Gregg

Umm, no. You've kind of missed my point entirely. I'm sure the Hebrews were smart enough to know that there are a lot more sand grains in the world than there are stars visible to the naked eye.

My point was that all they were trying to do in this particular passage was to poetically say "a lot" and didn't really care in this context that there are a lot more grains of sand on the average beach than there are stars visible to the naked eye, but some respectable Bible scholar, eager to prove that the Bible is inspired by God, claims that the Hebrews wouldn't have said something like that if they didn't know there were actually billions and billions of stars.

You had told us that we should go read what some "recognized Hebrew scholar" has to say about the compatibility of science and Genesis. So I offered this example of how "recognized scholars" with confessional interests can read just about anything they want into the text to make it seem more relevant than it is, and claims like this don't deserve to be taken any more seriously just because they're made by "recognized scholars." I thought I made my point fairly clear, but I guess not.

lee_merrill

I misunderstood, my apology, so then I would like to know what respectable Bible scholar this is, of course! But this objection seems to involve a claim that this statement is like Genesis, which it manifestly is not. Clearly no claim (as we all agree) is being made here within the text that these numbers are the same, it even seems likely that this is a "so much and also much more" kind of statement.

Well no, some of the points here are ones he has made, which of course must stand or fall on their own merit in the final analysis. But a Hebrew point by Gleason Archer is worth considering, I would say...

Can you really mean this?

You claim the Hebrew means such and such, and need not defend your point.

Of course, if I make my case, you need not prove your point in that case either, for it will be therefore incorrect. So you need never defend any point, apparently...

Evoken

And he also ignores verses like Exodus 20:11:"For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

lee, like many christians today, simply do not takes god at his word.


Evo

Sauron

Of course I mean it; what a stupid question. You of all people should know me well enough to realize that I'm going to hold you to this. I mean, just because others around here have let you slide on this, does not mean that I'm going to do so. You're the one out here shooting off your mouth, tossing out random claims like some kind of salad shooter. You need to back them up first -- especially since you've ignored multiple requests to do so -- before anyone owes you an answer for anything.

Deliberately twisting what I said again? Some christian you are. Of course I have to defend my positions. But not until after you defend yours. You claimed first, and you have first obligation to support.

Was it clear that time? I can use flashy fonts and twirly lights, if you think it'll help.

All of which you already knew, but your intellectual dishonesty got in the way again. One more time:

1. I am under no obligation to tell you anything, until you support the claims you've set forth already. As I said before:

Since you have first claim on this, you need to back up your claim first. As soon as you support you claim, you'll be in a position to ask others to support theirs.

Moving along...

Even better. Go ahead and prove your case, and in doing so, (according to you) then you'll have proved me wrong. What more could you ask for? Two birds with one stone.

But that would mean getting off your dishonest, lazy ass and doing some work, wouldn't it?

Disproven, as above. You're just intellectually lazy, and expect others to coddle you in that behavior. Fat chance.

lee_merrill

Fine then, the Hebrew word "olam" in the phrase in question modifies the noun "statute", as is even shown by Spin's translation, and thus you and he are both mistaken, this word "olam" is then functioning as an adjective.

It would now be time for you to show that the word here does not modify "statute."

Sauron

Restating your claim is not a proof.

Try again.

No, but it would be time for you to learn the difference between (a) "prove your claim" and (b) "repeat previous assertion."

lee_merrill

But the proof is (as in the translation that Spin posted) the word "olam" modifies "statute," the grammar is clear, "Hukath olam" is "age-long statute."

So now how is this incorrect, please?

I also would like to know what the verb is that the adverb modifies, this is your claim, now which Hebrew word is the verb in the phrase in question?

I think you must not actually know any Hebrew, would be the reluctance here...

Sauron

Wrong again. Repeating a previous claim is not proof.

This is still an adverb. Let's see if you can figure out why.

Sorry; you haven't supported your claim yet. You know the rules.

Given the abysmal track record of your guesses, I doubt many people are worried about what you "think".

lee_merrill

Why is showing a word modifying a noun not proof?

Adjective: "Grammar. any member of a class of words that in many languages are distinguished in form, as partly in English by having comparative and superlative endings, or by functioning as modifiers of nouns..."

It's not, now let's see if you can tell my why it is...

Until you think I have made my case, you won't soil the dainty soles of your feet to give support for your conclusions. This would mean of course that you can always fall back on saying "You haven't supported your case, so I need not back up my claims yet."

But what is the Hebrew verb that the adverb you posit, modifies? This is not a lot of work!

This is also, may it be added, a question with a non-obvious answer, if you have no Hebrew knowledge, this would be why I picked it...

Sauron

You haven't done that. Asserting is not proving.

Dictionary definitions are not proof of your claim, either. Care to try again?

Uh, yes - it is an adverb.

As soon as you put forth some actual effort to prove your claim -- and by "effort", I do not mean repeating your assertion.

1. Nobody here thinks you've made your case, lee -- not just me;
2. And until you do make your case, you have no claim on me.

1. In your case, this justification works quite well, since you continually confuse "assert" with "prove".

2. Of course if you think this is just a crutch, then here's how you solve that problem: prove your case and remove the ability to use this justification. Easy as pie. But as I said in another thread: that would require actual..............work on your part. So it ain't gonna happen, is it?

Non-obvious to you, perhaps. Don't project your own inadequacies onto others.