>>As for the science, I am no scientist ... but I know quite few. The bottom line is that Genesis 1 has no conceivable value as information to anyone of a uniformitarian and materialistic (in the philosophical sense) bent.<<
I am not sure where you are going with this. If you are not a scientist (thanks for the honesty — you have no idea how many do not admit that my friend), the I don’t know how you are applying the Genesis accounts to the scientific findings.
>>So, consider such things significant if you will. I don’t. Been there, done that with such folk.<<
Again, I am unsure on your point. Are you saying you have discussed this before and thus are absolved from repeating these discussion?
>>Also, what you say about Genesis I versus Genesis II is just old higher critical boilerplate. The second is not simply “the same story” with changes. If you want to get into that, we can.<<
Only if you insist on the Bible being the “Literal Word of God” — the only point is that those who say so must, buy definition reconcile GEnesis I and ii
>?>I don’t know what you mean by “until the translations are made from the source languages, there can and will be cultural translation creep.” Sorry, say it another way. I don’t get it.<<
You got me — that was badly translated from the English in my brain to the English in the post (a first in FR history!)
I merely meant that every translation from another language from Language 1 to Language 2 will and must have cultural implications that Language 2 cannot understand in the absence of significant anthropological study of Culture 1).
I stand by my “yom” example — a colloquial assignment of “yom” to the English “day” does not automatically render “yom” to “day.” And as a linguist you know I am right.
>>Finally, the Bible is not a “specific scientific text” (I don’t know what you mean by “specific”). Of course it isn’t a scientific text. And, no, it isn’t about how we should relate to God and our fellow man, at least not primarily. It is about Christ, from beginning to end. Taken any other way, it cannot be understood rightly.<<
Now we merely diverge on philosophy. Of course the Bible (OT and NT) lead to Christ. There are billions of Jews who take it as Holy Writ that The Talmud is the only nook that matters. I am unsure how my interpretation of the Bible differs from yours. Is not Christ’s primary message that we should love each other? Is not His concurrent message we should love God above all else? Christ never asked us to love Him (of course we do, but if you know a passage where He directs us to do so you got me) — He directed us to love all our brothers and sisters and God above all.
>>Well, you do have me on the Spanish.<<
No problemos amigo!
freedumb2003 wrote:
“>>Also, what you say about Genesis I versus Genesis II is just old higher critical boilerplate. The second is not simply “the same story” with changes. If you want to get into that, we can.<<
Only if you insist on the Bible being the “Literal Word of God” — the only point is that those who say so must, buy definition reconcile GEnesis I and ii.”
OK, I insist on the Bible being the “Literal Word of God.” Does something special happen now that I’ve said that? If it isn’t that, then it is lying about itself. So, it either is what it says, or it isn’t. I would aver that it is.
As for the differences between Genesis I and II, by which I take you to mean Genesis 1:1-2:4a and Genesis 2:4b-5:1, I would say that each reflects a different document with which Moses was dealing as the divinely inspired editor/redactor. The first deals with the creation of all things. The second zeroes in on the creation of mankind, the crown of God’s creation. This is indicated by the title of each separate document given not at the beginning of each, as our culture demands, but at the end of each, as the culture then was in the habit of doing. This practice of titling the document at the end is probably indicative also of the medium and mode of the written material, that is, clay tablets and cuneiform writing.
The “title” in the parlance of Sumerology/Assyriology would be known as the “catch-line.” The catchline of 2:4a lacks an identified person, indicating most likely that the author is God Himself. The catchline of 5:1 identifies Adam, who is most likely the author of the preceding verses.
Again, one can dispute the truth of what Genesis I and II assert, but the plain meaning of the text is really not difficult to ascertain, even if you don’t know Hebrew. My point was simply that certain linguistic experts - and experts they are! - simply don’t accept the plain meaning of the words, and so resort to other explanations. Certain scientific experts - and experts they are as well! - simply do not accept what the plain meaning of the text would imply for the means, mode, and chronology of the creation (i.e. several thousands, perhaps ten of thousands of years versus several billion years).
When I say, “been there, done that,” with such people, I mean that I have been in on such discussions with such credentialed experts ... and more than once. I know their arguments. I choose, simply, to believe the plain meaning of the Genesis text.