Pope: There Is No Hell

#826
#826
Orange_Crush said:
Sounds like the bully got his feeling hurt.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I just realized that you are not interested in either the meaning of the word or how it was repeatedly used by the Hebrew authors of these texts.

I find your position to be well beyond ridicule.

You've basically asserted:

I'm committed to this word meaning this in this place, even if this word is never again used in this way throughout the text, while it is often used to express the exact opposite (that is, it is prefatory and forward-looking every time the author's use this word, except here, where it must be retroactive, else we reach a surface level contradiction, even though, when it is used in this specific place, a story still follows).

It's dumb.

Have a nice day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#827
#827
therealUT said:
Not at all. I just realized that you are not interested in either the meaning of the word or how it was repeatedly used by the Hebrew authors of these texts.

I find your position to be well beyond ridicule.

You've basically asserted:

I'm committed to this word meaning this in this place, even if this word is never again used in this way throughout the text, while it is often used to express the exact opposite (that is, it is prefatory and forward-looking every time the author's use this word, except here, where it must be retroactive, else we reach a surface level contradiction, even though, when it is used in this specific place, a story still follows).

It's dumb.

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not what I've said. I'm completely open to an allegorical interpretation, but am unconvinced. Yoiu seem to be using your personal credulity as my standard or motive. That's ridiculous.

As mentioned:

There are literally thousands of phrases in scripture that are used one way the VAST majority of time, but in different ways at other times. Your method of interpretation would fail spectacularly if applied in a wider way.

There are innumerable times when a Biblical author uses repetition of phrases and/or concepts to "bookend" concepts and sections. It was apparently a very common literary device, and may well have been the device the author of Genesis was shooting for in Gen 1-2.

I haven't cared enough one way or the other to do a thorough search on how the "generations of" phrase is used throughout Genesis, so I can't say whether it is always used in the way you claim. If it is 90%, which was the stat you proposed, then why should I take that as the primary interpretation key for the phrase?

You were still out of line with your excluded middle bullying and are doing nothing more now than implicitly admitting that your excluded middle was based on personal credulity and inferences.

Have a nice evening.
 
#828
#828
Orange_Crush said:
[Edit]

There a literally thousands of phrases in the Bible that are used in one way a vast majority of the time, yet one can't use that as the definitive mode of interpretation.
Click to expand...

Sure, but this is distinct from a vast majority. You are asserting that you would accept your understanding of this phrase in 2:4, even if it was the only isolated use of the phrase in such a way, and even though if we removed Gen 1:1-Gen 2:3, the phrase would make absolute sense with regard to what follows from 2:4 through the rest of Genesis 2.

This isn't a case wherein the context has radically changed around this phrase, such that we are given clear clues that it must mean something else. This isn't a case where the phrase is clearly used in that manner elsewhere.

This is the case in which the context can be held steady, in that it matches the context of all the other uses, and that there are no other such uses throughout the Torah in which to point.

In other words, in the very oldest Hebrew texts and stories that have survived, this phrase always means the same thing...except in this one place.

That is about as ad hoc as **** gets.

I challenge you to find another use of "thulduth" in the entire Old Testament in which it is not prefatory. It's used 13 times in the Book of Numbers....all prefatory.

Best of luck on your quest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#829
#829
therealUT said:
Sure, but this is distinct from a vast majority. You are asserting that you would accept your understanding of this phrase in 2:4, even if it was the only isolated use of the phrase in such a way, and even though if we removed Gen 1:1-Gen 2:3, the phrase would make absolute sense with regard to what follows from 2:4 through the rest of Genesis 2.

This isn't a case wherein the context has radically changed around this phrase, such that we are given clear clues that it must mean something else. This isn't a case where the phrase is clearly used in that manner elsewhere.

This is the case in which the context can be held steady, in that it matches the context of all the other uses, and that there are no other such uses throughout the Torah in which to point.

In other words, in the very oldest Hebrew texts and stories that have survived, this phrase always means the same thing...except in this one place.

That is about as ad hoc as **** gets.

I challenge you to find another use of "thulduth" in the entire Old Testament in which it is not prefatory. It's used 13 times in the Book of Numbers....all prefatory.

Best of luck on your quest.
Click to expand...

Sure thing, TRUT. I apologize for the "bully/feelings" comment that I went back and edited. It was out of line and not useful. I apologize I didn't get the edit in sooner.

Have a nice evening.
 
#830
#830
therealUT said:
Sure, but this is distinct from a vast majority. You are asserting that you would accept your understanding of this phrase in 2:4, even if it was the only isolated use of the phrase in such a way, and even though if we removed Gen 1:1-Gen 2:3, the phrase would make absolute sense with regard to what follows from 2:4 through the rest of Genesis 2.

This isn't a case wherein the context has radically changed around this phrase, such that we are given clear clues that it must mean something else. This isn't a case where the phrase is clearly used in that manner elsewhere.

This is the case in which the context can be held steady, in that it matches the context of all the other uses, and that there are no other such uses throughout the Torah in which to point.

In other words, in the very oldest Hebrew texts and stories that have survived, this phrase always means the same thing...except in this one place.

That is about as ad hoc as **** gets.

I challenge you to find another use of "thulduth" in the entire Old Testament in which it is not prefatory. It's used 13 times in the Book of Numbers....all prefatory.

Best of luck on your quest.
Click to expand...

I just did a quick word search. It appears it;'s used 39 times in the OT and the VAST majority of the time, it is used as a preface term, as you indicated. A few occasions, it is not, primarily when it is not used to delineate the actual genealogy of a person/family.
And that seems to be the contextual clue that you claim isn't there.

It doesn't ALWAYS mean the same thing. And it isn't ALWAYS a prefacing usage. The major distinguish is that when it is used to mean a person's family line, lineage, genealogy, it is a prefacing term.

The heavens and the earth are not a person's genealogy.

Edit for clarity:

When it is listing a persons genealogy in excruciating detail it is basically always a preface statement. But for example, it is a back-facing usage here:

30As for the Hebronites, Hashabiah and his relatives, 1700 capable men, had charge of the affairs of Israel west of the Jordan, for all the work of the LORD and the service of the king. 31As for the Hebronites, Jerijah the chief (these Hebronites were investigated according to their genealogies and fathers' [households], in the fortieth year of David's reign, and men of outstanding capability were found among them at Jazer of Gilead)
Click to expand...

And that's the problem. Hebrew words can have multiple meanings. This particular phrase can mean genealogy, family, time, season, duration...

You are trying to imprint a meaning on it that I'm not convinced can be mandated.

The time of creation was not a genealogy. It was a season/duration/time of activity. It makes sense that an author would always say: "This is Peter's family line", and then list the family line.

I'm not sure you can take that same pattern and apply it to descriptions of times and activities. I don;t think the context mandates it, especially when the context literally says... "Now, look at this activity that we haven't discussed yet!"
 
Last edited:
#831
#831
LOL. The conversation between OC and trut maybe one of the most passive-aggressive things I've ever seen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#839
#839
McDad said:
LOL. The conversation between OC and trut maybe one of the most passive-aggressive things I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read any of my posts with Big, eh?

I'm trying to restrain my jerk-responses and be a better person. That seems to take many edits. :)

Plus, I've interacted with TRUT before. It seems to be how we both operate with one another. I get the feeling he has a similar sense of humor to mine.
 
#840
#840
Orange_Crush said:
You obviously didn't read any of my posts with Big, eh?

I'm trying to restrain my jerk-responses and be a better person. That seems to take many edits. :)

Plus, I've interacted with TRUT before. It seems to be how we both operate with one another. I get the feeling he has a similar sense of humor to mine.
Click to expand...

I'm in and out of this thread. I don't think trust takes any of it personally...in fact, I don't he really cares all that much what others post. He is more concerned about his post.

Either way. It's fun to see lovers in a spat.
 
#842
#842
McDad said:
I'm in and out of this thread. I don't think trust takes any of it personally...in fact, I don't he really cares all that much what others post. He is more concerned about his post.

Either way. It's fun to see lovers in a spat.
Click to expand...

I love me some TRUT, that's fo sho.

And I agree that TRUT rarely cares what someone else thinks or says. He has very big boy panties on when he wades in here.
 
#844
#844
Orange_Crush said:
I love me some TRUT, that's fo sho.

And I agree that TRUT rarely cares what someone else thinks or says. He has very big boy panties on when he wades in here.
Click to expand...

I want to detain trUT in a very dark room with no windows and inject myriad chemicals directly into his brain stem.

For science.
 
#848
#848
Orange_Crush said:
You obviously didn't read any of my posts with Big, eh?

I'm trying to restrain my jerk-responses and be a better person. That seems to take many edits. :)

Plus, I've interacted with TRUT before. It seems to be how we both operate with one another. I get the feeling he has a similar sense of humor to mine.
Click to expand...

I have no feels.

As for 1 Chronicles, "thulduth" is not there. What is used is a derivative of "thulduth", "i-thldthi-u".

So, that would make sense, that being a derivative, that it is retrospective in that verse.

"Thulduth", which is what is found in Gen 2:4, is not "i-thldthi-u". "Thulduth" just might never be used retrospectively throughout the entire Old Testament (I have not searched, I have only searched the Torah).

Also, re: "genealogy". It is only very recently in the history of language that "genealogy" has been attached almost specifically to family lineage. This is why you will find older English texts titled "The Genealogy of _____", and the blank will be filled with multiple things.

"Genealogy", traditionally understood, simply meant the story of the coming to be of something. Thus, the story of the coming to be of the all the sons of Isaac or the story of the coming to be of the heavens and the earth.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top