Originally posted by A Cup of Mystery

No--what I am saying is that in a language as widely studied, written about, and documented as Biblical Hebrew, it seems logical that there should be some form of documentation that the Genesis is an idiomatic usage.

There is almost no extra-biblical Hebrew prior to, oh, I don't know, but it is very late. So, what you see is what you get in much of the early manuscripts.

By way of example--if someone were to find oil on the Galapagos Islands, you know right away that this would be unusual, if not well-nigh impossible: the Galapagos chain is volcanic, there are no substantial sedimentary beds (and what little there is comes from erosion deposits)--the geology is of a type that is well documented not to have oil. Now, of course, if someone actually found oil on the islands, you wouldn't throw away all your geology texts .. but the Galapagos oil strike would definitely be "the exception that breaks the rules."

I wouldn't see my interpretation being quite as unlikely. BTW, oil was found on the slopes of a sea mount off Japan. It has been produced inside igneous intrusive rocks in Arizona and China.

By the same token, Biblical Hebrew is incredibly well documented: not just the Jews, but large portions of the Western World has studied Hebrew for a couple of millenia now.

Since there isn't much of it outside of the Bible, that doesn't say very much. this is what a person who knows Hebrew sent me about extra-biblical Hebrew:

"The earliest extant non-Biblical Hebrew texts that use Classical Hebrew date from about the twelfth century B.C., but we're talking about two clay sherds consisting of four lines of text...not much text. There was also some very useful extra-Biblical Hebrew in the Qumran documents, such as commentaries in Hebrew on the Old Testament Prophets. Some of the scrolls date to 250 B.C. while others are more recent. " Name protected to avoid having his reputation despoiled by being associated with me.

With that level of study, documentation, and intense scholarship, I find the use of "brass and iron" as an idiom for corruption in Genesis to be as astounding as you would view a claim to a large oil bed in the Galapagos.

So, tell me what exactly does it mean when Jer. 6:28 says 'They ARE brass and iron.' You are avoiding this question. Are you expecting us to beleive that these really were metallic beings? Come on!

Ok, I jus saw below:



[quoteNo, I quite agree that in Jeremiah it is an idiom ... but I find it much more likely that the idiom of "brass and iron" in Jeremiah stans for hard-hearts and stiff necks. (And I have the feeling that "your filthiness (brass) is poured out" in Ezekiel refers to a prostitute's fee, but that's still conjecture on my part--it'll take more research to confirm.)[/quote]

So, if it stands for hard hearts in Jeremiah, and God destroyed the preflood world because of their equivalent behavior, why the incredulousness about brass and iron being an idiom there as well? After all, Tubal-cain is filing someones head to a point if you read it literally.

Here we come to another problem--as I've said before, the translation of choresh can either be "artificer" or "cutting or edged tool." If you only pay attention to one of those translations and ignore the other, it's going to weaken your argument. No, Tubalcain was not sharpening people: it is quite possible that he was sharpening tools, but not very likely that he was sharpening tools of corruption.

That word only appears once in the Bible. The two dictionaries I have, Strong's and BDB define it as a person, an artificER a fabricatOR, a craftsMAN. What dictionary are you pulling that out of?

I will grant that some translations have used instrument but I suspect it is because they already decided the context and made the HEbrew fit. There is no way to compare uses of Choresh but, as I said, both dictionaries I consulted say it is a PERSON.

Absolutely they are not. The point I am trying to make is that, even if we both agree that "brass and iron" in Jeremiah is an idiom, that does not necessarily make "brass and iron" in Genesis an idiom at all, much less the same idiom.

But given CONTEXT. The earth was corrupt. The idiom is about corruption, Tubal-cain's was the last generation and therefore corrupt. The fact that out of the blue the next verse has lamech lamenting killing his offspring. All makes sense in one context if it is interpreted as I wish it, it makes no sense why Lamech wants to kill the blacksmith otherwise.

Um, Glenn, I omitted them because they were irrelevant.

They are not irrelevant. They show how metals are used as idioms.

Actually, it does--not by majority vote of the scholars, of course, but by majority usage of the speakers of that language. And that's the problem--not just the majority, but every Hebrew source I've looked at that discusses Tubalcain is talking about metalworking.

Of course, by that definition the majority vote by AAPG members in the 20s and 30s that continental drift didn't occur means that truth was determined that way? The majority of archaeologists refused to accept any evidence of Native americans here in the New world prior to Clovis. But they were all wrong and eventually it was proven. Scholarly majorities certainly need to be paid attention to, but they are not 100% correct all the time.

OK, but that brings us back to the basic question--if it's not the "best possible interpretation," why do you use it to argue that pre-Flood people did nto have metalworking? C'mon, Glenn--you think it means corruption, and I respect that. But then why do you declare that there was no ironworking before the flood, based on what you already know is a disputed translation?

Frankly, I had a motivation to re-look at the verse. This often happens in studies. Everyone goes along not seeing anything new because they have no motivation to re-look at the verse. I know that tents appear more than 400,000 years ago, so a Neolithic descendant of Adam can't have invented tents. I know that living off goats as a sheperd does was invented by Neanderthals and no Neolithic descendant of Adam could have invented it. I know musical instruments go back 100,000 years, so no neolithic descendant of Adam could have invented it. but iron work, doesn't go back that far.

Thus there was an inconsistency in the time of invention of those technologies. Thus, I wanted to understand the discrepancy I saw.
I saw in one of your previous notes that you think musical instruments only go back 10,000 years. YOu are way way way out of date on archaeology.

No--Choresh can be an artificer, or an edged tool. For you to insist that it can only be "a person" is to ignore what you know of Hebrew--and that's equivocation.

Dictionary please? I have posted already what Strong's and BDB says and neither say instrument or edged tool.

I would say "a very careful view of language." Hebrew has its own rules--just as Chinese does, and I'm sure by now you've heard the story of the man who used the wrong tone when he said "I'd like to ask you ...." (For the observers in our discussion, I'm given to understand that the Chinese word for "ask" is exactly like the Chinese word for "kiss," except in tone.)

Actually I hadn't heard that. I didn't have a chinese girlfriend (my wife wouldn't let me ) so I didn't learn words like that. But you are correct. ask is wen4 and kiss is wen2. Maybe that is why the chinese say I have a question (wo you yi ge wen ti) rather that I want to ask a question (wo yao yi ge wen).

Thanks for teaching me some chinese.

Glenn, if Choresh could ONLY be a person, then your translation would be much more likely. As it can be a person OR an edged instrument, that makes your translation much less feasable.

But NONE of the dictionaries I have consulted (and most Hebrew people I have spoken with like BDB better than STrongs) have it as an object. They both have it as a person.

My point is not that your translation is necessarily wrong (though I feel that it is)--my point is that everyone in my experience who has studied or written about this passage (except you) is quite sure that Tubalcain was working metal. It looks very much like metalworking didn't fit in your timeline, so you came up with a solution ... but the problem is, the solution does not fit.

You know, when one is generating an oil prospect and some fact comes along which contradicts the nice theory, one can either throw the towel in and not drill a well, or one can find an explanation. Both paths are full of risk. The guy who throws the towel in won't find oil. The guy who comes up with a solution might be wrong but he will drill the well. Only he has a chance to find oil. This kind of activity is done throughout science, so I would ask, so what, if I found a new solution? At least it is something NOVEL, which is so rare in these debates. Each side, all sides keep saying the same stuff over and over that apologetics looks mindless.

And if Tubalcain was working metal ... that either means that there was metallurgy some 5 million or so years ago, or it shoots your entire timeline.

Yes, there is that possiblity, but I find it less satisfying.

Originally posted by A Cup of Mystery

If your faith-based definition of "metaphysical birth" were as the Bible describes, then no one not a Christian would be capable of living a moral life at all.

Just off the top of my head, the Bible presents the non-Christian Gamaliel and the pre-Christian Cornelius as moral. The Gospel also presents Pilate's pagan wife in a favorable light. I'm sure there are other examples in the scriptures. In short, the Bible itself does not make the claim that all non-Christians are incapable of living a moral life.

I should also point out that Glenn's interpretation and translation of Genesis 4:22 is not necessary for Glenn's overall harmonization of Genesis and science (though I think Glenn's novel treatment of this verse is likely to be correct). It is entirely possible that Tubalcain received knowledge of metallurgy from a spiritual (whether holy or unholy) source. If that is the case, it is also entirely possible that this knowledge of metallurgy was confined to a handful of men, and that they didn't make a lot of use of it. There are a lot of possibilities. My point is that I do not see any contradictions between the passage (regardless of its translation) and the empirical facts.

Truth to tell, Genesis 9:20 puzzles me more than does Genesis 4:22.

Originally posted by Geoffrey

Just off the top of my head, the Bible presents the non-Christian Gamaliel and the pre-Christian Cornelius as moral. The Gospel also presents Pilate's pagan wife in a favorable light. I'm sure there are other examples in the scriptures. In short, the Bible itself does not make the claim that all non-Christians are incapable of living a moral life.

I should also point out that Glenn's interpretation and translation of Genesis 4:22 is not necessary for Glenn's overall harmonization of Genesis and science (though I think Glenn's novel treatment of this verse is likely to be correct). It is entirely possible that Tubalcain received knowledge of metallurgy from a spiritual (whether holy or unholy) source. If that is the case, it is also entirely possible that this knowledge of metallurgy was confined to a handful of men, and that they didn't make a lot of use of it. There are a lot of possibilities. My point is that I do not see any contradictions between the passage (regardless of its translation) and the empirical facts.

Truth to tell, Genesis 9:20 puzzles me more than does Genesis 4:22.

*shrug* Actually, that one's easy, either within Glenn's model or even within the YEC model. Noah started farming once he and his family resettled ... it's actually the most natural thing in the world to concieve of the family building some form of shelter and starting a garden. Within eithe rGlenn's model or the YEC model, one must assume that widespread flooding had done severe damage to existing plantlife, and though the Bible says nothing about Noah carrying seeds, it's certainly understandable that he might have.

Sorry, I didn't explain my perplexity over that verse. In Glenn's recent exegesis of Genesis 4, the pre-Flood peoples did not have knowledge of farming. Assuming that to be the case, what exactly was Noah doing in this verse? And if it was farming, how did he acquire this knowledge?

Originally posted by grmorton

There is almost no extra-biblical Hebrew prior to, oh, I don't know, but it is very late. So, what you see is what you get in much of the early manuscripts.

*shakes head* I'm not talking about manuscripts, early or late: heck, the earliest manuscript we have of any of the OT texts is the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'm talking about the corpus of Jewish literature--not all of which was even written in Hebrew. Peter Kirby has assembled a good collection of early Jewish writing at www.earlyjewishwritings.com.

I wouldn't see my interpretation being quite as unlikely.

BTW, oil was found on the slopes of a sea mount off Japan. It has been produced inside igneous intrusive rocks in Arizona and China.

Trust you to be able to shoot down a perfectly good example just because I pulled it out of my hat.

That word only appears once in the Bible. The two dictionaries I have, Strong's and BDB define it as a person, an artificER a fabricatOR, a craftsMAN. What dictionary are you pulling that out of?

The Hebrew Lexicon at BLB--see http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...3564-8941.html

Of course, by that definition the majority vote by AAPG members in the 20s and 30s that continental drift didn't occur means that truth was determined that way?

Excuse me, but that's a different field of science--not linguistics. Linguistincs is the study of how a language is used, and as part of that study linguists delve into majority usage, and also examine idiosyncratic usages. "Majority use" does not refer to a majority of scholars--it refers to the majority of users of that language.

Thus there was an inconsistency in the time of invention of those technologies. Thus, I wanted to understand the discrepancy I saw.
I saw in one of your previous notes that you think musical instruments only go back 10,000 years. YOu are way way way out of date on archaeology.

Hey, that's just the oldest example I can think of off the top of my head.

Actually I hadn't heard that. I didn't have a chinese girlfriend (my wife wouldn't let me ) so I didn't learn words like that. But you are correct. ask is wen4 and kiss is wen2. Maybe that is why the chinese say I have a question (wo you yi ge wen ti) rather that I want to ask a question (wo yao yi ge wen).

Thanks for teaching me some chinese.

I heard it from a Taiwanese friend of mine--but I didn't know if it was Mandarin or some other variant.

But NONE of the dictionaries I have consulted (and most Hebrew people I have spoken with like BDB better than STrongs) have it as an object. They both have it as a person.

*nods* And as a side point, I'll also advise you that Strongs Greek isn't all that great. Jaltus will be able to point you towards better tools.

You know, when one is generating an oil prospect and some fact comes along which contradicts the nice theory, one can either throw the towel in and not drill a well, or one can find an explanation. Both paths are full of risk. The guy who throws the towel in won't find oil. The guy who comes up with a solution might be wrong but he will drill the well. Only he has a chance to find oil. This kind of activity is done throughout science, so I would ask, so what, if I found a new solution?

*nods* That's why I'm still working with the idea. As a side note: I usually read this passage much more allegorically. You have Lamech (which can be translated either as "pauper" or as "servant of God"), who marries two wives, Adah ("Dawn"), and Zillah ("Darkness"). Dawn gave birth to Jabal ("Shepherd"), father of those who dwell in tents, and to Jubal ("Musician"), father of harpists and pipers. But Darkness gave birth to Tubalcain (either "Brought from Cain" or "Blacksmith"), father of those who work brass and iron, and his sister was Naamah ("Pleasure" or "Loveliness").

I can fit "Tubalcain, father of corruption" into this analogy of a child of Darkness--Naamah is much more difficult.

At least it is something NOVEL, which is so rare in these debates. Each side, all sides keep saying the same stuff over and over that apologetics looks mindless.

You hit THAT nail on the head!

Yes, there is that possiblity, but I find it less satisfying.

*nods* But "satisfying" is not a criteria for accuracy, I fear.

I'll keep working with it ... I'll tell you the truth, I find the translation of "Tubalcain, instructor in corruption" much less satisfying myself. It just doesn't "fit" with the "origination of the arts and sciences" scheme that seems to be going in the passage ... which would also mean that Lamech, whom you accuse of killing Tubalcain, may have killed someone else entirely (which has always been my understanding).

But again, this is a side argument in the much larger topic of whether or not this passage is intended as a history or as a parable.

Originally posted by Geoffrey

Sorry, I didn't explain my perplexity over that verse. In Glenn's recent exegesis of Genesis 4, the pre-Flood peoples did not have knowledge of farming. Assuming that to be the case, what exactly was Noah doing in this verse? And if it was farming, how did he acquire this knowledge?

Oh! Basic subsistence farming, in and of itself, is not that big a leap from hunting and gathering. Yes, it does require some planning ahead (that H&G does not), but if you know what you like, it's very simple to save some seeds from something you like and drop them in the ground. Wild grapes don't take complex cultivation (unlike their domestic descendants)--all Noah had to do was plant some grape seeds and the grapes would fend for themselves until they were ready to bear fruit, and then all Noah has to do is gather the fruit.

And that's the neat thing about grapes--you crush them in a vat of some sort, and they make wine all on their own. Have you ever seen grapes on the vine--how the surface of them looks kind of dusty? That's a coating of yeast that grows naturally on the grapes, and it's the yeast that converts the grape juice to wine.

Originally posted by A Cup of Mystery

What I said was that I don't have a definitive answer.

Well, that's only kind of accurate. I do have answers that I sincerely believe are definitive ... but I'm also well aware that those answers are subjective, and may be wrong. And if I am in error, I would prefer not to share my errors with other so that they can be in error as well.

sometimes sharing errors helps others avoid them. But it is your choice.

Hmm ... Glennn, I must ask this, but solely as a theoretical question: would an anhistoric Bible make God "impotent to tell me anything about reality," or would it simply mean you were listening to a less-than-optimum source.



Glenn, we know that God "wrote" life, the stars, the rocks--the whole universe around us. We know that there is great beauty (aye, and great horror) in our universe. If you were persuaded that the Bible was anhistoric, and could not be persuaded to read it as a theological text and disregard the historicity as irrelevant, then there is a whole "book" you've not mentioned.



Would it? Or would it be you that changed your "method" of knowing Him?

Glenn, if we take the theoretical supposition that the Bible is anhistoric, then from your point of view, you were wasting your time reading it. (I do NOT agree, but that's a subject for another time.) If you were to abandon the Bible as an unreliable source of knowledge for God, then the only thing is that you've changed is changing from a false source of information. That does not change God's "knowability"--it only means you've dropped a dead phone line, as it were.

Here is the problem with an anhistoric book. [b] How do you know it also isn't antheological?/b] Any book can be anhistoric and thus there is no way to prove its details. But how can you assure yourself that this thing has any theology worth listening to?

But I posit to you that even if the Bible is completely anhistorical, it is not useless for knowing God ... because what leads us to God is not the book we read, but God revealing Himself to us.

It is utterly useless if it tells us God is love when God is really a blood-thirsty war God who likes human sacrifice. The only way you can say what you do is by ASSUMING that you apriori know what God is.

Originally posted by grmorton

Here is the problem with an anhistoric book. [b] How do you know it also isn't antheological?/b] Any book can be anhistoric and thus there is no way to prove its details. But how can you assure yourself that this thing has any theology worth listening to?

*nods* That's where it gets subjective.

But by the same token, Glen ... how do you know that a particular interpretation or understanding of Scripture is correct? Well, many Christians will state that the Holy Spirit guides their understanding ... but this is also subjective, I fear. If interpretation of the Bible by the guidance of the Holy Spirit were not subjective, then all Christians would have the same doctrine, the same interpretation of troubling passages, and so on.

We are all, as human beings, limited by our individual understanding of the Universe around us--and it does not matter if we're discussing our understanding of math, music, or God, subjectivity in understanding is inescapable. Now, that doesn't mean that your understanding is going to be completely different than mine all the time, in all cases and all situations. But it does mean that there must be some mechanism interfering with comprehension--and it is doubtful that the "blocking mechanism" is sin (as the Christian model might state), because one would expect all Christians to be indwelt with the Holy Spirit, which is more powerful than sin (in the Christian model).

So there must be a "blocking mechanism" in place that the conjectured presence or absence of the Holy Spirit does not remove.

But I posit to you that even if the Bible is completely anhistorical, it is not useless for knowing God ... because what leads us to God is not the book we read, but God revealing Himself to us.

It is utterly useless if it tells us God is love when God is really a blood-thirsty war God who likes human sacrifice. The only way you can say what you do is by ASSUMING that you apriori know what God is.

Even with the "blocking mechanism" in place, human beings can come to a common understanding on many things. Unless you have some form of color blindness, you and I would agree that the bottom light on a traffic light is green, and the top one red. Your eyes and brain may or may not see them exactly as my eyes and brain do, but we can at least form a consensus on what these colors are.

That's because our senses and understanding, while not perfect, are fairly good--heck, they'd have to be, else we would not have survived as a sspecies. We are not capable of fully and completely understanding God ... but it is possible that we may get some insight. Unfortunately, while we can discuss the perception of trafficl lights all day and never leave the realm of science, discussing perceptions of God places us firmly out of reach of that discipline.

Originally posted by A Cup of Mystery

Eh, I would put the advent of tents and musical instruments as historically ... difficult at best. We have examples in China of musical instruments from ... I think it was like 10,000 years ago--bone flutes made (IIRC) from one of the leg-bones of a bird, tuned very close to our odern "major" scale. But was that the first? *shrug* No idea--it's just the earliest found. And tents? They are older than written history, and they just don't survive archaeologically.

You are so out of date on anthro. see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/music.htm

For tents and huts Try this:

Tents are found hundreds of thousands of years ago!


32,000 years ago:

Richard G. Klein, The Human Career, (Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1989), p. 315

"La Ferrassie contained a 5 x 3-m spread of limestone fragments possibly
marking the base of a tent built within the cave. Pech de l'Aze 1 preserved
a small part of a low dry-stone wall, and Combe-Grenal contained an apparent
posthole."

---

© source where applicable

from the 200,000 year old site of Lazaret Cave:

Brian Hayden "The Cultural Capacities of Neandertals
", Journal of Human Evolution 1993, 24:113?146, p. 132

"There are a number of candidates for Preneandertal walls constructed of
posts and perishable materials. The best known of these was part of a Riss
habitation structure at Lazaret Cave. Despite Villa's reservations,
artefact and charcoal distributions support the interpretation of a barrier
existing along the line of postholes at Lazaret, separating intensely used
areas from little used areas. Similar rock features surrounding voids have
been found at Lunel-Viel and Organac III where they were interpreted as pole
supports for walls."

---

© source where applicable

The wall was of perishable material--like animal hide. THis is a tent type
of structure.

300 miles south of the ARctic circle, at Diring Yuriakh there is an archaeological site dating to 300,000 years ago. While I know of no tents, I can't imagine them living there without something like that. (no it is not frozen all the time so igloos wouldn't work in the summer.) see Michael R. Waters, Steven L. Forman, and James M.
Pierson,"Diring Yuriakh: A Lower Paleolithic Site in Central
Siberia,", Science, 275(Feb. 28, 1997):1281-1283, p. 1283

from 400,000 years ago another tent with evidence for animal skins.

Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, (New York: E.
P. Dutton, 1981) p. 124

"The most interesting results of the excavation were the traces in the
sand of a series of eleven large, carefully constructed dwellings, each
built on roughly the same spot as the previous year's. They were oval in
shape and roughly measured 12 metres (40 feet) long by 6 metres (20 feet)
wide. They were constructed from walls of young branches supported in the
center by a row of sturdy posts. The people of Terra Amata placed large
stones around the base of the walls so as to add extra support against the
northwest wind.
"The importance of the discovery is not so much the construction itself
but the glimpses of activity within. A hearth was built near the centre of
each hut. A scatter of stone flakes indicated the work of a tool-maker, and
an area in the middle which was clear of flakes showed the place where he
squatted as he worked. One set of eleven flakes could be reassembled to
form the original pebble: clearly the tool-maker knapped some flakes and
then made little use of the products. The hut dwellers used animal skins for
comfort, probably both for sitting on and for sleeping on. A curious
depression in the sand could have been made by a long-vanished wooden bowl.
Most intriguing of all, though, are traces of worn ochre of the sort that
French historian Francois Bordes has suggested was used for body-painting.
"Remains of red deer, elephant, an extinct species of rhinoceros,
mountain goat and wild boar reveal the hut dwellers' taste for meat. many
of the animals brought to the camp were young, indicating that they were
hunted rather than scavenged. Shells of oysters, mussels and limpets show
that these people made some use of the resources of the sea. As usual,
there is little to suggest what plant foods were collected and eaten
although the groves of bushes and trees beyond the beach must surely have
provided many items of food.
"Henri de Lumley knows that the seaside camp was occupied during late
spring from an analysis of pollen contained in the occupants' fossilized
faeces. the faeces contained the pollen of broom which flowers only in late
spring. He also knows that each year the newly built camp was inhabited for
just a short wile: a longer occupation would have compacted the sand in the
area of the hut."

---

© source where applicable

From the 400 kyr Bilzingsleben site

D. Mania and U. Mania, "Latest
Finds of Skull Remains of Homo erectus from Bilzingsleben
(Thuringia)" Naturwissenschaften, 81(1994):123-127, p. 127

"At Bilzingsleben each hut opened to the south had a hearth in
front of the door See Figure 5

---

© source where applicable

And there is one controversial tent from nearly 2 million years ago.
Microwear analysis of Lower Paleolithic (>700,000 years ago) stone tools
were used to scrape animal hides sometimes. Derek Roe,"The Handaxe Makers,"
in Andrew Sherratt, editor, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archaeology, (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1980), p. 72

OK ... but what happens if you are asking for more scientific or historic accuracy than the Bible was intended to provide?

More later ... I'm headed to bed. It's almost midnight here and I'm starting to turn into a pumpkin.

Don't turn into a pumpkin. To answer your question, I will ask one. If one has three interpretations. One denies all science and thus makes the Bible look foolish. The second says the bible is anhistorical and thus not factual in any regard. and the third allows one to have a historical interpretation. The question I ask is:

Why on earth are we Christians silly enough to chose the ones which make the Bible look false?

Doing this is no different than an investor deciding that what he really wants to do is lose money so he picks failing companies to invest in! It is just a self-inflicted wound.

Your question above is really a logical fallacy, called the double question. It assumes previously that you know 'how much history the Bible was intended to give.' No one can say that the Bible was intended to give no science without either having spoken to the human author or God himself (depending upon the view of revelation). Your concept of how much history the Bible was intended to give is just made up in your head.

Now, the Bible may intend to give a true science and true history but only succeeds in giving us falsehoods. In that case, it is easy to say the Bible is false. But if it gives us a false theology, how would we know? You can't. And that is why some historicity is needed.


In another note, I had asked and you replied:

Quote:

That word only appears once in the Bible. The two dictionaries I have, Strong's and BDB define it as a person, an artificER a fabricatOR, a craftsMAN. What dictionary are you pulling that out of?


The Hebrew Lexicon at BLB--see http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_...53564-8941.html

The BlueLetter Bible lexicon is Thayer's from the late 1880s.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1162766760-8121.html#Thayers

Thayer's work was derived (translated, revised, and enlarged) in the 1880's from Grimm's Lexicon of 1868. The Blue Letter Bible staff is using the corrected edition of 1889.
. . .

According to Baker's modern copyright edition, Thayer was apparently NOT doctrinally sound in all areas,

---

© source where applicable

I have Thayer's Greek lexicon but not the Hebrew.

In another note you wrote:

But Glenn, there is a middle ground ... well, it's sort of a middle ground. If we take, for argument's sake, that the anhistorical portions of the Bible were not intended as "history," but as Myth, then historicity becomes irrelevant.

So, who gets to decide what is anhistorical? You?

But that word, "Myth," needs a very close and precise definition to be understandable. I do not mean "myth" in the same sense that most Christians do--when I say "The Bible as Myth," I'm not using the word to mean "fiction" or "false history." When we consider the tale of Narcissus, who was so vain he sat beside a pond to admire his reflection for so long that he was turned into a flower, the point of the tale is not that if you sit beside a pool to long you get turned into greenery. The point of the tale is a warning against vanity. In that sense, the historicity of the Narcissus myth is utterly unimportant.

Everyone who uses myth always claims that they are not meaning 'fiction', but then if asked if it is real you get another synonym for fiction---like 'anhistorical', 'poetry'. I am always confused when I am told Myth doesn't mean fiction, but then everyone says it isn't real.

Now, the Bible is a much more complex and interwoven text than the story of Narcissus--and has, correspondingly, more to tell us. But the point of the lessons that the Bible tell us also do not depend on the historicity of those tales. Was the earth created 6000 years ago? Was it created millions of years ago? It doesn't matter--what matters is that God created it, and sustains it to this day. Was there a literal apple (or whatever fruit) in the Garden of Eden? It doesn't matter--the tale of the Fall is not a warning against apples, but an explanation in mythic terms that all of us have evil in our nature, that we must work for a living.

Well, it does matter the age of the earth. One value is false, the other is true. So, truth doesn't matter any more than history (or lack there of)?

And there's also much of cultural significance in the Bible that may not be as applicable for today. We now know that women are not somehow "spiritually weaker," as our ancestors once thought, so the curse on Eve is much less spoken of today. We know now that a population of eight individuals is not enough for a viable breeding population, so while we remember the story of Hoah and his three sons, most people don't feel thatall humans we are actually descended from the survivor of a literal worldwide flood

So, we get to do a cafeteria style Bible? Great! Yippee. Lets get rid of those prohibitions on adultry fornication, gluttony, greed etc. They are soooooo outdated.

That's Paul's opinion, and while I disagree, I normally don't argue the point.

Is there anything which could make Christianity false in your view, or is it merely a grand philosophy which is incapable of disproof.

That's a faith-based truism on your part ... one that I cannot agree with, based on the evidence available. If your faith-based definition of "metaphysical birth" were as the Bible describes, then no one not a Christian would be capable of living a moral life at all.

*nods* That is a possibility. But my point is, your definition of "true and false" is ... well, not applicable in the context you are trying to use it in.

Perhaps anothe parallel--the tales of King Arthur. Now, again, they're not nearly as significant as the Bible, but you are I assume aware of the power and cultural significance of these tales. We know they're false ... but they have done much to shape not only Western culture as a whole, but also individual lives. Again, how much more power does the Bible have, whether or not the events described in it ever occurred?

How do you KNOW they are false? Upon what interpretation of the Scripture? I think you have a grand circularity in your logic--you assume what you believe. It is false,therefore it is false.

Glenn, I am so sorry, and will be praying for you and your wife.

Thanks, and I will be praying for you. Like you, I don't want to whinge about things. Might as well enjoy everything I can, while I can.

I could tell you my understanding, but I do not want to prejudice you in your own discovery. Yeah, I know, that probably sounds like a copout ... but it's not. In Wicca, this is called a Mystery: that's a bit of religious jargon for "Something you have to experience to understand." I am bound by certain vows to be very careful on how I discuss mysteries.

Originally posted by Geoffrey

Truth to tell, Genesis 9:20 puzzles me more than does Genesis 4:22.

People think there is a hard and fast line between hunting and gathering vs. farming. This isn't so. The archaeological record show that hunters managed the landscape to ensure there were plants they wanted. This evidence goes back 80+ thousand years.

James R. Shreeve, The Neandertal Enigma, (New York: William
Morrow and Co., 1995), p. 217-218

"The key change occurred at the beginning of the Middle Stone
Age, when people began to manage the environment instead. Rather
than take the surrrounding landscape as a given, they molded it
to fit their needs. The proof, he believes, is in the plants.
Increasingly through the MIddle Stone Age, the Klasies River
Mouth region would have been taken over by open savanna landscape
with few fruiting trees. The productivity of plants was
concentrated underground instead, in 'geophytic' buds and bulbs.
Left to their own devices, geophytes are a very slowly renewing
resources. In order to rely on them for sustenance, the
surrounding vegetation would have to be systematically burned off
to speed up new growth. This is exactly what African
pastoralists do on the savanna today, to encourage the growth of
new grass for their cattle.

"Obviously, such management requires the ability to make fire at
will. It also demands a perceptual leap: the sense that the
habitat, and with it the very future, can be designed. We know
that the Klasies people knew fire. We know they were depending
on geophytes to survive, especially during Howiesons Poort
times. 'Putting two and two together,' Deacon said, 'we get a
picture of people "farming" patches of starch-rich plant foods
with fire and supplementing this diet with meat from hunting and
scavenging and from collecting shellfish when at the coast.'" ~

---

© source where applicable

Thus, Noah planting some grapes doesn't automatically make him a farmer.

Steven Mithen, The Prehistory of the Mind, (New
York: Thames and Hudson, 1996), p.217-218

"The knowledge prehistoric hunter-gatherers possessed about
animals is readily apparent from the diversity of species we know
they hunted, to judge by the bones found at their settlements.
it is only quite recently, however, that archaeologists have been
able to document a similar level of exploitation of plant foods
by prehistoric hunter-gatherers. Consider, for instance, the
18,000-year-old sites in the Wadi Kubbaniya, which lies to the
west of the Nile Valley. The charred plant remains discovered
here indicate that a finely ground plant 'mush' had been used,
probably to wean infants. A diverse array of roots and tubers
had been exploited, possibly all the year round, from permanent
settlements. Similarly, at Tell Abu Hureyra in Syria, occupied
by hunter-gatherers between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, no fewer
than 150 species of edible plants have been identified, even
though roots, tubers and leafy plants were not preserved. At
both locations we see the technology for pounding and grinding
plant material--the same as that used by the first farmers. In
summary, these sites demonstrate that the origins of agriculture
10,000 years ago are not to be sought in a sudden breakthrough in
technology, or the crossing of a threshold in botanical
knowledge."

---

© source where applicable

And some equipment for processing grains goes back 75,000 years:

"Cereals and Other Starch Products," Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 1982, 3, p. 1157.

"Archaeological evidence indicates that early ancestors of
cultivated wheat existed in the very early Stone Age (EArly
Paleolithic): crude milling implements have been found dating
back 75,000 years. The earliest actual remains of grain date
from about 5,000 B. C., toward the close of the Neolithic
period."

---

© source where applicable

Even Neanderthals might have been harvesting things:

Anderson-Gerfaud describes a plant-harvesting tool associated with the Neanderthals.

Patricia Anderson-Gerfaud, "Aspects of Behaviour in the Middle
Palaeolithic: Functional Analysis of Stone Tools from Southwest France," in
Paul Mellars, The Emergence of Modern Humans, (Ithica: Cornell Univ. Press,
1990), pp. 389-418, p. 400

"However, we were able to identify at least one plant-harvesting tool from the Middle Palaeolithic--a convex scraper on a blade from a Wurm I level (Typical Mousterian) at Combe-Grenal, described earlier. This particular tool was significant in that it was clearly used with a curved, 'harvesting' motion, and edge damage on the edge opposite the one used suggests that it may have been used in a haft. We then examined the tool with the scanning electron microscope to search for any minute fragments of residue material which might clarify its use. A residue located near the working edge, in a slight depression in the tool surface was found by comparison with microscopic cellular fragments (e.g. siliceous phytoliths) we extracted and studied from living plants) to be from a grass, or possibly a sedge (Cyperaceae) or a rush (Juncus).”

---

© source where applicable

My bolding

Does this help?

Yes, Glenn, it does very much. Thank you for all that information! :)

This illustrates a difficulty with correctly interpreting the scriptures. From the days of Moses to today, we live in a world of agriculture. Hence, when we read about Noah planting a vineyard, we automatically assume the text is telling us that Noah was using the same tools, techniques, methodology, etc. as were the planters in the time of King David (for example). We then blithely assume that Noah must therefore be very late in human history, or that the story of Noah isn't historical.

Then, when someone such as Glenn comes along and shows how the verse can be understood in a temporal context of 5,500,000 B. C., it strikes us as odd. "How can that be?" our gut asks us. "After all, nobody has ever interpreted it that way before. Therefore this interpretation can't be right."

Alas for that line of thinking. We have to get away from trusting our feelings rather than examining the facts. We do not have to deny either the historicity of the scriptures or the evidence of our senses (which are ultimately at the root of all science). We can use ALL the facts (both biblical and scientific) together to help us understand individual facts better. This is a case in point. The scientific facts given by Glenn in the post directly above help us understand Genesis 9:20 better than anyone could have understood it before these scientific facts were discovered.

To all you compromisers: Do you REALLY believe that Jesus will recognize you as one of his own after you called his father a liar?? Repent now while you still have time!

Originally posted by BibleLiteralist

To all you compromisers: Do you REALLY believe that Jesus will recognize you as one of his own after you called his father a liar?? Repent now while you still have time!

BL, men wrote the Bible: God wrote the rocks, and the stars, and life. If you have issues with the thread, please remember to discuss your disagreements with the ideas, rather than insulting the people who hold those ideas. Thank you.

Originally posted by BibleLiteralist

To all you compromisers: Do you REALLY believe that Jesus will recognize you as one of his own after you called his father a liar?? Repent now while you still have time!

Poe's Law (from the wiki)

Poe's Law refers to an internet "law" that has been found on internet forums. Formulated by "Nathan Poe" from Christianforums.com, the law states:
"Without the use of a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to make a parody of Fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."
It is usually applied in debates about creationist claims, particularly young-Earth creationists.

Originally posted by BibleLiteralist

To all you compromisers: Do you REALLY believe that Jesus will recognize you as one of his own after you called his father a liar?? Repent now while you still have time!

Assuming we are wrong in our assessments (based on a great deal of prayer and research) He will treat us exactly the same as He treats you over the bits of scripture you have misunderstood, misapplied, taken literally when they shouldn't have been, or out and out ignored.


Jim