Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Young Earth Creationist gathering!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RufusAtticus" data-source="post: 573082" data-attributes="member: 2592"><p>Sure the explaination of why there are two stories is speculation, especially in my hands. But many traditional views of Genesis are also speculation, with little textual argument to support them.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is evidence in other places of seperate text being put together, it's just for this thread we have concentrated on cosmogony.</p><p></p><p>I found these links interesting.</p><p><a href="http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rels/002/lectures/lecture6.html" target="_blank">Reading the Torah</a></p><p><a href="http://www.ucalgary.ca/~eslinger/genrels/DocHypothesis.html" target="_blank">Literary history of the Pentateuch</a></p><p><a href="http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/hb/dh/" target="_blank">Documentary Hypothesis</a></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See post #56 and the subsequent discussion in which I specifically show what the context of the passage is and why the NIV's translation makes no sense.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nice rhetoric too bad none of it is true. My posts was the culmination of hours of work. I am not posting my opinion over Bible experts, unless you consider the translators of the NIV to be bible experts whereas the translators of the NASB to not be. As L'Antra has pointed out, the mass number of Bible translations in multiple languages translate it differently than the NIV. The only argument I have seen as to why the NIV choses the pluperfect is to use Genesis 1 as the context. However, to do that is to ignore the immediate context of of Genesis 2:18-2:22.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What part of the "true and living light of God" requires Genesis 2:19 be traslanted in the pluperfect? Are you becoming an NIV-onlyist? Everything I have stated her, I have run past my Christian (and UMC) wife. So don't go around and say it is an infidelic opinon, unless you want to do her a disservice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RufusAtticus, post: 573082, member: 2592"] Sure the explaination of why there are two stories is speculation, especially in my hands. But many traditional views of Genesis are also speculation, with little textual argument to support them. There is evidence in other places of seperate text being put together, it's just for this thread we have concentrated on cosmogony. I found these links interesting. [url=http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rels/002/lectures/lecture6.html]Reading the Torah[/url] [url=http://www.ucalgary.ca/~eslinger/genrels/DocHypothesis.html]Literary history of the Pentateuch[/url] [url=http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/netcours/hb/dh/]Documentary Hypothesis[/url] See post #56 and the subsequent discussion in which I specifically show what the context of the passage is and why the NIV's translation makes no sense. Nice rhetoric too bad none of it is true. My posts was the culmination of hours of work. I am not posting my opinion over Bible experts, unless you consider the translators of the NIV to be bible experts whereas the translators of the NASB to not be. As L'Antra has pointed out, the mass number of Bible translations in multiple languages translate it differently than the NIV. The only argument I have seen as to why the NIV choses the pluperfect is to use Genesis 1 as the context. However, to do that is to ignore the immediate context of of Genesis 2:18-2:22. What part of the "true and living light of God" requires Genesis 2:19 be traslanted in the pluperfect? Are you becoming an NIV-onlyist? Everything I have stated her, I have run past my Christian (and UMC) wife. So don't go around and say it is an infidelic opinon, unless you want to do her a disservice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Young Earth Creationist gathering!
Top
Bottom