My Genesis Challenge

[John t]

I’m not attacking what the Bible says, but disputing your preferred translation of a certain verse.

Utter nonsense!

It is not "my translation". Instead, I gave the lexical definition of one word (an adverb) that is translated in all languages with a phrase similar to :at one time"

More to the point, you are trolling Paul, because he wrote it. It was in every Greek New Testament I looked at, so there is no disputing that that is what Paul actually wrote.

 

[John t]

Anyway, I’m aware of the ESV’s translation, which I think is dubious.

How many years studying Koine Greek do you have whereby you can make such a statement?

 

[AV1611VET]

IT has just been quoted as saying exactly that in a previous post.

So what?

What's that have to do with the price of BP oil in the Gulf of Mexico?

"Fixed" has at least six definitions.

What's the deal here?

 

[John t]

How di you know God is found only in the Bible?

Please read what I actually posted instead of what you imagine I posted. That there gods in "other holy books is indisputable. However NONE of them have the attributes as does the God found only in the Bible. They are all demons.

How does he communicate?

Any way He chooses. He used a burning bush, a donkey and of course prophets

If God "revealed Himself so sufficiently" why do so many people doubt his existence?

.For the same reasons that many of your colleagues in this forum choose not to believe. Yet neither you nor I am responsible for the decisions of our neighbors. We are responsible for what we alone do. But to answer your question, :
They are prideful
They think themselves as being the smartest person in the room.
They think that what God has revealed is insufficient to convince them.

The argument about "other people" is simply a canard. It is YOUR personal responsibility to respond positively. That is a choice unlike any other because it will have consequences or rewards that go beyond the grave.

 

[Tiburon]

So what?

What's that have to do with the price of BP oil in the Gulf of Mexico?

"Fixed" has at least six definitions.

What's the deal here?

You tell me. Was it broken and now it's fixed?

 

[Tiburon]

Please read what I actually posted instead of what you imagine I posted. That there gods in "other holy books is indisputable. However NONE of them have the attributes as does the God found only in the Bible. They are all demons.

That is what I meant. How do you ascertain that only the God presented in the Bible is the real one?

Any way He chooses. He used a burning bush, a donkey and of course prophets

So God's communication with you is through scripture?

.For the same reasons that many of your colleagues in this forum choose not to believe. Yet neither you nor I am responsible for the decisions of our neighbours. We are responsible for what we alone do. But to answer your question, :
They are prideful
They think themselves as being the smartest person in the room.
They think that what God has revealed is insufficient to convince them.

The argument about "other people" is simply a canard. It is YOUR personal responsibility to respond positively. That is a choice unlike any other because it will have consequences or rewards that go beyond the grave.

If Atheists "think that what God has revealed is insufficient to convince them." then it obviously is insufficient to convince them. I myself, at least, am not simply pretending to be unconvinced and I'm sure others aren't either.
If God is the Omni-everything that we are told, why would he reveal himself in a way that is insufficient to convince anyone.
Surely God is not constrained in his ability to present himself as believable?

 

[Eightcrackers]

He HAS sent the invitation.

Not one that I am convinced is from him.

However, it is your job to prove to Him that He has not done so.

Not if he's not real, it isn't.

 

[Lion IRC]

No. Genesis is very chronological. God made the Earth first. Then, later, he made the stars.

Nope. Genesis 1:16 says ALSO made the stars, not THEN made the stars.

You cannot twist that one - the language is quite clear. And wrong.

Yes, its quite clear. And it's scientifically accurate. The nebula gas and dust from which the sun and the earth were simultaneously made, pre-existed both.

The Earth is just a smaller, cooler lump that originated from the same stuff as the (hotter, larger) sun it orbits.

And you even got scripture wrong. God did not create 'two' stars. He created two lights - the sun and the moon. Stars are mentioned later.

I didn't substitute the word "stars" for "lights". Go back and read my post more carefully.

And this may shock you but there are more than two stars - there are 200 billion trillion.

Who said God only made two?
I think you should read Genesis 15:5

 

[Eightcrackers]

Nope. Genesis 1:16 says ALSO made the stars, not THEN made the stars.

Genesis says he made the Earth on Days 1-3, and the stars on Day 4.
Day 4 comes after Days 1-3... indeed, one could say

"Days 1-3, then Day 4".

 

[Lion IRC]

*sigh*
Genesis 1:3
Let there be light.
Day light.
Where does daylight come from?

 

[Lucian]

It is not "my translation". Instead, I gave the lexical definition of one word (an adverb) that is translated in all languages with a phrase similar to :at one time"

Sure it is: it's the translation you've offered, and are now defending.

The definition you gave does not, as far as I can see, support that translation. Indeed, as it shows, the word frequently is not best translated by 'at one time' vel sim.

More to the point, you are trolling Paul, because he wrote it. It was in every Greek New Testament I looked at, so there is no disputing that that is what Paul actually wrote.

I'm not disputing what Paul wrote, or the Greek text, but your proposed translation of that text.

 

[Lucian]

How many years studying Koine Greek do you have whereby you can make such a statement?

Eleven.

 

[John t]

I’m not attacking what the Bible says, but disputing your preferred translation of a certain verse.

Since you claim 11 years experience with Greek, your statement above seems preposterous, especially because you are calling the TDNT into question.

Here is the Greek word for at one time:

ἐφάπαξ, “once and for all.” In the NT this is a technical term for the definitiveness and therefore the uniqueness or singularity of the death of Christ and the redemption thereby accomplished: R. 6:10: τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀπέθανεν ἐφάπαξ, where ἐφάπαξ, prepared and emphasised in v. 9 by οὐκέτι ἀποθνῄσκει, θάνατος οὐκέτι κυριεύει, sharply expresses the basic significance of the death of Christ, namely, that sin and Christ are quits, and Christians with Christ, since His one death is of paradigmatic and dynamic effect for us

Stählin, G. (1964–). ἅπαξ, ἐφάπαξ. G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, & G. Friedrich (Eds.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament (electronic ed., Vol. 1, p. 383). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

 

[Lucian]

Since you claim 11 years experience with Greek, your statement above seems preposterous, especially because you are calling the TDNT into question.

Here is the Greek word for at one time:

ἐφάπαξ, “once and for all.” In the NT this is a technical term for the definitiveness and therefore the uniqueness or singularity of the death of Christ and the redemption thereby accomplished: R. 6:10: τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀπέθανεν ἐφάπαξ, where ἐφάπαξ, prepared and emphasised in v. 9 by οὐκέτι ἀποθνῄσκει, θάνατος οὐκέτι κυριεύει, sharply expresses the basic significance of the death of Christ, namely, that sin and Christ are quits, and Christians with Christ, since His one death is of paradigmatic and dynamic effect for us

Stählin, G. (1964–). ἅπαξ, ἐφάπαξ. G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley, & G. Friedrich (Eds.), Theological dictionary of the New Testament (electronic ed., Vol. 1, p. 383). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

You’ve already posted this entry, and I’ve already responded to it: it seems to be consistent with what I’m saying. I’m puzzled about why you think this means I’m “calling [it] into question”.

I’d encourage you to revisit what I’ve said, as I’m unsure you’ve quite understood what I’m arguing.

 

[Lighthearted Atheist]

Nope. Genesis 1:16 says ALSO made the stars, not THEN made the stars.

Genesis is clearly chronological. This is rationalization.

Yes, its quite clear. And it's scientifically accurate. The nebula gas and dust from which the sun and the earth were simultaneously made, pre-existed both.

Neither existed before the first stars.

The Earth is just a smaller, cooler lump that originated from the same stuff as the (hotter, larger) sun it orbits.

OK.

I didn't substitute the word "stars" for "lights". Go back and read my post more carefully.

OK.

Who said God only made two?
I think you should read Genesis 15:5

I did. Genesis is utterly wrong in every way.

You can believe Genesis if you like. Heck, you can believe the sun is green and the ocean is made of pudding if you like. But it is not grounded in any kind of reality.

 

[John t]

You’ve already posted this entry, and I’ve already responded to it: it seems to be consistent with what I’m saying. I’m puzzled about why you think this means I’m “calling [it] into question”.

I’d encourage you to revisit what I’ve said, as I’m unsure you’ve quite understood what I’m arguing.

I understand what you are saying to mean that

1. I am somehow involved in the translation
2. and that there are other meanings to the word ἐφάπαξ, than what is contained in the TDNT

You wrote:

I'm not disputing what Paul wrote, or the Greek text, but your proposed translation of that text.

In posting and referencing the TDNT, I am making an appeal to authority, but you are making an appeal to myself as the issue.

Now I challenge you to find and paste an alternative meaning (which you have yet to specify) to contradict what I posted.

 

[Lucian]

I understand what you are saying to mean that

1. I am somehow involved in the translation
2. and that there are other meanings to the word ἐφάπαξ, than what is contained in the TDNT

No, that’s not right.

You wrote:


In posting and referencing the TDNT, I am making an appeal to authority, but you are making an appeal to myself as the issue.

Now I challenge you to find and paste an alternative meaning (which you have yet to specify) to contradict what I posted.

Again, I’m not disputing what your source says. As I’ve suggested a couple of times, it’s consistent with what I’m saying.

As a reminder, I’m disputing the translation of ἐφάπαξ by ‘at the same time’ in the verse in question. I think something along the lines of ‘once and for all’ would be preferable, not least because this is roughly what the word means on every other occasion in the New Testament.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Genesis is clearly chronological.

Clearly? No Simply declaring and italicizing an adverb cannot make up for your failure to prove its validity.

 

[John t]

Again, I’m not disputing what your source says. As I’ve suggested a couple of times, it’s consistent with what I’m saying.

I now have great reservations about your 11 years working with Koine Greek because you skipped over everything past the first sentence from TDNT

Second, I TWICE asked you to supply an alternative "satisfactory translation" and you have not done so.

 

[Lucian]

I now have great reservations about your 11 years working with Koine Greek because you skipped over everything past the first sentence from TDNT

I've done no such thing.

Second, I TWICE asked you to supply an alternative "satisfactory translation" and you have not done so.

Sure I have, and did so on the first time of asking: "I think something along the lines of ‘once and for all’ would be preferable, not least because this is roughly what the word means on every other occasion in the New Testament".

So, plugging it in: "Then he appeared to more than 500 brothers, once and for all,..."