Genesis Chapter 1
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-06-2013, 02:08 PM
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
damn, my little finger was tired from holding down the arrow button to scroll thru all that bullshit
TLDR.

[Image: dalek.gif]


"Life is a daring adventure or it is nothing"--Helen Keller
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bows and Arrows's post
20-06-2013, 02:40 PM
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
(20-06-2013 02:00 PM)LostLocke Wrote:  Bucky beat me to it.

I was originally going to say the OP's idea sounded an awful lot like what I remember back from my JW days.
And now I know why... Tongue

It's funny, they taught that the "scientific" age of the universe, 14+ billion years, is entirely compatible with what they saw in Genesis. The idea that the physical universe was around that long, but it wasn't until the Genesis account that Earth was prepared for life on it. Yet, they couldn't accept evolution or other life sciences.

Apparently, they had no issues accepting astronomy science, but ignored 'earthly' science or dismissed it as wrong, since they knew life was not billions of years old on this planet.

I was going to run it through the sophisticated/expensive software in our department office. It nails the theft of intellectual property by lazy people, regularly. No one would even think of being so dumb these days. But I didn't even get that far. It took 30 seconds on my own. I think I googled "Hebrew verb tenses". The text is also completely wrong. There are so many thing wrong with it, it's not even worth addressing.

Two other clues :
1. He says he's no Christian, yet that's not the position of the piece.
2. He always makes very obvious spelling and grammar errors. I couldn't see any, off the bat. Obviously he didn't write it.

"The ends justify the means", I guess.
Lie or steal or whatever it takes, to make them believers, just like the early cult leaders.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church

Actually it's more interesting than that. There seems to be a sort of "validation need" that people with insane beliefs have. The more people they can get to buy into the bs, the less isolated and insane they can tell themselves they are.
Kind of a "herding" thing.
Herding for Jebus ?
Ranching for Jebus ?
A cowboy for Jebus ?
It's a damn Jebus rodeo. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
20-06-2013, 02:44 PM
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
(20-06-2013 02:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(20-06-2013 02:00 PM)LostLocke Wrote:  Bucky beat me to it.

I was originally going to say the OP's idea sounded an awful lot like what I remember back from my JW days.
And now I know why... Tongue

It's funny, they taught that the "scientific" age of the universe, 14+ billion years, is entirely compatible with what they saw in Genesis. The idea that the physical universe was around that long, but it wasn't until the Genesis account that Earth was prepared for life on it. Yet, they couldn't accept evolution or other life sciences.

Apparently, they had no issues accepting astronomy science, but ignored 'earthly' science or dismissed it as wrong, since they knew life was not billions of years old on this planet.

I was going to run it through the sophisticated/expensive software in our department office. It nails the theft of intellectual property by lazy people, regularly. No one would even think of being so dumb these days. But I didn't even get that far. It took 30 seconds on my own. I think I googled "Hebrew verb tenses". The text is also completely wrong. There are so many thing wrong with it, it's not even worth addressing.

Two other clues :
1. He says he's no Christian, yet that's not the position of the piece.
2. He always makes very obvious spelling and grammar errors. I couldn't see any, off the bat. Obviously he didn't write it.

"The ends justify the means", I guess.
Lie or steal or whatever it takes, to make them believers, just like the early cult leaders.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...rly-church

Actually it's more interesting than that. There seems to be a sort of "validation need" that people with insane beliefs have. The more people they can get to buy into the bs, the less isolated and insane they can tell themselves they are.
Kind of a "herding" thing.
Herding for Jebus ?
Ranching for Jebus ?
A cowboy for Jebus ?
It's a damn Jebus rodeo. Tongue

Don't forget, "Science is just an opinion like theocracy." Laughat




Weeping
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logisch's post
20-06-2013, 03:14 PM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2013 10:10 AM by kingschosen.)
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
ALL COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THAT WAS QUOTED AND ADDRESSED HAS BEEN REMOVED. IF YOU WISH TO SEE WHAT MAKLELAN WAS ADDRESSING, GO HERE

This is called verbal aspect, but aspect in Biblical Hebrew is hotly debated (see here and here, for example). There are two morphologies that tend to be broadly defined as perfective and imperfective, but there are so many different ways to use both that it's very rare that they come down to simple completed or continuous verbal action.

No, this isn't the case at all. First, the verb bara is perfective, but it is the nomen rectum of a genitive construction, and functions to introduce a temporal clause. The translation "in the beginning" understands bereshit to be in the absolute state, or standing alone, but it is actually in the construct, and stands in relationship to the verbal clause that follows. It is better translated "when God began to create . . ." Gen 1:1-2 function as a sort of introduction, or heading. See here.

Next, the imperfective verb in v. 16 appears with the conjunction waw, which converts the imperfective verb into what is called a "waw-consecutive" (and as much as I hate Wikipedia, see here). This basically inverts the tense of the verb, with the aspect still open to interpretation. In other words, this is past tense. It does not refer to continuous action.

Actually the phrase tohu webohu refers to desolate land. It is used to refer to the wilderness elsewhere (see here).

No, that's not what the text says.

No, the word in v. 4 is yasad, or "foundation." In v. 9 we have reference to the clouds and the darkness of space as a band around the earth. This has no relationship to any obscuring substance preventing the light from breaking through.

Nothing in the text at all suggests any such idea. You're drawing inferences from assumptions, and it's all based on the presupposition of univocality.

No, that's not what it means at all. It means wind fundamentally, and by semantic extension, breath or spirit. Later it became personified.

Mental inclination has nothing to do with the word.

Nowhere is the spirit suggested to be the agent referred to by references to God's hands or fingers. That's just anti-anthropomorphic guesswork.

This is another waw-consecutive. It has nothing to do with "progressive action." That is an outdated and unfounded assumption.

No, the waw-consecutive just functions to continue a narrative.

These are quite imaginative, but they have no real basis in Hebrew grammar or syntax. They are attempts to systematize and homogenize the language, which violate all the principles of modern linguistics.

The word "maohr" just means "luminaries." There is nothing in any part of the text that suggests anything only becomes visible through anything else.

That's what we understand today, but this has nothing to do with Genesis 1.

These are rather silly attempts to read details into a broad and general rhetorical text.

That's fudging a bit to try to avoid the clear meaning. The verbal root of the word refers to the beating out of metal, as would be done with a metal bowl or sheet. The noun refers to a solid object.

Actually that broad notion dates to the time of the composition of Genesis. There were a variety of cosmological models, though.

Actually it's based on thorough and sound lexicography in Biblical Hebrew and relevant cognate languages. This isn't really up for debate. The term unquestionably refers to a solid object, which is the only reason it can withhold the waters of the heavens. They had absolutely no concept of water particles suspended in clouds. The relevant verb clearly refers to solid objects in places like Job 37:18, where it says the sky is strong like a molten mirror. See the much more recent Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, for instance.

A water canopy? And how is this held up in the ancient Israelite worldview?

This reads modern biology into a term that refers to divisions of the most broad kind.

It has nothing at all to do with any kind of sudden visibility, it's just the participial form, meaning it refers to an objectified version of the noun. In other words, an object of light.

It refers to signaling the seasons.

See above.

It doesn't mean "breather," it just originally developed from the notion of breath. One of the most common mistakes that hobbyists make is the etymological fallacy, which is the notion that a term's original root and meaning govern its meaning.

This is a quite old word, and we don't know exactly what it means, it refers to sea serpents, whether monsters or reptiles.

Actually it can refer to quick and light movements or to animals that swarm or teem, irrespective of the location.

No, they quite clearly contradict each other, and they come from entirely different authors and traditions. "Topical relevance" is an entirely made up concept that could never be proven or disproven. The simple fact is that the process of creation is entirely different, from beginning to end. Both have a narrative sequence that leave no room for moving elements around.

Then you're arguing Jesus and YHWH are two separate gods. Gen 3:5 clearly uses the plural "gods" in reference to those plural entities from Gen 1:26; 11:7, etc.

The references to evening and morning clearly define the days of Genesis 1 as 24-hour periods. The assertion that they are "metaphorical" is nonsensical. They serve no metaphorical function whatsoever. This is just an excuse people make up to avoid acknowledging that the text refers to 24-hour periods.

You can't get to these divisions from the text alone. You're introducing a lot of apologetics assumptions and assertions in order to avoid the clear and simple meaning of the text.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like maklelan's post
20-06-2013, 04:00 PM
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
Hey apologist!

Does it really make sense to you that a creator of the entire universe would dictate a book to a few desert-dwellers for them to share with all of humanity, and then simply allow so many important details to be lost in translation?

I know that if it were me, you can bet your Bible-thumpin' ass that I would ensure that every time the book was translated it would come out perfect.

Think about it. If there really was a creator who bothered to talk to our pathetic species on this trivial and insignificant planet, any book that he wrote would be so perfect that there would only be one religion ever. Last I checked, that's not even close.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcmPL4codsbtiJhpFav3r...-w_49ttW6a]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Jeffasaurus's post
20-06-2013, 04:55 PM
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
(20-06-2013 04:00 PM)Jeffasaurus Wrote:  Hey apologist!

Does it really make sense to you that a creator of the entire universe would dictate a book to a few desert-dwellers for them to share with all of humanity, and then simply allow so many important details to be lost in translation?

I know that if it were me, you can bet your Bible-thumpin' ass that I would ensure that every time the book was translated it would come out perfect.

Think about it. If there really was a creator who bothered to talk to our pathetic species on this trivial and insignificant planet, any book that he wrote would be so perfect that there would only be one religion ever. Last I checked, that's not even close.

Ah! You're making the mistake of assuming that this 'creator' was intelligent and thoughtful. Don't make that mistake again! Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes xieulong's post
20-06-2013, 05:09 PM
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
The first few pages of the bible gives us atheists trouble? Try the entire bibble.

Godless in the Magnolia State
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjs's post
20-06-2013, 05:16 PM
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
(20-06-2013 04:00 PM)Jeffasaurus Wrote:  Hey apologist!

Does it really make sense to you that a creator of the entire universe would dictate a book to a few desert-dwellers for them to share with all of humanity, and then simply allow so many important details to be lost in translation?

I know that if it were me, you can bet your Bible-thumpin' ass that I would ensure that every time the book was translated it would come out perfect.

Think about it. If there really was a creator who bothered to talk to our pathetic species on this trivial and insignificant planet, any book that he wrote would be so perfect that there would only be one religion ever. Last I checked, that's not even close.

I don't think it's particularly effective to argue from a position that is based on one's own rather vague assumptions about what God would do if he were real.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
20-06-2013, 05:24 PM
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
Just more of the same fallacy of assuming that the bibble is true and authoritative.

Godless in the Magnolia State
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2013, 05:30 PM
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
(20-06-2013 05:16 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(20-06-2013 04:00 PM)Jeffasaurus Wrote:  Hey apologist!

Does it really make sense to you that a creator of the entire universe would dictate a book to a few desert-dwellers for them to share with all of humanity, and then simply allow so many important details to be lost in translation?

I know that if it were me, you can bet your Bible-thumpin' ass that I would ensure that every time the book was translated it would come out perfect.

Think about it. If there really was a creator who bothered to talk to our pathetic species on this trivial and insignificant planet, any book that he wrote would be so perfect that there would only be one religion ever. Last I checked, that's not even close.

I don't think it's particularly effective to argue from a position that is based on one's own rather vague assumptions about what God would do if he were real.

Am I making an assumption about what a fictional character would do if he were real? You betcha. But it's a logical assumption. Realistically, why make a guidebook/historical chronicle in the first place if you knew that its meaning would get perverted over time and become easily refutable? 'Twould seem pointless.

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcmPL4codsbtiJhpFav3r...-w_49ttW6a]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeffasaurus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: