More evidence of Noah's Flood?

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

 

 

But until then, I ask you to show me anywhere above or any place where he refutes me,

 

Connor if I listed them all, I would Crash the Worthy Servers.  Just pull up any thread were He and you had an interaction and.... there ya go.

 

I didn't  ask you to list them all; one will do.

 

 

I recommended before you take a stroll over to the Genesis 1 thread....have you?

I took a stroll on over there and didn't see much if any difference than the same Genre.

 

I demonstrated (i.e. showed) that Genesis 2:4 onward is chronologically incompatible with Genesis 1:1-2:3 and that the attempts to state otherwise were based on poor handling of the Hebrew text.  Perhaps even conscious mishandling.  It is easy to say to people "Well, I know it looks like 'y' in English, but in the Hebrew it is quite obviously 'x'" especially when banking on that no one else knows any Hebrew--it's called relying on the ignorance of others.  It is a major pet peeve of mine.

 

Now, if Genesis 1 and 2 are chronologically incompatible, which one do you suppose was intended by the author/AUTHOR to give the actual chronology, and which was not intended to be read thematically or topically?  The one that starts at 2:4 and goes all the way to the end of Genesis (in fact, all the way to 2 Kings/Chronicles)?  Or the one that clearly pauses (if not stops) at 2:3?

 

clb

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

=======================================================================

 

I demonstrated (i.e. showed) that Genesis 2:4 onward is chronologically incompatible with Genesis 1:1-2:

 

Connor, the other day I read through reams of posts with Shiloh and you discussing this exact issue!  Do you want me to copy and paste it here?

 

 

 

It is easy to say to people "Well, I know it looks like 'y' in English, but in the Hebrew it is quite obviously 'x'"

 

Can you please show me in Scripture where it is requirement to know the original languages of which it was penned TO UNDERSTAND IT???

 

Until then, we might as well talk about the weather.

[a-seeker]

I demonstrated (i.e. showed) that Genesis 2:4 onward is chronologically incompatible with Genesis 1:1-2:

 

Connor, the other day I read through reams of posts with Shiloh and you discussing this exact issue!  Do you want me to copy and paste it here?

 

 

 No, I will give you link where I do it.  I am not referring to numerous posts.  Just one.  One to which Shiloh has not yet responded.

 

 

Post #189

 

 

It is easy to say to people "Well, I know it looks like 'y' in English, but in the Hebrew it is quite obviously 'x'"

 

Can you please show me in Scripture where it is requirement to know the original languages of which it was penned TO UNDERSTAND IT???

Until then, we might as well talk about the weather.

 

 

 

You realize you just criticized Shiloh, right? He was the one making an enormous distinction between the Hebrew and the English.

 

But common sense will tell you that you should know the language of the work you are studying.  Yes you will be able to pick up certain themes—and I am certain these are sufficient for salvation.  But things get dangerous and ridiculous when enormous conclusions are based on a word or phrase in translation.

 

clb

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

======================================================================

 

 

You realize you just criticized Shiloh, right? He was the one making an enormous distinction between the Hebrew and the English.

 

Ever here the Phrase "Mountain out of a Mole Hill" or Quibbling (Fallacy).

 

His was a minor point concerning "vegetation" in English and Hebrew.  Compared to your overall discussion with him; it's Tantamount to Watching a leaf blow across the Road While An 18 WHEEL MACK TRUCK is swerving into your lane.

 

No, I will give you link where I do it.  I am not referring to numerous posts.  Just one.  One to which Shiloh has not yet responded.

 

I can't speak for him but my guess is.......He had his Fill and what was the point going any further.

[enoob57]

....and please stop being so dramatic.

Haha, like all posting in all caps, large font and multi-colored font? Ever notice how scientists don't jump up and down and shout and cry an plead when speaking while preachers do?

Your joy in the frailty of God's children are noted! Love, Steven

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

 

======================================================================

 

 

You realize you just criticized Shiloh, right? He was the one making an enormous distinction between the Hebrew and the English.

 

Ever here the Phrase "Mountain out of a Mole Hill" or Quibbling (Fallacy).

 

His was a minor point concerning "vegetation" in English and Hebrew.  Compared to your overall discussion with him; it's Tantamount to Watching a leaf blow across the Road While An 18 WHEEL MACK TRUCK is swerving into your lane.

 

No, I will give you link where I do it.  I am not referring to numerous posts.  Just one.  One to which Shiloh has not yet responded.

 

I can't speak for him but my guess is.......He had his Fill and what was the point going any further.

 

Then you do the job of refuting it.  No, it was not simply about plants--but he was completely wrong about that--he claimed that the term for plants in 2.5 was quite different from that in 1.11 and that is not true.  The fact is, the two stories are chronologically irreconcilable: all vegetation in the second account require water.  Animals in the second account are most certainly, without a doubt, created after man but before woman.  Grammar (in the original) drives exegesis.  God did not intend the two stories to be chronologically congruent.  And if that is the case, we have the task of figuring out which is meant to be read in chronological order and which not.

 

clb

[Enoch2021]

Then you do the job of refuting it.  No, it was not simply about plants--but he was completely wrong about that--he claimed that the term for plants in 2.5 was quite different from that in 1.11 and that is not true.  The fact is, the two stories are chronologically irreconcilable: all vegetation in the second account require water.  Animals in the second account are most certainly, without a doubt, created after man but before woman.  Grammar (in the original) drives exegesis.  God did not intend the two stories to be chronologically congruent.  And if that is the case, we have the task of figuring out which is meant to be read in chronological order and which not.

 

clb

 

 

====================================================

 

 

Then you do the job of refuting it.

 

Doesn't something have to be validated to then be refuted?  Or do I have to refute "Every Wind of Doctrine" posted on these boards.  If somebody is dead set on 2 + 2 = 83,  Am I required to drone on and on how and why it isn't when it's intuitive and painfully obvious? (Just like the "Faith" Topic).  In other words, GOD refuted it before the thought entered your mind by the simple reading of the passages.

 

 

No, it was not simply about plants

 

Yes, I know..... that was my point

 

 

but he was completely wrong about that--he claimed that the term for plants in 2.5 was quite different from that in 1.11 and that is not true.

 

Why, because you said so?   Any..........Support?

 

It's actually a Non-Issue with me anyway.

 

 

The fact is, the two stories are chronologically irreconcilable,  .....God did not intend the two stories to be chronologically congruent.

 

"Chronologically irreconcilable"  ?? 

 

Oh I see, that sets the stage for......

 

"And if that is the case, we have the task of figuring out which is meant to be read in chronological order and which not."

 

So you employ a Logical Fallacy (a Conjured One):  Affirming the Consequent (see below).  {There's also a Strawman: (Misunderstanding/Misapplication of Genesis 2) and a Non-Sequitur: (The need for the summary/description (Gen 2) of the antecedent (Gen 1/Day 6) to be somehow Chronologically Connected to and if---(in your mind) the antecedent is Chronological....to validate the Chronological Integrity of the Antecedent  )

 

If P the Q

Observe Q

Therefore P

 

God didn't intend the two stories to be Chronological; I Connor, Observe (Fallaciously) In-Congruent Chronology in Gen 2....; therefore, GOD didn't Intend Chronology. Then Invariably comes the Implied and Overt....(Which one is suppose to be Chronological or are both Non-Chronological??) <--------Muddy the Waters10^{000000000000000000000000}    

[a-seeker]

Then you do the job of refuting it.

 

Doesn't something have to be validated to then be refuted?  Or do I have to refute "Every Wind of Doctrine" posted on these boards.  If somebody is dead set on 2 + 2 = 83,  Am I required to drone on and on how and why it isn't when it's intuitive and painfully obvious? (Just like the "Faith" Topic).  In other words, GOD refuted it before the thought entered your mind by the simple reading of the passages.

 

 

If you didn't read my post, then just say so.  If you didn't understand it, then ask for clarification.  But don't pretend to have read it or understood it so that you can dismiss it.

 

 

 

No, it was not simply about plants

 

Yes, I know..... that was my point

 

 

You are not making sense.

 

 

 

but he was completely wrong about that--he claimed that the term for plants in 2.5 was quite different from that in 1.11 and that is not true.

 

Why, because you said so?   Any..........Support?

 

It's actually a Non-Issue with me anyway.

 

 

Because the Hebrew says so.  And it should be an issue.  The plain meaning of the text is that on day 3 we have plants without water; at 2.5 we see plants that require water.  The YEC response is that the two accounts are dealing with different types of plants, plants with seeds in them on day 3, then seedless plants at 2.5; they claim that the Hebrew points to that.  It doesn’t.  “Plants of the field” is generic.  And I did point this out in Genesis 1: obvious reading? 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact is, the two stories are chronologically irreconcilable,  .....God did not intend the two stories to be chronologically congruent.

 

"Chronologically irreconcilable"  ?? 

 

 

 

Day 6 has animals before man and woman.  The Hebrew of chapter 2 most certainly has them come between Adam and Eve.  The Hebrew is the language God chose to use when writing His word, right?

 

The first account has the clearest stopping point with God resting after finishing ALL his work---not more trees to be made.  The second clearly goes from 2.4 all the way to Genesis 50 and beyond.

 

The first account is clearly the most poetic (no, I am not saying it is poetry) and crafted topically.  Day 1 corresponding to day 3, 4 to 5, and 5 to 6.  This is a literary device.  As well as the first line of Genesis consisting of 7 words and the second of 14 (7x2).    We have 7 “and God saw it was good”, 10 “God said”, 10 “Let there be”, 10 “and it was so”.  This is not the kind of framing that an author does if he is conveying history.

 

Do the math Enoch.  It is claimed that all of Genesis is historical narrative.  In a historical narrative the historian cannot say something happened on Tuesday, then later, talk of it as happening on Monday.  Either he is confused, or something else is going on.  On day 6 we have God creating beasts, then creating man and woman.  After 2.5 we see God forming man, then forming beasts, then forming Eve.  It cannot be both ways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you employ a Logical Fallacy (a Conjured One):  Affirming the Consequent (see below).  {There's also a Strawman: (Misunderstanding/Misapplication of Genesis 2) and a Non-Sequitur: (The need for the summary/description (Gen 2) of the antecedent (Gen 1/Day 6) to be somehow Chronologically Connected to and if---(in your mind) the antecedent is Chronological....to validate the Chronological Integrity of the Antecedent    )

 

 

 

Is that emoticon you trying to figure out what you just said?

Edited March 23, 2014 by ConnorLiamBrown

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

================================================================================

 

 

So you employ a Logical Fallacy (a Conjured One):  Affirming the Consequent (see below).  {There's also a Strawman: (Misunderstanding/Misapplication of Genesis 2) and a Non-Sequitur: (The need for the summary/description (Gen 2) of the antecedent (Gen 1/Day 6) to be somehow Chronologically Connected to and if---(in your mind) the antecedent is Chronological....to validate the Chronological Integrity of the Antecedent

 

 

Is that emoticon you trying to figure out what you just said?

 

 

LOL, Yes....it takes some focus to put it together.  Read it 10 times and Pull out each individual thought then connect..... It's Spot On!!  And listen, I'm just evaluating your statements. 

 

 

 

And, you're having the same conversation here: 

 

Do you want me to go over the same ground over and over again?

 

"I don't pay for the same Real Estate Twice"

George S Patton  (I think)

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

 

 

================================================================================

 

 

So you employ a Logical Fallacy (a Conjured One):  Affirming the Consequent (see below).  {There's also a Strawman: (Misunderstanding/Misapplication of Genesis 2) and a Non-Sequitur: (The need for the summary/description (Gen 2) of the antecedent (Gen 1/Day 6) to be somehow Chronologically Connected to and if---(in your mind) the antecedent is Chronological....to validate the Chronological Integrity of the Antecedent

 

 

Is that emoticon you trying to figure out what you just said?

 

 

LOL, Yes....it takes some focus to put it together.  Read it 10 times and Pull out each individual thought then connect..... It's Spot On!!  And listen, I'm just evaluating your statements. 

 

 

 

And, you're having the same conversation here: 

 

Do you want me to go over the same ground over and over again?

 

"I don't pay for the same Real Estate Twice"

George S Patton  (I think)

 

It irks me when people dismiss others on Biblical matters by saying, "well, you don't know Hebrew, otherwise you would know I am right".  So on that same link I try very hard to bring people into the discussion who don't know Hebrew.  Go there.  Everything hinges on what words God chose when (your words) dictating His revelation to the authors.

 

clb