|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: The timeline of the Bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member  Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche responds to me:
quote: No, what I assume is that the chronologies presented in the Bible can be used to construct a timeline. If you have a series of statements saying, "Event X happened Y years after event Z," then you might not have been trying to create a chart, but to claim that it cannot be done would require that such statements don't actually refer to time and/or events.
quote: And thus the use of years is "metaphorical"? So this is one of those times when the Bible is not actually saying what it says but needs to be "interpreted"? Isn't it convenient that whenever the text says what you want it to say, it's supposed to be taken at face value but whenever it causes trouble for your pre-conceived notion, it has to be interpreted?
quote: Then why provide a timeline of any kind? Clearly, your "interpretation" of the Bible is fallacious for the Jewish calendar starts from "the beginning" and counts every single year from the moment of creation to now. It is the year 5769. Are you about to say that Jews don't understand their own religion? Edited by Rrhain, : a "serious" of statements? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche responds to me:
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?
quote: 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: 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: 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: (*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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche responds to me:
quote: 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: 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: 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: In short, no, words don't actually mean anything.
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?
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche responds to me:
quote:quote: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: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: 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: 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: 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: 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: No, I don't. But so long as you continue to avoid the question, I will continue to ask it.
quote: 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: (*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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche responds to me:
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 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 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche responds to me:
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. That's special pleading.
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?
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?
quote: Simple: Assertion doesn't make it so. You have not provided any evidence.
quote: You said it did with Adam. Why are you demanding special pleading?
quote: Why? "Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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? "Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
quote: You said it did with Adam. Why are you demanding special pleading?
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? "Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
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?
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?
quote:quote: The numbers mean nothing?
quote: So we are through the looking glass and you are Humpty Dumpty.
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.
quote: Why? "Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
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? "Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
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?
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?
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.
quote: Why? "Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
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? "Kitchen says so," is not sufficient.
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?
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?
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.
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." 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche responds to me:
quote: Then answer the question and you won't be asked the same thing over and over again. For example:
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Where? Are you saying Adam wasn't the father of Seth?
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche responds to me:
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: (*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: So now you're saying Adam is not the father of Seth? Will you make up your mind?
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: But none of those examples give ages. Therefore, they are not comparable. Are you saying the numbers are meaningless?
quote: 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: 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][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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Peg writes:
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche responds to me:
quote: No, I've been constantly and persistently amazed that you have, begging and pleading for you to provide something, anything that justifies your claim other than, "Kitchen says so." That is not sufficient. Since the very same words are used to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth as between Jared and Enoch, then if Adam and Seth are father/son, then so are Jared and Enoch. But you keep saying that they don't mean the same thing...something about the later description, despite being exactly the same, despite there being absolutely no context change, means that the two mean different things. And then you immediately contradict yourself to say that no, they don't mean different things. Which is it? Do you agree or disagree that the words used to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth are exactly the same as the words used to describe the relationship between Jared and Enoch? If you do agree that the words are the same, then how do you manage to conclude that they mean one thing with regard to Adam and Seth but something different with regard to Jared and Enoch...and then contradict yourself to say that no, they mean the same thing?
quote: That's not what it says, though. While it is true that fathers are ancestors, the text does not say that Adam "ancestored" Seth. It says that he "begat" Seth. Since this phrasing is used to mean that Adam is the father of Seth, why does the context suddenly change with relation to all of the others? Eighteenth 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. How many times do I need to ask you these direct questions before you answer them? Yes or no: Is there a missing verse we don't know about? I really want to hear your answer to that question. Please provide a direct answer to this direct question. It is not rhetorical. Yes or no: Is there something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death that changes the context? I really want to hear your answer to that question. Please provide a direct answer to this direct question. It is not rhetorical. Please, I'm begging you. Answer the question: 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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche writes:
quote: Nineteenth 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. How many times do I need to ask you these direct questions before you answer them? Yes or no: Is there a missing verse we don't know about? I really want to hear your answer to that question. Please provide a direct answer to this direct question. It is not rhetorical. Yes or no: Is there something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death that changes the context? I really want to hear your answer to that question. Please provide a direct answer to this direct question. It is not rhetorical. Please, I'm begging you. Answer the question: 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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Daniel4140 responds to me:
quote: Even if we assume this to be true, we're talking about a discrepancy of less than 200 years. Ergo, we're still talking about a chronology of the earth being only about 6000 years old. Thus, Peg's original claim that the Bible doesn't say the earth is 6000 years old is still shown to be incorrect: It says it flat out. The fact that it doesn't say, "The Earth was created on Sunday the 21st of October, 4004 B.C., at exactly 9:00 A.M., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh," doesn't mean that it doesn't say how old life, the universe, and everything is. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche responds to me:
quote:quote: You do realize that there are multiple sources for the Bible, yes? There is no singular text, and no, I'm not talking about translations. Just because the most common text we have doesn't have a particular verse doesn't mean there isn't a verse there. The Orthodox Bible, for example, includes Psalms 151. At any rate, since you agree that there is no missing verse, then the context of the verses could not have been changed by a missing verse. Since the text does not have a break in flow and uses the exact same words to describe the relationship between Jared and Enoch that it does to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth, then any claim that the context is different will have to provide some other sort of justification for why it changed beyond a bald assertion of, "It just did."
quote: Then since the text does not have a break in flow and uses the exact same words to describe the relationship between Jared and Enoch that it does to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth, then any claim that the context is different will have to provide some other sort of justification for why it changed beyond a bald assertion of, "It just did."
quote:quote: Indeed, but do you or do you not agree that the relationship described between Adam and Seth is that of father and son? If Adam and Seth are father and son and there is no break in context for the rest of the section, by what justification do you conclude that none of the others are father and son? It isn't the words that are present, for they are exactly the same. It isn't an intervening verse, for there is nothing in saying that Adam died that would change the context of the relationship between Adam and Seth. And it isn't a verse that is no longer present in the text. So where do you find justification for why the context changed? "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote: Just once. This would be the first time. So now that you have answered my questions which indicate that none of those things could possibly change the context of father/son relationships, this would be where you provide actual evidence to indicate that these particular passages in question do not mean father/son. Be specific. "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote: Because you keep on not answering it. I had to ask you literally 19 times before you bothered to give a direct response. And when you contradict yourself, I will ask it of you again. If you don't like the merry go round, get off the ride.
quote: Why? Since you agree that there is no missing verse, that the words are exactly the same, that nothing in the description of the death of Adam would change the relationship between Adam and Seth to something other than father/son, why does the context change for everybody else? Be specific. "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote: Incorrect. But in order to understand the historical and cultural context, you have to start with the words. Since the words are exactly the same, since there is nothing in the description of the death of Adam that would change the relationship between Adam and Seth, since there are no missing verses, what is your justification for why the context changes? Clearly the "literary, historical, and cultural" context is that of father and son or you would not have claimed that Adam and Seth were father and son. So why does it change for everybody else? Be specific. "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? What on earth have we been talking about these past weeks? That the relationship between Adam and Seth is father/son but you then claim it changes such that the relationship between Jared and Enoch, despite using the exact same words as those to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth, is something other than father/son. In order for "begat" to mean "father/son" with regard to Adam and Seth but "not father/son" with regard to Jared and Enoch requires a change in context. Do you even know what "context" means? It is the surrounding environment in which a communication is made that affects the meaning of the message. For example, modern context for women speaking in English will generally have a different meaning for the word "girlfriend" than when a man says it. When a woman says, "I went out with my girlfriend," there is commonly no implication of a romantic connection between the two of them. It is an indication that the woman has a friend who is another woman. When men say it, it generally means there is a romantic relationship. Now, this doesn't mean that a woman cannot mean she has a romantic relationship by the use of that word, but more context will be required. Thus we get back to my comment about establishing a context: Adam is the father of Seth, yes? The beginning of Genesis 5, including some of the ending of Genesis 4, makes the poing that Adam is the father of Seth, yes? That establishes context: We're talking about a father and son. So if you're going to then say that the later descriptions of people are something other than father and son, you need to provide the clues that tell us the context has changed. We've already established that the words do not change, there are no missing verses, the presence of the description of the death of Adam, none of these change the context. Therefore, if Jared is not the father of Enoch, something else is telling us that. What is it? What in the text tells us that the identical description of Jared to Enoch as Adam to Seth doesn't mean the same thing as Adam to Seth? In English, it might be a simple change of the gender of the person speaking that can change the context. Knowing the history or a certain character can change the context such that a reference to a "friend" might mean one thing to one character but something very different for another. So what in this description allows us to say that despite the fact that we are using the exact same words to describe the relationship between Jared and Enoch that we used to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth, we don't mean the same thing? What changed the context? "Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
quote: No. Do you even know what the word "context" means?
quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Since you seem to love bare quotations, here's one from a page on how to interpret biblical passages, (Methods of Studying the Patriarchal Narratives as Ancient Texts, Alan R. Millard:
As those who investigate the history of traditions emphasize, a change of context may cause changes in the traditions themselves, but there is no controllable means for determining the presence or absence of such changes, or even a shift of context. Emphasis added. Please, let us not play dumb. This game you wish to fool around in, pretending that you don't understand what "change of context" means, is not helpful. If you do not wish to continue, then simply stop responding. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Daniel4140 responds to me:
quote: For the sake of argument, yes. Do you or do you not agree that even with this, the Bible still says that life, the universe, and everything are only about 6000 years old? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche responds to me:
quote:quote: So Adam is not Seth's father?
quote: That's my point. Since we start off with a father/son relationship, that is the context. But you seem to be saying that no, Adam is not Seth's father. Is that what you are saying? Do you or do you not agree that the relationship described between Adam and Seth is that of father and son?
quote: If the summary is nothing but the bald assertion you've provided, then "Kitchen says so" is not merely insufficient, it is completely unjustified. It is not enough to say it "could" mean it. You have to show why it does. If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.
quote: Incorrect. I have asked for justification. It is not sufficient to simply say that it could be interpreted in a specific way. And yet, that is all you have provided. Actually, you haven't even provided that...you've just quoted people who merely asserted that it could be interpreted that way. At not time was there ever any actual justification for why this particular instance should be interpreted this way. I have begged and pleaded with you to provide more justification, more evidence that we can find as to why the context of a father/son relationship would suddenly change, but so far you haven't provided any and are now seemingly pulling away from the claim that the relationship between Adam and Seth is described as being father/son.
quote: Nice try, but that's my argument to you. You're the one who's supposed to do the work. I am not here to do your homework for you. I've gone to the text over and over again, asking you specific questions about why you come to the conclusion that you do, but you have avoided every chance to explain yourself. If you cannot justify your own argument, I'm certainly not going to do it for you. I don't know what your argument is, so how could I? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
