Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 6:17 PM
48 online now:
14174dm, dwise1, PaulK, ringo (4 members, 44 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,498 Year: 3,535/19,786 Month: 530/1,087 Week: 120/212 Day: 36/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
19202122Next
Author Topic:   The timeline of the Bible
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 256 of 316 (508494)
05-14-2009 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Modulous
05-14-2009 9:31 AM


Re: ahem, quality assurance officer calls again
Modulous writes:

Most of the names were given to the works later,...

This I think we're all familiar with.

...and the tendency is to refer to them by the first significant noun or action in the work.

But not when translated? Or is this just a quirk of English translations?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Modulous, posted 05-14-2009 9:31 AM Modulous has not yet responded

  
Cedre
Member
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 257 of 316 (508618)
05-15-2009 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Peg
05-14-2009 8:45 AM


Re: Peg
peg writes:
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

Modulous writes:
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.

Okay, however given that the original text of the old testament as it was penned by its various authors lacked any vowels and accents that separated words into sentences and clauses and phrases, (it was the Mesoretes that improved word divisions and added vowel points and signs, punctuation marks and verse divisions later), given this how can you claim to know how many of the first few words or opening word the writers intended to be read as part of the title? Is there a known method by which this is done”

My view is based on the fact that ancient writers did not use 'titles' for their work.

So if this is the case why do you argue in your posts as follows:
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.

These two statement s conflict with each other. On the one hand your arguing that ancient writers did not use titles and on the other hand you argue again that they always used the first sentence or few lines of words as a the title. These statements cancel out each other.
But as I have already mentioned with the bible owing to its non punctuation style of writing we can really not determine which lines or first few words or sentences were distinguished as the title.

Concerning the opening statement of Genesis 1 here is a little bit about it:

This is the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1, the very beginning of the Bible. It is pronounced be-re-SHIYT ba-RA eh-lo-HIYM and is usually translated "In the beginning God created...."
The first word (reading right-to-left) is be-re-SHIYT. It is from the Hebrew root resh-aleph-shin, meaning "head, start, beginning," with the preposition bet on the front, meaning "in, on, at." So this word could be translated "in beginning" or "at start" or "at the head." The Hebrew name for the Jewish holiday Rosh HaShanah is from this same root, and means "head of the year" or "beginning of the year" -- Ha is the definite article "the" and Shanah is "year."
The second word is ba-RA, meaning create, shape or fashion. It is from the Hebrew word bet-resh-aleph.
The third word is eh-lo-HIYM, one of several names for God in the Hebrew Bible.
So a word-for-word translation might be "in-beginning created God."

Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quoting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Peg, posted 05-14-2009 8:45 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 8:07 AM Cedre has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 258 of 316 (508619)
05-15-2009 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by bluescat48
05-14-2009 9:09 AM


bluescat48 writes:

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.

yes, but that is the timeline of 'human' history. We cannot include the creation of the universe in the timeline of Adams creation to the death of Jesus to today


This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by bluescat48, posted 05-14-2009 9:09 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Percy, posted 05-15-2009 6:33 AM Peg has responded
 Message 270 by Rrhain, posted 05-15-2009 7:53 PM Peg has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 259 of 316 (508622)
05-15-2009 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Peg
05-15-2009 6:21 AM


Creation took only a week, it's only a tiny portion of the period from Adam to today.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 6:21 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 8:22 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 260 of 316 (508625)
05-15-2009 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Percy
05-14-2009 9:11 AM


Re: Peg
Percy writes:

apparently you make things up about religion, too.

i would like to direct your attention to the book "Chaldean Account of Genesis" by George Smith Page 20. The book is about the ancient city of Ninevah library which was unearthed in 1800's

quote:
Each subject or series of tablets have a title, the title being formed by the first phrase or part of phrase in the subject."

there are a great many bible manuscripts that can readily be viewed in museums all over the world, these bible manuscripts are also written in the same way. The writers did not put titles and page numbers and paragraphs...this was done by the translators.

Percy writes:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

the first sentence is written in the 'perfect' state meaning the creation of the heavens (universe) and the earth was a completed action...it was already finished.

the next sentence "The earth was without form and void" in hebrew is written in the imperfect state....this implies a continuous progressive action rather then a completed one and it is impossible that Vs1 and Vs 2 are one in the same. IOW the second sentence is not a continuation of the first.

Percy writes:

These are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt with Jacob, each with his household: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Is'sachar, Zeb'ulun, and Benjamin, Dan and Naph'tali, Gad and Asher.

Where is the title word 'exodus' in vs 1 to be found?
It isnt found because Exodus is not the title of this particular scroll.
"Now these are the names" are translated into english from the Hebrew "We'el'leh shemohth'" This is actually the title of the book in hebrew but the LXXVg named it 'Exodus'

this is what i'm saying...once its translated, it changes because the translators now give the book a title rather then use the title that it already has.
Exodus means A departure of a large number of people. But the book is actually named 'Now these are the names' because the first scroll was a history of the sons who came 'INTO' egypt, not out of it. The exodus account doesnt begin until chapter 12.

Its the same with Genesis. The Translators named the book 'Genesis' meaning beginning. They probably should have just used vs 1 as their title rather then giving it another title as now vs 1 appears to be a part of the subject when the fact is, its not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Percy, posted 05-14-2009 9:11 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 05-15-2009 7:24 AM Peg has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 261 of 316 (508627)
05-15-2009 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Peg
05-15-2009 7:12 AM


Re: Peg
Peg, what part of "IGNORE THIS POST" and a statement that it "is clearly wrong" in large bold red at the top of the post didn't you understand?

:rolleyes:

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 7:12 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 8:11 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 262 of 316 (508630)
05-15-2009 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Cedre
05-15-2009 5:56 AM


Re: Peg
Cedre writes:

given that the original text of the old testament as it was penned by its various authors lacked any vowels and accents that separated words into sentences and clauses and phrases, (it was the Mesoretes that improved word divisions and added vowel points and signs, punctuation marks and verse divisions later), given this how can you claim to know how many of the first few words or opening word the writers intended to be read as part of the title? Is there a known method by which this is done”

Hebrew interpreters are the ones who are able to clarify these things. Its up to us to accept what they tell us or go about our merry way continuing to believe the doctrines that we ourselves create.
Understanding also comes with knowing the historical background of the people who wrote it, their culture, figures of speech and the context etc

Here is an example for you cedre. In hebrew there is a word 'Sheol' and 'Hades'...both these words are translated as 'hell' in our bibles.
You may know that hell is the place where souls are tormented by the devils for all eternity because thats what doctrine tells us.
But it may surprise you to know that these words did not hold such a meaning to those who wrote them.
In hebrew the word 'Sheol' actually means 'grave of mankind' the common grave we go to when we die.
So why do our church's continue to promote the false doctrine of a place called 'hell' that in no way resembles the place that the inspired writers had in mind?

Cedre writes:

These two statement s conflict with each other. On the one hand your arguing that ancient writers did not use titles and on the other hand you argue again that they always used the first sentence or few lines of words as a the title. These statements cancel out each other.

im sorry for confusing you...i meant to say that the title IS the first few words or sentence of the book. Genesis was not a title that Moses gave the first book of the bible for instance.

As your link shows... a literal reading of moses words might be "in-beginning created God."
It was the translators who made it to read
"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" in order for us to get an idea of the subject...unfortunately we read it as one continuing account and so the earth and universe appear to be created together as Rrhain believes.

but the fact is that the opening words are a 'perfect verb' or a completed action...IOW the earth and universe were created and existed for an unknown period of time BEFORE Gods active force BEGAN to move too and fro over the surface of the (existing) planet earth in vs 2.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Cedre, posted 05-15-2009 5:56 AM Cedre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2009 9:17 AM Peg has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 263 of 316 (508631)
05-15-2009 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Percy
05-15-2009 7:24 AM


Re: Peg
Percy writes:

Peg, what part of "IGNORE THIS POST" and a statement that it "is clearly wrong" in large bold red at the top of the post didn't you understand?

im sorry...i thought that related to a portion of the post that you deleted.

I get it now


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Percy, posted 05-15-2009 7:24 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 264 of 316 (508632)
05-15-2009 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Percy
05-15-2009 6:33 AM


Percy writes:

Peg, what part of "IGNORE THIS POST" and a statement that it "is clearly wrong" in large bold red at the top of the post didn't you understand?

i dont believe that myself

The apostle Paul wrote that the 7th 'day of Gods Rest' was still in progress in his time...thats several thousands of years since Moses wrote in Gen "on the 7th Day God proceeded to rest from his work"

you might also note that the 7th day of Genesis did not come to its completion. All 6 days end with the words "and their came to be morning and their came to evening a 1st/2nd/3rd/4th/5th/6th day"

but there was no completion of the 7th day mentioned... it simply says 'and by the 7th day God came to the completiuon of his work...and he proceeded to rest...and he blessed the 7th day and made it sacred because on it he has been resting from all his work..."

If Paul could wright in Hebrews that Christians could enter into Gods Rest, then it implies that God was still resting thousands of years after the beginning of the 7th day.

So from this it must be concluded that each creative day could have been several thousands of years in length. This also agrees with the Hebrew word yohm which can be used to represent any length of time...similar to the way 'ages' can be used in english to say 'a very long time'

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Percy, posted 05-15-2009 6:33 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by bluescat48, posted 05-15-2009 8:37 AM Peg has responded
 Message 271 by Rrhain, posted 05-15-2009 8:03 PM Peg has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2264 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 265 of 316 (508633)
05-15-2009 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Peg
05-15-2009 8:22 AM


Peg writes:

So from this it must be concluded that each creative day could have been several thousands of years in length. This also agrees with the Hebrew word yohm which can be used to represent any length of time...similar to the way 'ages' can be used in english to say 'a very long time'

Regardless as to how long the "6 days" were in actuality, the topic is

The timeline of the Bible
, and when applying the timeline it is as has been stated by Rrhain, Percy, Cedre & Me ~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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 8:22 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 8:40 AM bluescat48 has responded

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 3004 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 266 of 316 (508635)
05-15-2009 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by bluescat48
05-15-2009 8:37 AM


bluescat48 writes:

and when applying the timeline it is as has been stated by Rrhain, Percy, Cedre & Me ~6000 years.

yes, 6,000 years of 'human' history on earth

from the birth of Adam to today is a little over 6,000 years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by bluescat48, posted 05-15-2009 8:37 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by bluescat48, posted 05-15-2009 9:00 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2264 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 267 of 316 (508636)
05-15-2009 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Peg
05-15-2009 8:40 AM


For the timeline it is from "In the Beginning..." The timeline has human history stating 6days from the beginning. Whether it is actual time or not is irrelevant, the timeline is made based on the Biblical writings not on what actually happened no matter how much time elapsed between "In the beginning" and "On the 6th day."

Edited by bluescat48, : quote box

Edited by bluescat48, : typo


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 8:40 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 179 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 268 of 316 (508639)
05-15-2009 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Peg
05-15-2009 8:07 AM


Heavens and the earth
As your link shows... a literal reading of moses words might be "in-beginning created God."
It was the translators who made it to read
"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" in order for us to get an idea of the subject...unfortunately we read it as one continuing account and so the earth and universe appear to be created together as Rrhain believes.

I think there might be some confusion over the translation here, the translators didn't translate "in-beginning created God." to "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth". The translators took something like "at first created the divine the sky and the ground." and made it into the phrase we now see. Anyway, as per the OP, I think this line of reasoning is out of bounds (it got beaten to death elsewhere) so essentially you agree with Rrhain.

quote:
I simply want to know if there is a break in this timeline and if so, where it is.

I assume that you are arguing that the break in the Biblical timeline is somewhere before God created humans?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 8:07 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 11:17 PM Modulous has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 269 of 316 (508721)
05-15-2009 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Peg
05-14-2009 8:54 AM


Peg writes:

quote:
Where does it expressly say that the earth and 'universe' is 6,000 years old?

Oh, my freaking god! Peg, what on earth do you think this entire thread was about? Please, PLEASE, PLEASE stop pretending to be an idiot.

Of course the Bible 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." You did read my original post, correct? You started this conversation knowing perfectly well that the Bible does not give a Gregorian calendar date, that the way we were going to determine the age of life, the universe, and everything was going to count up specific statements about how much time passed between certain events and then tying that timeline to an actual event we can place in time and thus determine when "the beginning" that Genesis 1 talks about took place. From the original post:

It seems that multiple people in this forum have claimed that the Bible does not indicate that the earth is about 6000 years old. It appears that they make this claim based upon a couple trains of thought:
1) The Bible does not give a specific date as if we should expect to find a passage saying, "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."

2) There is some nebulous, non-specificity to the timeline in the Bible.

I say that while the Bible does not give a specific date, it does give a specific timeline which, through a process of simple addition, we can use to come up with a total amount of time for the existence of life, the universe, and everything. If we can then hook this timeline on an actual date, we can then determine exactly how old everything is supposed to be.

So since you knew that this was what we were going to do, why do you insult us by playing the fool? For crying out loud, nearly 300 posts and you dare to claim you don't understand what's going on?

If I told you Joe was born 40 years before Jane and I later find out that Jane is 27 years old, I haven't given you a date, but I have told you when Joe was born, haven't I?

Do you have so little respect for yourself?


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 252 by Peg, posted 05-14-2009 8:54 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 11:23 PM Rrhain has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 270 of 316 (508722)
05-15-2009 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Peg
05-15-2009 6:21 AM


Peg writes:

quote:
yes, but that is the timeline of 'human' history.

Incorrect. It is the timeline since "the beginning."

Or are you saying that when the text says, "the beginning," it doesn't actually mean, you know, the "beginning" but is rather referring to "later"?

If it didn't mean the beginning, why did it say, "the beginning"?

quote:
We cannot include the creation of the universe in the timeline of Adams creation to the death of Jesus to today

Huh? Humans were created on the sixth day after "the beginning." Why can't we include those six, literal, 24-hour days?


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 258 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 6:21 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Peg, posted 05-15-2009 11:35 PM Rrhain has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
19202122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019