FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-15-2006, 05:03 AM   #31
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: outraged about the stiffling of free speech here
Posts: 10,987
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdcanam
Are we talking about Dan. 9:27?
Hint: There's a link in the OP to the debate. It is about a gap in Genesis 1.
Sven is offline  
Old 04-23-2006, 12:30 PM   #32
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 293
Default

Ok, I have a question.

Why is it that niether has mentioned the leading "bet" at 1.1, and its contribution such that 1.1 looks like an introduction to Gen 1, like the intros to the stories that are seen throughout out part of Gen. (some call these "toledoths"). (i.e. 2.4, 5.1, 6.9 etc).

I was always under the impression that 1.1 was like that, that is, it is an intro to this story. There is also something I recall about the "tehom" (KJV translates as "the deep"), that it was in fact the watery chaos or primordial water from which the earth arises.( and in this, it bears some degree of similiarity to Enuma Elish, as my poor memory seems to be saying to me.) This, I admit that I might be remembering this incorrectly (its h*ll to get old). I also remember that this can also be supported because according to the text itself, the heavens (or sky, shamyim) doesn't actually get created until later on in the story when the firmament gets inserted and divides up the waters(presumably water of the tehom?) at 1.8. It is only at this point that there is a "heaven" (which here clearly means sky, not the abode of the gods)

I find the "gap theory" described here (at first I thought it was more along the lines of "god of the gaps" yikes) to be, well, errr, (how can I say this nicely), patently ridiculous. Perhaps for me this is because of my science background, or perhaps because I never believed that these early authors knew anything at all about the shiatan, lucifer, morning star, or whatever it is and the whole fallen angel series of stories. I thought that those tales came later, thus the author/compiler of Gen and/or the author/folk tale spinner of Gen 1 knew nothing at all about them.

Just my hazy, from memory opinion.

Let the debate continue.
Fortuna is offline  
Old 05-15-2006, 03:58 PM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 2,767
Default

The formal debate is now complete. Pervy and DavidfromTexas are now welcome to post here if they wish to.

- NS, FD Moderator
KnightWhoSaysNi is offline  
Old 05-15-2006, 04:40 PM   #34
Moderator -
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
Default

Sticky removed

DtC, Moderator, BC&H
Diogenes the Cynic is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 12:18 AM   #35
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brighton, England
Posts: 6,947
Default

Well, that debate sent everyone to sleep...

I've never seen a debate with such little interest from the Peanut Gallery.

Does anyone have any comments? Has anyone even bothered to read it?
Dean Anderson is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 04:38 AM   #36
cajela
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Err, i started. And then I got bored. Points of grammar in a language I don't know just don't thrill me. I'd never heard of this gap idea before, so that was mildly interezting, briefly.
 
Old 05-16-2006, 06:00 AM   #37
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,665
Default

I tried to keep track of it, but Biblical errancy isn't quite my cup of tea, and I'm sorry I didn't follow closely or have anything to say.
EverLastingGodStopper is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 06:25 AM   #38
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 801
Default peanut gallery silence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pervy
Well, that debate sent everyone to sleep...

I've never seen a debate with such little interest from the Peanut Gallery.

Does anyone have any comments? Has anyone even bothered to read it?

When an infidel is thoroughly refuted, Pervy, the peanut gallery gets bored. The so-called lack of interest is simply a recognition that there is nothing more to say. You even alluded to this in the opening of your concluding statement when you wrote...

Quote:
Since this is the conclusion, I cannot rebut my opponent's previous round in detail. Fortunately, doing so is unnecessary, since there is little to rebut.
Now that the formal debate is over, I would like to address several other points that you made in your concluding statement...

Quote:
Firstly, he objects to my analysis of the usage of the word Tohu through the Bible.
Not only did I object, but I demonstrated how you REPEATEDLY made gross errors in your assertions. Yet you essentially neglected each objection, acting as if you had not made a mistake.

Conceding error is part of debate, yet you did not do so.


Quote:
He claims that pointing out that the Bible was written using different writing styles (and different languages) does against the Chicago Statement- the standard for inerrancy that we have agreed on.
Hogwash.

You are misrepresenting me.

I did NOT claim that pointing out that the Bible was written using different writing styles (and different languages) goes against the Chicago Statement.

I wrote the following... "Dismissing or downplaying the book of Isaiah is NOT compatible with an inerrantist hermeneutic. Pervy’s approach appears to violate at least two of the articles of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy…"

My meaning was clear. You were dismissing or downplaying the book of Isaiah in order to cover your EARLIER error of claiming that the VAST MAJORITY of the usage of the words [Tohu and Bohu] "merely indicates desert like conditions with no perjorative meaning attached."


Quote:
The Chicago Statement makes no claim that all the people who wrote the Bible used exactly the same writing style.
STRAW MAN.

I never wrote or suggested that the Chicago Statement makes no claim that all the people who wrote the Bible used exactly the same writing style.


Quote:
He incorrectly categorises my noting that Isaiah used the word Tohu in a metaphorical manner as a "dismissal" or "downplaying" of the book, rather than a simple description of the writing style of the author of that book.
Hogwash.

If you were providing a "simple description for the writing style of the author of that book", then why did you not retract your erroneous earlier claim that the VAST MAJORITY of the usage of the words [Tohu and Bohu] "merely indicates desert like conditions with no perjorative meaning attached"?

The book of Isaiah clealy makes up the bulk of the VAST MAJORITY of the usages of the word Tohu does it not?

Unless you are willing to retract your error, then what you are saying here is hogwash.


Quote:
He shows Bible verses outside of Isaiah showing that Tohu is used when God is judging people to show that the word has a judgemental connotation. However, in his examples, any judgement present is a judgement on the people involved; as they are being cast out into the wilderness, rather than being a judgement on the wilderness itself.
People versus wilderness is irrelevant. There were no claims made that the word Tohu refers only to the wilderness being judged... such is absurd. The condition that the wilderness becomes as a result of God's judgment has nothing to do with what the wilderness did in order to deserve God's judgment, but has everything to do rather to what took place in that wilderness by conscious and responsible BEINGS, not inaminate objects.

The words of Custance makes this clear... "From the outset we can say unequivocally that both words, whether occurring together or singly, are used throughout Scripture in connection with something under God's judgment. Tohu is used of something which has been laid waste (Isa. 24:10; 34:11; Jer. 4:23) or has become desert (Deut. 32:10) or of anything which is the object of false "worship" and therefore displeasing to God, as in Isaiah 41:29, etc. " http://www.custance.org/Library/Volu.../Chapter2.html



Quote:
My opponent goes on to claim that although Genesis 2, 2-4 says that God rested after his making and creating on the seventh day, this does not mean that his creating happened at the same time as his making - and for some reason claims that I have confused "resting" with "ending" (even though I never mention "ending")
FALSE.

I made no such claim that you confused "resting" with "ending". Rather, I wrote that you APPEARED to be confusing the verbs... You are once again misrepresenting me.



Quote:

and objects to my not giving the Hebrew words for "repair" and "replenish" even though I did so in a previous round.
Correct.

I mispoke... and had not considered that you offered other Hebrew words in your previous post. My mistake.


Quote:
Finally, he attacks my analogue to Genesis 1, claiming that whilst it is grammatically correct, it is not a proper analogy because it does not support his interpretation of the text.
FALSE.

I made no such claim that your analogy was "grammatically correct". The following is what I wrote... "The grammar may make some sense, but the analogy fails because the nouns are not congruent with the Genesis narrative."

AND I MADE NO SUCH ASSERTION that your analogy was not proper because it did not support my interpretation of the text.


Quote:
This was precisely my point- that an account written using the same terminology and grammar as Genesis 1 does not support his interpretation. I take this as a concession that Genesis 1 does not support his Gap Theory without severe special pleading. He nit-picks about the fact that I use the words "vase" and "clay", despite the fact that the word "Earth" has both meanings (the physical ground and the soil/rock from which it is made).
Not only was it "nit-picking", it clearly showed that your analogy utterly fails. You changed nouns in order to make your parenthetical flow. Although the Hebrew word for Earth can have different meanings, that is irrelevant because you are claiming that the Earth in Genesis 1:1 was unfinished. The Hebrew word for Earth does not have such a connotation. Such a claim is based upon tradition, and not upon the text.


So, regardless of whether there is any "interest" in this topic by the peanut gallery, I really don't care. I know that the silence here is deafening, because they really have nothing else to say.

If you feel the need for some false reassurance Pervy, then why not take a poll and see who has the stronger arguments? Based upon my experience here, I predict that I will receive only one vote, and that vote will be mine... Yes, this crowd here is so objective that their objectivity screams out in silence.
DavidfromTexas is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 06:29 AM   #39
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,665
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas
When an infidel is thoroughly refuted, Pervy, the peanut gallery gets bored. The so-called lack of interest is simply a recognition that there is nothing more to say. You even alluded to this in the opening of your concluding statement when you wrote...

...
So, regardless of whether there is any "interest" in this topic by the peanut gallery, I really don't care. I know that the silence here is deafening, because they really have nothing else to say.

If you feel the need for some false reassurance Pervy, then why not take a poll and see who has the stronger arguments? Based upon my experience here, I predict that I will receive only one vote, and that vote will be mine... Yes, this crowd here is so objective that their objectivity screams out in silence.
Allow me to paint a more vivid picture for you, DavidfromTexas. Although the subject of biblical criticism bores me, I read all of Pervy's contributions to the debate and was impressed. It was your own posts which were lacking, it was your contribution that was not compelling enough to capture my attention.

For you to claim victory is shallow and wrong. The "infidel" was not refuted. You were, and everyone can see it.
EverLastingGodStopper is offline  
Old 05-16-2006, 06:35 AM   #40
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 801
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EverLastingGodStopper
Allow me to paint a more vivid picture for you, DavidfromTexas. Although the subject of biblical criticism bores me, I read all of Pervy's contributions to the debate and was impressed. It was your own posts which were lacking, it was your contribution that was not compelling enough to capture my attention.

For you to claim victory is shallow and wrong. The "infidel" was not refuted. You were, and everyone can see it.
Just as PREDICTED!

Yeah... it is amazing.

Why not take a poll? Let's see once again who is really objective here.


So, Pervy... do you feel better now that the "objective" peanut gallery is finally beginning to speak out on your behalf?
DavidfromTexas is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:31 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.