DavidfromTexas

???

What does the 20th century have to do with it? Are you suggesting that most translations from before the 20th century are "bad"?

Are you aware that gap theology is supported regardless of the translation? Gap theology predates the translations.



???

What do you think that the debate was all about?

You need to show that the writer of Gen 1 did NOT have such an idea. Pervy's goal was to do just that... and he failed.


Hogwash.

This is not the guessing game... I asked you a specific question, if you choose not to answer, then I can assume that you are spouting garbage.

Once again, I ask you... 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...


So what?

What is your point?


Again, gap theology predates "later European translations".


And you need to demonstrate that you know what you are talking about. Please be more specific, and provide quotes and links.




You are quoting you? Since when did you become the source of what Jewish scholars asked Christians who translated the Bible? Are you telling me that you are over 500 years of age?

Why don't you run along and learn how to provide evidence of your assertions before making such wild claims?

Are you aware that gap theologians translate Genesis 1:1 in exactly the same way that you say the Jews described it? Consider the words of Custance...


Why don't you run along and learn something about gap theology before coming here and making an embarrassment of yourself?




Yes, there is an obvious connection with spirit because it is attached to the next word ELOHIM! Please read the text before jumping to such erroneous conclusions. Who is feeding you this garbage? Cite your sources.

What is this "inherited mythology" garbage? The parameters of the debate between Pervy and myself was restricted to a Biblical inerrantist hermeneutic... So, bringing in the inherited mythology garbage is irrelevant.


Then you were not clear in your statement. Read your statement over again very carefully... it is quoted above.

Even if you meant creation (and not just any act) then your statement would STILL be wrong. Once again, READ Genesis 1:1. The verb bara is talking about CREATION.


WRONG.

Read Genesis 1:1

In the beginning, God CREATED the heavens and the earth.


???

Are you the creation guru or something? What are you talking about?

What is the so-called "structure of the creation"?


??? hypothetical?

Did you read Genesis 1:1 yet? Are you suggesting that God's creating the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1 is only hypothetical?

Who is feeding you this garbage? Please quote your sources.



???

The RSV and JPS translations are as follows...

^RSV Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

^JPS Genesis 1:1 IN THE beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

So what is your point? You are not making sense.



???

What?

I ask you to cite your sources, and then you call me ignorant?

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



???

Are you claiming that you can read the original and that I cannot?

What are you talking about?



LOL!!!

Have you READ Genesis 1:1 yet?

Shall I repeat it AGAIN for you?

In the beginning, God CREATED the heavens and the earth.

Now, please explain to us how there was no creation in verse 1 WHEN THE VERSE ITSELF SAYS THAT GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH. Explain yourself.



Excuse me, but you are not making sense here.

It seems that the "It" in your statement refers to the earth. If that is the case, then please explain how the following makes any sense...

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

LOL!!!

What I "want" has nothing to do with it... Rather, what IT SAYS has everything to do with it...

READ Genesis 1:1 please.

In the beginning, God CREATED the heavens and the earth.



How? In what way? And what does that have to do with your argument?


FALSE.

Have you not read the scriptures? READ Genesis 1:1.

In the beginning, God CREATED the heavens and the earth.


FALSE.

You have CHANGED the text. Such is not allowed, sir.

The text says the following...

Genesis 1:1-3 ^ESV Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

You left out "God created" in verse 1. You also left out from verse 2 the following..."and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters".


FALSE. Please see the above.


I have, and you are still not making sense.



No, it does not hurt me to read the text, but perhaps it may hurt you... Please demonstrate where the text says that the sun and moon did not exist before God had said "Let there be light".


???

Where in the text is the phrase "sphere of light"?

Who is feeding you this garbage? Please cite your sources.



Spoon feed garbage?

No thanks.


One of the problems with the scenario presented above is that plants are treated unfairly... Are you suggesting that plants should be considered "second-class citizens"? Plants may as well be forgotten considering that inaminate objects such as the sun, moon, and stars are given "populating roles" instead of plants. How is this so in the scenario presented? Because the scenario as you presented LEAVES out what ALSO happened on the third day...

Genesis 1:11-13 11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

So, where do plants fit in with your Tohu Bohu theory? Answer: apparently nowhere.

Therefore, your spoon feeding did not amount to much. Sounds like someone has been feeding you garbage. Would you care to share with us who?


And your point?

Does the Enuma Elish take precedence over Genesis? If you are suggesting that this is the case, then you are arguing OUTSIDE of the scope of the debate between Pervy and I. The parallels between Genesis and the Enuma Elish often overblown. Yes, they are interesting, and actually support gap theology.

So what is your point?



Does absence of the name of Satan allow no speculatoin regarding Satan?

Answer the question please.


Again, please explain how the text "allows no speculation regarding Satan". The absence of a hint at Satan, "NOt and jot not a title, and "Satan ain't there" are insufficient reasons to say that the text "allows no speculation regarding Satan".



???

What "bad translation" are you referring to?

Please explain what you consider to be "bad translations". What is a "good translation"?



Yes, of course, God speaks and it happens. Satan does the same. Read Genesis 3:1 and 3:4. The EXACT same verb is used. Does this mean that Satan has divine fiat also? You are overblowing the meaning of the Hebrew word AMAR.

The following is from the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament by Harris, et als, regarding the verb AMAR (as used in the phrase 'And God said')...


What is wrong with the literal text? Answer: nothing.

But YOU are wrong in claiming that Genesis 1 repeatedly says that the creation was in six ordinary days. QUOTE one of verses that supposedly says this. You will not be able to because it does not exist. You are reading something into the text that is not there.


Consider the writings of Custance...


Custance provides an appendix describing "Some Pagan Traditions of a Like Catastrophe". It is found here... http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/app_xxi.html





Just because Christians "argue gaps", that does not mean that Christianity is the source of gap theology.

Your scope is too limited... There is good evidence that gap theology predates Christianity.



???

EXAMPLES PLEASE. Quote where I continually "show no regard for what the text actually says." Back up your assertions.

What BAD TRANSLATION are you referring to? Give me an example of a GOOD TRANSLATION.


FALSE.

You have not supplied ANY examples. QUOTE what you are referring to. IDENTIFY which translation you are referring to... You say that I use a "crap translation". IDENTIFY it.



LOL!!!

Actually, you do not give CREDIT to the opinions of others who retroject their opinions into the text. I have asked you several times to provide citations of your sources (persons who also retroject their opinions into the text), yet you continue to ignore my request.



LOL!!!

HA HA HA!

Would you care to tell us exactly what Genesis 1:1 actually says?



LOL!!!

WHICH TRANSLATION are you referring to? You have YET to tell me which translation I am supposedly a slave to...

You have YET to address how Tohu and Bohu are used elsewhere in the Bible. Until you do so, then how can you imply that you know how the writers use the Hebrew language?

DavidfromTexas

Yes, it is extremely useful... It is a fantastic resource, but it is not the Bible itself!

Consulting multiple references is the better strategy... Weigh the arguments from all, then decide. If you consider only one source, then you cannot judge its weight against others.

Consider the following comment from another lexicon (Harris, et als, Theological Wordbook of the OT) regarding Tohu... {my emphasis included}

I wish that I had come across the entry above in my debate with Pervy. Today was the first time that I saw it... It vindicates my position. Pervy's claim that Tohu has no pejorative sense is just plain hogwash. The weight of evidence contrary to Pervy's position is overwhelming.



Will you PLEASE IDENTIFY what "bad translations" you are talking about? Name one... just one!

You need to also IDENTIFY what you consider to be a GOOD translation.

Otherwise, you are spouting nothing but garbage.


You are not making a good case for yourself. How can you expect us to believe that you understand the idiom of the Hebrew when you fail to identify what you consider to be a good translation?



HOGWASH.

You are taking very much the same position of many KJV Only advocates. When asked if Russians should be taught English before trying to understand the Bible, KJV Only cultists respond with an unhesitating YES.

Think of the absurdity of such a statement.

Translations are VERY useful in trying to understand the original. Is it absolutely essential for EVERYONE to learn the original language before they can adequately understand what the original said? Answer: no. Translations are very useful for non-native speakers of Hebrew and Greek.


Agree.

But this does not mean that English translations are useless.


???

HOW?!?!?

In what way?

Prove it.

spin

Not before the LXX.




The fact that you need to perform.

I'm not interested per se in your lack of fundamental logic. When dealing with texts it makes no sense to say that a text may be about something that there is no evidence from the text that it could be about.

All you have are unfounded assumptions. You should show some evidence that you actually understand the literal content of the text. You fail... partly because you ilmit yourself to a translation.

I mentioned the problem in the previous response to you, but in ignorance you shrugged and said "so what?" But let me deal with the issue one more time...

The verb epoihsen in the LXX of Gen 1:1, being a punctiliar aorist, looks at the whole action as though it were a point, but the creation wasn't a point, for it was an episodic event, so the punctiliar in v1 has to be seen to cover the full event through to the creation of humans, as though it were a single event. This makes Gen 1:1 in Greek a form of title for the whole passage. There is no equivalent in English for example or most European languages to deal with the verb form, hence the "difficult translation into Greek".

That indicated by the Hebrew.

BR)$YT BR) )LHYM )T H$MYM W )T H)RC

That your theory has nothing to do with the texts, because you don't understand the text.

There is a whole array of claptrap which predates them. You are bound to "later European translations" because you don't have the requisite skills to talk about the original languages. They for much of your theory. They are all based directly or partially on the LXX.

No, I don't. You have to show that you know what the text is about. You can't.

When dealing with a text, you read it. The primary source is what you are responsible for dealing with. In that you are irresponsible.

I cannot help it if you are talking about things you don't know anything about.

I don't give a hoot about the opinions of people who are not here to support their opinions from the text. The text is the arbiter.

When you show that it has any relevance to the text. You have failed dismally. But thank you for your use of my phraseology. It shows your respect.

There is no necessary link between them other than a grammatical one. Try again.

You need to know about the genre of the literature you are dealing with.

This is not the debate. And your inability to deal with is your problem.

Hopefully you have it clearer in your head now. When talking about creation the acts are creative acts.

I have no doubt that BR) is talking about creation. You still haven't taken on bourd the grammar necessary.

I appreciate that you claim your gap theory stuff is pre-modern translation, but why do you continue to use such a translation, especially one which is not correct?

The textual form of creation in Gen 1. There is a textual structure to it. And repetitive grammatical forms are used to highlight that structure.

Well, "unsupported", "conjectured", "erroneous", "baseless".

Your grammatically correct question should be, "have you read Genesis 1:1 yet?" If you have difficulty understanding correct grammatical usage in formal English, I can't expect you to understand the grammatical necessities of other languages. How on earth can you understand what is necessary to make sense of BR)$YT BR) )LHYM )T H$MYM W )T H)RC?

Back to your favourite whine.

Take note of the footnote in the RSV to Gen 1:1 and then look at the New RSV. "In the beginning when god created the heavens and the earth..."

Here is the new JPS Tanakh translation: "When god began to create heaven and earth..."

Thanks for paying my phraseology homage. The point is that you are using old erroneous works.

What do you expect, when you aren't able to deal with linguistic argumentation?

I suspect that you are a one trick pony. Being unable to talk about what you should you display the fact that you know nothing about it.

Yup.

Your inability to deal with the Hebrew. I have already explained the Hebrew grammar of Gen 1:1.

WHEN THE ERRONEOUS TRANSLATION OF THE VERSE SAYS. The operative word is "translation". In Hebrew the first two verses are functionally a long subordinate clause to the first act of creation.

I might be able to find you a remedial reading teacher.

Another English grammar problem on your part. When using pronouns you should start making connections with the last mentioned noun, in this case "water".

It says, in transliteration, BR)$YT BR) )LHYM )T H$MYM W )T H)RC, ie "in the beginning of god's creating the heavens and the earth"...

...and the earth was without form and empty, and darkness was on the waters and the wind of god was hovering over the deep, god said, "Let there be light."

The grammar may be getting through to you...

Yes, I have read what Gen 1:1 actually says. Your problem is that you can't.

How would you know? You can't read it.

The word BR)$YT, "in the beginning" is in a construct relationship with BR); this is an equivalent to an "of" being inserted between the words. Narrative is developed in Hebrew with the uses of the WAYYIQTAL verb form, as found at the beginning of Gen 1:3.

Where?



V14, and god said, "let their been lights in the firmament...", ie they weren't there before.

Do you have trouble with "sphere", "light" or the combination of the two?

An old whine, but a good whine.

Umm, plants are not independent entities. They don't move around by themselves. Doh! They are part of the context.

They are part of the form of the earth.

It's sad that you didn't even look at what was written.

I didn't mention precedence. It is an independent witness to shared tradition.

I don't give a hoot about your debate. You are asking me questions and I am answering them. If you don't like the answers don't bleed about the scope of your debate.

In what way exactly?

You asked for references. The Enuma Elish was the one text I referred to outside the bible.

You can speculate on anything you like until the cows come in. What matters when you talk to others formally is to be able to demonstrate your claims.

Well, you can insinuate Satan into the text.

When you work with texts your claims about the text need to be supported by the text, otherwise your claims are irrelevant to the text. There is not a jot nor a tittle about Satan in Gen 1. You can speculate, but the text doesn't allow you to.

A bad translation doesn't reflect the semantic content of a text; a good one does.

Where is Satan in Gen 3? The text only talks about the serpent.

The verb itself is a general verb. Anyone can use it. But where does Satan display divine fiat?

I'm glad you agree. It's time you started using it.

And there was evening and there was morning: a first day.
And there was evening and there was morning: a second day.
And there was evening and there was morning: a third day.
And there was evening and there was morning: a fourth day.
And there was evening and there was morning: a fifth day.
And there was evening and there was morning: a sixth day.

In each case the text uses ordinary words to express its chronology, )RB, BQR and YWM. The literal meaning is plain. Why don't you use it?

I still don't give a hoot about opinions of other people not here to defend them.

The crap translation is: "In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth." It doesn't reflect the Hebrew grammar.

My source is the text.

I have already done so. BR)$YT BR) )LHYM )T H$MYM W )T H)RC, which translates to "in the beginning of god's creating the heavens and the earth..."

You have cited it yourself so often.

THW fundamentally means "chaotic, confused, without coherent form" and always means that. When used elsewhere the meaning is allusively preserved. We have to find alternate approximate translations because Hebrew is very different from Indo-European languages in usage. When "vain" is supplied as an approximate translation, its meaning comes from the original sense of the word, from the Latin "vanus" on which it is derived, meaning "empty, without substance". It was, in renaissance English, quite a reasonable, even literal, translation, though the meaning of the term has changed in modern English.

Do you have problems with BHW? I mean with its basic meaning of "empty" and the ways that can be used? You should be able to understand the basic connection betweenthe two words.


spin

Javaman

Thank you, spin. That was very informative and I hope David understands you. I would think it would be hard not to lest there be some willful ignorance. Again, my thanks.

kais

What you're effectively doing here is, spoon in hand, attacking an armed force while shouting, "You haven't told me what weapon I should have brought, therefore your rather large and pointy weapons will not harm me!" You need to rebut spin's analysis of the text by making an argument based on an understanding of Hebrew grammar.

The more time I spend on message boards, the more I understand why lawyers hate it when people use analogies. The reason yours doesn't fly is simple: spin is not arguing that the text should not be translated. In fact, he's pointed you to two translations which render the verses in question as he does.

Dean Anderson

I feel that I need to interject here and make something clear - since you give every appearance of not understanding the crucial difference between my arguments and those of Spin, and not understanding what our debate was actually about.

The debate was most certainly not about what ideas the writer of Genesis 1 had - and if you think that my goal in the debate had anything to do with this then you have badly misunderstood the whole debate.

The debate was not about whether Gap Theology fits the beliefs of the Hebrew writers - note the plural - of Genesis.

The debate was about whether Gap Theology fits a modern Christian Inerrantist reading of the Bible taken as a whole.

There is an enormous difference between the two. For example, I could not use the points that Spin has been making (and making well if I may say so) about the parallels between Genesis and the Enuma Elish. I could not demonstrate the symbolic nature of the Genesis account (with the spheres and their inhabitants). I could not use arguments about how the Genesis account shows God fashioning the Earth from existing materials, starting in Genesis 1:3 - with Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 being a preamble and not part of the creation process at all.

Basically, I could not compare Gap Theology to what the Genesis authors wrote - in the context that they wrote it - like Spin is doing.

I could only compare Gap Theology with the Christian re-interpretation of that text, and even then I could only use one specific Christan re-interpretation of the text - the modern Inerrantist one.

Basically, my argument in the debate consisted of holding up one re-interpretation of Genesis alongside a different re-interpretation of Genesis and showing how they failed to match.

However, to do that I had to - as I disclaimed at the start of the debate - hypothetically hold one of the re-interpretations as being the "true" meaning of the text for the sake of argument, even though I know it to be false, in order to examine the other in its context.

I was arguing from a hypothetical position I do not actually hold. Spin is arguing from a completely different position (one that from what I've seen is very close to that which I hold) - and his argument has nothing to do with the debate.

Spin is not arguing that Gap Theory is incompatible with Inerrantism, like I did in the debate.

Spin is arguing that Gap Theory is incompatible with what we know about the beliefs of the author(s) of Genesis.

It is a completely different argument. Do you see the difference?

DavidfromTexas

[QUOTE=spin]

Are you going to answer the questions or not?

I will ask once again... What does the 20th century have to do with it? Are you suggesting that most translations from before the 20th century are "bad"?

The LXX predates Christianity. Gap theology is supported regardless of the translations. There is evidence that gap theology predates the LXX.



I am not interested in you repeatedly ignoring questions. I will ask you AGAIN for the FOURTH TIME. What "difficult translation into Greek" are you referring to? What "original intention of Gen 1:1" are you referring to?

If you continue to ignore my questions, then it is clear that you are saying nothing but garbage. If you cannot support your assertions, then there is no reason to continue this discussion.



Limiting myself to a translation? YOU SAID THAT I WAS RELYING ON A BAD TRANSLATION, not "a translation".

Once again, I will repeat my question for the 4th time. What "bad translation" are you referring to? IDENTIFY IT or THEM.



HOGWASH.

The LXX is a translation. It is not the original. Regardless of whether evpoi,hsen in the LXX is a punctiliar aorist it is irrelevant, and it certainly does not make Genesis 1:1 a title for the whole passage. The sources I have consulted indicate that this verb is indicative aorist active 3rd person singular. I ask ONCE AGAIN... where are you getting this garbage? CITE your sources.

This issue of whether this verb is a punctiliar aorist is controversial. http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b...ly/013525.html Nobody really knows, especially since context is used to help determine the issue. How is context going to help with the FIRST verse of the Bible? Get a grip, man. Stop reading garbage.


???

What verb form are you talking about? Hebrew or Greek?

You are not making sense.



So what?

The LXX is a God-send, in my opinion. There is good evidence that the Masoretic text was intentionally corrupted to hide the compelling prophecies and parallels pertaining to Jesus Christ. The LXX, in many respects, ironically gives better testimony to what the original language text said than the Hebrew Masoretic texts.

Perhaps this is your true aim here... By discrediting the LXX, you hope to give the false impression that Christianity has been based upon a "bad translation" of the original languages.

Well, if the above is true, then you have already lost the game... Most of the English translations of the OT were based upon the Masoretic texts, and not the LXX... Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls have confirmed the remarkable fidelity of the Septuagint. Providence has allowed for the truth to be known. Check out the following link... http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/P...nt/spindex.htm


Are you going to answer the questions posed to you or not?

ONCE AGAIN... Since when did you become the source of what Jewish scholars asked Christians who translated the Bible? Are you telling me that you are over 500 years of age?

You have claimed knowledge of what Jewish scholars asked Christians who translated the Bible. Now, you need to CITE what information you are referring to and where you obtained such information. Are you going to do so? Or are you going to continue to ignore my questions and offer garbage instead?


Are you going to provide evidence of your assertions or not?

PLEASE CITE what you are referring to. Vague statements that offer no evidence of your assertions are meaningless.


Absurd.

As far as I am concerned, you are not here either. You provide no support for your opinions... Your answers are repeatedly evasive.

I was hoping for an interesting dialogue on these issues with you, but you clearly are not capable of backing up your assertions nor answering questions in good faith. Therefore, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

patchy

Translation:

"I got my ass kicked two different ways on the same subject--once on a contemporary reading, and once on the original language. I better skedaddle now, proclaiming victory on my way out the door."

DavidfromTexas

Hogwash, Pervy.

You argued about what ideas the writer of SEVERAL books had in the Old Testament.

Need I remind you?


[QUOTE]WRONG.

The beliefs of the Hebrew writers is PART of the Christian Inerrantist reading.

The two are NOT mutually exclusive.


WRONG.

You are making the UNFOUNDED assumption that the beliefs of the Hebrew writers were one in the same as the Enuma Elish.


Why not?


Spin has no basis to say what the context was of what they wrote. He provides no evidence to back up his assertions.



HOGWASH.

The Christian interpretation is NOT a "re-interpretation".

There was NOTHING in the debate parameters that restricted you to a so-called "modern Inerranist one". You shunned the history of the gap because it countered your implications that the gap was based upon a later misinterpretation of the text.


FALSE.

Your goal was NOT to show that two differing interpretations did not match. It is ALREADY known that the gap and other interpretations do not match. Your statement here is absurd. Rather, your goal was to demonstrate that the gap was incompatible with an inerrantist hermeneutic (instead of a "re-interpretation" that did not "match" some other "re-interpretation"). You FAILED to accomplish your goal.


FALSE.

You made no such disclaimer at the start of the debate.

Inerrantist hermeneutic is not a "re-interpretation" of Genesis.



Agree.


Who is "we"?

Spin has not argued ANYTHING about what is known about the author of Genesis. Spin provides no evidence for his assertions. His assertions therefore, are garbage.

Yes, of course.

What is your point?

spin

Talking about interesting dialogue:
That's some dialogue technique ya got there.

As to your latest effort, I'm sorry things are too difficult for you to understand, but I am impressed with a few of your perceptions:

You got that right.

Sorry, I should have said a bad translation.

I never thought of it that way!

We could break out an umpteenth round of why the Tanakh has (LMH when the LXX has parQenos in Isa 7:14. Or why Ps 22 actually talks about "piercing". Or any of those other christian gems.

You shouldn't talk about the bible like that.

Context is everything, for example linguistic context. We have the full Hebrew bible to give us language that helps us understand the language of any part. Gen 1:1 is part of a passage and cannot be read in isolation.

Why on earth would I want to try to discredit the LXX? It is an important witness to the Hebrew text.

This needs no comment.

DavidfromTexas, I'm sorry to dash your hopes regarding an interesting dialogue. I'm sorry I don't find your sterling efforts at supporting the gap theory convincing. I'm sorry to trouble you with such quibbling as what the text actually means. And I'm sorry you have difficulty communicating your obviously important message.


spin