Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8926 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2019 6:12 AM
26 online now:
celestialGyoud, Tangle (2 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,206 Year: 15,242/19,786 Month: 1,965/3,058 Week: 339/404 Day: 6/51 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Author Topic:   Genesis 1 and 2: The Difference Between Created and Formed
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 207 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 181 of 210 (335075)
07-25-2006 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by jaywill
07-25-2006 12:41 AM


Re: context
Enoch walked with God and was taken somewhere by God before the flood.

Was Enoch a Israelite?

irrelevant. this is not about enoch, this is about the book of genesis which was written quite a while after enoch, by (suprise) jews. if you choose the fundamentalist viewpoint, it was personally handed to moses -- a jew -- by god.

genesis is a jewish text. it is a jewish text written in biblical (classical/old) hebrew. we are not talking about stuff that is not in this jewish text.

And the people went out of Egypt "a mixed multitude," meaning some Egyptians feared Jehovah and escaped judgement by the pascal lamb. God's word to the twelve tribes therefore also became a benefit to the reverent Egyptians who heeded it, believed it, and obeyed it.

ever read the census in the book of numbers? it's tediuous, i admit. tell me though, how many egyptians left among the jews during the exodus?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by jaywill, posted 07-25-2006 12:41 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by jaywill, posted 07-25-2006 6:28 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 07-25-2006 6:01 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 170 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 182 of 210 (335090)
07-25-2006 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by arachnophilia
07-25-2006 1:55 AM


Re: context
no, you have not supported anything with the plain words of the bible. not the rabbis of 1800 years ago, you. you twist the words, they do not. you don't know hebrew, they did.

Now where from the plain words do I derive my understanding?

"The earth was without form and void." That's the first place to look for plain words - Genesis 1:1.

Dr. Donald Barnhouse wrote that the word pair might envoke the same kind of vision as the expression English or French speakers might envision at the expression "topsy turvy" - i.e. turned upside down, be in a mess, all messed up.

The two words used as a pair in Genesis 1:1 occur together only in Isa. 34:11 and Jeremiah 4:23:

"But the pelican and the porcupine will inherit it, And the owl and the raven will dwell in it, And He will stretch over it the line of nothingness and the plummet weights of emptiness" (Isa 34:11)

Here the word pair translated nothingness and emptiness signify the result of God's exacting judgment. God will precisely and deliberately bring Edom to a state of nothingness and emptiness. As a skillful builder measures out with line and plummet for contructive purposes God will do so in divine destruction.

"My people are foolish; They do not know Me. They are stupid children and have no understanding. They are wise to do evil. But they do not know to do good.

I looked at the earth, and there it was, waste and emptiness, And at the heavens, and they had no light. I looked at the mountains, and there they were, shaking, And all the hills were swaying ... and all the cities were torn down before Jehovah, before His burning anger." (See Jeremiah 4:22-26)

Here again the word pair translated "waste and emptiness" indicate a terrible judgment of God upon some rebellion of His creatures.

These instances of the precise word pair also used to describe the earth in Genesis 1:1 lead some to believe divine judgment is indicated there also.

According to Author Custance oldest Aramaic version of the Old Testament written by Hebrew scholars is the Targum of Onkelos.
The Aramaic Targum of Onkelos dates back to the second century B.C. The translation of Genesis 1:2 is quoted by A. Custance as

" w' aretsah hawath tsadh'ya "

Where I cannot quote the text's quotation of Hebrew or Aramaic words I will put blanks. But Custance's comment on this tranalation reads:

In this passage, the verb ____ is compunded with the Aramaic verb _____ which appears here as a passive participle of a verb which itself means "to cut" or "to lay waste". We have here, therefore, a rendering "and the earth was laid waste", an intepretation of the original Hebrew of Gen. 1:2 which leaves little room for doubt that Onkelos understood this to mean that something had occured between verse 1 and verse 2 to reduce the earth to this desolated condition. It reflects Ginsburg's Jewish legend.

So over 1800 years ago Hebrew scholars understood the plain Hebrew words of Genesis to indicate a judgmental overthrow of some sort which rendered the earth in the condition it was in in Gen. 1:2.

your argument is based on either mirepresentation of the text, or authority. neither is a good standard -- authority is especially bad when it comes rabbinical opinion, interpretation, and the talmud. in this issue, you will not find consensus on your opinion -- but the vast majority of opinion will disagree with it. you simply ignore that.

The Targum of Onkelos is the translation of the Hebrew Genesis. I am not basing my opinion on Jewish legends that Ginsburg collected. That would not be wise. However, I am only pointing out that such an old understanding had its counterpart in Hebrew legends. I am not placing the compilation of legends on the same level as the Scripture for authority.

And I took you previous point that Edith was also a part of Jewish legends and she is not in the Bible. However as it stands the scholars who translated Hebrew into Aramiac, interpreted that the earth was laid waste.

the rabbis that agreed with your position worked it (rather needlessly, imho)

Thanks. And it is your opinion, humble or otherwise.

the rabbis that agreed with your position worked it (rather needlessly, imho) into the text, between verses. you, on the other hand, need to change the text,

I didn't change any text. It is not honest for you to charge me with changing a text. I interpreted a word usage differently then you prefer.

Once again, I changed no text. You should not charge people with changing a text because they interpret the usage of certain words to come out to mean something differently from what you think they mean.

When I put in another word or change a word then you can say I changed the text.


making god's creation of the sun, in fact, not about god creating the sun. their position is extra-biblical. your position is un-biblical. there is a difference.

You have said yourself that you are not trying to teach that BARA is exactly equivalent to ASAH everywhere in Scripture. Did you not say that?

So my saying ASAH in relation to the lightbearers on day fourth does not insist that they were created on that day. It could be that the meaning is that they were appointed on that day - i.e. "He appointed the moon to seasons ..." (Psalm 104:19)


into the text, between verses. you, on the other hand, need to change the text, making god's creation of the sun, in fact, not about god creating the sun. their position is extra-biblical. your position is un-biblical. there is a difference.

Your charge of changing the text is dishonest.


your position is un-biblical. there is a difference.

My interpretation is biblical. You just don't agree with it.

You also don't believe that under inspiration the exact choice of words might express truth even beyond what the writer may have been aware of. I think that the process of divine inspiration caused the prophets to write with an accuracy which at times transcended their awareness.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by arachnophilia, posted 07-25-2006 1:55 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by arachnophilia, posted 07-25-2006 5:44 PM jaywill has responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 170 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 183 of 210 (335097)
07-25-2006 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by arachnophilia
07-25-2006 2:03 AM


Re: context
irrelevant. this is not about enoch, this is about the book of genesis which was written quite a while after enoch, by (suprise) jews. if you choose the fundamentalist viewpoint, it was personally handed to moses -- a jew -- by god.

genesis is a jewish text. it is a jewish text written in biblical (classical/old) hebrew. we are not talking about stuff that is not in this jewish text.

I believe that the Jews had a special custodial relationship with the oracles of God written through Moses.

But the Jewish text contains words for the world. What God told Noah and his descendents was for mankind as a whole. Those instructions are in the Jewish text of the books Moses wrote.

So I think we are talking about the word of the living God.

ever read the census in the book of numbers? it's tediuous, i admit. tell me though, how many egyptians left among the jews during the exodus?

Whatever the genelologies in the book of Numbers say they don't render untrue that a mixed multitude left Ramses in the Exodus (Exd. 12:38).

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by arachnophilia, posted 07-25-2006 2:03 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by arachnophilia, posted 07-25-2006 5:45 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 184 of 210 (335100)
07-25-2006 6:46 AM


Off Topic Warning
Caution

As I've said before, I've been rather lenient on this thread since the originator seems to have abandoned it and there's seems to be only two of you discussing; but this is not a discussion about who the text belongs to.

Please get back to word meanings.

Also try to change the subtitles to be more descriptive of the content of your posts.

Thanks


Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by arachnophilia, posted 07-25-2006 5:48 PM AdminPD has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 207 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 185 of 210 (335263)
07-25-2006 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by jaywill
07-25-2006 5:40 AM


old arguments, targumim, and poor interpretation
Now where from the plain words do I derive my understanding?

this is just the same old argument, jay. it was wrong then, it's wrong now. destruction is described in terms of a return to a pre-creation state. it was that way with noah, it's that way with isaiah and jeremiah. those references lose their meaning if you remove the context of un-creation.

i'm not going to go through this again.

According to Author Custance oldest Aramaic version of the Old Testament written by Hebrew scholars is the Targum of Onkelos.

the targumim are notoriously fruity in their interpretations. some even choose to rename god.

quote:
In this passage, the verb ____ is compunded with the Aramaic verb _____ which appears here as a passive participle of a verb which itself means "to cut" or "to lay waste". We have here, therefore, a rendering "and the earth was laid waste", an intepretation of the original Hebrew of Gen. 1:2 which leaves little room for doubt that Onkelos understood this to mean that something had occured between verse 1 and verse 2 to reduce the earth to this desolated condition. It reflects Ginsburg's Jewish legend.

wanna explain to me how that's possible without a past tense?

The Targum of Onkelos is the translation of the Hebrew Genesis. I am not basing my opinion on Jewish legends that Ginsburg collected. That would not be wise.

yeah... research the targumim and come back to me on this. i think you'll find they're about as subjective as the talmud. it goes almost without saying that translation is interpretation. and translation of translation is even worse.

I didn't change any text. It is not honest for you to charge me with changing a text. I interpreted a word usage differently then you prefer.

you tried to take "made" on day four to mean something other than "made." then you describe that the sun existed from day one, nevermind that god himself only commanded the sun to exist on day four. why would god command something to exist, if it is exists already? l'hyot is a verb that isn't used very often in hebrew, and almost NEVER in present tense. no one ever says that something "is." god is issuing an impretive command, for something to be. your "interpretation" that it existed before that point is changing the text. there are no two ways about it.

Once again, I changed no text. You should not charge people with changing a text because they interpret the usage of certain words to come out to mean something differently from what you think they mean.

jay, let me direct you to some posts by a former member here, eddy penngelly. such classics as windows 3 described in the bible. all he's doing in those posts is interpretting usage differently, and "decoding" the bible in a similar manner. it's wrong when he does it, and it's wrong when you do it. usage, context, and idiomatic meaning are important. if you exchange one usage for another, out of context, it is changing the text.

When I put in another word or change a word then you can say I changed the text.

like "appoint" or "reveal" for "make"? yes jay, that's exactly what you did.

You have said yourself that you are not trying to teach that BARA is exactly equivalent to ASAH everywhere in Scripture. Did you not say that?

the ideas, in this case, are interchangeable. god creates through different processes -- when i says god created the heavens and the earth, that includes the things in them. things it said he "made" and "formed" are also part of his creation. is this not common sense to you? do you think bara can ONLY mean creatio ex-nihilo?

So my saying ASAH in relation to the lightbearers on day fourth does not insist that they were created on that day. It could be that the meaning is that they were appointed on that day - i.e. "He appointed the moon to seasons ..." (Psalm 104:19)

i addressed this point in Message 118, including an explanation of the translation. "appoint" does not come from asah. rather, what the verse says in hebrew is that god made the moon to appoint time. it's one of the rare examples where the kjv re-words something -- if you look around, you'll find that many other versions word things the way i explained, including the new jps, nlt, rsv, etc.

My interpretation is biblical. You just don't agree with it.

your interpretation of god NOT making the sun on the fourth day, and that it existed previously, directly contradicts the bible. it requires reading verses where god commands the sun to exist as something else -- and i don't even know what because you have consistently failed to answer this point.

the view that says "no, the bible doesn't actually mean what it says, it means this, the total opposite" is by definition un-biblical.

You also don't believe that under inspiration the exact choice of words might express truth even beyond what the writer may have been aware of.

irrelevant. if god chose the words exactly, why do you choose to not pay attention to them exactly? and yes, btw, i do believe there is inspiration in the bible beyond what the authors understood. i also understand that any such information has to be based upon the foundation of a firm literal reading of the text. if you accept the text is wrong, that's fine by me. but then your interpretation is un-biblical. you cannot interpret the bible to mean something that contradicts the plain text, and still claim your interpretation is biblical. it's just not.

and i've warned you before, do not presume to tell me what i do or do not believe.

Edited by arachnophilia, : subtitle


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by jaywill, posted 07-25-2006 5:40 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by jaywill, posted 07-25-2006 6:49 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 207 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 186 of 210 (335264)
07-25-2006 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by jaywill
07-25-2006 6:28 AM


Re: context
Whatever the genelologies in the book of Numbers say they don't render untrue that a mixed multitude left Ramses in the Exodus (Exd. 12:38).

no, it tells who EXACTLY was in that multitude. and it wasn't egyptians.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by jaywill, posted 07-25-2006 6:28 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 207 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 187 of 210 (335265)
07-25-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by AdminPD
07-25-2006 6:46 AM


Re: Off Topic Warning
Please get back to word meanings.

good luck, jay likes to drag things way off topic. the whole "jewish" bible thing is not so much about who the text belongs to, but rather me trying to keep jaywill specific. he was going off about god's words to other people, or him, or people before moses, etc. no, this discussion is about genesis, and what's actually in genesis. this thread is NOT about god-given understanding, decoder rings, the holy spirit, or enoch. it's about the book of genesis, part of the torah, a jewish text.

frankly, he's just debating his gap theory again, in the wrong thread, and he's starting to repeat himself. it's all off topic here.

Also try to change the subtitles to be more descriptive of the content of your posts.

will try to. nothing has really jumped out at me as describing what this is about. other than "off-topic" that is.

Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by AdminPD, posted 07-25-2006 6:46 AM AdminPD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by jaywill, posted 07-26-2006 2:16 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32708
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 188 of 210 (335274)
07-25-2006 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by arachnophilia
07-25-2006 2:03 AM


Re: context
And the people went out of Egypt "a mixed multitude," meaning some Egyptians feared Jehovah and escaped judgement by the pascal lamb. God's word to the twelve tribes therefore also became a benefit to the reverent Egyptians who heeded it, believed it, and obeyed it.

ever read the census in the book of numbers? it's tediuous, i admit. tell me though, how many egyptians left among the jews during the exodus?

The way it is worded, the text that speaks of the mixed multitude has to include some other than the Hebrews. Who else but Egyptians?

quote:
Exd 12:37-38 And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot [that were] men, beside children. And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, [even] very much cattle.

This is the standard understanding. One commentary:

quote:
a. The children of Israel journeyed: Assembling together at Succoth, about 600,000 men (besides children of women) left Egypt. The count of six hundred thousand men makes for a total population of perhaps two million that left Egypt for the Promised Land.b. A mixed multitude went up with them: Not all of the 600,000 were Israelites. Many Egyptians (and perhaps other foreigners) went with them, because the God of Israel demonstrated that He was more powerful that the gods of the Egyptians.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1153864367-6719.html


And, in discussions with orthodox Jews I've run across the claim that it was this mixed multitude, these Egyptians, who caused the Israelites to sin with the golden calf, since according to them the israelites would otherwise have been true to God.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by arachnophilia, posted 07-25-2006 2:03 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by arachnophilia, posted 07-25-2006 6:22 PM Faith has responded

    
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 207 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 189 of 210 (335281)
07-25-2006 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
07-25-2006 6:01 PM


those pesky off-topic egyptians
The way it is worded, the text that speaks of the mixed multitude has to include some other than the Hebrews. Who else but Egyptians?

ok, you might have a point. but these egyptians seem to have been left out of the census. that might not be a problem, though, i admit.

moving back to the topic?

And, in discussions with orthodox Jews I've run across the claim that it was this mixed multitude, these Egyptians, who caused the Israelites to sin with the golden calf, since according to them the israelites would otherwise have been true to God.

uh huh, tell me another one. there's a lot of content in the old testament about the israelites flirting with idols, and disobeying god. they are portrayed as "a stiffnecked people" and kvetching all the time.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 07-25-2006 6:01 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 07-25-2006 6:41 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32708
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 190 of 210 (335290)
07-25-2006 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by arachnophilia
07-25-2006 6:22 PM


Re: those pesky off-topic egyptians
uh huh, tell me another one. there's a lot of content in the old testament about the israelites flirting with idols, and disobeying god. they are portrayed as "a stiffnecked people" and kvetching all the time.

That's what I always say to my orthodox friend. He insists they were special people or God wouldn't have chosen them. I quote where God clearly says He didn't choose them for any reason except His own sovereign will. He quotes back where God says He knew Abraham would be faithful and teach his children about Him. I say if they were so special how come they had to wander in the wilderness for 40 years and die there and not get to see the promised land. He says God punished them a lot harder than He ever punished anyone else because they were such special good people. I just roll my eyes.

But this is very definitely off topic now.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by arachnophilia, posted 07-25-2006 6:22 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

    
jaywill
Member (Idle past 170 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 191 of 210 (335296)
07-25-2006 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by arachnophilia
07-25-2006 5:44 PM


Re: old arguments, targumim, and poor interpretation
this is just the same old argument, jay. it was wrong then, it's wrong now. destruction is described in terms of a return to a pre-creation state. it was that way with noah, it's that way with isaiah and jeremiah. those references lose their meaning if you remove the context of un-creation.

i'm not going to go through this again.

That's interesting. A "pre-creation state." What's that the state of created things before they were created?

the targumim are notoriously fruity in their interpretations. some even choose to rename god.

You seem full of handy excuses for not considering the thoughts of other Hebrew readers besides yourself.
You say the legends of the Jews should be considered in how Hebrew readers thought. Then you say the writings in Akiba ben Joseph in Sefer Hazzohar shouldn't be considered as to how Hebrew readers thought. And now also you say the Targum of Onkelos should not be considered either.

I think you are just coming up with handy excuses for disqualifying the reading comprehension of ancient Jews for various reasons.

yeah... research the targumim and come back to me on this. i think you'll find they're about as subjective as the talmud. it goes almost without saying that translation is interpretation. and translation of translation is even worse.

I don't need to research all the targumim to make my point that some Hebrew scholars read and understood Genesis 1:1,2 as I have proposed is proper. This is what they read and this is what they understood.

I don't think you're pointing to some other alleged wacky ideas prove that they couldn't read or were inferior in translation skill to you.

you tried to take "made" on day four to mean something other than "made." then you describe that the sun existed from day one, nevermind that god himself only commanded the sun to exist on day four. why would god command something to exist, if it is exists already? l'hyot is a verb that isn't used very often in hebrew, and almost NEVER in present tense. no one ever says that something "is." god is issuing an impretive command, for something to be. your "interpretation" that it existed before that point is changing the text. there are no two ways about it.

Light be is not exactly the same as lightbearers be. Light exist is not exactly the same as lightbearers exist.

I didn't change a Hebrew word and that means I did not change the text. It also means that your accusation of me changing the text is not honest.

I wrote the English version of the text. Before and after my proposed interpretation the words remain the same. I changed no word.

I did not make ASAH mean something other than one of the valid definitions of the word ASAH.

And there is nothing so outlandish about reasoning that the light which the seer saw from day one to day four was diffuse and indistinct sunlight. And there is nothing outlandish about reasoning that on the fourth day the distinct lightbearers were made known to him and he wrote that God made them then ASAH - as in appointed them for signs and seasons. As far as the seer is concerned day four was the first day that the distinct lightbearers existed.

Genesis 2:3 uses two words "created" and "made".

And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made"

In the next verse it is interesting that created is used in reference with the heavens and the earth in that order. But made is used in reference to earth and heaven in that order.

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created. When Jehovah God made earth and heaven ..."

It is a plausible argument that the inspired writings are saying that God created the universe out of nothing in the beginning, at some undefined moment. And then he formed out of existing material already created the earth and heaven, which earth, was somehow put into a state of waste and void.

Every example I point out of ancient Hebrew scholars ascertaining this kind of interpretation, you quickly dismiss for other supposedly encrementating reasons. Such comprehension on their part is not an endorsement of everything they ever wrote.

You have expressed some opinions in life which others find wacky. And if not now, very likely someday. That does not prove you couldn't read and interpret what you read in all passages of Scripture.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by arachnophilia, posted 07-25-2006 5:44 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by arachnophilia, posted 07-25-2006 8:58 PM jaywill has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 207 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 192 of 210 (335314)
07-25-2006 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by jaywill
07-25-2006 6:49 PM


Re: old arguments, targumim, and poor interpretation
That's interesting. A "pre-creation state." What's that the state of created things before they were created?

empty, and without form.

You seem full of handy excuses for not considering the thoughts of other Hebrew readers besides yourself.
You say the legends of the Jews should be considered in how Hebrew readers thought. Then you say the writings in Akiba ben Joseph in Sefer Hazzohar shouldn't be considered as to how Hebrew readers thought. And now also you say the Targum of Onkelos should not be considered either.

they do not represent the majority of opinion. yes, some people thought that. that does not mean they are right, or that everyone agrees.

I don't need to research all the targumim to make my point that some Hebrew scholars read and understood Genesis 1:1,2 as I have proposed is proper. This is what they read and this is what they understood.

evidently, you do need to research the targumim. aramaic is a different language than hebrew. the grammar is different, even if many of the words are the same. it's actually from a targum that christians get the name for god "the word." not in the old testament anywhere, until it's translated into aramaic, and they need to find a new word for god.

I don't think you're pointing to some other alleged wacky ideas prove that they couldn't read or were inferior in translation skill to you.

no, it's just that there's a whole wide world of jewish interpretation. i keep saying this over and over and you never seem to get it -- saying "this jewish source agrees with me!" does not prove your point.

Light be is not exactly the same as lightbearers be. Light exist is not exactly the same as lightbearers exist.

no, in THIS verse:

quote:
Genesis 1:14

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם

v'y'amar elohim yehey maorot b'raqiya ha-shamim.

and said god, "exist, lightbearers, in the firmament of the heavens"


notice it's מְאֹרֹת (maorot -- lightbearers) that god is commanding into existance. how can you say they existed before this point? clearly, they did not.

I didn't change a Hebrew word and that means I did not change the text.

you changed a usage in an incorrect way, resulting in a translation that is not used by anybody. i challenge you to find a single translation that renders וַיַּעַשׂ in verse 16 as "appoint" or "reveal."

I wrote the English version of the text. Before and after my proposed interpretation the words remain the same. I changed no word.

you are playing semantics, both with the words themselves, and with what is changing the text.

I did not make ASAH mean something other than one of the valid definitions of the word ASAH.

yes, in fact, you did. because we have this thing called context, see. and it along with grammar dictates what the usage of the word is. using the wrong usage is distorting the meaning.

suppose for a second the text was written in english -- and i take the common english idiom "to make out" and apply it to this verse. did god french-kiss the sun? usage matters.

And there is nothing so outlandish about reasoning that the light which the seer saw from day one to day four was diffuse and indistinct sunlight.

yes, there is, and i've already explained why multiple times. the word used does not imply it.

And there is nothing outlandish about reasoning that on the fourth day the distinct lightbearers were made known to him and he wrote that God made them then ASAH - as in appointed them for signs and seasons.

yes, there is, because on day four we have god commanding them to exist. they did not exist prior to god's command. you are wrong.

As far as the seer is concerned day four was the first day that the distinct lightbearers existed.

then, by your claim, the bible is ignorant or inaccurate, and the words of god commanding the sun and moon and stars to exist are in error.

It is a plausible argument that the inspired writings are saying that God created the universe out of nothing in the beginning, at some undefined moment. And then he formed out of existing material already created the earth and heaven, which earth, was somehow put into a state of waste and void.

the first part is plausible. the second is needlessly redundant.

You have expressed some opinions in life which others find wacky. And if not now, very likely someday. That does not prove you couldn't read and interpret what you read in all passages of Scripture.

i do not try to change the plain meaning of the bible. you do.

Edited by arachnophilia, : typo


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by jaywill, posted 07-25-2006 6:49 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by jaywill, posted 07-26-2006 9:24 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 195 by jaywill, posted 07-26-2006 10:02 AM arachnophilia has responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 170 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 193 of 210 (335411)
07-26-2006 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by arachnophilia
07-25-2006 8:58 PM


Re: old arguments, targumim, and poor interpretation
empty, and without form.

Empty and without form is the state of the earth after it was created. It was not the state before it was created.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But the earth was waste and emptiness, and darkness was on the surface of the deep" (RcV)

they do not represent the majority of opinion. yes, some people thought that. that does not mean they are right, or that everyone agrees.

Maybe they do not represent the majority opinion. Does going with the majority opinion always and without fail lead to the truth? Are there exceptions to the rightness of the majority opinion ever?

At one time the majority opinion was that Moses should be stoned and the Israelites should return to Egypt rather than die needlessly in the wilderness.

I only give so much credence to the fact that it was not the majority opinion. So that the majority thought otherwise also does not mean that they were right.

no, it's just that there's a whole wide world of jewish interpretation. i keep saying this over and over and you never seem to get it -- saying "this jewish source agrees with me!" does not prove your point.

I have not tried to say that it proves my point. I have only used the comparison to take the wind out of your sails that you alone can speak for valid Jewish thought concerning the subject matter.

Saying that Rabbi Nachman said that no other word in Hebrew beside BARA would express creation from nothing may not prove my point. But it proves that Jewish interpretation does not die with you.

notice it's מְאֹרֹת (maorot -- lightbearers) that god is commanding into existance. how can you say they existed before this point? clearly, they did not.

I can say that the function of the lightbearers did not come into existence. It is a simple concept. The seer did not see the functioning lightbearers as distinct sources of light until the fourth day.

Behind the haze and the clouds they may have existed already. They were not performing their function until God made them do so. If we say "Impossible" then we have to say that God used some other light to mark the previous three days of light. That is certainly possible.

And as you are weary of repeating, so am I. I don't think the language insists that that is the case.

you changed a usage in an incorrect way, resulting in a translation that is not used by anybody. i challenge you to find a single translation that renders וַיַּעַשׂ in verse 16 as "appoint" or "reveal."

The word "made" is enough to understand the verse in that way.
That is if you assume the validity of the definition that "made" means to fashion or form something from material which already exists.

Why could God not repair or restore the damaged function of lightbearers to mark seasons, had they been rendered unable to do this?

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : Spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by arachnophilia, posted 07-25-2006 8:58 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by jaywill, posted 07-26-2006 9:45 AM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 198 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2006 6:01 PM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 203 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-26-2006 11:52 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 170 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 194 of 210 (335413)
07-26-2006 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by jaywill
07-26-2006 9:24 AM


Re: old arguments, targumim, and poor interpretation
Oh Arach, on the Numbers geneology matter -

It has been rebuked as off topic, but it is an interesting study. Exodus says that they went out a mixed multitude. You say "No Egyptians in the crowd according to Numbers."

Well, I will look into the matter for my own edification. However, "mixed multitude" should mean that some who were not descendents of Jacob went with them - Egyptians or not. So the point stands that they must have believed in the God of the Jews and acted accordingly so as to escape with the Jews. Which means that God's word to the Hebrews was for them also in some regard.

Now, your challenge to find "appoint" or "revealed" in any english translation I am willing to explore. But failing to find such a translation still makes ASAH include the definition of working with already existing material.

It would not prove that God could not work with an already existing but unseen, as of yet, lightbearer which entered into full function on the fourth day.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by jaywill, posted 07-26-2006 9:24 AM jaywill has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2006 6:07 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 170 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 195 of 210 (335417)
07-26-2006 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by arachnophilia
07-25-2006 8:58 PM


Re: old arguments, targumim, and poor interpretation
you changed a usage in an incorrect way, resulting in a translation that is not used by anybody. i challenge you to find a single translation that renders וַיַּעַשׂ in verse 16 as "appoint" or "reveal."

What about Psalm 104:19 which says in some English versions "made" and in other versions "appointed?"

"He made the moon to [mark] seasons" (RcV)

"He appointed the moon for seasons ..." ( 1901 ASV)

It know it is not the Genesis verse. But its talking about the Genesis verse.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by arachnophilia, posted 07-25-2006 8:58 PM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by arachnophilia, posted 07-26-2006 6:27 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019