Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
LOL! I was thinking the same over your last post!genez said:I love the way you don't make yourself clear...
I did not mean "fantasy," because you're using that word to mean superfluous fiction: remember, I said, "A theist knows that God doesn't offer hogwash for his childrens' dinner." Doesn't mean he always offers the best history/science. One of the main points of the lecture is that God did not commission Genesis 1 to be written for history or science, but to correct a religious/theological error. He used a Hebrew version of ANE mythology to convey that truth. As Calvin said, God used baby talk to convey his truth to them. Walton says that God didn't see the need to revise their whole cosmology and views of science every time he wanted to convey an eternal truth.Or, did you intend to say that Scripture is fantasy, at times?
Didaskomenos said:LOL! I was thinking the same over your last post!
I did not mean "fantasy," because you're using that word to mean superfluous fiction: remember, I said, "A theist knows that God doesn't offer hogwash for his childrens' dinner." Doesn't mean he always offers the best history/science. One of the main points of the lecture is that God did not commission Genesis 1 to be written for history or science, but to correct a religious/theological error. He used a Hebrew version of ANE mythology to convey that truth. As Calvin said, God used baby talk to convey his truth to them. Walton says that God didn't see the need to revise their whole cosmology and views of science every time he wanted to convey an eternal truth.
Although you make many good points, I suggest that you look more carefully at Genesis 1:21, which uses the verb wayyivra instead of bara.genez said:"Bara" was used more than you appear to be claiming, in Genesis 1. It is used in reference to the creation of the Heavens and earth. It is used in reference to only the sea and air creatures. The land creatures were not created "bara." If Walton's idea about "bara" is to remain consistent, he must explain the discrepancy he created by his new usage for "bara." It applies to the sea and air creatures? But not the land creatures? Think about Walton's definition, and think about the creation of animal and creature life on this planet. Does it make sense to you now? If you can not see what I am getting at, it may explain why you can not see what it is Walton is really getting at. He is attempting to answer one problem by creating a newer bigger one.
21~~ Then Elohiym/Godhead created out of nothing (bara')
'giant whales'/'great sea monsters' {water mammals}
{'old whales'-extinct today; whale bone (blue) whales; tooth
whales - sperm whales, porpoises, dolphins, etc.},and every living creature moving, with which the waters abounded/swarmed according to their own species, and every bird with wings according to their own species.
And Elohiym/Godhead saw that it was good."
Didaskomenos said:Although this flash reproduction of a conference talk at Wheaton College might take a little while to load and then to watch/hear, it's worth the time, because it is truly one of the most remarkable insights/interpretations I've seen lately. It is a literary observation, and lends itself to no scientific YEC, OEC, or evolutionary theory. What do you think?
http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/conferences03/Sci_Sym.html
The gist is that the "creation account" in Genesis 1 does not concern itself with the creation of matter and "things" in the universe, but rather was meant to establish God as the one who ordains the purposes and functions behind all things. Cross-referencing Genesis 1 with Ancient Near Eastern literature, Walton argues that the functions and roles of the sun, dry land, etc. are parallel to the Sumerian/Akkadian concept of the ME/parsu. It's rather compelling.
.Sinai said:Although you make many good points, I suggest that you look more carefully at Genesis 1:21, which uses the verb wayyivra instead of bara.
Translation... "God lied to the babies." (The stork brought you, syndrome).
artybloke said:Bad translation. Firstly, it assumes that God wrote the Bible. He didn't: human beings wrote it, influenced by the Holy spirit yes, but still human beings nevertheless. Human beings tell stories; that's why there's so many novelists, dramatists, poets, artists, songwriters about. They tell stories to explain the world to themselves and to each other, and to explain their experience of God to themselves and to each other.
Secondly. you are once again making the Rationalist assumption that anything that isn't scientifically verifiable fact must either be nonsense or a lie. This is a 19th century to mid twentieth century modernist assumption that I think would baffle any writer from the ancient world, and just seems horribly limited as a means of conveying truth to the post-modernist world of today. The whole of the Christian faith is based on a scientifically-unverifiable truth: namely, the existence of God himself, so to base your interpretation of the Bible on a Rationalist assumption just seems folly to me.
The Lord is my banner said:Why does everything always have to get so plain NASTY on this forum?
Sinai said:Although you make many good points, I suggest that you look more carefully at Genesis 1:21, which uses the verb wayyivra instead of bara.
Wow. Who was nasty? I don't think Susan was referring to Artybloke, who just disagreed with your translation (much as you do Sinai's) and pointed out what he thought was a false assumption in your argument. Gene must not like to have people disagree with him. That's what makes him nasty.genez said:They get nasty when they want to win, but have no answers. That is what makes people nasty. A desire to have something, but not having the substance needed to have it. I supplied answers with facts. One jumps in and only spouts off nasty opinion while the other keeps away. Diversionary tactics. In case you do not know it, this is not mere debate. Its a spiritual issue... Certain folks get nasty when their apponent is prepared, and they have no pat answers left to confuse the issue left to try. They may resort to the same old worn cliches. But, when no answer of substance is to be offered, nastiness fills the vacuum. It chases off those not willing to fight. That's all they have left in their cherished "image arsenal" of so called ideas.
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." Ephesians 6:12 niv
To quote Bob Dylan... "You're going to have to serve somebody."
Nastiness is to be expected in debates over Scriptural issues if one side is not seeking Scriptural truth, but has this driving need to win arguments. Once you learn this as, " the way it is," you don't run and hide. You stick around to see what truth may come out of it. After all, Jesus gave truth as Satan threw out distortions and lies in Matthew 4. If we ran and hid, we would have never learned the mind of Christ when confronted by nastiness.
Believers are the worst enemy of believers.
"For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. " Philippians 3:18 niv
And, Jesus warned in principle, that this will be the case. For when we become believers we all become a part of one family...
"....a man's enemies will be the members of his own household."
Matthew 10:36 niv
If you do not want to contribute from here on, I can understand. But, please stick around. We all may learn something. Don't let the nastiness chase you off and rob you of what the nasty ones can not deal with, and do not want others to know.
Grace and peace, GeneZ
Didaskomenos said:Wow. Who was nasty? I don't think Susan was referring to Artybloke, who just disagreed with your translation (much as you do Sinai's) and pointed out what he thought was a false assumption in your argument. Gene must not like to have people disagree with him. That's what makes him nasty.
You (over-)generalized my statement to "God lied to the babies."
Are you telling me that's not the whole put-me-in-a-box scenario you cried about when Artybloke simply attacked a philosophical underpinning of your argument? His statement wasn't an ad hominem, and I'm not going to take your "God lied" remark to me as such either.
I've been out of town for a few days, but if you'd like to stick around and talk about the topic, I'll be here.
Although you make many good points, I suggest that you look more carefully at Genesis 1:21, which uses the verb wayyivra instead of bara.
Wow, Gene. I didn't mean to pull your string. I thought you had made some excellent points in the post to which I was responding, but merely suggested that you take a closer look at the verb used in Genesis 1:21.genez said:I would like that. I would like for you to start with what Sanai said...Sinai said:Although you make many good points, I suggest that you look more carefully at Genesis 1:21, which uses the verb wayyivra instead of bara.
I have no idea what he was trying to prove by making such a false statement. Not only false, but easily verified as being false. Why should he even try to pull that off? Does he have the only copy of Scripture, and no one else? The word is "bara." I even provided the Hebrew... which should not have been needed by anyone who does know Hebrew. For they would have already known he was speaking something that was not so.
Sinai said:Wow, Gene. I didn't mean to pull your string. I thought you had made some excellent points in the post to which I was responding, but merely suggested that you take a closer look at the verb used in Genesis 1:21.
Since I can't find any Hebrew fonts, I'm afraid I'll just have to use the transliterations. Hope that will suffice. Both bara and yivra are the same basic verb (translated as "to create"). Both use the same basic characters of the Hebrew alphabet: beth, resh and aleph. The difference is in the guttural punctuation marks around the beth--but that also makes a subtle difference in the verbs. The perfect tense (bara) denotes action that was completed in a single event or occurrance and in the Hebrew also conveys the idea that the creation was out from nothing (as you did an excellent job of pointing out in your posts). The imperfect tense (yivra, which is used in 1:21) denotes action that was continuing over a period of time. Both verb forms are translated as "created" and both are verbs applicable to God rather than to man.
Sinai said:Wow, Gene. I didn't mean to pull your string. I thought you had made some excellent points in the post to which I was responding, but merely suggested that you take a closer look at the verb used in Genesis 1:21.
Since I can't find any Hebrew fonts, I'm afraid I'll just have to use the transliterations. Hope that will suffice. Both bara and yivra are the same basic verb (translated as "to create"). Both use the same basic characters of the Hebrew alphabet: beth, resh and aleph. The difference is in the guttural punctuation marks around the beth--but that also makes a subtle difference in the verbs. The perfect tense (bara) denotes action that was completed in a single event or occurrance and in the Hebrew also conveys the idea that the creation was out from nothing (as you did an excellent job of pointing out in your posts). The imperfect tense (yivra, which is used in 1:21) denotes action that was continuing over a period of time. Both verb forms are translated as "created" and both are verbs applicable to God rather than to man.
Sinai said:Wow, Gene. I didn't mean to pull your string. I thought you had made some excellent points in the post to which I was responding, but merely suggested that you take a closer look at the verb used in Genesis 1:21.
Since I can't find any Hebrew fonts, I'm afraid I'll just have to use the transliterations. Hope that will suffice. Both bara and yivra are the same basic verb (translated as "to create"). Both use the same basic characters of the Hebrew alphabet: beth, resh and aleph. The difference is in the guttural punctuation marks around the beth--but that also makes a subtle difference in the verbs. The perfect tense (bara) denotes action that was completed in a single event or occurrance and in the Hebrew also conveys the idea that the creation was out from nothing (as you did an excellent job of pointing out in your posts). The imperfect tense (yivra, which is used in 1:21) denotes action that was continuing over a period of time. Both verb forms are translated as "created" and both are verbs applicable to God rather than to man.
"The word highlighted here is Bara and there is no Vayivra.
But anyway, Vayivra means Bara in the future tense.
Hope this info is helpful."
Sinai said:I was using The Complete Biblical Library, which includes the Hebrew, the transliteration, several English translations, and commentary on each verse. What were you using? Thank you.
Thank you. I think that probably explains the problem. The Modern Hebrew Bible you were using (top link above) does not appear to have the guttural punctuation marks included; thus, you get the prime word but without the markings that indicate tenses in verbs, for example. The second link you included does have those marks, however. Closely examine the difference between the beth in the verb used in Genesis 1:1: בָּרָאgenez said:I grabbed those fonts from the Modern Hebrew Bible. I can read Hebrew to an extent, and I know I saw only "bara." My Israeli cousin confirmed it.
http://www.crosswire.org/sword/biblenew/fulllibrary.jsp?show=HebModern
And, here's a second opinion...
Parallel English/ Hebrew Bible
This is what this one says.
וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הַתַּנִּינִם הַגְּדֹלִים; וְאֵת
The Hebrew going right to left does strange things with the cut and paste. But, its the word "bara" again. I highlighted it again.
Sinai said:Both bara and yivra are the same basic verb (translated as "to create"). Both use the same basic characters of the Hebrew alphabet: beth, resh and aleph. The difference is in the guttural punctuation marks around the beth--but that also makes a subtle difference in the verbs. The perfect tense (bara) denotes action that was completed in a single event or occurrance and in the Hebrew also conveys the idea that the creation was out from nothing (as you did an excellent job of pointing out in your posts). The imperfect tense (yivra, which is used in 1:21) denotes action that was continuing over a period of time. Both verb forms are translated as "created" and both are verbs applicable to God rather than to man.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?