You chose the discussion heading, not me. Ask anyone. The most direct way to find out what the discussion is on is by reading the heading to the discussion.
yes, jay. you're dodging. genesis 1 and 2 are found where? in genesis. genesis is found where? in the torah -- the law. the law was given to whom? the jews.
were talking about conscience or something prior the torah as being a god-given law. i was saying we are not debating that, we are debating the law that god gave to jews.
Perhaps. But it furnishes the logical support for understanding WHY asah and bara are used rather than only one word was used.
no, it does not. i have repeatedly showed you that your view does not fit the text. you choose to ignore that.
And you already acknowledged that some rabbis shared that understanding, if not all.
irrelevant, and argument based on authority. not all rabbis are right.
"External wisdom" is your brain child.
since your "eternal wisdom" exists external to the bible, it is YOUR brainchild we are debating.
And since You acknowledged that some rabbis saw things the way I saw them in Genesis, it isn't purely a personal matter. Is it?
no. when the text demonstrates that your interpretation is wrong, your interpretation is wrong. you cannot interpret the text to contradict the text.
Oh. I couldn't fail to notice that you stole some thunder from old Ringo there. "Decoder Ring" was just too good to pass up, huh?
yes, it was. but it's a concept i've disagreed with for a long time. i find this special understanding people claim to have to be an excuse for ignoring the obvious meaning of the text.
My contribution to that was as follows: It could mean that for all intents and purposes to the seer of the vision, the lightbearers were made on the fourth day.
and do you therefore contend that the bible is wrong, and they were not made on the fourth day?
I think, if I am not mistaken, you conceded that that could be a possible interpretation.
no, you are mistaken.
If you did not agree that it is plausible if not preferable, I haven't yet read your answer to that regard.
then i suggest you go back and read it.
Thank you. I'm satisfied that you realize that. And therefore my interpretation (which is also that of some ancient rabbis) of a restored earth after divine judgment, is not all that far fetched after all.
yes. it is. "shades of meaning" has quite a different shade of meaning than "redefinition." you are re-defining the words as you see fit, and ignoring context and grammar -- and nevermind idiomatic usage.
I don't recall that you responded to my comparison with the 104th Psalm. That is the foundation of the earth being laid before the waters covering the mountains, and the limiting of the sea's influence, and the rising if the dry land. Did you comment on that corraborating evidence on a Destruction / Reconstruction view of Genesis 1:1,2?
again, go back and read it. my response is found in
message 130 of this thread. i responded by walking through all the verses of psalm 104 that you provided as evidence, with direct correlations that are actually
written in the book of genesis. god destroys the earth with water, and then promises to never do it again. gee, what does that sound like to you, jay?
I think the autographs were innerant. Copyist errors did get from scribes in spite of their miticulous care to preserve the original. They were human.
again, which is correct, the qere or the cotev? we're not talking typos, here. we're talking about emmendations that totally change wording -- as you are trying to do.
To what extent God controls the entrance of copyist's errors, I don't know. But the process of inspiration of the Holy Scriptures is very mysterious to me. It is a mysterious thing to most of us who believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible separates it from the myriad of other kinds of liturature, including other sacred or religious writing.
cop out, and demonstrating ignorance of other ancient and sacred literature, and ignorance of the bible's contruction.
I don't think dictation was what occured most of the time. I think men were moved by God in a divine and human coordination. Human writers and the divine Spirit flowing in a unspeakable harmony caused the inspiration of the Holy Bible.
you don't think dictation was used, but god controlled the wording?
The ancient Jews, the ones who were men of God, recognized the divinely inspired writings from the others. They established a Hebrew Canon. Not everything entered into it. And the canon itself refers to some books which were not in the canon, i.e. The Book of the Wars of the Lord.
the hebrew canon is five books, the torah ("the law"). nothing else. there are other books with are considered sacred as well, but to a lesser degree. these books are "the prophets" and include joshua, judges, sam/kings, isaiah, jeremiah, ezekiel, and the 12 minor prophets. there are books that are considered important works of literature, but not holy: "writings" and that includes psalms, proverbs, ecclesiastes, the five megillot, jonah, ruth, etc.
if you're going to argue the hebrew canon, than genesis takes priority, and psalms are not even given by god. (rather, psalms are given TO god, by man. geuss which one makes more sense?)
God can preserve the style of the author and allow the writing to carry many cultural effects yet still speak His divine oracles for all mankind. He used Hebrew and He used Greek to speak to man in this written form. He also used a bit of Chaldee.
we tend to call it "aramaic." but yes. this is not a good argument for god controlling the text down to the word.
™ Version 4.2