My little boy leaving me toungue tied.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

One problem: the hebrew word for which the translators supplied REPLENISH is most likely a mistranslation. Of all of the occurences of the hebrew word "male" in the bible (some 249 times), it is translated as "replenish" only seven times:

accomplish, 7; consecrate, 15; expired, 3; fill, 107; fulfil, 28; full, 48; fully, 2; gather, 2; misc, 14; overflow, 2; replenish, 7; satisfy, 2; set, 6; wholly, 6.

The most common translation, as is here seen, is "fill," which frankly makes the most sense in this context. At any rate, no definitive doctrine can truly be derived from the distinction between "fill" and "replenish," as the difference came about only in the translation from Hebrew to English.

This, of course, does not debunk any sort of evolution theory, which is entirely possible. It does show that this argument can't support that theory.

While it is true that the word "male'" was translated into fill far more than replenish, in the seven instances where replenish was used, it was always appropriate (such as when Noah was told to replenish the Earth). Hebrew scholars will also tell you that the word "male'" did mean both "fill" and "refill." In Latin, the word used in early translations also could have meant both fill and refill.

You are correct that this is not a strong foundation for the argument, but you are incorrect to dismiss the argument as being wrong.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

While it is true that the word "male'" was translated into fill far more than replenish, in the seven instances where replenish was used, it was always appropriate (such as when Noah was told to replenish the Earth). Hebrew scholars will also tell you that the word "male'" did mean both "fill" and "refill." In Latin, the word used in early translations also could have meant both fill and refill.

You are correct that this is not a strong foundation for the argument, but you are incorrect to dismiss the argument as being wrong.

I didn't say it was wrong-- I did say it couldn't support the theory. True it is that the word in hebrew was at times translated as "replenish," and here are the seven instances where it was so translated:

# Gen. 1: 28

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be afruitful, and bmultiply, and creplenish• the dearth, and subdue it: and have edominion• over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.


# Gen. 9: 1

1 AND God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, aBe• fruitful, and bmultiply•, and creplenish• the earth.


# Isa. 2: 6

6 ¶ Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they abe• replenished from the east, and are bsoothsayers like the Philistines, and they cplease• themselves in the children of strangers.


# Isa. 23: 2

2 Be astill•, ye inhabitants of the isle; thou whom the merchants of Zidon, that pass over the sea, have replenished.


# Jer. 31: 25

25 For I have satiated the weary soul, and I have replenished every sorrowful soul.


# Ezek. 26: 2

2 Son of man, because that aTyrus• hath said against bJerusalem, Aha, she is broken that was the gates of the people: she is turned unto me: I shall be replenished, now she is laid waste:


# Ezek. 27: 25

25 The aships• of Tarshish did sing of thee in thy market: and thou wast replenished, and made very glorious in the midst of the seas.



In all of these translations but the first, the context shows that the object of the verb "male" was depleted and in need of being "replenished" instead of "filled." I suspect that somebody (probably St. Jerome, seing as how the vulgate translation does indeed use the word "replete," or "refill") saw the correlation between the creation and flood and used the word replenish to accentuate the similarity.

Where the word occurs, it is translated "replenish" 6.5% of the time; therefore, it is reasonable to expect that it should only be translated as "replenish" when there is solid evidence that the object of the verb had been depleted. The bible does not make it clear whether the earth had been depleted or not. In order to show that the word is correctly translated, one must demonstrate that the earth was in need of being "replenished" instead of merely "filled." Therefore, one cannot use the prescence of the word to either prove or disprove this argument.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

I didn't say it was wrong-- I did say it couldn't support the theory.

I misread your statement.

I think it does support the theory, just not very strongly! At least, much less strongly than before you educated me on some of these points!

Interesting analysis. Do you have a background in Hebrew?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I misread your statement.

I think it does support the theory, just not very strongly! At least, much less strongly than before you educated me on some of these points!

Interesting analysis. Do you have a background in Hebrew?

Not really, no. I'm just the kind of person who will actually look this stuff up.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

Not really, no. I'm just the kind of person who will actually look this stuff up.

I have been going through the internet reading up on this issue. While I am somewhat persuaded by what I am reading, I am also interested in noting that every site I have come across is sponsored by a religioius institution. They have a pretty strong motive for claiming that the evolutionary process has no foundation in the scriptures, given they don't accept the gap theory is reasonable.

This isn't a foundation for rejecting what they are saying, but it makes me wonder how much of the presentation is strongly skewed.

Most authors admit the Hebrew word "male'" meant both fill and replenish. In each of the 7 contexts in which it is used, you could easily see either word being appropriate (based on which word you want to think is appropriate). But then the authors dismiss the likelihood that replenish is what they meant because the word "fill" seems more correct (which is really begging the question).

It has been a fun read in any event.

[mpfunk]

Alright let me hijack this post back to jazz music.

creekster is right mix in some classic Jazz into this rotation. For my money there is no music out there that tops great jazz. I actually have moved more towards the free jazz movement then more of the bop stuff that creekster is talking about, but that does not mean I do not love bop.

Monk, Parker, and Miles Davis are all very good suggestions. Once you start getting into that start moving onto some Coltrane. Coltrane is my favorite, but he is not really for newbs to jazz.

When I have kids they will be raised on jazz.

[mpfunk]

Also another point on jazz. I think jazz is the most uniquely American music out there. The music started here and the bulk of the developments within the genre also happened here. The same cannot be said of really any other music. Also during the periods when there was an explosion of creativity in the music, it was during the civil rights movement. The music reflects a lot of this strife in the country, especially the free jazz movement.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

I have been going through the internet reading up on this issue. While I am somewhat persuaded by what I am reading, I am also interested in noting that every site I have come across is sponsored by a religioius institution. They have a pretty strong motive for claiming that the evolutionary process has no foundation in the scriptures, given they don't accept the gap theory is reasonable.

This isn't a foundation for rejecting what they are saying, but it makes me wonder how much of the presentation is strongly skewed.

Most authors admit the Hebrew word "male'" meant both fill and replenish. In each of the 7 contexts in which it is used, you could easily see either word being appropriate (based on which word you want to think is appropriate). But then the authors dismiss the likelihood that replenish is what they meant because the word "fill" seems more correct (which is really begging the question).

It has been a fun read in any event.

Even if there is bias involved, the point remains. The decision to translate "male" as "fill" or "replenish" is dependent on the evaluation of the preexisting argument, and thus cannot be used to prove the argument upon which it is dependent.

One can say that "male" ought to be "replenish" if he can show that "replenish" is the best translation most accurately describing the situation. One cannot say "replenish" is the best translation most accurately describing the situation simply because "male" is so translated.

By the way, hoya, I've noticed you've dropped several references to/in Latin. Have you studied that language?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by mpfunk

Also another point on jazz. I think jazz is the most uniquely American music out there. The music started here and the bulk of the developments within the genre also happened here. The same cannot be said of really any other music. Also during the periods when there was an explosion of creativity in the music, it was during the civil rights movement. The music reflects a lot of this strife in the country, especially the free jazz movement.

This is an excellent point. Educating your kids in Jazz also tends to educate them in race relations and civil rights. Coltrane is well worthwhile. There is a lot of jazz that is worthwhile. It is uniquely American.

May I brag for a moment? My oldest son has been classicalyl trianed on the piano and plays quite well if I, a proud father, say so myself. He is a big fan of Mozart, Chopin and Rachmaninoff, but plays Bach and Handel to humor the old man. He has also studied jazz saxaphone and leads his sax section in the school jazz band. He loves piano, but he lives jazz on the sax. As he has grown older he has learned much more culturally from jazz than he has from classical, IMO, although both have been mutually reinforcing musically. I am not sure why SU's in-laws would want to avoid jazz, but I would certainly encourage them to reconsider. Do it for the kids!

[FarrahWaters]

If you want to sell your wife on letting your kids listen to jazz, Bill Evans (piano) is the way to go.