|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4656 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls (FINAL STATEMENTS ONLY) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANT writes: Has man rearranged the texts of the Bible? I believe they have just as the documentary hypothesis is another attempt to discredit the Bible as the Word of God. this is nonsense and self-contradictory.
According to Genesis there should be fossils of mankind and animals that existed before the events recorded in Genesis 1:2-2:3. Those fossils exist. genesis 1:1-1:3 forms a complete sentence. genesis 1:1 is a dependent clause. you cannot simply insert a gap here, since the primary action takes places in verse 3. we've been over this. please actually learn some hebrew grammar instead of just pretending that you know what you're talking about.
BTW I am a literalist when it comes to God's Word. like hell you are. you distort it at every step, appealing to hebrew when you're really misreading the KJV, and then running away when someone calls you on your BS. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANTREADHEBREW writes: You keep repeating that Genesis 1:1 is a dependent clause. Do you think if you repeat it enough it will make it a fact? no. i think the fact that it's a fact makes it a fact. i keep repeating it because you don't seem to get it.
Somebody thought Genesis 1:1 was a complete sentence as they put a period behind earth. yes. that person didn't read hebrew very well. you, with six years of biblical hebrew, should know better than to appeal to translations. unless you're making that whole thing up.
I have the creation of Heaven and Earth with the history given in Genesis 2:4-4:24 taking place in the light portion of day one that had ended with the evening we find at Genesis 1:2 which God added to that dark period and declared the first day in Genesis 1:5. nonsense. man was not made on day one.
Yes you keep making your assertions of your beliefs. grammar is not a matter of belief.
Now I have asked you before to take Genesis 1:1 and explain to me why it is not a declarative statement. I will present Genesis 1:1 again with the Hebrew words of the original text and ask you to take them and show why they are not a complete declarative sentence. First word: Is בראשית the Hebrew word meaning first, beginning, best, chief, with the preposition ב meaning in, on, with, by and we can even add your at? quote: Combined translation or original text: In (or at your preference) beginning created God the Heaven the Earth. kludgy, and horrible. try again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ApostateAbe writes: If you object that not enough intermediate varieties have been found to confirm the prediction, then I suppose that would be relevant if you had an explanation with greater explanatory power that covers the existing evidence of seemingly intermediate forms. just so you know, you will never find enough to satisfy a creationist. they refuse to connect the dots. i played this game once with randman. anybody remember him? see Message 75 and Message 33. they refuse to make the intuitive leap, no matter how obvious, and connect one species to the next, even though they will admit to speciation. every new intermediate form means two more missing links. we could have a fossil record of every individual ever, and they will still refuse to see the relationships. a picture where the entire outline is populated by dots, and they'd never see the line. you can't win this battle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
well, best of luck with ICANT, then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANTREADTHEBIBLE writes: If he evolved you are correct. no, according to the bible. man is made on day day 6. do i need to cite the verse?
Now this light period could have covered billions or even trillions of years. So everything did not have to happen instantly, which agrees with science. nonsense. genesis 1 is the etiology of shabbat. the days are literal.
Sure it is when you break so many rules to reach your prefered translation. again, you're reading it wrong. it does not say, בראשונה ברא אלהים it says בראשית ברא אלהים i know you can't understand the difference. perhaps you should go take another six years of biblical hebrew, as you obviously haven't understood literally the first word of it.
I know that there are some of the recent translations that use this translation. Jewish Publication Society (3rd ed.) When God began to create heaven and Earth" JPS Tanakh Translates Genesis 1:1 as When God began to create heaven and earth. these two are the same, and the notes i gave you -- no, i didn't write that -- are the notes by the man responsible for that translation, harry orlinsky. the above lengthy quote is the reason why that translation renders that verse that way. note that it cites rashi. if you're going to appeal to authority because you suspect that professional translators know what they're doing, you don't really get much more authority in the jewish scriptures than rashi.
1. It changes the state of the verb. bara' is Qal perfect 3rd masculine singular. The perfect state is always a finite verb. But your translation requires a Qal infinitive construct. yes. it's an idiomatic translation. i know you haven't come to realize this yet, but biblical hebrew is not english. it does not function the same way, or obey the same rules of grammar. sometimes, changes are necessary to maintain the idea present in the text. in any case, this is the reason that when i have rendered the first verse myself, it goes, "when god began creating the heaven and the earth" because it then retains the grammar as literally present.
2. Turns a noun into a verb. no, it doesn't. infinitive are not gerunds.
3. Puts the prepositional phrase in the wrong place. Biblical Hebrew does not allow splitting an infinitive, and prepositional phrase. Hebrew prepositions are prefixed onto the noun they modify thus they are inseparable prepositions. The preposition is not used on God therefore God is not the object of the preposition and thus When God is not justified. blah blah blah. it switches the subject and the verb, too! oh noes. clearly only "at front created god" can be correct!
4. The new verse becomes a dependent clause. err, no, the verse is a dependent clause.
Hebrew grammar and syntax forbid a dependent clause from being joined to the independent clause by a waw conjunction. now that's just nonsense. you're making the mistake that every vav is a conjunction. i don't even have to flip very far ahead to find a counter-example. genesis 6 begins in precisely the same way:
quote: note the "waw conjunction" between the dependent clause, "when man began to multiply..." and the independent clause "the sons of god saw..." i'll let you look up on your own why the initial vav is often left untranslated.
Resumes???? I thought you believed there was two stories in Genesis 1 and 2. i did not write this source. it's harry orlinsky. and, since you can't read, here's the rest:
quote: it's rather clearly comparing the two stories. not denying that there are two.
Regardless, it does not resume as Genesis 2:4 begins the history of what took place in the day God created the Heaven and the Earth unless there was an absence of anything at Genesis 1:2. *facepalm* so, you think "in the day" is literal, but the evening and morning kind of "day" is metaphor? yeah, that's a good one. no, "in the day" is clearly a temporal construct -- not referring to a literal 24 hour period. i suggest you find some other verses yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
ICANTREADENGLISHEITHER writes: arachnophilia writes: no, according to the bible. man is made on day day 6. do i need to cite the verse? Yes, specifically the one that uses עשה with the beginning of man to exist. sure!
quote: you see the עשה don't you?
Could you please point out the verse that שבת appears in prior to Exodus 16:23 sure!
quote: when the Sabbath was first instituted and observed. sure! same as above.
So asserts arachnophilia. and orlinsky. and rashi. and pretty much anyone that can read hebrew.
I can't help it if your sources ignore the rules concerning Biblical Hebrew to support their personal beliefs. rashi! that's a good one. tell you what, why don't you actually learn some biblical hebrew before you make that charge.
So you prefer what some man says rather than what the text says. er, no. i prefer to understand what the text means rather than creating a jumble of words that amount to nonsense. if i want to read what the text literally says, it's easy enough to go grab a hebrew copy. if i want to know what it means, i have to understand the idioms. and the grammar. literally rendering the words into another language often does not translate meaning. here's from the wikipedia article on idioms -- i think it provides a sufficient example.
quote: I think I can tell the difference in Hebrew and English. i'm not convinced that you can.
Could you explain how the verb ברא which is the Qal perfect which is completed action can become imperfect which means continuing action. and this is what i mean. hebrew grammar is not english grammar. it doesn't have present and past tense -- the verb is perfect (and yes, even complete, though this is not the same as past tense), but there is no grammatically correct way to portray this in english, on the level of the individual word. instead, the verb in english is "began creating", which, btw, is a (past) perfect construct. hebrew (even modern) does not distinguish between past and present perfect.
What does infinitive and gerunds have to do with a preposition placed on a noun turning it into a verb in Biblical Hebrew? again, you cannot render the grammar perfectly literally in english and retain meaning. "at first of created god" doesn't make much sense in english. yet, bareshit bara elohim makes perfect sense in hebrew.
To get your interpertation of "when god began creating the heaven and the earth" you have to change the perfect verb into an imperfect verb. How do you acomplish that feat? "created" and "creating" are simple past participles. "began creating" is past perfect. but thanks for playing.
Trying to support one idiomatic translation with another idiomatic translation is not going to get you any points with me. that's funny. please note that i only suggested a translation. you are free to read the verse i actually posted all on your own. here it is again:
quote: since you can't actually read any hebrew, here's the horribly literal, word-for-word nonsense you prefer.
quote: that's a lot of waws. and this verse clearly includes both כי (as/because/when, beginning a dependent clause), but also החל (begin/began)* -- and every phrase that follows it begins with a vav. * not, btw, חלל as you wrote in Message 62, which means something like "heresy".
Definitely seems to me that the story in Genesis chapter one is being resumed later in Genesis 2:4. That may not be what was intended but it is what was stated. that's fine. but it's clearly comparing the two stories, and drawing a parallel. this is not the same as conflating the two stories.
Yes I know "in the day" is literal. God gave the definition of day. but the days in genesis 1 aren't? you just apply your standards wherever you see fit, don't you? how ludicrous. ביום is a classic biblical idiom. just anywhere else it's used. for instance, numbers 3:
quote: yet, as we know from exodus, moshe was on the mountain for forty days.
So I will take God's definition of what Day is over anything you want to say or anyone else as He is responsible for Day existing. if you're going to be that idiotically literally, then these two contradict:
God called a light period Day. God called a light period and a dark period Day. either there are multiple usages, or there aren't. you can't argue both.
Any light period from Genesis 1:1 until today is a literal day. i agree. however, not every time the word "day" is used do the authors mean a period of light. sometimes, they mean a period of dark as well. sometimes, they mean something quite different:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANTGETANYOFMYFACTSSTRAIGHT writes: Sure I see make in verse 26 but I don't see a man or mankind existing. this doesn't warrant a real response. you're just not reading it, and making up whatever you want to.
I didn't know God needed a day of atonement. shabbat is every saturday. you're thinking of yom kippur. shabbat is a day of rest -- precisely as described in first verses of genesis 2.
In the Beginning, at the beginning, or at first tells us when God did the forming, shaping or creating. no. it does not. please read my above posts again.
Now you can make your attacks and tell me I don't know what I am talking about that I can't read Hebrew and don't understand English. I would probably agree with you. But I do know the rules of Biblical Hebrew and I know that you can not make a Qal perfect verb an imperfect verb. Therefore I will conclude you are mistaken when you try to take modern English and modern Hebrew and apply their rules to Biblical Hebrew. except that "began creating" is a perfect construct. and, while it's not exactly literal, it renders the idea perfectly fine even for a literal translation. it's not exact, as reshit is a noun and not a verb, but it's certainly close enough and it represents the dependent clause construct that reshit must begin -- according to the hebrew grammar. the problem you're having is because you simply cannot directly translate a language into another language, word-for-word and have it obey the same grammatical rules. and, as i mentioned above, quoting rashi, if the text actually said what you wanted it to say, it would say בראשנה ברא אלהים and not בראשית ברא אלהים. one means "beginning" in an abstract sense, the other means "beginning of" something specific.
And when bareshit bara elohim is translated properly it makes perfect sense. In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth. except that this is not the sense you get from reading the hebrew. it can easily be misconstrued that god did these actions at some definite "beginning" time, instead of the verse describing what god did at the beginning of creation. that difference may be subtle, but is very important.
I have no problem understanding from any one of the three that in eternity past God created the Heaven and the Earth. and this is precisely the problem. that's not what the verse means.
You did mean verses didn't you as that is two verses. splitting hairs, but yes.
So you accept that God called the light יןם. and if we're going to split hairs, you might want to spell things correctly. vav and final nun are very different letters. what you wrote can't even be a word.
Do you disagree that God called the חשש night. granted, i know, some people are afraid of the dark, but the word you're looking for is לילה
God did not call anything else day and that settles it as far as I am concerned. how hopelessly simplistic.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Does perfect indicate the action is complete? Yes Does imperfect indicate the action is ongoing? Yes quote: imperfect.
quote: and perfect. same verse. same action. and one which, i believe, we both can agree is complete.
Is God always the subject of this verb? Yes no. there is nothing that says that anything specific has to be the subject of a particular verb.
quote: The verb and its subject in Genesis 1:1 translates: created God but in English would read better God created. is this even worth mentioning? yes, english (and, btw modern hebrew) have a different grammatical word order.
God is the subject of the verb of completed action. correct, genesis 1:1 mentions an action that is complete -- god creating -- but those are, however, not the only words present. had the phrase simply been "god created {heaven and earth}", there would be no issue. however, the word that begins the sentence modifies that meaning. rather, verse 1:1 describes that what follows it described what occurred at the beginning of that complete action. the fact that the action is complete has no real bearing on that fact.
Do you believe water began to exist before the Heavens and the Earth? it doesn't matter what i believe, but that is what the texts says yes. this is, in fact, relatively easy to demonstrate.
quote: heaven was made on day two.
quote: earth was made on day three. yet,
quote: the waters existed on day one. this is not a matter of opinion. it's what the text says -- and the only reading that makes any sense whatsoever is that the first verse, no matter how you choose to read it, must describe the rest of the chapter. dependent clause or not.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Coyote writes: What does any of that have to do with fossils? marginal at best. ICANT was attempting to explain fossil hominids, iirc, by cramming them into some sort of gap between an initial and a secondary creation. i think the fact that this does not fit the text creationists claim to honor is a valid rebuttal, but i agree that it doesn't particularly fit the topic. i've referred him once or twice to a more appropriate topic. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICANTREADTHEOTHERGUYSARGUMENT writes: by trying to turn a Biblical Hebrew Qal perfect verb of completed action into a imperfect verb of ongoing action this is not what i'm doing. the translation i gave above is a perfect construct, a fact you continue to ignore. granted, it can be read as incomplete, but english is actually not clear grammatically in this case in the way that the hebrew is. it is not my intention to argue that creation, as described in the bible, is incomplete currently. just that your reading, which posits an earth significantly older than 6-10K years, is untenable. and that it's an inappropriate misrepresentation of the text in order to excuse ad hoc explanation for scientific knowledge that would have been unknown to the authors.
His problem is the only way that could be accomplished is if the writer had used an Alef prefix on the verb. alef would denote first person singular imperfect verbs. you're looking for third person masculine singular, which would be a yud.
If I am not allowed to prove that the Bible has creation taking place in the beginning which was a very long time ago there is no way I can discuss the similarites of the skulls presented is not necessaraly the result of a common ancestor. This is arachnophilia's intention. it is not my fault that your explanation violates proper biblical exegesis. as do most creationist explanations of modern science, btw.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Big "off-topic" banner.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024