Agreed. Apologetics can still use arguments to correct misunderstandings, to refute arguments against belief in God, and to critique beliefs in God-substitutes.
2 Likes
Shawacka! There it is. And thus the shocking reality (synthesis) of an argument which disproves atheism, but does not prove theism.
Can you spell out how it disproves atheism? Itâs not obvious to me.
Iâll write you a private message so as not to derail the thread
No, Iâm looking at the meanings of terms, in this case how far they can be âstretchedâ. If you donât like it, thatâs not my problem.
BTW, nice article by Enns, though he skips over the root and thus the possible meaning of âexpanseâ. But he and I were doing two different things; he argues for the common use while I was asking, âHow far does this stretch?â
Look back at my prior comment:
Um, not quite â make that âIn the beginning God created the immaterial and the materialâ â that catches both the modern and the ancient concepts.
Ugh â âvibratingâ is a terrible word choice! My main Hebrew instructor went with âhovering (/meditating)â, and referenced the image of a mother bird, though given the wording, in this case the mother bird is also the wind.
Iâve found I can no longer think of the âhoveringâ in English without firm intention; the Hebrew is what always comes to mind.
Interesting â my main Hebrew instructor said âflutteringâ rather than âvibratingâ; he illustrated it with the fluttering hand gesture expressing âmore or lessâ.
1 Like
Chariots of the Gods comes to mind.
The writer of Genesis created God to explain the existence of the world and to give the Hebrew people an eternal and noncorporeal authority. The idea that the entire creation happened in six days with man being the only creature with usefulness for Godâs existence is glaring evidence that man created God. Then man had God create a woman so that he had someone to blame for all the ills that have come to a previously âperfectâ world. Does that sound like God creating man or man creating God?
1 Like
So you are taking the YECâs perspective.
âVibrateâ seems an anachonistic translation. Back in the ancient world, they would need words for shake, for shiver, but why would they need a word for vibrate? Did they have cell phones on mute or malls where you could plug in a shekel to sit in one of those massage chairs?
2 Likes
A catâs purr would involve vibration, as well as would other natural phenomena that could produce noise? (Not that it has any particular relevance to the question.)
You really think âChariots of the Godsâ and study of lexicons are the same thing?
That explains why so many of your comments seem like total non-sequiturs.
It sounds like you have no idea that Genesis is ancient literature and has to be read as such â the same error the YECists make.
1 Like
Is it the YEC perspective that man created God? My perspective is that Space accounts for time and gravity. Matter accounts for mass and energy. Time is a variable depending on the observer and God is the only observer of the creation process until man leaves the Garden. In the beginning God created space and matter.
No I think you are pushing words too far. In Chariots of the Gods, Van Daniken saw alien spaceships in Ezekielâs visions.
The British mathematician, Freeman Dyson, thought that a major failing of the American primary and secondary education system is the lack of courses on religion as a part of the required curriculum. He was a devout Catholic and felt that religion is as important to human development as reading, writing and arithmetic.
It is the YEC perspective to read an English translation of Genesis 1 and insist that the interpretation means the cosmos was created in six 24-hour days. You have been around here long enough based on your join date to know better, that most participants here do not believe that.
You seem to contradict yourself all over the place:
And how do you cope with the lack of vowels or punctuation?
Richard
The best part of learning Hebrew was when there were no vowels or punctuation! or even spaces between words . . . .
If you need vowels or punctuation, you donât really know Hebrew.
The ancient Hebrew vocabulary contained two different words to describe movement. One of them meant linear movement and the other one meant vibrating movement. The writer of Genesis used the word for vibrating movement. If that word was the only one available to also say âhoverâ or âflutterâ, than that would be a valid translation/interpretation. If there was a better word in the ancient Hebrew vocabulary to express a âpreferredâ interpretation, then that would be a flawed understanding. The basic syntax would have to remain unchanged. Interpretation without considering translation is just an exercise in personal preference.