Funny that you quote someone describing the early chapters of Genesis as poetry rather than history.
Hello, Fundies! :)
- Thread starter Vulcan Logician
- Start date
I am not interested in proving Christians wrong....
YOU are the one interested in trying to prove Christians wrong in thread.lain:
Try again. Don't you have ANY introspective ability??? That man is YOU!
Don't you have any ability to take a look at yourself? :doh:
I am interested in pointing out errors, especially where those errors make Christianity look silly.
I am interested in Christians not turning people away from the gospels with their views that contradict both the scriptures and the evidence that God has given us in creation.
Pretending that there are not two creation stories with different orders and methods of creation is an error.
Lon
Well-known member
Yeah you are.
lain:<cough> ▲ahem▲
▲This is why I doubt your academic prowess btw▲ You may have been the brightest kid in school. In your adult years? :nono:
IF you ever had it, you've lost a LOT of it.
No you aren't. I suggested a thread that would provide the means for obtaining this goal MUCH BETTER than hijacking threads. You didn't take it. I have a VERY hard time believing your sincerity. You can change that by doing this more appropriately by starting your own threads about what GENUINELY concerns you. Until then? I'm sorry, I'm going to have skepticism.
I know, with your 'superior' self-esteemed intellect, you cannot fathom anyone can 'academically' disagree with you.
Sorry. You just aren't that smart. You may have been at one time, but you prove incapable of intelligent, thoughtful, or respectful dialogue.
"Pretending?" Do you 'think' you are respectful? :think: Work on it.
The Vulcan hasn't returned so I guess it's okay to hijack, but he had already said he wasn't interested in your perspective in particular and he disinvited you from participating in thread with that assumption. That said, it is ODD that you think there are two creation stories in the SAME book. First,second, and third glance? :nono: Doesn't look like a tenable theory, 'pretending' or otherwise. The bottom line is that YOU have to provide a cogent and intelligent counterview and you haven't done so AND look more foolish, imho, in thread, than those you'd argue against.
▲You already▲ look insincere. Read yourself. You've a LONG way to go before meaningful dialogue takes place on TOL. It just and only looks like you postulating and pontificating to stroke your own ego. I can only read what you give us and that is exactly what it looks like, Cobra2003
:doh: You think 'poetry' cannot be about true things? You need to read up on Hebrew poetry (parallelism).
Hebrews weren't interested in higher criticism. They wouldn't necessarily scoff at it, they would ignore and disdain it. We are an analytical people. The Hebrews weren't caught up in discrepancy. RATHER, they'd read Genesis 1 and 2 as 'complimenting' one another. BECAUSE of that, there is NO pretending. Rather there is reading Hebrew parallelism AS parallelism. Forcing the text into a critical contradictory comparison? :nono: It PURPOSEFULLY does damage to the text. You are more driven by Westernized thought than you realize. Take a class on Hebrew culture and customs. It is an interesting night class often offered at local seminaries and Bible colleges. Find one and attend, sincerely. You'll both enjoy it AND be better educated to speak on TOL. It isn't that expensive and you'll enjoy it. Do it. -Lon
▲(My class was "Bible Lands and Customs")▲
Lon,
You apparently just love to imagine yourself an academic wonder, and you seem to have the need to imagine yourself better than others as a result. Those must have been your glory days. Reminds me of the Springsteen song.
Yes, I graduated with honors from one of the top engineering schools in the country nearly 40 years ago, but that was just the start of my success achieved through the blessings of God.
It would be sad to have to look back at school as my greatest achievement. If that was my only source of pride, well, I might have to poor attitude you have. It does appear that you spent time and resources in institutions that did not give you the option of honestly reading the scriptures, and the decision to do so now would alienate you from your support group. I encourage you to embrace an honest approach instead.
You apparently just love to imagine yourself an academic wonder, and you seem to have the need to imagine yourself better than others as a result. Those must have been your glory days. Reminds me of the Springsteen song.
Yes, I graduated with honors from one of the top engineering schools in the country nearly 40 years ago, but that was just the start of my success achieved through the blessings of God.
It would be sad to have to look back at school as my greatest achievement. If that was my only source of pride, well, I might have to poor attitude you have. It does appear that you spent time and resources in institutions that did not give you the option of honestly reading the scriptures, and the decision to do so now would alienate you from your support group. I encourage you to embrace an honest approach instead.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Funny that you think that poetry can't be history.
glorydaz
Well-known member
God forbid. We wouldn't want to look silly.
1 Cor. 1:19-21 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Genesis 2:5KJV does not teach that there were no plants on Day Six. It says that there were no plants in the fields and that no herb of the field had grown. The phrase “of the field” is translated from the Hebrew word sadeh, which means cultivated plants; those that were planted by man in a field tilled by man. So there were plants on Day Six, just no cultivated plants. And the rest of the verse gives the reason - because “there was no man to till the ground.”
genuineoriginal
New member
I understand you are grasping at straws to find any way you can to avoid the truth that there is only one creation account.
The story about the garden of Eden in Genesis 2 was saying that there were no cultivated fields before man was created.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
If the Bible is the only place we meet the historical Jesus who can save people from their sins, and you believe that the Bible is chock full of errors, good luck introducing unbelievers to Him without looking silly.
"Oh yes, that story, and that story and that story are not at all true, but Jesus really did come back to life after being dead for three days. You can count on that!" If God had been at all concerned that the way the Bible presents truth would frustrate His purpose to save those who will believe, He would not have preserved it for all generations as it now exists.
Having an opinion to yourself is one thing. But if you think that seeking out and trying to convince weak Christians that the Bible is unreliable is advancing the Kingdom, you need to rethink that. Use your talents to fight Satanic forces instead.
See the NET Bible notes.
You have half of it: no cultivated plants because there was no man. No wild plants because there was no rain.
The two causal clauses explain the first two disjunctive clauses: There was no uncultivated, general growth because there was no rain, and there were no grains because there was no man to cultivate the soil.
Again:
The two causal clauses explain the first two disjunctive clauses: There was no uncultivated, general growth because there was no rain, and there were no grains because there was no man to cultivate the soil.
I never said, implied, or otherwise intimated “chock full of errors.”
You don’t seem to be able to refute my actual position, so you pretend that I said something that I did not say.
That is a dishonest approach.
Vulcan Logician
Member
Hey guys, wow. My intro thread has blown up with side discussions. Awesome!
1) I kind of do internet stuff in spurts. I won't be an everyday presence here.
2) I want to start a thread, but I'd rather not be thoughtless about it. Give me time.
3) I'm not "Cobra"... Not a sock of any kind.
4) I admitted I didn't come here for altruistic reasons. As I said before, I grow intellectually by exposing myself to different views. I say "better is selfishness that admits itself honestly, than selfishness that calls itself by tender names..."
5) Lon, atheism is totally tenable. Why don't you believe that Mohammed isn't the messenger of God? Probably the same reason I don't. He isn't. If you don't believe that Allah is the one true God, you are an atheist. Totally tenable. My atheism is just a little bit more rigorous than yours.
6) The good Samaritan is prolly my favorite parable. If you take it as anything other than a moral teaching, you, sir or madame, are wretched. Historically true? LOL! Forest/trees.
Sorry I haven't contributed yet. I will soon.
1) I kind of do internet stuff in spurts. I won't be an everyday presence here.
2) I want to start a thread, but I'd rather not be thoughtless about it. Give me time.
3) I'm not "Cobra"... Not a sock of any kind.
4) I admitted I didn't come here for altruistic reasons. As I said before, I grow intellectually by exposing myself to different views. I say "better is selfishness that admits itself honestly, than selfishness that calls itself by tender names..."
5) Lon, atheism is totally tenable. Why don't you believe that Mohammed isn't the messenger of God? Probably the same reason I don't. He isn't. If you don't believe that Allah is the one true God, you are an atheist. Totally tenable. My atheism is just a little bit more rigorous than yours.
6) The good Samaritan is prolly my favorite parable. If you take it as anything other than a moral teaching, you, sir or madame, are wretched. Historically true? LOL! Forest/trees.
Sorry I haven't contributed yet. I will soon.
genuineoriginal
New member
We have already proven that statement by one of the translators is wrong because the phrase "of the field" indicates cultivated plants.
There were five Hebrew scholars translating the Torah in the NET Bible. I listed the institutions granting their PhD’s.
You claimed to have proved them wrong. What are your credentials in Hebrew translation, and how do your credentials compare to theirs?
A refresher:
Richard E. Averbeck, Ph.D.
(Dropsie College)
Dr. Averbeck taught for four years at Dallas Theological Seminary, teaching in both the Old Testament and pastoral ministries departments. He also taught for ten years at Grace Theological Seminary, serving as chair of the Old Testament department for four years and chair of the seminary curriculum planning committee for five. His areas of expertise include Old Testament, especially the Pentateuch, ancient Near Eastern history and languages, Old Testament criticism, Hebrew, and biblical counseling. He is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society, the Institute for Biblical Research, the American Oriental Society, the American Schools of Oriental Research, and the Society of Biblical Literature. Dr. Averbeck has been published in several journals and has contributed numerous articles to Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology (Baker, 1995), Faith, Tradition, and History (Eisenbrauns, 1994), Cracking Old Testament Codes: Guide to Interpreting Old Testament Literary Forms (Broadman and Holman, 1995), the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (Zondervan, 1997), and Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (InterVarsity, 2003). He has coedited the volume and written a major article in Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons: Studies in Honor of Micheal C. Astour (Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 1997) and was the main editor with a major chapter in Life and Culture in the Ancient Near East (CDL Press, 2003). He has translated and written notes for Numbers 18-36 for The Holman Christian Standard Bible and Leviticus for The NET Bible (New English Translation).
Robert B. Chisholm, Th.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)
BA, Syracuse University, 1973; MDiv, Grace Theological Seminary, 1976; ThM, 1978; ThD, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1983
While Dr. Chisholm enjoys teaching the full breadth of Old Testament Studies, he takes special delight in the books of Judges, Samuel, Isaiah, and Amos. Dr. Chisholm has published seven books, most recently commentaries on Judges-Ruth and on 1-2 Samuel. He was translation consultant for the International Children's Bible and for The Everyday Bible and is senior Old Testament editor for the NET Bible. Any discussion with Dr. Chisholm on the Old Testament, however, can be quickly sidetracked when mentioning Syracuse University basketball or the New York Yankees, teams which probably do not have a greater fan outside the state of New York, much to the chagrin of his colleagues
Dorian Coover-Cox, Ph.D.
(Dallas Theological Seminary)
Associate Professor of Old Testament Studies
BA, Wheaton College, 1975; MA(BS), Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984; ThM, 1988; PhD, 2001.
Dr. Coover-Cox has been a part of DTS as a student, a teacher, and associate editor for Bibliotheca Sacra. Originally she came to the Seminary to become a better editor; she found, however, that what she enjoys most about editing is helping people learn. While still an editor, she has found her niche in the classroom as well, encouraging students as they learn Hebrew. She has special interest in the Book of Exodus and in literary analysis of narratives and poetry.
Eugene H. Merrill, Ph.D.
(Columbia University)
Eugene Haines Merrill (born September 12, 1934) is an Old Testament scholar who has served as a distinguished professor of Old Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and 2010 president of the Evangelical Theological Society.
Allen P. Ross, Ph.D.
(Cambridge University)
Professor of Divinity
Beeson Divinity School
Old Testament
Office: Divinity Hall
Email: apross@samford.edu
Phone: 205-726-2072
Allen Ross joined the faculty in 2002 as Beeson Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew. He is the author ofIntroducing Biblical Hebrew, Holiness to the Lord: A Guide to the Exposition of the Book of Leviticus,Creation and Blessing: A Guide to the Study and Exposition of Genesis, Recalling the Hope of Glory: Biblical Worship from the Garden to the New Creation, and A Commentary on the Psalms (Vol. I 2011, Vol II 2013,Vol III 2016). He has contributed numerous articles to scholarly journals. Previously, he taught at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry and Dallas Theological Seminary, and served as director of the Christian Leadership Center, Tallahassee, Florida. With an earlier background in Baptist and Presbyterian churches, he has been associated with the Episcopal Church since 1979. He is married to Dr. Jan Ross, who is completing an eight-volume set on the works of Thomas Traherne.
Education
* Ph.D., University of Cambridge
* Th.M., Th.D., Dallas Theological Seminary
* B.A. in Biblical Studies, Bob Jones University
genuineoriginal
New member
Do you really want to play "dueling authorities"?
Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
The account in vv. 5-25 is not a second, complete and independent history of the creation, nor does it contain mere appendices to the account in Gen 1; but it describes the commencement of the history of the human race. This commencement includes not only a complete account of the creation of the first human pair, but a description of the place which God prepared for their abode, the latter being of the highest importance in relation to the self-determination of man, with its momentous consequences to both earth and heaven. Even in the history of the creation man takes precedence of all other creatures, as being created in the image of God and appointed lord of all the earth, though he is simply mentioned there as the last and highest link in the creation. To this our present account is attached, describing with greater minuteness the position of man in the creation, and explaining the circumstances which exerted the greatest influence upon his subsequent career. These circumstances were-the formation of man from the dust of the earth and the divine breath of life; the tree of knowledge in paradise; the formation of the woman, and the relation of the woman to the man. Of these three elements, the first forms the substratum to the other two. Hence the more exact account of the creation of Adam is subordinated to, and inserted in, the description of paradise (Genesis 2:7). In Genesis 2:5 and Genesis 2:6, with which the narrative commences, there is an evident allusion to paradise: “And as yet there was (arose, grew) no shrub of the field upon the earth, and no herb of the field sprouted; for Jehovah El had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; and a mist arose from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.” היה in parallelism with צמח means to become, to arise, to proceed. Although the growth of the shrubs and sprouting of the herbs are represented here as dependent upon the rain and the cultivation of the earth by man, we must not understand the words as meaning that there was neither shrub nor herb before the rain and dew, or before the creation of man, and so draw the conclusion that the creation of the plants occurred either after or contemporaneously with the creation of man, in direct contradiction to Genesis 1:11-12. The creation of the plants is not alluded to here at all, but simply the planting of the garden in Eden. The growing of the shrubs and sprouting of the herbs is different from the creation or first production of the vegetable kingdom, and relates to the growing and sprouting of the plants and germs which were called into existence by the creation, the natural development of the plants as it had steadily proceeded ever since the creation. This was dependent upon rain and human culture; their creation was not. Moreover, the shrub and herb of the field do not embrace the whole of the vegetable productions of the earth. It is not a fact that the field is used in the second section in the same sense as the earth in the first.” שׂדה is not “the widespread plain of the earth, the broad expanse of land,” but a field of arable land, soil fit for cultivation, which forms only a part of the “earth” or “ground.” Even the “beast of the field” in Genesis 2:19 and Genesis 3:1 is not synonymous with the “beast of the earth” in Genesis 1:24-25, but is a more restricted term, denoting only such animals as live upon the field and are supported by its produce, whereas the “beast of the earth” denotes all wild beasts as distinguished from tame cattle and reptiles. In the same way, the “shrub of the field” consists of such shrubs and tree-like productions of the cultivated land as man raises for the sake of their fruit, and the “herb of the field,” all seed-producing plants, both corn and vegetables, which serve as food for man and beast. - The mist (אד, vapour, which falls as rain, Job 36:27) is correctly regarded by Delitzsch as the creative beginning of the rain (המטיר) itself, from which we may infer, therefore, that it rained before the flood.
The account in vv. 5-25 is not a second, complete and independent history of the creation, nor does it contain mere appendices to the account in Gen 1; but it describes the commencement of the history of the human race. This commencement includes not only a complete account of the creation of the first human pair, but a description of the place which God prepared for their abode, the latter being of the highest importance in relation to the self-determination of man, with its momentous consequences to both earth and heaven. Even in the history of the creation man takes precedence of all other creatures, as being created in the image of God and appointed lord of all the earth, though he is simply mentioned there as the last and highest link in the creation. To this our present account is attached, describing with greater minuteness the position of man in the creation, and explaining the circumstances which exerted the greatest influence upon his subsequent career. These circumstances were-the formation of man from the dust of the earth and the divine breath of life; the tree of knowledge in paradise; the formation of the woman, and the relation of the woman to the man. Of these three elements, the first forms the substratum to the other two. Hence the more exact account of the creation of Adam is subordinated to, and inserted in, the description of paradise (Genesis 2:7). In Genesis 2:5 and Genesis 2:6, with which the narrative commences, there is an evident allusion to paradise: “And as yet there was (arose, grew) no shrub of the field upon the earth, and no herb of the field sprouted; for Jehovah El had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; and a mist arose from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.” היה in parallelism with צמח means to become, to arise, to proceed. Although the growth of the shrubs and sprouting of the herbs are represented here as dependent upon the rain and the cultivation of the earth by man, we must not understand the words as meaning that there was neither shrub nor herb before the rain and dew, or before the creation of man, and so draw the conclusion that the creation of the plants occurred either after or contemporaneously with the creation of man, in direct contradiction to Genesis 1:11-12. The creation of the plants is not alluded to here at all, but simply the planting of the garden in Eden. The growing of the shrubs and sprouting of the herbs is different from the creation or first production of the vegetable kingdom, and relates to the growing and sprouting of the plants and germs which were called into existence by the creation, the natural development of the plants as it had steadily proceeded ever since the creation. This was dependent upon rain and human culture; their creation was not. Moreover, the shrub and herb of the field do not embrace the whole of the vegetable productions of the earth. It is not a fact that the field is used in the second section in the same sense as the earth in the first.” שׂדה is not “the widespread plain of the earth, the broad expanse of land,” but a field of arable land, soil fit for cultivation, which forms only a part of the “earth” or “ground.” Even the “beast of the field” in Genesis 2:19 and Genesis 3:1 is not synonymous with the “beast of the earth” in Genesis 1:24-25, but is a more restricted term, denoting only such animals as live upon the field and are supported by its produce, whereas the “beast of the earth” denotes all wild beasts as distinguished from tame cattle and reptiles. In the same way, the “shrub of the field” consists of such shrubs and tree-like productions of the cultivated land as man raises for the sake of their fruit, and the “herb of the field,” all seed-producing plants, both corn and vegetables, which serve as food for man and beast. - The mist (אד, vapour, which falls as rain, Job 36:27) is correctly regarded by Delitzsch as the creative beginning of the rain (המטיר) itself, from which we may infer, therefore, that it rained before the flood.
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
Karl Fredreich Keil (1807-1888) was a German Protestant exegetist. Several years after finishing his theological studys in Dorpat and Berlin, he accepted a call to the theological faculty of Dorpat, where he labored for twenty-five years as lecturer and professor of Old and New Testament exegesis and Oriental languages. In 1859 he settled at Leipsic, where he devoted himself to literary work and to the practical affairs of the Lutheran Church. In 1887 he moved to Rodlitz, continuing his literary activity there until his death.
He belonged to the strictly orthodox and conservative school of Hengstenberg. Ignoring modern criticism almost entirely, all his writings represent the view that the books of the Old and New Testaments are to be retained as the revealed word of God. He regarded the development of German theological science as a passing phase of error. His chief work is the commentary on the Old Testament (1866), which he undertook with Franz Delitzsch. To this work he contributed commentaries on all the books from Genesis through Esther, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the minor prophets.
Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890) was a Lutheran, from Leipsic. He came of Hebrew parentage; studied at Leipsic where he became a private lecturer in 1842; held the position of professor in Rostock in 1846; then in Erlangen in 1850; and then again in Leipsic in 1867.
His exegetical activity began in earnest at Erlangen, where he prepared independently and in connection with Karl Keil some of the best commentaries on the Old Testament (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, 1866) which had been produced in Germany. These were soon translated into English and published at Edinburgh.
Delitzsch opposed the idea "of fencing theology off with the letter of the Formula of Concord." In an introduction to commentary on Genesis published in 1887, he made it clear that the Bible, as the literature of a divine revelation, can not be permitted to be charged with a lack of veracity or to be robbed of its historic basis.
In 1886 he founded a seminary at Leipsic in which candidates of theology are prepared for missionary work among the Jews, and which in memory of him is now called Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum.
Karl Fredreich Keil (1807-1888) was a German Protestant exegetist. Several years after finishing his theological studys in Dorpat and Berlin, he accepted a call to the theological faculty of Dorpat, where he labored for twenty-five years as lecturer and professor of Old and New Testament exegesis and Oriental languages. In 1859 he settled at Leipsic, where he devoted himself to literary work and to the practical affairs of the Lutheran Church. In 1887 he moved to Rodlitz, continuing his literary activity there until his death.
He belonged to the strictly orthodox and conservative school of Hengstenberg. Ignoring modern criticism almost entirely, all his writings represent the view that the books of the Old and New Testaments are to be retained as the revealed word of God. He regarded the development of German theological science as a passing phase of error. His chief work is the commentary on the Old Testament (1866), which he undertook with Franz Delitzsch. To this work he contributed commentaries on all the books from Genesis through Esther, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the minor prophets.
Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890) was a Lutheran, from Leipsic. He came of Hebrew parentage; studied at Leipsic where he became a private lecturer in 1842; held the position of professor in Rostock in 1846; then in Erlangen in 1850; and then again in Leipsic in 1867.
His exegetical activity began in earnest at Erlangen, where he prepared independently and in connection with Karl Keil some of the best commentaries on the Old Testament (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, 1866) which had been produced in Germany. These were soon translated into English and published at Edinburgh.
Delitzsch opposed the idea "of fencing theology off with the letter of the Formula of Concord." In an introduction to commentary on Genesis published in 1887, he made it clear that the Bible, as the literature of a divine revelation, can not be permitted to be charged with a lack of veracity or to be robbed of its historic basis.
In 1886 he founded a seminary at Leipsic in which candidates of theology are prepared for missionary work among the Jews, and which in memory of him is now called Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum.
I am not you either. Glory is always imagining I am one person or another. I have lost count of how many people she thinks I am.
The story of the Good Samaritan is wonderful. Are you aware of how insulting it was to the audience? They were very prejudiced against Samaritans, and Jesus’ presenting the Samaritan as more righteous that priest was a real slap in the face.
You found one or two scholars who chose the path of trying to reconcile the two stories, who chose the easy way.
In fact, your post admits the bias. With this translation principle, he could not be honest:
Delitzsch opposed the idea "of fencing theology off with the letter of the Formula of Concord." In an introduction to commentary on Genesis published in 1887, he made it clear that the Bible, as the literature of a divine revelation, can not be permitted to be charged with a lack of veracity or to be robbed of its historic basis.
I presented five scholars who took the more difficult stance of recognizing the difference.
If you think you have the more compelling story, you are in a delusion.
By the way, notice how your source mentioned corn? Corn evolved in the Western Hemisphere. It did not exist in the Middle East. You deny both the scriptures and the evidence that God has given us in creation.
genuineoriginal
New member
Those two scholars have better credentials than the ones you cite.
It is more of a case of you not understanding their comments than them trying to claim there were two creation accounts.
:rotfl:
You fooled yourself into thinking they were talking about "maize" instead of using a general term for "grain".
corn
"grain," Old English corn, from Proto-Germanic *kurnam "small seed" (source also of Old Frisian and Old Saxon korn "grain," Middle Dutch coren, German Korn, Old Norse korn, Gothic kaurn), from PIE root *gre-no- "grain." The sense of the Old English word was "grain with the seed still in" (as in barleycorn) rather than a particular plant.
Locally understood to denote the leading crop of a district. Restricted to the indigenous "maize" in America (c. 1600, originally Indian corn, but the adjective was dropped), usually wheat in England, oats in Scotland and Ireland, while Korn means "rye" in parts of Germany. Maize was introduced to China by 1550, it thrived where rice did not grow well and was a significant factor in the 18th century population boom there. Cornflakes first recorded 1907. Corned beef so called for the "corns" or grains of salt with which it is preserved; from verb corn "to salt" (1560s).
"grain," Old English corn, from Proto-Germanic *kurnam "small seed" (source also of Old Frisian and Old Saxon korn "grain," Middle Dutch coren, German Korn, Old Norse korn, Gothic kaurn), from PIE root *gre-no- "grain." The sense of the Old English word was "grain with the seed still in" (as in barleycorn) rather than a particular plant.
Locally understood to denote the leading crop of a district. Restricted to the indigenous "maize" in America (c. 1600, originally Indian corn, but the adjective was dropped), usually wheat in England, oats in Scotland and Ireland, while Korn means "rye" in parts of Germany. Maize was introduced to China by 1550, it thrived where rice did not grow well and was a significant factor in the 18th century population boom there. Cornflakes first recorded 1907. Corned beef so called for the "corns" or grains of salt with which it is preserved; from verb corn "to salt" (1560s).
Wow, better credentials than the senior guys at Dallas Theological Seminary. You really know how to fabricate false claims.
You think he was writing Old English in 1880s?
Nevertheless, the fact persists, from you own account shows the scholars started with a bias, that the Bible stories had to actual history, so they had no choice but to deny what the text actually says. You seem to have the same rule.