Genesis Chapter 1
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-06-2013, 05:41 PM
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
(20-06-2013 05:09 PM)cjs Wrote:  The first few pages of the bible gives us atheists trouble? Try the entire bibble.

Hey, gotta start somewhere.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
20-06-2013, 05:44 PM
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
Truedat. I always chuckle about how woman supposedly came from man, when we women are the ones who give birth. That part of the creation myth should tip people off that it's, well, a myth.

Godless in the Magnolia State
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjs's post
20-06-2013, 05:56 PM
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
(20-06-2013 05:30 PM)Jeffasaurus Wrote:  
(20-06-2013 05:16 PM)maklelan Wrote:  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.

How do you fashion a logical conclusion from an illogical postulate? Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
20-06-2013, 06:06 PM
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
(20-06-2013 05:30 PM)Jeffasaurus Wrote:  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.

But you're assuming that the fundamental point is for the Bible to serve as a guidebook or historical chronicle. If you're going to be critical, just stick with the facts. There are plenty of them out there for criticizing the Bible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
20-06-2013, 06:16 PM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2013 10:12 AM by kingschosen.)
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
CONTENT WAS PREVIOUSLY REMOVED DUE TO A COPYRIGHT INVESTIGATION. POSTER QUOTED AND ADDRESSED THE TOPIC CREATOR. THE QUOTED PORTION WAS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL.

ALL CONTENT HAS BEEN REINSTATED

Excellent post (your long #14, I mean)! Great to have you on board.

It's obviously commendable to turn to the original sources rather than translations when discussing the meaning of ancient texts; when the interpretation is contentious, not to do so is inexcusable.* But I find it amusing how Biblical apologists only seem to trot out their shoddy "analyses" of Hebrew (and, I'm sure, Aramaic and Greek as well) when confronted with verses that fly in the face of modern understandings of science and morality, to show that the texts in question "really" mean something quite different from what they appear to be saying. So we have the old crap about Heb. yōm 'day' "really" meaning an indefinite period of time in Gen. 1, even millions or billions of years, so that the 6-day creation story can be squared with science. Or my favorite, the infamous tale in 2 Kings about the boys who taunted a bald prophet, whereupon a bear emerged from the woods and mangled 42 of them. I've seen apologists go on for pages about how nəʕārīm qəṭānīm, which clearly means "little boys," actually refers to a band of teenage hoodlums who deserved what they got.

The only part of your explanation I might amend slightly—and I'd be interested in your take on this—is the discussion (which I realize wasn't meant to be complete) of wāw-consecutive.

(20-06-2013 03:14 PM)maklelan Wrote:  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.

Your links to the debate on BH aspect you referenced seemed to be broken, so I couldn't access that material. But I find C.L. Seow's explanation of the wāw-consecutive forms (A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew, pp. 225-232) linguistically sound and convincing.

Basically, he contends there were two distinct preformative verbal forms in pre-Biblical Hebrew, imperfect *yaqṭulu and preterite *yaqṭul, which in most cases merged into the single form yiqtōl in BH. In some cases, however, they remained distinct, which supports the merger hypothesis. For example, the imperfect of בנה 'build' is yiḇne, while the preterite is yiḇen, as in wayyiḇen with wāw-consecutive. That same sort of thing shows up in the first word of Gen. 1:16 as well: the wāw is attached to the preterite form (yaʕaś), not to the imperfect (yaʕaśe), so there's no need here to talk about the wāw inverting the tense of the verb: the preterite verb signified past tense intrinsically.

This merger of verb forms reminds me of something similar in the history of English, where the past tense and subjunctive forms merged. In "if I were you," "were" is not a past tense, even though it looks like one. (There's nothing "past" in the meaning of the phrase.) Rather, it's a question of distinct verbal forms at an earlier stage of the language merging into a single homophonous form. (Modern German has kept the two forms distinct: war is the past tense, wäre the subjunctive.)

As I say, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the subject.

*Chances are you've heard this oft-repeated story, which may be apocryphal: A high-school principal in some small town, when questioned about why no foreign languages were taught in his school, is reputed to have answered, "Folks here tend to think that if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us."

Religious disputes are like arguments in a madhouse over which inmate really is Napoleon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cufflink's post
20-06-2013, 06:28 PM
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
(20-06-2013 05:56 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(20-06-2013 05:30 PM)Jeffasaurus Wrote:  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.

How do you fashion a logical conclusion from an illogical postulate? Tongue

By channeling my inner Vulcan, obviously. Thumbsup

[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
20-06-2013, 06:36 PM
 
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
(20-06-2013 06:16 PM)cufflink Wrote:  But I find it amusing how Biblical apologists only seem to trot out their shoddy "analyses" of Hebrew (and, I'm sure, Aramaic and Greek as well) when confronted with verses that fly in the face of modern understandings of science and morality, to show that the texts in question "really" mean something quite different from what they appear to be saying. So we have the old crap about Heb. yōm 'day' "really" meaning an indefinite period of time in Gen. 1, even millions or billions of years, so that the 6-day creation story can be squared with science.

Think about it this way. A Bible student studies the words important throughout the Bible where as you read it at very little face value. So when they study the term yom and even the term day as applying to Judgment day, lasting a thousand years, or David and much later Paul mentioning the 7th day of rest continuing thousands of years later. The days of the harvest, seasons, and even in the brief creation account the terms being applied in 3 different ways, from 12 hours of daylight, a solar day, and all six days in one day . . . for you to tell them that they are changing the meaning to appease you and your science, which they don't give a damn about, is . . . well . . . just stupid.
Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2013, 06:36 PM
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
(20-06-2013 06:16 PM)cufflink Wrote:  It's obviously commendable to turn to the original sources rather than translations when discussing the meaning of ancient texts; when the interpretation is contentious, not to do so is inexcusable.

I got an excuse. Imma prophet. Big Grin

Which is to say, I don't entirely agree with this assessment, but to disregard or misrepresent scholarship is bad joss. Especially when one attempts to elevate original content and context and fucks it all up, as David just did. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
20-06-2013, 06:50 PM
 
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
(20-06-2013 06:06 PM)maklelan Wrote:  But you're assuming that the fundamental point is for the Bible to serve as a guidebook or historical chronicle. If you're going to be critical, just stick with the facts. There are plenty of them out there for criticizing the Bible.

You talk to any informed atheist who has a profound interest in history and they will attest to the historical significance of the Bible. Only an uninformed atheist would question this. Sir Isaac Newton, the leading expert in ancient texts of his day said no other compared to the Bible.
Quote this message in a reply
20-06-2013, 06:52 PM
 
RE: Genesis Chapter 1
(20-06-2013 06:36 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Which is to say, I don't entirely agree with this assessment, but to disregard or misrepresent scholarship is bad joss. Especially when one attempts to elevate original content and context and fucks it all up, as David just did. Tongue

How did I do that?
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: