|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
CatSci writes:
It should be noted that the phrase "the heavens and the earth" (Heb: et ha-shamayyim w-et ha-'aretz) is a Hebrew idiom, meaning "everything". A good translation of Gen 1:1 would thus be, "in the beginning, God created everything" or "in the beginning, God created the universe". Its a singular beginning, since they were both created in it, they were created at the same moment. It does not say that the heaven and the earth were created in beginnings. (This figure of speech is usually called a "merism". Two extremes are mentioned, with the implication that everything in between is included as well. Thus "heavens and earth" means "everything"; "east and west" means "everywhere".)"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT writes:
ICANT, I think it pushes the text a bit too far to insist that the universe began "in a light period". The phrase "in the day that x" is an idiom, simply meaning "when". (And most modern translations translate Gen 2:4 in this way.) Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, This verse states the earth was created in a light period not a period of darkness. ... So no the Bible and Science agree that the universe and the earth began to exist in a light period. The CMB is the leftovers of a light period from a power source much more powerful than all the suns in the universe. ...The Bible in Genesis 2:4 agrees that the earth began to exist in a period of light. I don't see any inconsistency with science on this point, but I don't see a confirmation, either."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
ICANT writes:
Unfortunately, I don't know of a Hebrew (or Greek) grammar that has a very complete list of idioms. If you find one, please let me know! I can not find "the heavens and the earth" listed as an idiom anywhere in any of my Hebrew grammar books. Could you tell me where I can find that reference? As you probably know, the classic (and massive) work on biblical figures of speech is E.W. Bullinger's "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible" (Figures of speech used in the Bible: : Bullinger, E. W. (Ethelbert William), 1837-1913 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive). But for specific passages it's probably easier to check his "Companion Bible". You can also look up individual figures of speech in an encyclopedia or Wikipedia. As I mentioned earlier, "heavens and earth" in Gen 1:1 is generally classed as a "merism" (though I think Bullinger classed it as "synecdoche"). Here's what Wikipedia says about merisms:
quote: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
ICANT writes:
Check Bullinger's works. He starts identifying figures of speech in Gen 1:1. For "in the day" in 2:4, Bullinger has a note in his "Companion Bible" that says "in the day = when". Other study bibles do something similar.
I can not find any listing in ancient Hebrew of 'in the day' being an idiom. The first idiom I find listed is in Genesis 4:6. ICANT writes:
As Jar pointed out, these are NAMES (proper nouns). The first three days of Gen 1 involve naming. If we don't distinguish between the proper nouns (names) and the ordinary nouns, we will get confused. Does the Bible say God called the light day? Genesis 1:5Does the Bible say God called the darkness night? Genesis 1:5 For example, a "day" (lower-case d) contains both morning and evening, both a light and a dark period. The light period is named "Day" (upper-case D). Thus "Day" (the light period) is not the same as "day" (the full day, including more than just "Day"). Likewise, the "firmament" is placed in the heavens to separate the waters above it from the waters below it. This firmament is then named "Heavens". Thus "Heavens" (the firmament) is not the same as "heavens" (which includes more than just the firmament)."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Not necessarily. The best resource that I know of for figures of speech is not a grammar text, but Bullinger.
If they are not in the Hebrew grammar books then they must not exist or not important to understanding the Biblical Hebrew. ICANT writes: No.
Are you saying that Genesis 1:1 is poetry? ICANT writes:
I agree; Gen 1 is narrative, not poetry. But it is highly stylized and highly structured narrative. Although it is not poetry, it contains numerous poetic elements such as imagery, figures of speech, and repetition. I thought since it had a verb, subject of the verb and 2 direct objects of the verb with a specific result. It was a statement of fact in a simple declarative statment."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT writes:
What makes them proper nouns is the fact that they are names for things. The text says that God called (קָרָא ) the light "Day". If you look up קָרָא in BDB, you'll see under the Qal stem:
What makes them proper nouns?quote: ICANT writes:
I agree that Hebrew does not have upper case. But it does have names (proper nouns). And we use upper case in English to denote these names.
I thought you knew Biblical Hebrew. Biblical Hebrew can not show the difference between day and Day as there are no lower and uppercase letters. There is only one case. Both are written יוס. BTW Modern Hebrew does not have case either. God Bless,
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
Jar writes:
While I don't agree with jar's denigrating descriptions of divinely inspired Scripture, I agree with the gist of what he says here. The early chapters of Genesis emphasize Sabbath (and also Temple). The creation has been put into a seven-day structure in order to model the human work week and Sabbath (see Ex 20). But the Sabbath emphasis is already present in Gen 1:1 (Count the words in Hebrew; there are seven. The same thing could have been said in five words.) The fable is the justification for the Jewish week and the Sabbath. The whole of Genesis 1 through Genesis 2:4 is where the week and the Sabbath are created. On each of six days the god character works and on the seventh day the god character does no work. Each day begins with evening and runs trough the night and the next daylight or as it is named in the story "Day" But "a day" the period of time, is a Night and a Day. The Jewish week is composed of seven days, each begins at sundown and runs until the next sundown. On six consecutive days Jews work but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, they can do no work. In addition, there is a Temple emphasis in the first few chapters of Genesis. As some biblical scholars have noted, Eden seems to be a sort of cosmic temple. Man is told to "tend and keep" the garden; these same verbs are used of priestly temple duties later.
jar writes:
I disagree; there's a LOT more in the text than this! That is all there is in Genesis 1.
For one thing, there is a strong polemic against pagan sun and moon gods. After the strong emphasis on "naming" things in the first three days, the sun and moon are buried in the middle of the account (on day 4) and are NOT named, but just described as the "greater" and the "lesser" lights. This "dissing" of the sun and moon stresses the fact that they are merely created objects, not deities. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT writes:
They are there in BDB, as you can check. They are variations of "to call, proclaim", which is the main meaning of the word. But for its use in the first three days of Gen 1, definition 6 is the appropriate one.
kbertsche writes:
.
What makes them proper nouns is the fact that they are names for things. The text says that God called (קָרָא ) the light "Day". If you look up קָרָא in BDB, you'll see under the Qal stem:
quote: What happened to the first 5 definitions. ICANT writes:
Biblical Hebrew OverviewA noun is the name of a person, place, or thing. Properties 1) Gender, 2) number, 3)person, 4) case. I don't find anything about proper nouns. Why is it that most people today that talk about Biblical Hebrew want to make it a modern language. It has been dead for over 2,000 years.
I assume you have a copy of "GKC" (Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar)? I believe it is public domain and is available online in a few places. It has a section on "proper names":
quote: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
NoNukes writes:
There appear to be uncountable ways to look at the text, all of which are at least self-consistent. I personally have always looked at Genesis 1:1 as an introduction to Genesis, similar in construct to the "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." in a Tale of Two Cities. I don't think there are any real strong cues forcing my interpretation, but in my opinion, the interpretation seems to work. On the other hand, ICANT's interpretation requires making up stuff. The universe was created in 1:1, and then silently fell apart before 1:2? Where does that come from? Then a complete denial that day 4 is part of creation? No creation week then? ICANT claims that the ancient Hebrew used in 1:1 absolutely requires his reading. I think ICANT's reading comes from an attempt to manage some kind of consistency with science. He buttresses his reading with an appeal to expertise in ancient Hebrew. But any of us who have seen his debates with other people having some knowledge understand that his language interpretation arguments quickly devolve into a kind of numerology with meaning swinging from hinges that are fastened in a door frame of ambiguity. ICANT's view of Gen 1:1 is pretty standard, and is probably the majority view among Evangelicals (see Word Biblical Commentary for a very good discussion of the grammatical issues). I agree with ICANT that this is the best fit to the Hebrew grammar. Verse 1 seems to be an independent clause, describing something that happened. Verse 2 is a circumstantial clause, essentially an "aside" to the story. The story picks up again in verse 3, with a waw-consecutive or preterite form, "and then". Thus the grammar implies that first God created the universe, and then later He said "let there be light" etc. Not everyone agrees, though. Some (e.g. Bruce Waltke) see verse 1 as a heading or title for the whole account (as does NoNukes). This creates some tension with the grammar of the Hebrew text, and is usually supported by similarity to other ancient near eastern creation accounts rather than by the text itself. (Most Jewish scholars see verse 1 in a third way. Following Rashi, they see verse 1 as a dependent rather than an independent clause, and translate it as "in the beginning of God's creation of the universe" or "when God began creating the universe".) Even if one agrees with ICANT (and me) that the universe was created prior to "let there be light", there are a number of different ways to explain verse 2. ICANT takes a version of the Gap theory (or ruin-reconstruction theory); the darkness and water in verse 2 is a result of divine judgment. This view probably DID begin as a response to modern science, in the 1800's (with Chalmers, if I recall correctly). The other common way to see verse 2 (given ICANT's and my view of verse 1) is to see everything created in verse 1, but not quite finished. The rest of the account describes the "finishing" of what was "roughed out" in verse 1. I lean toward this view. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Though few hold to the Gap Theory today, it is hard to overemphasize its historical importance. For about a century, from the mid-1800's to the mid-1900's, this was the dominant view among conservative Protestants. Most conservative Protestant Bible teachers, preachers, and theologians during this time held to it. (Contrary to popular opinion today, William Jennings Bryan of the Scopes Trial held to the Gap Theory, not to YEC.) Nice summary. And your pointer gives me at least a pointer to see how this ruin-reconstruction theory might be supported textually. Maybe that will help me see where ICANT is headed. ABE: But apparently not. The text based defenses for this theory that I can find are all pathetically inadequate and apparently I am in a thread whose purpose is to debate the GAP theory. I find that I am being needless hard on ICANT. Perhaps this thread would best have fit into a Bible Study group. The Gap Theory allowed people to accept an old geology along with a recent re-creation of the universe in six literal days. This worked even with old animal fossils (they were part of the original creation which had been destroyed). But hominids, early man, and early civilizations started to create complications for the Gap Theory. Most YECs today view the Gap Theory as a "compromised" interpretation of the Bible, adversely influenced by modern science. So far as I know, the only biblical evidence for a divine judgment between verses 1 and 2 is inferential. This is based on the passages that ICANT already mentioned, and on the view that "tohu va-vohu" ("formless and void") is a negative description, implying something bad, like divine judgment."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT writes:
I agree with your conclusion. But the first word of the text ("in beginning") is awkward: it doesn't have a definite article. Its form is the same as the construct would be, "in the beginning of..." This is what leads Rashi and others to translate it as "in the beginning of the creation of God", I.e. "In the beginning of God's creation/creating". But this requires changing the vowels on "created" which is written as a Qal verb, not a noun "creation" or participle "creating".
But for Rashi to be correct the verb would have to be a noun or אלהיס 'God' would have to follow בראשית, 'In the beginning'.For "of God" to be in the sentence אלהיס would have to be in the construct. The construct requires a noun to follow a noun which puts the second noun in the construct state. ICANT writes:
Thanks for the information! I didn't realize that the roots of the Gap Theory went back so far. Origen lived from 186 to about 254 A.D.In his great work, De Principiis, at Gen. 1.1: he stated: quote:"It is certain that the present firmament is not spoken of in this verse, nor the present dry land, but rather that heaven and earth from which this present heaven and earth that we now see afterwards borrowed their names." So no Chambers in not the first one to put forth a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Onkelos put forth the following translation for the beginning of Genesis 1:2. quote:"and the earth was laid waste" The Targum attributed to him must be placed early in the second century B .C.This translation would suggest he believed the original creation had been laid waste. As you can see there are others who held a ruin and restoring event between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Faith writes:
I'm not sure what the Gap Theory folks thought about the Flood. I suspect that there were a variety of views. Some Gap Theory adherents probably held to a miraculous global flood (but NOT to "flood geology"). Others probably held to a local flood.
I can't possibly assess the claims about what the Hebrew says. What matters to me is the theological implications of Gap Theory for the YEC point of view. Is there a post on this thread that explains it that you could point me to, and if not would you or someone else please explain it?Thanks. ABE: I'm adding this quite a bit later so hope it gets seen. Of course I know it's an argument for the Old Earth, but I'm thinking of how it affects theological points like death occurring at the Fall and not before, and the reality and timing of the Flood. The Gap Theory certainly accepts plant and animal death before the Fall. Scripture attributes HUMAN death to the Fall (Rom 5), but the notion that ANIMAL death is also a result of the Fall is an inference which I would dispute. If you want to investigate these issues further, I suggest looking at the writings of D.G. Barnhouse, M.R.DeHann, Arno Gaebelein, H.A. Ironside, J. Vernon McGee, C.I. Scofield, or C.H. Spurgeon, all of whom held to the Gap Theory. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Yes, but the vowels will be different. If there is no definite article, the vowel under the Beit is short (shewa'). If there is a definite article, the article is assimilated into the Beit and the vowel which would have been under the article (patah or qamets) goes under the Beit. The first word of the text has a short vowel (shewa') under the Beit, so there is no assimilated article in the word. (http://hebrew4christians.com/...nseparable_prepositions.html) When the definite article follows the Beit prefix it is absorbed into the Beit.
We agree that the vowels were originally not written. But they were spoken, even though they were not written. The Masoretes invented the written vowels in order to preserve the correct pronunciation. Is it possible that the Masoretes got the vowels wrong? Yes. But is it likely that they got them wrong on the very first verse of the sacred text? I doubt it. The first verse is the most likely to have its pronunciation remembered and passed down correctly.
ICANT writes:
Yes, the Gap Theory certainly predates the Theory of Evolution. Chalmers may have been motivated in part by Lyell, but not by Darwin or evolution. But as you have explained, the roots of the Gap Theory go back even further, long before the rise of modern science. Most people do not know because they could care less about facts and just takes what someone else tells them as fact. So since Chalmers wrote about the gap theory a few years before Darwin wrote 'Origin of the Species'. Yet it is seized upon as the reason for the gap theory being invented.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
NoNukes writes:
I recommend Word Biblical Commentary on Gen 1:1-2. It explains the grammatical issues pretty thoroughly and goes through all of the major options in a fairly objective way, giving the strengths and weaknesses of each view. Unfortunately, reading Genesis in english is not of any help. The Gap theory depends on the translations of words that might well map to english words without a distinction. I think it is impossible to being on the journey to become a Gap theology proponent with distinguishing between God making something, and God creating something. The problem however is that the distinctions that Gap theorists make are contradicted readily in Biblical text, and sometimes the words for made or used for things Gap theorists insist were created and vice versa. Maybe ICANT can recommend an English translation that faithfully reflects his view.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2158 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT writes:
Agreed. The LETTERS were (and are) all consonants. There were and are no vowel LETTERS. Biblical Hebrew contains 22 letters, all of which are consonants", do you not understand. If all letters are consonants then no letters are vowels. But do you think the ancient Hebrews had no vowel SOUNDS? Do you think it is possible to speak the consonants in your avatar without introducing vowel sounds? No. While there were no vowel LETTERS, there were still vowel SOUNDS. This is what the Masoretes tried to preserve."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024