Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Lafcadio · 03-01-2005, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Did you pick those numbers out of a hat or did someone feed you with them??

None of the biblical books were written anywhere near that period. The Hebrew language didn't even exist at that stage. Phoenician was the earliest local language to emerge and Hebrew is closer to the other Canaanite languages than Phoenician, ie Phoenician split earlier than Hebrew. Yes, Hebrew is just another Canaanite language.

Don't consider such outlandish dates. Genesis talks of the Philistines in Palestine, yet the Philistines didn't arrive on the coast before 1170 BCE. The table of Nations in Gen 10 talks of nations which didn't exist until after the destruction of the Hittites circa 1170 BCE. Then of course also in the table of nations is the name of a Nubian king who lived post 800 BCE.

spin

Can you detail how exactly the earliest bound is set? Because I have some uncertainties.
First, is that I find very probable hebrews to be an originally nomadic people, so I wonder then what "local" means? Where and how is their culture traced back in time?
Second, is regarding various early historical evidences. I read somewhere that some ugaritic tables (and Ugarit's culture vanished under sea-people invasions, therefore means dates prior to 1200 BC - maybe they have an archaeological accurate dating) displayed a cuneiform semitic language close to hebrew. I also assume there should have been a proto-canaanite influenced by egyptians and/or mesopotamians (maybe it's supported by evidences, I don't know), maybe it was before hebrew as an autonomous language existed, but the stories probably existed already, "borrowed" from neighbouring cultures or anchored in their tradition.
Third, the cronologies in history should not always be taken as sacred. There are cases when events order is reversed or exaggerated, due to carelessness for accuracy, due to the storyteller's impulse to be persuading, due to later compilations, transcriptions, translations etc.. I am not very familiarized with a detailed history of the Bible's text throughout the time, but I suspect such "incidents" were likely to happen and alter, at least in parts, the original text.

spin · 03-01-2005, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lafcadio

Can you detail how exactly the earliest bound is set? Because I have some uncertainties.

Ugaritic is further from Hebrew than Phoenician. One should see a basic difference between Ugaritic and southern Canaanite languages, Phoenician, Hebrew, Moabite, Ammonite and Palmyrean. Phoenician is the oldest breakaway from this group, so Hebrew as a language is younger than Phoenician. There is an inscription from Gezer called the Gezer Calendar, which is seen by some scholars as Hebrew while other scholars think it is Phoenician. The inscription is from the ninth c. BCE, so the difference between Hebrew and Phoenician was still not too clear then. Scholars working in the arcane field of diachronic phonology see Hebrew as emerging sometime around the 12th c. BCE.

spin

Darwin's Beagle · 03-02-2005, 04:13 PM

originally posted by spin

Code:

cycle     forming      | filling
---------------------------------------------
days      1st three    | 2nd three
=============================================
          1 light      | 4 sun/moon & stars
            day/night  |
---------------------------------------------
          2 water/sky  | 5 fish/birds
---------------------------------------------
          3 land       | 6 animals (& humans)

Er ... Water formed on day 2? :huh:

Water was around at the beginning and the seas did not get made until day 3 along with the land.

Otherwise it is a good parallelism that explains why the author chose to have light before the creation of the sun and stars.

Regards,

Darwin's Beagle

spin · 03-02-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darwin's Beagle

Er ... Water formed on day 2? :huh:

It was in abbreviated form. Day 2 involved the separation of the waters above from those below so that the sea was formed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darwin's Beagle

Water was around at the beginning

The chaotic waters were there from before creation began. But as I said creation was about forming and then populating. The chaotic waters had no form.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darwin's Beagle

and the seas did not get made until day 3 along with the land.

The waters were gathered together on day 3 so that land could emerge. Day 2 was the separation of the waters above from the waters below through the use of the firmament, thus creating both seas and sky.

spin

Anat · 03-02-2005, 04:35 PM

Both darkness and water are part of chaos, or the opposition to creation, when they are unlimited. But when they are controlled they can be part of the order of creation - hence the night sky is 'populated' with stars and the waters are populated with water creatures.

The Bible Thumper · 03-02-2005, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Crap. I'm dealing with a piece of literature not a scientific treatise. The order of the text is exactly what the writer wanted. All these modern literalists who don't want to read the text, for whatever reason, postulate things hardly related to the text: religionists want to bolster their pathetic beliefs and anti-religionists want to attack religionists and neither deal with the text.

spin

Alright, I read your posts after being told to by another member here.

What you need to do is explain 2 Peter 3:7-8. Yep! One day is not a 24-hour period!

...now that's a tough one for the Atheists...

The Bible Thumper · 03-02-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Both darkness and water are part of chaos, or the opposition to creation, when they are unlimited. But when they are controlled they can be part of the order of creation - hence the night sky is 'populated' with stars and the waters are populated with water creatures.

Amen!

The Bible Thumper · 03-02-2005, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

Ok Toto. The thing is, TBT made the remarkable assertion:

Nothing else of his post contained any sort of argument of any kind. So the key assertion is the last sentence. Obviously the Biblical critics among us will want to point out why that assertion is a load ... er, completely unfounded with special emphasis on how Genesis was written and the historical context which gives us clues about this writing. But anyway, I'm just an atheist, Willow can tell you that we're always wrong and only argue with those assertions because of our ideological bias.

Joel

We know you're an Atheist, but we'll forgive you anyhoo...

Darwin's Beagle · 03-02-2005, 05:44 PM

spin,

As I understand your argument it is that the author of Genesis 1 intentionally planned this parallelism. If this is so then I would expect the text to imply that the seas were formed on day 2 more so than any other day.

Here is the pertinent text, Genesis 1:6-10, 13 (NRSV):

-------------------------------------
And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters, So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear. And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. ... And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
-------------------------------------

Now while I agree with you that one COULD read that to mean that seas were created on the second day, I think a plain text reading of the verses more strongly suggests that the author is saying that God split the original "chaotic waters" in half to make the sky on day 2. The waters were still pretty much chaotic at that time. The seas were not formed until day 3.

Regards,

Darwin's Beagle

Toto · 03-02-2005, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bible Thumper

. . .

What you need to do is explain 2 Peter 3:7-8. Yep! One day is not a 24-hour period!

...now that's a tough one for the Atheists...

Very funny. That's a tough one for the Christians. 2 Peter was written at a time when it was clear that the predicted Endtimes were not just around the corner.

2 Peter 3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."

. . .

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

So, even though we have waited 2 thousand years, the prophecy that the end will come in 3 days is still on the table

and the evil doubters who think that the prophet might just be making it up are not to be listened to.

None of which has anything to do with what the writer of Genesis meant.

03-02-2005, 04:13 PM	#43
Darwin's Beagle Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 62	Did I miss something here? originally posted by spin Code: cycle forming \| filling --------------------------------------------- days 1st three \| 2nd three ============================================= 1 light \| 4 sun/moon & stars day/night \| --------------------------------------------- 2 water/sky \| 5 fish/birds --------------------------------------------- 3 land \| 6 animals (& humans) Er ... Water formed on day 2? :huh: Water was around at the beginning and the seas did not get made until day 3 along with the land. Otherwise it is a good parallelism that explains why the author chose to have light before the creation of the sun and stars. Regards, Darwin's Beagle

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

03-02-2005, 04:35 PM	#45
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	Both darkness and water are part of chaos, or the opposition to creation, when they are unlimited. But when they are controlled they can be part of the order of creation - hence the night sky is 'populated' with stars and the waters are populated with water creatures.

03-02-2005, 05:44 PM	#49
Darwin's Beagle Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 62	spin, As I understand your argument it is that the author of Genesis 1 intentionally planned this parallelism. If this is so then I would expect the text to imply that the seas were formed on day 2 more so than any other day. Here is the pertinent text, Genesis 1:6-10, 13 (NRSV): ------------------------------------- And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters, So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear. And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. ... And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. ------------------------------------- Now while I agree with you that one COULD read that to mean that seas were created on the second day, I think a plain text reading of the verses more strongly suggests that the author is saying that God split the original "chaotic waters" in half to make the sky on day 2. The waters were still pretty much chaotic at that time. The seas were not formed until day 3. Regards, Darwin's Beagle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.