By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ultima on 29 July 2013
Edit Thread
happydolphin said:
ultima said:
happydolphin said:
ultima said:

So you're saying from father to son there are 2 generations?

Can I have the passage so I can read and process it myself?

I don't have a passage, that's according to my understanding of boundaries. Like in programming, you can loop while i < n or loop while i <= n. The boundaries are crucial in my field, and so I see no issue it being inclusive in one instance and exclusive in another, but that's in my modern interpretation. Wait till we see your sources as to how THEY interpreted it. We'll both have a laugh.

I really don't see that being the case from the wording you guys provided. From 6 o'clock to 7 o'clock is one hour. From father to son is one generation. There is no other way to look at it. That's why I asked for a passage. If you don't have a passage, what are you arguing over?

Like I said, to me, from 6 to 7 o'clock could be read as inclusively or exclusively. It's a question of semantics. I don't know what passage he was referring to, and like I mentioned before if we're talking purely about intervals, I have no problem reading generations from person A to person B as including all persons including endpoints, even father and son, LET ALONE how the audience of those books in those contexts would read them.

I'm sorry but this is an argument you will never win in a scientific setting. You know, the study of religion (theology).

If you can interpret "from 6 to 7" to mean 2 hours, then there's something seriously wrong with your arithmetic. Also, the wording, "from father to son" clearly means one generation. You'd have a case if it were "father and son" maybe.

So there's really no passage? This semantics argument was pointless?

@bold: what is that supposed to mean? And I would not call theology science. Theology is somewhere between humanities and philosophy, neither of which are sciences by the common use.