But you're saying that in the first case, it means Adam is the father of Seth and in the second case, it means Jared is not the father of Enoch. How can that possibly be when the words are exactly the same and there is no break in context?
Tenth time:
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote:
I've given you quotes from an expert which explain this.
Hah! What you gave was a bald assertion from another person. "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient. Nowhere in your quotation was there any justification as to why the context has changed between the description of Adam and Seth and the description of Jared and Enoch.
Since the description of the following generations follows immediately on the heels of the description of Adam and Seth, since there is no break in context, since the exact same words are used over and over again merely substituting names and specific ages, from whence cometh this claim that the later ones aren't talking about the exact same father/son relationship that the first one is?
Eleventh time:
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote:
Though you are not an expert in the field,
How on earth do you know? You don't know me from Adam. I will kindly ask you not to assume anything about me.
quote:
you have simply dismissed this evidence out-of-hand.
Incorrect. In order to dismiss evidence, it has to be provided first. So far, you have not done so. All you've done is made a bald assertion and quoted another person making the same bald assertion, no justification provided. Not a single word describing why the later passages have suddenly morphed away from the father/son relationship despite following right on the heels of a father/son description without a break in context and using the exact same words over and over again merely substituting names and specific ages.
Twelfth time:
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote:
Expert claims (as opposed to non-expert claims) deserve an intellectual and scholarly response, not simple dismissal.
If there is no justification proffered, then they most certainly can be. The argument from authority does not wash.
I've got the text backing me up. What do you have? What does Kitchen have? So far, you haven't provided a single piece of evidence to justify your claim. All you have is bald assertion.
Thirteenth time:
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote:
I've given you examples from Scripture where "begat" is clearly not direct sonship.
But none of those examples give ages. Therefore, they are not comparable.
Are you saying the numbers are meaningless?
quote:
But you reject this because of irrelevant differences (one text has numbers, one does not) which do not affect the meaning of "begat".
Why? This is where you need to provide your justification. See, in the description of Adam and Seth, the text provides a specific and precise age for when Adam begat Seth. That is part of the context which tells us that this passage means Adam is the direct father of Seth.
Those exact same words then get repeated word for word over and over again without any break in context, the only changes being the names and ages of the people involved.
So why have the latter ones suddenly morphed away from the father/son relationship despite following right on the heels of a father/son description without a break in context and using the exact same words over and over again merely substituting names and specific ages.
Fourteenth time:
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote:
I've mentioned that the surrounding cultures used these terms in the same way, to refer to ancestor/descendent relationships which may have gaps.
But you haven't explained why this one is such an example. And since you don't make this claim for the Adam/Seth relationship, since you actually claim that Adam is the father of Seth, you now need to explain why the context suddenly shifts despite there being no break in context and a word-for-word repetition of the same relationship substituting only names and specific ages.
Fifteenth time:
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote:
I could provide more concrete examples of this, but would it really help?
[I][B]YES![/i][/b]
So far, you haven't provided a single piece of evidence to justify your claim. You simply assert that it could be possible, quote somebody else making the same bald assertion, and then expect everybody to fall down and grovel at your feet.
That's not enough. It is not enough that we can find other passages that imply a distant relationship. We need to explain why this specific sequence doesn't imply father/son especially since you actually claim that it does at first.
Since you claim that Adam is, in fact, the father of Seth, you need to explain why the exact same words used to describe everybody else suddenly morphed away from the father/son relationship despite following right on the heels of a father/son description without a break in context and using the exact same words over and over again merely substituting names and specific ages.
Sixteenth time:
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote:
I think you would again dismiss the evidence rather than dealing with the cultural/historical context, which you seem to be allergic to.
If you had ever bothered to provide any context, you might have a point.
I've got the text backing me up. What do you have? What does Kitchen have? So far, you haven't provided a single piece of evidence to justify your claim. All you have is bald assertion.
Seventeenth time:
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.

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 57 by kbertsche, posted 03-08-2009 8:30 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by kbertsche, posted 03-09-2009 10:09 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 60 of 316 (501980)
03-09-2009 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Peg
03-08-2009 10:10 PM


Peg writes:
quote:
this along with the fact that Lukes geneology lists Seth as the 'Son of Adam'
kbertsche doesn't deny that Seth is the son of Adam. He denies that all the rest of the people listed in the genealogy of Gen 5 are father/son. Yes, Seth is Adam's son, but Enos is not Seth's son but rather some great-great-great grandson.
Luke, however, is generally taken to mean that they were father/son relationships:
Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
3:24 Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
3:25 Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
3:26 Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
3:27 Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
3:28 Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
3:29 Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
3:30 Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
3:33 Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
3:34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
3:35 Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Now, ignoring the fact that Luke gets some of the names wrong (he inserts a "Cainan" between Salah and Arphaxad where Genesis 10 and 11 do not), kbertsche will probably respond that the text here does not specifically state "son of." And, technically, he's right.
While Jesus is described as the "uios" of Joseph (modern Greek, "gios" meaning "son"), the rest of the string simply has the names separated by "tou":
tou Matqat tou Leui tou Malci tou Ianna tou Iwshj
We take this to mean "son of" since we know these relationships to be actual father/son connections.
My prediction is that kbertsche will claim that once we get back to the Jewish patriarchs, this "it doesn't mean father/son" of his will resurface and he will not provide any justification as to why the context suddenly shifted despite no break in the narrative, no change in the wording, and no indication that anything else was meant.
He'll just assert it and point to Kitchen, but not provide any justification for it other than, "Kitchen says so."

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 58 by Peg, posted 03-08-2009 10:10 PM Peg has 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