|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The timeline of the Bible | |||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:You are claiming that since Adam is established as the literal father of Seth in Gen 4, the biblical writers are not allowed to call him the ancestor of Seth in Gen 5?? quote:False. Please re-read Message 133, Message 128, Message 113, Message 110, Message 82, Message 77, Message 62, Message 61, and Message 57 until you understand them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:It matters for two reasons: 1) You have given two different answers which seem to be inconsistent. I do not understand your position. Did Matthew intentionally omit names or not? 2) If Matthew intentionally left names out and still used the word "begat", this implies that he did not view "begat" as implying a literal father-son relationship. This supports my claims regarding Hebrew genealogies. quote:Of course. But the cultures of the authors were very similar and Matthew knew of the Genesis genealogies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:But it is not the word "begat" (yalad) that establishes Adam as the literal father of Seth in Gen 4, it is the descriptions of events in the rest of the narrative. Both you and I are sure of this due to the extended narrative, not due to the word "begat". The word "begat" means "ancestor" BOTH in Gen 4 and in Gen 5. There is no change in meaning. The rest of the Gen 4 narrative does not modify the meaning of "begat"; it provides additional information not conveyed by "begat" either in Gen 4 or in Gen 5. This has already been explained in Message 113. quote:Already addressed multiple times. Please re-read Message 128, Message 110, Message 77, and Message 61 until you understand them. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Matthew's usage gives us information about how Hebrew cultures viewed genealogies. Mt 1 is pertinent to our reading of Gen 5. quote:Of course. Why is this relevant? Do you realize that the OT had been translated into Greek, and was available to the NT writers? Do you realize that the Greek word for "begat" in Gen 5 (gennaoo) is the same word used by Matthew in Mt 1?
quote:Of course not. I said: But the cultures of the authors were very similar
Note the word "similar". This does not mean "identical".
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: If anything, the Bible cautions AGAINST too much emphasis on genealogies:
1 Tim 1:3-4
As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:No, it is NOT the word "begat". It is the surrounding narrative. quote:If Gen 4:25 had only said that Adam and/or Eve begat Seth, we would not know if this was a literal son or a distant descendent. The word "begat" is not what tells us that this is a literal son. There are two things in this verse which DO indicate literal sonship: 1) the fact that Adam or Eve named their son. (Repeated in Gen 5:3) They would not name a distant descendent. 2) the meaning of the name itself. "Seth" (or "shet") forms a word-play with "shat", "to appoint, grant." Eve saw Seth as a divine replacement for her literal son Abel who had been killed. quote:That would be an acceptable translation. But it sounds somewhat awkward and stilted. quote:As I have already mentioned in Message 83, there is a change in literary style between Gen 4 and Gen 5. There is also a major literary break at Gen 5:1. Did you notice the word "toledot" ("the generations of" or "what became of") in Gen 5:1? This word is used as a literary divider between different main sections of Genesis. Gen 4 and Gen 5 are in different sections of the book. Edited by kbertsche, : fixed typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:The text says that Adam and Eve named Seth (Gen 4:25; 5:3) and that Seth named Enosh (Gen 4:26). But where does it say the rest? Note that it specifically does NOT say this in Gen 5. I see only one occurrance of the word "name" (shem) in any form. This occurs in Gen 5:3 (literally, "and he called the name of him Seth"). The fact that this phrasing is NOT repeated for the other generations is significant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:No, the distant descendents are NOT a metaphorical use of the term. They are literal descendents. The figurative/metaphorical uses of "yalad" refer to non-literal descendents. E.g. "of wicked; of Israelites, bringing forth wind (of vain efforts for deliverance); of Tyre as mother of her inhabitants; of Jerus., Isr. bearing disloyal children; Jerus. and Sam., as Oholibah and Oholah; of Babylon; of a day, as producing events." (from BDB Hebrew lexicon)
quote:No, the word "yalad" is much less specific than you want it to be. It is used in the OT of distant descendents as well as direct children, as you admit below: quote:You have just admitted that there are a number of occurrances which are NOT direct parentage(!!) How can you be absolutely sure that Gen 5 does not include more cases of this? quote:It does NOT always mean direct parentage, as you admitted above. quote:The primary meaning of the verb "yalad" is "bear, bring forth, beget" (according to BDB). But this is not restricted to a literal father-son relationship; it can refer to any ancestor-descendent relationship. This is seen from the derivitive noun "walad", meaning "offspring, child." Here the first meaning is "offspring" (i.e. descendent), not literal child.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Incorrect. The text does NOT use the same verb "shem" ("to name") for all of these generations. Show me any form of the verb "shem" ("to name") for anyone after Enosh. The text specifically does NOT say that Enosh named Kenan, Kenan named Mahalalel etc. The point is not that they have names (which they obviously do). The question is who gave them their names; who named them. If Enosh is the one who named Kenan, Kenan has to be a direct son. But if the text does not specify this, Kenan could be a distant descendent, i.e. "Enosh begat (the line culminating in) Kenan."
quote:And how many times do I have to answer you before you address the data? As I pointed out in Message 83:
It is clear that the narrative style of Gen 5 is different from that in Gen 4. The style changes from a straightforward narrative to a genealogy with a rigid, repetitive structure. This could be described as a slight change in genre.
Some scholars identify "genealogy" as a distinct genre, in which case the genre changes between Gen 4 and Gen 5. And as I pointed out in Message 169:
There is also a major literary break at Gen 5:1. Did you notice the word "toledot" ("the generations of" or "what became of") in Gen 5:1? This word is used as a literary divider between different main sections of Genesis. Gen 4 and Gen 5 are in different sections of the book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:False. What you really mean is, "According to Rrhain's literalistic and anachronistic interpretation of the Bible, life, the universe, and everything is only about 6000 years old." quote:Nonsense. The text says no such thing. The "earth" is mentioned (and exists) in Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, BEFORE Day 1. The description of the third day makes absolutely NO mention of the "creation" or "making" of the earth; rather, it describes the separation of dry land from water: God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place and let dry ground appear. It was so. God called the dry ground land and the gathered waters he called seas. God saw that it was good. (Gen 1:9-10)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:Do you have any evidence for these claims? Not just your opinions, but solid historical, cultural, or (especially) linguistic/grammatical evidence? As shown in Message 32, this phrase is only used one other place in the Old Testament, where it does NOT describe "nothingness itself." Since you seem to consider this subject off-topic, a simple link to a posting where you have already provided this evidence would suffice. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:My complaint is with your dogmatic statement that the Bible says "the universe" and "everything" are "only about 6000 years old." I have already provided evidence that this is wrong in Message 29 and Message 35, but you have declared this "off-topic". This is your thread; it is fine for you to assume any nonsensical thing that you wish for the purpose of discussion in this thread (e.g. that 2+2=5, or that Gen 1:1-2 is part of "Day 1"). But don't think (or claim) that your assumption of it makes it actually true!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
peg writes:
Rrhain replied:
It was not an ongoing action so it cannot be a part of the six creative days that follow.quote: No, Peg is correct. The best fit with the grammar is that v.1 was a separate event which occurred PRIOR to v.3, as explained in Message 35. For a more detailed discussion of the grammatical issues, see basic reading of genesis 1:1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote: My conclusion that v.1 describes an event prior to v.3 is based primarily on the grammar of the preterite (waw-consecutive). It is true that the form of the verb in v.1 is perfect (or past perfect), but I consider this a secondary evidence. See my more detailed arguments in basic reading of genesis 1:1.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:You are completely missing (or intentionally ignoring) the point. Your parroting of claims about the perfect are irrelevant to my main evidence, which is the preterite forms. Do you understand the Hebrew grammatical rules for the preterite (or waw-consecutive, if you prefer that terminology)? Basically, the preterite describes a series of consecutive events. The verb in v.3 cannot be the first in the series; its form requires a prior event, which is in v.1. I've given a basic description of the preterite in basic reading of genesis 1:1; you could find more in a basic Hebrew grammar text.
quote:False. This is basic Hebrew grammar. The preterite occurs quite often, these rules apply, and I apply the same reasoning.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024