Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9176 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,655 Year: 4,912/9,624 Month: 260/427 Week: 6/64 Day: 2/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 121 of 149 (149038)
10-11-2004 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 4:21 AM


Re: Minor?
Admin, I hear ya.
no, you have to reply to the admin's message, not mine. use the little-red-reply-button under the appropraite post.
also, quotes are best done by surrounding the quoted material with [quote] or [qs], and [/quote] or [/qs] to signify the end of the quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 4:21 AM JasonChin has not replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 96 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 122 of 149 (149039)
10-11-2004 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 4:29 AM


JasonChin writes:
quote:
If it's clearly allegorical, then you can't use its historical inaccuracies as proof that the Bible isn;t inerrant.
(*ahem*)
What do you think the word "inerrant" means?
If it's clearly allegorical, then we clearly have no case for biblical creationism.
But the thing is, this isn't like the various stories told by Jesus where he says that it's a story that isn't true but is simply told to make a point. It purports to be the actual way things happened. And people claim that it is the actual way things happened.
The claim of inerrancy is that this story is not an allegory.
And you need to fix your formatting. Read the instructions on how to format a post, please. You said you would, but you clearly did not. There are two general methods:
[quote] and [/quote] will make text like so:
quote:
This is quoted text set off by [quote] and [/quote]
[qs] and [/qs] will make text like so:
This is quoted text set off by [qs] and [/qs]
Please use one of them.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 4:29 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 5:03 AM Rrhain has replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 123 of 149 (149040)
10-11-2004 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 4:29 AM


the idea of them being based on some real event is not absurd.>>
Then we agree here.
not exactly. i don't believe some extreme world-wide flood actually happened. which i said directly following that statement.
They all have the common thread of creation........therefore, by the universal account of the most ancient of sources, man was created by the divine.
Everything else is just detail.
yet we arguing over details in genesis. if it's "just detail" what does it matter?
I thought those were only found in Europe.
i'm pretty sure they've been found as far as africa and china. but even if it's just europe, so what? there's thousands on examples of society as a whole going in one direction or another for no adequately explained reason.
clearly. i find it funny. don't you? i think you're missing a lot if you fail to see the humor in it.>>
Perhaps.........but my point is, if it's clearly not intended to be taken literally, then it's clearly allegorical. If it's clearly allegorical, then you can't use its historical inaccuracies as proof that the Bible isn;t inerrant.
circular logic is my forte.
the next statement goes: "and if the bible is inerrant, then it must be factually correct." no, if it's what you're calling allegorical, then factuality simply doesn't matter. details don't matter. and that's fine, but you can't turn around and say "that makes it right." because it doesn't.
if we're gonna read it as literature, that's cool. it's got good stories. if we're gonna read it as a record of history, it fails brilliantly.
if i turned in a history paper that plaigarized my sources without so much as credit, inconsistent details, dates and chronologies, and blatant contradictions and absurdities, my teacher would fail me. not on the paper, for the class.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 4:29 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 5:09 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 128 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 5:10 AM arachnophilia has not replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 149 (149042)
10-11-2004 4:59 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by arachnophilia
10-11-2004 4:44 AM


Re: Minor?
Yhvh is a phonetic spelling of what is usually translated into English as "Yahweh", correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2004 4:44 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2004 5:13 AM JasonChin has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 96 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 125 of 149 (149043)
10-11-2004 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by crashfrog
10-11-2004 3:18 AM


Re: Minor?
crasfrog writes:
quote:
And "hellbent" certainly describes the outlook of the Oxfordians, at least, who fight tooth and nail to defend Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, as the "true" author of the plays attributed to Shakespeare (even though he died before two-thirds of them were believed to have been written.)
You're not kidding. They're even digging up graves in an attempt to find original drafts of the plays.
quote:
I don't know anything about the Homeric controversy.
There isn't any controversy, really. The facts are that we have no idea who "Homer" is and that there is very little evidence that the works attributed to Homer were all written by the same person or even that the longer works were, either. Like the Bible, these were epic poems primarily carried out via oral tradition and later written down. The idea of a single author just isn't that viable.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 10-11-2004 3:18 AM crashfrog has not replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 149 (149044)
10-11-2004 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Rrhain
10-11-2004 4:55 AM


What do you think the word "inerrant" means?>>
Not the same as "literal".........at least, not the way I use it.
If it's clearly allegorical, then we clearly have no case for biblical creationism.>>
And I don't believe in a strictly literal Biblical creation.
But the thing is, this isn't like the various stories told by Jesus where he says that it's a story that isn't true but is simply told to make a point. It purports to be the actual way things happened.>.
But it's clearly a joke.......therefore, clearly not meant to be taken literally.
And people claim that it is the actual way things happened.>>
That's because the obviousness of the joke is lost outside of its cultural context.
And you need to fix your formatting. Read the instructions on how to format a post, please. You said you would, but you clearly did not. There are two general methods>>
......that's not how I roll, yo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2004 4:55 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by jar, posted 10-11-2004 5:12 AM JasonChin has not replied
 Message 137 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2004 6:03 AM JasonChin has not replied
 Message 144 by AdminAsgara, posted 10-11-2004 2:28 PM JasonChin has not replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 149 (149045)
10-11-2004 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by arachnophilia
10-11-2004 4:55 AM


not exactly. i don't believe some extreme world-wide flood actually happened.>>
Who says I do? Who says the inerrancy of the Bible would be effected, either way?
yet we arguing over details in genesis. if it's "just detail" what does it matter?>>
It doesn't. You're the one making the big deal over apparent slight contradiction.
i'm pretty sure they've been found as far as africa and china. but even if it's just europe, so what? >>
So, it's a cultural thing.......which flood and creation myths clearly aren't.
if we're gonna read it as literature, that's cool. it's got good stories. if we're gonna read it as a record of history, it fails brilliantly.>>
How about a combination of both?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2004 4:55 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2004 5:19 AM JasonChin has replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 149 (149046)
10-11-2004 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by arachnophilia
10-11-2004 4:55 AM


not exactly. i don't believe some extreme world-wide flood actually happened.>>
Who says I do? Who says the inerrancy of the Bible would be effected, either way?
yet we arguing over details in genesis. if it's "just detail" what does it matter?>>
It doesn't. You're the one making the big deal over apparent slight contradiction.
i'm pretty sure they've been found as far as africa and china. but even if it's just europe, so what? >>
So, it's a cultural thing.......which flood and creation myths clearly aren't.
if we're gonna read it as literature, that's cool. it's got good stories. if we're gonna read it as a record of history, it fails brilliantly.>>
How about a combination of both?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2004 4:55 AM arachnophilia has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 34065
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 129 of 149 (149047)
10-11-2004 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 5:03 AM


......that's not how I roll, yo.
Common courtesy sugests that you follow forum guidelines. Successful communication requires that you present information in a form that the reader or listener can use. Good sense says fear the "Venus" of Willendorf.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 5:03 AM JasonChin has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 130 of 149 (149049)
10-11-2004 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 4:59 AM


Re: Minor?
Yhvh is a phonetic spelling of what is usually translated into English as "Yahweh", correct?
no, yhvh is the proper name of god. its vowels have been lost because ancient hebrew was not written with vowels, only consonant.
in english it is rendered "yahweh" by some. when vowel pointings were added to the text, the vowels for adonai (lord) were added to yhvh in order to remind the reader to say adonai instead of the proper name (which is not supposed to be spoken, or written). because of this, some use the misnomer "jehovah," which is a mangling of the vowels from adonai and the greek versions of the hebrew letters yhvh. most english texts write this name "The LORD" in all caps.
you will see different names for god in the torah. some places he's called eloyhim ("God"). others it's yhvh ("The LORD"). sometimes a combination of the two. and sometimes it's just el. these names are used consistently throughout passages, suggesting the full inclusion of multiple sources.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 4:59 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 5:16 AM arachnophilia has not replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 96 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 131 of 149 (149050)
10-11-2004 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 3:27 AM


Re: Minor?
JasonChin writes:
quote:
Shakespeare's work was artistic, not ancient and venerated like Homer, Aristotle and the Bible.
What does that have to do with anything. Shakespeare practically invented modern English. Aerial, compromise, hint, laughable, tranquil, alligator, dawn, upstairs, downstairs, elbow, majestic, luggage, outbreak, love letter, shooting star, unreal, impede, obscene, all come from Shakespeare. Our language simply would not be the way it is today if it were not for his work.
Now, the interesting thing about Shakespeare is that he was not involved in the publishing of his plays. If you look at the playtexts as they move from Quarto to Folio, you see changes being made in spelling, punctuation, line breaks, etc. Some of these are surely simple errors in printing, but others are deliberate changes by the printer.
In some cases, this adjustment is quite dramatic. The only copy of Macbeth we have is from the First Folio...and it is clear it has been altered from the original. Compare the King Lear from the Quarto with the King Lear from the First Folio. In 1986, the Oxford Shakespeare published both versions. Hamlet, Henry IV, Part 1, Othello, and Troilus and Cressida all have similar changes.

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 3:27 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 5:20 AM Rrhain has replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 149 (149051)
10-11-2004 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by arachnophilia
10-11-2004 5:13 AM


Re: Minor?
Gotcha. Thanks for the info.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2004 5:13 AM arachnophilia has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 133 of 149 (149054)
10-11-2004 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by JasonChin
10-11-2004 5:09 AM


not exactly. i don't believe some extreme world-wide flood actually happened.>>
Who says I do? Who says the inerrancy of the Bible would be effected, either way?
quote:
Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.
either the flood covered the whole earth, and killed everything but the contents of the ark, or the bible is errant.
It doesn't. You're the one making the big deal over apparent slight contradiction.
actually, no, i didn't start this thread. i have no problem with the contradictions personally. i like both stories, and i accept them as two completely different narratives from two completely different sources.
but if you insist that they must be one story, it makes no sense. in the evolution of judaism thread, we were trying to show how one was much later than the other, and how it indicates a change in the religion.
So, it's a cultural thing.......which flood and creation myths clearly aren't.
actually, they are. within areas they're pretty consistent. even TOO similar as the case with gilgamesh and genesis. but if i were to compare the noah story to a native american story, they wouldn't match at all.
does egypt have a flood myth? i think they're pretty familiar with floods over there.
How about a combination of both?
because "as a record of history, it fails brilliantly."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 5:09 AM JasonChin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by JasonChin, posted 10-11-2004 5:25 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 145 by Brian, posted 10-11-2004 2:50 PM arachnophilia has not replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 149 (149055)
10-11-2004 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Rrhain
10-11-2004 5:16 AM


Re: Minor?
What does that have to do with anything.>>
Shakespeare was never as venerated as the OT was by the Jews, because while Shakespeare is just really good art, the OT was the SOLE source of ancient Jews for both history and theology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2004 5:16 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2004 6:09 AM JasonChin has not replied

JasonChin 
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 149 (149057)
10-11-2004 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by arachnophilia
10-11-2004 5:19 AM


either the flood covered the whole earth, and killed everything but the contents of the ark, or the bible is errant.>>
Not true. If civilization ended, we'd refer to it as the "end of the world".........when, in fact, the world would still very much be here.
but if you insist that they must be one story, it makes no sense. in the evolution of judaism thread, we were trying to show how one was much later than the other, and how it indicates a change in the religion.>>
This is how I know that atheists are no less influenced by personal belief than theists........because you make these bold, sweeping statements because maybe a transcriptionist somewhere along the lines goofed and wrote (in relation to which came first, man or animal) "and then God created animals" instead of "and that's why God created animals".
because "as a record of history, it fails brilliantly.">>
Which only makes sense for the parts that are intended as allegorical.........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2004 5:19 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Rrhain, posted 10-11-2004 6:22 AM JasonChin has not replied
 Message 141 by arachnophilia, posted 10-11-2004 6:37 AM JasonChin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024