Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
81 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, Dredge, nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tanypteryx (7 members, 74 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,276 Year: 4,388/6,534 Month: 602/900 Week: 126/182 Day: 6/27 Hour: 3/3

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Problems with Genesis: A Christian Evolutionist's View
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2906 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 61 of 200 (484696)
10-01-2008 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by gluadys
09-30-2008 2:13 PM


LET THERE BE LIGHT! I SAY.
quote:
Grammar, in fact, is a function of all language, and, according to Noam Chomsky

Of course, language, thus grammar, is hard wired, and this says language did not/could not, be a result of accumulated evolution from grunts and hisses. That the OT introduced grammar refers to only what it says, without contradictions, that this faculty was introduced here, and is alligned with speech [as opposed communication], and is inherent only with one life form. This was not an original premise of Chomsky, who exploited some ancient lessons and passed it on with some embelishments to the world; he also admits speech poses a great difficulty for evolution: its sudden emergence, without evidential imprints throughout all past times, denies adaptation of the most powerful tool in the universe: speech.

quote:

AFAIK the earliest and most comprehensive of grammars was that developed for Sanskrit.


Not true. We have no sanskrit alphabetical books pre-OT, and never mind grammar. Sanskrit is not that old. A 'book' is a multi-page, continuous narrative, and alphabeticals is an advanced writing form which displays the inclinations of grammatical expressionisms, as opposed picture writings.

The OT writings also self contain numerals, whereby it can be verified for its grammar as well as its accuracy. You will note that with the giving of the Ten Commandments, for example, there is a verse which says 'REMEMBER *THIS* DAY AS THE SATURDAY. If you check *THIS* day, it alligns with the entire 2,500 year period of 1000s of dates and life spans displayed in the OT, and when calculated, we see the 10 Cs were indeed given on a Saturday. What has this to do with grammar? If you don't know maths and the history of what your saying, there is a good chance your grammar is wanting too.

quote:
where?

In every verse, in its mode of adopting the closest distance between two words, and using the most applicable words. The OT verses cannot be reduced to a shorter form without loss of grammar, nor can it be said better by elongations, and this represents the epitomy of this faculty - far ahead of, and pre-dating Shakespear, aside from its verses and slogans being the world's most utilised portions of languages by poets, authors, science and other theologies and beliefs.

Try to better: 'MAN AND WOMAN CREATED HE THEM'? Or starting a book on Creation [origins of the universe], with a better first line preamble than 'IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH' - guess why heavens is plural and earth singular - obviously because the OT is speaking in the language of the peoples it addresses as the subject? Try making your language understandable to all generations of mankind - would you use the word 'DUST' or Quarks as a basic sub-atomic [small] building element? What about the term CREATE - the true, technical meaning of this word is only derived in Genesis, used only once in the first creation chapter, replaced with 'FORMED' in the rest of the five books. Because 'something from nothing' can only happen once, and therafter we can only derive something from something else.

The OT appears to understand human minds with unequalled anticipatory responsa: when Moses asks God who God is, what is his power, we find the answer is one which transcends time and space, namely the God of Abraham - who lived 400 years before Moses and in another country. Genesis is also the first document which introduced the premise of a finite universe [There was a BEGINNING], and that infinity refers to NO CHANGE [all other depictions fail the infinity test, including any attempted by science]. This is supreme, unequalled grammar.

quote:

Where does the OT include grammar lessons?



Note to self: order replacement irony meter. An eye for an eye?

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by gluadys, posted 09-30-2008 2:13 PM gluadys has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by gluadys, posted 10-01-2008 2:18 AM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4200 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 62 of 200 (484700)
10-01-2008 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by IamJoseph
10-01-2008 12:43 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT! I SAY.
IamJoseph writes:

gluadys writes:

Grammar, in fact, is a function of all language, and, according to Noam Chomsky

Of course, language, thus grammar, is hard wired, and this says language did not/could not, be a result of accumulated evolution from grunts and hisses.

This was not an original premise of Chomsky, who exploited some ancient lessons and passed it on with some embelishments to the world; he also admits speech poses a great difficulty for evolution: its sudden emergence, without evidential imprints throughout all past times, denies adaptation of the most powerful tool in the universe: speech.

Chomsky is the finest linguist of this (and perhaps any) generation. But he is a linguist, not a biologist, nor has he made any in-depth studies of animal communicative patterns.

A newer generation of linguists (Steve Pinker, Christine Kenneally, Sue Savage-Wambaugh, et al) have made considerable strides in working out the evolution of human speech from non-human communication.

That the OT introduced grammar refers to only what it says, without contradictions,

Grammar is not about what a text says.

We have no sanskrit alphabetical books pre-OT, and never mind grammar. Sanskrit is not that old.
That doesn't mean it does not have the oldest codified grammar.

The OT writings also self contain numerals, whereby it can be verified for its grammar as well as its accuracy. You will note that with the giving of the Ten Commandments, for example, there is a verse which says 'REMEMBER *THIS* DAY AS THE SATURDAY. If you check *THIS* day, it alligns with the entire 2,500 year period of 1000s of dates and life spans displayed in the OT, and when calculated, we see the 10 Cs were indeed given on a Saturday. What has this to do with grammar?

Indeed, this sounds more like a reference to numerology than to grammar.

If you don't know maths and the history of what your saying, there is a good chance your grammar is wanting too.

It would appear that your specialty is the study [sic] of scripture. I expect my years studying language and linguistics and teaching English and French composition and grammar give me a greater claim to understand what grammar is.

where?

In every verse,

In short, nowhere.

What about the term CREATE - the true, technical meaning of this word is only derived in Genesis, used only once in the first creation chapter,

Actually it is used 3 times in Gen. 1 (vs 1, 21 & 27)

Because 'something from nothing' can only happen once, and therafter we can only derive something from something else.

'bara' doesn't mean something from nothing. It is a verb which always has God as its subject, but what God is said to create does not necessarily come from nothing. e.g. "See I have created (bara) the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon fit for its purpose" Isaiah 54:16

This is supreme, unequalled grammar.

No, it is theology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by IamJoseph, posted 10-01-2008 12:43 AM IamJoseph has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by anglagard, posted 10-01-2008 3:44 AM gluadys has taken no action

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 75 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 63 of 200 (484702)
10-01-2008 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by gluadys
10-01-2008 2:18 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT! I SAY.
FYI gluadys, IAJ rejects nearly all physics and chemistry due to radioactivity, all geology period, and nearly all biology due to the rejection of evolution and genetics. His big argument against all natural sciences is that nothing has been discovered prior to 3100 BCE indicating writing. He simply implies that without writing there can be no speech.

Of course that belief is against the current state of knowledge in linguistics and archeology, but if one rejects physics, the rejection of archeology or linguistics is not much of a leap toward even more ignorance.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by gluadys, posted 10-01-2008 2:18 AM gluadys has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by IamJoseph, posted 10-01-2008 4:43 AM anglagard has taken no action

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2906 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 64 of 200 (484705)
10-01-2008 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by anglagard
10-01-2008 3:44 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT! I SAY.
quote:
He simply implies that without writing there can be no speech

This is a distortion. There is a deflective claim that speech cannot be proven without writings, which seeks to ignore the blatant fact we have no proof of speech pre-6000, and which cannot be a mere co-incidence in Genesis.

The writings has no impact here, as earlier speech can be recalled. My test for this issue is let them produce a 'NAME' - the true evidence of human speech, and there is 100s of 1000s years of alledged speech periods to come up with one. In fact, we have no wars, nations, kings, folk songs, recipies - nothing which accounts for human speech or what the human mind can easilly recall.

And speech does not become proven by skeletal remains or doctored scratchings in caves, a primal error by Darwin in using this criteria to place humans in the animal species - these also contradict the speech endowed human population and their mental prowess imprints. To cast this response as not believing in science is some stretch! The first scientific statement on the universe being finite comes from genesis - well before the term was invented.

quote:

Chomsky is the finest linguist of this (and perhaps any) generation.


Not from the POV genesis's statements predated him, and he largely comes to the same conclusion: the advent of speech is a unique occurence in the known universe, and we cannot account, explain or define its occurence - while also maintaining the factor of adaptation, which is time dependent. Birds are older and have greater phonation dexterity than humans, the last [recent] life form: no elevationary adaptation here, no?

quote:

But he is a linguist, not a biologist, nor has he made any in-depth studies of animal communicative patterns.


Irrelevent. Biologists have made even greater errors on this issue, and have no answers for speech's occurence. There is only so much of spin and manourverings one can make without definitive proof, while ignoring the amazing, inexplicable specificity of genesis deeming speech less than 6000 years old, and being vindicated to the exact year. There is only OT-phobia and paranoia in this blindness.

quote:

A newer generation of linguists (Steve Pinker, Christine Kenneally, Sue Savage-Wambaugh, et al) have made considerable strides in working out the evolution of human speech from non-human communication.

Really!? - did they explain why we have not a single 'name' pre-6000, or did they say human minds also alligned with writings on that exact date too? Maybe they have better excuses than before?

quote:

Grammar is not about what a text says.


'How' it is said.

quote:

We have no sanskrit alphabetical books pre-OT, and never mind grammar. Sanskrit is not that old.

That doesn't mean it does not have the oldest codified grammar.


Yes it does. It means you cannot say Sanskrit grammar predates the OT grammar. And to be grammatical, at least alphabeticals apply.

quote:

Indeed, this sounds more like a reference to numerology than to grammar.


No, it does not refer only to numerals. The word 'THIS DAY' also applies to a pointed addressing it is connecting history with a contemporary time - 'ironically'; expressionism like that is fully vested in grammatics.

quote:

It would appear that your specialty is the study [sic] of scripture. I expect my years studying language and linguistics and teaching English and French composition and grammar give me a greater claim to understand what grammar is.


This depends if you come up with something new or contradicting to Genesis. Did you - so why sic?

quote:

In every verse,

In short, nowhere.


How many grammatically inclined expressionisms in 'LET THERE BE LIGHT'? Do you percieve maybe a metaphor and analogy here, as this verse is used today in so many applications? It never came from Sancrit either?

quote:

What about the term CREATE - the true, technical meaning of this word is only derived in Genesis, used only once in the first creation chapter,

Actually it is used 3 times in Gen. 1 (vs 1, 21 & 27)


I said this word is limited to the CREATION CHAPTER in Genesis. You have not made any new input by your response, other than affirm my point. Let's hope you now understand there is a difference between bara and all other words which denote form! Remember where this thought came from.

quote:

'bara' doesn't mean something from nothing.


Yes it does. If the texts is correctly comprehended, it very clearly says there was 'nothing' else around at one time, and then there was 'something', as with 'light'. Appears your grammar is being hampered by a lack of contextual comprehension.

quote:
It is a verb which always has God as its subject, but what God is said to create does not necessarily come from nothing. e.g. "See I have created (bara) the smith who blows the fire of coals and produces a weapon fit for its purpose" Isaiah 54:16

Again, this is not reflected in the Genesis texts, which you appear to ignore in a deficient manner. Isaiah does not relate to genesis; genesis relates to genesis.

quote:

This is supreme, unequalled grammar.
No, it is theology.

Its 'writings', specifically the first occurence of grammatical books. Using the deflective, cowardly term of theology does not get you a win here, but it will get other cowardly deflectors a horrah for you. The term theology is recent, and should not apply to Genesis, which predates today's theologies more than 2000 years.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by anglagard, posted 10-01-2008 3:44 AM anglagard has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by gluadys, posted 10-01-2008 8:55 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4200 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 65 of 200 (484722)
10-01-2008 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by IamJoseph
10-01-2008 4:43 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT! I SAY.
IanJoseph writes:


speech cannot be proven without writings,

A claim that would mean we have no proof of human speech in Australia prior to contact with Europeans.

And speech does not become proven by skeletal remains

It can be inferred by some physical characteristics, such as the placement of the pharynx or the formation of Broca's area in the brain. As we learn more about the genetics governing speech we may also get a time-frame for the acquisition of speech through genetic history.

Birds are older and have greater phonation dexterity than humans, the last [recent] life form: no elevationary adaptation here, no?

Adaptation is not "elevationary". And the brain of birds does not have the same conformation as the human brain. Nevertheless, birds can be surprisingly intelligent.


Irrelevent. Biologists have made even greater errors on this issue, and have no answers for speech's occurence.

Selective use of expertise. You accept Chomsky's expertise in his field because it agrees with your assertions, but reject the expertise of biologists in their field because it does not. A phenomemon known as "cherry-picking" your evidence.


Really!? - did they explain why we have not a single 'name' pre-6000, or did they say human minds also alligned with writings on that exact date too? Maybe they have better excuses than before?

Read them for yourself.

'How' it is said.

And the text does not comment on how it is said: hence no codified grammar.


Yes it does. It means you cannot say Sanskrit grammar predates the OT grammar. And to be grammatical, at least alphabeticals apply.

And I didn't. I said that it appears to be the oldest codified grammar i.e. the oldest literature that comments not on what is said but on how it is said, paying attention to grammatical relationships and studying them with careful attention.

When was the first codified grammar of Hebrew published? i.e. in what Hebrew literature were the different forms of the verb given names and their uses explored?

This depends if you come up with something new or contradicting to Genesis. Did you - so why sic?

I expect someone as well-versed in grammar as you understands the use of 'sic'.

How many grammatically inclined expressionisms in 'LET THERE BE LIGHT'?

The expression is subjunctive and can be used in English in two relevant ways.
1. to express a wish or prayer for something that does not currently exist
2. to command in the third person

I do not know Hebrew well enough to know if both these possibilities exist in Hebrew. I don't even know if Hebrew has a subjunctive.

Do you percieve maybe a metaphor and analogy here, as this verse is used today in so many applications?

Grammatically there is no metaphor in this statement. However,that does not mean it cannot occur in a metaphorical setting or that there is no analogy here. e.g. is the light which is commanded here a physical or spiritual light? Some take it to be "light" in the sense that "God is light" although this would seem to contradict the sense that it is created light. Since it cannot be both eternal and created, this is an analogous treatment of the term "light".

I said this word is limited to the CREATION CHAPTER in Genesis.

Then you are still wrong. Strong lists it as occurring 8 times in Genesis, which means five times in addition to the three in Genesis 1.

Isaiah does not relate to genesis; genesis relates to genesis.

Are you claiming that Hebrew grammar changed significantly between the days of Moses and the days of Isaiah?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by IamJoseph, posted 10-01-2008 4:43 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by IamJoseph, posted 10-01-2008 10:31 AM gluadys has taken no action

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2906 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 66 of 200 (484739)
10-01-2008 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by gluadys
10-01-2008 8:55 AM


Re: LET THERE BE LIGHT! I SAY.
quote:
IanJoseph writes:

speech cannot be proven without writings,

A claim that would mean we have no proof of human speech in Australia prior to contact with Europeans.


The claim Aboriginals are an ancient peoples is not disputed, but this requires qualification. The claim of a 60K year speech endowed life form must be rejected by any honest and logical contemplation, because of the lack of any evidence [cave marks notwithstanding], essentially because their population should be 7.9 Trillion, and their mental prowess should also allign with this. These are far more impacting than any of the decontructionist evidences used to make the widespread claims so readily accepted by a large sector of academia - which is clearly agenda based. Here, if a fraction of the credibility upon Genesis is made to apply to the Abo claim, the answer is blatant.

quote:

And speech does not become proven by skeletal remains

It can be inferred by some physical characteristics, such as the placement of the pharynx or the formation of Broca's area in the brain. As we learn more about the genetics governing speech we may also get a time-frame for the acquisition of speech through genetic history.


The 'infers' premise cannot be sretched to fantasy, which is outside of science. More impacting, is the said inferences do not result in the required conclusions, not just for the present time, but also of any past times - with a vacuum of transit imprint grads. This says the so-called inference syndrome is defective, even when one fully co-operates with it using every generosity possible. It is appropriate we sould not wait for Zebras to display speech anytime soon. There is an agenda here: the obsession to create doctored spins by scientists in lone labs with accomodating comrades to negate genesis needs no debate: many careers and grants would vanquish if they spoke the antithetical truths here; there is a great disdain for the theology term, compounded by the foodhardy premise of placing Genesis in the same bag of the THEOLOGY basket - this has no veracity. The OT is hardly Zeus, but the world's most primal historical document, with over 50% of its stats proven by archeology and cross-nation historical writings - no other document anywhere on the planet shares this status.

quote:

Adaptation is not "elevationary". And the brain of birds does not have the same conformation as the human brain. Nevertheless, birds can be surprisingly intelligent.


Whatever criteria one uses, adaptation of speech is the most elevationary aspiration for any life form aspiring elevation. That birds are intelligent is not disputed. Speech is not dependent on intelligence.

quote:

Irrelevent. Biologists have made even greater errors on this issue, and have no answers for speech's occurence.

Selective use of expertise. You accept Chomsky's expertise in his field because it agrees with your assertions, but reject the expertise of biologists in their field because it does not. A phenomemon known as "cherry-picking" your evidence.


It may sound over confident to you, but there is really no need to be selective: there is a vacuum when it comes to the primal proof factor: speech is unique in the ratio of 1 to all else in the known universe, while selectivism requires other options - there are none. There is no biologist credence here whatsoever, and there is nothing to cherry pick: there is not a shred of evidence of speech pre-6000.

quote:

And the text does not comment on how it is said: hence no codified grammar.


Knock, knock! You have to find an example of poor grammar in any single verse of what is an ancient telephone size book, if you fail to acknowledge the examples I gave you as the epitomy of grammar.

quote:

And I didn't. I said that it appears to be the oldest codified grammar i.e. the oldest literature that comments not on what is said but on how it is said, paying attention to grammatical relationships and studying them with careful attention.


Yes, I understood your import, and rejected it. LET THERE BE LIGHT does constitute how a sentence is cushioned, and there is nothing in Sanskrit with measures it - with respect to the sanskrit language which I do admire greatly. I found the Indian alphabetical writings 90% the same as Hebrew, in all aspects.

quote:

When was the first codified grammar of Hebrew published? i.e. in what Hebrew literature were the different forms of the verb given names and their uses explored?


Its very advanced. There is also a unique PERFECT tense here, applying to past/present/future simultainiouslu.

quote:

I expect someone as well-versed in grammar as you understands the use of 'sic'.


This was your term, not mine. I only questioned why the use of such a derogatory term for what is clearly and evidentially the world's most respected book - by period of time, concensus and impact. Today, every forum on the planet is debating only against the criteria posited by one book. No other one can put up against state of art science. They are NOT debating about the Sanskrit grammar - or any other 'theology' - a term you used to eronously place the OT in.

quote:

How many grammatically inclined expressionisms in 'LET THERE BE LIGHT'?

The expression is subjunctive and can be used in English in two relevant ways.
1. to express a wish or prayer for something that does not currently exist
2. to command in the third person

I do not know Hebrew well enough to know if both these possibilities exist in Hebrew. I don't even know if Hebrew has a subjunctive.


There more than two usages here. But you must be able to SEE THE LIGHT. LOL.

quote:

Do you percieve maybe a metaphor and analogy here, as this verse is used today in so many applications?

Grammatically there is no metaphor in this statement. However,that does not mean it cannot occur in a metaphorical setting or that there is no analogy here. e.g. is the light which is commanded here a physical or spiritual light? Some take it to be "light" in the sense that "God is light" although this would seem to contradict the sense that it is created light. Since it cannot be both eternal and created, this is an analogous treatment of the term "light".


That the light can have nothing to do with the light, depends how the verse is employed. Ironically, this maginificient verse is placed atop of the book's opening, as an indicatory pointer there is more here than meets the eye.

quote:

I said this word is limited to the CREATION CHAPTER in Genesis.

Then you are still wrong. Strong lists it as occurring 8 times in Genesis, which means five times in addition to the three in Genesis 1.


I am not wrong. The term does not appear outside the creation chapter.

quote:

Are you claiming that Hebrew grammar changed significantly between the days of Moses and the days of Isaiah?


I don't know about that. But Isaiah had nowhere to learn from but the OT - no other books existed of such a calibre, and all his writings are contexted to the OT references. The same applies with the older and more advanced Psalms of King David.

You should play devil's advocate to see another view of this issue - this is a fine method of affirming a position. Consider what import and conclusion occurs, based on an accepted premise that genesis is correct about speech endowed humans being less than 6000. Then measure which position has more negative anomolies and which has more positive veracity. That's what Sherlock Holmes would do. But you have to be prepared of negative consequences in your career too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by gluadys, posted 10-01-2008 8:55 AM gluadys has taken no action

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 67 of 200 (484744)
10-01-2008 10:52 AM


Topic Reminder -- not speech
The topic here is not speech. Starting in a bit suspensions will follow.

Edited by AdminNosy, : correct author


  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2906 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 68 of 200 (484815)
10-01-2008 8:52 PM


There's certainly no problem speech advent is genesis' pivotal claim, and a problem to many, and for understandable reasons. Chomsky's claim to fame should be his acknowledgement speech is the greatest stumbling block for evolution: what if he is right - how many texts books become obsolete and where do we go from there, the drawing board or a new look at genesis?

The problem with other views is they ignore the proven factors of genesis, and focus on intentionally manufactured spins: ignored is the blatant anomoly not a single speech imprint exists for 100s of 1000s of years - but similar throat structures are pointed out; ignoring that the allignment of all manifest evidences points only to genesis' exacting dates. With the excuse of writings, they also ignore how close proximity writings is from known and proven speech existence, and what all writings write about speech's existence: how come the writers could not recall a single speech statement pre-6000: a great anomoly or mere co-incidence?

Please call me when someone has real proof of speech, so a mythical document like Genesis can be negated in some or any decree. And 'real' means hard, factual scientific proof. Thus far its all in lala land, and mythical genesis is thrashing everyone.

Find me a NAME just one day pre-6000. Easy!

Off topic post hidden.

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by AdminNosy, posted 10-01-2008 9:00 PM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 69 of 200 (484817)
10-01-2008 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by IamJoseph
10-01-2008 8:52 PM


Suspension as promised
You're off for 2 days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by IamJoseph, posted 10-01-2008 8:52 PM IamJoseph has taken no action

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 200 (484900)
10-02-2008 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by gluadys
09-30-2008 2:49 PM


gluadys writes:

That simply distorts the text with a quirky interpretation for no other reason than to make it fit your preconception that Genesis must be "literally" correct.

But why does it matter if Genesis is not "literally" correct? It was never intended to be a science text.

What would your response be to my response to Hawkins, as follows, relative to the literacy of Genesis 1?

Earth has no need to have been moved to make Genesis 1 correct. You need to read thoughtfully and carefully, taking care not to add what is not in the words.

Genesis 1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Paraphrasing what it says: "In the beginning of the heavens, God created them and in the beginning of the earth, God created it. That's all it says in this opening preface to the chapter. All that statement is saying is whenever the heavens and earth were created, God did it. It doesn't give any information as to when each thing in the heavens was created or when planet earth was created.

This comes before day one when the Spirit of God begins God's work on the void dark waste of the surface of the planet.

Now, the Bible says God had no beginning and no end, i.e. is an eternal supreme creator. One aspect of the Biblical god, Jehovah is that he creates, re-vamps and destroys things in his universe to suit his own purposes and pleasure. So he has been creating, destroying and managing things in his universe forever.

The Bible says that God dwells in the heavens/cosmos and indicates that his abode is far more beautiful and wonderful than what we can imagine here on earth. He also has a host of angelic super human beings around him and moving about throughout the universe where ever he sends them or perhaps has them dwelling. We can't imagine how many billions of other creatures are out in the universe in various forms.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by gluadys, posted 09-30-2008 2:49 PM gluadys has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by gluadys, posted 10-03-2008 12:54 AM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
gluadys
Member (Idle past 4200 days)
Posts: 57
From: Canada
Joined: 08-22-2008


Message 71 of 200 (484905)
10-03-2008 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
10-02-2008 10:49 PM


quote:
What would your response be to my response to Hawkins, as follows, relative to the literacy of Genesis 1?
Earth has no need to have been moved to make Genesis 1 correct. You need to read thoughtfully and carefully, taking care not to add what is not in the words.

Genesis 1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Paraphrasing what it says: "In the beginning of the heavens, God created them and in the beginning of the earth, God created it. That's all it says in this opening preface to the chapter. All that statement is saying is whenever the heavens and earth were created, God did it. It doesn't give any information as to when each thing in the heavens was created or when planet earth was created.

This comes before day one when the Spirit of God begins God's work on the void dark waste of the surface of the planet.

Now, the Bible says God had no beginning and no end, i.e. is an eternal supreme creator. One aspect of the Biblical god, Jehovah is that he creates, re-vamps and destroys things in his universe to suit his own purposes and pleasure. So he has been creating, destroying and managing things in his universe forever.

The Bible says that God dwells in the heavens/cosmos and indicates that his abode is far more beautiful and wonderful than what we can imagine here on earth. He also has a host of angelic super human beings around him and moving about throughout the universe where ever he sends them or perhaps has them dwelling. We can't imagine how many billions of other creatures are out in the universe in various forms.


I don't think you are dealing with the question of whether a text needs to be literally correct in order to have truth value. You seem in some ways to be assuming that position, but I am not really sure from your analysis.

To comment further on your analysis, you are obviously covering more than the text of Genesis 1 since angels are nowhere mentioned in this narrative. Nor is there any description of heaven or any association of the heavens with the dwelling place of God.

So you are going more into a systematic theology than a textual interpretation. Certainly well beyond Genesis and especially beyond the Genesis creation texts.

I would absolutely agree with this statement re Gen. 1:1

All that statement is saying is whenever the heavens and earth were created, God did it. It doesn't give any information as to when each thing in the heavens was created or when planet earth was created.

OTOH I am not so sure about this one on Gen. 1:2

This comes before day one when the Spirit of God begins God's work on the void dark waste of the surface of the planet.

I don't think it is necessary to see vv.1-2 as occurring prior to the first creation day. I think it is legitimate to see them as introductory statements relative to the conditions that existed at the beginning of creation. I would see the 'fiat lux' of Gen. 1:3 as the moment when the Spirit of God begins the work of creation.

Personally, I don't put much stock in trying to tie biblical text to modern cosmological concepts. However, given that the thread title is about "problems with Genesis" from the perspective of an evolutionist [sic] I will add that the beginning of the creation of the universe is separated from the beginning of the earth by over 9 billion years. For those who feel it important to reconcile the Genesis account with science, this is another reason not to place v. 2 chronologically ahead of v.3. Light in this universe existed long before the earth. And at the time light came to be, the Spirit of God could not possibly be at work on the surface of a still non-existent planet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 10-02-2008 10:49 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 1579 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 72 of 200 (588637)
10-27-2010 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by willietdog
01-07-2008 8:39 PM


to the op
first let me say that I hear your 'concerns'. I am totally convinced that you are sincere and that you are not just an atheist attempting to spread 'strawman arguments'.

quote:
Genesis 1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

Genesis 1:23 "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind."

4.We have clear fossil records that prove that life was created in this order: fish, then land animal, then bird not fish + bird then land animal


it says "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let fliers fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

flying insects did evolve at that time.

quote:
Genesis 1:3 ("Let there be Light") and Genesis 1:14-19 (creation of sun moon and stars) are used in the next two points.
2.How can there be light before there is a source?

well I cant prove it but I strongly suspect that it originally said that God created 'small round things' and 'round things' and 'great round things' on the 4th day. By the time it was translated into hebrew all knowledge of bacteria and eukaryotes had been lost and so the translators assumed it was referring to the round things in the sky.

these things are complex and multifaceted and I dont claim to have all the answers but that is the truth of it to the very best of my knowledge


maybe the question you should be asking yourself is 'am I asking the right question'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by willietdog, posted 01-07-2008 8:39 PM willietdog has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 12:46 AM granpa has seen this message
 Message 74 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2010 5:02 AM granpa has seen this message
 Message 79 by Coragyps, posted 10-27-2010 2:51 PM granpa has seen this message

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19530
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 73 of 200 (588643)
10-27-2010 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by granpa
10-27-2010 12:00 AM


granpa writes:

well I cant prove it but I strongly suspect that it originally said that God created 'small round things' and 'round things' and 'great round things' on the 4th day. By the time it was translated into hebrew all knowledge of bacteria and eukaryotes had been lost and so the translators assumed it was referring to the round things in the sky.


Well... that's certainly one of the most far-fetched apologetics I've ever heard.

quote:
Gen 1:14-15 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Exactly how would bacteria be used "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years"?

granpa writes:

these things are complex and multifaceted and I dont claim to have all the answers but that is the truth of it to the very best of my knowledge


Why can't the truth of it be that the writers got it wrong?


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 12:00 AM granpa has seen this message

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 73 days)
Posts: 2384
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 74 of 200 (588654)
10-27-2010 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by granpa
10-27-2010 12:00 AM


Hi granpa and welcome.

it says "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let fliers fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

Where does it say that? Every translation I have ever seen says "bird" or "fowl" or "winged fowl" or suchlike. Which translation are you using?

flying insects did evolve at that time.

Not before invertebrates walked on the land they didn't. You can't wriggle out of this one my friend; the order of creation in Gen1 is wrong.

By the time it was translated into hebrew all knowledge of bacteria and eukaryotes had been lost and so the translators assumed it was referring to the round things in the sky.

You know, I really dislike the Bible. I strongly disapprove of it. But even I would not want to despoil it as you are doing. Why must you twist its words so badly? Do you have some kind of grudge against it?

Mutate and Survive


"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by granpa, posted 10-27-2010 12:00 AM granpa has seen this message

  
granpa
Member (Idle past 1579 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 10-26-2010


Message 75 of 200 (588687)
10-27-2010 1:45 PM


I wouldnt dream of trying to wriggle out of anything since I am not in anything to begin with.

bacteria can give light upon the earth. google 'light emitting bacteria'.

I must say that after thinking about it some more I really doubt that 'fliers' refers to birds or insects (although I think it is still a legitimate possibility. http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=05775). If you look at the overall structure of genesis you get the following.

from darkness light
from light air
from air water
from water earth
from earth life
from life cells
from cells ???
from ??? fish
from fish animals
from animals Adam
from Adam Seth
from Seth Enosh
...

from which we get:

darkness≫bacteria (stars and moon)
light≫eukaryotes (sun)
air≫??? (birds)
sea≫fish
land≫animals
eden≫humans

So ??? should be something that we are descended from and something that came between cells and fish and has some relationship with air.

my guess is that this has to do with the oxygen catastrophe.
the only thing that I can think of is that it refers to some kind of gilled oxygen breathing creature. the 'gills' being as it were 'wings' (extensions). Whatever it was it was clearly something that the translators could not be expected to know about. So it is not surprising that they would render it as 'birds'.

כָּנָף wing
http://net.bible.org/strong.php?id=03671
1) wing, extremity, edge, winged, border, corner, shirt
1a) wing
1b) extremity
1b1) skirt, corner (of garment)

Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

Edited by granpa, : No reason given.

Edited by granpa, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 10-27-2010 2:16 PM granpa has replied
 Message 91 by Granny Magda, posted 10-27-2010 5:11 PM granpa has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022