re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites

quote:

---

531 years and you barely have the first mud hut

---

You know if you started with just 3 couples and each couple had 8 kids every generation and each generation was about 30 years you’d end up with over 100 billion people after 531 years.

Obviously that’s just the math. It doesn’t take into account early deaths or how hard it would be to keep up that kind of birth rate. I’m not saying that many people actually existed. But hitting a few million is totally reasonable. And if you’ve got a few million people I think you’re past the first mud hut.

If you run the same numbers over just 101 years you only get a little under 400 people. That’s why I said what I said earlier.

quote:

---

There most certainly is reinterpretation when the clear meaning of the text is being challenged and changed due to factors outside of the text.

---

OEC are not basing their biblical interpretation on outside factors. That's a YEC strawman. And the clear meaning has nothing to do with the length of yom. Nothing.

quote:

---

based on how the word is used in the rest of Scripture

---

It's the rest of scripture that informs us of the semantic range of yom and the point of the creation story.

quote:

---

The word "day" is used over 2,000 times and it couldn't have always been up for interpretation each time it's used

---

We do this every minute of every day. Context helps but it takes conversation in order to ferret out what someone means. Ancient biblical audiences would have been no different. There's no way you aren't aware of this. We have constant misunderstandings with each other. Have you read John 3:3-4? And even if Jesus' audience understood it as a 24 hour period, that doesn't mean that God intended the meaning to always be locked in to that forever. I can say that because the word has flexibility. If God intended something other than that, he could have chosen a different word that would have provided the specificity that you require.

quote:

---

we can't really know what the word meant in Genesis 1

---

We know that there are multiple possibilities and that should be good enough for anyone who understands the intent of the passage.

quote:

---

I am attempting to be faithful to basic grammatical construction by using the rest of the words in the passages to understand the meaning of the text

---

But you are intentionally missing the whole point of the passage which has NOTHING to do with the length of yom. Absolutely nothing. If they understood it to mean day, that's ok because they were relying on their contemporaneous phenomenological understanding. That's the beauty of the flexibility of the word - it allows for our inevitable progression (provided by God BTW) and it's sad that you aren't allowing for the possibility that it was God's design all along.

quote:

---

otherwise we cannot have confidence that we can know what God means anywhere

---

OEC does not injure the reliability of scripture, not one bit.

quote:

---

Please explain why my argument is wrong

---

i have said repeatedly that you are missing the theological point of the creation story and it has absolutely nothing to do with the length of yom. It is about God's providence, omnipotence and desire for a relationship with us. There's no way you can deny that. You are eisegetically shoehorning yom into the theological meaning. How does the length of yom change our praxis? None. We are to worship God and creation is no less of a miracle either way. We still have to accept Jesus as lord and savior. We still have to evangelize. None of that changes in the slightest. Adding an extra layer of science is completely superfluous to the theological purpose.

quote:

---

If a clear grammatical interpretation can be discarded

---

Grammar is not the point of the story and that's why YEC presumption of "clear" needs to be amended

quote:

---

Yes

---

That's a problem because biblical genealogies did not always include every generation

quote:

---

Mo doesn't have "most scholars." That's the problem.

---

That's not the problem. The problem is that you don't have "source criticism circles" either, but you're not willing to admit it.

Christianity took alot from zoroastrianism.

quote:

---

That's not the problem

---

It most certainly is a problem. Mo made a claim and has yet to back it up. I happen to know it won't happen because it's not there

quote:

---

The problem is that you don't have "source criticism circles" either

---

Have either you or Mo bothered to do any research? No.

Fine. Because you are whining like a baby, I will start to do research that neither you nor Mo appear to be willing to do. Let's start with the works of:

Sayce
Keil
Delitzsch
Cassuto
Harrison
Archer
Kikawada
Quinn
Wenham

Who have all opposed Wellhausen

The Albright school felt that there might have been a minority amount of development and stressed the unity of the cultural history based on archaeology

Eissfeldt, Schmid, Kaufmann, and Friedman did not fully agree with Wellhausen

Propp maintains that even advocates of Wellhausen disagree on the supposed JEDP sources

Whybray relegates the DH as less likely than the fragmentary hypothesis and the supplementary hypothesis

W. H. Green, O.T. Allis, E. J. Young, G. C. Aalders all maintained Mosaic authorship, not JEDP

Gunkel famously argued for sitz im leben over and against the speculative DH's sources

That's a relatively decent summary. You should have been able to do that yourself. I suspect you didn't because you're not scholar and you're just flailing about in an unscholarly fashion. People just throw amateurish ideas out there and then start crying if someone objects

quote:

---

Christianity took alot from zoroastrianism

---

My word the things people believe

Like what?

quote:

---

You should have been able to do that yourself.

---

Of course I could have, I said I could have ( here). You could have for Mojeaux's claim as well. For all the writing you do, you have remarkably little capacity for understanding other people. It's unbelievable that you still don't get the point.

quote:

---

you are whining

---

I'm actually trying to help you understand why people have problems with you, but you don't seem to want to understand. You're too caught up in your own head.

I said it before, and I'll say it again; It's people like you who drive me away from scripture. If Heaven is full of people like you, I don't want any part of it.

Good luck in your future endeavors.

quote:

---

And that's the ONLY citation you have made to support the silly idea that Judeo-Christianity "borrowed" from prior Canaanite religion

---

I’m deliberately ignoring the rest of your douchey spittle, but here again, you’re mischaracterizing the argument. You can’t get out of your own way. You’re such a twat.

It’s weird that the prior Canaanite religion, which had no relationship whatsoever to the Israelites, happened to worship Yahweh too though. Isn’t that odd? Lucky guess on their part.