Hello, Fundies! :)

2003cobra

New member
Oh, GO, your scholars deny the text of the first creation story too:
The growing of the shrubs and sprouting of the herbs is different from the creation or first production of the vegetable kingdom, and relates to the growing and sprouting of the plants and germs which were called into existence by the creation, the natural development of the plants as it had steadily proceeded ever since the creation.


I have seen that denial before, pretending The first creation story does not say that the earth brought forth all kinds of plants on Day 3. The people who deny the text say the seeds were in the ground but had not spouted, just as your guys do. They explicitly deny the text of the Bible:
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.

The Bible says that the earth brought forth all kinds of vegetation on Day 3. Your scholars, driven by the bias of their presuppositions, deny the text.
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
There were five Hebrew scholars translating the Torah in the NET Bible. I listed the institutions granting their PhD’s.

You claimed to have proved them wrong. What are your credentials in Hebrew translation, and how do your credentials compare to theirs?

A refresher:

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

Dr. Averbeck taught for four years at Dallas Theological Seminary, teaching in both the Old Testament and pastoral ministries departments. He also taught for ten years at Grace Theological Seminary, serving as chair of the Old Testament department for four years and chair of the seminary curriculum planning committee for five. His areas of expertise include Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch, ancient Near Eastern history and languages, Old Testament criticism, Hebrew, and biblical counseling. He is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society, the Institute for Biblical Research, the American Oriental Society, the American Schools of Oriental Research, and the Society of Biblical Literature. Dr. Averbeck has been published in several journals and has contributed numerous articles to Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Baker, 1995), Faith, Tradition, and History (Eisenbrauns, 1994), Cracking Old Testament Codes: Guide to Interpreting Old Testament Literary Forms (Broadman and Holman, 1995), the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (Zondervan, 1997), and Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (InterVarsity, 2003). He has coedited the volume and written a major article in Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons: Studies in Honor of Micheal C. Astour (Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 1997) and was the main editor with a major chapter in Life and Culture in the Ancient Near East (CDL Press, 2003). He has translated and written notes for Numbers 18-36 for The Holman Christian Standard Bible and Leviticus for The NET Bible (New English Translation).


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

BA, Syracuse University, 1973; MDiv, Grace Theological Seminary, 1976; ThM, 1978; ThD, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1983
While Dr. Chisholm enjoys teaching the full breadth of Old Testament Studies, he takes special delight in the books of Judges, Samuel, Isaiah, and Amos. Dr. Chisholm has published seven books, most recently commentaries on Judges-Ruth and on 1-2 Samuel. He was translation consultant for the International Children's Bible and for The Everyday Bible and is senior Old Testament editor for the NET Bible. Any discussion with Dr. Chisholm on the Old Testament, however, can be quickly sidetracked when mentioning Syracuse University basketball or the New York Yankees, teams which probably do not have a greater fan outside the state of New York, much to the chagrin of his colleagues

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

Associate Professor of Old Testament Studies
BA, Wheaton College, 1975; MA(BS), Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984; ThM, 1988; PhD, 2001.
Dr. Coover-Cox has been a part of DTS as a student, a teacher, and associate editor for Bibliotheca Sacra. Originally she came to the Seminary to become a better editor; she found, however, that what she enjoys most about editing is helping people learn. While still an editor, she has found her niche in the classroom as well, encouraging students as they learn Hebrew. She has special interest in the Book of Exodus and in literary analysis of narratives and poetry.

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

Eugene Haines Merrill (born September 12, 1934) is an Old Testament scholar who has served as a distinguished professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and 2010 president of the Evangelical Theological Society.

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

Professor of Divinity
Beeson Divinity School
Old Testament
Office: Divinity Hall
Email: apross@samford.edu
Phone: 205-726-2072
Allen Ross joined the faculty in 2002 as Beeson Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew. He is the author ofIntroducing Biblical Hebrew, Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus,Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis, Recalling the Hope of Glory: Biblical Worship from the Garden to the New Creation, and A Commentary on the Psalms (Vol. I 2011, Vol II 2013,Vol III 2016). He has contributed numerous articles to scholarly journals. Previously, he taught at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry and Dallas Theological Seminary, and served as director of the Christian Leadership Center, Tallahassee, Florida. With an earlier background in Baptist and Presbyterian churches, he has been associated with the Episcopal Church since 1979. He is married to Dr. Jan Ross, who is completing an eight-volume set on the works of Thomas Traherne.
Education
* Ph.D., University of Cambridge
* Th.M., Th.D., Dallas Theological Seminary
* B.A. in Biblical Studies, Bob Jones University

And not one of them believes there are two creation stories.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Lon,
You apparently just love to imagine yourself an academic wonder
Compared to you? No stretch :plain:


and you seem to have the need to imagine yourself better than others as a result.
No (and listen) people who come to a board with folks who completely disagree with them are these kinds of people. That man is you.

Those must have been your glory days. Reminds me of the Springsteen song.
See, when you simply parrot back what I've already said? Yeah, NOT too bright. A LOT like a troll. You are NOWISE as intelligent. Sorry. Fact. Everybody sees it. You are fooling nobody. Look at all my reps for the post where I said it. They all agree.

Yes, I graduated with honors from one of the top engineering schools in the country nearly 40 years ago, but that was just the start of my success achieved through the blessings of God.
I realize your feelings are hurt, but I just doubt you ever had it. You certainly haven't kept it. Your education in the Bible is dismal.

It would be sad to have to look back at school as my greatest achievement. If that was my only source of pride, well, I might have to poor attitude you have. It does appear that you spent time and resources in institutions that did not give you the option of honestly reading the scriptures, and the decision to do so now would alienate you from your support group. I encourage you to embrace an honest approach instead.
"I know you are, but what am I?" I saw this in grade school and not since! I can't even believe you've responded this way, Cobra! It is CLEAR regression, "IF" you ever had it in the first place. I don't want to make fun of a guy with dementia, but you REALLY shouldn't be allowed on the internet if that is your problem. You are like a child in a gray old man's body :(
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Oh, GO, your scholars deny the text of the first creation story too:
The growing of the shrubs and sprouting of the herbs is different from the creation or first production of the vegetable kingdom, and relates to the growing and sprouting of the plants and germs which were called into existence by the creation, the natural development of the plants as it had steadily proceeded ever since the creation.
You are not able to comprehend what you read?
:rotfl:
They just said that the creation produced the vegetable kingdom but that the passage in Genesis 2 is about growing the shrubs and sprouting the herbs that were already created.

You should have kept reading, since the very next part explains the difference.
This was dependent upon rain and human culture; their creation was not. Moreover, the shrub and herb of the field do not embrace the whole of the vegetable productions of the earth. It is not a fact that the field is used in the second section in the same sense as the earth in the first.” שׂדה is not “the widespread plain of the earth, the broad expanse of land,” but a field of arable land, soil fit for cultivation, which forms only a part of the “earth” or “ground.”​
 

Lon

Well-known member
5) Lon, atheism is totally tenable. Why don't you believe that Mohammed isn't the messenger of God? Probably the same reason I don't. He isn't. If you don't believe that Allah is the one true God, you are an atheist. Totally tenable. My atheism is just a little bit more rigorous than yours.
:think: YOUR example has god existing in some form or another. Freudian slip? It isn't atheism. As I said, it is truly untenable. There is no logical way you can adhere to atheism. It is an illogical position and untenable. I look forward to discussing that with you. -Lon
 

Lon

Well-known member
You found one or two scholars who chose the path of trying to reconcile the two stories, who chose the easy way.

In fact, your post admits the bias. With this translation principle, he could not be honest:
Delitzsch opposed the idea "of fencing theology off with the letter of the Formula of Concord." In an introduction to commentary on Genesis published in 1887, he made it clear that the Bible, as the literature of a divine revelation, can not be permitted to be charged with a lack of veracity or to be robbed of its historic basis.


I presented five scholars who took the more difficult stance of recognizing the difference.

If you think you have the more compelling story, you are in a delusion.

By the way, notice how your source mentioned corn? Corn evolved in the Western Hemisphere. It did not exist in the Middle East. You deny both the scriptures and the evidence that God has given us in creation.

Keil & Delitzsch are source material IN Dallas Seminary! :doh:
 

2003cobra

New member
Lon writes:
No (and listen) people who come to a board with folks who completely disagree with them are these kinds of people. That man is you.

Yes, it does seem this forum is a place where a few people of like minds hang out and agree with each other, patting each other on the back for your willingness to ignore what the scriptures actually say and the evidence in creation.

Such a place certainly does need some differing opinions.
 

2003cobra

New member
Keil & Delitzsch are source material IN Dallas Seminary! :doh:

Great.

Any good seminary should review lots of opinions, right and wrong. The history is important.

And the NET Bible, which at least informally is a work of DTS, says Genesis 2 says man was formed “back before anything was growing.” You deny that.
 

2003cobra

New member
You are not able to comprehend what you read?
:rotfl:
They just said that the creation produced the vegetable kingdom but that the passage in Genesis 2 is about growing the shrubs and sprouting the herbs that were already created.

You should have kept reading, since the very next part explains the difference.
This was dependent upon rain and human culture; their creation was not. Moreover, the shrub and herb of the field do not embrace the whole of the vegetable productions of the earth. It is not a fact that the field is used in the second section in the same sense as the earth in the first.” שׂדה is not “the widespread plain of the earth, the broad expanse of land,” but a field of arable land, soil fit for cultivation, which forms only a part of the “earth” or “ground.”​

And the five Hebrew scholars writing the NET Bible notes disagree.

The plain reading of the text disagrees.

Furthermore, the second creation story says man was alone so God formed the animals.

In the second creation story, man was formed before the plants and the animals.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
And the five Hebrew scholars writing the NET Bible notes disagree.

The plain reading of the text disagrees.

Furthermore, the second creation story says man was alone so God formed the animals.

In the second creation story, man was formed before the plants and the animals.
oqm7l.jpg
 

2003cobra

New member
Nope.

Corn was created during the creation week roughly 6000 years ago.
Evolution denies the plain teaching of the Bible and is, therefore, false.
Since you have been back to post and provided no evidence for your earlier claim that none of the NET Bible translators recognized two creation stories, I take it you were simply posting an opinion for which you had no basis or proof.

As for the earth being only 6000 years old, that is a denial of the evidence that God has given us in creation.
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
Since you have been back to post and provided no evidence for your earlier claim that none of the NET Bible translators recognized two creation stories, I take it you were simply posting an opinion for which you had no basis or proof.

You're not very good at reading are you?
One of the hallmarks of a liberal bias is to try to get believers to do their work for them while they claim innocence.

As for the earth being only 6000 years old, that is a denial of the evidence that God has given us in creation.

God's Word trumps all evidence presented by man.
He is clear. All mankind is plunged into darkness because of sin and cannot comprehend the truth without believing Him.
 
Top