Hello, Fundies! :)

[George Affleck]

Why do you call me George?

It should be obvious to you that there are two different name stories here.
One is George and one is Affleck.
They surely cannot be talking about the same person because they are both obviously different.
They can't possibly explain different aspects pertaining to the naming of the same individual.

 

[Lon]

You seem to be always posting falsehoods.

It makes me wonder how you came to such a combination of arrogance and delusion.

...don't care what you wonder. Thanks for sharing, I guess, but it is forgotten.

Of course the story of the Good Samaritan is a fictional story Jesus told to make an important point.

But arguing where the story takes place? :idunno:

It is George that cannot being himself to say that the story of the Good Samaritan is not literal history. The fact that Jesus told it is literal history, while the events in the story are not. I wonder why George can’t acknowledge that.

Honestly? I've never seen you ask him BUT you seem to OFTEN accuse people of not answering you, even when you've asked nothing. I've no idea why you hang out on a fundamental board. Perhaps something here strokes your pride :think: Nothing else worth you being here for. There is no such thing as dialogue between you and anybody here. It is just posture posture posture, argue argue argue. I can't think what would draw you OR keep your interest. There is no meeting of minds. :nono:

 

[2003cobra]

...don't care what you wonder. Thanks for sharing, I guess, but it is forgotten.


But arguing where the story takes place? :idunno:



Honestly? I've never seen you ask him BUT you seem to OFTEN accuse people of not answering you, even when you've asked nothing. I've no idea why you hang out on a fundamental board. Perhaps something here strokes your pride :think: Nothing else worth you being here for. There is no such thing as dialogue between you and anybody here. It is just posture posture posture, argue argue argue. I can't think what would draw you OR keep your interest. There is no meeting of minds. :nono:

See post 46.

I asked George if he thought the Good Samaritan was a historical figure. He has yet to answer.

I explained why I don’t think the Good Samaritan was a historical figure.

So, if you haven’t seen me ask him anything, it is because you haven’t read what I posted and just decided to insult instead.

 

[2003cobra]

Why do you call me George?

It should be obvious to you that there are two different name stories here.
One is George and one is Affleck.
They surely cannot be talking about the same person because they are both obviously different.
They can't possibly explain different aspects pertaining to the naming of the same individual.

Interesting.

Any reason not to engage in real discussion seems to be acceptable to you.

 

[CabinetMaker]

...When I arrived at TOL I had numerous views that were not founded in reality or reason. ...

You still do! :chuckle:

 

[George Affleck]

And the first creation story disagrees with you:

Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

Nope.

That's exactly what I said:

He created grass, trees, herbs and shrubs, with the ability to propagate, outside of the garden, on Day 3.

 

[2003cobra]

Nope.

That's exactly what I said:

What you wrote literally contradicts the Bible.

The second creation story says man was formed before any plants had sprung up.

Strange that you deny the facts of the scriptural text.

 

[George Affleck]

What you wrote literally contradicts the Bible.

No, I showed it lined up with it. You're in denial.

The second creation story says man was formed before any plants had sprung up.

There is no second creation story.
You are referring to an expanded view of Day 6 given in Gen. 2 which you mistakenly think is a different story.
Many have made the same mistake.

Strange that you deny the facts of the scriptural text.

Strange that what you make up in your head substitutes for facts with you.

 

[2003cobra]

No, I showed it lined up with it. You're in denial.


There is no second creation story.
You are referring to an expanded view of Day 6 given in Gen. 2 which you mistakenly think is a different story.
Many have made the same mistake.


Strange that what you make up in your head substitutes for facts with you.

I acknowledge your denial of the text. That leaves us no basis for discussion.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I acknowledge your denial of the text. That leaves us no basis for discussion.

The problem is your refusal to acknowledge that Genesis 2:5-6 is clearly speaking about cultivated fields and not plants growing in the wild.

 

[2003cobra]

The problem is your refusal to acknowledge that Genesis 2:5-6 is clearly speaking about cultivated fields and not plants growing in the wild.

The five Hebrew scholars who translated Genesis for the NET Bible refute your error:

13 tn Heb “Now every sprig of the field before it was.” The verb forms, although appearing to be imperfects, are technically preterites coming after the adverb טֶּרֶם (terem). The word order (conjunction + subject + predicate) indicates a disjunctive clause, which provides background information for the following narrative (as in 1:2). Two negative clauses are given (“before any sprig…”, and “before any cultivated grain” existed), followed by two causal clauses explaining them, and then a positive circumstantial clause is given – again dealing with water as in 1:2 (water would well up).

14 tn The first term, שִׂיחַ (siakh), probably refers to the wild, uncultivated plants (see Gen 21:15; Job 30:4,7); whereas the second, עֵשֶׂב (’esev), refers to cultivated grains. It is a way of saying: “back before anything was growing.”

15 tn The two causal clauses explain the first two disjunctive clauses: There was no uncultivated, general growth because there was no rain, and there were no grains because there was no man to cultivate the soil.


https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Genesis+2

For your added information, the five translators:
Old Testament Translators and Editors

Pentateuch:

Richard E. Averbeck, Ph.D.
(Dropsie College)

Robert B. Chisholm, Th.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

Dorian Coover-Cox, Ph.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)

Eugene H. Merrill, Ph.D.
(Columbia University)

Allen P. Ross, Ph.D.
(Cambridge University)


You can do a web search to see their credentials — they are excellent.

What is your background in ancient Hebrew translation?

 

[George Affleck]

Linear thinking is a characteristic of western civilization and began with the Greeks around 600BC.

Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic are languages of eastern thought which is quite different in philosophy and organization.
If we really have a desire to understand the Old Testament authors, we need to unlearn what we know about our own logic process and understand theirs.

Eastern logic is not linear logic, it is block logic. The relation of similar events are more important than in what order the events occurred.

Western (Greek) thinking will say: "This morning when I woke up, I had a nice leisurely talk with my wife over breakfast. Then I went to work and had two meetings, one before lunch and the other at a client's office across town where we came up with strategies to improve sales. After answering my emails, I went home and we had dinner and visited with some friends from out of town."

Eastern (Hebrew) will say: "I went to work, went across town, came back to work, and I went home. I talked with my wife, had two meetings with co-workers and a customer and visited with friends from out of town. I had breakfast, lunch and dinner. I met with colleagues, answered my emails and discussed strategies to improve sales."

In the case of the creation account in Gen 1, the author, not wanting the eastern reader to misunderstand, inserted the words "and the morning and the evening were the first (second. etc.) day" to clearly signal a break from block logic and emphasize that consecutive timing was the most important similarity in this case. God inspired the author to include this knowing that western civilization would be able to understand this account just as easily.

The reason some details of day 6 were left out is, again, because the ancient Hebrews considered similar events more closely associated than timeline. The Gen 2 account is all about God utilizing what He has already made to fashion: Adam from the dust, every animal and bird from the ground, Eve from Adam. Gen 1 is concerned with separating and filling. Gen 2 is concerned with giving personal meaning to what has already been put in place. Hence, it is treated separately.

 

[glorydaz]

Linear thinking is a characteristic of western civilization and began with the Greeks around 600BC.

Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic are languages of eastern thought which is quite different in philosophy and organization.
If we really have a desire to understand the Old Testament authors, we need to unlearn what we know about our own logic process and understand theirs.

Eastern logic is not linear logic, it is block logic. The relation of similar events are more important than in what order the events occurred.

Western (Greek) thinking will say: "This morning when I woke up, I had a nice leisurely talk with my wife over breakfast. Then I went to work and had two meetings, one before lunch and the other at a client's office across town where we came up with strategies to improve sales. After answering my emails, I went home and we had dinner and visited with some friends from out of town."

Eastern (Hebrew) will say: "I went to work, went across town, came back to work, and I went home. I talked with my wife, had two meetings with co-workers and a customer and visited with friends from out of town. I had breakfast, lunch and dinner. I met with colleagues, answered my emails and discussed strategies to improve sales."

In the case of the creation account in Gen 1, the author, not wanting the eastern reader to misunderstand, inserted the words "and the morning and the evening were the first (second. etc.) day" to clearly signal a break from block logic and emphasize that consecutive timing was the most important similarity in this case. God inspired the author to include this knowing that western civilization would be able to understand this account just as easily.

The reason some details of day 6 were left out is, again, because the ancient Hebrews considered similar events more closely associated than timeline. The Gen 2 account is all about God utilizing what He has already made to fashion: Adam from the dust, every animal and bird from the ground, Eve from Adam. Gen 1 is concerned with separating and filling. Gen 2 is concerned with giving personal meaning to what has already been put in place. Hence, it is treated separately.

The same is true when studying Revelation. Greek versus Hebrew thinking is a great study.

For instance....paths of righteousness. It's not a long drawn out straight or meandering path. It's a circular path. Trodding the same ground over and over until a path is worn making it impossible to stray.

 

[Lon]

See post 46.

Not that 'hello' threads are all that structured, but "off-topic."

I asked George if he thought the Good Samaritan was a historical figure. He has yet to answer.

Why? All I saw was that you had intimated a 'place' that the story or actuality had happened. An odd thing to argue about with the vitriol in a thread nothing about it. Jerusalem and Jericho were/are literal places.

I explained why I don’t think the Good Samaritan was a historical figure.

So, if you haven’t seen me ask him anything, it is because you haven’t read what I posted and just decided to insult instead.

Rather, George asked how you would or could know if the story of the Good Samaritan was or wasn't a 'true' story used as a parable. He was asking what 'assumption' or 'scriptural support' allowed you to assert it. He was questioning your bible reading prowess. Understandable, because I see naught but a LOT of assumptions and fabricated pontifications. THAT was the central point of George's inquiry.

I acknowledge your denial of the text. That leaves us no basis for discussion.

Correct. I'm with George over this. I've read Genesis 1 and 2 and have NEVER but thought that the second is a brief recap and focus on the creation of man. As nicely but clearly as possible: You don't read context well. It is a huge reason I've always thought your grades in school were subpar. You just don't have a grasp of language arts and reading comprehension. Maybe you had the where-with-all at one time in your life. Today you are sadly lacking and it shows. All off topic btw. You have a knack for that too, which lends greatly to the former problem and inability. You really don't belong in any kind of teacher setting. :e4e:

 

[glorydaz]

That Vulcan guy is obviously Cobra. Some tricks never get old, do they?

 

[2003cobra]

That Vulcan guy is obviously Cobra. Some tricks never get old, do they?

Ha, you think I am everyone!

First I am Sonnet, then Vulcan, who’s next?

 

[2003cobra]

Not that 'hello' threads are all that structured, but "off-topic."


Why? All I saw was that you had intimated a 'place' that the story or actuality had happened. An odd thing to argue about with the vitriol in a thread nothing about it. Jerusalem and Jericho were/are literal places.


Rather, George asked how you would or could know if the story of the Good Samaritan was or wasn't a 'true' story used as a parable. He was asking what 'assumption' or 'scriptural support' allowed you to assert it. He was questioning your bible reading prowess. Understandable, because I see naught but a LOT of assumptions and fabricated pontifications. THAT was the central point of George's inquiry.


Correct. I'm with George over this. I've read Genesis 1 and 2 and have NEVER but thought that the second is a brief recap and focus on the creation of man. As nicely but clearly as possible: You don't read context well. It is a huge reason I've always thought your grades in school were subpar. You just don't have a grasp of language arts and reading comprehension. Maybe you had the where-with-all at one time in your life. Today you are sadly lacking and it shows. All off topic btw. You have a knack for that too, which lends greatly to the former problem and inability. You really don't belong in any kind of teacher setting. :e4e:

Of course I answered George’s question. He didn’t answer mine. He still hasn’t said whether he thinks the story was a retelling of literal historical events.

I encourage you to read the first chapters of Genesis in a translation you can understand. There are two stories with different orders and methods of creation.

 

[2003cobra]

Linear thinking is a characteristic of western civilization and began with the Greeks around 600BC.

Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic are languages of eastern thought which is quite different in philosophy and organization.
If we really have a desire to understand the Old Testament authors, we need to unlearn what we know about our own logic process and understand theirs.

Eastern logic is not linear logic, it is block logic. The relation of similar events are more important than in what order the events occurred.

Western (Greek) thinking will say: "This morning when I woke up, I had a nice leisurely talk with my wife over breakfast. Then I went to work and had two meetings, one before lunch and the other at a client's office across town where we came up with strategies to improve sales. After answering my emails, I went home and we had dinner and visited with some friends from out of town."

Eastern (Hebrew) will say: "I went to work, went across town, came back to work, and I went home. I talked with my wife, had two meetings with co-workers and a customer and visited with friends from out of town. I had breakfast, lunch and dinner. I met with colleagues, answered my emails and discussed strategies to improve sales."

In the case of the creation account in Gen 1, the author, not wanting the eastern reader to misunderstand, inserted the words "and the morning and the evening were the first (second. etc.) day" to clearly signal a break from block logic and emphasize that consecutive timing was the most important similarity in this case. God inspired the author to include this knowing that western civilization would be able to understand this account just as easily.

The reason some details of day 6 were left out is, again, because the ancient Hebrews considered similar events more closely associated than timeline. The Gen 2 account is all about God utilizing what He has already made to fashion: Adam from the dust, every animal and bird from the ground, Eve from Adam. Gen 1 is concerned with separating and filling. Gen 2 is concerned with giving personal meaning to what has already been put in place. Hence, it is treated separately.

None of this reconciles the timeline: the second creation story clearly says man was formed when no plants had yet sprung up. And it clearly says man was alone so God formed the animals in search of a partner.

The second creation story is clear that man was formed before the plants and the animals.

As the Oxford Edition of the NRSV notes to Genesis 2 say:

This tradition, often identified as J, is different from 1.1-2.3, as evidenced by a different style and order of events...Animals are created after the first human other than before.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The five Hebrew scholars who translated Genesis for the NET Bible refute your error:

13 tn Heb “Now every sprig of the field before it was.” The verb forms, although appearing to be imperfects, are technically preterites coming after the adverb טֶּרֶם (terem). The word order (conjunction + subject + predicate) indicates a disjunctive clause, which provides background information for the following narrative (as in 1:2). Two negative clauses are given (“before any sprig…”, and “before any cultivated grain” existed), followed by two causal clauses explaining them, and then a positive circumstantial clause is given – again dealing with water as in 1:2 (water would well up).

14 tn The first term, שִׂיחַ (siakh), probably refers to the wild, uncultivated plants (see Gen 21:15; Job 30:4,7); whereas the second, עֵשֶׂב (’esev), refers to cultivated grains. It is a way of saying: “back before anything was growing.”

15 tn The two causal clauses explain the first two disjunctive clauses: There was no uncultivated, general growth because there was no rain, and there were no grains because there was no man to cultivate the soil.

So, your argument is that five Hebrew scholars missed the phrases that I highlighted?

Genesis 2:5-6 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.​

:chuckle:

Maybe you should email them and ask them why them missed those phrases.

 

[Lon]

Of course I answered George’s question. He didn’t answer mine. He still hasn’t said whether he thinks the story was a retelling of literal historical events.

It doesn't matter. It all boils down to 1) you ODDLY being on a fundamental board and 2) picking 'fundamental' fights on such a board. Nobody sees you as a nice man for it. It is an irritant. Why do it? For the Lord Jesus Christ? :nono:

I encourage you to read the first chapters of Genesis in a translation you can understand.

Like Hebrew or Greek? :noway: Unfortunately, you run off to translations you 'prefer.' Your reading comprehension isn't as good as it should be. Whether it at one time was, I have to take your word for it, but you've lost those skills or never had them.

There are two stories with different orders and methods of creation.

Just because you say so? No fundamental on this board agrees with you. It DOES make one wonder why a liberal desires to debate it. Not for the Lord Jesus Christ, certainly. There is no point. If there were, I'm quite sure the Lord would not send someone inept to us to try to beat out a change of mind. :think: Who are you here for, Cobra? My guess? Yourself. Your pride. Your ego-strokes.