Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gliptic · 09-13-2005, 07:53 AM

A biblical literalist claimed that genesis 1 and 2 did not contradict, although it seems to me that they do. He offered this site to his defense. It seems like there are numerous errors there, for instance that they claim that "of the field" is used to mean one thing in one place and a different thing in another. I don't know hebrew so I thought I would ask here if the claims about the meaning and usage of the words are correct on that page. Is there or isn't there contradictions?

RGD · 09-13-2005, 08:17 AM

Holding is a pompous, uneducated, arrogant idiot.

One can dissect the nonsense on his site, but that's the gist of the problem. Note, for example,

Quote:

Given these internal clues, we would argue that if any contradiction is found between G1 and G2, it is intentional -- serving a rhetorical or polemical purpose -- and therefore, of no consequence for any supposition of inerrancy.

In other words, if we find no contradictions, then it's inerrant. And if we find a contradiction, it's intentional, and therefore still inerrant. It's the ultimate in special pleading.

Other signs of stupidity are such thing as

Quote:

Problem? G1 says that animals were created before man; G2 says that man came first, there was a need to designate a helpmeet, then animals were created for the first time...or does it? For quite some time now the classical solution to this problem has been to do what the NIV (but no other version that I know of) has done, and that is to render the verb in verse 2:19 not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect, so:

The problem here is that Hebrew did not have a "pluperfect" tense. To render the phrase that way is an inaccurate translation in that it adds things to the text that aren't there. But that's another typical Holding trick; he adds interpretations whenever necessary or convenient.

If you wish to see a classical example of this in practise, we have a thread right here on the board that shows a similar sloppiness of thinking, you might check this out. It's hilarious. Look for any post by "Ed".

People who are better versed in Hebrew can probably help you with the field thing.

Gliptic · 09-15-2005, 07:27 AM

Thanks. I got hold of a native hebrew speaker, and he couldn't find any difference between the uses of "of the field" in the two verses so I suspect that is another creative interpretation. I find it odd that biblical literalist makes up very non-literal interpretations to avoid internal inconsistancies, and not with external inconsistancies.

spin · 09-15-2005, 11:49 AM

Umm, there is no native speakers of ancient Hebrew. Modern Hebrew has literary and liturgical connections with ancient history through the preservation of Hebrew in synagogues.

I wish you hadn't pointed to the Holding crap. I start reading it and try to understand how he could write such crap. He makes claims for example about the word "toledoth", saying "It means that G2 is not actually a creation account as such, but a "family history" of the first men in creation", yet Gen 2:4 clearly states that they are "the generations of the earth and the heavens". He seems blissfully unaware that toledoths are headings, making Gen 2 a separate passage from Gen 1.

He then tries to define $dh as exclusively referring "to either a quite limited area of land, and/or a flat place suitable for agriculture", yet the beasts of the field in Isa 56:9 are certainly cannot be agricultural animals as they "devour". The beasts of the field in Ps 104:11 are paralleled with wild asses and the field with hills, so there is no substance Holding's claim for the exclusive significance of the term. As the HB often talks about the beasts of the field, it is more likely that the term refers to flat lands, with no necessity of agriculture at all, though of course it could be, given the right contextualisation.

He relies on the translation of 2:19, "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." Yet this is merely the translators putting their own spin to the text. The verb does not permit the translation given, for the verb is imperfect, ie not finished and matches the aspect of the verbs "bring" and "call" later in the verse, ie god was forming the animals and, as he brought them to adam, adam was giving them names, but Holding doesn't consider the relationship of the verbs between the verbs of the verse. There is no chronological order between the completed acts, for they weren't completed as the process of foming took place: as god created one animal, he brought it to adam to see what he would call it, then the creating, bringing and naming would continue...

Three strikes out of the three claims he makes. Holding is out.

spin

Gliptic · 09-15-2005, 12:34 PM

I didn't mean ancient hebrew of course, but a modern hebrew speaker is better than nothing and I suspect the modern hebrew translations are better than the english ones. Anyway, thanks for confirming my suspicions and sorry for exposing you to Holding's bullshit.

Chris Weimer · 09-15-2005, 04:51 PM

Holding has never really been in. The only debate I ever had with the man (if it is lawful to call him that) he admitted he knew absolutely nothing of Hebrew or Greek, but that he "reads a lot." What a joke. Another pseudonymous bullshitter who, of course, has a lot of respect in the fundamentalist cult.

09-13-2005, 07:53 AM	#1
Gliptic Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 724	Contradictions in genesis? A biblical literalist claimed that genesis 1 and 2 did not contradict, although it seems to me that they do. He offered this site to his defense. It seems like there are numerous errors there, for instance that they claim that "of the field" is used to mean one thing in one place and a different thing in another. I don't know hebrew so I thought I would ask here if the claims about the meaning and usage of the words are correct on that page. Is there or isn't there contradictions?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-15-2005, 07:27 AM	#3
Gliptic Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 724	Thanks. I got hold of a native hebrew speaker, and he couldn't find any difference between the uses of "of the field" in the two verses so I suspect that is another creative interpretation. I find it odd that biblical literalist makes up very non-literal interpretations to avoid internal inconsistancies, and not with external inconsistancies.

09-15-2005, 11:49 AM	#4
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Umm, there is no native speakers of ancient Hebrew. Modern Hebrew has literary and liturgical connections with ancient history through the preservation of Hebrew in synagogues. I wish you hadn't pointed to the Holding crap. I start reading it and try to understand how he could write such crap. He makes claims for example about the word "toledoth", saying "It means that G2 is not actually a creation account as such, but a "family history" of the first men in creation", yet Gen 2:4 clearly states that they are "the generations of the earth and the heavens". He seems blissfully unaware that toledoths are headings, making Gen 2 a separate passage from Gen 1. He then tries to define $dh as exclusively referring "to either a quite limited area of land, and/or a flat place suitable for agriculture", yet the beasts of the field in Isa 56:9 are certainly cannot be agricultural animals as they "devour". The beasts of the field in Ps 104:11 are paralleled with wild asses and the field with hills, so there is no substance Holding's claim for the exclusive significance of the term. As the HB often talks about the beasts of the field, it is more likely that the term refers to flat lands, with no necessity of agriculture at all, though of course it could be, given the right contextualisation. He relies on the translation of 2:19, "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." Yet this is merely the translators putting their own spin to the text. The verb does not permit the translation given, for the verb is imperfect, ie not finished and matches the aspect of the verbs "bring" and "call" later in the verse, ie god was forming the animals and, as he brought them to adam, adam was giving them names, but Holding doesn't consider the relationship of the verbs between the verbs of the verse. There is no chronological order between the completed acts, for they weren't completed as the process of foming took place: as god created one animal, he brought it to adam to see what he would call it, then the creating, bringing and naming would continue... Three strikes out of the three claims he makes. Holding is out. spin

09-15-2005, 12:34 PM	#5
Gliptic Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 724	I didn't mean ancient hebrew of course, but a modern hebrew speaker is better than nothing and I suspect the modern hebrew translations are better than the english ones. Anyway, thanks for confirming my suspicions and sorry for exposing you to Holding's bullshit.

09-15-2005, 04:51 PM	#6
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Holding has never really been in. The only debate I ever had with the man (if it is lawful to call him that) he admitted he knew absolutely nothing of Hebrew or Greek, but that he "reads a lot." What a joke. Another pseudonymous bullshitter who, of course, has a lot of respect in the fundamentalist cult.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.