Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
04-15-2006, 05:03 AM | #31 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: outraged about the stiffling of free speech here
Posts: 10,987
|
Quote:
|
|
04-23-2006, 12:30 PM | #32 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ohio
Posts: 293
|
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. |
05-15-2006, 03:58 PM | #33 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Edmonton, Canada
Posts: 2,767
|
The formal debate is now complete. Pervy and DavidfromTexas are now welcome to post here if they wish to.
- NS, FD Moderator |
05-15-2006, 04:40 PM | #34 |
Moderator -
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
|
Sticky removed
DtC, Moderator, BC&H |
05-16-2006, 12:18 AM | #35 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brighton, England
Posts: 6,947
|
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? |
05-16-2006, 04:38 AM | #36 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
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.
|
05-16-2006, 06:00 AM | #37 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,665
|
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.
|
05-16-2006, 06:25 AM | #38 | |||||||||||
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 801
|
peanut gallery silence
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Conceding error is part of debate, yet you did not do so. Quote:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
I mispoke... and had not considered that you offered other Hebrew words in your previous post. My mistake. Quote:
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:
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. |
|||||||||||
05-16-2006, 06:29 AM | #39 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 16,665
|
Quote:
For you to claim victory is shallow and wrong. The "infidel" was not refuted. You were, and everyone can see it. |
|
05-16-2006, 06:35 AM | #40 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 801
|
Quote:
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? |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|