|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The timeline of the Bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Rrhain writes: The six creative days are the creation of the heavens and the earth described in the first sentence. you will need to explain why in Vs1:1 'created' was written as a completed action....especially seeing what follows it is written as progressive actions. Many scholars have explained that verses are not speaking of the same progressive action. You will need to show otherwise.
Rrhain writes: 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"? do the words of Genesis say that this happened 7,000 years ago? No, it gives no time period. "The beginning" is a simple way that Moses explained that at a certain point in time, God 'began' his creation of the universe and all that is in it. then later he proceeded to prepare the earth in the 6 creative periods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
kbertsche responds to me:
Well, no. No, he doesn't. I'm still waiting for an explanation for why Genesis 1 talks about "the beginning" if life, the universe, and everything were already in existence. That necessarily means it isn't the beginning but rather "later." The grammar specifically says that the six days of creation were "the beginning," that there was no previous creation, that the appearance of the earth on the third day was its origination, etc. How does "the beginning" come to mean "sometime later"? 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 responds to me:
quote: Because the creation of life, the universe, and everything happened in the past, in "the beginning," and thus was a completed action. As I already pointed out to you: "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: Yes. The story of Genesis starts from "the beginning," not "later," and thus the six days described are the very first days that ever happened, not some later ones, for we it all happened at "the beginning." The days are literal, 24-hour days. Genesis (and a few other passages in other books) give a timeline for the precise number of years that passed between "the beginning" and the founding of Solomon's temple. The temple is considered to have been founded about 950 BCE. Adding all of them up, you get about 6000 years from "the beginning" to now.
quote: Huh? "The beginning" doesn't actually mean the beginning? It means "later"?
quote: Indeed. Those "creative periods" were six, literal, 24-hour days and they started at "the beginning." There is no previous time for that would mean that "the beginning" wasn't actually the beginning but was "later." 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Rrhain writes: Yes. The story of Genesis starts from "the beginning," not "later," and thus the six days described are the very first days that ever happened, not some later ones, for we it all happened at "the beginning." what does the physical evidence show? is the universe only 6,000 odd years old?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:False. The grammar of the preterite (i.e. waw-consecutive construction) clearly implies that the six days of creation occurred AFTER the "creation of the heavens and the earth" which occurred "in the beginning." You are ignoring the grammatical rules for the preterite. See Message 240 and basic reading of genesis 1:1 for more details.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Peg responds to me:
quote: This isn't about what the physical evidence shows. This is about what the Bible says and it 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: Incorrect. It is exactly the other way around. The creation of the heavens and earth were during the six days delineated in Genesis 1. There was no "before." I see we're never going to get anywhere with this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Rrhain writes: This isn't about what the physical evidence shows. This is about what the Bible says and it says that life, the universe, and everything are only about 6000 years old. No it does not. You say that because you refuse to read the opening words of Genesis in the way Moses read them. He wrote the same way other ancient writers wrote...not the way we write. Ancient writers did not have a title for their writings...the opening words WERE the title. In the case of Genesis the title as Moses wrote it was simply
quote:This is all that Moses wrote. It literally means quote: When the translators put it into english they wrote it as:
quote:This was the best way to write it in English because the subject that followed was about the creation of the earth. While this helps us to read it in english, a language we can comprehend, it doesnt necessarily mean its going to convert to what Moses intended for it to mean in his language. Anyone who has ever learnt another language will understand that gramma and sentence structure is different in different languages. Im sure i dont need to tell you that, i only wish you would take this into consideration a bit more seriously. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cedre Member (Idle past 1516 days) Posts: 350 From: Russia Joined: |
The minute we get into the whole ‘how the text was probably read by the author and what it meant in its original language’, we begin digging a hole for ourselves one that once we fall inside we will never be able to come out of.
The thing is in line with your reasoning we can't really rely on our English bibles so we should toss out all our English bibles and enroll in Hebrew Greek and Aramaic language courses simultaneously given that these are the three languages the English bible is translated from. Since this is highly improbable we might as well just stick to our current bibles and agree on the interpretations they offer us. We have no other choices but to put our trust in the translators believing that they did their best in view of all their linguistic skills to faithfully translate a particular passage and therefore the entire bible as a whole. Peg your view of what Moses probably meant with the phrase "Bere'shith Elo-him" which you said is translated in our bibles as "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" is just one of the views why do you think it is the right one for that matter? Do you think in keeping with the context and every other relevant point that your view fully appreciates what Moses wanted to convey with that phrase.
This was the best way to write it in English because the subject that followed was about the creation of the earth. With this statement you show that you agree that the way the phrase "Bere'shith Elo-him" is currently being translated in our bibles is the best way, so if it is the best translation of that phrase don’t you think it logically follows that it is possibly how the author intended it to be read or understood. Why should you argue for an inferior translation of that phrase which is most likely the incorrect one owing to it inferiority?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Cedre writes: Since this is highly improbable we might as well just stick to our current bibles and agree on the interpretations they offer us. We have no other choices but to put our trust in the translators believing that they did their best in view of all their linguistic skills to faithfully translate a particular passage and therefore the entire bible as a whole. Cedre, It is not impossible for us to understand the Hebrew language. There are many people who can speak it and write it. You can go online right now and take a beginners course in biblical hebrew. I think you have to ask the question. What is more important...to hear the word of God the way its message was intended, or to hear the word of God the way a translator presents the message? Who was the inspired writer? The translator or Moses??? Surely Gods word is to be trusted more then a translators interpretation.
Cedre writes: Peg your view of what Moses probably meant with the phrase "Bere'shith Elo-him" which you said is translated in our bibles as "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" is just one of the views why do you think it is the right one for that matter? Do you think in keeping with the context and every other relevant point that your view fully appreciates what Moses wanted to convey with that phrase. My view is based on the fact that ancient writers did not use 'titles' for their work. You can research it for yourself and you will find that in ancient tablets that have been found (many thousands of them) the tablet has no titles... in fact the title is always the first sentence or few lines of words and its the same for all the writings found from ancient times. It does not need to be assumed that Moses wrote in this fashion, it is a fact. If you look at an ancient Hebrew scripture texts you will see that there are no titles, no numbers, no paragraphs. the english translators added all these things in. In doing so, some of the original meaning was lost as is the case with Genesis 1:1 where moses simply set the subject matter in place.
Cedre writes: With this statement you show that you agree that the way the phrase "Bere'shith Elo-him" is currently being translated in our bibles is the best way, so if it is the best translation of that phrase don’t you think it logically follows that it is possibly how the author intended it to be read or understood. not if its being interpreted to mean that God created the universe at the same time as he prepared this planet for habitation. Those 6 days of creation that follow have nothing to do with Moses opening words. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4216 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Rrhain writes: This isn't about what the physical evidence shows. This is about what the Bible says and it says that life, the universe, and everything are only about 6000 years old. Peg writesNo it does not. You say that because you refuse to read the opening words of Genesis in the way Moses read them. You are missing the point to Rrhain's statement. As for the topic of this thread, It it The timeline of the Bible He is simply stating that according to the Bible, life, the earth & universe are about 6000 years old which if one calculates the time listed in the Bible comes out to ~6000 years. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: He is simply stating that according to the Bible, life, the earth & universe are about 6000 years old which if one calculates the time listed in the Bible comes out to ~6000 years. i know what Rrhain is saying the problem is that the bible does not say that at all. Where does it expressly say that the earth and 'universe' is 6,000 years old?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4216 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
You are not reading what either Rrhain or I am saying. Obviously the Bible does not specifically say the earth etc. is 6000 years old. As stated earlier the timeline, when calculated, comes to about 6000 years.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
IGNORE THIS POST I'm not going to modify this post, but as Modulous's reply indicates it is clearly wrong. Peg evidently meant that it is the *Hebrew* Bible that has titles that are phrases taken from the opening passage. Sorry Peg. --Percy Peg writes: ... in fact the title is always the first sentence or few lines of words and its the same for all the writings found from ancient times. This is obviously untrue. There were other errors in your post, but this hypothesis is so easy to test that I think I will:
So far you're one for seven, your hypothesis is looking pretty much busted. Do you see any need to work further through the Bible? I don't think this is critical to the point you were trying to make. I'm just reindicating my astonishment at your high rate of glaring errors. I thought it was just in science, but apparently you make things up about religion, too. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Add disavowal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
You were using the Anglicized/Latinized names from the Greek titles, not the original 'titles'. And other works follow the pattern, such as Enuma Elish. Ancient works rarely, if ever, carried titles in the way that we think of them. Most of the names were given to the works later, and the tendency is to refer to them by the first significant noun or action in the work. See Message 123 for my response to Percy's follow-up question. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024