User Tag List

Page 7 of 13 FirstFirst ... 45678910 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 190

Thread: Hello, Fundies! :)

  1. #91
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    1,224
    Thanks
    107
    Thanked 194 Times in 155 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    5176
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    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?

  2. #92
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,595
    Thanks
    1,004
    Thanked 1,003 Times in 592 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    529344
    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.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to George Affleck For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (March 21st, 2018),glorydaz (March 20th, 2018)

  4. #93
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    23,649
    Thanks
    14,792
    Thanked 37,282 Times in 18,626 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    105 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147804
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    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.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    George Affleck (March 20th, 2018),Tambora (March 21st, 2018)

  6. #94
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,554
    Thanks
    2,585
    Thanked 4,586 Times in 2,731 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147726
    Quote Originally Posted by 2003cobra View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 2003cobra View Post
    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.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Lon For Your Post:

    Ask Mr. Religion (March 20th, 2018)

  8. #95
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    23,649
    Thanks
    14,792
    Thanked 37,282 Times in 18,626 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    105 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147804
    That Vulcan guy is obviously Cobra. Some tricks never get old, do they?

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    Ask Mr. Religion (March 20th, 2018),Tambora (March 21st, 2018)

  10. #96
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    1,224
    Thanks
    107
    Thanked 194 Times in 155 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    5176
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    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?

  11. #97
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    1,224
    Thanks
    107
    Thanked 194 Times in 155 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    5176
    Quote Originally Posted by Lon View Post
    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.
    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.

  12. #98
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    1,224
    Thanks
    107
    Thanked 194 Times in 155 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    5176
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    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.

  13. #99
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    9,247
    Thanks
    1,333
    Thanked 1,523 Times in 1,105 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    501712
    Quote Originally Posted by 2003cobra View Post
    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.




    Maybe you should email them and ask them why them missed those phrases.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to genuineoriginal For Your Post:

    George Affleck (March 21st, 2018),glorydaz (March 21st, 2018)

  15. #100
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,554
    Thanks
    2,585
    Thanked 4,586 Times in 2,731 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147726
    Quote Originally Posted by 2003cobra View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by 2003cobra View Post
    I encourage you to read the first chapters of Genesis in a translation you can understand.
    Like Hebrew or Greek? 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by 2003cobra View Post
    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. Who are you here for, Cobra? My guess? Yourself. Your pride. Your ego-strokes.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lon For Your Post:

    Ask Mr. Religion (March 21st, 2018),genuineoriginal (March 21st, 2018),patrick jane (March 21st, 2018)

  17. #101
    TOL Subscriber George Affleck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Markham, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,595
    Thanks
    1,004
    Thanked 1,003 Times in 592 Posts

    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    529344
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    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.




    Maybe you should email them and ask them why them missed those phrases.
    The embarassing thing is that what they said actually disproves his point!

    Shhh! Don't tell him.
    Religion is man's attempt to make himself acceptable to God. Christianity is God making man acceptable to Himself.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to George Affleck For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (March 21st, 2018)

  19. #102
    TOL Legend Lon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    9,554
    Thanks
    2,585
    Thanked 4,586 Times in 2,731 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147726
    Quote Originally Posted by 2003cobra View Post
    Spoiler
    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?
    Good enough. Look, 1) you are arguing in front of an atheist. He already said he isn't interested in your version. He already agrees with your version so you are just trolling this thread for an opportunity to hijack yet another thread for your uncontrollable urges. 2) The text doesn't really go into it. It could be the 'land of Eden.' The precedent is 'mist' not necessarily Adam and Eve. That too means you are interpreting 'figurative' off of a whim. 3) See that YOU are breaking thread rules:
    Quote Originally Posted by Vulcan Logician View Post
    There are fundies on every Christian forum, yes, but the population is dilute with those who accept evolution, the big bang etc., etc... I'm looking for "Six days is six days!" and "God stretched the light from Andromeda to Earth" hardcore, unapologetic fundamentalists with which to exchange dialogue.

    Vulcan
    Vulcan isn't INTERESTED in your opinion. He said so, so you are in a thread that doesn't belong to you and is NOT your business. He stipulated it wasn't your business, but you can't help yourself. These are your uncontrollable urges and tongue. James says you can't handle it, but you don't even look like you are trying

    Quote Originally Posted by 2003cobra View Post

    This tradition, often identified as J...
    An incredibly LIBERAL and incredibly detached from the Bible nonChristian theory. It was posited by liberal nonChristians and there you are spouting it off as if it is 'theology' gold.... There is no reason for you to be here, Cobra. It is all garbage, rubbish, and useless, counted for naught and worse. You just love to argue, and debate and have your concept of pride stroked. Anybody that reads this and knows about it, knows you are in bed with liberal nonChristian heathen. John 15:5 --> Without Him, you can't do anything. NOTHING.
    My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
    Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
    Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
    Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
    No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
    Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

    Is Calvinism okay? Yep

    Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

    1Co 13:11 ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

    Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lon For Your Post:

    Ask Mr. Religion (March 21st, 2018),genuineoriginal (March 21st, 2018),glorydaz (March 22nd, 2018),patrick jane (March 21st, 2018)

  21. #103
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    23,649
    Thanks
    14,792
    Thanked 37,282 Times in 18,626 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    105 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147804
    Quote Originally Posted by 2003cobra View Post
    Ha, you think I am everyone!

    First I am Sonnet, then Vulcan, who’s next?
    Well, you are both those. Quite the busy boy, aren't ya?

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    Tambora (March 21st, 2018)

  23. #104
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    1,224
    Thanks
    107
    Thanked 194 Times in 155 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    5176
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    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.




    Maybe you should email them and ask them why them missed those phrases.
    Apparently you did not read the translators notes.

  24. #105
    Over 1000 post club
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    1,224
    Thanks
    107
    Thanked 194 Times in 155 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    5176
    Quote Originally Posted by George Affleck View Post
    The embarassing thing is that what they said actually disproves his point!

    Shhh! Don't tell him.
    Strange.

    Apparently you did not read the translator notes either. The short version:

    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us