|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5045 days) Posts: 14 From: Lebanon Township, New Jersey, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Joseppi writes:
You have it backwards. If you want to claim an order other than what the narration suggests, you need a better reason than forcing it to coincide with chapter one.
Where in Genesis chapter two is there any chronological order presented, other than, what is demanded by the context of the chapter's narration?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Joseppi writes:
Exactly. That is the correct default assumption, that the chronology presented in the text is the intended chronology. If you want to reject that assumption, you need a compelling reason.
You said, "other than what the narration suggests". By this means you have presented the ASSUMPTION I was referring to. Joseppi writes:
On the contrary, the ones showing bias are the ones who want to shoehorn the chronology in with that of chapter one. I am perfectly willing to accept the idea that chapter two was not intended to be chronological if you can provide a compelling reason. You can show no cause for your suggestion of chronology other than bias beforehand. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Joseppi writes:
Of course you can. If there's no clear indication otherwise, the narration is assumed to be in chronological order. That's the way it's always done. It is the rule whether you like it or not. YOU CAN NOT ESTABLISH ANY CHRONOLOGY THROUGHOUT CHAPTER TWO. When you read Treasure Island, you assume that they went to the island after Jim found the map. There's no need for the text to say "and then" something else happened. Sensible people follow the narrative if there are no other signs.
Joseppi writes:
You're assuming that the two accounts "must" coincide, aren't you? You're looking for ways to reconcile the two accounts, aren't you? I didn't shoehorn anything. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Joseppi writes:
Exactly. In chapter one, the chronology is laid out by the numbers. Assumption of chronology in chapter one was never assumed by any rational person. It is defined by the terms used not by the whim of the reader. But in chapter two, there is no assigned chronology. Everybody has to make assumptions about the chronology. I'm saying that the most reasonable first assumption is that the events happened in the order that they were narrated.
Joseppi writes:
You assume that I disagree with you. I don't assume anything. If you read the thread, I think you'll find that I haven't taken a position. I'm telling you that your approach is wrong. I don't particularly care about your conclusion. In fact, I tend to agree with you that chronology is a poor argument for a contradiction between chapter one and chapter two. I think you've accidentally arrived at the right conclusion by the wrong reasoning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Joseppi writes:
That's what I'm saying. You're not letting the text speak for itself. There is an implied chronology in chapter two that you're just handwaving away. It appeared to me that you were simply saying that chapter two must be assumed to be chronological.What I don't think is right is, to not let the text speak for itself and/or to apply any bias to it. You seem to be thinking that you can just use the chronology from chapter one. I'm saying that you should respect the text and accept the implied chronology in the narrative. The question isn't whether or not the two chronologies disagree. It's why they disagree. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Joseppi writes:
That's where you're going wrong. You're assuming that the chapter one chronology is The True Chronology™. In fact, it's just the chronology for chapter one. You're altering what chapter two says to fit your assumption about chapter one.
Now we know from the chapter one chronological order that the beasts were formed before Adam. Joseppi writes:
I think the Hebrew scholars would disagree. There are threads somewhere about "created, formed and made" if you care to search for them. As I recall, the words are pretty much interchangeable.
So, creating is not forming. Joseppi writes:
That's a perfect example of the nonsensical conclusions you get when you try to harmonize the two accounts. And thus we see that the woman was created at the same moment God created man but not yet given a bodily form. Science tells us that neither chronology is correct, so harmonizing them is a bit of a silly exercise anyway. What you should be thinking is that both chapters are included in most canons, so the compilers of those canons must not have been concerned about the discrepancies. You should be asking yourself why instead of making up your own reconcilliations. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Even the people at Answers in Genesis don't swallow that one.
Two different words for different functions. Their article says that:
quote: Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
I don't want to waste time talking to you about Genesis at all. I just wanted to point out that even Answers in Genesis know more about Hebrew than you do. If you want to take their article and put forth an argument for the two words being the same and interchangable then I will refute your position. I will not waste my time refuting AIG. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
I accept what the Hebrew scholars say and in some cases, so does AIG. I brought up AIG because, even if they're idiots, in terms of scholarship they're still head and shoulders above you. I can understand why you don't want to discuss Genesis with me. But why would you accept AIG statements on anything when they are classified here at EvC as a bunch of idiot's and not trustworthy. ------------- ABE: I found one of the threads where this was discussed previously:
Genesis 1 and 2: The Difference Between Created and Formed Edited by ringo, : Added link. Edited by ringo, : Sopelling. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Joseppi writes:
Are you or are you not claiming that Genesis 2 is consistent with Genesis 1? If you are, you are altering Genesis 2 to fit because the chronologies, as written, are clearly different. ringo writes:
You didn't offer any example of anyone altering anything. You're altering what chapter two says to fit your assumption about chapter one. You're giving different meanings to "created" and "formed", claiming that things were created in chapter one and formed in chapter two. As the previous thread showed, that isn't valid. Here's one example from that thread:
quote: All three words mean the same thing.
Joseppi writes:
Yes, and the chronology of chapter two is implied by the narrative.
And the chronology of chapter one it is numbered day by day in the text. Joseppi writes:
"Created", "formed" and "made" are pretty much interchangeable in English too. If your case depends on the precise meaning of those words, you really don't have a case. ringo writes:
The translation is clear and precise in English. There are threads somewhere about "created, formed and made" if you care to search for them. As I recall, the words are pretty much interchangeable. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:
You lifted a finger to join the forum. You might as well lift it again and reply substantively to some of the points made. One has to be in the mood for a pointless argument to even bother lifting a finger on this one. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:
You didn't make a substantive point. You gave an unsupported opinion.
The premise and statement in the OP is one of two things 1. a deceptive intentional LIE or 2. Written by someone who can not read. My first substantive point made clear enough my views on the first post. NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:
You're welcome to respond to any of the points made in the thread but ranting is not particularly welcome on this site. Do you have anything substantial to add or is this your way of "welcoming" me to the forum? Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NOMA&NOPAAKAAN ORPHAN writes:
Posts are expected to advance the topic and be backed up by evidence and/or reasoning. If you think a post is a "lie" or in error, you're welcome to explain why. It appears posts that are lies are welcome here, is that correct??? Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
For future reference, when you click the Reply button at the bottom of my post, it links to my post and it looks like you're replying to my post. In this case, you were replying to Theodoric, so you should have clicked the Reply button at the bottom of his post. Also, you can use the Peek button to see how quotes are done so it's easier to follow who you're yelling at.
Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Joseppi writes:
On the contrary, parallelism is a common rhetorical device in English as it is in Hebrew. It's often used to show subtle differences of viewpoint but not fundamental differences of meaning. When three similar appearing words are found in an English text that was written by one who knows English, the use of the words are defined not by the redundancies that they share but the differences as per context. Another example is:
quote:The differences are subtle, not fundamental. Joseppi writes:
Isaiah 43 doesn't say anything of the sort. That's just an interpretation that you're putting on it.
In that quote of Isaiah 43:7 ...created means the soul was brought into existence. formed: means the body was shaped and constructed. made: means the God did all the work associated with the final result. Which includes bringing the man to life. Joseppi writes:
In fact, that's exactly what it's saying, classical parallelism.
It isn't saying, I made him, I made him, yea, I made him. Joseppi writes:
Please stop trying to use English punctuation to understand a Hebrew text. The semicolon isn't even there in most translations. The semicolon is the clue that the last clause merely concludes the thought of the preceeding clauses. Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024