Genesis 1 Again

[AV1611VET]

It would certainly be impressive if the Bible had a word in it for something that wouldn't be known or even contemplated for millennia.

Like "steel"?

Then you could whine it was written after the fact.

 

[Skaloop]

Like "steel"?

Then you could whine it was written after the fact.

No, in the original Hebrew. Where the word translated as steel means copper or occasionally iron.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, in the original Hebrew. Where the word translated as steel means copper or occasionally iron.

The original Hebrew isn't called a Bible, chief.

Make up my mind, will you?

 

[Skaloop]

The original Hebrew isn't called a Bible, chief.

Make up my mind, will you?

Of course it isn't; Bible isn't a Hebrew word.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

It would certainly be impressive if the Bible had a word in it for something that wouldn't be known or even contemplated for millennia.

Seriously, if the Bible even came close to something like that, I might still be a Christian.

 

[Nostromo]

Like "steel"?

Then you could whine it was written after the fact.

Bravo, that's the dumbest thing I've heard in ages. Excluding every other thing Jazer says, obviously.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is this what you mean, then?

It would certainly be impressive if the Bible had a word in it for something that wouldn't be known or even contemplated for millennia.

Like אתאיסט instead of שוטה ?

 

[Skaloop]

Is this what you mean, then?


Like אתאיסט instead of שוטה ?

No idea. I can't read Hebrew. What are those words, and what are their possible English translations?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Is this what you mean, then?


Like אתאיסט instead of שוטה ?

Oh snap boys, looks like he opened up a can of Hebrew on us!

When the god's personal favorite, the 1611, won't do it, it's time to pull out the big guns.

 

[Jazer]

The original Hebrew isn't called a Bible, chief.

Make up my mind, will you?

Byblos (bĭb'ləs), ancient city, Phoenicia, a port 17 mi (27 km) NNE of modern Beirut, Lebanon. The principal city of Phoenicia during the 2d millennium B.C., it long retained importance as an active port under the Persians. Byblos was the chief center of the worship of Adonis. Because of its papyruses, it was also the source of the Greek word for book and, hence, of the name of the Bible. Excavations of Byblos, especially since 1922, have shown that trade existed between Byblos and Egypt as early as c.2800 B.C. A syllabic script found at Byblos dates from the 18th to the 15th cent. B.C.


Read more: Byblos: Definition from Answers.com​

 

[AV1611VET]

No idea. I can't read Hebrew. What are those words, and what are their possible English translations?

You might want to explain this request, then:

It would certainly be impressive if the Bible had a word in it for something that wouldn't be known or even contemplated for millennia.

I've given you an example in English, and an example in Hebrew, and you're still not satisfied.

Would you reword it, please? or something?

 

[AV1611VET]

Byblos (bĭb'ləs), ancient city, Phoenicia, a port 17 mi (27 km) NNE of modern Beirut, Lebanon. The principal city of Phoenicia during the 2d millennium B.C., it long retained importance as an active port under the Persians. Byblos was the chief center of the worship of Adonis. Because of its papyruses, it was also the source of the Greek word for book and, hence, of the name of the Bible. Excavations of Byblos, especially since 1922, have shown that trade existed between Byblos and Egypt as early as c.2800 B.C. A syllabic script found at Byblos dates from the 18th to the 15th cent. B.C.


Read more: Byblos: Definition from Answers.com​

Ya, but he's whining about the 'original Hebrew' -- or something.

I can't really tell what he wants.

 

[Nostromo]

No idea. I can't read Hebrew. What are those words, and what are their possible English translations?

They're "atheist" and "fool". In modern Hebrew, presumably.

 

[Hentenza]

Well the way you were talking I assumed it was some time around 1300BC, because they obviously already knew about it, and eventually Even Science found out.

Nice strawman.

 

[Phred]

This means that Genesis 1 can be read:

“In the beginning God created the earth’s Atmosphere and the earth’s lithosphere...Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

The creation account in Genesis 1 may very well be an account of the recreation of the earth’s biosphere following a global catastrophe.

Except it isn't. The atmosphere of the earth was very different billions of years ago than it is now. So if your god created the earth's atmosphere it wasn't created the way it is now, friendly to human life.

You may keep on trying to make Genesis be relevant but it's just a story.

 

[Nostromo]

Nice strawman.

It's spelled "sarcasm".

 

[artybloke]

Well, it was not meant to be a scientific account; it was meant to be a historical account from which we can learn spiritual truths and values.
You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Genesis does have symbolic meaning to all of its hearers. We can gain symbolic meaning from historical events.

Israel as a historical nation is symbolic of the Church.

Genesis 1 was never meant to be historical. If it were it would be written as history not poetry. Symbolic truth is not just gained from histoical events, but also from poetry, fiction, myth, drama - all of which have more in common with the genres of the early chapters of Genesis than does 'history' or 'science'.

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis 1 was never meant to be historical. If it were it would be written as history not poetry.

Did you read Hentenza's post?

Genesis 1 shows no poetry whatsoever.

Hebrew [comparative] poetry conveys a truth, then restates that truth using different terms, connecting the two phrases with "and".

Hebrew [contrastive] poetry states a truth, then states its opposite, connecting the two phrases with "but".

These two phrases are known as parallelisms, and parallelisms are earmarks of Hebrew poetry, not found in Genesis 1.

In addition, since the three divisions of the OT are history, poetry and prophecy, and Genesis 1 is neither poetry nor prophecy, this means it is history.

 

[artybloke]

Did you read Hentenza's post?

Genesis 1 shows no poetry whatsoever.

Just because something doesn't conform to what some 21st century scholar thinks Hebrew poetry is supposed to be doesn't mean that it's not 'poetic'. It has a repetitive structure (refrain); it has a liturgical rhythm; it uses anaphora, symbolic language, it has a numerological structure (use in particular of the numbers seven, three and ten) and every appearance of being chantable.

And it doesn't really matter whether it's poetry, poetic or symbolic prose, myth or whatever you want to call it: it still doesn't make it history. However you try and stretch the text or bend science, it does not conform to the known facts of science or history. Either Genesis 1 is a symbolic, poetic text or it's just simply wrong. So you can either live in the la-la land of creationist nonsense, or live in the real world that God created through evolution. It's your choice.

 

[IndieVisible]

Or it might be a poetic account meant to teach spiritual truths and values, not a scientific account of the begining of the universe. Considering that the first hearers of this poem were probably a bunch of agrarian bronze age people with no scientific knowledge or interest, which is more likely? That the book of Genesis would be meaningless until some 20/21st century literalist comes along and reinterprets it, or that it actually had real symbolic meaning to its first hearers?

I'm incline to agree with this but it is interesting to note that Gen1 leaves room for so much more too.