BobRyan said:
.... -- then either USE the objective methods of exegesis to render the text of Ex 20:8-11 OR use something EVEN MORE objective. I am good with that -- just "do something" other than talk about what you might do or what gaps exegesis might leave you with in your efforts to render the text.
lordkalvan said:
There is no wholly objective rendering of the text that allows me to either fully contest or fully agree with your conclusions. This is the point you fail to grasp.
1. Why do you care in that case - you say the text is corrupt anyway.
2. you provide no one - zilch,.. nada not even ONE source arguing for anything but real day in Ex 20:8-11.
3. You already admit that Moses could not possibly be preaching "Darwinism" no matter how horribly you could "imagine" bending and wrenching the text.
Where is the difficulty here for the person willing to accept "the obvious"???
Seems like you are making a difficulty where there is none.
Do you understand that the action of writing is itself necessarily subjective?
God wrote the Ten Commandments with his own finger -- according to the text. Is your argument that "the subjective element is in copying them from stone to paper" into the book of Exodus?
What is your argument there? Do you have "the original tablets and can see a difference between the hebrew on the stones and the hebrew on the paper"??
Do you once again "offer your imagination" as "all the proof necessary to disbelieve scripture"???
Where exactly do you even have an argument here?
Do you understand that the meaning assigned to words by translators is necessarily subjective?
Do you HAVE access to the DSS or to the Hebrew source texts that they are translating from and are you in a position to SHOW that there is an error in the case of Ex 20:8-11 or is this again a case of "imagining a gap" and that "imagination" should be all the evidence we need to doubt God and accept L.K???
Do you understand that the analysis of the meaning of text is necessarily subjective?
could be depending on how freely you abandon Exegesis.
Do you understand that different religions and denominations draw different conclusions from their exegesis of OT verse?
Do you have an example of different Christian groups interpreting the meaning of "day" in Ex 20:8-11 "differently"?? I thought you admitted you have no such example.
Bob said
BAck to the point - SHOW that your views survive Ex 20:8-11 "in the most objective way you know how to use" FOR THE TEXT of Ex 20.
Hint the answer can not be "avoid Ex 20 at all costs".
L.K
Missing the point again. I neither avoid nor engage with Exodus 20:8-11
On the contrary I notice that you avoid EVERY attempt at a rigorous study and rendering of the text AND I notice that your darwinism-at-all-costs solution easily slips in "IF I can imagine it -- than that is all the evidence needed to doubt scripture" as the answer to every difficulty.
as such; I only point to the obvious weaknesses in your claims for absolute objective certainty for your conclusions from exegesis of that or any other biblical verse.
Your argument is an argument against the entire Bible -- good atheism.
It also can not be "imagine stuff in and around Ex 20 as needed". You have to use the actual language IN THE TEXT and SHOW that the Moses' readers are getting something from it other than the glaringly obvious meaning we all see in it.
As opposed to your showing that the hypothetical readers you refer to are getting from it what you claim they are getting from it.
ahhh yes "The OBVIOUS" meaning of the text keeps coming back to bite you especially after you yourself admitted that Moses was no way "preaching Drawinism".
"SIX days you shall labor ... for IN SIX DAYS the LORD MADE..."
.. ready set "go".
Unfortunately there's a nasty little full stop/period in that ellipsis between 'labor' and 'for' that rather ruins your assumption that day
How so?
You provide no exegesis to support that argument.
As I have said before, neither you nor anyone else can claim absolute certainty about this; you cannot even know that the story of creation week occurring over seven days was not devised to mimic the already existing seven days of the Jewish week in order to rationalize doctrinal concordance between the two.
We have the Nation of Israel FIRST formed at Sinai and there we do not START with "this is why your nation has been having a 7 day week" RATHER we have THIS is your seven day week. We have in fact "TOMORROW is the Sabbath" in chapter 16 -- a command given to a NEW nation JUST FORMING -- those who prior to this were SLAVES in Egypt and prior to that were simply a patriarchal clan in Caanan. So while they may have known of the 7 day week prior to this time (Jacob is told to fulfill Rachel's "week") long before this -referring to the time he was to work for her -- they were not a NATION until Sinai. They had no priests until then -- no temple service until Sinai. The moment they were a nation, the moment they had temple and services and priests they also had the CREATION account by God as the "origin" for that week as HE stated "FOR In SIX DAYS the LORD MADE...".
Impossible to ignore.
Your argument is more the atheist or agnostic position "yes but we can not trust the Bible nor the motives of the Bible writers nor the accuracy in what they said".
Good atheism - but all the more reason for so-called "Christian Darwinists" to avoid it.
BTW is Barbarian going along with your "Bible is too corrupt to rely upon" and "Bible writers have the motive of make-believe" in arguing the case in Ex 20:8-11 just "making stuff up" about why they need a seven day weekly cycle?
Bob
