I submit that this hypothesis leads to any number of false conclusions, and it is the error of the day.
Problems with the biblical Genesis story (split)
- Thread starter Arioch
- Start date
I submit that this hypothesis leads to any number of false conclusions, and it is the error of the day.
There are no nonsensical claims and the proof is being added to everyday as the research is being continued.
Science predated me so yes I have heard of it.
Science and maths are my friends and they will be used like friends.
"Why have you decided to eschew rationality?" Eschew is not a word we use in NZ. Too old fashioned to understand so we deliberately avoid using words like eschew.
Yes we want to know "Are we alone in the Universe?" (Google that thread on the Wooden Boats forum). It was a very deliberate conscious decision, in fact it was like a light went off in my head! Life started on Mercury! That explains the Garden of Eden problem. It was never here on Earth. We are Aliens to the Earth.
All of which is off-topic.
And you have no proof.
Maths is your friend? Really? I mean really truly?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2851551&postcount=221
Can't use it on your own?
Some are better than others at maths. Thanks for reading and considering the implications of the thread "Life Started on Planet Mercury"
I have given a link which shows what the words mean, and they are NOT
interchangable when taken literally.
I also have given links which show that to interchange them is incorrect.
You are, and have been trolling in this and other threads, and I'm going to
report you for it.
You've haven't SHOWN anything, when asked.
Even now, you are incapable of showing where I'm dishonest.
You are dishonest, and have been shown to be in almost all of our discussions.
Blatent dishonesty from you, especially as i took the time to explain what I meant, while still holding to reading the bible literally as recently, previously, stated.
How is my response to you something I made up, when it makes use of the words literally? Explain that one.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2848828&postcount=116
Oh, and ''form'' doesn't mean create, not in english or in hebrew.
Another lie? Why Dwy...? :shrug:
Form
How so?
And yet you have given no reason as to why you hold doggedly on the personal statements of answersingenesis, despite being asked a few times.
Why is this link to be taken authoritatively?
jan.
So it comes down to which source do you want to believe.
In other words, it's a matter of interpretation.
Wrong again, but go ahead.
Lie.
How many more times? You are being dishonest with regard to form/ create/ make: as shown with the Adam quotes.
Outright lie.
How does a post BY ME support your claim?
Not?
Because, as has been stated, they are scholars and linguists. YOU aren't.
Oh, by the way, reported again for trolling and lying.
billvon,
I did?
Can you show me where?
Here is where I quoted from.
Admittedly I conjoined the two verses, because they were grammatically separated by a comma, which suggests they are joined.
It doesn't matter.
It's an important document, and has proven itself to be so.
It says God FORMED every beast of the field and air, for the purpose of Adam, to name them. To ''form'' does not mean to create, see my last post to Dwy...
Neither did I.
It must work, because it is understood, that there is more chance of a camel fitting through the eye of a needle, than a rich man will enter into K.O.G.
That's
People of that time, and region, would know about needles, and camels. They would have easily understood the analogy, just as we do today. No need for any other knowledge.
jan.
I did?
Can you show me where?
Here is where I quoted from.
Admittedly I conjoined the two verses, because they were grammatically separated by a comma, which suggests they are joined.
It doesn't matter.
It's an important document, and has proven itself to be so.
It says God FORMED every beast of the field and air, for the purpose of Adam, to name them. To ''form'' does not mean to create, see my last post to Dwy...
Neither did I.
It must work, because it is understood, that there is more chance of a camel fitting through the eye of a needle, than a rich man will enter into K.O.G.
That's
People of that time, and region, would know about needles, and camels. They would have easily understood the analogy, just as we do today. No need for any other knowledge.
jan.
It shows that you haven't taken any notice of the FACT that I stuck
to the original meanings, yet you completely ignore this.
This blatent ignorance, and dishonesty, has become your trademark, and then you try to hide it by making your oponenet out to be dishonest.
Your dishonesty know no bounds, you claim in this very response that it is a matter of
interpretation/what you want to believe. Now you say I'm being dishonest because I choose accept the literall meanings of the words.
For the last time, I've given you definition of the word, plus I've provided links that explain why the literal interpretation is the correct one.
You've offered nothing but a personal opinion from answersingenesis.
You are a blatant liar, and I'm going to report YOU again for trolling, victimisation, and time-wasting.
LOL!!
So you're saying that because they are linguists, they are correct?
So if I produce articles debunking Darwinian evolution by their scientists, you will accept that? I doubt it.
Another demonstration of your lieing nature.
jan.
Oh, wrong again.
The fact is that you didn't stick to to the original meaning when it didn't suit your purpose.
Except where YOU decided that the author had used the wrong word...
So, once again, it comes down which set of experts you decide to believe.
"Personal opinion"?
So the links you provided aren't "personal opinions"?
Didn't James R ALSO give you a link?
Victimisation?
Do you really want me to list your lies AGAIN? (Including the ones not in this thread).
No, I'm saying that they are more likely to be correct than you.
How long was it before you actually posted ANYTHING to support your position? For a good deal of the thread all you gave was your personal interpretation and no support.
The universe was formless and void and the spirit of god was brooding over the deep, he said let there be light.
In collective human symbolism, light means consciousness. If you were in the woods on a dark moonless night, it is hard to differentiate distinct objects. The shadow and tree and bush all sort of merge within the formlessness of indistinguishable objects. If we add a bright spot light, all the details appear.
Light symbolized the appearance of a new form of consciousness that would allow humans to differentiate the world in a new way in preparation for civilization.
One way to understand this transition is to compare a scholar of botany to a layman, under the circumstances both enter the woods during the day. The scholar has so much more knowledge of species of trees and plants that he will see more than the layman including subtle differences in similar things.
They both will look at the very same things as the scan the woods, but one will see so much more. The pre humans could look at the woods, but it was mostly formless and void like the layman. After, let there be light, the advance in human consciousness could look and see much more. The prehuman layman became the scholar in terms of seeing reality in new way that would allow the innovations needed for civilization.
The next day tells us more about the transition within consciousness. The heaven and earth are differentiated. The earth symbolizes instincts such as the prehuman had. The heavens were something new that were above instincts. If you ever heard the term blue sky research or in the ozone layer, it implies imagination that is out of the box with the hope of making the box larger. This out of the box distinction could see things not needed by the simple life of the pre humans but which would be useful for the start of civilization.
In collective human symbolism, light means consciousness. If you were in the woods on a dark moonless night, it is hard to differentiate distinct objects. The shadow and tree and bush all sort of merge within the formlessness of indistinguishable objects. If we add a bright spot light, all the details appear.
Light symbolized the appearance of a new form of consciousness that would allow humans to differentiate the world in a new way in preparation for civilization.
One way to understand this transition is to compare a scholar of botany to a layman, under the circumstances both enter the woods during the day. The scholar has so much more knowledge of species of trees and plants that he will see more than the layman including subtle differences in similar things.
They both will look at the very same things as the scan the woods, but one will see so much more. The pre humans could look at the woods, but it was mostly formless and void like the layman. After, let there be light, the advance in human consciousness could look and see much more. The prehuman layman became the scholar in terms of seeing reality in new way that would allow the innovations needed for civilization.
The next day tells us more about the transition within consciousness. The heaven and earth are differentiated. The earth symbolizes instincts such as the prehuman had. The heavens were something new that were above instincts. If you ever heard the term blue sky research or in the ozone layer, it implies imagination that is out of the box with the hope of making the box larger. This out of the box distinction could see things not needed by the simple life of the pre humans but which would be useful for the start of civilization.
You have already had it pointed out to you that this is pure nonsense.
Please stop trolling.
Agreed. Some sections are ambiguous or conflicting, but that doesn't mean it's not important.
Uh, yeah, it does:
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground . . ."
Surely you are not going to argue that God didn't really create man!
So you learned something! Cool.
Exactly! And before you learned about the Eye of the Needle you probably assumed "wow, it's impossible to fit a camel through the eye of a needle, so that example must mean that no rich man can ever enter the Kingdom of God." Now you know that that analogy is incorrect; the analogy means that being rich makes it somewhat harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God, but is by no means impossible - since the Eye of the Needle could indeed pass camels.
No, they would know about the Eye of the Needle in the walls around Jerusalem, and thus they would understand the analogy. People who think that Jesus was referring to an actual eye in an actual needle will misunderstand and think it is impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
At this point, Dywyddyr and Jan Ardena have each reported each other, accusing each other of dishonesty.
Having engaged with this thread myself, I think what we have here is a difference of opinion that needs to be fought out if the players are still interested. It also seems to me that this is unlikely to be resolved by any game of dueling dictionaries.
I can't see any blatant examples of dishonesty here. It is easy to make accusations of bad faith; harder to support them.
Neither side in this debate has yet produced full, unedited definitions of the Hebrew terms "asah" and "bara", on which Jan's point seems to hinge. Neither have any of the linked sources. If anybody has a Hebrew dictionary handy (with English definitions), now would be a good time to pull it out and give the full definitions. If not, I think this discussion can probably end here.
If you look up the word "make" in an English dictionary, the definitions go on for pages. The word "make" has many different usages, including "create". The word "create" in English also has many definitions, including "make".
There is no reason to suppose at this point that Hebrew is any different from English in regards to the words "make" and "create". It seems to me that the kind of hair-splitting exercise that Jan wants to conduct in order to apoligise for Genesis has no justifiable basis. But I could be wrong.
At this point, I am pulling out of this exercise, which I consider to be pointless. Clearly, for many reasons quite apart from any hair-splitting of the actual language, a literal reading of Genesis as truth is unsupportable. In seeking to reduce the question of the truth or falsity of Genesis to a matter of the (disputable) meaning of two words, Jan is engaged in a process of obfuscation which threatens to make us lose sight of the real issues and to bog us down chasing irrelevant phantoms.
To Jan and Dywyddyr: If you wish to continue this, you are very welcome. However, be aware that I will NOT be acting on any reports by you two accusing each other of dishonesty, UNLESS you can clearly show that the other has deliberately posted something he knows to be false. Any such claim must be documented with links to all relevant posts that establish the matter beyond doubt.
Having engaged with this thread myself, I think what we have here is a difference of opinion that needs to be fought out if the players are still interested. It also seems to me that this is unlikely to be resolved by any game of dueling dictionaries.
I can't see any blatant examples of dishonesty here. It is easy to make accusations of bad faith; harder to support them.
Neither side in this debate has yet produced full, unedited definitions of the Hebrew terms "asah" and "bara", on which Jan's point seems to hinge. Neither have any of the linked sources. If anybody has a Hebrew dictionary handy (with English definitions), now would be a good time to pull it out and give the full definitions. If not, I think this discussion can probably end here.
If you look up the word "make" in an English dictionary, the definitions go on for pages. The word "make" has many different usages, including "create". The word "create" in English also has many definitions, including "make".
There is no reason to suppose at this point that Hebrew is any different from English in regards to the words "make" and "create". It seems to me that the kind of hair-splitting exercise that Jan wants to conduct in order to apoligise for Genesis has no justifiable basis. But I could be wrong.
At this point, I am pulling out of this exercise, which I consider to be pointless. Clearly, for many reasons quite apart from any hair-splitting of the actual language, a literal reading of Genesis as truth is unsupportable. In seeking to reduce the question of the truth or falsity of Genesis to a matter of the (disputable) meaning of two words, Jan is engaged in a process of obfuscation which threatens to make us lose sight of the real issues and to bog us down chasing irrelevant phantoms.
To Jan and Dywyddyr: If you wish to continue this, you are very welcome. However, be aware that I will NOT be acting on any reports by you two accusing each other of dishonesty, UNLESS you can clearly show that the other has deliberately posted something he knows to be false. Any such claim must be documented with links to all relevant posts that establish the matter beyond doubt.
1)
By this point Jan had been given the link to answers in genesis many times, without having once found anything to contradict it other than his own belief. Typical "responses" to this link from Jan have been
Also completely ignoring Arauca's post
In fact it's not until post #243 that manages to find anything other than "I'm ignoring your link because I don't agree with it".
2)
in this post Jan claims that
that states:
3)
Despite Jan's claim that the words should be read literally (in a different thread - the one that spawned this and started the whole thing, when presented with this:
No evidence or explanation?Jan said:
By this point Jan had been given the link to answers in genesis many times, without having once found anything to contradict it other than his own belief. Typical "responses" to this link from Jan have been
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2848585&postcount=91Jan said:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2848638&postcount=100Jan said:
Also completely ignoring Arauca's post
In fact it's not until post #243 that manages to find anything other than "I'm ignoring your link because I don't agree with it".
2)
in this post Jan claims that
and gives a link
that states:
3)
Despite Jan's claim that the words should be read literally (in a different thread - the one that spawned this and started the whole thing, when presented with this:
Jan replies with:Dywyddyr said:
In other words, don't take this one literally because that's not what the author meant.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
This is ridiculous. for several years Jan has been pursuing a path of psychotic lying, hypocrisy and deceit. Banning would be appropriate. Permanently. Dishonesty of that magnitude and persistence, followed by the snivelling wretch should not be tolerated. It is an affront to reason and moral decency.
Here is a brief reason why I doubt the AiG link.
From its conclusion.
genesis 1;11-13, it says the seed of the fruit trees etc are already in the
earth.
"Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so."
That's not what the recomended verse ACTUALLY say's.
It say's, in a verse that he quoted that:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there ...
This is NOT the case. Only "bara" is used. The word "form" is taken from the Hebrew
word "tohu", which as we can see here does NOT mean "bara" or "asah".
Another thing to note is that "said" is taken from the Hebrew word "amar" and
one of it's meanings is "to command", which contextually fits gen. 1:3.
Again, this has nothing to do with "bara" or "asha".
His summation is something along the lines of:
A short study reveals that they haven't done much studying, especially if they are linguists.
How did he arrive at this conclusion?
And if he was correct, why do some scholars disagree?
The text below makes a direct distinction between "bara" and "asah".
Just thought I'd throw that one in for good measure.
genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had
rested from all his work which God created and made.
Why not just say ''bara'' or ''asah''?
Why put both, if they are to be used interchangebly?
jan.
From its conclusion.
AiG said:
genesis 1;11-13, it says the seed of the fruit trees etc are already in the
earth.
"Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so."
AiG said:
That's not what the recomended verse ACTUALLY say's.
It say's, in a verse that he quoted that:
AiG said:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there ...
This is NOT the case. Only "bara" is used. The word "form" is taken from the Hebrew
word "tohu", which as we can see here does NOT mean "bara" or "asah".
Another thing to note is that "said" is taken from the Hebrew word "amar" and
one of it's meanings is "to command", which contextually fits gen. 1:3.
Again, this has nothing to do with "bara" or "asha".
His summation is something along the lines of:
AiG said:
A short study reveals that they haven't done much studying, especially if they are linguists.
AiG said:
How did he arrive at this conclusion?
And if he was correct, why do some scholars disagree?
The text below makes a direct distinction between "bara" and "asah".
Just thought I'd throw that one in for good measure.
genesis 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had
rested from all his work which God created and made.
Why not just say ''bara'' or ''asah''?
Why put both, if they are to be used interchangebly?
jan.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Here is the Douay-Rheims commentary:
[16] Two great lights: God created on the first day, light, which being moved from east to west, by its rising and setting, made morning and evening. But on the fourth day he ordered and distributed this light, and made the sun, moon, and stars. The moon, though much less than the stars, is here called a great light, from its giving a far greater light to the earth than any of them.
*Edit: One point to remember - seeds sprout in darkness.
billvon,
If it is important, why would the author purposefully make the text ambiguous or conflicting?
And why isn't it ambiguous and conflicting when read literally, not interchanging the words?
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
If we use the words as they are defined, the distinction here is that the former verse is a quote from God, and the latter is the inference of the author.
Taken from the same link.
jan.
If it is important, why would the author purposefully make the text ambiguous or conflicting?
And why isn't it ambiguous and conflicting when read literally, not interchanging the words?
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
If we use the words as they are defined, the distinction here is that the former verse is a quote from God, and the latter is the inference of the author.
Taken from the same link.
jan.
@Jan --
So because "some" claim something you believe it? Who are these people who claim this? What's their justification for doing so? And then why is their claim supported by the majority of biblical scholars?
These questions need answering. Not only that but you need to address several of the arguments made above, from James R as well as Dyw. Both have shown that your dichotomy is entirely artificial and you have yet to even address this, let alone defend yourself against it.
So because "some" claim something you believe it? Who are these people who claim this? What's their justification for doing so? And then why is their claim supported by the majority of biblical scholars?
These questions need answering. Not only that but you need to address several of the arguments made above, from James R as well as Dyw. Both have shown that your dichotomy is entirely artificial and you have yet to even address this, let alone defend yourself against it.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Biblical scholars? Unfortatly God is dipicted in the bible as hating women, and homosexulas, this is no God of mine. If you have question on who or why God is, please ask me. Both the Christian, and Islam church are in their dying days. YHWH, is the God, Jesus is his son. Allah, is the "diety god, or many gods." Allah was a ancient man born of earth of the angelic realm with who gave his testimony, which was many many years later given unto Muhamad by archangels Michael, and Gabriel. Muhamad is too a prophet of God.