Sauron

Shifting the burden of proof?

You're the one with the interpretation that is at variance with the clear reading. You're the one who has to prove something here, not spin. And you have yet to do so.

Nonsense. They appear to be equally specific. You certainly haven't shown otherwise.

But you said the sun existed from the very beginning. So how could there be such a thing as a "day without the sun"?


In point of fact, by the word "expect" you actually mean "hope" or "guess". If you think this is what the Hebrews thought, then by all means demonstrate it.

Huh?
It's not his conclusion. It's what the text of Genesis claims. Have you forgotten?

And you missed the point for the third time - deliberately, of course. This has nothing to do with mornings or evenings. We could be talking about popcorn or hammers. The point is that you you have two contradictory statements:

1. something existed before the sun
2. the sun existed from the very beginning

How can any item B exist prior to some item A, if item A has been around from the beginning?

You do not 'agree'; you previously said quite clearly:
Well, “olam”, though a noun, is generally used like an adjective!

1. If you are thinking of the phrase "forever" or "for all time", that is an adverb, not an adjective. Adjectives have nothing to do with this - you are wrong about that point;

2. Olam is used as a noun, in the context of a noun (world). I gave two examples; get off your lazy ass and go read them.

Sadly wrong. All you have done is make unsupported claims. Nobody needs to lift so much as a finger, until you properly support your initial claims. Pointing to Gleason Archer is not going to work.

Which is impossible, because you already told us that the sun was there from the very beginning.

That isn't the text that you used to prop up your argument. Now you've introduced a third text. You'll need to establish a linkage between Leviticus and 2 Chronicles. You have not done so yet.

Then after you're done with that -- sometime next century -- you'll need to link them both back to Genesis. Good luck.

lee_merrill

I don't think I'm injecting anything when I note that a day without a sun to mark it off is not a normal kind of day!

It wasn't marking off days, it wasn't visible, is my view.

That's true, but even then it's used generally with a noun:

Leviticus 23:14 You must not eat any bread, or roasted or new grain, until the very day you bring this offering to your God. This is to be a lasting ordinance [hukath olam]

So then "olam" would be an adjective, I don't know any instances where it is alone as an adverb, do you?

But the verse I quoted explains what those sabbath years mean.

Sauron

Sorry; this has nothing to do with marking off days. I'm talking about the mere existence of the sun, no matter what it was (or wasn't) doing. Your response still doesn't answer the contradiction of your statements.

1. You claimed something existed before the sun.
2. You also claimed that the sun was there from the very beginning.

If something (anything) is present from the start, how can anything be present before that same start?

Oh, and while we're at it - how could the sun *not* be marking off days, since it is the earth's rotation that causes the sun to rise & set? Are you saying that the earth wasn't rotating in Genesis?

Wrong. The text actually says "forever". That is still an adverb.
It isn't an adjective at all. Contrary to your claim, it's an adverb modifying the verb "to be", because it tells *how* the state of the ordinance will be. "Forever" serves the same grammatical role as the word "often", or "rarely" -- all adverbs.

The fact that you erroneously claimed it was an adjective proves my point: you don't know enough about English grammar, much less ancient Hebrew, for anyone to give a shit about what your opinion is.

No, it wouldn't.

No, it doesn't. The Leviticus verse gives context for the Leviticus passage. It does not give context for Chronicles. Or for Genesis. You're going to have to prove that. As I said above: after you're done with that -- sometime next century -- you'll need to link them both back to Genesis. Good luck.

lee_merrill

I will answer one point, to illustrate that this is just complete confusion in every point of your reply.

The problem is that "forever" translates two Hebrew words, one of which functions as a noun, and the other as a modifier on that noun, and thus an adjective.

Sauron

No, you'll answer one point because that's the only one you think you *can* answer. But let's watch, as you get shot down even on that solitary point.

Lee, the word "forever" is actually two English words: for + ever. Together they form an new word, which is an adverb. That is what we're seeing here in Hebrew as well.

Wrong. What we have is an adverbial clause (or adverbial phrase) that happens to contain a noun. It's the same as "For ever".

But anyone who looked at the word "forever" and said that there was a noun and an adjective would not only be (a) wrong, but they would be also be (b) missing the entire point of trying to diagram a sentence with the word in it -- to wit, what role in the sentence is this word playing?

spin

1. You are ignoring the structure of the passage as I pointed out in my first post, a structure which should help you understand the role of the sun as an inhabitant of the light, to "rule" of the day.
2. The text is very clear about what a day was at the beginning: god called the light "day" and the darkness he called "night". And there was evening and there was morning: the first day.

The writer has no interest in the sun when god created the day. The sun came along three days later when he populated the light. Your insistence regarding the sun is clearly negated by the writer himself. Read the text and stop injecting your necessities onto the writer.

Again, you are not reading the text. The sun didn't exist in the beginning. It was created on the fourth day at the beginning of the population cycle.

It should be becoming more clear to you, lee_merrill, that you have not been taking enough notice as to what the text actually says. The writer has a different cosmology from you, a cosmology which you ignore.


spin

lee_merrill

It seems English etymology explains Hebrew grammar. But no, "hukath olam" is not two words that combine into one word in Hebrew.

Well then, which grammar backs up your points here? I just would like to see the reference.

But which word? There are two words in the Hebrew, both are nouns, and one modifies the other. May I ask though, which word in the Hebrew of this phrase ("This is to be a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live") is the verb?

lee_merrill

That could be because I am not an advocate of the framework interpretation?

I have my little list of objections to the framework view! One of which is that this frame of arena and ruler is not so perfect in its fit as we might expect, if indeed this is the structure.

That's a good point, but still a day does not require the sun, only light and darkness in sequence. I turn my room light on, I turn it off, was that one day? According to this text?

I agree that this is a weak point in my view, and I have to take refuge in a possibility, the text could mean "had made". More support for the sun appearing on day four I mentioned in my opening post, which points I would hope now you would find it seemly to address!

Yet Augustine thought creation happened in a moment, a split second. So it seems the text is not so firmly set as 24 hour days, and that having these days not be such is not simply determined by the conclusions of science.

spin

That's certainly correct. XQT means "statute" or "rule". Its relationship with (WLM is one of nouns, best indicated by "statute OF long duration".

(WLM is the nearest thing that the writers had for "forever". The concept of "forever" doesn't seem to have been as clear as it is for us today. The word (WLM comes from a verb meaning "to hide/be concealed", so that it looks at time as fading off into obscurity until it is hidden in either direction, past or future.

The word order is all that is necessary in Hebrew, lee-merrill. We don't have the same structure in English. Our nearest equivalent as I indicated above would require an "of" inserted between the two nouns.

The translation you give makes for better reading in English, but hides the structure of the Hebrew. This is quite normal for a translation. It's the meaning that is important in the communication: the structure is secondary.

That which is here "a lasting ordinance" is our old literal friend "statute OF long duration", a compound term used frequently in the Hebrew bible, mainly in Leviticus.

Now why are you continuing along this tangent, lee_merrill? It doesn't help you keep focused on your attempts to understand Gen 1. Olam doesn't change the meaning of the words "day".

Understand this, lee_merrill: you are able to communicate with other people because you use words in a sufficiently similar means to other people and in combination they get your ideas because they can know your ideas from what you directly communicate. When you use a word, you use it so it renders the meaning that you think will be perceived. If the word is not exact, you'll modify it to get it right. This is what everyone who wants to communicate meaningfully does. This is what the writer of Gen 1 does.

To get something other than the normal use of a word, you have to help the person you are communicating with by supplying modifying information.

So far, you have not attempted to deal with the language used by the writer. You have attempted to understand the text by going to other texts which you think helps you to have a different meaning of "day", but whether you show such a different meaning, is irrelevant because you have to show the different meaning with the language of Gen 1, especially Gen 1:5, where the term is introduced along with "night", "evening" and "morning", all suggesting a normal understanding of "day".

The text is plain about what a day is. You try to say that a day needs the sun, but the writer has simply contradicted you, when he populates the day with the sun on day 4.

You have also avoided the important issue of keeping the sabbath for understanding a day through injecting your misunderstanding of 2 Chr 36:21. Beside the fact that there is no reason from that verse to understand anything other than sabbath days when the verse refers to sabbaths, Gen 1 is instituting an ordinance for the sabbath day, because god ceased work for the sabbath, so, we will be told, should everyone do the same. Changing the word YWM to mean something other than the normal understanding of "day" renders the institution of the sabbath functionally meaningless. That is the consequence of your altering the meaning of YWM because you want it to reflect some theory not found in the text.


spin

lee_merrill

This part was a reply to Sauron, thanks for assistance in clearing the air, though I didn't want you to post the answer to my "what is the verb?" question, that was intended to be a little test of Sauron's Hebrew knowledge.

I will return to reply to the rest of your post in a day or so (24-hour day!), it being 1 AM now...

Regards,
Lee