Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 106 of 1482 (782804)
04-29-2016 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by NoNukes
04-29-2016 1:00 AM


Hi NoNukes
NoNukes writes:
So what period is an evening and a morning?
The duration between evening and morning God called night.
NoNukes writes:
The same as a morning and an evening?
The duration between morning and evening is what God called day.
NoNukes writes:
Do you have a point?
My first point is that the duration God called day was a duration (period) of light.
My second point is that the duration God called night was a duration (period)of darkness.
My third point is that the duration of light that ended with the evening and darkness (Genesis 1:2) which God called night that ended with the morning of the second day God called day one. (Genesis 1:5)
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2016 1:00 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 107 of 1482 (782805)
04-29-2016 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by NoNukes
04-29-2016 1:06 AM


Re: The heavens and the earth
Hi NoNukes
NoNukes writes:
Surely you meant to say 1:2, given that there is no description of condition in Genesis 1:1.
Yes that was a typo.
NoNukes writes:
Perhaps you don't believe Jeremiah when he claimed that his description was of things to come and not of things past.
So how did you recognize I was talking about Genesis 1:2?
NoNukes writes:
Or perhaps there is even more of the Bible that supposedly took place on the Genesis 1:1 earth than just those parts you have mentioned so far.
The only history of the day God created the heavens and the earth in is given in Genesis 2:4-4:26.
It is very possible that much more took place than what is recorded.
I could let my imagination run wild and mention many things that I think could have taken place during the duration of the light period that ended with the darkness at Genesis 1:2. But you would really think I had lost all my marbles and my reasoning had gone on vacation. So I will stick to just what the text says.
NoNukes writes:
Or perhaps your argument is breaking under its own weight.
The argument stands unless you are someone can show me where the text does not say what I put forth it says.
The type of arguments you and many of the others are putting up in this thread is the reason for a thread you guys have going concerning creationist taking part in so called debate on this web site.
Take my Message 103 and explain why Genesis 1:1 is not a declarative statement of completed action. Remember in Hebrew the verb can only be perfect which is completed action or imperfect which is incomplete action. The verb used is kal perfect which requires completed action.
Then answer the questions about Genesis 1:1 and 2:4.
If you believe it means something else present your arguments.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2016 1:06 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2016 2:57 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 108 of 1482 (782806)
04-29-2016 3:36 AM


Hi everyone,
I am going to be out of town and away from my computer until Monday so take a breather.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 1482 (782845)
04-29-2016 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by ICANT
04-29-2016 2:48 AM


How did Moses have nouns when the word was not created until the 1400's BC?
What difference would not having a name for a noun possibly make. I don't have have a name for that thingy that hangs down in the bottom of my throat, but it is still there.
I cannot take your question seriously. Am I supposed to?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by ICANT, posted 04-29-2016 2:48 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2016 12:08 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 1482 (782846)
04-29-2016 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by ICANT
04-29-2016 2:44 AM


Re: Chronology?
It would not make any difference if they did belong there and they did have a son they named Seth. He would not have existed at Genesis 1:2 as he would have been part of the day God created the heavens and the earth.
Nobody is making the claim that Seth existed at Genesis 1:2. But your opinion regarding when Genesis describes Seth has existed is simply your opinion only. It is not supported by the text. I suppose it is possible to read the text as you do. But the motivation required to do so is completely unclear.
Besides that, isn't it your claim that there were two Adams each of whom had sons named Seth? Exactly which one of the Enos are Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus a descendant of?
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 04-29-2016 2:44 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2016 1:56 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 1482 (782854)
04-29-2016 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by ICANT
04-29-2016 3:35 AM


Re: The heavens and the earth
So how did you recognize I was talking about Genesis 1:2?
Seriously, ICANT. Did I not explain in my post exactly how I understand what you meant? There is no description in Genesis 1:1, but there is one in Genesis 1:2. Hence you probably meant the latter. Just because I understand your argument does not mean that it is worth the paper it is printed on. I take it that you have no response to my question about the context of Jeremiah and elected to just go with your standard evasion.
I've had about enough astrology for a while.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ICANT, posted 04-29-2016 3:35 AM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 112 of 1482 (782959)
05-01-2016 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by NoNukes
04-28-2016 1:51 PM


Re: Chronology?
NoNukes writes:
There appear to be uncountable ways to look at the text, all of which are at least self-consistent. I personally have always looked at Genesis 1:1 as an introduction to Genesis, similar in construct to the "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..." in a Tale of Two Cities. I don't think there are any real strong cues forcing my interpretation, but in my opinion, the interpretation seems to work.
On the other hand, ICANT's interpretation requires making up stuff. The universe was created in 1:1, and then silently fell apart before 1:2? Where does that come from? Then a complete denial that day 4 is part of creation? No creation week then? ICANT claims that the ancient Hebrew used in 1:1 absolutely requires his reading.
I think ICANT's reading comes from an attempt to manage some kind of consistency with science. He buttresses his reading with an appeal to expertise in ancient Hebrew. But any of us who have seen his debates with other people having some knowledge understand that his language interpretation arguments quickly devolve into a kind of numerology with meaning swinging from hinges that are fastened in a door frame of ambiguity.
ICANT's view of Gen 1:1 is pretty standard, and is probably the majority view among Evangelicals (see Word Biblical Commentary for a very good discussion of the grammatical issues). I agree with ICANT that this is the best fit to the Hebrew grammar. Verse 1 seems to be an independent clause, describing something that happened. Verse 2 is a circumstantial clause, essentially an "aside" to the story. The story picks up again in verse 3, with a waw-consecutive or preterite form, "and then". Thus the grammar implies that first God created the universe, and then later He said "let there be light" etc.
Not everyone agrees, though. Some (e.g. Bruce Waltke) see verse 1 as a heading or title for the whole account (as does NoNukes). This creates some tension with the grammar of the Hebrew text, and is usually supported by similarity to other ancient near eastern creation accounts rather than by the text itself.
(Most Jewish scholars see verse 1 in a third way. Following Rashi, they see verse 1 as a dependent rather than an independent clause, and translate it as "in the beginning of God's creation of the universe" or "when God began creating the universe".)
Even if one agrees with ICANT (and me) that the universe was created prior to "let there be light", there are a number of different ways to explain verse 2. ICANT takes a version of the Gap theory (or ruin-reconstruction theory); the darkness and water in verse 2 is a result of divine judgment. This view probably DID begin as a response to modern science, in the 1800's (with Chalmers, if I recall correctly).
The other common way to see verse 2 (given ICANT's and my view of verse 1) is to see everything created in verse 1, but not quite finished. The rest of the account describes the "finishing" of what was "roughed out" in verse 1. I lean toward this view.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by NoNukes, posted 04-28-2016 1:51 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2016 5:19 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 116 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2016 1:32 AM kbertsche has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 1482 (782974)
05-01-2016 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by kbertsche
05-01-2016 11:32 AM


Re: Chronology?
ICANT takes a version of the Gap theory (or ruin-reconstruction theory); the darkness and water in verse 2 is a result of divine judgment. This view probably DID begin as a response to modern science, in the 1800's (with Chalmers, if I recall correctly).
Nice summary. And your pointer gives me at least a pointer to see how this ruin-reconstruction theory might be supported textually. Maybe that will help me see where ICANT is headed.
ABE:
But apparently not. The text based defenses for this theory that I can find are all pathetically inadequate and apparently I am in a thread whose purpose is to debate the GAP theory. I find that I am being needless hard on ICANT. Perhaps this thread would best have fit into a Bible Study group.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by kbertsche, posted 05-01-2016 11:32 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by kbertsche, posted 05-01-2016 6:26 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 114 of 1482 (782976)
05-01-2016 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by NoNukes
05-01-2016 5:19 PM


Re: Chronology?
NoNukes writes:
Nice summary. And your pointer gives me at least a pointer to see how this ruin-reconstruction theory might be supported textually. Maybe that will help me see where ICANT is headed.
ABE:
But apparently not. The text based defenses for this theory that I can find are all pathetically inadequate and apparently I am in a thread whose purpose is to debate the GAP theory. I find that I am being needless hard on ICANT. Perhaps this thread would best have fit into a Bible Study group.
Though few hold to the Gap Theory today, it is hard to overemphasize its historical importance. For about a century, from the mid-1800's to the mid-1900's, this was the dominant view among conservative Protestants. Most conservative Protestant Bible teachers, preachers, and theologians during this time held to it. (Contrary to popular opinion today, William Jennings Bryan of the Scopes Trial held to the Gap Theory, not to YEC.)
The Gap Theory allowed people to accept an old geology along with a recent re-creation of the universe in six literal days. This worked even with old animal fossils (they were part of the original creation which had been destroyed). But hominids, early man, and early civilizations started to create complications for the Gap Theory. Most YECs today view the Gap Theory as a "compromised" interpretation of the Bible, adversely influenced by modern science.
So far as I know, the only biblical evidence for a divine judgment between verses 1 and 2 is inferential. This is based on the passages that ICANT already mentioned, and on the view that "tohu va-vohu" ("formless and void") is a negative description, implying something bad, like divine judgment.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by NoNukes, posted 05-01-2016 5:19 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2016 2:12 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 115 of 1482 (782980)
05-02-2016 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by NoNukes
04-29-2016 1:23 PM


Hi NoNukes
NoNukes writes:
What difference would not having a name for a noun possibly make.
Well if Moses had something called a noun he might have had something called a proper noun.
But since he did not have a noun that means he did not have a proper noun.
He did have the name of a person, place or thing.
NoNukes writes:
I cannot take your question seriously. Am I supposed to?
How could Moses have something that did not exist?
You keep telling me I am adding to the text. But you are adding to the language.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2016 1:23 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2016 3:10 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 116 of 1482 (782981)
05-02-2016 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by kbertsche
05-01-2016 11:32 AM


Re: Chronology?
Hi kbertsche
kbertsche writes:
(Most Jewish scholars see verse 1 in a third way. Following Rashi, they see verse 1 as a dependent rather than an independent clause, and translate it as "in the beginning of God's creation of the universe" or "when God began creating the universe".)
But for Rashi to be correct the verb would have to be a noun or אלהיס 'God' would have to follow בראשית, 'In the beginning'.
For "of God" to be in the sentence אלהיס would have to be in the construct. The construct requires a noun to follow a noun which puts the second noun in the construct state.
kbertsche writes:
ICANT takes a version of the Gap theory (or ruin-reconstruction theory);
I do not believe in a gap theory.
I believe in a 6 light period and 6 dark period creation with God ceasing His creation and making at the beginning of day seven.
kbertsche writes:
This view probably DID begin as a response to modern science, in the 1800's (with Chalmers, if I recall correctly).
Origen lived from 186 to about 254 A.D.
In his great work, De Principiis, at Gen. 1.1: he stated:
quote:
"It is certain that the present firmament is not spoken of
in this verse, nor the present dry land, but rather that heaven
and earth from which this present heaven and earth that we
now see afterwards borrowed their names."
So no Chambers in not the first one to put forth a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
Onkelos put forth the following translation for the beginning of Genesis 1:2.
quote:
"and the earth was laid waste"
The Targum attributed to him must be placed early in the second century B .C.
This translation would suggest he believed the original creation had been laid waste.
As you can see there are others who held a ruin and restoring event between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by kbertsche, posted 05-01-2016 11:32 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by kbertsche, posted 05-02-2016 11:48 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 117 of 1482 (782982)
05-02-2016 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by NoNukes
04-29-2016 1:25 PM


Re: Chronology?
Hi NoNukes
NoNukes writes:
Nobody is making the claim that Seth existed at Genesis 1:2.
If you are claiming the Seth in Genesis 4:26 existed at the same time his great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, nephew Lamech of Genesis 4:23 did he would have died in the water found covering the earth in Genesis 1:2.
Lamech was part of the history of the day God created the heavens and the earth.
NoNukes writes:
Besides that, isn't it your claim that there were two Adams each of whom had sons named Seth?
No. I don't believe any man other than the one created in the image of God in Genesis 1:27 had a son named Seth as he is listed in the generations of the man created in the image of God in Genesis 5:1 and the following verses.
Enos Isaac, and Jacob is descendants of the man created in the image of God in Genesis 1:27.
Jesus had no earthly father. He had an earthly surrogate mother.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2016 1:25 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by NoNukes, posted 05-02-2016 2:32 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 118 of 1482 (782984)
05-02-2016 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by kbertsche
05-01-2016 6:26 PM


Re: Chronology?
Hi kbertsche
kbertsche writes:
The Gap Theory allowed people to accept an old geology along with a recent re-creation of the universe in six literal days.
I don't know of any old earther that believes the universe or earth was re-created during the restoration period.
God had to do some work on the earth in order for it to be functional and inhabitable by mankind.
The only things created in Genesis 1:2 - Genesis 2:3 was a great fish in Genesis 1:21 for Jonah, and mankind in Genesis 1:27.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by kbertsche, posted 05-01-2016 6:26 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 1482 (782985)
05-02-2016 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by ICANT
05-02-2016 1:56 AM


Re: Chronology?
If you are claiming the Seth in Genesis 4:26 existed at the same time his great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, nephew Lamech of Genesis 4:23 did he would have died in the water found covering the earth in Genesis 1:2
For the purposes of this discussion, I am trying to keep an open mind. I am not making a claim, but instead I am asking you to explain your own claim. I see now that my questions have put you on the defensive so that you won't respond directly. That's my fault not yours.
I think I understand your position, and that is probably all can I hope to gain from this discussion.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2016 1:56 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2016 2:16 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 1482 (782986)
05-02-2016 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by ICANT
05-02-2016 12:08 AM


How could Moses have something that did not exist?
Noun's did exist. Your argument was that the name 'noun' did not exist until 1400BC.
I see several things wrong with your arguments so far.
First you confuse the name with the thing. A rose is still a rose even if you don't know what to call it. Secondly, you silently switch tactics and write as if you had originally asked a particular question all along. Not so. You initially claimed that the name noun had not been invented which is what drew the response I gave. Thirdly, your statement and question assumes things not in evidence. Did, in fact Moses not have nouns? Who besides you says that. Finally, your particular argument does not address the point the others have made about the usage of the term day.
Sometime ago a poster tried to claim that Galileo could not be considered a scientist because the term scientist was not created until well after Galileo's death. In my view such arguments are ridiculous no matter who makes them.
Based on the sources I looked at and cited, in Hebrew there exists symbols that represent the names of persons, places and things, those symbols in some cases have forms that separate them from pronouns and other ordinary nouns. The modern name for those things is proper noun, and it matters not one wit whether or not Moses was capable or incapable of diagramming a sentence to my satisfaction.
Beyond that, many sources do identify proper nouns in ancient Hebrew. Perhaps it is time to augment your own library.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2016 12:08 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 05-02-2016 2:45 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024