Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From reading their post, I would think that they are the extremely well educated trying to help you understand what your Book, says. Both have taken an incredible amount of time to help you understand the TEXT of the Bible and neither has spent much time trying if any to shake your belief in god.
If I were you, I would post a thread asking questions and then get pissed off because people give you scholarly answers. I would rather think that you should lay back, read, learn and shut the frack up because it is clear that you are out of your element when trying to debate with either of them.
That's my .25¢.
Thank you, ovcatto! I'm sure Shiloh appreciates it, as well.
Unfortunately, it's easy for some to just charge others with non-faith when they tend to disagree with them - rather than considering the arguments thoughtfuly.
Try learning Biblical Hebrew - if you're SO faithful, then WHY can you not read God's Word in it's original revealed tongue? Too lazy? Too inept?
How about suggesting learning english first?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
He did not create it a chaos. He formed it to be indwelt.
"Indwelt" is a verb,
in·dwell (n-dwl)
v. in·dwelt (-dwlt), in·dwell·ing, in·dwells
v.intr.
1. To exist as an animating or divine inner spirit, force, or principle.
2. To be located or implanted inside something.
v.tr.
To inhabit or reside within as such a spirit, force, or principle.
You know nothing of my faith, Eusebius.
Knowing how to properly read a biblical text in Biblical Hebrew, and then properly apply exegetical and hermeneutical principles to it do not depend on "faith" - they depend on training, education and hard work.
As for us being the "blind" - I'm sorry you didn't understand my last post (or any of them), and have to rely on "Dr. Field" or the "Concordant Literal Old Testament" for your "facts" concerning Biblical Hebrew (as if there could ever be such a thing as a "literal" Old Testament translation). Judging from the outrageous content of your posts, your refusal to even learn a dang thing from those who are obviously more competent than you - there is only one certified blind person present.
And it's a shame that this is what it's boiled down to: you just don't understand what others are writing. Simple as that. Then you go off on tangents that add nothing to the subject, other than your own willful ignorance.
I could have sworn you said you weren't going to derail this thread anymore, and you were going to restrict your misunderstandings to that thread. Come back when you actually understand the content of this thread, it's purpose, and the posts that have been made, AND the Hebrew of Genesis 1 in general. Try learning Biblical Hebrew - if you're SO faithful, then WHY can you not read God's Word in it's original revealed tongue? Too lazy? Too inept?
YOU were the one conspiring with shilo to keep this talk going. I did leave and started my own thread concerning "became." But I came back here and noticed you and shilo talking about me and about became so I thought I would continue YOUR talk.
Furthermore, you cannot undo what the scriptures have said no matter how much Hebrew you know. Obviously you are wrong. How do I know? There were eons before. Try to learn what that means. Concentrate on it. We are in the 3rd eon. Within this eon it was said there were eons before. Each eon ends with a cataclysmic event for the earth. The ONLY cataclysmic events to occur BEFORE the eon in which we are living would be Genesis 1:2 and the flood of Noah.
Now if you and shilo want me to not talk about this anymore then I suggest you and shilo quit talking about me and about "became" in Genesis 1:2 within this thread. Fair?
YOU were the one conspiring with shilo to keep this talk going.
Ah, but that is at the very nature of internet discussion forums. Years from now someone may Google "Genesis 1:1:3 discussion" and pick up the thread wherever it was left off. If they see and read your post they may start another round of criticism. Personally, I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the exchange, and I hope that they continue to whether you are the prat that keeps the discussion going or not.
In short, when you post on a public forum your words cease to be your own and become... well public.
YOU were the one conspiring with shilo to keep this talk going. I did leave and started my own thread concerning "became." But I came back here and noticed you and shilo talking about me and about became so I thought I would continue YOUR talk.
Furthermore, you cannot undo what the scriptures have said no matter how much Hebrew you know. Obviously you are wrong. How do I know? There were eons before. Try to learn what that means. Concentrate on it. We are in the 3rd eon. Within this eon it was said there were eons before. Each eon ends with a cataclysmic event for the earth. The ONLY cataclysmic events to occur BEFORE the eon in which we are living would be Genesis 1:2 and the flood of Noah.
Now if you and shilo want me to not talk about this anymore then I suggest you and shilo quit talking about me and about "became" in Genesis 1:2 within this thread. Fair?
If I'm not mistaken - you brought up "became" in post #74, and it was replied to. As far as I remember, Shiloh and I were not really discussing "became" - we were discusssing other things.
And as ovcatto said: if you're going to come into a thread and put forth a statement (with so many absolutes, at that!) - then don't be offended when others point out the fallacies you are engaging in with that statement. It also serves as an educational tool for those people who might stumble upon this thread some day.
Your comments on "undoing scriptures" is based on YOUR interpretation of Scripture. You read Scripture in your own peculiar "Dr. Field" way, not even realizing or understanding the long chain of interpretive tradition that you're adopting, and then accuse others of attempting to "undo scripture"? That's funny. If anything is being undone - it's bad exegesis, and an interpretation that is based on faulty Hebrew and wishful thinking. If you only stopped trying to make the entire Bible "fit" together - like a puzzle - and let each author have his individual say, you wouldn't be engaging in so many apologetics.
And yet there were eons before. And thus there were two cataclysmic earth shattering events before. GET OVER IT.
05-06-2012, 08:02 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Eusebius:
Why do you continue to insist that I am putting forth the idea that God created the earth in chaos? I have repeatedly and numerously said otherwise. Your Strawman is becoming a downright lie and making you look foolish. Either that or you are completely unable and unwilling to follow what I am saying. It is frankly beyond frustrating – it is downright deceptive and disrespectful to those you pretend to be having a discussion with about what something actual says.
You constantly bring-up tangential and irrelevant points. You supplement this with erroneous conclusions and inferences while all the time downplaying the grammar and syntax of the very verses that stare you in the face. Syntax is not just a card someone pulls.
You seem to use a methodology of a-priori theological assumptive biases – otherwise known as ATAB. This top- down approach, in which you impose these theological assumptions onto the text, causes you, in this process, to either entirely ignore the grammar or completely mutilate it. It’s like you have your systematic theological worldview forcing the text to conform instead of letting the text inform – a bottom-up approach. You impose inferences (debatable at that) from other writers, language, and time periods upon the primary text and let that govern you interpretation – that is eisegesis.
Please tell me:
Where did I say ‘God created the earth in chaos?’
Please explain grammatically and syntactically why verse 1 should not be taken as a dependent clause linked with verse 3.
Why is verse 2 a waw-disjunctive if it is linked, as a linear narrative sequence, to verse 1 as being the earth that ‘became’ chaos? Why not a waw-consecutive as found in verse 3?
Why is verse 1 and verse 3 in a very common narrative structure – Topic Fronted Prepositional Phrase + Main wayyiqtol verb?
Do you think that the way one word is translated in another place should be translated the same way in another or all places? If not why? Are you familiar with the root fallacy and selective use of meaning? Do you think it is important, when translating a word, to consider all grammatical and syntactical issues first and foremost or at all?
Do you think it is odd that your whole outlook on this section, vv.1-3, turns on one verb – haya(h)?
It’s like you have your systematic theological worldview forcing the text to conform instead of letting the text inform – a bottom-up approach. You impose inferences (debatable at that) from other writers, language, and time periods upon the primary text and let that govern you interpretation – that is eisegesis.
Please stop embarrASSing yourself.
Excellent post, Shiloh - and your comment up above concerning a worldview is exactly hitting the nail on the head. It reminds me of your other thread (//www.city-data.com/forum/relig...on-israel.html) linking to the book about Adam as Israel, in which the blogger warns against such a procedure as you mention above:
When we [scholars] insist that the biblical material must — to be correctly understood — be interpreted in light of its ancient Near Eastern environment, as opposed to an interpretive context like the Reformation, the early Church, the Enlightenment, or modern fundamentalism and evangelicalism, we affirm God’s own decisions in the matter and process of inspiration. In other words, GOD chose the time, the place, the people, the cultural-religious context, the pre-scientific context, etc., for intervening in human affairs and lives to produce this thing we call the Bible.
I think he falls under the interpretive context of "modern fundamentalism".
And your comments are right-on concerning his mis-representation of your posts- they are either willful ignorance, or just plain ignorance. I'm convinced he just doesn't understand any higher level discussions, and that's a shame. I mean for US. It's lovely to have intelligent discussions, only to have someone run in with the scholarly knowledge of the Dark Ages and start blabbering nonsense that has long been disproven. I've encouraged him to get with the times, but that's just not on his schedule.
05-06-2012, 10:42 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Excellent post, Shiloh - and your comment up above concerning a worldview is exactly hitting the nail on the head. It reminds me of your other thread (//www.city-data.com/forum/relig...on-israel.html) linking to the book about Adam as Israel, in which the blogger warns against such a procedure as you mention above:
When we [scholars] insist that the biblical material must — to be correctly understood — be interpreted in light of its ancient Near Eastern environment, as opposed to an interpretive context like the Reformation, the early Church, the Enlightenment, or modern fundamentalism and evangelicalism, we affirm God’s own decisions in the matter and process of inspiration. In other words, GOD chose the time, the place, the people, the cultural-religious context, the pre-scientific context, etc., for intervening in human affairs and lives to produce this thing we call the Bible.
I think he falls under the interpretive context of "modern fundamentalism".
And your comments are right-on concerning his mis-representation of your posts- they are either willful ignorance, or just plain ignorance. I'm convinced he just doesn't understand any higher level discussions, and that's a shame. I mean for US. It's lovely to have intelligent discussions, only to have someone run in with the scholarly knowledge of the Dark Ages and start blabbering nonsense that has long been disproven. I've encouraged him to get with the times, but that's just not on his schedule.
OH BOY! You do realize that this article is agaisnt the Gap Theory - and so is Dr. Fields who wrote 'Unformed and Unfilled: A Critique of the Gap Theory of Genesis 1:1,2' - specifically against Custance's book 'Without Form and Void'
I do not agree with all of what this article says but here is a snippet of his conclusion.
'The previous sections of this paper have attempted to demonstrate that the so called “gap theory” is unacceptable from several points of view...As to the theory’s relation to Scriptural content, it has been shown that the claimed “proofs” are superficial and mostly contradictive to the immediate and overall context of the verses applied.'
It is really sad when you have not even read the material you are using as a counter to my arguments but even more so when the material is against your own.
An interesting fact is that he mentions two verses with the same grammatical construction - Jonah 3:3 and Gen.1:2. Here they are:
Jonah
וְנִֽינְוֵ֗ה הָיְתָ֤ה
'Now Nineveh was an exceedngly great city of three days journey.'
Nineveh did not become a city of three days journey.
Notice the first part of the verse: 'So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the YHWH.'
Then the parenthesis...
Then 'And Jonah began to enter into the city...'
This is like Gen.1:1-3 - Note both the waw-cojunctives and the verbal form qal/pefective in verse 2.
Genesis
וְהָאָ֗רֶץ הָיְתָ֥ה
Now the earth was...
Last edited by 2K5Gx2km; 05-07-2012 at 01:31 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
