Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
32 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, Taq (3 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,756 Year: 16,792/19,786 Month: 917/2,598 Week: 163/251 Day: 51/65 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Creationism Explains Hominid Fossil Skulls (FINAL STATEMENTS ONLY)
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 28 of 137 (599707)
01-10-2011 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by ICANT
01-09-2011 4:00 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by ICANT, posted 01-09-2011 4:00 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2011 1:25 PM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 39 of 137 (599798)
01-10-2011 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ICANT
01-10-2011 1:25 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
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:
in Message 1 of basic reading of genesis 1:1, quoted:

1-3: When God began to create.
For some 2,200 years since the Septuagint version of the Torah was made by Jewish translators for the Jewish community of Alexandria, Egypt all official translations of the Bible have rendered Hebrew bereshith bara elokim mechanically, "In the beginning God created." There are several cogent reasons, each independent of the others, for rejecting the traditional rendering as incorrect, and for accepting the temporal ("When...") construction.

(a) The first vowel in the first word, be(reshith), as distinct from a form ba(reshith), indicates that the word is in the construct (rather than in the absolute) state, and has the meaning "In the beginning of (God's creating . . .)" rather than "In the beginning (God created...)." Indeed, it is not even bareshith (the form doesn't happen to occur in the Bible) but barishona that one would have expected here for "In the beginning (God created...)."

This had already been noted by Rashi, who wrote: "But if you are going to interpret [this passage] in its plain sense, interpret it thus: At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, when the earth was (or the earth being) unformed and void ... God said, 'Let there be light.' For the passage does not intend to teach the order of creation, to say that these [namely, heaven and earth] came first; because if it had intended to teach this, it would have been necessary to use the form barishona ('In the beginning' or 'At first') He created the heavens,' etc.,

since you have no instance of the form reshith in Scripture which is not in construct to the word following it, as for example 'In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim' (bereshith mamlekheth yehoyaqim, Jer. 27.1).... So here, too, you must say [that the phrase] bereshith bara elokim, etc., is equivalent to 'In the beginning of (God's) '(bereshith bero).

So that Rashi was right when he noted that the whole of verse 1 (N.B.: Rashi did not emend bara to bero!) was in construct to verse 3: "In the beginning of God's creating (or "When God began to create) the heaven and the earth . . . God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light" with verse 2 constituting a circumstantial clause, i.e., a clause which describes the circumstances under which the action in verses 1 and 3 took place: 2"... the earth being unformed and void," etc.

(b) When the story of creation is resumed later, in 2.4, it is, again, the temporal ("When") construction that is employed: "When the LORD God made earth and heaven" (beyom asoth HASHEM elokim eretz we-shamayim); and note how there also, as in 1.2, verses 5 and 6 constitute a circumstantial clause, with verse 7 being the fulfillment of verse 4 ("When the LORD God made heaven and earth ... the LORD God formed man from the dust of the earth...").

(c) The numerous ancient Near Eastern stories of creation nearly all begin with the "When" sentence structure, e.g., the Babylonian Enuma Elish:

When above, the heavens had not been named,
(And) below, the earth had not been called by name.

(d) Though verse 2 had traditionally been rendered as a separate sentence, "And the earth was (unformed and void...)," the relative order of the two words, we-ha-aretz hayetha (subject, verb) apart from the arguments given above points to the rendering "the earth being..."; Trad., "and the earth was" would have been expressed here by the usual order (verb, subject): wa-tehi ha-aretz. See, e.g., at Exod. 1.5 below, on we-yosef haya (as against wayhi yosef).

The implications of the new translation are clear. The Hebrew text tells us nothing about "creation out of nothing" (creatio ex nihilo), or about the beginning of time. What, then, according to our passage, constituted the first act of creation, if it was not heaven or earth or darkness or deep, etc.? The Hebrew text itself, once again, provides the answer directly, in verse 3: "(When God began to create the heaven and the earth...) God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light." In other words again as Rashi had already observed the first thing that God did when He created the universe, as ancient man knew it, was to create light.

This conclusion is further supported by the fact that light ('or) was the first element to receive a name (that is, official existence) from God: "God called the light Day" (wa-yiqra elokim la-or yom, verse 5); the heaven and the earth, on the other hand, did not receive names until the second and third days respectively (v. 8, "Sky"; v.10, "Earth").

(Orlinsky's notes on the nJPS)


Combined translation or original text:
In (or at your preference) beginning created God the Heaven the Earth.

kludgy, and horrible. try again.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2011 1:25 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 12:32 PM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 42 of 137 (599834)
01-11-2011 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by ApostateAbe
01-10-2011 7:43 PM


Re: Genesis species
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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-10-2011 7:43 PM ApostateAbe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-11-2011 12:49 AM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 44 of 137 (599840)
01-11-2011 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by ApostateAbe
01-11-2011 12:49 AM


Re: Genesis species
well, best of luck with ICANT, then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-11-2011 12:49 AM ApostateAbe has not yet responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 71 of 137 (599972)
01-11-2011 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by ICANT
01-11-2011 12:32 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
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:
וַיְהִי כִּי-הֵחֵל הָאָדָם, לָרֹב עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה; וּבָנוֹת, יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶם. וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי-הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה; וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ

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:
When the story of creation is resumed later, in 2.4, it is, again, the temporal ("When") construction that is employed: "When the LORD God made earth and heaven" (beyom asoth HASHEM elokim eretz we-shamayim); and note how there also, as in 1.2, verses 5 and 6 constitute a circumstantial clause, with verse 7 being the fulfillment of verse 4 ("When the LORD God made heaven and earth ... the LORD God formed man from the dust of the earth...").

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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2011 12:32 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 01-18-2011 2:28 PM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 85 of 137 (601346)
01-19-2011 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by ICANT
01-18-2011 2:28 PM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
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:
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ
...
וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי

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:
וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת-יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֹתוֹ: כִּי בוֹ שָׁבַת מִכָּל-מְלַאכְתּוֹ, אֲשֶׁר-בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים לַעֲשׂוֹת

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:
In the English expression to kick the bucket, a listener knowing only the meanings of kick and bucket would be unable to deduce the expression's true meaning: to die. Although this idiomatic phrase can, in fact, actually refer to kicking a bucket, native speakers of English rarely use it so. Cases like this are "opaque idioms."

Literal translation (word-by-word) of opaque idioms will not convey the same meaning in other languages – an analogous expression in Polish is kopnąć w kalendarz (“to kick the calendar”), with “calendar” detached from its usual meaning, just like “bucket” in the English phrase. In Bulgarian the closest analogous phrase is da ritnesh kambanata ("да ритнеш камбаната", “to kick the bell”); in Dutch, het loodje leggen (“to lay the piece of lead”); in Finnish, potkaista tyhjää (“to kick nothing”, or more literally “to kick the absence of something”); in German, den Löffel abgeben (“to give the spoon away”) or, closer to the English idiom, im [contraction of in dem] Eimer sein ("to be gone into the (waste)bucket"); in Latvian, nolikt karoti (“to put the spoon down”); in Portuguese, bater as botas (“to beat the boots”); in Danish, at stille træskoene ("to take off the clogs"); in Swedish, trilla av pinnen ("to fall off the stick"); and in Greek, τινάζω τα πέταλα ("to shake the horse-shoes"). In Brazil, the expression “to kick the bucket” (chutar o balde) has a completely different meaning (to give up something complicated, as a bucket kicked makes too much noise, demonstrating impatience).


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:
וַיְהִי כִּי-הֵחֵל הָאָדָם, לָרֹב עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה; וּבָנוֹת, יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶם. וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי-הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה; וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ

since you can't actually read any hebrew, here's the horribly literal, word-for-word nonsense you prefer.

quote:
and-was as-began the-man to-more on-face the-dirt, and-daughters born to-them, and-saw sons-the-god (object)-daughters the-man, as good, and took to-them wives from-all that chose

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:
וְאֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת אַהֲרֹן, וּמֹשֶׁה: בְּיוֹם, דִּבֶּר יְהוָה אֶת-מֹשֶׁה--בְּהַר סִינָי

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:
וַיִּהְיוּ כָּל-יְמֵי אָדָם, אֲשֶׁר-חַי, תְּשַׁע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה, וּשְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה; וַיָּמֹת


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by ICANT, posted 01-18-2011 2:28 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 5:41 AM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 120 of 137 (601907)
01-24-2011 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICANT
01-21-2011 5:41 AM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2011 5:41 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by ICANT, posted 01-25-2011 1:53 AM arachnophilia has responded

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 126 of 137 (602066)
01-25-2011 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by ICANT
01-25-2011 1:53 AM


Re: documentary hypothesis and belief
Does perfect indicate the action is complete? Yes

Does imperfect indicate the action is ongoing? Yes

quote:
וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ

imperfect.

quote:
בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ: זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, בָּרָא אֹתָם

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:
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אִם-עַם-רַב אַתָּה עֲלֵה לְךָ הַיַּעְרָה, וּבֵרֵאתָ לְךָ שָׁם, בְּאֶרֶץ הַפְּרִזִּי וְהָרְפָאִים: כִּי-אָץ לְךָ, הַר-אֶפְרָיִם

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:
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Genesis 1:7-8


heaven was made on day two.

quote:
And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good. ... And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Genesis 1:9-10,13


earth was made on day three. yet,

quote:
Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. .... And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Genesis 1:2,5b


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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by ICANT, posted 01-25-2011 1:53 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 127 of 137 (602067)
01-25-2011 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Coyote
01-25-2011 9:38 AM


Re: Fossils, remember?
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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Coyote, posted 01-25-2011 9:38 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 235 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 129 of 137 (602234)
01-26-2011 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by ICANT
01-26-2011 1:59 PM


Re: Fossils, remember?
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.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 01-26-2011 1:59 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019