Genesis 3
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Sun, 04 Jan 1998 23:34:46 -0800 (00884007286, 2.2.32.19980105073446.0069edf4@midwest.net)
At 07:49 PM 1/4/98 EST, MS FITT wrote:
>In a message dated 98-01-04 16:59:58 EST, you write:
>TILL
><< in Genesis 1, however, there is no reason to believe
> that the earth had previously been populated, so the word "mala" there
>would not have the sense of "replenish" but "fill" or "furnish." >>
>
>MSFITT
>By and from what do you draw this conclusion, or do you know for
>postive that this is the first creation, how and by what text do you
>draw this conclusion.
TILL
Well, if the Genesis writer didn't mean to convey that this was the first
creation, you must know of some indication within the text that he thought
that there had been another creation, so why don't you show us where it is?
Don't ask me if I know "for positive" that this was the "first creation."
You surely understand that I don't believe that there was any creation at all.
MS FITT
>Is this just another interpolation on your behalf.
TILL
You seem to be the one "interpolating." You're saying that there was
another creation, so just where do you "interpolate" that into the text?
MS FITT
> I have noticed in your posts that in some instances you refer to
>"supporting" words in the Hebrew, and in others you make no mention
>of them, is this your way of using the language to make your view
>align with the text you are quoting.
TILL
You'll have to give me a specific example of what you're talking about
before I can answer this question. Oh, I forgot; you don't know how to be
specific, do you?
MS FITT
> I believe you are close to being guilty of a play on words,
TILL
See what I mean? You don't know the first thing about how to make yourself
clear.
MSFITT
>what is the belief on your side of the fence.
>
TILL
I really don't know what side of the fence I'm supposed to be on. You've
never made your position clear. Why don't you try to do that for a change?
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net