Difference between revisions of "Talk:Genesis 1-8 (Translated)"
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
==baramin== | ==baramin== | ||
Would it be better to use the modern conservative word [[Baraminology | baramin]] rather than the Old English word "kind" in verses 12 onwards?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:10, 15 October 2009 (EDT) | Would it be better to use the modern conservative word [[Baraminology | baramin]] rather than the Old English word "kind" in verses 12 onwards?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:10, 15 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I don't know that enough people are going to know what 'baramin' means for this to be helpful. According to Albert Barnes, the phrase 'after its kind' " intimates that like produces like, and therefore that the “kinds” or species are fixed, and do not run into one another. In this little phrase the theory of one species being developed from another is denied." | ||
Revision as of 01:33, October 23, 2009
Perhaps chapters one and two could be combined in some way so that they clearly tell the same story in the same order? Liberals often claim that they show two differently ordered creation stories and it would be a good idea to clarify this.--British_cons (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
- That's a major re-write, something we're not doing. While I agree we should make clear that Genesis 2:6-25 expands on what happened in Genesis 1:26-27, re-writing Genesis is a more drastic step than that action requires. JacobB 15:31, 11 October 2009 (EDT)
- I agree, but it would be best to ensure that the two chronologies are the same. As it is, it looks like a different story starts from genesis 2:4 - and this is the usual Liberal complaint.--British_cons (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2009 (EDT)
Genesis 1:2
If "the waters under the heaven [were] gathered together unto one place, and ... the dry land appear[ed]" on the third day (Gen. 1:9), can it really be said that there were "oceans" on the first day? AngusF 18:10, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
- Take your absurd gotcha questions elsewhere. Maybe wikipedia will appreciate them. DouglasA 14:28, 19 October 2009 (EDT)
- Let me get this straight. You guys are changing the words of the most revered English-language Bible, and then, when asked to account for a word-change, call the question "absurd". Gotcha. AngusF 18:44, 20 October 2009 (EDT)
24 hours rather than days?
Is this desirable? In my opinion no, as it takes away from the beauty of the book - '24 hours' rather than 'day' seems to be more suited to a textbook, rather than a beautiful book like the Bible. I will remove it, but feel free to put it back in if you disagree. DerickC 13:07, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
baramin
Would it be better to use the modern conservative word baramin rather than the Old English word "kind" in verses 12 onwards?--British_cons (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2009 (EDT)
I don't know that enough people are going to know what 'baramin' means for this to be helpful. According to Albert Barnes, the phrase 'after its kind' " intimates that like produces like, and therefore that the “kinds” or species are fixed, and do not run into one another. In this little phrase the theory of one species being developed from another is denied."