Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
As Diogenes the Cynic has already pointed out: I can.

But you seem to be admitting here that what you referred to as my "ad-hominem" is correct. WHY should the meaning of yalad be contingent on whether or not the genealogies are fictional?

Answer: because IF apologists assume that the genealogies are non-fictional, THEN they must alter the meaning of "yalad" to avoid the inconvenient date that would result.
Nope, you have missed the point. The word MEANS "begat". Occasional usage in a metaphorical sense doesn't change that (e.g. the English phrase "birth of a nation" doesn't change the meaning of the English word "birth"). But you still haven't addressed the fact that if each Biblical character "brings forth" the next when he reaches a specific age, these can be added up EVEN IF you alter the meaning. Indeed, it makes the situation even worse! If we assume (for instance) that it means "presented his son to the elders of the tribe on the son's bar-mitzvah", that chops 12 years off each "generation" and moves the Flood date to an even more recent period in history!

Johnny Skeptic

And perhaps you as the co-claimant with the Bible could be so kind as to show how the genealogies are true, and if they are true, why they are important.

spin

Gosh, it's bfniii, caught with his pants down, changing the meaning of words he can't handle once again. This is so dishonest as an approach to a text. You should be ashamed to both plead ignorance of the original language and then say that the usual translations are wrong. You are simply in no position to argue this. You are once again admitting you can't deal with the text for what it says and you have to bring in a wild card. To hold your hand for a moment, the word YLD means "to bring forth" so much in the direction of "to give birth" that the word "child" is derived from YLD.

Now for anyone trying to support other, less frequent meanings of a term, they have to demonstrate enough contextualisation of the term for a reader to understand that a less frequent significance was intended. This is a linguistic dictum I give to you. If there is no contextualisation for the term to be taken in a less frequent manner, then one cannot hope to argue for that less frequent meaning.

bfniii

i was unaware that someone knew of a way to prove there was no adam.

Diogenes the Cynic

Now you know.

bfniii

he hasn't pointed out anything yet. and neither have you.



first, you stated that no competent scholar would try to date the flood from the genealogies, but earlier in this thread you were trying to do just that. second, there is no "problem" with the word. the word had flexible usage in their culture contrary to what you believe. third, the genealogies are not rendered useless if the word is used to mean ancestor. as i stated before, minute by minute chronology was often not the purpose of such lists.



you are admitting that the word can be used that way, but denying that the hebrews used the word that way in this instance. now just show how you are right instead of just stating your opinion.



but you would be omitting all of the people in between the two people concerned. the addition would be incomplete.



you're going in the wrong direction. if person 1 was 100 when they became the ancestor of person 2, there is an untold number of people in between the two. it could be one or one million. who knows?

bfniii

same question that we have been over time and time again; what information could exist that would show that they are true? what kind of information would you like? why is any such list important?

bfniii

i asked a simple question. are you not able to answer it? just try to answer the question instead of distracting people with this circus routine. why does the word have to be translated that way in this instance? if you can't show that, then it's possible other translations could be used here.

the word "child" being derived from the word does not mean that the word couldn't be used as ancestor. more distraction.



which i have done. it is common knowledge that the lists weren't always meant to chronicle every single person that lived. a good example is the discrepancy between the two lists for Jesus.



perhaps you would be so kind as to show that one usage was less than another.

bfniii

well, let's see it....

Eldarion Lathria

Sir, at the risk of being flamed, I submit there is only one possible date for a worldwide flood.

Never.

Eldarion Lathria