Diogenes the Cynic

Here you go.

spin

If it will help you dodge reality.

I already did in the same post. You were too busy ignoring things.

As I said, already answered.

Like when you urinate into a wind you won't get wet.

Hope beyond evidence is one of your key blessings, bfniii.

In Gen 11 it is a verb, so it couldn't be used as a noun in those cases. The verb has a direct object indicated grammatically. In each case the direct object is the person who was born. You need to understand the text, not guess about it. Why do you bother talking about something that you plainly know nothing about??

But the Gen 11 example should be clear even to you, if you were prepared to accept any common translation such as the RSV or NIV, because it specifically says person X lived a specific period and then brought forward (became the father of -- NIV) person Y.

To show how ancient translators saw the use of YLD the Greek and the Latin both have begat (egennhsen/genuit).

Why do you come out with this stuff that has no support: "it is common knowledge". Once again, bfniii twisting text because he doesn't want to read what it says. Your bible must have so many words changed that you should translate it yourself in order to fake the content you need.

When you use the word "kind" in that sentence, I'm sure you mean "type".


spin

Sven

:rolling:

I see. The proof that there isn't an error in the bible is.... that than there would be another error elsewhere in the bible!

Priceless! :rolling:

Hint: It's got something to do with genetics and bottlenecks. This does of course also prove that there was no Noah and a global flood.

Jack the Bodiless

Why were you unaware of this? Don't you think it would be a good idea to find out such things?
I dealt with this apologetic twaddle back in post #9 of this thread (and I will also add that the characters in Genesis 11 are then described as having "OTHER sons and daughters", making it quite clear that the word refers to having kids).

But you still don't seem to have realized that you have resorted to tactics that YOU have condemned! Here is what I said earlier:
In your post #49, you referred to this as an "ad-hominem" (even though it's actually a simple statement of fact). Therefore you must regard the behavior described (altering the meaning of yalad for no reason other than to hide a Biblical error) as reprehensible, yes? Otherwise, how could my comment be seen as an "ad-hominem"?

And yet, as I pointed out in post #51, you have admitted that you consider this tactic acceptable. And now you're openly using it! Do you see your bizarre redefinition of yalad listed as one of the options in Strong's Concordance, which I provided for you in post #48? Nope, it's not there. It's an apologetic INVENTION, concocted for no reason at all except to obfuscate Biblical errors.

So, you're engaging in tactics that even YOU consider to be reprehensible. This is indeed apologetic twaddle, and you know it.

Jack the Bodiless

Good grief. This is what you regard as "common knowledge"?

On the contrary, it is common knowledge that this is another example of apologists making stuff up in order to dodge another Biblical error. It is also common knowledge (among actual scholars and reasonably clued-up laymen, at least) that both of the Nativity accounts are fictional: late additions to the Jesus tale, and concocted independently of each other (which is why they contradict both history and each other - with Luke's Jesus born at least a decade after Matthew's Jesus, for instance). It is also common knowledge that the shorter of the two genealogies purports to be a complete one, because Matthew says so: he provides a count of the exact number of generations he's covering.

It is rather obvious that both accounts were never intended to be combined in the same book.