Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DavidfromTexas · 05-18-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pervy

Yes. It's only human to feel good when you get praise.

Just as you would feel good if people were saying that you had done well.

You are assuming too much... False flattery does not feel good to me, perhaps it does to you.

Quote:

The difference, of course, is that whereas you assume that people will back me out of some kind of misguided dogma or mob-mentality, I assume that the people here will be brutally honest - and that if they think I have done badly and/or that you have done well they will say so.

Brutally honest?

LOL!

Go ahead, continue to lap up the false flattery. What amazes me is how people here are such chickens when it comes to admitting the truth.

Quote:

Hell - I'm an Admin here. I'd bet that most of the users would get a huge kick out of gleefully pointing out my mistakes if they thought I'd done badly. They're perverse like that!

Actually, they are more perverse than you think... They would rather flatter with false praise than admit that one of their infidels lost a debate.

DavidfromTexas · 05-18-2006, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

The notion that God would not create a "barren, lifeless wasteland" is entirely without support.

Have you not read the scriptures?

"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." (Isaiah 45:18)

The word for "vain" in this verse is Tohu.

Now, would you like to downplay or dismiss the prophet Isaiah as Pervy did, so that you can also make such ridiculous claims such as "is entirely without support"?

Quote:

Why would he NOT create a world that could be thusly described, before creating plant and animal life?

Why would He create such a world? Your question makes the assumption that such a world is necessary before creating plant and animal life. Based upon the meanings of the words Tohu and Bohu, then there is no good reason why the world would have to be in such a condition before plant and animal life is created.

Quote:

Why would the Genesis author be reluctant to use such a "perjorative" description when he's just about to describe God's miraculous transformation of this "barren, lifeless wasteland" into something else entirely? The use of such language would add to the glory of the subsequent transformation!

If the words Tohu and Bohu meant only "barren, lifeless wasteland", then you would have a point. But, you have erroneously assumed that Pervy's argument regarding the meaning of these words are correct. Go back to the debate and read very carefully Pervy's arguments regarding the meanings of these words. You will find that Pervy made gross errors, and that his argument holds no water so to speak.

spin · 05-18-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Have you not read the scriptures?

"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else." (Isaiah 45:18)

The word for "vain" in this verse is Tohu.

Have you not understood the scriptures? THW means "chaotic, confused, not formed": "He did not create it chaotic." You will not find "vain" as a translation of the term in the venerable BDB. The translation of THW as "vain" is simply inaccurate. One must use better translation tools than Strongs.

This verse indicates that god didn't create the mess in Gen 1:2. As that text indicates, it was the starting conditions of the creation.

spin

DavidfromTexas · 05-18-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I find it interesting that the gap theory, despite its stupidity and reliance on bad translation, has survived, but then translation is not a problem if you believe that an old translation was inspired by god and you know nothing about the original languages.

Which translation(s) are you referring to?

Gap theolgy PREDATES the English language! It also predates most translations. The Targum of Onkelos and the Midrash reveals that the Jews "had some intimation of an early pre-Adamic catastrophe affecting the whole earth..." See http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html

Quote:

But translation is the fundamental problem, based on a difficult translation into Greek which influenced later European translations, so that the original intention of Gen 1:1 was lost for quite a while.

???

What are you talking about? Please be specific.

What "difficult translation into Greek" are you referring to? What "original intention of Gen 1:1" are you referring to?

Quotes and links are needed please...

Quote:

However, when one grapples with the grammar enough to understand that 1:1, BR)$YT BR) )LHYM )T H$MYM W )T H)RC, needs to be translated as "in the beginning of god's creating the heavens and the earth..." -- this is because BR) ("create") is dependent on R)$YT ("beginning") in a relation called "construct form", so that the whole clause defines the beginning. As early Jewish scholars asked christians who translated it "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth", "the beginning of what?" Those Jews knew the answer was the beginning of god's act of creation.

???

Please cite the source of the above... and please don't plagiarize.

Quote:

To understand how Gen 1 works, one has to realise that god's first act in the story was the creation of light by divine fiat: "Let there be light and there was."

FALSE.

God's first act is found in Genesis 1:1... In the beginning God CREATED the heaven and the earth. His second act is found in the next verse. "... And the Spirit of God MOVED upon the face of the waters."

Please cite your sources. I suspect that you are reproducing someone else's work.

Quote:

That was day #1. Before that act there was no creation:

FALSE.

Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God CREATED the heaven and the earth.".

Quote:

the world as we know it didn't exist.

The world as we know it today did not exist yesterday because everything changes moment by moment. What is your point?

Quote:

All the prerequisites were there, but all that could be perceived was darkness and the deep.

???

Prerequisites? What are you talking about?

How can you say that "all that could be perceived was darkness and that deep" if humans did not even exist at that point? Are you limiting God to what He could perceive?

Quote:

There was in verse 2 no creation.

Gap theologists do not claim otherwise.

Quote:

We just have a description of the prior state of the universe before god started his work.

Wrong.

We have a desciption of the prior state of the earth (not the universe) before God started His work that is detailed in the six day period. Genesis 1:2 says "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep..."

Quote:

The world was without form and void and yes this is a negative notion. The Jewish god didn't create THW WBHW: his activity over the six days of creation did away with it.

And gap theologists are in agreement with the above except to say that God's activity over the six days included acts of creating (bara), making ('asah), and forming (yatsar).

Quote:

The notion of creatio ex nihilo, incidentally, is not a Jewish notion.

And gap theologians do not claim otherwise.

Quote:

God's fight act significantly was to turn the lights on for the creation process.

False.

God's first act in the Genesis narrative is to CREATE the heavens and the earth. Read Genesis 1:1.

Quote:

Yes, this was before the sun and moon existed, but that fact is only a problem for naive literalists on both sides of the divide.

FALSE.

You are reading into the text something that is not there. You are relying upon tradition, instead of the text of scripture. The text does NOT say that the sun and moon did not exist before God had said "Let there be light".

Quote:

God separated the light from the darkness giving form to that sphere, allowing it to be later populated with the sun, moon and stars.

???

What sphere are you talking about?

Quote:

The notion of THW WBHW gives the creation its structure. The first three days involve giving form to the world, while the second three days involve filling it. It is the key to this formal creation.

???

Please cite your sources.

Quote:

The underlying inherited creation account which is represented in Babylon by a text called "Enuma Elish" tells us of the god's (Marduk's in Babylon) battle with Tiamat, the chaotic waters, the "wide one" (Rahab), who is defeated when god enlist the wind to enter Tiamat's mouth to keep it open so that the god could thrust his sword down her gullet and kill her. If we go back to Gen 1:2, we find THM, the Hebrew equivalent of Tiamat present and we find the wind hovering over the waters. The battle has been omitted here, though it is evident elsewhere, mentioned in passing for example in Isa 51:9 or as Leviathan in Ps 74:14. This same battle is represented in North-West Semitic tradition as the battle between Baal and the sea (Yamm).

And your point?

Please cite your sources.

Quote:

When the god slayed Tiamat, he slit her in two, lifting half of her up to the heavens and bolted it up there so it would stay, just as )LHYM divided the waters and lifted half up to the heavens and set up a barrier of beaten metal known to us as the "firmament". And as the god did, so did )LHYM create the world out of the rest of the waters.

Please cite your sources.

Quote:

The text as it is written in Genesis allows no speculation regarding Satan, who is not present in the scene, nor present in the underlying mythology.

???

Please explain how the text "allows no speculation regarding Satan".

Quote:

Satan as we know him is a christian development on the Judaic adversary, the $+N,

Sources please... give evidence for your assertions.

Quote:

a descriptive term for one who opposes and referring to an angel who did god's bidding, combined with a misguided interpretation of a passage about the Babylonian king in Isa 14:12 which talks about the king as though he were the morning star,

Please explain how the interpretation is misguided, and please cite your sources.

Quote:

called Eosforos ("light bearer") in Greek, which in turn was translated into Latin as "Lucifer" ("light bearer"). To put this Satan into Gen 1 is what is commonly called retrojection, ie it wasn't there in the first place, but it is convenient in hindsight that he was there.

???

Who put Satan into Genesis 1?

What are you talking about?

Quote:

THW W BHW are as pejorative as the desert, unpleasant, sterile and worthy of being changed. There is nothing more to be eked out of the terms than for the structure of the passage: the terms explain how the creation worked. It got rid of the waste and void.

If you dismiss or downplay all of the other passages in the Bible which use the words Tohu and Bohu, then perhaps you are correct... because then you could redefine the terms to be anything you want it to be... But such is eisegesis, not exegesis. Ignoring how scripture uses the terms elsewhere is not acceptable.

Quote:

That did not happen until god started his job by creating light. Before that act the earth as we know it was not.

How can you say that God "started His job" by creating light, if the heavens and the earth had already been created by that time?

The text in verse 3 does not say that God "created" light in verse 3. The English translation alludes to this... "And God said, Let their be light..."

Quote:

Naturally the creation was in six ordinary days according to Genesis 1, for god rested on the seventh day, inaugurating the shabbat. Had they not been ordinary days, then the institution of the shabbat would have been meaningless.

What is "natural" to you is tradition... Genesis chapter 1 does not say that the creation was in six ordinary days.

Quote:

Ancient texts are difficult and complex. Their logic quite often is very different from the sorts of naive literalism that we so often want to apply today. Things are much simpler these days: either they are truth or lies. We don't have time to wade through the complexities of long traditions whose origins are obscure and whose form we have captured only in snippets of texts which touch on them while dealing with other things. We often don't know exactly why texts were written. Are words of comfort necessarily truths? Are traditional explanations which don't reflect the world as we know it in the simple truth-lies dichotomy? You often have to struggle with these texts.

You often can't rely on a translation of them (and if you have to, you should use several translations in the hope that together you can get the idea of what the original intended). And fiddling with Strongs is no substitute for interacting with the original language. You remain under the thrall of an antiquated tool created by christians aimed at christians and bearing christian interpretations. Hey, I know you have to make do. Just be aware that there are severe limitations in this approach.

Agree with the above.

Quote:

Gen 1 is a pre-christian text and it should be treated as such. You have to deal with a text for what it says before you start dealing with interpretative frameworks. You then have to place it in its ancient, pre-christian context, before getting to the christian approach(es).

Gap theology is not a uniquely Christian "approach". Rather, there is good evidence that gap theology predates Christianity.

Quote:

Projecting christian interpretations onto an earlier text has to be substantially justified, otherwise such intepretations must be seen as irrelevant to the text.

And how would gap theology be a projection of Christian interpretations?

Quote:

If our job is to understand these complicated works we have to remove all impediments. We have to leave our baggage at the door, case the surroundings and then furtively enter, being on guard for what may jump out. Going in with your digital cameras taking all your photos and then going on to the next stop won't help you understand where you've just been. It all becomes a blur. The text doesn't have any impact on you.

When we struggle with Gen 1, we find that it is complex, yet quite an interesting text which does many things at the one time. All these things need to be considered to understand the text. Retrojecting ideas from a different era is probably a sure-fire way to miss the real content of a text. From what I saw of the debate, the pro-gap theory presentation showed little interest in what was in the text.

???

Please explain how the pro-gap theory presentation in this debate showed little interest in what is in the text...

You are not making sense.

Quote:

It showed little understanding of the text or the language it was written in.

???

Examples please.

Quote:

There is no creation before Gen 1:3.

FALSE.

Read Genesis 1:1.

Quote:

What could there be anyway when the first day began with god doing something, as each of the subsequent days do? Each day starts exactly the same way, WYMR )LHYM, "and god said", followed by an act of divine fiat.

There is no question that the phrase "And God said" is significant. Gap theologians fully agree with this... In fact, gap theologians see Genesis 1:3 as being the first indication of where the six day period began. Consider the words of A.W. Pink...

Quote:

"And God said, let there be light, and there was light." First the activity of the Holy Spirit and now the spoken Word. No less than ten times in this chapter do we read "and God said." God might have refashioned and refurnished the earth without speaking at all, but He did not. Instead, He plainly intimated from the beginning, that His purpose was to be worked out and His counsels accomplished by the Word. The first thing God said was, "Let there be light," and we read, "There was light." Light, then, came in, was produced by, the Word. And then we are told, "God saw the light, that it was good."

It is so in the work of the new creation. These two are inseparably joined together—the activity of the Spirit and the ministry of the Word of God. It is by these the man in Christ became a new creation. And the initial step toward this was the entrance of light into the darkness. The entrance of sin has blinded the eyes of man’s heart and has darkened his understanding. So much so that, left to himself, man is unable to perceive the awfulness of his condition, the condemnation which rests upon him, or the peril in which he stands. Unable to see his urgent need of a Savior, he is, spiritually, in total darkness. And neither the affections of his heart, the reasonings of his mind, nor the power of his will, can dissipate this awful darkness. Light comes to the sinner through the Word applied by the Spirit. As it is written, "the entrance of Thy words giveth light" (Ps. 119:130). This marks the initial step of God’s work in the soul. Just as the shining of the light in Genesis I made manifest the desolation upon which it shone, so the entrance of God’s Word into the human heart reveals the awful ruin which sin has wrought.

http://www.creationdays.dk/awpink/2.php

Quote:

Grammatically, the first act is the creation of light. Structurally the first act is the first "let there be", ie light. Thematically, the first act is at the beginning of a real 24 hour day, otherwise the institution of the shabbat has no significance. Mythologically, we know that what happened before Gen 1:3 was precreation.

???

If what happened in Genesis 1:1-2 was "precreation", then why does the text say in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God CREATED the heavens and the earth"? You are inserting something into the text that is not there.

Quote:

There is no moral content in the terms THW WBHW: they are descriptive of a state of affairs that god's creation resolves.

???

If Tohu and Bohu had no such moral content in the other passages of the Bible in which they are used, then you would have a point... but your statement seems to ignore the meanings of these words as they are used elsewhere in the Bible.

Quote:

There is no room in the account for an assertion that it involves Satan, the notion of whom didn't even exist at the time as we now understand him through christian theological developments.

???

Who is asserting that the account involves Satan?

Why do you keep raising and attacking this straw man?

Quote:

DavidFromTexas seems to be flogging a dead horse. (Or as someone in the future will say, "he's dead, Jim."

spin

Answer the above objections, and then we will see who is flogging a dead horse.

DavidfromTexas · 05-18-2006, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Have you not understood the scriptures? THW means "chaotic, confused, not formed": "He did not create it chaotic."

Agree.

However, the usages of the term Tohu THROUGHOUT scripture is connected with with something under God's judgment. The term vain or vanity is acceptable if such usage conveys the meaning of chaos, confusion, not formed, etc., in connection with something under God's judgment...

Quote:

You will not find "vain" as a translation of the term in the venerable BDB.

BDB is very helpful, but it is not the Bible!

Every lexicon has its limitations, yet I do not disagree with the descriptions given by BDB.

BDB also says that Tohu refers to "moral unreality or falsehood" as it is used in Isaiah 59:4.

Quote:

The translation of THW as "vain" is simply inaccurate. One must use better translation tools than Strongs.

Yes, it is inaccurate if the term does not convey the meanings as mentioned above.

I also agree that one must use translation tools beyond Strongs.

Quote:

This verse indicates that god didn't create the mess in Gen 1:2.

Agree!

Quote:

As that text indicates, it was the starting conditions of the creation.

spin

Where does the text indicate that "it was the starting conditions of the creation"? You are reading something into the text that is not there.

Read the text! Don't let tradition get into the way! It clouds your judgment!

05-18-2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

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

My Vote:

DavidfromTexas clearly lost.
His posts show little except tired apologetics.

Iasion

DavidfromTexas · 05-18-2006, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

My Vote:

DavidfromTexas clearly lost.
His posts show little except tired apologetics.

Iasion

LOL!

Tired apologetics = expounding the truth.

Just as predicted... Yet another infidel who is afraid to admit the truth.

What's the matter, Iasion? Do you prefer falsehood to the truth? Is watching one of your infidel buddies lose a debate just too hard to accept?

Where will you hide when the judgment of God comes? What are you going to do? Are you going to shout at God and tell Him that everything He says is just "tired apologetics"? Are you going to huddle up with your infidel buddies and hope that the firey darts don't touch you?

Do you not realize that the Creator of the universe will judge in righteousness and truth?

Javaman · 05-18-2006, 03:24 PM

Preach much? You know Allah will smite you...

spin · 05-18-2006, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Which translation(s) are you referring to?

Most before the 20th century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Gap theolgy PREDATES the English language! It also predates most translations. The Targum of Onkelos and the Midrash reveals that the Jews "had some intimation of an early pre-Adamic catastrophe affecting the whole earth..." See http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html

That doesn't help you. You need to show that the writer of the Gen 1 had such an idea. It's not there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

???

What are you talking about? Please be specific.

If you read attently you get your answer. It was in the text which followed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

What "difficult translation into Greek" are you referring to? What "original intention of Gen 1:1" are you referring to?

The verb form in Gen 1. In Greek it is a punctiliar aorist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Quotes and links are needed please...

You need to know what you are talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

However, when one grapples with the grammar enough to understand that 1:1, BR)$YT BR) )LHYM )T H$MYM W )T H)RC, needs to be translated as "in the beginning of god's creating the heavens and the earth..." -- this is because BR) ("create") is dependent on R)$YT ("beginning") in a relation called "construct form", so that the whole clause defines the beginning. As early Jewish scholars asked christians who translated it "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth", "the beginning of what?" Those Jews knew the answer was the beginning of god's act of creation.

???

Please cite the source of the above... and please don't plagiarize.

I am quoting me. Run along and learn something about the languages you should know about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

To understand how Gen 1 works, one has to realise that god's first act in the story was the creation of light by divine fiat: "Let there be light and there was."

FALSE.

God's first act is found in Genesis 1:1... In the beginning God CREATED the heaven and the earth. His second act is found in the next verse. "... And the Spirit of God MOVED upon the face of the waters."

The text says uses RWX meaning "wind". You can see the obvious connection with spirit, but you need to justify the use of "spirit", whereas I have shown that it was part of the inherited mythology.

Still you jump the gun, for I was talking about creation not just any act. The first act of creation was when god said "Let there be light." If you cannot understand that then you don't understand the structure of the creation. The text has a repetitive structure which you ruin if you put your hypothetical creative acts before the divine fiat.

And you are using an erroneous translation of Genesis 1. Please read this again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

However, when one grapples with the grammar enough to understand that 1:1, BR)$YT BR) )LHYM )T H$MYM W )T H)RC, needs to be translated as "in the beginning of god's creating the heavens and the earth..." -- this is because BR) ("create") is dependent on R)$YT ("beginning") in a relation called "construct form", so that the whole clause defines the beginning. As early Jewish scholars asked christians who translated it "in the beginning god created the heavens and the earth", "the beginning of what?" Those Jews knew the answer was the beginning of god's act of creation.

If you don't understand this, at least refer to the RSV translation or the JPS Tanakh translation. These are relatively recent translation which present the correct translation of the verse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Please cite your sources. I suspect that you are reproducing someone else's work.

I cannot help your ignorance. You shouldn't be talkijng about what you aren't qualified to deal with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

That was day #1. Before that act there was no creation:

FALSE.

Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God CREATED the heaven and the earth.".

Rubbish. You aren't in a position to be able to make categorical statements when you can't read the original.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

The world as we know it today did not exist yesterday because everything changes moment by moment. What is your point?

The world created by god.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

All the prerequisites were there, but all that could be perceived was darkness and the deep.

???

Prerequisites? What are you talking about?

What god created the world out of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

How can you say that "all that could be perceived was darkness and that deep" if humans did not even exist at that point? Are you limiting God to what He could perceive?

Read the text. It is quite clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There was in verse 2 no creation.

Gap theologists do not claim otherwise.

Nor in v1.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

We just have a description of the prior state of the universe before god started his work.

Wrong.

We have a desciption of the prior state of the earth (not the universe) before God started His work that is detailed in the six day period. Genesis 1:2 says "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep..."

The earth came out of the water. It was not part of the earth. In fact, half of it was used to provide the waters above the earth, so obviously they are not part of the earth. Read the text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

And gap theologists are in agreement with the above except to say that God's activity over the six days included acts of creating (bara), making ('asah), and forming (yatsar).

You miss the point. As you seem to want god to have created something in v1, what follows in v2 is grammatically related to v1. However, as I've already explained god did not start the creation until v3. At the beginning of the creation of the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form and void. Then god said, "let there be light."

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Yes, this was before the sun and moon existed, but that fact is only a problem for naive literalists on both sides of the divide.

False.

God's first act in the Genesis narrative is to CREATE the heavens and the earth. Read Genesis 1:1.

You can't even read what it says. Your ignorance has you believing rubbish. The Hebrew is relatively clear.

"At the beginning of god's creating the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form and empty, darkness was on the deep and the wind of god was hovering over the waters, and god said, 'let there be light.'

That's what the text says. Please go and read my post more closely

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

God's fight <first> act significantly was to turn the lights on for the creation process.

FALSE.

You are reading into the text something that is not there. You are relying upon tradition, instead of the text of scripture. The text does NOT say that the sun and moon did not exist before God had said "Let there be light".

It won't hurt you to read the text. Start at v14 and read to v18.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

???

What sphere are you talking about?

The sphere of light.

Let me spoon feed you a little.

Day 1: god creates light and separates it from darkness
Day 4: god populates the light and darkness with the sun, moon and stars

Day 2: god separates the waters providing an expanse of air
Day 5: god populates the water and the air

Day 3: god causes the earth to appear
Day 6: god populates the earth

The first three days resolve the THW and the second three parallel days do away with the BHW.

Obviously the sun, moon and stars were created after the light. they populate the realms of light and darkness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

???

Please cite your sources.

It's not a matter of sources, but hopefully my previous statements have clarified what you didn't understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

And your point?

MY point seems to be that you cannot read properly. The text I wrote for you explains some of the literary background to Gen 1:2. Please reread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Please cite your sources.

If you had paid attention you would have read my mention of the "Enuma Elish."

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Please cite your sources.

This is an interest whine you've developed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

???

Please explain how the text "allows no speculation regarding Satan".

Where does Gen 1 talk of Satan? Where does it hint at Satan? NOt a jot not a tittle. Satan ain't there. You either adhere to the text or you do eisegesis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Sources please... give evidence for your assertions.

The Hebrew bible. Tell me where the noun $+N doesn't have an article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Please explain how the interpretation is misguided, and please cite your sources.

Read the text. That is the source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

If you dismiss or downplay all of the other passages in the Bible which use the words Tohu and Bohu, then perhaps you are correct... because then you could redefine the terms to be anything you want it to be... But such is eisegesis, not exegesis. Ignoring how scripture uses the terms elsewhere is not acceptable.

I have not dismissed anything. You have merely interpreted the terms wrongly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

How can you say that God "started His job" by creating light, if the heavens and the earth had already been created by that time?

I cannot help the fact that you persist with a bad translation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

The text in verse 3 does not say that God "created" light in verse 3. The English translation alludes to this... "And God said, Let their be light..."

"And there was light."

God speaks and it happens. This is called divine fiat. God speaks light into existence. He speaks many things into existence in Gen 1. That is the preferred means of creation in the account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

What is "natural" to you is tradition... Genesis chapter 1 does not say that the creation was in six ordinary days.

It says so repeatedly: "and there was evening and there was morning". You first have to read a text literally before any other reading. What is wrong with the literal text? It is very clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Gap theology is not a uniquely Christian "approach". Rather, there is good evidence that gap theology predates Christianity.

On what do you base this assertion, when the source text doesn't support your claim?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

And how would gap theology be a projection of Christian interpretations?

It's not in the source. Christians argue gaps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

???

Please explain how the pro-gap theory presentation in this debate showed little interest in what is in the text...

You continually show no regard for what the text actually says as the incessant use of a bad translation. Read the text for what it says.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

You are not making sense.

You need to start reading before you start commenting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

???

Examples please.

Already supplied: you use a crap translation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

FALSE.

Read Genesis 1:1.

At least I can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

There is no question that the phrase "And God said" is significant. Gap theologians fully agree with this... In fact, gap theologians see Genesis 1:3 as being the first indication of where the six day period began. Consider the words of A.W. Pink...

(I don't give a hoot about the opinions of someone who retrojects their opinions into the text. You must start with what the text says and not foist the trinity into it a priori.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

???

If what happened in Genesis 1:1-2 was "precreation", then why does the text say in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God CREATED the heavens and the earth"?

It doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

You are inserting something into the text that is not there.

You can't read the text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

There is no moral content in the terms THW WBHW: they are descriptive of a state of affairs that god's creation resolves.

???

If Tohu and Bohu had no such moral content in the other passages of the Bible in which they are used, then you would have a point... but your statement seems to ignore the meanings of these words as they are used elsewhere in the Bible.

You are a slave to your translation. You neither understand the Hebrew nor how the writers use the Hebrew language.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Answer the above objections, and then we will see who is flogging a dead horse.

"There are just so many ways to say he's dead." - DeForest Kelly.

spin

spin · 05-18-2006, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

However, the usages of the term Tohu THROUGHOUT scripture is connected with with something under God's judgment. The term vain or vanity is acceptable if such usage conveys the meaning of chaos, confusion, not formed, etc., in connection with something under God's judgment...

BDB is very helpful, but it is not the Bible!

This is not a very useful statement. It is literally correct, but BDB has gone through all the uses of the terms it presents, based on good philological grounds. It relates every term it can with cognates in related languages so that you can see how the term changes meaning. It's old, but extremely useful. Stick with it when it gives you an indication about words like THW WBHW.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidfromTexas

Every lexicon has its limitations, yet I do not disagree with the descriptions given by BDB.

BDB also says that Tohu refers to "moral unreality or falsehood" as it is used in Isaiah 59:4.

Yes, it is inaccurate if the term does not convey the meanings as mentioned above.

I also agree that one must use translation tools beyond Strongs.

Agree!

Where does the text indicate that "it was the starting conditions of the creation"? You are reading something into the text that is not there.

Read the text! Don't let tradition get into the way! It clouds your judgment!

When you stop working with bad translations you'll get away from dependence on English words provided so you understand the idiom of the Hebrew.

Simple example:

"He's a very low person."

We understand a derogatory impact of this statment, but many people for whom English is not their first language won't understand it thinking it may have something to do with the person being short. You need to know how the lexicon of a language works. You cannot rely on using translations to deal with specific language. You will be led astray because you put assumptions on the English translation which often don't apply to the original language. You have, or your source has, done this with THW WBHW.

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-18-2006, 03:24 PM	#58
Javaman Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Nebraska Posts: 1,708	Preach much? You know Allah will smite you...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.