Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


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 226 of 316 (505861)
04-18-2009 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Peg
04-18-2009 6:51 AM


Peg responds to me:
quote:
the word 'created' is a hebrew verb in its perfect state...its a completed action.
Again: Irrelevant. There is no significance to use the of "bara" that makes it something mystical. The use of "bara" as opposed to "asah" is not indicative of anything special just as English "create," "made," "fashioned," etc. do not indicate anything special.
After all, Genesis 1 uses both words to describe the origin of humans:
Genesis 1:26: va.yo.mer e.lo.him na.a.se a.dam be.tsal.me.nu kid.mu.te.nu ve.yir.du vid.gat ha.yam u.ve.of ha.sha.ma.yim u.vab.he.ma u.ve.khol-ha.a.rets u.ve.khol-ha.re.mes ha.ro.mes al-ha.a.rets:
And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'
Genesis 1:27: va.yiv.ra e.lo.him et-ha.a.dam be.tsal.mo be.tse.lem e.lo.him ba.ra o.to za.khar u.ne.ke.va ba.ra o.tam:
And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.
If there were truly some sort of mystical significance to the use of "bara," why would god talk about "making" humans using "asah"?
quote:
this means that the opening verse is identifying God as the creator of the earth and universe that was already in existence, not one that he 'began' making at that time.
Incorrect. That is not the way the perfect tense is used. Indeed, the perfect tense is indicative of completed action, but there is more to be done to determine when it was completed.
That is, since life, the universe, and everything came into existence in the past, that action is "perfected." But the timing is in relation to our current position in time in the present, not in relation to god's position in time in the scenario listed in Genesis 1. The phrasing of Genesis 1:1 is to tell a current reader that in the past, god had created (notice my use of the past perfect) the heavens and the earth. It then launches into the description of how it had happened (again, notice my use of the past perfect).
Again, to claim otherwise is to claim that when the text says, "In the beginning," it doesn't really mean "beginning" but rather "later." If the point was to talk about the reformation of a previously created object, why talk about 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 222 by Peg, posted 04-18-2009 6:51 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Peg, posted 04-19-2009 2:26 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 227 of 316 (505862)
04-18-2009 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by jaywill
04-18-2009 8:24 AM


jaywill responds to me:
Well, no. No, he doesn't. He wanders off topic. Let's try it again, shall we?
I'm still waiting for you to show me where we have a secondary genealogy of Adam such that we can declare that there are skipped generations in it. If you can't do so, just come out and say it.

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 223 by jaywill, posted 04-18-2009 8:24 AM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 228 of 316 (505863)
04-18-2009 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by jaywill
04-18-2009 8:48 AM


jaywill responds to me:
Well, no. No, he doesn't. He wanders off topic. Let's try it again, shall we?
I'm still waiting for you to show me where we have a secondary genealogy of Adam such that we can declare that there are skipped generations in it. If you can't do so, just come out and say it.

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 224 by jaywill, posted 04-18-2009 8:48 AM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 229 of 316 (505864)
04-18-2009 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by jaywill
04-18-2009 9:01 AM


jaywill responds to me:
Well, no. No, he doesn't. He wanders off topic. Let's try it again, shall we?
I'm still waiting for you to show me where we have a secondary genealogy of Adam such that we can declare that there are skipped generations in it. If you can't do so, just come out and say it.

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 225 by jaywill, posted 04-18-2009 9:01 AM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 230 of 316 (505881)
04-19-2009 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Rrhain
04-18-2009 1:41 PM


Rrhain writes:
Genesis 1. The phrasing of Genesis 1:1 is to tell a current reader that in the past, god had created (notice my use of the past perfect) the heavens and the earth.
Thats exactly what it is and all it should be interpreted as.
All imperfects in the Hebrew verb are 'incomplete actions'. Yet Vs1 of Genesis is uses a verb completed in action.
In Genesis 2:2 'proceeded to rest' is a Hebrew 'imperfect' verb indicating an incomplete or continuous action but in the case of Gen1:1, the action WAS complete. It was not an ongoing action so it cannot be a part of the six creative days that follow.
Rrhain writes:
Again, to claim otherwise is to claim that when the text says, "In the beginning," it doesn't really mean "beginning" but rather "later." If the point was to talk about the reformation of a previously created object, why talk about the "beginning"?
that is the title of the book. 'Bere'shith' is the opening word in Hebrew and its the 'title' of the book as opposed to a part of the dialogue that follows it. The book was first named Genesis in the LXXXVg

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Rrhain, posted 04-18-2009 1:41 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Rrhain, posted 04-24-2009 5:09 AM Peg has replied

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


Message 231 of 316 (506227)
04-24-2009 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Peg
04-19-2009 2:26 AM


Peg responds to me:
quote:
All imperfects in the Hebrew verb are 'incomplete actions'.
Um, this isn't unique to Hebrew. Any language that uses an imperfect tense means the same thing. That's what "imperfect" means in linguistics. English doesn't really have an "imperfect" tense. Instead, we use the progressive.
At any rate, Biblical Hebrew doesn't really have "tenses" the way modern languages do. Instead, it has two aspects...a "past," often called "perfect," and a "present/future," often called "imperfect."
So of course the description of the heavens and earth are in the perfect: It happened in the past and that's how you describe things in the past in Biblical Hebrew.
quote:
It was not an ongoing action so it cannot be a part of the six creative days that follow.
First, incorrect. The six creative days are the creation of the heavens and the earth described in the first sentence.
Second, irrelevant. The description is that the creation of the heavens and the earth happened in the past. That action was completed and thus it is "perfected." The description is of a past, completed event that is then immediately followed by a detailed description of what happened for that action.
"Twenty years ago, I had attended college. There was orientation and some parent informational sessions. And on the second day, they had Frosh Run."
That doesn't mean that there was some previous matriculation before I went through orientation. It is a direct statement that my collegiate experience was in the past and has been completed. And now, you get to hear about the details of what happened while I was there.
quote:
that is the title of the book. 'Bere'shith' is the opening word in Hebrew and its the 'title' of the book as opposed to a part of the dialogue that follows it. The book was first named Genesis in the LXXXVg
That doesn't answer the question. What you are saying is that when the text says, "In the beginning," it doesn't really mean "beginning" but rather "later." If the point was to talk about the reformation of a previously created object, why talk about 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 230 by Peg, posted 04-19-2009 2:26 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by kbertsche, posted 04-24-2009 11:51 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 241 by Peg, posted 04-26-2009 1:42 AM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 232 of 316 (506250)
04-24-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Rrhain
04-24-2009 5:09 AM


peg writes:
It was not an ongoing action so it cannot be a part of the six creative days that follow.
Rrhain replied:
quote:
First, incorrect. The six creative days are the creation of the heavens and the earth described in the first sentence.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Rrhain, posted 04-24-2009 5:09 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2009 12:58 PM kbertsche has replied

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


Message 233 of 316 (506352)
04-25-2009 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by kbertsche
04-24-2009 11:51 AM


kbertsche responds to me:
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
Incorrect. It makes no sense that the same concept is used to describe the creation of humans later on. So humans were created before they were created?
"Something had happened. Here is how it happened."
How does the use of the perfect in the first sentence indicate that the event being described is a different event than the event being described in the second sentence?

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 232 by kbertsche, posted 04-24-2009 11:51 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by kbertsche, posted 04-25-2009 1:44 PM Rrhain has replied
 Message 235 by jaywill, posted 04-25-2009 3:35 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 234 of 316 (506354)
04-25-2009 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Rrhain
04-25-2009 12:58 PM


quote:
How does the use of the perfect in the first sentence indicate that the event being described is a different event than the event being described in the second sentence?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2009 12:58 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2009 4:22 PM kbertsche has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 235 of 316 (506364)
04-25-2009 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Rrhain
04-25-2009 12:58 PM


How does the use of the perfect in the first sentence indicate that the event being described is a different event than the event being described in the second sentence?
Are we back on the time of creation again? Or are we only talking about Adam being 130 years old when someone was born, and so forth ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2009 12:58 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2009 4:23 PM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 236 of 316 (506369)
04-25-2009 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by kbertsche
04-25-2009 1:44 PM


kbertsche responds to me:
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.
But that simply means it happened in the past.
And it did.
What immediately follows is a description of how creation happened.
You don't apply this reasoning to any other verses in the Bible, so why is this one special? It makes no sense to talk about "the beginning" if something had happened before. That wouldn't make it "the beginning" but would rather make it "later." It makes no sense to talk about the creation of things that already existed.
"Something had happened. Here's how it happened."
How does the use of the perfect in the first sentence indicate that the event being described is a different event than the event being described in the second sentence?

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 234 by kbertsche, posted 04-25-2009 1:44 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by kbertsche, posted 04-25-2009 5:10 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 237 of 316 (506370)
04-25-2009 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by jaywill
04-25-2009 3:35 PM


jaywill responds to me:
quote:
Are we back on the time of creation again? Or are we only talking about Adam being 130 years old when someone was born, and so forth ?
I'm still waiting for you to show me where we have a secondary genealogy of Adam such that we can declare that there are skipped generations in it. If you can't do so, just come out and say it.

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 235 by jaywill, posted 04-25-2009 3:35 PM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 238 of 316 (506374)
04-25-2009 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Rrhain
04-25-2009 4:22 PM


quote:
[parroting of irrelevant comments regarding perfect tense]
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:
You don't apply this reasoning to any other verses in the Bible, so why is this one special? It makes no sense to talk about "the beginning" if something had happened before. That wouldn't make it "the beginning" but would rather make it "later." It makes no sense to talk about the creation of things that already existed.
False. This is basic Hebrew grammar. The preterite occurs quite often, these rules apply, and I apply the same reasoning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2009 4:22 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2009 6:04 PM kbertsche has replied

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


Message 239 of 316 (506378)
04-25-2009 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by kbertsche
04-25-2009 5:10 PM


kbertsche responds to me:
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.
Um, you do realize that Biblical Hebrew doesn't really have a preterite, yes? It has two aspects: The perfect and the imperfect.
That said, the "waw" construction is a narrative device to indicate progression, furthering of plot, as it were.
"Something had happened. Here is how it happened."
That is the narrative description of Genesis 1: First you get the really big picture, and then you get the details. The creation of life, the universe, and everything was not just a snap-of-the-fingers, now-you-don't-see-it/now-you-do event. God worked at it. It took, quite literally, days.
So of course the description of what happened during the days where god made the heavens and the earth are going to be written using progressive narration. That's how you tell an interesting story.
You still haven't answered the question, though: If the heavens and earth were already made, then why talk about 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 238 by kbertsche, posted 04-25-2009 5:10 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by kbertsche, posted 04-25-2009 9:14 PM Rrhain has replied

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


Message 240 of 316 (506382)
04-25-2009 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Rrhain
04-25-2009 6:04 PM


quote:
Um, you do realize that Biblical Hebrew doesn't really have a preterite, yes? It has two aspects: The perfect and the imperfect.
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever taken a course in biblical Hebrew? Which language text did you study?
Biblical Hebrew certainly DOES have a preterite. It is not a unique verbal form, but a grammatical construction. It was formerly called the "waw-consecutive", but modern grammarians prefer to call it the preterite.
quote:
That said, the "waw" construction is a narrative device to indicate progression, furthering of plot, as it were.
Not a bad description. This construction follows a specific pattern. The first verb in the series is in the perfect, with no "waw". Subsequent verbs in the series are in the imperfect, with a "waw" prepended to the verb, but the verb is translated as a perfect. Again, I have described this in more detail in basic reading of genesis 1:1, and you could get a better description in a basic Hebrew grammar (e.g. Allan P. Ross).
quote:
"Something had happened. Here is how it happened."
False. The grammar implies, "First something happened. And then something else happened. And then something else happened, ..."
quote:
That is the narrative description of Genesis 1: First you get the really big picture, and then you get the details. The creation of life, the universe, and everything was not just a snap-of-the-fingers, now-you-don't-see-it/now-you-do event. God worked at it. It took, quite literally, days.
False. Not consistent with the Hebrew grammar. First you get the creation of the heavens and the earth. Next you get Day 1. Next you get Day 2 ...
quote:
So of course the description of what happened during the days where god made the heavens and the earth are going to be written using progressive narration. That's how you tell an interesting story.
Yes, and the first event in this progression is the creation of the heavens and the earth.
quote:
You still haven't answered the question, though: If the heavens and earth were already made, then why talk about the "beginning"?
Your question makes no sense to me. Verse 1 says that God created everything (the heavens and the earth). It tells us when He did this--"In the beginning". The verse could be translated, "In the beginning, God had created everything." I see no problem with this; can you explain your question better?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2009 6:04 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Rrhain, posted 04-27-2009 4:54 AM kbertsche has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024