• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Seven Days

David Henson said:
Where do you think I got the idea? The trouble is you don't know that. You just want to test what I'm saying. All I am saying is go and see for yourself. You don't want to do that.
Click to expand...

I have the actual Hebrew text open at the side of my computer, and I have to hand two contemporary translations by academics, and they both disagree with you.
 
David Henson said:
Are you suggesting that you are more likely to blindly adhere to anything they have to say over what I have to say? Not that what they have to say is completely irrelevant but take a copy of the tetragrammaton, in Hebrew of course, and give each of them one and note their response. Carefully note the religious superstition that is their tradition.
Click to expand...

No, not blindly, and not on anything they say. I am merely pointing out that in the fields of Hebrew and Biblical studies, they have established credentials as experts. You may have similar credentials, but you have not yet shared any with us on this forum.

So, for the time being, I will defer to their judgement over yours in this matter
 
David Henson said:
Where do you think I got the idea? The trouble is you don't know that. You just want to test what I'm saying. All I am saying is go and see for yourself. You don't want to do that.
Click to expand...

The problem is I don't read Hebrew, so cannot read the original text myself. I have to rely on information from experts.

Not only have you not established yourself as an expert, you have also failed to provide a reference to support your particular translation.

I can just as easily claim that the text of Genesis 1:28 is properly translated as 'Live long and Prosper' (instead of Be Fruitful and Multiply). However, seeing as I just admitted above that I don't read Hebrew, I really can't expect such an assertion to carry any weight whatsoever.
 
Darat said:
I have the actual Hebrew text open at the side of my computer, and I have to hand two contemporary translations by academics, and they both disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but do you have the secret decoder ring? Every week at the end of "Little orphan Annie," they give you a new code to unlock the secrets of the Bible.

What can your "academics" provide in comparison?
 
David Henson said:
Yes it does say exactly that according to the original language which I have clearly demonstrated. It loses something in the more inaccurate English translations and that isn't what you are accustomed to but that is in fact what it says.
Click to expand...
No, it does not. As I already pointed out here Genesis 1:16 says that God "made" (vai·ya·'as) the greater and lesser lights (which are clearly the Sun and the Moon) in the original.

Genesis 1:17 says he placed or set them in the firmament or sky.

It does not say they became visible. It does not say anything about dust settling.

If you think I am wrong show me which Hebrew word means "became visible". Show me which Hebrew word means "dust settled".
 
TraneWreck said:
Yeah, but do you have the secret decoder ring? Every week at the end of "Little orphan Annie," they give you a new code to unlock the secrets of the Bible.

What can your "academics" provide in comparison?
Click to expand...
.
"Drink more Ovaltine" is a biblical secret?
 
David Henson said:
I agree completely. I would advise that you educate yourself on the subject to promote the protection from those nuts in the future.
Click to expand...

I am more up on the subject than you,and if all you have are insults then I would advise you to leave the discussion.
 
Okay David, here's something to which I'd like you to respond. You have said the following:

1) That Genesis 1 contains scientific truths, if interpreted correctly, that the ancient Israelites couldn't have known. As such, it would seem to be divinely inspired.

2) That Moses is the author of the Torah.

Thus, we must assume that, if these two things are true, all of the Torah was divinely inspired and written by Moses. Hence, If I can find something that is very backward or absurd in any of the first five books of the Bible, that would disprove your thesis. Bearing that in mind, consider the remedy for a house with "leprosy" - i.e. mold, rot or mildew - proposed in Leviticus 14:49 - 53:

And for the cleansing of the house he [the priest] shall take two small birds, with cedarwood and scarlet stuff and hyssop, and shall kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water, and shall take the cedarwood and the hyssop and the scarlet stuff, along with the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the bird that was killed in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times. Thus he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedarwood and hyssop and scarlet stuff; and he shall let the living bird go out of the city into an open field; so he shall make atonement for the house, and it shall be clean.

Now are you seriously suggesting:

A) This will rid the house in question of mold, rot or mildew?

B) That killing a bird over running water and sprinkling the house with its blood is somehow superior to science?

C) That this mumbo-jumbo was divinely inspired?
 
David Henson said:
Are you suggesting that you are more likely to blindly adhere to anything they have to say over what I have to say?
Click to expand...

*cough*

Not necessarily. However, when faced with such an extraordinary claim, it begs the question - what are your credentials? You come to the boards and post what appears to be a new interpretation, yet we do not know the source of your information! The majority of us here have little to no grasp of Hebrew, so of course we are more likely to lean towards established sources than take a leap of faith. It's human. If you can explain to us how you derived at your deductions, the sources you used (other than the book itself), and whether or not your idea has been previously been supported, you'd be much better off.

Remember, some crazy stuff gets posted on these boards, and you're dealing with skeptics. We'll pick through your argument with a fine-toothed comb looking for flaws. It's our passion - it's nothing personal.
 
You guys do realize that David hasn't posted anything more than insults in over a month, and the last of those was three weeks ago?
 
Cainkane1 said:
Uh . . . if you ask me that is pretty impressive for a primitive bunch of goat-herders who didn't know what was going on.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
Yes it is impressive but in those days when you could read and write it very often would have been better if you knew what you were talking about before you put Quill to papyrus. Genesis is hogwash and just because people could write during the bronze age doesn't mean we should take what they wrote seriously. There is no science in genesis just plagerized old stories from even older religions mixed up with so called personal revelation nonsense.
 
Yes it is impressive but in those days when you could read and write it very often would have been better if you knew what you were talking about before you put Quill to papyrus. Genesis is hogwash and just because people could write during the bronze age doesn't mean we should take what they wrote seriously. There is no science in genesis just plagerized old stories from even older religions mixed up with so called personal revelation nonsense.[/QUOTE]



Because that which the world deems foolish in God is wiser than men's wisdom, and that which it deems feeble in God is mightier than men's might
1 Corinthians 1:25
 
Mister Agenda said:
Wait, is the earth still formed before the sun in Genesis? Isn't that still a major conflict with science no matter how long a day takes?
Click to expand...

The not all Bible scholars understand it like that. They make a fine distinction between the seven earth preparatory days and the period referred to as In the beginning God created Heavens and earth. ". Since universe and earth are already present before the seven prep days, then the language used during those prep days is understood within that context of preparation fort human and animal habitation. The making of the sun ad moon and other luminaries are understood to be a reference to their appearance or visibility within the firmament or earth's atmosphere from a ground-level perspective.


BTW
My earlier reference to these as gappists was mistaken. Gappists refers to those who believe that the seven days are a recreation as a replacement for a ruined earth.
 
Last edited:
Radrook said:
The not all Bible scholars understand it like that. They make a fine distinction between the seven earth preparatory days and the period referred to as In the beginning God created Heavens and earth. ". Since universe and earth are already present before the seven prep days, then the language used during those prep days is understood within that context of preparation fort human and animal habitation. The making of the sun ad moon and other luminaries are understood to be a reference to their appearance or visibility within the firmament or earth's atmosphere from a ground-level perspective.


BTW
My earlier reference to these as gappists was mistaken. Gappists refers to those who believe that the seven days are a recreation as a replacement for a ruined earth.
Click to expand...

Isn't Bible scholars an oxymoron?
 
TimCallahan said:
Okay David, here's something to which I'd like you to respond. You have said the following:

1) That Genesis 1 contains scientific truths, if interpreted correctly, that the ancient Israelites couldn't have known. As such, it would seem to be divinely inspired.

2) That Moses is the author of the Torah.

Thus, we must assume that, if these two things are true, all of the Torah was divinely inspired and written by Moses. Hence, If I can find something that is very backward or absurd in any of the first five books of the Bible, that would disprove your thesis. Bearing that in mind, consider the remedy for a house with "leprosy" - i.e. mold, rot or mildew - proposed in Leviticus 14:49 - 53:

And for the cleansing of the house he [the priest] shall take two small birds, with cedarwood and scarlet stuff and hyssop, and shall kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water, and shall take the cedarwood and the hyssop and the scarlet stuff, along with the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the bird that was killed in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times. Thus he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedarwood and hyssop and scarlet stuff; and he shall let the living bird go out of the city into an open field; so he shall make atonement for the house, and it shall be clean.

Now are you seriously suggesting:

A) This will rid the house in question of mold, rot or mildew?

B) That killing a bird over running water and sprinkling the house with its blood is somehow superior to science?

C) That this mumbo-jumbo was divinely inspired?
Click to expand...

David, I'm still waiting for an answer.
 
Purpose of animal sacrifices was prophetic:

Sacrificing animals was only a temporary measure and had to be repeated, this foreshadowed the perfect sacrifice of the Christ a sinless man who died once for all time as a provision of atonement for sin.

(Hebrews 10:1-4) . . .For since the Law has a shadow of the good things to come, but not the very substance of the things, [men] can never with the same sacrifices from year to year which they offer continually make those who approach perfect. 2 Otherwise, would the [sacrifices] not have stopped being offered, because those rendering sacred service who had been cleansed once for all time would have no consciousness of sins anymore? 3 To the contrary, by these sacrifices there is a reminding of sins from year to year, 4 for it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away.

(1 Peter 3:18) ....Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous [person] for unrighteous ones, that he might lead YOU to God, he being put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100518003255AA96ziH.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom