Because of all the other Bible scholars (some from universities) who later on did. Read the link? Lots of information there.
Since when do you think university professors are reliable authorities? Or is it just the ones who say what you agree with? Anyway, this is a discussion forum, if you think they have any decent arguments, you should present them here for discussion, not just try to argue by web link. So far you haven't been able to come up with any arguments that hold water.
It was just another example of this reality being found from knowing the original languages. I believe what could not be determined was how the rabbis concluded that there were other worlds (plural). The book's theme is about there having been a previous (prehistoric) creation. How the rabbis determined there were other "worlds" (more than one) is not stated.
Any yet if we can't find a scriptural basis for their belief, what makes you think there was one?
Paul alluded to this teaching in one of his Epistles! Read the link?
What link? You expect me to trawl though Custance's website looking for a reference to Titus 1:4? Anyway it is not a single teaching, Paul talked of Jewish myth
s. And even if Paul mentioned a number of specific Jewish myths, the point remains. Not every Jewish teaching is based on scripture simply because it was taught by Jews who knew Hebrew. Some of their teachings were myths. Shouldn't we at least show the same caution the Bereans did? Not simply accept what some Jewish preacher claims simply because he says it and he must know his Hebrew bible, but examine the scriptures to see if these things are so Acts 17:11. We have examined the scriptures. It simply doesn't mention previous creations worlds falls and judgements before Gen 1:2.
Stop using this one point as a place to set up camp.
As far as I know this is the first time I have mentioned the Targum of Onkelos. It was one of the points you quoted from the Custance website, but apparently you do not want to defend any specific argument he uses and prefer to depend on a vague reference to all the scholars he quotes.
Read what other Bible scholars over the centuries concluded as well. That's what counts. The consensus of those who did read the Bible in the original languages. What you are now doing is like speaking on the history of the automobile, and one mentions some pioneer inventor who only believed it could be done, and then halted right there to take their stand which is made to appear to be in his favor.
You seriously think the consensus of biblical scholars is the Gap Theory? Not even sure how you can have a consensus 'over the centuries' especially when as Custance laments, modern scholarship simply dismisses Gap theory out of hand. Just because Custance selectively quotes scholars who for one reason or another believed in a Gap, does not make it a consensus.
OK... get away from the references he makes mention of in passing? After all, they did include traditional teachings mixed in with their own brand of fruit.
Well it was one you quoted...
Get to where the University scholars are quoted and make your point there. Get to the church scholars and make your point there. You are simply straining out a gnat to avoid mounting the camel in this caravan that intimidates you.
Give us a decent biblical argument and we can deal with it. Simply claiming a vague selection of scholars quoted on another website agree with you is not argument.
Custance seem to quote a lot of 19th century writers in favour of the Gap, that was its hay day, but modern scholarship seems to have abandoned it. I wonder why that is. He does seem to find one or two who still lean that way, but most of his modern quotations are from grammars and lexicons, while Custance uses their work to try to support his arguments, do the writers themselves believe in the Gap Theory? I think Custance would have said if they do.
Assyrian: You need to remember Jewish exegesis ranged from the plain meaning of the text, things they thought were just hinted at, allegorical interpretations, and hidden codes.
Genez: I see.. That is why Jeremiah shouted out those words found in Genesis 1:2? To try to put fear in the hearts of the hard headed rebellious Jews? With allegory and metaphorical language?
Assyrian: The warning their land would be rendered formless and void as it was at the beginning of creation is reason enough to be afraid.
Genez: That was not the impression that those knowing the meaning of the words spoken saw. You keep missing that.
You know how the Jews in Jeremiah's time interpreted it? Or are you going back to much later kabbalistic interpretations? I don't think there were that many Kabbalists in Jerusalem in Jeremiah's time, nor is the Kabbalistic interpretation the plain meaning of the word, it is a mystical and allegorical reading of meanings into the text. All very well in its own way, but you cannot assume a later mystical interpretation is what Jeremiah's hearers would have understood, especially when Jeremiah's warning works perfectly well with the plain simple meaning of the words.
Maybe its because you have tenaciously set anchor at only one point in that book that you can make use of, and refuse to advance to where more details are given that would clarify this all for you. I can see why you want to do that. But, you are not dealing with all the facts. You are not dealing with the full context. You are dealing with some of the
wall posters Custance puts on display, but refuse to see what it was leading to.
I wish all things were as predictable.
If the posters fall of the wall as soon as you pick at them, is there anything solid they do lead up to? Come on Genez, you keep arguing back an forth and still you do not present a shred of solid scriptural evidence.
Oh boy, which new branch of evolution will Genez bring up in attempt to try to discredit us because he'll bring nothing to the table then his pharisee-esque vernacular traps his pastor taught him before the fact...and consequently rehijack this thread again, and again, and again, and again. This is getting ridiculous Genez, you're no longer sounding credible, you've lost your audience, and your unwavering arrogance to admit even the possibility of your error in reason makes any argument you attempt to deliver sound nothing more then an emotional outburst of yes, cognitive dissonance; targeted at those you feel are responsible for your present insecurities. Keep it up, this is getting pretty entertaining watching you pretend you know what your talking about.
