|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation According to Genesis: One Account or Two? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That's a laugh. You claimed to have "removed" Sailhammer's argument against the NIV translation - when your response assumed that the NIV translation was incorrect. And you didn't even succeed in neutralising Sailhammer's argument - even by admitting that the NIV was wrong.
quote: For the creation of the animals ? I can't see it.
quote: Fundamentalists generally aren't trustworthy sources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Nothing you said has anything to do with my claim that: I am not bothering with any of your claims Jon. I am simply pointing out that you make claims and then insist that I have to provide disproving evidence. In this particularly case your assertion is: "Your translation is wrong." I am not debating the topic with you; we've already established that such a thing is pointless. In fact I've already proclaimed you to be the winner. I occasionally do respond when I read something particularly silly in your posts.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
That's a laugh. You claimed to have "removed" Sailhammer's argument against the NIV translation - when your response assumed that the NIV translation was incorrect. That's not at all my argument. Sailhamer said that the NIV being correct results in a removing the point of the story of animal creation. I replied that the NIV being correct, plus some other things produced a story that preserved the that point, and yet did not contradict Chapter 1. I did point out that even if the plants in the garden were created after man was created, that such a thing would not mean that there were no non-garden plants or animals created before both the garden and man were created.
My point is that Sailhammer's comment does not cover all possibilities. And I do not need to rely solely on the NIV translation. I cited one other translation that is even more demonstrative than the NIV translation. For the creation of the animals ? I can't see it. No. I am referring here to Sailhammer's comment that the tenses provided in the NIV are not correct. John Sailhamer - Wikipedia
quote: I would suggest that Genesis 2 is such a record. By the way, I'm going to revert to the single "m" spelling for Sailhamer based on the spelling in this Wikipedia article.
Fundamentalists generally aren't trustworthy sources. There is that, but at least if their argument is presented in full, and the rationale is given, then the argument can be evaluated on its own merits. No need to trust if you can adequately verify. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
According to the first creation account, the early earth was covered in water. After creating light, God next separates the lower waters from the upper waters through the creation of the firmament which "divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament" (Gen 1:7). The following day, God separates the waters to reveal dry land.
According to the second creation myth, the early earth was dry. YHWH causes a mist to rise up and water the ground. These two accounts appear to be the reverse of one another. While account one is ordered: Water→clouds→dry land; account two is ordered: dry land→clouds→water. A view that sees the two accounts as consistent should reconcile this prima facie contradiction, and preferably do so in a way that requires fewer assumptions than the straight-forward reading by which the contradiction is made apparent.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I'm afraid that it is.
quote: The NIV denies that there was a creation of animals after the creation of Adam. Your argument agrees with Sailhammer that that is incorrect.
quote: Sailhammer's argument does not address the plants. However similar considerations apply. Also I will add that you are arguing like an inerrantist, placing the inerrancy doctrine above the best reading of the text here. Putting a doctrine that you apparently don't accept before the Biblical text seems a very odd thing to do.
quote: Which doesn't really address the points raised here.
quote: That can be a big "if" though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The NIV denies that there was a creation of animals after the creation of Adam. Your argument agrees with Sailhammer that that is incorrect. This is a gross misreading. Let's be clear. Both the NIV and the KJV speak of animals being used to address man's loneliness and that no mate for man resulted from . My contention is that those animals in question are strictly the ones in the garden. Animals outside of the garden were created before man. The NIV text in 2:19 says only that animals were brought before Adam, the next verse says 'But no suitable helper for Adam was found. I have been speaking mostly about the wording of 2:5. I have not commented explicitly on the wording of 2:19 in the NIV other than to say that it is not pointless. And it is not. It is instead different from the KJV. The story as told in the KJV and the NIV are different. Sailhamer's complaint is nothing more than a statement that the NIV and KJV are different. So what? How is that a persuasive argument to anyone but a fundy? No motivation to create animals is needed anyway. The earth's ecology does not work without them. The only reason to require a motivation as told in a particular version of the Bible text is because you are silly, Bible literalist who hangs on every syllable of what you think the KJV says. Sailhamer is just a maverick with regard to some fairly minor deviations from his peers who dislike the NIV as much as he does. By the way, when you say that fundamentalists are not to be trusted, isn't Sailhamer just another Bible literalist and fundamentalist with a non conventional interpretation of the Bible?
NoNukes writes:
By the way, I'm going to revert to the single "m" spelling for Sailhamer based on the spelling in this Wikipedia article.PaulK writes: Which doesn't really address the points raised here. Did I claim that it did? What does 'by the way' mean to you? Oh wait. Was your comment useless rhetoric?
Sailhammer's argument does not address the plants. Isn't the questionable part of 2:5 and 2:19 the same? I have to admit that I did make my remarks about 2:5 despite Sailhamer addressing 2:19. But both use the pluperfect.
That can be a big "if" though. Yes, it can be. And a fleshing out of the language details argument regarding a translation is what I would ask for from anyone including Sailhamer. No, I am not even sure I could recognize the correctness of a detailed exposition on the possible conjugation and meaning of verbs given by Sailhamer, the NIV translators, or anyone else. But at least I might have a chance of spotting a bad argument. But given only their results, I don't see any reason to trust any one person. That's why statements that a translation into pluperfect is "questionable" (not exactly a strong denial) or that a translation differs on some point that the Sailhamer thinks is completely essential thus rendering the translation "impossible" are not dispositive arguments. I'll do some Sailhamer research this weekend.
That rules out the idea that the second story is simply an account of the sixth day. Surely I did not say that Chapter 2:4 and forward was simply an account of day six. Much of chapter 2 is likely about events after day 7. There may be parts which refer to events prior to day 7, for example the previously created garden might precede day 7. Or maybe not. I'm waffling on that point. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: NO. It is the WHOLE POINT of the different translation in the NIV. It talks of animals that had already been created, rather than God creating animals then and there. Tour interpretation of other translations, acceptign their disagreement with the NIV is not a defence of the NIV translation. How can it be - it assumes that the NIV translation is wrong.
quote: Well if you're going to talk about the wrong verse no wonder you get confused. 2:19 is the verse I meant all along, and it is clearly the verse that Sailhamer's criticism is directed at. I have no idea how you managed to get so mixed up but it is your problem.
quote: The NIV translation is certainly not pointless - the point is to deny that there were animals created after Adam. However it does undermine the point of that part of the story, as seen by Sailhamer and I agree with him on that.
quote: And there is a silly misrepresentation. The question is why an ADDITIONAL creation of animals is needed, instead of simply bringing already exiting animals to Adam as the NIV says.
quote:I don't know. However since I'm quoting Sailhamer to point out that the NIV translation of Genesis 2:19 is specifically criticised that really doesn't matter. I'll ignore your quote-mining. It deserves no more response.
quote: Presumably you mean 2:8 (obviously you do not mean 2:5). I haven't seen the same criticisms of 2:8 as of 2:19 - and while Sailhamer's argument about the story seems to apply, I have no reason to think that the original language rules out the NIV translation of 2:8
quote: Weird how you're answering something said way back in the conversation (message 9) and that you've already responded to. However, to avoid contradicting Genesis 1:27 you need events from the creation of Adam to the creation of Eve all to be on the sixth day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
NO. It is the WHOLE POINT of the different translation in the NIV. It talks of animals that had already been created, rather than God creating animals then and there. So what? Why is that point essential to the point where a disagreement about the animals makes the alternate translation impossible? If the story does not fit what Sailhamer says is the rationale, whose problem is that? And in particular, why is that my problem in this discussion? The animals were still brought to Adam as an attempt to find him a companion. One version says they were created for that purpose, the other says that they were brought for that purpose. Further, God would have known he was going to created man and could have anticipated the need for companionship by creating animals way before creating man. And don't both versions have the issue that God is a dunderhead for not understanding that another human being, probably a female, was the proper companion for Adam? Just what kind of story are you insisting we must preserve here? Sailhamer's point is not persuasive to me. But more to the point, I don't understand why you find it so persuasive. In the overall scheme of things it does not describe the reason why animals preceded man on earth, so what truth does Salhamer's preferred translation serve other than his own? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Weird how you're answering something said way back in the conversation (message 9) and that you've already responded to. However, to avoid contradicting Genesis 1:27 you need events from the creation of Adam to the creation of Eve all to be on the sixth day. Let's be explicit about what's required here. All that is needed is for Adam and Eve to be created on the sixth day. And I'm sticking with that because I do not accept that Adam was not the first man. But there may be room to argue even that. And because neither the plants nor animals created in Chapter 2 are necessarily the very first creation of plants and animals. Chapter 2 does not close out the possibility that its details are entirely day 6 and yet still consistent with Chapter 1. The primary argument that I have pursued here is that the garden is an example of plants created before Adam arrived. But even if that is wrong, the NIV version of things still leaves the possibility open that plants and animals existed before Adam was created in day five or whatever. To tired to check. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
According to the second creation myth, the early earth was dry. YHWH causes a mist to rise up and water the ground. How much rain falls in the Sierra Desert? Just because there are oceans of water around does not make for an irrigated land. No rain might well mean a mostly dry earth.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I'll ignore your quote-mining. It deserves no more response. A quote mine is a statement ripped out of context to deceive. Do you have a reason to believe I have misrepresented any views in what I quoted? Sailhamer is indeed an evangelist and a Bible literalist who is known to have a fairly 'unique' interpretation of Genesis 1. Can you point to a single misleading aspect of what I quoted that might be addressed with more context that I omitted. Absent some basis, your accusation of quote mining is unfounded.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I haven't seen the same criticisms of 2:8 as of 2:19 - and while Sailhamer's argument about the story seems to apply, I have no reason to think that the original language rules out the NIV translation of 2:8 I think the same argument applies here as well, as I posted in Message 29. The reasoning for translating 'plant' in the simple past is pretty much the same as the reasoning regarding 'form' in 2:19: translating it into the pluperfect destroys the storyline. I don't know how accurate this source is, but according to this Mechanical Translation of Genesis, 2:8 is translated:
quote: Regarding the author's choice of will/did, he says:
quote: The same situation exists with 2:19:
quote: This 'tense' as Benner calls it is the same one used to describe the general creation of things. When the story is translated into English using the typical past tense narration style, the imperfect verbs typically become preterite while the perfect verbs become pluperfect; or, as is favored apparently by the Mechanical Translation, when the story is translated into English using the historical present style of narration, the imperfect verbs typically become present while the perfect verbs become preterite (this has been my observation reading the Translation, though Benner often switches back and forth between narration styles, presumably to make the story more natural to English speakers, but his literal translation preserves the difference). Choices about using the present, preterite, or pluperfect have to be made because English, unlike the Hebrew of Genesis, requires verbs to be in a tense, that is, it requires that verbs specify the relative timing of events. Such information is not contained in the aspect of the Hebrew. It comes down to making an informed decision, and the information that gives us the preterite in some places shouldn't give us the pluperfect in others (without good reason where it might change the meaning). Our considerations should render a consistent translation. Anyway, based on language alone, the simple past seems to be the best choice for translating 'plant' in Gen 2:8 and 'form' in Gen 2:19. Combined with the elements from the plot that favor placing the creation of plants and animals after the creation of man, it's highly unlikely that the pluperfect works in these places. The KJV translation, then, seems truer to the Hebrew text in these places and in this regard than the NIV.__________ Benner, J (2007) A Mechanical Translation of the Book of Genesis: The Hebrew Text Literally Translated Word for Word (PDF). Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
According to arachnophilia, the verses of the second account should be read as happening in a sequence, one after the other:
quote: I'm reading through his other posts and his other threads; very informative!Love your enemies! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: So your "gross misreading" is the Reading intended by the translators. So your "defence" of the NIV relies on agreeing with the criticism. So you have spent the last several posts defending a glaringly obvious error Any one of these is significant enough.
quote: Except that we know that it did persuade you to reject the NIV translation.
quote: It serves the truth of the text. Of accurately representing the words of Genesis, of the intent of the story. Of course to an inerrantist these things should all be sacrificed to the doctrine of inerrancy. Apparently you agree.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Anyway, based on language alone, the simple past seems to be the best choice for translating 'plant' in Gen 2:8 and 'form' in Gen 2:19. Combined with the elements from the plot that favor placing the creation of plants and animals after the creation of man, it's highly unlikely that the pluperfect works in these places Unlike some of the other stuff I've complained about, you've made an argument here, although I would still insist that it is an argument in need of some propping up. My question for you would be why you would insist any particular tense over another when tense is ambiguous. (Favoring one tense is a matter of preference but insisting is something different) It seems to me that choices of tense generate different and viable translations. Whi This is particularly the case in argument like this one in which the point is to suggest that there are inconsistencies with chapter 1, which does explicitly require an order for the relative times of creation of plants, animals, man, and woman because it places those activities in consecutive days or on the same day. To choose verbs tense and conjugation based solely on confirming one or the other side of the argument is something either side can do.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024