Genetics Question

[gluadys]

i restate my assertion that dust is meant to mean dna as in we were formed from a speck of dust known as dna....aka genetic material

this is scientific truth and it is stated in the bible in the book of genesis in the beginning of the CREATION account

Not at all. I have come to call this technique "anachronistic interpretation".

In literature, "anachronism" refers to an author placing something in a time prior to its existence in history. For example, in one scene of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar as the conspirators break up a late night meeting, one of them refers to a clock striking the hour. But such clocks were not invented until the Middle Ages, centuries after Caesar was assassinated. So no clock could have struck the hour in Rome before his death. Shakespeare didn't know this, so he used a phrase an Elizabethan might use.

What you are doing is reading a meaning into an ancient text which could not possibly exist in that text because the writer could not know it. You are giving ancient words a meaning derived from modern scientific concepts that were not in existence until millennia after the text was written.

That is called "eisegesis" (reading into the text what is not there) as opposed to "exegesis" (drawing out the meaning of the text). When it comes to sound interpretation eisegesis is a definite no-no.

 

[gluadys]

i used the link you gave me for hebrew words

That link was to crosswalk. I have used it many times to check the original Greek and Hebrew. But I have never seen the meanings you are providing.

so your rendering of woman as hearth is incorrect

the bible was not written in 1950 but your idea of hearth and domesticity is 1950's

i looked up hearth and it means altar and flames

so your rendition of eve as woman=hearth is wrong
which makes me wonder if you are mormon to come up with something like that

You seem to be making a connection between the name "Eve" and the word "hearth". But in Hebrew the two words are quite different. Where do you get this connection from?

or i guess you are admitting that woman is the altar of god aka ark of covenant

which is a title of mary, who is full of grace, which means you are catholic

btw that is what mary's name means---full of grace---as in a highly esteemed LADY

Not in Hebrew it isn't. The Hebrew from which "Mary" is derived is "Maryam" and it means "bitter, sorrowful". See Ruth 1:19 where Naomi uses a shorter version of the same name "Mara".

In an earlier post you also said

why don't you go back to the link you gave me earlier and put in the word woman

you will find the answer is isis

I think you are misreading crosswalk. They give 18 different words for "woman" many of them specific as "young woman" "delicate woman" etc. The one used in Gen 2. 23 is a general word for "woman" and it is "ishshah" not "isis". Interestingly, the word for "man" used in the same verse is not "adam" as elsewhere in the chapter, but "ish" which means man or husband. ("adam" means "human"; "ish" means specifically "male human" and "ishshah" = "female human). "Ish" and "ishshah" come from the same root as in English "man" and "woman" come from the same root.

Isis is the name of an Egyptian goddess.

You also said:

also, eve is the name of sin. Isis is the name of woman.

As already noted, Isis is not the name of woman. It is the name of an Egyptian goddess. "Ishshah" is not the name of woman either. It is the common noun "woman", not a name. "Eve" is a name. But why connect that name with sin? There is no linguistic or scriptural reason to do so. Gen 3: 20 says the man gave his wife this name because "she was the mother of of all living". And the name "Eve" is very similar to the Hebrew word for "living". So its meaning is related to life, not to sin.

 

[lucaspa]

the german word for gene was coined by a man who lived in germany where the study of dna first began. however, he chose this word based on the word genesis from GREEK.

Here you destroy your whole argument that dust in Genesis 2 is meant to be "gene". Gene is the German word. That is, the scientific word "gene" was coined by Mendel, who did the first work into deciphering heredity into individual packets -- genes. Mendel had no idea what DNA was. Even by 1900 it was thought that protein was the hereditary material. It wasn't until the 1930s that it was realized that it was DNA, not protein.

Now, if Mendel had named the packet "wocka" or "gane", your whole argument would fall apart. As you admit, he chose to make up the word from the root used for genesis. There was nothing in the Bible that compelled him to. And his choice was not based on the Bible, but on the Greek root as used previously in German.

As Gluadys has pointed out so well, you are trying to anachronistically insert science into the Bible. It is the opposite of what you are supposed to do when trying to pull meaning from the text.

 

[lucaspa]

i used the link you gave me for hebrew words

so your rendering of woman as hearth is incorrect

Crosswalk gives you the Hebrew words used in the OT, using both our letters instead of the Hebrew letters and the transliterations. It is not a Hebrew-English dictionary.

Even so, "isis" as "woman" doesn't appear anywhere in Strong's. I gave you specifically the pages dealing with that.

the bible was not written in 1950 but your idea of hearth and domesticity is 1950's

i looked up hearth and it means altar and flames

Where? Here is Merriam-Webster again:
"1 a : a brick, stone, or cement area in front of a fireplace b : the floor of a fireplace; also : [size=-1]FIREPLACE[/size] c : the lowest section of a furnace; especially : the section of a furnace on which the ore or metal is exposed to the flame or heat"

I am using definition 1a.

so your rendition of eve as woman=hearth is wrong

Not from the Hebrew-English dictionaries I have consulted. Where did you get your information?

or i guess you are admitting that woman is the altar of god aka ark of covenant

No. Instead, Eve is the archetype woman, whose place in Hebrew society was in taking care of the home. Thus the woman was given a "name" that signifies that position.

i am not backing down on my original assertion that dust is genetic material. your just mad that you've been outsmarted by an inspired woman

I'm sorry, but that isn't my motivation. You came up with a possible idea. I took it seriously and tested it -- like I test all ideas. Testing showed the idea to be wrong, based on etymological, scientific, and exegetical grounds. I'm sorry, but that is what happens to most ideas -- they are wrong. No big deal. The only reason it is a big deal here is your stubborness in refusing to admit your idea doesn't work. Your gender has nothing to do with anything. It is the idea that is being tested, not you.

Looking at the larger picture, Dating, I still maintain that trying to reconcile the Bible with science is not only not going to work, it is actually dangerous to Christianity. The most important and essential parts of Christianity are not testable by science: the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus, salvation, etc. What you are doing is tying these untestable ideas to testable ideas -- dust was DNA. Your hope is that the untestable ideas get validated by science this way: if the science is consistent, then God must have created. Right? The problem is that science changes with new data. Even if this particular idea worked now, new data may show it to be false. And then what happens? You admit that "God created" is wrong?

The untestable ideas of ultimate meaning -- God created, salvation, etc -- should not be the object of a shotgun marriage to testable scientific ideas. Christianity has tried that too many times in the past and has lost each time. Flat earth, geocentrism, special creation, the Flood, etc. All attempts to validate the Bible with science. All spectacular failures and each of them creating a crisis of faith among those who tied Christianity to science. Instead, sit back, relax, and let science tell you how God created. Look thru the two creation stories of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 for what they were meant to tell you: about God, the motives of God in creating, how God thinks about human beings, and how God interacts with humans. There are valuable theological truths in both creation stories. Trying to make them science causes you to lose sight of them.

 

[lucaspa]

You seem to be making a connection between the name "Eve" and the word "hearth". But in Hebrew the two words are quite different. Where do you get this connection from?

That's my connection. And I obtained it from Hebrew-English dictionaries and Genesis by Nahum Sarna.

I think you are misreading crosswalk. They give 18 different words for "woman" many of them specific as "young woman" "delicate woman" etc. The one used in Gen 2. 23 is a general word for "woman" and it is "ishshah" not "isis". Interestingly, the word for "man" used in the same verse is not "adam" as elsewhere in the chapter, but "ish" which means man or husband. ("adam" means "human"; "ish" means specifically "male human" and "ishshah" = "female human). "Ish" and "ishshah" come from the same root as in English "man" and "woman" come from the same root.

Isis is the name of an Egyptian goddess.

That's what I told her. I have no idea where she pulled isis=woman from.

 

[DatingSmarts]

Phoenix, I am not familiar with any of the various theories of evolution. I only learned about the theory of evolution in general when I was in high school. I did not see this as an obstacle to my faith....if that is what you are getting at.

 

[DatingSmarts]

lol

you peeps are afraid of what this really means.

Ishish is hebrew for Woman, which is a direct translation from the hebrew lexicon provided by lucaspa

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ge+2:23&version=kjv&showtools=yes

Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, F18 because she was taken out of Man.
FOOTNOTES:
F18: Woman: Heb. Isha



woman's name is not EVE
EVe is the name of the evil one, the one who seduced the first woman to eat the fruit; EVE is not the name of the first woman we have been calling Eve for the past 2000 years. I am irate and outraged!

ISIS was a goddess in EGYPT and MOSES is from EGYPT! MOSES is the one who wrote the book of GENESIS and the following 4 books of the TORAH.

I am beginning to think the book is written in egyptian instead of hebrew....and that would make sense to me considering where they came from. Everyone knows that the Egyptians were the first to learn to write using papyrus. The hebrews didn't know how to do this. Moses learned to write in EGYPTIAN because he grew up in Pharaoh's court. Moses was the adopted brother of the king of egypt.

Jesus lived in Egypt as a young boy.
So he tied his knowledge of living and growing up in EGypt with his knowledge of the hebrew Bible, which is why he was able to speak with AUTHORITY in the Temple

DA!

 

[DatingSmarts]

You people are arguing with me about the letter of the law instead of accepting the truth of the deeper meaning of the passage. You are in denial of the truth, the spirit of the law of life, the law of god as described in the book of genesis.


the text is talking about SEX and how babies are born....genetically.

it also agrees with what god told abraham that he would be the father of many nations as many as the dust of the earth and.or the stars of the heavens. all of which states from a speck of dust. one sperm is but a speck of dust. an ovum is but a speck of dust.

how can you people be so foolish and stubborn. and you are DOCTOR! which really shows to me how stubborn you really are.

 

[DatingSmarts]

Here you destroy your whole argument that dust in Genesis 2 is meant to be "gene". Gene is the German word. That is, the scientific word "gene" was coined by Mendel, who did the first work into deciphering heredity into individual packets -- genes. Mendel had no idea what DNA was. he chose to make up the word from the root used for genesis.

I am here to disappoint you: MENDEL WAS A CATHOLIC PRIEST!

I guess you are going to protest him now too.

There was nothing in the Bible that compelled him to. And his choice was not based on the Bible, but on the Greek root as used previously in German.

MENDEL was a catholic priest so your assertion above is false.

As Gladys has pointed out so well, you are trying to anachronistically insert science into the Bible. It is the opposite of what you are supposed to do when trying to pull meaning from the text.

Gladys is wrong. I am merely bringing out the deeper truths and meaning that is already revealed in the text of the bible.

another thing, my original intent was to assist the discussion---not to argue semantics.

I am not here to argue the nitty gritty of words but I am doing quite well anyway. I think you are intentionally missing the point because you are jealous you did not think of dust as genes first.

 

[gluadys]

That's my connection. And I obtained it from Hebrew-English dictionaries and Genesis by Nahum Sarna.

That's what I told her. I have no idea where she pulled isis=woman from.

Thanks, I hadn't heard that one before. Since she said she was using crosswalk and it wasn't there I was puzzled.

The logical connection was evident, but not the linguistic one.

 

[lucaspa]

Ishish is hebrew for Woman, which is a direct translation from the hebrew lexicon provided by lucaspa

http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ge+2:23&version=kjv&showtools=yes

Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, F18 because she was taken out of Man.
FOOTNOTES:
F18: Woman: Heb. Isha

It says "isha", not "isis". Where did you get "isis"?

That's not the Lexicon, but a study guide. The Lexicon is here
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0802&version=kjv

And here the word is "ishshah", which is what I told you it was.

woman's name is not EVE
EVe is the name of the evil one, the one who seduced the first woman to eat the fruit; EVE is not the name of the first woman we have been calling Eve for the past 2000 years. I am irate and outraged!

Genesis 3:20: "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. " See that "wife" there. That is "ishshah", the same as in 2:23. Save your outrage. Eve is the woman of 2:23. If you'd just taken a second to look thru the link from the page above to Genesis, you would have found this and saved yourself some embarrassment.

MOSES is the one who wrote the book of GENESIS and the following 4 books of the TORAH.

Sorry to shatter another myth of yours, but Moses did not write the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch has 3-4 sources and was put together from these sources by an editor about the time of Ezra.

I am beginning to think the book is written in egyptian instead of hebrew.

That's going to come as a big surprise to all the synagogues in the world, who have the copies in Hebrew! No, Bereshith was written in Hebrew, not Egyptian.

Jesus lived in Egypt as a young boy.

Only in one of the gospels. In the other he never left Palestine.

So he tied his knowledge of living and growing up in EGypt with his knowledge of the hebrew Bible, which is why he was able to speak with AUTHORITY in the Temple

Boy, when you make wild-a-- theories, you don't fool around, do you? Do you ever stop to test them before you make them public? 1600 years after the Exodus and with a completely different government and society in Egypt, just what would living in Egypt do for Jesus' authority? Also, does the gospel make any mention of this as the source for Jesus' authority? NO! For someone who wants us to take the Bible seriously, you can't just go making up whatever you want from outside the Bible. What you end up doing is just making the Bible be silly.

 

[gluadys]

lol

you peeps are afraid of what this really means.

Ishish is hebrew for Woman, which is a direct translation from the hebrew lexicon provided by lucaspa

It's "ishshah" not "ishish" and not "isis" either.

woman's name is not EVE
EVe is the name of the evil one, the one who seduced the first woman to eat the fruit; EVE is not the name of the first woman we have been calling Eve for the past 2000 years. I am irate and outraged!

Since that is a direct contradiction of Genesis 3:20 may I ask your source for this information?

ISIS was a goddess in EGYPT and MOSES is from EGYPT! MOSES is the one who wrote the book of GENESIS and the following 4 books of the TORAH.

Sorry, in spite of the traditional attribution of the Torah to Moses, the textual and linguistic evidence indicates that Moses did not write it. See Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard E. Friedman.

 

[lucaspa]

You people are arguing with me about the letter of the law instead of accepting the truth of the deeper meaning of the passage. You are in denial of the truth, the spirit of the law of life, the law of god as described in the book of genesis.

You aren't giving us "the law of god as described in teh book of genesis". Instead, you are giving us theories of DatingSmart. When we test those theories against the text and science, we find that both the Biblical text and science refute the theories.

the text is talking about SEX and how babies are born....genetically.

Not in Genesis 2. There is no one to have sex. No man. No woman. God acts like a potter in this creation story and takes dirt and makes a single man -- Adam -- out of it. SEx doesn't come until later, after Adam and Eve are kicked out of Eden, when Adam "knows" his wife and she conceives Cain.

one sperm is but a speck of dust. an ovum is but a speck of dust.

Neither are "dust". Both are cells. And both are so small that they are smaller than the smallest speck of dust. Specks you can see with your eyes. Sperm and egg you cannot.

how can you people be so foolish and stubborn.

Because what you say doesn't match up with either the Bible or science. How can you be so stubborn and stick to an idea when it has been shown to be so completely wrong?

 

[gluadys]

You people are arguing with me about the letter of the law instead of accepting the truth of the deeper meaning of the passage. You are in denial of the truth, the spirit of the law of life, the law of god as described in the book of genesis..

I am not concerned with upholding the letter of the law. I agree with Jesus on this point. "The letter kills; the spirit gives life"

But I do insist on upholding to the letter the integrity of the text. The writer wrote what s/he wrote and meant what s/he meant. The task of the interpreter is to establish the text as accurately as possible, and, as far as possible, establish what it meant to the author and his/her original audience.

You can then agree or disagree with it or suggest how it is applicable or not applicable to a new context.

But you cannot play Humpty Dumpty, and make the text say whatever you want it to say to support your pet theories.

 

[lucaspa]

I am here to disappoint you: MENDEL WAS A CATHOLIC PRIEST!

Actually, he was a monk. Later, after his famous experiments on heredity, he became the head monk of an abbey.

I guess you are going to protest him now too.

Why? When you acknowledge that gene was not picked because of any deeper meaning of Genesis, but because Mendel picked it 3000 years after Genesis was written.

And his choice was not based on the Bible, but on the Greek root as used previously in German.

MENDEL was a catholic priest so your assertion above is false.

DatingSmart, this is called a does-not-follow, or non-sequitor. Yes, Mendel was a monk, but it does not follow that he picked the name based on the Bible. According to the etymology at Merriam-Webster, the immediate progenitor to "gene" was a German scientific term. I posted that in one of my previous posts. You might want to go back and look at it again.

Gladys is wrong. I am merely bringing out the deeper truths and meaning that is already revealed in the text of the bible.

I disagree. You are doing exactly what Gluadys says -- retrodicting present knowledge back and warping the text to get it to mean what you think it ought to mean. It's a dangerous game. Some Muslims are playing it with the Quran, and all they are doing is showing the Quran to be wrong. Do you really want to do that to the Bible?

another thing, my original intent was to assist the discussion---not to argue semantics.

We are testing your idea. In this case, what you call "semantics" is data -- words and how they apply to your theory.

I think you are intentionally missing the point because you are jealous you did not think of dust as genes first.

How do you know I didn't? And refute it before I made it public? I run thru lots of ideas in my head. However, before I tell anyone else, I do my best to show they are wrong first. Only those ideas that I have failed to show wrong do I make public.

Another reason that dust as genes doesn't work:
Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Notice that the word used is specific to the ground. Genes don't fit that description, do they? The Hebrew word is 'aphar. That same word appears in Genesis 3:14 "And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: "

Now, the Bible can't possibly mean that the serpent is going to eat DNA, can it?

Then there is Genesis 18:27: "And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:"

See, 'aphar is being used as "ashes". Abraham can't possibly mean he is but DNA.

I suggest you look at the Rules of Interpretation. Two of them are specific about not injecting our ideas into the text but looking at what the people of the time used the words.
http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/b11.html
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b02.html

 

[lucaspa]

But you cannot play Humpty Dumpty, and make the text say whatever you want it to say to support your pet theories.

 

[DatingSmarts]

lucas and gladys

i am directing you to the rules of this forum

This forum is for the purpose of discussion. It is not for debate.

your conduct in this thread with me has been along the lines of argumentation and debate which is clearly prohibited. Furthermore, your remarks do not address the op. Instead you are arguing me with me about the meanings of words.

what you call pet theories are in actuality my beliefs and interpretations about the bible text. IT IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE OR DISAGREEMENT.

Stop disrespecting me.

 

[DatingSmarts]

and god said im going to make people from the molecule of life....i will take dust from four corners of the earth and combine them and I will breath life into them.

four corners represents when the 23 x chromosomes meet 23 y chromosomes to make 46 chromosomes....a new life....the first cell division occurs almost immediately and this new single celled organism....GENE!....now there are 4 parts....4 corners of the earth

 

[DatingSmarts]

and god said you are dust and to dust you shall return

dust is molecules and these molecules represent life throughout the whole of the universe

from a single minuscule ATOM (sounds like ADAM) dur!!!!

to the stars in the galaxy

universe is ONE...all of life is united as ONE

 

[DatingSmarts]

adam + eve=
=earth + sin
=the origins of life + impefection

adam + eve
= life without GOD