Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The timeline of the Bible
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 61 of 316 (502004)
03-09-2009 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Rrhain
03-09-2009 5:03 AM


Cultural and Historical Context!
I'll focus on what i believe is the crux of Rrhain's difficulty:
I wrote:
As I've said repeatedly, they DO NOT mean two different things.
(*blink!*)
quote:
You did not just say that, did you?
YES. I've been saying this and you've been pretending that I didn't.
It means an ancestor/descendent relationship in both cases. Do you understand what the word "ancestor" and the word "descendent" mean?
quote:
If the description of Adam and Seth is to be taken to mean direct lineage and the exact same words are used to describe Jared and Enoch but aren't to be taken to mean direct lineage, then how can you possibly claim you aren't saying they mean two different things?
If Adam is the father of Seth, how is Jared not the father of Enoch?
Adam is the ancestor of Seth, and Jared is the ancestor of Enoch.
n+1st time:
They DO NOT mean two different things. They mean EXACTLY the same thing.
I've stated this repeatedly. Why do you keep playing dumb?
quote:
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
What a silly question! As you know, and as I've said repeatedly, it is not the "begat" phrasing, but OTHER parts of the narrative (Gen 4) further define the ancestor/descendent relationship in the case of Adam and Seth. They do not do this in all of the other cases.
I wrote:
They mean an ancestor/descendent relationship in both cases.
quote:
So now you're saying Adam is not the father of Seth? Will you make up your mind?
What part of "They mean an ancestor/descendent relationship in both cases" do you not understand? Where did you get "father" from these words?
n+2nd time:
They DO NOT mean two different things. They mean EXACTLY the same thing.
I wrote:
In one case it may be father/son and in another it may be great-grandfather/great-grandson.
quote:
But it's the exact same passage with only the names changed. How could it possibly mean something other than the exact same thing?
Do you understand what the word "ancestor" and the word "descendent" mean?
n+3rd time:
They DO NOT mean two different things. They mean EXACTLY the same thing.
I've stated this repeatedly. Why do you keep playing dumb?
quote:
Special pleading.
I already addressed this (multiple times):
This is not an inconsistency or a special pleading. In both cases "begat" means "ancestored". The exact same words mean the exact same thing in both cases.
quote:
But you're saying that in the first case, it means Adam is the father of Seth and in the second case, it means Jared is not the father of Enoch.
NO! I am NOT saying this. I have specifically denied this multiple times. Do you understand what the word "ancestor" and the word "descendent" mean?
n+4th time:
They DO NOT mean two different things. They mean EXACTLY the same thing.
I've stated this repeatedly. Why do you keep playing dumb?
It seems that we cannot even communicate at the present time. You seem to not understand what I am saying, you put foreign words in my mouth, and you twist my words. Until you can understand what I am saying on these points, there is no reason to discuss any further points. You don't have to agree with me, but you at least have to understand me before we can move this discussion ahead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Rrhain, posted 03-09-2009 5:03 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2009 2:40 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 62 of 316 (502009)
03-09-2009 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Peg
03-08-2009 10:10 PM


Re: Cultural and Historical Context!
quote:
except that in the case of Seth, he really was one of Adams own sons.
Eve named him Seth because, as she said, 'God has appointed another seed in place of Abel, because Cain killed him.'
this along with the fact that Lukes geneology lists Seth as the 'Son of Adam'
Agreed. As I've repeatedly explained to Rrhain, the "begat" phrasing of Gen 5 is non-specific, meaning only ancestry/descendency. It is the other narrative (e.g. Gen 4) that clarifies for us that Adam and Seth were specifically father/son.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Peg, posted 03-08-2009 10:10 PM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2009 2:41 AM kbertsche has replied

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 5482 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 63 of 316 (502498)
03-11-2009 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by kbertsche
02-28-2009 1:52 AM


First Year of Creation/Terah
Edited by Daniel4140, : Replied to wrong person, will fix it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by kbertsche, posted 02-28-2009 1:52 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Daniel4140
Member (Idle past 5482 days)
Posts: 61
Joined: 03-05-2009


Message 64 of 316 (502509)
03-11-2009 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Rrhain
02-25-2009 6:09 AM


Terah
Hi Rrhain,
I'm replying to you in support of Peg. First point. Acts 7:4 says:
quote:
YLT Acts 7:4 'Then having come forth out of the land of the Chaldeans, he dwelt in Haran, and from thence, after the death of his father, He did remove him to this land wherein ye now dwell,
.
It is a provable fact that Shem, though listed first was not born when Noah was 500. We must therefore drop the assumption that first listed in a multiple son list means first born. It only means most important born. Your allegation that the synchronism Terah 205 = Abrahm 75 is a math error disappears since your assumption that the listing indicates order of birth is incorrect.
I believe that God made biblical chronology obscure, but he did not make it impossible to solve. He wants sincere people to make a search for the truth in this age. The points I made above are charted on the following pages:
http://www.torahtimes.org/book/page128.pdf Shem's Birth
http://www.torahtimes.org/book/page130.pdf Shem at the Flood
http://www.torahtimes.org/book/page135.pdf Abraham's Birth
http://www.torahtimes.org/book/page136.pdf Terah's death
Daniel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Rrhain, posted 02-25-2009 6:09 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2009 2:45 AM Daniel4140 has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 65 of 316 (502909)
03-14-2009 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by kbertsche
03-09-2009 10:09 AM


kbertsche responds to me:
quote:
YES. I've been saying this and you've been pretending that I didn't.
No, I've been constantly and persistently amazed that you have, begging and pleading for you to provide something, anything that justifies your claim other than, "Kitchen says so." That is not sufficient.
Since the very same words are used to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth as between Jared and Enoch, then if Adam and Seth are father/son, then so are Jared and Enoch.
But you keep saying that they don't mean the same thing...something about the later description, despite being exactly the same, despite there being absolutely no context change, means that the two mean different things.
And then you immediately contradict yourself to say that no, they don't mean different things.
Which is it? Do you agree or disagree that the words used to describe the relationship between Adam and Seth are exactly the same as the words used to describe the relationship between Jared and Enoch?
If you do agree that the words are the same, then how do you manage to conclude that they mean one thing with regard to Adam and Seth but something different with regard to Jared and Enoch...and then contradict yourself to say that no, they mean the same thing?
quote:
Adam is the ancestor of Seth
That's not what it says, though. While it is true that fathers are ancestors, the text does not say that Adam "ancestored" Seth. It says that he "begat" Seth. Since this phrasing is used to mean that Adam is the father of Seth, why does the context suddenly change with relation to all of the others?
Eighteenth time:
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
How many times do I need to ask you these direct questions before you answer them?
Yes or no: Is there a missing verse we don't know about? I really want to hear your answer to that question. Please provide a direct answer to this direct question. It is not rhetorical.
Yes or no: Is there something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death that changes the context? I really want to hear your answer to that question. Please provide a direct answer to this direct question. It is not rhetorical.
Please, I'm begging you. Answer the question:
If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by kbertsche, posted 03-09-2009 10:09 AM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 66 of 316 (502910)
03-14-2009 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by kbertsche
03-09-2009 10:14 AM


kbertsche writes:
quote:
As I've repeatedly explained to Rrhain, the "begat" phrasing of Gen 5 is non-specific, meaning only ancestry/descendency. It is the other narrative (e.g. Gen 4) that clarifies for us that Adam and Seth were specifically father/son.
Nineteenth time:
Is there a missing verse we don't know about? Something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death changes it? How? If the text means that Adam was the father of Seth, how can the exact same description not mean that Jared is the father of Enoch? If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?
"Kitchen says so" is not sufficient.
How many times do I need to ask you these direct questions before you answer them?
Yes or no: Is there a missing verse we don't know about? I really want to hear your answer to that question. Please provide a direct answer to this direct question. It is not rhetorical.
Yes or no: Is there something in the description about the life of Adam after Seth and then Adam's death that changes the context? I really want to hear your answer to that question. Please provide a direct answer to this direct question. It is not rhetorical.
Please, I'm begging you. Answer the question:
If I establish a context and then I keep going without a break, using the exact same words in follow-on imagery, how did the context change?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by kbertsche, posted 03-09-2009 10:14 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2009 5:54 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 67 of 316 (502911)
03-14-2009 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Daniel4140
03-11-2009 8:04 PM


Daniel4140 responds to me:
quote:
I believe that God made biblical chronology obscure, but he did not make it impossible to solve. He wants sincere people to make a search for the truth in this age.
Even if we assume this to be true, we're talking about a discrepancy of less than 200 years. Ergo, we're still talking about a chronology of the earth being only about 6000 years old.
Thus, Peg's original claim that the Bible doesn't say the earth is 6000 years old is still shown to be incorrect: It says it flat out. The fact that it doesn't say, "The Earth was created on Sunday the 21st of October, 4004 B.C., at exactly 9:00 A.M., because God liked to get work done early in the morning while he was feeling fresh," doesn't mean that it doesn't say how old life, the universe, and everything is.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Daniel4140, posted 03-11-2009 8:04 PM Daniel4140 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Daniel4140, posted 03-14-2009 9:36 PM Rrhain has replied

adimus
Junior Member (Idle past 5492 days)
Posts: 9
From: the heartland, USA
Joined: 03-14-2009


Message 68 of 316 (502919)
03-14-2009 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rrhain
02-14-2009 5:34 AM


I made this article drawing from information from "Hard Sayings of the Bible" by by Walter C. Kaiser, Peter H. Davids, Frederick Fyvie Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch. It is relevant to this topic. Tell me what you think... AFTER you read it all carefully.


Admin Modulous deleted a large copy/paste.
This information can be found this source and this source.
Edited by adimus, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rrhain, posted 02-14-2009 5:34 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Theodoric, posted 03-14-2009 11:54 AM adimus has replied

adimus
Junior Member (Idle past 5492 days)
Posts: 9
From: the heartland, USA
Joined: 03-14-2009


Message 69 of 316 (502921)
03-14-2009 8:28 AM


...
Edited by adimus, : No reason given.

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 70 of 316 (502940)
03-14-2009 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by adimus
03-14-2009 8:01 AM


Cut and paste, we no likee
This whole post is just a cut and paste fom here
Are you the original author? If so why didn't you just explain it a little and link?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by adimus, posted 03-14-2009 8:01 AM adimus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by adimus, posted 03-14-2009 1:14 PM Theodoric has not replied

adimus
Junior Member (Idle past 5492 days)
Posts: 9
From: the heartland, USA
Joined: 03-14-2009


Message 71 of 316 (502951)
03-14-2009 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Theodoric
03-14-2009 11:54 AM


Re: Cut and paste, we no likee
WRONG!
This is where my source was, exactly where I said it was and where I said you could check. Hard Sayings of the Bible - Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, Manfred Brauch - Google Books
I have never seen those two articles, wise guy. It looks like someone else may be ripping off the book I drew from and not giving them any credit, as I clearly did. I admitted that I gleaned the info from the book at the top of the article. That is why I left certain references in the article so that people could look up those things in that particular book.
Of course, I would never attempt to sell that article or turn it in for a college paper or it would be too close and would be considered plagiarism, like the link you gave.
Maybe it was a mistake coming here to interact with people. If they are all as anal as you are being. Some welcome I got. You can go about things A LOT more politely.
Edited by adimus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Theodoric, posted 03-14-2009 11:54 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by AdminModulous, posted 03-14-2009 1:43 PM adimus has replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 72 of 316 (502959)
03-14-2009 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by adimus
03-14-2009 1:14 PM


I have never seen those two articles, wise guy. It looks like someone else may be ripping off the book I drew from and not giving them any credit, as I clearly did.
Just because someone else ripped off a book, that doesn't mean you get to. The words you used were identical in almost 99% of cases with the articles you had 'never seen'. If you wrote those words yourself, rather than copying them from the book, it looks like someone else copied your article.
Perhaps you can introduce one issue from the book in question and show us its relevance to this topic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by adimus, posted 03-14-2009 1:14 PM adimus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by adimus, posted 03-14-2009 1:49 PM AdminModulous has replied
 Message 78 by kbertsche, posted 03-14-2009 7:01 PM AdminModulous has not replied

adimus
Junior Member (Idle past 5492 days)
Posts: 9
From: the heartland, USA
Joined: 03-14-2009


Message 73 of 316 (502962)
03-14-2009 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by AdminModulous
03-14-2009 1:43 PM


Obviously you did not read the link I gave.
This forum sucks. You are calling me a liar and I know you didn't even read the article in the first place. You guys are extremely anal. I am done here. Funny how no other forums reacted like a bunch of high school nerds with zits on their face.
Edited by adimus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by AdminModulous, posted 03-14-2009 1:43 PM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by AdminModulous, posted 03-14-2009 1:59 PM adimus has replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 74 of 316 (502963)
03-14-2009 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by adimus
03-14-2009 1:49 PM


It doesn't bother you that some guy called Brent Herbert has seemingly ripped off your articles? I read them both simultaneously, they are almost identical. It'd bother me.
Ah well,
Goodbye.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by adimus, posted 03-14-2009 1:49 PM adimus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by adimus, posted 03-14-2009 2:32 PM AdminModulous has replied

adimus
Junior Member (Idle past 5492 days)
Posts: 9
From: the heartland, USA
Joined: 03-14-2009


Message 75 of 316 (502967)
03-14-2009 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by AdminModulous
03-14-2009 1:59 PM


OK. I couldn't resist trying to get the last word. That person couldn't have ripped me off since I only posted it once on another forum months ago and I got maybe one or two replies. Being that we can't post my article here and we can't post his, we can't compare the two so you can eat humble pie.
If anything, it is likely that that person took from the same article that I did from Hard Sayings of the Bible By Walter C. Kaiser, Peter H. Davids, Frederick Fyvie Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch, page 48. (see it on Google Books for proof).
Also, I am comparing my article with the link someone put here that I supposedly copied, and I can't find where I even supposedly copied it from. In fact, that article assumes that the Bible is not the inspired and accurate word of God, totally contrarily to mine.
I saw that the last article was plagiarizing Hard Sayings of the Bible By Walter C. Kaiser, Peter H. Davids, Frederick Fyvie Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch. All you have to do is read the last paragraph in the book and compare it to theirs. They took it and changed it into an anti-Bible paragraph. I tried to email the author but his link to email does not work.
Edited by adimus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by AdminModulous, posted 03-14-2009 1:59 PM AdminModulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by AdminModulous, posted 03-14-2009 2:41 PM adimus 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