You are intentionally misrepresenting what I’m saying and Young’s translation as well, and maybe being intentionally simplistic about a complicated subject.
An example of being simplistic, intentionally or not:
‘The heavens’ could certainly be expected to include the sun, moon and stars.
You’re the one being simplistic with claims of literalism and plain reading. You are being obviously self-contradictory by using a non-literal definition of “literal.”
I’m saying that it’s complicated and I’m asking you to clarify exactly what you mean. I am not misrepresenting anything whatsoever about Young’s translation–it’s simply not literal.
I am saying that using the term “literal” when you really only mean “close enough for most practical purposes” (those are the exact words you chose) is being intentionally deceptive about a very complicated, and very important, subject.
As I’m sure you know, Dale, many learned people of great faith do put in the effort to read Genesis literally, in Hebrew, and very, very many of them do not agree with your exegesis at all. So what do you do? Double down on claiming that you are reading the Bible literally, while they are not?
What exactly is a practical purpose for which “literalism” is close enough?
1 Like
So some literalism you can decide to ignore because in your judgment it is simplistic? While you talk of extracting “grammatical sequences” from a translation between languages with radically different grammar?
That gives the impression that Dale Cutler’s Ultimate Judgment of someone else’s reading as “simplistic” trumps any claim to be employing “literalism” and “plain reading.”
Not at all. We can expect nothing of the sort when we are trying to address the order in which everything in the universe was created.
‘Being intentionally deceptive’ is a pretty stout accusation. And I should apologize for my presumptuous language, as well. I am not naturally gracious, obviously.
With biblical Hebrew having as few words as it does (ca. 8k, after subtracting names?), context is key for many word for their ‘literal’ meaning. A key case in point is the word transliterates variously as ‘yom’ or ‘yome’, and there may be others. The traditional English translation in Genesis 1 is ‘day’ and it is a major point of contention between young earth advocates and pretty much everyone else.
Something that I have previously posted to YECs in discussions:
//There are multiple uses of the Biblical Hebrew word for an indeterminate period of time, ‘yom’, that period determined solely by context, and only traditionally translated “day” when associated with the six creation periods delineated in Genesis 1. The context in Genesis 1 is unique in all of scripture, the very creation of the universe, space and time itself, and it happened ONCE. A plea to a meaning in another later context is illegitimate.//
Another:
//There are three different meanings of ‘yom’ within the space of thirty-five verses, and two different meanings in one verse (Genesis 1:5).//
So the ‘literal’ meaning has to be weighed against a number of factors, including physical reality. There are flat and/or stationary earth proponents that insist that Psalm 104:5* means that the earth does not spin on its axis.
Many Christians, including myself, believe that truth that comes from the reality of God’s word does not conflict with the truth that comes from the reality of God’s creation, when both are properly interpreted.
You already know what I believe about Genesis 1 and big bang cosmology, and that same point has been a factor in numbers of atheist or agnostic scientists (and plenty of others acquainted with science) becoming Christians.
*Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations, never to be moved.
I’m not sure any of us are naturally gracious. Apologies count for quite a bit in my book. I hope that this is noted by your “opponents.”
1 Like
Yes, I know that it doesn’t match exactly every eclipse (what is the highest percent of difference?), but generally speaking, without being pedantic, the point is communicated.
The astronomer I mentioned wasn’t going to go into that kind of detail, was he. You’ve heard of TMI? (That’s the answer after someone replies “No” to the question, “Did you know there was a communicable side effect to colonoscopies?” )
And the discs do match in a total eclipse – that is precisely why they are called “total”. It appears you conflated annular eclipses… and pulled me in.
I will also plead to having some visual issues because of age (notice the ‘old old’ in the characterization by my name), so again, I ask for grace. And I reealy have difficulty in not replying in kind and returning insult for insult.
Let me start by restoring something you have ignored twice so far:
How do you know that?
True, if by “addresses” you mean “adopts wholesale”. The universe of Genesis 1 is a box with a roof and a floor, surrounded on all sides by water, with the sun, moon, and stars embedded in the roof. The difference from other creation stories is that there is only one god who creates everything, and all the things other people call gods are creations of his. But the ANE cosmology and universe (again, identical to those in Genesis) are not very similar to the real universe, which has no roof and is much, much larger and older.
For sure, though heaven is created on day 2, while the sun, moon, and stars are created and embedded in it on day 4. The obvious explanation is that Genesis 1:1 is a summary or preview of what follows.
What if you’re wrong about that?
Can you back up that claim about the big bang?
1 Like
Here’s a start:
…and he has been very influential in others becoming Christians.
Another:
and
reasonsforjesus.com/how-science-led-a-world-leading-astronomer-allan-sandage-to-god/
I guess that would be about accepting testimony. Testimony is evidence if it is true, and we all accept testimony, true or otherwise.
Can you state that more coherently? Whose testimony? What does it mean to accept testimony that’s “otherwise”?
In the case of Christians, it is about accepting the testimony of the Author, and that acceptance is not arbitrary and without reason and support. It is not blind faith. In your case, all you have is the testimony of your senses and how your brain has evolved to process the signals sent to it, and it has nothing to do with truth.
Just because I gave you a condensed statement does not mean that it was less than coherent. Maybe that is an example of your accepting evidence that is ‘otherwise’, i.e., not true. That was the way your brain wrongly processed the evidence of the condensed statement. (We can lie to ourselves, and accepting the lie is accepting false evidence.)
Another example of testimony is the testimony of big bang cosmology. It is good evidence for a beginning and the Beginner. We can lie to ourselves and say that it is not evidence for the existence of other realms outside of our experience and these four dimensions that we live in.
I did nothing of the sort. Total is defined as when the moon’s disc is the same or greater angular size as the sun’s, not defined by a match.
You are guilty of TMI in reply to the original remark. The real point was obvious and you merely playing at fault-finder and obscurantism.
Thanks, duly noted, and I apologize too, as you didn’t directly claim to be reading literally. (Do you do that, though?)
However, you make it clear that you know full well that the translations to English aren’t literal, given massive differences in vocabulary and grammar, supporting the conclusion that any description of your own reading as literal could not be accurate.
Then you tried to dismiss John Harshman’s perfectly literal reading of Young’s Literal Translation as “simplistic,” which is a clear admission that you reject true literalism when convenient.
Are these conclusions correct?
No, you claimed that a match was a fact. It’s a range, and that fact significantly weakens the fine-tuning inference.
And that anular range isn’t useful to science, I presume you are implying. The fine-tuning argument is just fine.