Reconciling 6 Days with 13.7 Billion Years

[Tristen]

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Once again, acnkowledged my error.  There is nothing more.  

The irony here is, though you say there is "nothing more", you spend the rest of the post, 1) continuing to argue your point, and 2) continuing to justify your Adhominem accusation against me.

 

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

You're free to your own conclusions, but the fact is that ha-ya-teh CAN be legitimately be translated as "became", and you haven't any evidence that demands it cannot be translated that way in Gen 1:2.  FACT.

See there?

You haven't let it go. You are still arguing the point - but at the same time, trying to pretend it's me who can't "move on". And even after telling me you'd be "ignoring" the topic moving forwards.

 

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

The OP is about "tohu wabohu" anyway.  And the FACT is that YEC's cannot reconcile their acceptance of the lame translation of "formless and void" in Gen 1:2 when in the only other 2 uses of the 2 words together describe desolation, waste, and chaos.

I don't care what "YEC's" can, or "cannot reconcile".

I have reconciled the translations several times - and you mocked, then ignored my arguments on the matter.

 

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

Therefore, I am simply holding you to account for your behavior in the conversation.

You already have, in case you're not aware of that.  And I acknowledged it.  There is nothing else to say about it.

Except that you continue to, 1) argue your point, and 2) make negative characterizations against me personally. 

That's not what "nothing else to say about it" means.

 

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

I entered the conversation to debate the hermeneutics you are using to interpret Genesis 1:2. That is my interest here.

Well, it's NOT mine.  The OP is the focus of this thread.

Well, I entered into the conversation to address comments you made concerning your interpretation methodology of Genesis 1:2. If those comments were irrelevant to the OP, that's on you.

 

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Usually mods get involved when the topic goes way off track, as you've done here

Lol. Pretty sure we both played a role in this conversation.

 

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

I engaged you on this thread to discuss the hermeneutical claims you were making about Genesis 1:2.

One more time with this issue.  I have PROVED that "became" is a legitimate translation of ha-ye-tah.  There are many times it is translated as "was" in the OT but I showed that the "was" could just as easily be translated as "became".

So then, when you say, "nothing more" and "nothing else to say", what you mean is that you are free to make an extraordinary, absolutist, uncontested declaration of victory over the debate.

Because, since you have arbitrarily decided that you are right, what more could there possibly be to discuss?

 

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

When someone CONTINUES to "beat the drums" on a subject that has been resolved, what ELSE can one describe that as.

I am pointing out an ACTION that you've been CONTINUTING to commit.  Which is no different than addressing your words.  So it isn't an ad hominem.  

An ad hominem is an unproven attack on one's character.

I believe you have demonstrated an obsession with something that HAS BEEN resolved.

Your definition of Adhominem is incorrect. Even if a personal accusation against a person is accurate, if the accusation is irrelevant to the topic being discussed, then the argument is Adhominem (and therefore technically irrational). 

Adhominem is purely about addressing the person rather than the argument. Whether or not the "attack on one's character" is proven or "unproven" has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the argument qualifies as Adhominem. 

The rationale of Adhominem: Even if the thing you claim about the person is true, that does not logically entail that what they have said is wrong.

 

6 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Since you aren't even interested in the OP of this thread, why continue?

You are free to stop responding to my comments at any time.

 

[FreeGrace]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

The irony here is, though you say there is "nothing more", you spend the rest of the post, 1) continuing to argue your point

Rather, responding to YOUR continuation of a non point.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

and 2) continuing to justify your Adhominem accusation against me.

I told you what it means to me;  attacking one's character.  And I haven't done that.

If someone doesn't brush their teeth and has bad breath, is it an ad hominem to tell them their breath stinks?  No.  It's an honest opinion.  Not an ad hominem.

When someone continues to focus on a non issue when the issue WAS resolved, that is my opinion that you are obsessed with something about that issue.  But, it's over.

Now, if you want to discuss the OP, let's go.  But you already admitted you weren't ever interested in the OP, but just to CONTINUE with your focus on the verb in Gen 1:2.

[Tristen]

On 8/20/2023 at 9:33 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 8/20/2023 at 5:35 PM, Tristen said:

The irony here is, though you say there is "nothing more", you spend the rest of the post, 1) continuing to argue your point

Rather, responding to YOUR continuation of a non point.

Sure - your are insisting that I should "let it go", even to the point of calling me "obsessed" for not "moving on" - but here you are, also not "moving on"; but continuing to debate the issue.

It lacks fair-mindedness - but I am also starting to get bored. Maybe if you hang-in long enough, you can bore me out of the conversation.

 

On 8/20/2023 at 9:33 PM, FreeGrace said:

On 8/20/2023 at 5:35 PM, Tristen said:

and 2) continuing to justify your Adhominem accusation against me.

I told you what it means to me;  attacking one's character.  And I haven't done that.

Adhominem fallacy is not open to subjective definitions. It is both well-understood and thoroughly, precisely defined.

Adhominem fallacy specifically refers to addressing the person, rather than the topic. It does not matter that you think your claim about the person is justified.

It is a breach of logic because the personal attribute being criticized is not relevant to provided arguments on the topic of discussion. As I've said several times, whether or not I am "sensitive" or "obsessed" is entirely irrelevant to the proper translation of Genesis 1:2.

 

On 8/20/2023 at 9:33 PM, FreeGrace said:

If someone doesn't brush their teeth and has bad breath, is it an ad hominem to tell them their breath stinks?  No.  It's an honest opinion.  Not an ad hominem.

The fallacy you employ here is called a False Analogy.

If you were discussing the proper interpretation of Genesis 1:2, and you responded with a claim that your opponent's "breath stinks", that would be undeniably Adhominem.

It bears no logical relevance to the debate whether or not your opponent's "breath" actually "stinks".

 

On 8/20/2023 at 9:33 PM, FreeGrace said:

When someone continues to focus on a non issue when the issue WAS resolved, that is my opinion that you are obsessed with something about that issue.  But, it's over.

Yep - still Adhominem. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe your claim to be true, or justified. If your comment is about the person, rather than the topic being discussed, it is Adhominem.

 

On 8/20/2023 at 9:33 PM, FreeGrace said:

Now, if you want to discuss the OP, let's go.  But you already admitted you weren't ever interested in the OP, but just to CONTINUE with your focus on the verb in Gen 1:2.

I think this is dishonest.

I just wanted clarification that you were walking away from a particular argument. Instead of being honest and clear, you decided on a strategy of inconsistency, ambiguity, gaslighting and fallacy.

So now, all I'm doing is holding you to account for being disingenuous in your responses on this matter.

 

[FreeGrace]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Sure - your are insisting that I should "let it go", even to the point of calling me "obsessed" for not "moving on" - but here you are, also not "moving on"; but continuing to debate the issue.

Seems rather clear to me that all I've said about our "discussion" rings true, even though you disagree.  

If you don't want to address the real issue of what "tohu wabohu" means in Gen 1:2, that is your freedom.  But that is the main issue of Gen 1:2 anyhow, much more important than the verb.

As to "ad hominem", I didn't see any evidence that refutes my understanding of the term.  

So I guess there's nothing else to discuss.

[JimmyB]

On 8/20/2023 at 1:35 AM, Tristen said:

The irony here is, though you say there is "nothing more", you spend the rest of the post, 1) continuing to argue your point, and 2) continuing to justify your Adhominem accusation against me.

 

See there?

You haven't let it go. You are still arguing the point - but at the same time, trying to pretend it's me who can't "move on". And even after telling me you'd be "ignoring" the topic moving forwards.

 

I don't care what "YEC's" can, or "cannot reconcile".

I have reconciled the translations several times - and you mocked, then ignored my arguments on the matter.

 

Except that you continue to, 1) argue your point, and 2) make negative characterizations against me personally. 

That's not what "nothing else to say about it" means.

 

Well, I entered into the conversation to address comments you made concerning your interpretation methodology of Genesis 1:2. If those comments were irrelevant to the OP, that's on you.

 

Lol. Pretty sure we both played a role in this conversation.

 

So then, when you say, "nothing more" and "nothing else to say", what you mean is that you are free to make an extraordinary, absolutist, uncontested declaration of victory over the debate.

Because, since you have arbitrarily decided that you are right, what more could there possibly be to discuss?

 

Your definition of Adhominem is incorrect. Even if a personal accusation against a person is accurate, if the accusation is irrelevant to the topic being discussed, then the argument is Adhominem (and therefore technically irrational). 

Adhominem is purely about addressing the person rather than the argument. Whether or not the "attack on one's character" is proven or "unproven" has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the argument qualifies as Adhominem. 

The rationale of Adhominem: Even if the thing you claim about the person is true, that does not logically entail that what they have said is wrong.

 

You are free to stop responding to my comments at any time.

 

I put FreeGrace on "ignore" long ago, as he is obsessed with one single word(!) that "proves" his personal doctrine.  There is no point discussing the issue with him as he will never admit that he is mistaken.

[Tristen]

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

Seems rather clear to me that all I've said about our "discussion" rings true, even though you disagree.

This is somewhat Circular statement. Everyone thinks that what they believe is correct - otherwise they wouldn't believe it. That doesn't give it any weight beyond the individual.

 

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

If you don't want to address the real issue of what "tohu wabohu" means in Gen 1:2, that is your freedom

Well - I don't want to "address" this "issue" again until I can be confident of your ability to firstly at-least recognize the provided argument, and then give my provided argument fair, rational, reasonable consideration. 

 

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

But that is the main issue of Gen 1:2 anyhow, much more important than the verb

Once upon a time in our conversation, both were relevant. In fact, earlier in our conversation, I was supposedly being "ridiculous" and "unreasonable" for not "seeing" your position on "the verb" - right up to the point where you realized you had misunderstood the nature of your evidence. Before that point, our discussion about "the verb" took a much higher priority (i.e. back when you thought you had a stronger argument).

Nevertheless, I have addressed both issues in this thread.

 

20 hours ago, FreeGrace said:

As to "ad hominem", I didn't see any evidence that refutes my understanding of the term.  

So I guess there's nothing else to discuss.

Well - I can't speak to what you 'saw'. I can only speak to the evidence I provided. I provided several dictionary definitions of Adhominem. I also provided an explanation as to why Adhominem represents a breach of the rules of logic.

If your brain filters out my arguments so that you don't "see" them, then I think you are correct about our capacity to "discuss" those issues.

 

[Tristen]

16 hours ago, JimmyB said:

I put FreeGrace on "ignore" long ago, as he is obsessed with one single word(!) that "proves" his personal doctrine.  There is no point discussing the issue with him as he will never admit that he is mistaken.

Sometimes the topic is less important than the manner in which the topic is being argued. How can someone learn to argue rationally if no-one ever holds them to account for arguing improperly.

 

[FreeGrace]

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

Sometimes the topic is less important than the manner in which the topic is being argued. How can someone learn to argue rationally if no-one ever holds them to account for arguing improperly.

Substance is ALWAYS more important than technique.  But you are rather focused on what has ALREADY been dealt with.

Since you don't want to discuss substance, thanks for the info on the verb.

[DeighAnn]

5 hours ago, Tristen said:

Sometimes the topic is less important than the manner in which the topic is being argued. How can someone learn to argue rationally if no-one ever holds them to account for arguing improperly.

 

Thank you

[DeighAnn]

22 hours ago, JimmyB said:

I put FreeGrace on "ignore" long ago, as he is obsessed with one single word(!) that "proves" his personal doctrine.  There is no point discussing the issue with him as he will never admit that he is mistaken.

Had to do that myself.