Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genesis 1:1-3
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 61 of 114 (265066)
12-02-2005 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Cold Foreign Object
12-02-2005 1:47 PM


Herepton writes:
I must conclude since CA went on a ad hom rage against Dr. Scott AFTER message 39 ...
Other than referencing Scott's website and material, my sole comment was as follows ...
quote:
Herepton writes:
source: Dr. Gene Scott, Ph.D. Stanford University.
quote:
Dr. Gene Scott earned his Ph.D. in Philosophies of Education at California's prestigious Stanford University in 1957; in 1992, he was the featured cover story for the Stanford Alumni Magazine. For over 40 years he has served as an ordained minister, including 15 years in the mission field and in executive capacities with major Protestant denominations and educational institutions, 15 years of which he was a Director, Vice President and President of the denomination before refusing re-election to concentrate on the Los Angeles pastorate.
- see drgenescott.org
I couldn't find the part suggesting any credentials whatsoever in the field of Biblical Hebrew, nor anything at all suggesting critical scholarship. You two clearly deserve one another.
I still find nothing suggesting any credentials whatsoever in the field of Biblical Hebrew, nor anything at all suggesting critical scholarship. Certainly his translation of the word "Israel" is absurd to the point of being comical, while his "Teaching on Mysteries" qualifies your "greatest theist scholar of all time" for an honoured place on any one's funny farm.
Now, again, if you have something rational to say about Gen. 1:1-3, please feel to offer it. Otherwise, please stop polluting this thread.
This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 12-02-2005 02:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-02-2005 1:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-04-2005 6:25 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 62 of 114 (265528)
12-04-2005 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by ConsequentAtheist
12-02-2005 2:22 PM


Your rants about Dr. Scott can be easily explained by your worldview.
One minor interpretation of the name Israel has set you off. We know Hebrew is altogether ambiguous, even with context determined the renderings still have flexibility - YOU KNOW THIS.
"Israel" was not the subject.
Concerning your Tanach scholars: what is your view concerning their historical research showing Daniel as the most precise Prophet one could imagine ?
Or will you **special plead** your worldview ?
Dr. Scott says the Tanach scholars have proven the prohecies of Daniel were indeed uttered hundreds of years in advance.
Ray Martinez

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-02-2005 2:22 PM ConsequentAtheist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-05-2005 10:29 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 12-05-2005 11:30 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 63 of 114 (265721)
12-05-2005 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Cold Foreign Object
12-04-2005 6:25 PM


Herepton writes:
Your rants about Dr. Scott can be easily explained by your worldview.
You offered Dr. Scott as the "greatest theist scholar of all time" and as your expert on Biblical Hebrew. Again: I find absolutely nothing to suggest any credentials whatsoever in the field of Biblical Hebrew, nor anything at all suggesting critical scholarship. You whine incessantly about other people's rants, Herepton. Why not instead share the credentials warranting consideration of Dr. Scott's position?
Herepton writes:
One minor interpretation of the name Israel has set you off.
It was, on the contrary, a comical and ignorant misinterpretation which exemplifies your competency.
Herepton writes:
We know Hebrew is altogether ambiguous, even with context determined the renderings still have flexibility - YOU KNOW THIS.
You have yet to demonstrate that you know anything at all about the Tanach or Biblical Hebrew. In fact, you have shown quite the opposite.
Herepton writes:
Concerning your Tanach scholars: what is your view concerning their historical research showing Daniel as the most precise Prophet one could imagine ?
Stop polluting this thread.
Herepton writes:
Or will you **special plead** your worldview ?
You're babbling. This thread is about Genesis 1:1-3 and whether or not it claims creation ex nihilo.
Herepton writes:
Dr. Scott says the Tanach scholars have proven the prohecies of Daniel were indeed uttered hundreds of years in advance.
How very nice for Dr. Scott and, as a Dr. Scott groupy, how very nice for you. But allow me to ask again: please stop polluting this thread. Dr. Scott's assertion is irrelevant to the discussion raised in the OP.
This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 12-05-2005 10:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-04-2005 6:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-05-2005 8:40 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 64 of 114 (265751)
12-05-2005 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Cold Foreign Object
12-04-2005 6:25 PM


One minor interpretation of the name Israel has set you off.
because it's wrong.
"Israel" was not the subject.
i agree. why did you bring it up?
We know Hebrew is altogether ambiguous
no, it's not. this is a lie perpetrated by those who wish to rectify the bible with science by changing the meaning of words. hebrew is only as flexible as english, and maybe less so.
again, what do you (or dr. scott) really know about hebrew?
Concerning your Tanach scholars
it's spelled "tanakh" in english. normally a letter here or a letter there wouldn't be a big deal. though meaning is not flexible, spelling often is. but the word "tanakh" is an acronym.
in hebrew, it's תנ''ך. the two apostrophes tell you it's an abreviation, like a period in english. the ת is for תורה, torah. the נ is for נביאים, nevi'im (prophets), and the ך is the kind of כ that comes at the end of a word. it stands for כתובים, kethuvim (writings). a hard "ch" (made with a gutteral throat noise) would be ח, a chet. a kaf כ is more like a k.
Dr. Scott
must be shot!
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-05-2005 11:34 AM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-04-2005 6:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-05-2005 12:46 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 65 of 114 (265776)
12-05-2005 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by arachnophilia
12-05-2005 11:30 AM


arachnophilia writes:
it's spelled "tanakh" in english.
Except, of course, when it isn't.
I own not only the JPS Tanakh but also the Stone Edition Tanach.
Also available is The Judaica Press Complete Tanach with Rashi.
I see little value in arguing over "ch" versus "kh".
This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 12-05-2005 12:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by arachnophilia, posted 12-05-2005 11:30 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by arachnophilia, posted 12-05-2005 8:29 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 66 of 114 (265870)
12-05-2005 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by ConsequentAtheist
12-05-2005 12:46 PM


ok ok, i was a little overboard.
I see little value in arguing over "ch" versus "kh".
i guess you're right, but i'm pretty sure that the "ch" is the outdated way of transliterating hebrew. i think they used "h" for chet, "ch" for kaf, and "k" for kof. now they use "ch" for chet, "k" for kaf, and "q" for kof.
it's sort of the difference between "caballah" "kabalah" and "qabala;" or "koran" and "quran." different times and different people.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-05-2005 08:29 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-05-2005 12:46 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 67 of 114 (265873)
12-05-2005 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ConsequentAtheist
12-05-2005 10:29 AM


You offered Dr. Scott as the "greatest theist scholar of all time" and as your expert on Biblical Hebrew. Again: I find absolutely nothing to suggest any credentials whatsoever in the field of Biblical Hebrew, nor anything at all suggesting critical scholarship. You whine incessantly about other people's rants, Herepton. Why not instead share the credentials warranting consideration of Dr. Scott's position?
Dr. Scott was the greatest Biblical scholar of all time. Of course, this is my viewpoint. Your are either astronomically ignorant or ranting since your rage will not even acknowledge him a scholar I must conclude your worldview is involved - whether atheist or Darwinian.
Dr. Scott did ALL of his Biblical scholarship on live television in front of the world knowing scholars from all over the world are watching, including entire seminaries. He was an expert in Biblical mss amassing a personal collection only 4th to the BI, Huntington, and NYC Central. His website contains over 50 pages of these mss and Bibles.
Dr. Scott mastered Hebrew, Greek, both dialects of Coptic, Aramaic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Latin, and Armenian, not to mention every major European language. Our Church owns copies of every targum; many originals. Again, he has demonstrated his scholarship on worldwide televison for 29 years. His Ph.D. was cross departmental in Philosophy and Religion. Doctoral dissertion: theology of new-orthodox theologian Reinhold Niebuhr.
The interpretation of Israel is correct. The only real issue is why you simply did not counter will an alternate interpretation WITH SOURCE CITE.
It was, on the contrary, a comical and ignorant misinterpretation which exemplifies your competency.
Insult = inability to refute.
The context of Jacob's renaming supports Dr. Scott's rendering. Jacob wrestled ALL NIGHT with an angelic being; some theist scholars say it was Christophany. The point is, Jacob crossed a spiritual barrier with God. The new name was God acknowledging this: He declared Jacob now had pull and power with Him - a great blessing.
CA, what does "bara" mean ?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-05-2005 10:29 AM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 12-05-2005 10:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 69 by Deut. 32.8, posted 12-06-2005 7:09 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 68 of 114 (265907)
12-05-2005 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Cold Foreign Object
12-05-2005 8:40 PM


whoppers and mixed nuts, please.
Dr. Scott mastered Hebrew, Greek, both dialects of Coptic, Aramaic, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Latin, and Armenian, not to mention every major European language.
that's quite the whopper, ray. now, one of my teachers (whom we refered to "aristotle" or maybe "plato") knew greek, latin, sanskrit, and apparently could read a little biblical hebrew. that's aside from the normal english, french, etc. we considered this man one of the most learned professors in the country.
one usually hasn't mastered more than one dead language. his greek and latin classes had an expression: "it's a dead language for a reason."
you're telling me that gene scott has mastered more than half a dozen? i find that a little hard to believe. especially since, examining the first on the list, and the most important to the debate, we find him sadly, sadly lacking.
Dr. Scott mastered Hebrew,
maybe we'll deal with the others later, but this first one is clearly not the case. don't get me wrong, this isn't an ad-hominem. but if you're going to trust this guy on his analysis of hebrew, it would be helpful if he actually knew some, instead of just looking stuff up in strong's concordance.
now, admittedly, i'm in hebrew one. we're talking third grade stuff. but the thing we cover repeatedly is verb-noun-adjective agreement. we're taught that some words end strangely, or don't fit the rules -- and when they do, we use the gender of the root word. we're also taught a good way to spot exceptions: when the ending of the verb and the ending of noun DON'T match.
so for instance, the word for city, עיר looks masculine. no -t or -ah ending. but it's really feminine, so if i wanted to say, old city, i'd write עיר אתיקה ('ir atiqah). the ending of the adjective agrees with gender of the noun, even if it doesn't look like it.
how about "palace?" ארמון pluralizes to ארמונות even in masculine form (armonOT instead of armonYM. so when i say "big castles" i write ארמונות גדולים (armonOT g'dolYM, NOT armonOT g'dolOT).
grammar, in verbs and adjective, dicates gender and number. any hebrew third grader knows this. if gene scott contends that ברא אלהים (bara elohym) is PLURAL he would be laughed at by elementary schoolers. if it said בראים אלהים (bar'ym elohym) it would plural. if, and only if. elohym is a singular word, probably formerly a name, that just looks plural. it is used as a singular word. period.
so i contend that gene scott does not have any understanding of hebrew grammar at all. if he did, he would not make this mistake. so i contest his scholarship on this matter on the grounds that a third grader would know better. ie: he has hardly mastered hebrew.
Dr. Scott was the greatest Biblical scholar of all time.
pointless hero-worship. i see no grounds to call him a biblical scholar at all: he can't read hebrew.
Dr. Scott did ALL of his Biblical scholarship on live television in front of the world knowing scholars from all over the world are watching, including entire seminaries.
Again, he has demonstrated his scholarship on worldwide televison for 29 years.
i've seen people do some amazing stuff on live tv. conmen, faith healers, magicians. why live tv instead of, i dunno, peer reviewed journals?
and, uh, before you jump the shark on this one ray, i'm still not an athiest.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-05-2005 10:28 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-05-2005 8:40 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-06-2005 1:51 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Deut. 32.8
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 114 (266008)
12-06-2005 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Cold Foreign Object
12-05-2005 8:40 PM


Herepton writes:
Your are either astronomically ignorant or ranting since your rage will not even acknowledge him a scholar I must conclude your worldview is involved - whether atheist or Darwinian.
In all sincerity, Ray, you should seriously consider therapy. Please let us know when you have something rational and relevant to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-05-2005 8:40 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by jaywill, posted 12-06-2005 1:51 PM Deut. 32.8 has not replied
 Message 73 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-06-2005 6:47 PM Deut. 32.8 has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 70 of 114 (266096)
12-06-2005 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Deut. 32.8
12-06-2005 7:09 AM


Hi Folks
Hi folks. I'm new here. It may take me awhile to get use to the technology.
We're talking about Genesis? I don't read or write ancient Hebrew but I have lots of opinions.
So, aside from whether this Dr. Scott fellow has legitimate credentials, what else seems to be the issue here?
I'm an Old Earth Exponent following G.H. Pember.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Deut. 32.8, posted 12-06-2005 7:09 AM Deut. 32.8 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-06-2005 4:32 PM jaywill has replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 71 of 114 (266097)
12-06-2005 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by arachnophilia
12-05-2005 10:14 PM


Re: whoppers and mixed nuts, please.
arachnophilia writes:
if you're going to trust this guy on his analysis of hebrew, it would be helpful if he actually knew some, instead of just looking stuff up in strong's concordance.
Precisely.
With regard to Elohim, you might find this discussion interesting. I was particularly impressed with Linville's "plural of deliberation".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by arachnophilia, posted 12-05-2005 10:14 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by arachnophilia, posted 12-06-2005 10:47 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 72 of 114 (266134)
12-06-2005 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by jaywill
12-06-2005 1:51 PM


Re: Hi Folks
javwill writes:
I'm an Old Earth Exponent following G.H. Pember.
Welcome. As for Pember, I'm not a fan of ad hoc rationalizations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by jaywill, posted 12-06-2005 1:51 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by jaywill, posted 12-06-2005 10:00 PM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 73 of 114 (266168)
12-06-2005 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Deut. 32.8
12-06-2005 7:09 AM


In all sincerity, Ray, you should seriously consider therapy. Please let us know when you have something rational and relevant to say.
Insult = inability to refute.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Deut. 32.8, posted 12-06-2005 7:09 AM Deut. 32.8 has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 74 of 114 (266173)
12-06-2005 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ConsequentAtheist
11-09-2005 9:45 AM


What we have in the more modern translations of the Torah is not creation ex nihilo but the creation of order out of chaos, i.e., "First Cause" is simply not addressed.
Where does the text say or imply "chaos", what is chaos, and where did it arise from ?
Chaos implies that order was at some point behind it. In fact, the original meaning of Greek N.T. word "kosmos"/cosmos is "order".
We IDists know "order" is synonymous with design = what we see in the Universe.
What caused the chaos ? Your rendering (like most) creates as many questions as it answers ?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 11-09-2005 9:45 AM ConsequentAtheist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by jaywill, posted 12-06-2005 10:21 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 78 by arachnophilia, posted 12-06-2005 11:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 75 of 114 (266231)
12-06-2005 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by ConsequentAtheist
12-06-2005 4:32 PM


Ad Hoc Rationalizations ?
ConsequentAthiest,
------------------------------
Welcome. As for Pember, I'm not a fan of ad hoc rationalizations.
------------------------------
Are you really an athiest?
Which rationalization of Pember's are you saying is "ad hoc?"
Could you be specific?
Give me one of your strongest and most notable examples.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-06-2005 10:01 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-06-2005 10:02 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 12-06-2005 10:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 12-06-2005 4:32 PM ConsequentAtheist 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