Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9057 total)
71 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, Hangdawg13, jar, nwr, Tanypteryx (6 members, 65 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,969 Year: 1,081/6,534 Month: 1,081/682 Week: 134/182 Day: 13/16 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1251 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 32 of 1482 (782479)
04-24-2016 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by New Cat's Eye
04-23-2016 10:29 AM


The heavens and the earth
CatSci writes:

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.


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".

(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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-23-2016 10:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2016 10:52 PM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1251 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 33 of 1482 (782480)
04-24-2016 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ICANT
04-23-2016 8:59 PM


ICANT writes:

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.


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.)

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ICANT, posted 04-23-2016 8:59 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2016 12:10 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1251 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 54 of 1482 (782555)
04-26-2016 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by ICANT
04-24-2016 10:52 PM


Re: The heavens and the earth
ICANT writes:

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?


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!

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" (https://archive.org/details/figuresofspeechu00bull). 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:

Merisms are conspicuous features of Biblical poetry. For example, in Genesis 1:1, when God creates "the heavens and the earth" (KJV), the two parts combine to indicate that God created the whole universe. Similarly, in Psalm 139, the psalmist declares that God knows "my downsitting and mine uprising", indicating that God knows all the psalmist's actions. In addition, Genesis 1:5 uses "evening" and "morning" as a merism for "one day".


"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ICANT, posted 04-24-2016 10:52 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 04-27-2016 12:16 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1251 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 55 of 1482 (782556)
04-26-2016 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by ICANT
04-25-2016 12:10 AM


ICANT writes:

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.


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.

ICANT writes:

Does the Bible say God called the light day? Genesis 1:5
Does the Bible say God called the darkness night? Genesis 1:5


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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by ICANT, posted 04-25-2016 12:10 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by ICANT, posted 04-27-2016 1:07 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1251 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 68 of 1482 (782653)
04-27-2016 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by ICANT
04-27-2016 12:16 AM


Re: The heavens and the earth
ICANT writes:

If they are not in the Hebrew grammar books then they must not exist or not important to understanding the Biblical Hebrew.


Not necessarily. The best resource that I know of for figures of speech is not a grammar text, but Bullinger.

ICANT writes:

Are you saying that Genesis 1:1 is poetry?

No.

ICANT writes:

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.


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.

"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 04-27-2016 12:16 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by ICANT, posted 04-28-2016 12:26 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1251 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 69 of 1482 (782655)
04-27-2016 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by ICANT
04-27-2016 1:07 AM


ICANT writes:

What makes them proper nouns?


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:

6. call = name
a. (early and most common usage), call one’s name (שֵׁם ) so and so

ICANT writes:


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,


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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ICANT, posted 04-27-2016 1:07 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ICANT, posted 04-27-2016 11:44 PM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1251 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 80 of 1482 (782714)
04-27-2016 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by jar
04-27-2016 8:18 AM


Re: what Genesis 1 is all about.
Jar writes:

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.


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.)

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:

That is all there is in Genesis 1.


I disagree; there's a LOT more in the text than this!

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 04-27-2016 8:18 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 04-28-2016 8:57 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1251 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 85 of 1482 (782729)
04-28-2016 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by ICANT
04-27-2016 11:44 PM


ICANT writes:


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:

6. call = name
a. (early and most common usage), call one’s name (שֵׁם ) so and so




.
What happened to the first 5 definitions.

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.

ICANT writes:


Biblical Hebrew Overview
A 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:

§ 125. Determination of Nouns in general. Determination of Proper Names.
Brockelmann, Grundriss, i. 466 ff.

[§ 125a] 1. A noun may either be determinate in itself, as a proper name or pronoun (see below, d and i), or be made so by its context. In the latter case, the determination may be effected either by prefixing the article (see § 126), or by the connexion of the noun (in the construct state) with a following determinate genitive, and consequently also (according to § 33 c) by its union with a pronominal suffix (§ 127 a). It is to be taken as a fundamental rule, that the determination can only be effected in one of the ways here mentioned; the article cannot be prefixed to a proper name, nor to a noun followed by the genitive, nor can a proper name be used in the construct state. Deviations from this rule are either only apparent or have arisen from a corruption of the text.

[§ 125d] 2. Real proper nouns, as being the names of things (or persons) only once met with, are sufficiently determinate in themselves. Such names, therefore, as ‏יהוה‎, ‏דָּוִד‎, ‏יַעֲקֹב‎, ‏כְּנַעַז‎, ‏סְדֹּם do not admit of the article, nor can they be in the construct state. On the other hand, not only gentilic names (as denoting the various individuals belonging to the same class), but also all those proper names, of which the appellative sense is still sufficiently evident to the mind, or at least has been handed down from an earlier period of the language, frequently (often even as a rule) take the article (according to § 126 e), and may even be followed by a genitive.

[§ 125i] 3. Of the pronouns, the personal pronouns proper (the separate pronouns, § 32) are always determinate in themselves, since they can denote only definite individuals (the 3rd person, also definite things). For the same reason the demonstrative pronouns (§ 34) are also determinate in themselves, when they stand alone (as equivalent to substantives), either as subject (Gn 5:29) or as predicate (e. g. זֶה הַיּוֹם this is the day, Ju 4:14; ‏אֵלֶּה חַדְּבָרִים these are the words, Dt 1:1), or as object (e. g. ‏אֶר-זֹאת‎ 2 S 13:17), or as genitive (‏מְחִיר זֶה‎ 1 K 21:2), or finally when joined to a preposition (‏לְזֹאת‎ Gn 2:23; ‏בָּזֶה 1 S 16:8, see § 102 g).



"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ICANT, posted 04-27-2016 11:44 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by ICANT, posted 04-29-2016 1:36 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1251 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 112 of 1482 (782959)
05-01-2016 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by NoNukes
04-28-2016 1:51 PM


Re: Chronology?
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by NoNukes, posted 04-28-2016 1:51 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2016 5:19 PM kbertsche has responded
 Message 116 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2016 1:32 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1251 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 114 of 1482 (782976)
05-01-2016 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by NoNukes
05-01-2016 5:19 PM


Re: Chronology?
NoNukes writes:

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.


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.)

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2016 5:19 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2016 2:12 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1251 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 121 of 1482 (783011)
05-02-2016 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by ICANT
05-02-2016 1:32 AM


Re: Chronology?
ICANT writes:

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.


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".

ICANT writes:

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.


Thanks for the information! I didn't realize that the roots of the Gap Theory went back so far.

"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2016 1:32 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 12:04 PM kbertsche has responded
 Message 138 by ICANT, posted 05-03-2016 12:16 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1251 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 133 of 1482 (783053)
05-02-2016 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
05-02-2016 12:04 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Faith writes:


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.


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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 12:04 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 9:08 PM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 05-02-2016 9:56 PM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 139 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2016 12:48 AM kbertsche has not yet responded
 Message 149 by Faith, posted 05-03-2016 11:44 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1251 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 141 of 1482 (783067)
05-03-2016 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by ICANT
05-03-2016 12:16 AM


Re: Chronology?
ICANT writes:

When the definite article follows the Beit prefix it is absorbed into the Beit.


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)

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:

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.


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.

"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by ICANT, posted 05-03-2016 12:16 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by ICANT, posted 05-03-2016 2:39 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1251 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 142 of 1482 (783069)
05-03-2016 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by NoNukes
05-03-2016 12:53 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
NoNukes writes:

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.


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.

"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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2016 12:53 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by NoNukes, posted 05-03-2016 10:48 AM kbertsche has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1251 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 145 of 1482 (783087)
05-03-2016 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by ICANT
05-03-2016 2:39 AM


Re: Chronology?
ICANT writes:

Biblical Hebrew contains 22 letters, all of which are consonants", do you not understand.

If all letters are consonants then no letters are vowels.


Agreed. The LETTERS were (and are) all consonants. There were and are no vowel LETTERS.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by ICANT, posted 05-03-2016 2:39 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by ICANT, posted 05-03-2016 11:07 AM kbertsche 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 © 2022