Sven

Hint: There's a link in the OP to the debate. It is about a gap in Genesis 1.

Fortuna

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.

KnightWhoSaysNi

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

- NS, FD Moderator

Diogenes the Cynic

Sticky removed

DtC, Moderator, BC&H

Dean Anderson

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?

cajela

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.

EverLastingGodStopper

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.

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...

Now that the formal debate is over, I would like to address several other points that you made in your concluding statement...

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.


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."


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.


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.


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



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.



Correct.

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


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.


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.

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.

DavidfromTexas

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?