-Jay-

His reliance on Josh McDowell as a key source of "information" on the DH suggests that he's referring specifically to the authorship traditions held by American fundamentalist Christians. While the American fundamentalist position may have ultimately grown out of Judaic traditions, what I've read tends to suggest that the opinions of the early Christian Church Fathers (e.g. Origen, Irenaeus, and so forth) provide the most comprehensive authorship traditions.

(As an aside, I'm not sure how many rank and file American fundamentalists have any idea where their traditions actually come from. My impression is that they aren't encouraged to look that far into the matter, or if they are, they're pointed to authors like McDowell.)

regards,

NinJay

VoxRat

What is this? I can't believe you guys are questioning Dave's linguistic expertise. After he schooled you all on the Portuguese question and all. And Greek? What are you asking this, this... "Faid" character for? When you've got Dave right here. Dave reads the Scriptures in Greek you know:

Faid

Both of which, of course, fall under the third meaning in L&S: Production, coming into being.

spin

So you shouldn't mind the "generation" translation of genesis.


spin

Dean Anderson

I've tried to engage Dave about these "missing generations" a couple of times - he's simply not replied to any of my posts challenging him about them.

Dean Anderson

One thing that I find interesting is that Dave asked me in my original Debate Challenge thread if I had read the McDowell book, and only started this thread after I said that I hadn't.

Appearances may be deceptive, but it certainly looks like all he knew of the DH was what McDowell said about it (i.e. that it was apparently based on those silly "presuppositions" and was "discredited") - and when he found out that I hadn't read McDowell's book he simply assumed that McDowell's strawman arguments were actually true and that the only reason I supported the DH was because I was ignorant of this "truth" about it.

Hence this thread, which opened with a salvo of strawmen claims lifted straight from McDowell's book, and the invitation for me to concede that this "new information" about the DH that he has quoted from McDowell discredits it.

Dean Anderson

From the OP...

How are we doing, Dave?

Do you have your sources assembled, yet?

Have we all learned enough on this thread so that we can move on to the Formal Debate now?

Since you haven't addressed the evidence that I have given so far, I've not needed to post any more - so I've still got plenty left to present in the debate itself...

glorybug

I have an awful lot of unorthidox interpretations of Genesis that I will not go into here, as I don't know how to start new threads or anything...

Suffice to say I disagree with Jumper on what the real point was. If anyone is interested, please email me or guide me how to start a new thread on that.

That said, Gen and Rev are my favourite books. Probably because other than Ezekial, they are both, in my opinion, interesting. My father, a BAC and missionary as well as architect, led him to build a downscaled representation of Noah's ark, which was built for a xian retreat, and has never seen water. Nor could it withstand water, according to him. But he followed step by step what he could get from the bible, and built one. It's cool, but obvious it could never float. (No need to worry about the whole dino-thing with them, as their explanation was (as my mother was a huge fossil hound) that God first created a world for the dinosaurs, but was unhappy with their progress, so he junked them and started anew. Then he created the new world.
WTF?
Anyway, I have massively different ideas about the Genesis creation story than many people here, and will withhold them until I get comfortable with this forum.

As far as Genesis, written or oral...

Think about it. Pretty simplistic. If the majority of people could not write, an oral tradition makes sense. I memorized it, and I'm sure people back then could, too.

Of course, I've also made a point of memorizing quotes from Buckmintster, so that means nothing. Never met him, know nothing about him. I dearly love some of the things he's said.

In my opinion, and what I've read courtesy of my father, Genesis, IMO, has some problems. Even though it's my favourite book, which I will talk about later, if anyone's interested, it has it's problems.

I'll leave out all references to vegetarianism at this point, or what I believe to be the reason for the 'fall'...

And focus on what is laid out in Genesis in the bible.

The two versions need work. They contradict each other. I have read here that some xians believe they are different because one is from God's viewpoint, and the other, people's. Except, the lousy, only published a few times personal part of me says... it is not really written from God's viewpoint.

My personal belief is that the 2nd version was written to 'tidy up' the first.

The first, from what I've researched/read, has anomalies I'm pretty sure the original translation backs me as saying that the first account says there was only one human created, and that he/she/it had no mate. It is hard not to read it as being that the first person created was a hermaphrodite. Reread Genesis, and tell me if I am wrong. There are other writings about a first 'Eve', (which would then match the historical mysogony of an Eve created from Adams own side, as someone who was not equally created in the Garden (sorry, Jumper), but rather, as someone under the dominiom of 'man'), named 'Lilith'. Lilith, not being happy with Adam as her 'boss', chose to mate with fallen angels on riverbanks instead?
Meaning that the good, kind boss made a new woman 'from Adam' who would be subservient?

Anyone else have references for this? Google abounds in stories of 'Lilith', if you can wade through the porn, which I know none of you are obcessed with!

Even though it's one of my favourite books, I believe it's obvious that at least the first two accounts were written by at least 2 different people, even if they were not recorded until 5 gadzillion years later.

If you are in any way interested in my opinions about the Genesis story, please direct me in how to open a new thread about that.

I am half Pottawatomi Indian, and just generally have an interest in history and religion. I love the stories I've heard about the 'mother turtle' raising her back and creating land/water, as much as the similar stories about Cain and Abel, whereas an 'Indian' (I punctuate this way because I am not offended by any un-PC verbage) brother was killed the same way, and ended up being the causation for growing corn. I don't believe any of them are 'truer', I just enjoy reading about them.

so, Genesis... oral. Nothing wrong with that. Since I've heard of no writings backing it or not backing it.

All major religions have done 'oral', and still do. Any high school class where they give an experiment where they tell the first person one story and after it works it's way through the class turns into something else will understand what I mean.

So, I'm obviously for oral. And not just because I enjoy it.

It just makes sense. Doesn't mean it's God-inspired, just means I can acknowledge that these thing do get started, and then get amplified.

Of course, once the dang thing gets written, it may show no reflection on the original author, once it gets through the editorial process. I have quit jobs because what I wrote was not what was printed. The 'boss' changed what I wrote. And it got printed anyway.

I'm not special- if it happened to me, why not the writers of Genesis... or HA, the NT?

So, IMO, it used to be oral, and is now just written. With all the disappoinments not having oral implies.

If anyone is interested in my opinions about the million other details in Genesis, let me know how to start a new thread.

I've enjoyed reading here.

c

Pappy Jack

Don't worry - as Dave already co-opts the flood legends of almost any culture as additional evidence for Ye Olde Fludde, an additional Genesis version doesn't actually double the available 'evidence' (YEC Creo Dictionary definition of evidence = any piece of unsupported assertion that agrees with what I think :devil1: ).

Faid

As long as the word "generation" is the one used in the third definition in the L&S link: "Production, generation, coming into being". Not the sixth definition- "Generation, age".
I still don't think this is correct, however rare- but then, I'm just going with what my poor desperate teachers managed to teach me at school