Genesis 1

pnelson419

21st June 2009 - 09:50 PM

MisterBelfry

22nd June 2009 - 12:33 AM

>>> | and | | the stars. <<<

I have always taken this as almost an after thought. I have been asked, do you believe a big bang happened? Yes, the Flood. Now a days, sideral time is not an after thought. The June issue of Acts & Facts has an article by Bill Cooper on the 360 day year with an equal of number days per month.

MrB.
http://www.icr.org/

buttershug

22nd June 2009 - 12:52 AM

Why is there not an even number of days per year?

And that site contains nonsense. I didn't read all of it so I can't say it's all nonsense but at least some of it is.

The First Cause page is pure drivel.

And whole site starts backwards, with a belief in God.

Evidence, then conclusion. Why is that so hard to understand?

pnelson419

22nd June 2009 - 03:44 AM

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning
בְּרֵאשִׁית

created
בָּרָא

God
אֱלֹהִים

the heavens
אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם

and
וְאֵת

the earth
הָאָרֶץ

Grumpy

22nd June 2009 - 09:38 AM

pnelson419

QUOTE

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning
בְּרֵאשִׁית

created
בָּרָא

God
אֱלֹהִים

the heavens
אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם

and
וְאֵת

the earth
הָאָרֶץ

Ah, you are confusing belief with knowledge.

"A creation myth or cosmogonic myth is a supernatural mytho-religious story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe (cosmogony),[1] often as a deliberate act by one or more deities.

Many creation myths share broadly similar themes. Common motifs include the fractionation of the things of the world from a primordial chaos; the separation of the mother and father gods; land emerging from an infinite and timeless ocean; or creation ex nihilo (English: out of nothing)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

I find this one very interesting...

"[edit] Sumerian
The Sumerian creation myth, the oldest known, was found on a fragmentary clay tablet known as the "Eridu Genesis", datable to ca. the 18th century BC. It also includes a flood myth.

Where the tablet picks up, the gods An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursanga create the Sumerians (the "black-headed people") and the animals. Then kings descend from the sky and the first cities are founded - Eridu, Bad-tibira, Larsa, Sippar, and Shuruppak.

After a missing section in the tablet, we learn that the gods have decided to send a flood to destroy humankind. Zi-ud-sura, the king and gudug priest, learns of this. (In the later Akkadian version, Ea, or Enki in Sumerian, the god of the waters, warns the hero (Atra-hasis in this case) and gives him instructions for the ark. This is missing in the Sumerian fragment, but a mention of Enki taking counsel with himself suggests that this is Enki's role in the Sumerian version as well.)

When the tablet resumes it is describing the flood. A terrible storm rocks the huge boat for seven days and seven nights, then Utu (the Sun god) appears and Zi-ud-sura creates an opening in the boat, prostrates himself, and sacrifices oxen and sheep.

After another break the text resumes, the flood is apparently over, the animals disembark and Zi-ud-sura prostrates himself before An (sky-god) and Enlil (chief of the gods), who give him eternal life and take him to dwell in Dilmun for "preserving the animals and the seed of mankind". The remainder of the poem is lost. (translation of the text)[16]"

18 centuries before Christ, yet we see the similarity to Christian myth.

Grumpy

MisterBelfry

22nd June 2009 - 10:53 AM

>>> Evidence, then conclusion. Why is that so hard to understand? <<<

Exactly, that is why a certain Book is used in courts of law to swear by. (I wonder if the Koran (which recognizes the Injil for one) is used in any part of the world.)

The nonsense of the article from the footnote that I read was not puting The Earth at the centre of the universe since the return of relativity{which in physics is actually looking for a constant}!

MrB.
The two articles before the "Antiquity" one was also relative good stuff. However, I would note that I am not conviced of any six thousand years for the total age of the Earth and Pnelson419's second post may be pointing that out; it is hard to tell.

We as a species are yet pretty dumb - especially when we count evolution as science. Its day(as gradualism) has passed as an educated guess to our origins{again as far as the root of physics goes - statistical mechanics - and in one universe that we can count}.

Grumpy

22nd June 2009 - 04:12 PM

MisterBelfry

QUOTE

Exactly, that is why a certain Book is used in courts of law to swear by.

Actually, no. That's just a tradition that is dying out. All courts in the US recognize affirmation as just as binding as swearing on any religious text. I have testified in several court cases and did not swear on a Bible once, the word of an Atheist(IE me) is just as good as any religionists who swears on a Bible.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Exactly, that is why a certain Book is used in courts of law to swear by.

Your ignorance of the majority religion in this world is astounding, Bats...

QUOTE

We as a species are yet pretty dumb - especially when we count evolution as science. Its day(as gradualism) has passed

...as is your ignorance of what science is and what it is not. The world's knowledge may have passed you by, but be sure, it isn't going to pass away in your lifetime, nor in a thousand generations if man is to survive. So hide your talent(your reasoning ability) under a bushell if you like, the rest of us have work to do.

Grumpy

buttershug

22nd June 2009 - 04:20 PM

QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 22 2009, 10:53 AM)

We as a species are yet pretty dumb - especially when we count evolution as science. Its day(as gradualism) has passed

So have the days of photographs taking hours to take.
Why even talk about gradualism? It's not like that is what Evolution says anymore.

Science is the search for accuracy.
Religion can only be right if it is completely right because it says it is the truth.

pnelson419

23rd June 2009 - 12:26 AM

Genesis 1:2

and the earth
וְהָאָרֶץ

was
הָיְתָה

without form
תֹהוּ

and empty
וָבֹהוּ

and darkness
וְחֹשֶׁךְ

on the surface of
עַל-פְּנֵי

the deep
תְהוֹם

and the Spirit of
וְרוּחַ

God
אֱלֹהִים

moving gently
מְרַחֶפֶת

on the surface of
עַל-פְּנֵי

the waters
הַמָּיִם

MisterBelfry

23rd June 2009 - 02:30 AM

>>> Why even talk about gradualism? <<<

The answer:

See if you can spot the stupid sentences of Peter Ward's in this week's New Scientist.

Grumpy speaks:
"the word of an Atheist(IE me) is just as good as any"

Well, my heads spinning...

QUOTE

The two articles before the "Antiquity" one was also relative good stuff. However, I would note that I am not conviced of any... total age

Fossil hunter to admit theft : Associated Press : Memphis ...Mar 19, 2009 ... In 2000, he famously discoved a mummified, 77-million-year-old duckbilled hadrosaur known as Leonardo, considered the best preserved in the ...
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/...to-admit-theft/ - 95k - Cached - Similar pages

FOXNews.com - Famed Fossil Hunter to Plead Guilty to Dinosaur
...Mar 19, 2009 ... He rose to fame in 2000 with his discovery of a mummified, 77-million-year-old duckbilled hadrosaur known as Leonardo, considered the ...
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509-827,00.html?sPage=fnc/scitech/evolution - 59k - Cached - DELETE Hyphen

The Edmond Sun - Famed Mont. fossil hunter to admit dinosaur crimes
Mar 19, 2009 ... He rose to fame in 2000 with his discovery of Leonardo — a mummified, 77-million-year-old duck-billed hadrosaur considered the world's best ...
http://www.edmondsun.com/dailyoddity/local..._078124028.html - 60k - Cached - Similar pages

The Calendar and the Antiquity of Genesis
by Bill Cooper, Ph.D., Th.D.
http://www.icr.org/articles/print/4630/

http://www.icr.org/articles/print/4629/ star stuff?

http://www.icr.org/articles/print/4628/
<------------'mummified' dinosaurs is all new{poor memory could be another explantion} to me... </end spinning head>
Hillary Mayell for National Geographic News<br></div>

October 11, 2002
He is also only the fourth dinosaur fossil in the world to be classified as a "mummy" because of the soft tissue that is preserved. ...
The mummified fossil was named Leonardo because graffiti near its burial site in northern Montana read "Leonard Webb and Geneva Jordan, 1917."

buttershug

23rd June 2009 - 11:12 AM

QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 23 2009, 02:30 AM)

>>> Why even talk about gradualism? <<<

The answer:

See if you can spot the stupid sentences of Peter Ward's in this week's New Scientist.

I didn't find the article but his wiki page talks about major extinctions. That doesnt' sound like a gradualist to me.

But in any case gradualism has been dead for 50 years.

MisterBelfry

23rd June 2009 - 11:51 AM

>>> That doesnt' sound like a gradualist to me. <<<

As far as I can tell he[P.W.] is talking about long ages for Genesis one - the creation week! He claims to know the cause of snowball Earth in one sentence and then contradict himself at the end of the article.

Stupid!

But can even a blog of poets notice:

"Nomadics
A place for tracings, translations, meanderings, explorations of a mainly writerly nature. Travelogue, too."

Google's cache of http://pierrejoris.com/blog/?p=1639
It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 20 June 2009.

No comments were made as of that snapshot.

MrB.

pnelson419

24th June 2009 - 11:29 PM

Genesis 1:3

Then said
וַיֹּאמֶר

God
אֱלֹהִים

Let be
יְהִי

light
אוֹר

and was
וַיְהִי

light
אוֹר

pnelson419

25th June 2009 - 12:05 AM

Genesis 1:4

And saw
וַיַּרְא

God
אֱלֹהִים

the light
אֶת-הָאוֹר

that (it was) good
כִּי-טוֹב

and separated
וַיַּבְדֵּל

God
אֱלֹהִים

between
בֵּין

the light
הָאוֹר

and between
וּבֵין

the darkness
הַחֹשֶׁךְ

pnelson419

25th June 2009 - 12:42 AM

Genesis 1:5

And called
וַיִּקְרָא

God
אֱלֹהִים

the light
לָאוֹר

day
יוֹם

and the darkness
וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ

He called
קָרָא

night
לָיְלָה

and was evening
וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב

and (it) was morning
וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר

day
יוֹם

one
אֶחָד

pnelson419

25th June 2009 - 01:05 AM

Genesis 1:6

And said
וַיֹּאמֶר

God
אֱלֹהִים

Let be
יְהִי

a space
רָקִיעַ

in the middle of
בְּתוֹךְ

the waters
הַמָּיִם

and let it (be)
וִיהִי

dividing
מַבְדִּיל

between
בֵּין

waters
מַיִם

(and) the waters
לָמָיִם

MisterBelfry

25th June 2009 - 09:28 AM

(Which is the typo, 1916 or 1917 and is "Dakota" the sixth\fifth\fourth etc. mummified D. found, classified etc.?)

QUOTE

--------'mummified' dinosaurs is all new{poor memory could be another explantion} to me... </end spinning head>

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

--------'mummified' dinosaurs is all new{poor memory could be another explantion} to me... </end spinning head>

A creationist wouldn't be so stunned.
MrB.
Perfectly preserved dinosaur stuns palaeontologists
19 October 2002 by Jeff Hecht {for New Scientist}
Magazine issue 2365
THE discovery of a dinosaur "mummy", complete with stomach contents, promises to be one of the most important dinosaur discoveries for years. The remains should reveal new details about the dinosaur's diet, as well as its muscles, movement and development.

The dinosaur, a young plant-eating hadrosaur (Brachylophosaurus canadensis) that walked on two legs, was preserved under a layer of wet sand, says Mark Thompson of the Phillips County Museum in Malta, Montana. After the creature died, around 77 million years ago, anaerobic bacteria slowly replaced the animal's tissues with carbonate rock leaving behind an accurate replica of the animal.

Hillary Mayell for National Geographic News<br></div>

October 11, 2002
He is also only the fourth dinosaur fossil in the world to be classified as a "mummy" because of the soft tissue that is preserved. ...
The mummified fossil was named Leonardo because graffiti near its burial site in northern Montana read "Leonard Webb and Geneva Jordan, 1917."

Animals
Dinosaur Spills His Guts
By Robin Lloyd, LiveScience Senior Editor

posted: 25 September 2008 09:43 am ET
...
The fossil, Brachylophosaurus canadensis aka "Leonardo," is the second well-substantiated case in which the gut contents of a plant-eating dinosaur have been revealed, said Justin S. Tweet, who was a graduate student at the University of Colorado at Boulder when he studied the fossil with colleagues there including paleontologist Karen Chin.

...
The tricky part with the analysis was building a case that the plant matter found inside the gut came from the dinosaur's last meal, not from material that penetrated the body or flowed into the area after death. ... At least 12 percent of the gut contents in the carcass included organic matter, such as leaves. The rest was clay and grit. Some of the inorganic stuff probably flowed into the body after death, Tweet said. Overall, the most exciting part of the research was working with material that could actually be gut contents, Tweet said.

"This is very rare for dinosaurs, where we usually have to settle for generalizations of feeding behavior based on skull anatomy," he told LiveScience. ...

The fossil was discovered in the summer of 2000 during an expedition to a cattle ranch about 15 miles north of Malta, Mont. Leonardo was named after graffiti found on a nearby rock that read: "Leonard Webb loves Geneva Jordan 1916." The Houston exhibition will also feature an icthyosaur[should be spelled ichthyosaur -MrB.] "mummy," which has contents of her intestines and four babies preserved inside her body, and the only mummified Triceratops skin ever found....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
67Mil BC
The remains of the hadrosaur, dubbed Dakota and dating to about this time, were found in 1999 by Tyler Lyson (17), on his uncle's ranch in North Dakota. The partially mummified hadrosaur may be the most complete dinosaur ever found, with intact skin that shows evidence of stripes and perhaps soft tissue.
http://timelinesdb.com/listevents.php?subj...&title=Dinosaur

MisterBelfry

25th June 2009 - 10:22 AM

>>> {poor memory could be another explantion} <<<

"Great stuff aside, I was shocked and disappointed to learn (late in the game) that the book was published without the results of the often alluded to - CT scans of the main body, which were delayed due to difficulties in scanning such a gigantic sample. It was a bit like reading a mystery only to find out, when you get to denouement, that the writer had decided to publish without revealing the most important part! The reader doesn't learn this until page 303, "We are still waiting for the final analysis of the CT data..." Fortunately, there is a bit of info on line at the National Geographic site. Even without the main-body scans, Grave Secrets is a great story for the everyman dinosaur fan. Also good: The Best Science and Nature Writing series, The Best American Science Writing series, and Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton."

I am almost postive that I have read this review before! The question is, was it because of Michael Crichton{and global warming} or research in the following...

Posted by: MisterBelfry October 14, 2008; 11:26 AM ------------>Showtopic= 3691
How about dinosaur tissue??

http://www.icr.org/article/4130

Back to Genesis | Dinosaur Soft Tissue: Biofilm or Blood Vessels?
by Brian Thomas, M.S.

"Not only should the unfossilized bone and its collagen have turned to dust long ago, but there should certainly be no vestige of blood vessels, or even bacterial slime still shaped like vessels. These tissues remain a pesky enigma..."

MrB.
_Grave Secrets of Dinosaurs: Soft Tissues and Hard Science_
By Phillip Manning
List Price: $28.00

MjolnirPants

25th June 2009 - 01:48 PM

An actual accurate translation of genesis 1:1-5...

בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ
1. In the summit("in the beginning" or "from the origin/peak/top/center") Elohiym(power) fattened(filled/created) the sky(air) and the land(ground)

וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם
2. And the land had existed in confusion(formlessness) and was unfilled(not made/unfinished) and darkness was upon the face of the deep sea and the wind(touch) of Elohiym was much fluttering(moving) upon the face of the waters

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר וַיְהִי-אוֹר
3. And Elohiym said "light exist(become visible)" and light existed(became visible).

וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאוֹר כִּי-טוֹב וַיַּבְדֵּל אֱלֹהִים בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ
4. And Elohiym saw the light given that it was functional(pleasing) and Elohiym made a separation(difference) between the light and the darkness

וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר יוֹם אֶחָד
5. And Elohiym called out to the light "day" and to the darkness he called out "night" and evening(chaos) existed and morning(order) existed one day(age).

The differences between pnelson's 'translation' and an actual translation continue from there. His 'translation' is more accurately an interpretation.

Hebrew is heavily context driven, as are most archaic and ancient languages. A simple translation into English can never hope to accurately reflect all the implications and possible meanings of a passage in Hebrew.

MisterBelfry

25th June 2009 - 09:57 PM

Re: MjolnirPants nonsense and i suppose a bit of mine(in a reply to photojack(although it is surprisingly on point in that the "lady" mentioned by Photojack is none other(?) than Mary Schweitzer, my search parameter))...

James 3:16
16 For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. (KJV)

QUOTE (meself+)

The question is, was it because of Michael Crichton{and global warming} or research in the following...

---------->
Showtopic= 20744 "Jurassic Park"
Posted by: MisterBelfry March 28 2008
QUOTE
Paleontology and genomics represent the OLD and the NEW realms of evolutionary biology NOT the opposites!

Not necessarily the opposite, I agree. The controversy in "teach the controversy" is not made up by anybody. It is there in the literature. You should, as an editor of sorts, be aware of this. Maybe it would help to be more precise. Chemical paleontology and genomic size and degradation represent the NEW realms of biology and its history. The OLD bones of history has led to controversy on the means that Charles Darwin made famous. The process *does not* necessarily match the pattern of biological evolution. Intelligent Design does not manufacture this conflict. It exploits it.

MrB.

Lev. 24:1-3 & Strong's #6153 from #6150 which looks like a consistent etymology(all three verses listed)
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure oil olive beaten for the light, to cause the lamps to burn continually.

3 Without the vail of the testimony, in the tabernacle of the congregation, shall Aaron order it from the evening unto the morning before the LORD continually: it shall be a statute for ever in your generations. (KJV)

Judges 19:9
9 And when the man rose up to depart, he, and his concubine, and his servant, his father in law, the damsel's father, said unto him, Behold, now the day draweth toward evening, I pray you tarry all night: behold, the day groweth to an end, lodge here, that thine heart may be merry; and to morrow get you early on your way, that thou mayest go home. (KJV)

1 Samuel 17:16
16 And the Philistine drew near morning and evening, and presented himself forty days. (KJV)

Isaiah 24:11
11 There is a crying for wine in the streets; all joy is darkened, the mirth of the land is gone. (KJV)

"Order" is Strong's number 6186.
More "order" and the two times Strong's number 7947 is used of the Old Testament:

Exodus 26:17
17 Two tenons shall there be in one board, set in order one against another: thus shalt thou make for all the boards of the tabernacle. (KJV)

Exodus 36:22
22 One board had two tenons, equally distant one from another: thus did he make for all the boards of the tabernacle. (KJV)

Strong's #4634 (the first of twenty times in eighteen verses)

Exodus 39:37
37 The pure candlestick, with the lamps thereof, even with the lamps to be set in order, and all the vessels thereof, and the oil for light, (KJV)

However, 4634 in 1Samuel 17:20 might seem to support the notion of chaos but I think you should read that the battle lines had not yet engaged from order to chaos! And in any event God is a lover not wishing to be a fighter as Paul speaketh.

6148
arab (aw-rab')
a primitve root; to braid, i.e. intermix; technically, to traffic (as if by barter); also or give to be security (as a kind of exchange)

The Brown-Driver-Briggs definition has "to exchange pledges," "to mortgage, to engage," etc.

1 Corinthians 14:33
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. (KJV)

Science is cursed and blessed to be the handmaiden of religion yet where women can outshine the men. In church{and I dare say any mosque}the glory is under her "hat", not her otherwise free to choose occupation.

RobDegraves

25th June 2009 - 10:44 PM

MisterBelfry

Again a long series of nigh incomprehensible religious babbling. Did you have a point?

If so, I sure can't tell what it is.. if you are taking drugs, you should stop. If you aren't.. maybe you should start.

pnelson419

26th June 2009 - 12:05 AM

Genesis 1:7

And made
וַיַּעַשׂ

God
אֱלֹהִים

the space
אֶת-הָרָקִיעַ

and He separated
וַיַּבְדֵּל

between
בֵּין

the waters
הַמַּיִם

which (were)
אֲשֶׁר

under
מִתַּחַת

the space
לָרָקִיעַ

and between
וּבֵין

the waters
הַמַּיִם

which (were)
אֲשֶׁר

above
מֵעַל

the space
לָרָקִיעַ

and it was so
וַיְהִי-כֵן

pnelson419

26th June 2009 - 12:18 AM

Genesis 1:8

And called
וַיִּקְרָא

God
אֱלֹהִים

the space
לָרָקִיעַ

heavens
שָׁמָיִם

And (it) was evening
וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב

and (it) was morning
וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר

day
יוֹם

second
שֵׁנִי

MjolnirPants

26th June 2009 - 12:39 AM

QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 25 2009, 04:57 PM)

Re: MjolnirPants nonsense and i suppose a bit of mine

More than a bit of yours, and less than a speck of mine....

Jesus, you'd think with an opening like that, you'd actually go on to say something coherent, but I guess that's asking too much from your psychotic self...

pnelson419

26th June 2009 - 01:42 AM

Genesis 1:9

And said
וַיֹּאמֶר

God
אֱלֹהִים

Let be collected
יִקָּווּ

the waters
הַמַּיִם

under
מִתַּחַת

the heavens
הַשָּׁמַיִם

to place
אֶל-מָקוֹם

one
אֶחָד

and let appear
וְתֵרָאֶה

the dry land
הַיַּבָּשָׁה

And so it was
וַיְהִי-כֵן

MjolnirPants

26th June 2009 - 02:49 AM

pnelson: Accuracy isn't important to you, is it? What the bible actually says is irrelevant to you, so long as you can interpret it to mean what you want it to, right?

pnelson419

26th June 2009 - 06:55 AM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 25 2009, 10:49 PM)

pnelson: Accuracy isn't important to you, is it? What the bible actually says is irrelevant to you, so long as you can interpret it to mean what you want it to, right?

I have no reason to believe this is not an accurate interpretation.

buttershug

26th June 2009 - 11:38 AM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 26 2009, 06:55 AM)

I have no reason to believe this is not an accurate interpretation.

Do you acknowledge that could be due to a lack of understanding of how the Hebrew language actually works?

Personally I don't know it in detail. The nuances and such.

And this is an example of the real divide. Some people need a reason to believe and some people need a reason not to believe.

So again it's certainty vs accuracy. With the most common accurate answer being "I don't know".

MisterBelfry

26th June 2009 - 12:04 PM

QUOTE (Buttershug+)

Personally I don't know it in detail. The nuances and such.

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)

Accuracy isn't important to you, is it?

That's the point, who here does? For those who need their hand held - this isn't the first thread that Pants has made a claim to accuracy with the definition of evening - morning. I didn't believe it when I first saw it, but I have responded here. I am still checking words that were translated "order" in the King James. Moments ago, I looked at 1 Kings 20:14.

Secondly, if you take the Bible as an instrument, one should use precision. Leave "accuracy" to the experts who can actually make a claim for a novel definition.

MrB.
It is generally understood that chaos is unpredictable because of the uncertainity in postion or momentum - where both can't be nailed at the same time.

buttershug

26th June 2009 - 12:21 PM

Mr. B think in terms of certainty vs accuracy.

You say leave accuracy to the experts, fine.

But in the meantime do you say "I don't know" or do you go with some semi-arbitrary answer?

MjolnirPants

26th June 2009 - 12:47 PM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 26 2009, 01:55 AM)

I have no reason to believe this is not an accurate interpretation.

http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb.htm
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761553...w_language.html
http://www.mechanical-translation.org/mtg_sample5.html
Well, now you do.

QUOTE (BatsintheBelfry+)

I never once claimed to be an expert. I merely look to experts when I have questions about technical or scholarly subjects, unlike people such as yourself, who look to common belief, tradition and the word of amateurs.

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 07:28 AM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 26 2009, 08:47 AM)

Well, now you do.

No, I still don't

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 07:49 AM

Genesis 1:10

And called
וַיִּקְרָא

God
אֱלֹהִים

the dry land
לַיַּבָּשָׁה

earth
אֶרֶץ

and the collection of
וּלְמִקְוֵה

the waters
הַמַּיִם

He called
קָרָא

oceans
יַמִּים

And saw
וַיַּרְא

God
אֱלֹהִים

good (it was)
כִּי-טוֹב

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 08:17 AM

Genesis 1:11

And said
וַיֹּאמֶר

God
אֱלֹהִים

Let sprout
תַּדְשֵׁא

the earth
הָאָרֶץ

tender sprouts
דֶּשֶׁא

(the) plant
עֵשֶׂב

seeding
מַזְרִיעַ

seed
זֶרַע

(and) of tree
עֵץ

fruit
פְּרִי

producing
עֹשֶׂה

fruit
פְּרִי

after its species
לְמִינוֹ

which
אֲשֶׁר

seed(is) in it
זַרְעוֹ-בוֹ

on the earth
עַל-הָאָרֶץ

And it was so
וַיְהִי-כֵן

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 08:52 AM

Genesis 1:12

And brought forth
וַתּוֹצֵא

the earth
הָאָרֶץ

tender sprouts
דֶּשֶׁא

(the) plant
עֵשֶׂב

seeding
מַזְרִיעַ

seed
זֶרַע

after its species
לְמִינֵהוּ

and tree
וְעֵץ

producing fruit
עֹשֶׂה-פְּרִי

which
אֲשֶׁר

seed(is) in it
זַרְעוֹ-בוֹ

after its species
לְמִינֵהוּ

And saw
וַיַּרְא

God
אֱלֹהִים

that(it was) good
כִּי-טוֹב

buttershug

27th June 2009 - 10:56 AM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 27 2009, 07:28 AM)

No, I still don't

And you still also don't have a reason to believe it's accuracy.

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 12:31 PM

QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 27 2009, 06:56 AM)

And you still also don't have a reason to believe it's accuracy.

And I would like to determine that for myself.

MisterBelfry

27th June 2009 - 12:46 PM

QUOTE

...who look to common belief, tradition and the word of amateurs.

Ahhh..., yes, all Bible readers should know that Genesis one is narrative.

"Elohiym [Powers]"
http://www.mechanical-translation.org/samp...mtg_sample5.gif
Copyright © 2005-2009
Jeff A. Benner Please feel free to use, copy or distribute any material on this site for non-profit educational purposes only.
http://www.mechanical-translation.org/files/0_title.jpg
"Bringing the Hebrew to you Through the English"

http://www.houseofdavid.ca/anc_heb_12.htm
http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrewtoc.htm
(a mirrored site??)

d. Various Short Poems: Genesis 2:23; Genesis 3:14-19; Genesis 4:6-7; Genesis 4:23-24; Genesis 8:22; Genesis 9:6; Genesis 9:25-27; Genesis 12:2-3; Genesis 14:19-20; Genesis 16:11-12; Genesis 24:60;

Genesis 25:23; Genesis 27:28-29; Genesis 27:39-40; Genesis 35:10-12; Genesis 48:15-16; Genesis 48:20; Exodus 32:18; Numbers 6:24-26; Numbers 10:35-36; Numbers 21:14,15,17-18; Numbers 21:27-30;

Joshua 10:12-13; Judges 9:8-15; Judges 14:14&18; Judges 15:16; Judges 16:23-24; 1 Samuel 15:22-23; 1 Samuel 18:7; 2 Samuel 3:33-34; 2 Samuel 20:1; 1 Kings 8:12-13; 1 Kings 12:16; 2 Kings 19:21-34.

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 12:52 PM

Genesis 1:13

And it was evening
וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב

and it was morning
וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר

day
יוֹם

third
שְׁלִישִׁי

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 01:14 PM

Genesis 1:14

And said
וַיֹּאמֶר

God
אֱלֹהִים

Let be
יְהִי

lights
מְאֹרֹת

in the space of
בִּרְקִיעַ

the heavens
הַשָּׁמַיִם

to divide
לְהַבְדִּיל

between
בֵּין

the day
הַיּוֹם

and between
וּבֵין

the night
הַלָּיְלָה

and let them be
וְהָיוּ

for signs
לְאֹתֹת

and for seasons
וּלְמוֹעֲדִים

and for days
וּלְיָמִים

and years
וְשָׁנִים

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 01:37 PM

Genesis 1:15

And let them be
וְהָיוּ

for lights
לִמְאוֹרֹת

in the space of
בִּרְקִיעַ

the heavens
הַשָּׁמַיִם

to give off light
לְהָאִיר

on the earth
עַל-הָאָרֶץ

And it was so
וַיְהִי-כֵן

MjolnirPants

27th June 2009 - 01:56 PM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 27 2009, 02:28 AM)

No, I still don't

Oh, you do. You just won't accept it.

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 02:00 PM

Genesis 1:16

And made
וַיַּעַשׂ

God
אֱלֹהִים

the two
אֶת-שְׁנֵי

lights
הַמְּאֹרֹת

great
הַגְּדֹלִים

The light
אֶת-הַמָּאוֹר

great
הַגָּדֹל

for the rule of
לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת

the day
הַיּוֹם

and the light
וְאֶת-הַמָּאוֹר

small
הַקָּטֹן

for the rule of
לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת

the night
הַלַּיְלָה

and
וְאֵת

the stars
הַכּוֹכָבִים

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 02:13 PM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 27 2009, 09:56 AM)

Oh, you do. You just won't accept it.

And for no less reason than you not accepting this one.

MjolnirPants

27th June 2009 - 02:22 PM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 27 2009, 09:13 AM)

And for no less reason than you not accepting this one.

I don't accept your 'translation' because it contradicts information supplied to be by a dictionary of Classical Hebrew, experts in the matter, an actual mechanical translation and because you provide no sources or references. Your 'translation' also makes many more assumptions about context and grammar than most translations tend to do, in my experience, and thus smacks of someone simply using a Hebrew-English translator along with Hebrew and English copies of the book to produce his or her own 'translation'.

You on the other hand, have shown no indication of why you refuse to accept the sourced and referenced translation that I have provided, especially considering that I also provided sources which helped verify it's accuracy.

So....

QUOTE

And for no less reason than you not accepting this one.

WRONG!!!

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 02:33 PM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 27 2009, 10:22 AM)

You on the other hand, have shown no indication of why you refuse to accept the sourced and referenced translation that I have provided, especially considering that I also provided sources which helped verify it's accuracy.

And you have shown nothing specific to indicate that this translation is not accurate.

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 02:45 PM

Genesis 1:17

And set
וַיִּתֵּן

them
אֹתָם

God
אֱלֹהִים

in the space of
בִּרְקִיעַ

the heavens
הַשָּׁמָיִם

to give off light
לְהָאִיר

on the earth
עַל-הָאָרֶץ

gmilam

27th June 2009 - 02:52 PM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 27 2009, 09:00 AM)

Except, of course, the moon isn't a light.

MjolnirPants

27th June 2009 - 03:02 PM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 27 2009, 09:33 AM)

And you have shown nothing specific to indicate that this translation is not accurate.

You're a very dishonest person, pnelson.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=418385

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=418460

Dishonesty is a sin, you know that, right? 'Whatever is in your heart...'

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 03:03 PM

Genesis 1:18

and to rule
וְלִמְשֹׁל

over the day
בַּיּוֹם

and over the night
וּבַלַּיְלָה

and to separate
וּלְהַבְדִּיל

between
בֵּין

the light
הָאוֹר

and between
וּבֵין

the darkness
הַחֹשֶׁךְ

And saw
וַיַּרְא

God
אֱלֹהִים

that (it was) good.
כִּי-טוֹב

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 03:53 PM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 27 2009, 11:02 AM)

You showed a different interpretation, not evidence that this one is wrong.

Saying that we can not know what the creation account in Genesis 1 says does not make it so.

This interpretation is commonly used in the Christian and Jewish versions of the account.

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 04:03 PM

QUOTE (gmilam+Jun 27 2009, 10:52 AM)

Except, of course, the moon isn't a light.

But it does give light to the Earth.

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 04:17 PM

Genesis 1:19

And was evening
וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב

and was morning
וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר

day
יוֹם

the fourth
רְבִיעִי

gmilam

27th June 2009 - 04:24 PM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 27 2009, 11:03 AM)

But it does give light to the Earth.

True, but the discussion is what Genesis really says. It says he created two lights. A great light for the day and a lesser light for the night. NOT a great light, and another surface to reflect that light.

Are we gonna take the Bible at it's word or not? In this case, it's literal word is wrong.

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 04:51 PM

Genesis 1:20

And said
וַיֹּאמֶר

God
אֱלֹהִים

Let swarm
יִשְׁרְצוּ

the waters
הַמַּיִם

living creatures
שֶׁרֶץ נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה

And birds
וְעוֹף

let fly
יְעוֹפֵף

over the earth
עַל-הָאָרֶץ

on the surface of
עַל-פְּנֵי

the space of
רְקִיעַ

the heavens
הַשָּׁמָיִם

MjolnirPants

27th June 2009 - 05:21 PM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 27 2009, 10:53 AM)

You showed a different interpretation, not evidence that this one is wrong.

No, I showed a translation, not an interpretation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/translation

QUOTE

1. the rendering of something into another language or into one's own from another language.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interpretation

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

1. the rendering of something into another language or into one's own from another language.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interpretation2. an explanation of the meaning of another's artistic or creative work; an elucidation: an interpretation of a poem.

Do you even understand the difference?

QUOTE

Saying that we can not know what the creation account in Genesis 1 says does not make it so.

You're twisting the meaning of what I said, another form of dishonesty. Did you not know about the ninth commandment? ("Thou shalt not bear false witness.")

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Saying that we can not know what the creation account in Genesis 1 says does not make it so.

You're twisting the meaning of what I said, another form of dishonesty. Did you not know about the ninth commandment? ("Thou shalt not bear false witness.")

This interpretation is commonly used in the Christian and Jewish versions of the account.

That is irrelevant. No-one is disputing the common acceptance of any particular interpretation. What I am disputing is your claim to be providing any definitive translation or interpretation.

QUOTE (gmilam+)

Are we gonna take the Bible at it's word or not? In this case, it's literal word is wrong.

That speaks to one of my exact points. If someone wants to believe in the creation account put forth in Genesis (which is almost certainly not a single, coherent body, despite batbrain's earlier claim. See Composition of Genesis for more info on that), that's fine. There's no reason not to. But you have to interpret it as allegory and metaphor in order to do so with any relationship to the truth.
Another point I'm trying to make is that the language and syntax used in Genesis lends itself very well to this sort of translation. Classical Hebrew has many words which mean exactly one thing and one thing only. There are words that mean "Morning" and "Evening" and "24 hour Day" with no interpretation required. There are words which mean nothing but "Beginning," "Created," "Light," "Day," "Night," and many of the other disputed words. But these words weren't used in the versions on the Dead Sea Scrolls, or in the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. All of the oldest manuscripts we have show that the book was written in a more poetic than prosaic form. So why would any rational person choose to interpret it in a literal light? The only possible answer is that it allows them to claim to hold some special knowledge which the rest of us lack, a common phenomenon.

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 06:26 PM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 27 2009, 01:21 PM)

No, I showed a translation, not an interpretation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/translation
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/interpretation
Do you even understand the difference?

I understand the difference

I am showing a translation

I have not tried to interpret anything

If you can call what I am showing an interpretation then what you have shown is also.

buttershug

27th June 2009 - 06:33 PM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 27 2009, 06:26 PM)

I understand the difference

I am showing a translation

I have not tried to interpret anything

If you can call what I am showing an interpretation then what you have shown is also.

At best you have transliterated it.

Translations require interpretation.
Maybe that's why translaters are also called interpreters.

And MP's point was that they are all interpretations.

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 06:51 PM

QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 27 2009, 02:33 PM)

At best you have transliterated it.

Translations require interpretation.
Maybe that's why translaters are also called interpreters.

And MP's point was that they are all interpretations.

The idea of translators also being called interpreters is what got me to using the terms interchangeably on this thread to begin with.

It seems MP is confusing the terms by saying he is showing a translation and I am showing an interpretation.

Actually I do understand MP's points but he would insist that I have to agree with them.

buttershug

27th June 2009 - 07:04 PM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 27 2009, 06:51 PM)

Now I"m not 100% sure what he meant.

but you can't just transliterate word for word.

Take salt for example. My doctor keeps telling me to cut down on it.
But as I understand it at one time it had conotaions of life.

And even if you do somehow get the correct meanings, it doesn't make it any more valid than the Illiad.

MjolnirPants

27th June 2009 - 07:20 PM

QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 27 2009, 01:33 PM)

At best you have transliterated it.

Translations require interpretation.
Maybe that's why translaters are also called interpreters.

I disagree with this part. A translation can be a mechanical one. Translators are generally called interpreters in the context of real-time translation, when they're expected to do things like account for idioms and slang words, in addition to simply transliterating the words, syntax and grammar.

My translation leaves in the original ambiguity, whereas pnelson's does not. He is providing an interpretation by viewing everything in context and arbitrarily choosing which meaning individual words and phrases convey, whereas the translation I provided does not do so. I suppose that makes mine closer to a transliteration, and I should have said as much before now, but I'm no linguist and so am bound to make a few mistakes.

QUOTE

And MP's point was that they are all interpretations.

This is exactly right.
The only way to objectively assign validity to any given interpretation would be to either communicate directly with the originators of the text (be it originally in the form of literature or spoken words) and ask them which interpretation is the closest to their original intent, or to do so by comparing the accuracy of differing interpretations.

The phrase "In the beginning" which is so familiar to us could be equally validly interpreted as "from the peak" or "from the center," based on the context in which it is used. But since it is the beginning of a creation account, it feels right to translate it as "in the beginning," even though there's no logical reason why it must be so, beyond avoiding the question "the peak/center of what?" That's just a single example, there are others in there.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

And MP's point was that they are all interpretations.

I am not confusing anything, except perhaps the terms "transliteration" and "translation". An interpretation provides overall meaning, whereas a transliteration or translation simply provides meaning to individual words or phrases. There is a difference. If you only speak and write English, you cannot translate or transliterate something written in English. You can interpret something written in English. What you are doing is taking a bunch of words which have multiple meanings, and arbitrarily choosing a meaning for each in order to convey a unified message. We don't know that the original intent of the originators was in line with the meaning expressed by your interpretation. We don't even know that the individual verses and passages are even meant to be read that way. They may be intended to be each taken as a whole in and of itself. They may have each come from a different originator, describing a different creation account. We don't know.

QUOTE

Actually I do understand MP's points but he would insist that I have to agree with them.

You have not demonstrated any understanding of my points so far. You have simply insisted upon your own claims without providing any evidence and mis-characterized my claims on multiple occasions in order to set up straw man arguments. You just recently posted the following, which demonstrates that you don't understand at least one of my points:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Actually I do understand MP's points but he would insist that I have to agree with them.

If you are not interpreting, then where is the original ambiguity of the words used? It is not reflected in any way in your interpretations.

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 07:27 PM

Genesis 1:21

And created
וַיִּבְרָא

God
אֱלֹהִים

the sea monsters
אֶת-הַתַּנִּינִם

great
הַגְּדֹלִים

and the
וְאֵת

all creatures
כָּל-נֶפֶשׁ

living
הַחַיָּה

that crawls
הָרֹמֶשֶׂת

(with) which
אֲשֶׁר

swarmed
שָׁרְצוּ

the waters
הַמַּיִם

after their species
לְמִינֵהֶם

and the
וְאֵת

every bird
כָּל-עוֹף

(with) wing
כָּנָף

after its species
לְמִינֵהוּ

And saw
וַיַּרְא

God
אֱלֹהִים

that (it was) good
כִּי-טוֹב

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 07:49 PM

Genesis 1:22

And blessed
וַיְבָרֶךְ

them
אֹתָם

God
אֱלֹהִים

saying
לֵאמֹר

Be fruitful
פְּרוּ

and be many
וּרְבוּ

and fill
וּמִלְאוּ

the waters
אֶת-הַמַּיִם

in the oceans
בַּיַּמִּים

And the birds
וְהָעוֹף

let multiply
יִרֶב

on the earth
בָּאָרֶץ

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 08:08 PM

Genesis 1:23

And was evening
וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב

and (it) was morning
וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר

day
יוֹם

fifth
חֲמִישִׁי

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 08:51 PM

Genesis 1:24

And said
וַיֹּאמֶר

God
אֱלֹהִים

Let bring forth
תּוֹצֵא

the earth
הָאָרֶץ

creatures
נֶפֶשׁ

living
חַיָּה

after its species
לְמִינָהּ

cattle
בְּהֵמָה

and crawlers
וָרֶמֶשׂ

and its animals
וְחַיְתוֹ

of the earth
אֶרֶץ

after its species
לְמִינָהּ

and it was
וַיְהִי

so
כֵן

ToeQuestor

27th June 2009 - 09:02 PM

While it's interesting to read or translate the Bible for reasons of learning how humans thought in those days, its accounts fail to match what has been found by science, for example, space not being a firmament and the Earth not being a center of anything, plus, in general, the revelations are not revealing at all, being that the predictions never came to pass, but for some written after the facts of the past.

Many have seized on Biblical 'truths' such as that slavery is permissible, and so forth.

The Bible is basically an amalgamation of the old Jewish Gods of legend.

Now that God has published the #! bestselling book, I heard a rumor that He may enter the modern media and come out with a movie.

MjolnirPants

27th June 2009 - 09:07 PM

QUOTE (ToeQuestor+Jun 27 2009, 04:02 PM)

Now that God has published the #! bestselling book, I heard a rumor that He may enter the modern media and come out with a movie.

I just got a mental image of a Michael Bay film with Vin Diesel playing Jesus "The Muscled Messiah" Christ.

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 09:20 PM

Genesis 1:25

And made
וַיַּעַשׂ

God
אֱלֹהִים

the
אֶת

animals of
חַיַּת

the earth
הָאָרֶץ

after its species
לְמִינָהּ

and the cattle
וְאֶת-הַבְּהֵמָה

after its species
לְמִינָהּ

and the
וְאֵת

all crawlers
כָּל-רֶמֶשׂ

of the ground
הָאֲדָמָה

after their species
לְמִינֵהוּ

and saw
וַיַּרְא

God
אֱלֹהִים

that (it was) good
כִּי-טוֹב

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 10:01 PM

Genesis 1:26

And said
וַיֹּאמֶר

God
אֱלֹהִים

Let us make
נַעֲשֶׂה

mankind
אָדָם

in Our image
בְּצַלְמֵנוּ

according to Our likeness
כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ

and let them rule
וְיִרְדּוּ

over fish of
בִדְגַת

the ocean
הַיָּם

and over birds of
וּבְעוֹף

the heavens
הַשָּׁמַיִם

and over the cattle
וּבַבְּהֵמָה

and over all
וּבְכָל

the earth
הָאָרֶץ

and over all
וּבְכָל

the crawlers
הָרֶמֶשׂ

crawling
הָרֹמֵשׂ

on
עַל

the earth
הָאָרֶץ

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 10:20 PM

Genesis 1:27

And created
וַיִּבְרָא

God
אֱלֹהִים

the mankind
אֶת-הָאָדָם

in His image
בְּצַלְמוֹ

In the image of
בְּצֶלֶם

God
אֱלֹהִים

He created
בָּרָא

him
אֹתוֹ

male
זָכָר

and female
וּנְקֵבָה

He created
בָּרָא

them
אֹתָם

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 10:46 PM

Genesis 1:28

And blessed
וַיְבָרֶךְ

them
אֹתָם

God
אֱלֹהִים

and said
וַיֹּאמֶר

to them
לָהֶם

God
אֱלֹהִים

Be fruitful
פְּרוּ

and multiply
וּרְבוּ

and fill
וּמִלְאוּ

the earth
אֶת-הָאָרֶץ

and it subdue
וְכִבְשֻׁהָ

And rule
וּרְדוּ

over fish of
בִּדְגַת

the ocean
הַיָּם

and over of birds
וּבְעוֹף

the heavens
הַשָּׁמַיִם

and over all
וּבְכָל

animals
חַיָּה

crawling on
הָרֹמֶשֶׂת

the earth
עַל-הָאָרֶץ

ToeQuestor

27th June 2009 - 10:53 PM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 27 2009, 09:07 PM)

I just got a mental image of a Michael Bay film with Vin Diesel playing Jesus "The Muscled Messiah" Christ.

We need someone to play God, or at least I guess God would reveal and fill the movie maker's head with the appropriate choice of an actor or just magically make the movie go onto film.

I waiting to see how the creation of all the immutable forms by God ties in with the fact of evolution evolving us from bacteria-like organisms.

Hope the movie is not fiction but an actual documentary.

Grumpy

27th June 2009 - 11:16 PM

ToeQuestor

QUOTE

Hope the movie is not fiction but an actual documentary.

It would have to be very, very long, with the almost 3 billion years of life not much more complex than a bacteria, 400 billion more befor the first animal steps onto land, and almost another 400 million before we get to our own ancestors.

Grumpy

pnelson419

27th June 2009 - 11:35 PM

Genesis 1:29

And said
וַיֹּאמֶר

God
אֱלֹהִים

behold
הִנֵּה

have given I
נָתַתִּי

to you
לָכֶם

every plant
אֶת-כָּל-עֵשֶׂב

seeding
זֹרֵעַ

seed
זֶרַע

which (is)
אֲשֶׁר

on
עַל

the surface of
פְּנֵי

all
כָל

the earth
הָאָרֶץ

and every tree
וְאֶת-כָּל-הָעֵץ

which
אֲשֶׁר

in it (is)
בּוֹ

fruit of (the) tree
פְרִי-עֵץ

seeding
זֹרֵעַ

seed
זָרַע

To you
לָכֶם

will it be
יִהְיֶה

for food
לְאָכְלָה

ToeQuestor

28th June 2009 - 12:09 AM

QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 27 2009, 11:16 PM)

Maybe God will run some parts of the movie in fast motion—as kind of the way DNA remembers and replays out in 9 months of gestation much of how evolution went along. Still, a 9 month movie will need a lot more trimming.

Why was the darn Guy so slooooow in making us?

gmilam

28th June 2009 - 12:10 AM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 27 2009, 12:21 PM)

So why would any rational person choose to interpret it in a literal light?

Well, the whole idea of sin coming into the world, thereby causing death and a need for salvation from sin and getting eternal life...

All that kind of falls apart without a "fall from grace".

Without a literal garden of Eden, there is no requirement for a blood sacrifice as ransom for our sins.

pnelson419

28th June 2009 - 12:12 AM

Genesis 1:30

and to every
וּלְכָל

animal of
חַיַּת

the earth
הָאָרֶץ

and to every
וּלְכָל

bird of
עוֹף

the heavens
הַשָּׁמַיִם

and to every
וּלְכֹל

crawler
רוֹמֵשׂ

on
עַל

the earth
הָאָרֶץ

which in it (is)
אֲשֶׁר-בּוֹ

a life
נֶפֶשׁ

living
חַיָּה

every green
אֶת-כָּל-יֶרֶק

plant
עֵשֶׂב

for food
לְאָכְלָה

and it was
וַיְהִי

so
כֵן

pnelson419

28th June 2009 - 12:48 AM

Genesis 1:31

and saw
וַיַּרְא

God
אֱלֹהִים

all that
אֶת-כָּל-אֲשֶׁר

He made
עָשָׂה

and found good
וְהִנֵּה-טוֹב

very
מְאֹד

And was evening
וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב

and (it) was morning
וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר

day
יוֹם

sixth
הַשִּׁשִּׁי

PuckSR

28th June 2009 - 02:25 AM

I haven't been following this at all, or this forum for the last few months...
But ***?

Do I need to explain to you again that direct substitution typically does not work for language translation?
nouns can frequently be interchanged, but verbs are particularly tricky

buttershug

28th June 2009 - 01:50 PM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 27 2009, 07:20 PM)

I disagree with this part. A translation can be a mechanical one.

True there are lots of low quality activities people can do.

To quote a box in front of me.

QUOTE

The crude use is the reason to damage.

MisterBelfry

28th June 2009 - 02:56 PM

I thought PuckSR and I agreed on something; that a translation is more art than science. That said, what the heck is 'an actual mechanical' interpretation\translation?

http://mthb.ancient-hebrew.org ---->
<TITLE>The Mechanical Translation of the Hebrew Bible</TITLE>
<meta http-equiv="REFRESH" content="5;url=http://www.mechanical-translation.org"> The answer seems to be one english word for one hebrew word(and it only takes five seconds to move to the new website).

Of more immediate interest, who actually came up with evening-morning means chaos-order? The ninth and eleventh websites since the start of this thread proved\said nothing of the sort.

I don't accept your 'translation' because it contradicts information supplied to be by a dictionary of Classical Hebrew, experts in the matter, an actual mechanical translation and because you provide no sources or references. Your 'translation' also makes many more assumptions about context and grammar than most translations tend to do, in my experience, and thus smacks of someone simply using a Hebrew-English translator along with Hebrew and English copies of the book to produce his or her own 'translation'.

You on the other hand, have shown no indication of why you refuse to accept the sourced and referenced translation that I have provided, especially considering that I also provided sources which helped verify it's accuracy.

So....

So?

I think Newguy would get a kick out of all this.

You people are clowns.

A group of very funny clowns.

MrB.

For those who haven't noticed yet, Jeff A. Benner's stunted translation has the Hebrew going the right way... that is you read it right to left(up then down). Pnelson419 has managed to get the Hebrew characters to go left to right along with the shift of vowel points. Clever, but I am not sure what good it does any of us.

"Because the meaning of a Hebrew word cannot be conveyed completely through one or two English words, each word found in the MT will be included in the dictionary located at the back of this book. This dictionary will more accurately define each word within the context of the Ancient Hebrew language and culture."
-- http://www.mechanical-translation.org/samp...mtg_sample3.gif

pnelson419

28th June 2009 - 04:16 PM

QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 28 2009, 10:56 AM)

Pnelson419 has managed to get the Hebrew characters to go left to right along with the shift of vowel points. Clever, but I am not sure what good it does any of us.

The Hebrew should read from right to left. At least it does on my browser.
The Hebrew text should align right but there wasn't anything I could do about that.

MjolnirPants

28th June 2009 - 10:58 PM

QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Jun 28 2009, 09:56 AM)

Of more immediate interest, who actually came up with evening-morning means chaos-order? The ninth and eleventh websites since the start of this thread proved\said nothing of the sort. each word found in the MT will be included in the dictionary located at the back of this book. This dictionary will more accurately define each word within the context of the Ancient Hebrew language and culture."

That would be whomever first coined the Hebrew words "erev" and "boker", along with whomever used them to write those verses for the first time.

ToeQuestor

28th June 2009 - 11:38 PM

Thanks …pants.

My interpretation of the Bible came out like this. Guess my on-line translating program will stay crummy until I actually pay for it.

THE NEW TESTICLE

In the beginning,
God bought some material at Home Depot
and thus created the Heavens and the Earth.
Eve then cost Adam an arm and a leg and rib.
Cain killed Abel to have sex with Eve or his sister(s)
since it was so hard to multiply while being fruitful.
Alleluia (I’ll lay you—ya!).

So, our ancestors descended from the trees.
Noah married Joan of Arc and took her
and all their pets on a world cruise.
God played an April Fool’s joke on Abraham,
who had often made burnt offerings when
popping the corn or overcooking the Lamb of God
Moses then tied his a s s to a tree
and soon wandered away.

The old Egyptians fleeced the electrolytes.
God made love on a hot one-night stand
to a teen-age virgin, and Jesus was born, died,
and was born-again on Easter (Let us Raise the Lord!),
but not before He had made water into wine,
encouraging alcoholism.

Mass was served by the altered boys and even odd girls.
Lent soon became fast-food only time and
so Fat Tuesday was invented.
Every Friday the priests had nun,
the beef coming between Sr. Wendy’s buns.

God be in my heart, my mind, and my end. It’s over.
Thank God!. Sleep be with you. A-choo.

pnelson419

29th June 2009 - 12:31 AM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 28 2009, 06:58 PM)

That would be whomever first coined the Hebrew words "erev" and "boker", along with whomever used them to write those verses for the first time.

I am wondering what would give those earlier readers of the text a reason to consider the end of each of these periods "chaos then order".

MjolnirPants

29th June 2009 - 03:12 AM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 28 2009, 07:31 PM)

I am wondering what would give those earlier readers of the text a reason to consider the end of each of these periods "chaos then order".

The deliberately ambiguous language would suggest to any reasonably intelligent person that an exploration of all the possible meanings might be useful.

Note the two-word qualifier. It's important.

pnelson419

29th June 2009 - 10:42 AM

Genesis 8:11
And the dove came in to him at eventide; and lo in her mouth an olive-leaf freshly plucked; so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.
וַתָּבֹא אֵלָיו הַיּוֹנָה לְעֵת עֶרֶב, וְהִנֵּה עֲלֵה-זַיִת טָרָף בְּפִיהָ; וַיֵּדַע נֹחַ, כִּי-קַלּוּ הַמַּיִם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ.

Genesis 19:1
And the two angels came to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom; and Lot saw them, and rose up to meet them; and he fell down on his face to the earth;
וַיָּבֹאוּ שְׁנֵי הַמַּלְאָכִים סְדֹמָה, בָּעֶרֶב, וְלוֹט, יֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר-סְדֹם; וַיַּרְא-לוֹט וַיָּקָם לִקְרָאתָם, וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אַפַּיִם אָרְצָה.

Genesis 24:11
And he made the camels to kneel down without the city by the well of water at the time of evening, the time that women go out to draw water.
וַיַּבְרֵךְ הַגְּמַלִּים מִחוּץ לָעִיר, אֶל-בְּאֵר הַמָּיִם, לְעֵת עֶרֶב, לְעֵת צֵאת הַשֹּׁאֲבֹת.

Genesis 24:63
And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide; and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and, behold, there were camels coming.
וַיֵּצֵא יִצְחָק לָשׂוּחַ בַּשָּׂדֶה, לִפְנוֹת עָרֶב; וַיִּשָּׂא עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא, וְהִנֵּה גְמַלִּים בָּאִים.

Genesis 19:27
And Abraham got up early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the LORD.
וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם, בַּבֹּקֶר: אֶל-הַמָּקוֹם--אֲשֶׁר-עָמַד שָׁם, אֶת-פְּנֵי יְהוָה.

Genesis 20:8
And Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told all these things in their ears; and the men were sore afraid.
וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אֲבִימֶלֶךְ בַּבֹּקֶר, וַיִּקְרָא לְכָל-עֲבָדָיו, וַיְדַבֵּר אֶת-כָּל-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, בְּאָזְנֵיהֶם; וַיִּירְאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים, מְאֹד.

Genesis 21:14
And Abraham arose up early in the morning, and took bread and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away; and she departed, and strayed in the wilderness of Beer-sheba.
וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם בַּבֹּקֶר וַיִּקַּח-לֶחֶם וְחֵמַת מַיִם וַיִּתֵּן אֶל-הָגָר שָׂם עַל-שִׁכְמָהּ, וְאֶת-הַיֶּלֶד--וַיְשַׁלְּחֶהָ; וַתֵּלֶךְ וַתֵּתַע, בְּמִדְבַּר בְּאֵר שָׁבַע.

MjolnirPants

29th June 2009 - 12:03 PM

Do you even understand what the word "ambiguous" means? If I tell you a word has two possible meanings, showing that it was used for one does nothing to invalidate the other.
Yeesh. Why are you so desperate to cling to biblical literalism? It's irrational and contrary to the very message put forth in the bible.

pnelson419

29th June 2009 - 12:23 PM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 29 2009, 08:03 AM)

I was giving examples of how earlier readers of the text may interpret these words. Is there any evidence of this "chaos-order"example?

MjolnirPants

29th June 2009 - 12:50 PM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 29 2009, 07:23 AM)

I was giving examples of how earlier readers of the text may interpret these words.

Double check your 'examples.' You've provided more than one word for "evening".

QUOTE

Is there any evidence of this "chaos-order"example?

I already gave one.
In fact, some of your own examples could be translated that way, too.

Again I ask, do you even know what the word "ambiguous" means?

pnelson419

29th June 2009 - 10:43 PM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 29 2009, 08:50 AM)

Double check your 'examples.' You've provided more than one word for "evening".

I already gave one.
In fact, some of your own examples could be translated that way, too.

Again I ask, do you even know what the word "ambiguous" means?

To you they are made deliberately ambiguous to make sure their stories were never shown to be wrong. Also when you say we can't be sure of which meaning of a word is used, you are in effect saying we cannot know what the text actually says.

pnelson419

30th June 2009 - 12:43 AM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 29 2009, 08:50 AM)

Double check your 'examples.' You've provided more than one word for "evening".

NIV

Genesis 8:11
When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth.

Genesis 19:1
The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.

Genesis 24:11
He had the camels kneel down near the well outside the town; it was toward evening, the time the women go out to draw water.

Genesis 24:63
He went out to the field one evening to meditate, and as he looked up, he saw camels approaching.

Is that better?

MjolnirPants

30th June 2009 - 01:14 AM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 29 2009, 05:43 PM)

To you they are made deliberately ambiguous to make sure their stories were never shown to be wrong.

That is the opinion I've expressed, yes. Congratulations on correctly repeating back one of my points for the first time.

QUOTE

Also when you say we can't be sure of which meaning of a word is used, you are in effect saying we cannot know what the text actually says.

Hey! Congrats on the second time, too.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Also when you say we can't be sure of which meaning of a word is used, you are in effect saying we cannot know what the text actually says.

Hey! Congrats on the second time, too.

NIV Genesis 8:11 When the dove returned to him in the evening, there in its beak was a freshly plucked olive leaf! Then Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth. Genesis 19:1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. Genesis 24:11 He had the camels kneel down near the well outside the town; it was toward evening, the time the women go out to draw water. Genesis 24:63 He went out to the field one evening to meditate, and as he looked up, he saw camels approaching.

עֶרֶב is not the same as בָּעֶרֶב. Whether it's a spelling error or a genuine use of different words, I cannot say, but I can certainly spot the difference between them. You should try to be more attentive when you do things like this.

pnelson419

30th June 2009 - 01:35 AM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 29 2009, 09:14 PM)

I think עֶרֶב e·rev would translate to "evening"

and בָּעֶרֶב ba·'e·rev would better translate to "in evening"

In these cases anyhow

MjolnirPants

30th June 2009 - 02:03 AM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 29 2009, 08:35 PM)

I think עֶרֶב e·rev would translate to "evening"

and בָּעֶרֶב ba·'e·rev would better translate to "in evening"

In these cases anyhow

That may be so, and then my advice to double check your examples would not damage your argument.
However, your argument is still a prime example of the is-ought problem. Simply because an ambiguous word is used in one sense in a work does not mean it was always used in that sense. I can write poetry about a a rose, then go on to compare my fiancee's beauty to the beauty of that rose, and that doesn't mean that my fiancee looks like an anthropomorphic rose. I can similarly write a prosaic essay on internet debating, including an incident which led to actual violence, and also describe some posts or instant messages or chat messages as violent without implying that someone managed to physically harm another person with words communicated over the internet.

In prose it is possible to vary the meaning of words and phrases, just as it is in poetry. Mythology (which the book of Genesis most certainly is, be it accurate or not)is well known to commonly slip between poetry and prose, and is a prime vehicle for allegory, metaphor and analogy.

pnelson419

30th June 2009 - 02:26 AM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 29 2009, 10:03 PM)

I had from the beginning stated that I had no issue with you or your opinion. It does seem though you get pretty defensive (or offensive I am not sure) when I do not agree with you.

C'est la vie

At least it gave me a reason to start this thread

MjolnirPants

30th June 2009 - 02:42 AM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 29 2009, 09:26 PM)

I had from the beginning stated that I had no issue with you or your opinion.

QUOTE

It does seem though you get pretty defensive (or offensive I am not sure) when I do not agree with you.

Here we go again with the is-ought problem... Simply because people often argue when they're upset doesn't mean that everyone who argues with you is upset.

I enjoy arguments, as evinced by my willingness to engage in them, and my frequent claims to be enjoying a particular argument (Whoah, whoduthunkit?

). Even when I call you a dumbass or another insulting descriptive, I'm still laughing (at you instead of with you, but still).

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

It does seem though you get pretty defensive (or offensive I am not sure) when I do not agree with you.

Here we go again with the is-ought problem... Simply because people often argue when they're upset doesn't mean that everyone who argues with you is upset.

I enjoy arguments, as evinced by my willingness to engage in them, and my frequent claims to be enjoying a particular argument (Whoah, whoduthunkit?

). Even when I call you a dumbass or another insulting descriptive, I'm still laughing (at you instead of with you, but still).

At least it gave me a reason to start this thread

So far all you've done is recruited an incomprehensible retard to come to your defense and made yourself look like an ignorant idiot in front of several intelligent people. If that was the reason you were looking for: Congrats yet again. You've succeeded spectacularly.

pnelson419

30th June 2009 - 02:53 AM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Jun 29 2009, 10:42 PM)

No, you didn't. You dismissed my argument (which is not an opinion, by the way). My opinion only extends to why the bible was written in often ambiguous language (so that it couldn't be proven wrong). The fact that it was written in ambiguous language is not an opinion, nor is the fact that it can thus be interpreted a number of ways.

Here we go again with the is-ought problem... Simply because people often argue when they're upset doesn't mean that everyone who argues with you is upset.

I enjoy arguments, as evinced by my willingness to engage in them, and my frequent claims to be enjoying a particular argument (Whoah, whoduthunkit?

). Even when I call you a dumbass or another insulting descriptive, I'm still laughing (at you instead of with you, but still).

So far all you've done is recruited an incomprehensible retard to come to your defense and made yourself look like an ignorant idiot in front of several intelligent people. If that was the reason you were looking for: Congrats yet again. You've succeeded spectacularly.

And I also ended up stating before I started this thread that your opinion didn't matter to me.

And it still doesn't

AlexG

30th June 2009 - 03:09 AM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 29 2009, 09:53 PM)

And I also ended up stating before I started this thread that your opinion didn't matter to me.

And it still doesn't

Religious fanatics usually don't care about the opinions or thoughts of others. They're too absorbed with their own beliefs.

MjolnirPants

30th June 2009 - 03:13 AM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Jun 29 2009, 09:53 PM)

And I also ended up stating before I started this thread that your opinion didn't matter to me.

Ahh, but my arguments and those facts I present obviously do. If they didn't, you'd not have argued with me.

QUOTE (AlexG+)

Religious fanatics usually don't care about the opinions or thoughts of others. They're too absorbed with their own beliefs.

Exactly. Isn't it warming to the cockles of your heart that people like pnelson here share that in common with members of Al-Qaida and other violent extremists? It really does me a world of good to know that in a few years, the seminal terrorist image might change from "Allahu Akbar! BOOM!" to "Praise th'lord! BOOM!"

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.