If you were going into the Science Field, and Christian what would you want to know?
- Thread starter thecreationtutor
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K
Picking a strawman scripture as your premise, and then showing how it fails to meet the requirement will hardly convince anyone, brother...
It's not convincing you, that's for sure. We haven't heard from anyone else.
And...God is described as being where?
The words above and below do not occur in the passage until vs. 7, the word tachach. Then we also see the waters used to be above it. Thus in verse 2, they could not have been below.
Above the surface of the water covered earth....
The earth was already formed in Gen1.1.
Ge, that's funny. Mine says formless and void. How can it be formed if it is formless?
Gen 1.2 tells us that the earth was covered with water and that God was moving over the surface of the waters....of which, is the vantage point for the Genesis narrative.
The word covered does not occur in verse 2. It could equally well be two sentences, one about earth, one about water. They could even be at opposite ends of the cosmos if we go by this verse alone.
No, brother.
The Hebrew creation verb is 'yə·hî'....'let it be'....as in, let it be seen from the earth's surface....the vantage point established in Gen 1.2.
When something "is" then it can "be seen" from everywhere, including earth's surface, if it is there already, whcih remains to be established.
Light was created in Gen 1.1.
The word first occurs in vs. 3.
You pride yourself of exegesis...but then you fail to even study the Hebrew here...
You keep saying words are in verses they are not in. tachach, mayim, or, eretz
If you get the vantage point for the Genesis narrative wrong, as you have....then you have the sun being created on day 4, etc, etc....which is physically impossible.
But that is what the Bible says happened. Unless you are equating or and shamash?
We can kill two birds with one stone, here.
We can show you the error of your YEC interpretation....and, at the same time, show you how the scientific method is derived from the very same text...
What a deal!!!
Well, please do so. So far, you are making one mistake after another. Saying words are where they are not, and using technical terms wrong.
Just to remind everyone, Scriptural tests of hypotheses include Gideon's fleece, the adultery test in Numbers 5, and Hezekiah's refusal to ask for a sign. hardly the scientific outcome any time.
It's not convincing you, that's for sure. We haven't heard from anyone else.
And...God is described as being where?
The words above and below do not occur in the passage until vs. 7, the word tachach. Then we also see the waters used to be above it. Thus in verse 2, they could not have been below.
Above the surface of the water covered earth....
The earth was already formed in Gen1.1.
Ge, that's funny. Mine says formless and void. How can it be formed if it is formless?
Gen 1.2 tells us that the earth was covered with water and that God was moving over the surface of the waters....of which, is the vantage point for the Genesis narrative.
The word covered does not occur in verse 2. It could equally well be two sentences, one about earth, one about water. They could even be at opposite ends of the cosmos if we go by this verse alone.
No, brother.
The Hebrew creation verb is 'yə·hî'....'let it be'....as in, let it be seen from the earth's surface....the vantage point established in Gen 1.2.
When something "is" then it can "be seen" from everywhere, including earth's surface, if it is there already, whcih remains to be established.
Light was created in Gen 1.1.
The word first occurs in vs. 3.
You pride yourself of exegesis...but then you fail to even study the Hebrew here...
You keep saying words are in verses they are not in. tachach, mayim, or, eretz
If you get the vantage point for the Genesis narrative wrong, as you have....then you have the sun being created on day 4, etc, etc....which is physically impossible.
But that is what the Bible says happened. Unless you are equating or and shamash?
We can kill two birds with one stone, here.
We can show you the error of your YEC interpretation....and, at the same time, show you how the scientific method is derived from the very same text...
What a deal!!!
Well, please do so. So far, you are making one mistake after another. Saying words are where they are not, and using technical terms wrong.
Just to remind everyone, Scriptural tests of hypotheses include Gideon's fleece, the adultery test in Numbers 5, and Hezekiah's refusal to ask for a sign. hardly the scientific outcome any time.
Jesus can speak things into existance. If he tell a fig tree to wither away, and that fig tree wither at that moment. It didn't happen years later as the natural laws of science teaches. Science teaches the physical nature and if the eyes can't see or the ears can't hear, which it doesn't exist according to science. And by this teaching causes people to loose faith. Faith is for the ones that doesn't uses their eyes and ears to identify.
K
Are you always this judgemental, or do you just save it for this thread? You were doing the same thing for the original writer, saying that because he was not answering your posts, that he was not up to your expertise. I had different colors. If it's any of your business, I was helping conduct an online fellowship gathering at the time, and trying to move this discussion along, so I could see if it's really true that you can pull the four steps of the scientific method out of Gen. 1.
It's not convincing you, that's for sure. We haven't heard from anyone else.
The words above and below do not occur in the passage until vs. 7, the word tachach. Then we also see the waters used to be above it. Thus in verse 2, they could not have been below.
The earth was already formed in Gen1.1.
Gee, that's funny. Mine says formless and void. How can it be formed if it is formless?
The word covered does not occur in verse 2. It could equally well be two sentences, one about earth, one about water. They could even be at opposite ends of the cosmos if we go by this verse alone.
When something "is" then it can "be seen" from everywhere, including earth's surface, if it is there already, whcih remains to be established.
The word first occurs in vs. 3.
You keep saying words are in verses they are not in. tachach, mayim, or, eretz
But that is what the Bible says happened. Unless you are equating or and shamash?
Well, please do so. So far, you are making one mistake after another. Saying words are where they are not, and using technical terms wrong.
Just to remind everyone, Scriptural tests of hypotheses include Gideon's fleece, the adultery test in Numbers 5, and Hezekiah's refusal to ask for a sign. hardly the scientific outcome any time.
It's not convincing you, that's for sure. We haven't heard from anyone else.
The words above and below do not occur in the passage until vs. 7, the word tachach. Then we also see the waters used to be above it. Thus in verse 2, they could not have been below.
The earth was already formed in Gen1.1.
Gee, that's funny. Mine says formless and void. How can it be formed if it is formless?
The word covered does not occur in verse 2. It could equally well be two sentences, one about earth, one about water. They could even be at opposite ends of the cosmos if we go by this verse alone.
When something "is" then it can "be seen" from everywhere, including earth's surface, if it is there already, whcih remains to be established.
The word first occurs in vs. 3.
You keep saying words are in verses they are not in. tachach, mayim, or, eretz
But that is what the Bible says happened. Unless you are equating or and shamash?
Well, please do so. So far, you are making one mistake after another. Saying words are where they are not, and using technical terms wrong.
Just to remind everyone, Scriptural tests of hypotheses include Gideon's fleece, the adultery test in Numbers 5, and Hezekiah's refusal to ask for a sign. hardly the scientific outcome any time.
today is July,1st,2013,,,,,,,the scientist say,"the earth is millions of years old",,,,how old? their theory changes back and forth based on new discoveries. they take this sample and that test. they do this study and analyze the things they found. they use words like "hypothesis"=educated guess,,,,or theory=some supporting facts..
now (and take notice),,,they have never moved from this position. that is even as yesterday,today they are "still seeking the answers to the substance of creation",,,that is they are still evaluating their own test,studies,research ect. and are constantly evolving their process of thinking. (notice the scientist have never taken the leap from hypothesis or theory and stated),,,,,,,,"so now we have the proof that god and creation is now obsolete",,,,,notice they themselves are still(in the process of seeking to find the proof),,,,,
one scientist thinks the gulf of Mexico was created by an asteroid,,,another pangea. the dinosaurs lived before or did they live after?,,,,,a man evolved from a single cell,,,,,,"but the only proof is a missing link",,,,that they cannot explain,nor find. a scientist can take the d.n.a. from a seed and and manipulate it and have it to grow,,,,yet my god can say to nothing,,,"become d.n.a.,,,and it come forth",,,,create the seed the scientist cannot.
on the door of a doctor it states "dr. Iamsoandso,medical practice",,,,and so after many years of study they "practice medicine",,,,,and a small girl plays with a doll and "practices being a mother",,,and the young boys go to the field and practice playing football,for the day they will actually play the real game.,,,,that is one is as if an unlearned follower who has need to "practice,",,,,and the other is come to age and has no need of "practice",,,seeing they have moved past hypothesis and theory,,,,,,,
notice the criminal,,,he hides from the authority of the law,that is he the criminal does not stand in the street and scream,"i robbed the bank come and get me!",,,but he rather cowers,he hides from those who he understands in the back of his mind who is of authority above him in power,,,,his mouth says puffed up things,but his acts state another,he bows down by hiding to the master.(his own confession,by works),,,the government and the law parade around in bright uniforms,in the light,but the criminal hides in a disguise at night(always bowing down to the greater authority).
,,,,,,,,do you find it strange I,,,a christian,,,"am not posting this on a science chat forum?????",,,,,and now it is,by your own standards a "theory",,with a supported set of facts that,,,,,that is,,,,,create me a set of d.n.a. from nothing,not a manipulation of the d.n.a. my god created,but you cannot. create an edible thing from matter that did not already exist,but the scientist cannot.
the educated,the scientist,,,,,,they are not masters of knowledge over the Christians,contrary they come to the christian and say "well but,,,,",,,,,as the criminal,,they bow according to their works. they defend their position,they study it and test, and present their findings.
here is a scientific fact,,,,,,,all cometh from life,a tree grows and sets it's seed and the fruit of it grows around it. it weakens to give the light,much needed to the seed it has set forth. the old tree dies and the baby of the old takes it's place. the old tree falls to the ground. and the worm bears it's young among it. the gecko crawls over it and bears its young. and the old tree becomes the food of the worm and the gecko eats and it is then reduced to the earth.
but the worm of you that dieth not and the fire that is not quenched,the worm and the cigarette lighters and cars corrupt and lay on the surface of the soil. and the rain drive you into the depth,and in to the earth. and together you reduce,first to the molecule then to the atom. then to the finality of the man?,,,strontium 90?,,,or the lessor,where is the half life?,,,,,down down i tel you into the fire,the whole earth is melted in the freaverent heat.
conveniently a scientist explains the hypothesis of the beginning of this,as the christian explains the end,,,,,,one the one the big bang,,,,the other the melting,,,,one is by far more advanced than the other,one affixed on the beginning and the other the end......look at both,you cannot understand either without,,,,,,,,,,both,,,,,
now (and take notice),,,they have never moved from this position. that is even as yesterday,today they are "still seeking the answers to the substance of creation",,,that is they are still evaluating their own test,studies,research ect. and are constantly evolving their process of thinking. (notice the scientist have never taken the leap from hypothesis or theory and stated),,,,,,,,"so now we have the proof that god and creation is now obsolete",,,,,notice they themselves are still(in the process of seeking to find the proof),,,,,
one scientist thinks the gulf of Mexico was created by an asteroid,,,another pangea. the dinosaurs lived before or did they live after?,,,,,a man evolved from a single cell,,,,,,"but the only proof is a missing link",,,,that they cannot explain,nor find. a scientist can take the d.n.a. from a seed and and manipulate it and have it to grow,,,,yet my god can say to nothing,,,"become d.n.a.,,,and it come forth",,,,create the seed the scientist cannot.
on the door of a doctor it states "dr. Iamsoandso,medical practice",,,,and so after many years of study they "practice medicine",,,,,and a small girl plays with a doll and "practices being a mother",,,and the young boys go to the field and practice playing football,for the day they will actually play the real game.,,,,that is one is as if an unlearned follower who has need to "practice,",,,,and the other is come to age and has no need of "practice",,,seeing they have moved past hypothesis and theory,,,,,,,
notice the criminal,,,he hides from the authority of the law,that is he the criminal does not stand in the street and scream,"i robbed the bank come and get me!",,,but he rather cowers,he hides from those who he understands in the back of his mind who is of authority above him in power,,,,his mouth says puffed up things,but his acts state another,he bows down by hiding to the master.(his own confession,by works),,,the government and the law parade around in bright uniforms,in the light,but the criminal hides in a disguise at night(always bowing down to the greater authority).
,,,,,,,,do you find it strange I,,,a christian,,,"am not posting this on a science chat forum?????",,,,,and now it is,by your own standards a "theory",,with a supported set of facts that,,,,,that is,,,,,create me a set of d.n.a. from nothing,not a manipulation of the d.n.a. my god created,but you cannot. create an edible thing from matter that did not already exist,but the scientist cannot.
the educated,the scientist,,,,,,they are not masters of knowledge over the Christians,contrary they come to the christian and say "well but,,,,",,,,,as the criminal,,they bow according to their works. they defend their position,they study it and test, and present their findings.
here is a scientific fact,,,,,,,all cometh from life,a tree grows and sets it's seed and the fruit of it grows around it. it weakens to give the light,much needed to the seed it has set forth. the old tree dies and the baby of the old takes it's place. the old tree falls to the ground. and the worm bears it's young among it. the gecko crawls over it and bears its young. and the old tree becomes the food of the worm and the gecko eats and it is then reduced to the earth.
but the worm of you that dieth not and the fire that is not quenched,the worm and the cigarette lighters and cars corrupt and lay on the surface of the soil. and the rain drive you into the depth,and in to the earth. and together you reduce,first to the molecule then to the atom. then to the finality of the man?,,,strontium 90?,,,or the lessor,where is the half life?,,,,,down down i tel you into the fire,the whole earth is melted in the freaverent heat.
conveniently a scientist explains the hypothesis of the beginning of this,as the christian explains the end,,,,,,one the one the big bang,,,,the other the melting,,,,one is by far more advanced than the other,one affixed on the beginning and the other the end......look at both,you cannot understand either without,,,,,,,,,,both,,,,,
God has spoken all things into existance just as Jesus has use His tongue also. It is hard for us to believe in the supernatural since we flood our minds with and which we call logic. But Jesus came to bring in the truth that there is unseen forces that the eyes and ears can't capture. The devil is luring us away by keeping our minds in the natural so that we will not be able to see him at work; like there is people that be stirring up trouble to those that are in relationships by manipulating their thoughts but giving the illusion that they are not in the picture. Like for an instance, the media can stir up strife among certain celebrities just to get a story and which that take good manipulating skills to do that.
1 Timothy 6:20Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,
2 Timothy 3:7always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 6:20Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,
2 Timothy 3:7always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
I'm sure he can speak for himself.
He is most likely pursuing a new lead (scientific method comes from Holy Bible) that he got from starting this thread.
'Tehom', in Gen 1.2, the one the Spirit of God is hovering over, the vantage point for the Genesis narrative to follow, is defined as 'the deep primeval ocean.'
According to you, this ocean of water is flying through space looking for a planet to land on...because you think that the earth does not yet exist...
The same phrase 'wə·hā·’ā·reṣ hā·yə·ṯāh ṯō·hū wā·ḇō·hū' also occurs in Jeremiah 4.23 when referring to an ALREADY formed earth that is desolate.
Study up...!
Again, had you performed some elementary exegesis, then you would have discovered that the same word is used in the creation Psalm 104.6, and informs the reader that the earth was covered in water.
In Gen 1.2, the compound Hebrew noun “hashamayimve'et ha'aretz”,“heavens” (plural) and “earth” (singular) with the definite articles and the conjunction, carries with it a distinct meaning.
Justas the English words “under” and “statement” and “dragon” and “fly” put together as compound nouns take on specific meanings.
“Hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz” consistently refers to the totality of the physical universe: matter, energy, space, and time.
References:
Creation & Time
Waltke
pp.20, 25-26
Creation& Blessing
Allen P. Ross
pp.721, 725-726
Thus, the earth was formed in Gen 1.1.
He is most likely pursuing a new lead (scientific method comes from Holy Bible) that he got from starting this thread.
'Tehom', in Gen 1.2, the one the Spirit of God is hovering over, the vantage point for the Genesis narrative to follow, is defined as 'the deep primeval ocean.'
According to you, this ocean of water is flying through space looking for a planet to land on...because you think that the earth does not yet exist...
The same phrase 'wə·hā·’ā·reṣ hā·yə·ṯāh ṯō·hū wā·ḇō·hū' also occurs in Jeremiah 4.23 when referring to an ALREADY formed earth that is desolate.
Study up...!
Again, had you performed some elementary exegesis, then you would have discovered that the same word is used in the creation Psalm 104.6, and informs the reader that the earth was covered in water.
In Gen 1.2, the compound Hebrew noun “hashamayimve'et ha'aretz”,“heavens” (plural) and “earth” (singular) with the definite articles and the conjunction, carries with it a distinct meaning.
Justas the English words “under” and “statement” and “dragon” and “fly” put together as compound nouns take on specific meanings.
“Hashamayim ve'et ha'aretz” consistently refers to the totality of the physical universe: matter, energy, space, and time.
References:
Creation & Time
Waltke
pp.20, 25-26
Creation& Blessing
Allen P. Ross
pp.721, 725-726
Thus, the earth was formed in Gen 1.1.
Last edited:
...and 'zero-point' energy...and tapping into it as an unlimited energy source etc...
...yeah, professor Donald and Daffy duck, found out they cannot measure infinite space with their rulers and therefore upheld the null hypothesis that 'the universe cannot exist' because their instruments failed to 'measure it'...., same happened with their attempts to 'define and measure God'..., their instruments could not find Him, so the 'null hypothesis' again, failed to be rejected ...
...hahaha...
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1Co 1:27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS";
1Co 3:20 and again, "THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS."
1Co 3:21 So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you,
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
(...did someone mention 'Richard Dawkins'...???...hehehe)
My God is a Great God - an 'unimaginable One... I sing and dance in the Greatness of who He is within me ... and just 'know'...
...yeah, professor Donald and Daffy duck, found out they cannot measure infinite space with their rulers and therefore upheld the null hypothesis that 'the universe cannot exist' because their instruments failed to 'measure it'...., same happened with their attempts to 'define and measure God'..., their instruments could not find Him, so the 'null hypothesis' again, failed to be rejected ...
...hahaha...
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1Co 1:27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, "He is THE ONE WHO CATCHES THE WISE IN THEIR CRAFTINESS";
1Co 3:20 and again, "THE LORD KNOWS THE REASONINGS of the wise, THAT THEY ARE USELESS."
1Co 3:21 So then let no one boast in men. For all things belong to you,
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
(...did someone mention 'Richard Dawkins'...???...hehehe)
My God is a Great God - an 'unimaginable One... I sing and dance in the Greatness of who He is within me ... and just 'know'...
Last edited:
K
That sounds better.
Well, that's not what I meant, but it could have been included in the language. The water fills the place in which God is going to create. Otherwise there could not be waters above the firmament later.
Jeremiah saw what he saw as a spiritual vision. He is simply saying that when Israel is not its homeland, it's as if the world no longer exists. It is poetic hyperbole, what Jeremiah sees not what is, since heaven surely still had light.
Ps. 104:6 says it is covered with the "deep", then in the next half verse it says the waters stood above the mountains. Your conclusion is of course based on the standard parallelism in Hebrew poetry. However, one could also use the parallelism to conclude that water above the mountains is merely one type of the deep, and they are not the same thing. Besides, I thought you said you were going to get the scientific method out of Genesis. If you must go to Psalms to prove your point, you are not doing that. It is difficult to use psalms to interpret genesis, as the Hebrews argue that the ketubim are not subject to the same level of inspiration as torah.
I have never before heard of compound nouns in Hebrew. The various grammars I have seen have never mentioned them. I suppose you could use that term for names, like Elijah (Yhaweh my-God). I find it difficult to believe that haeretz v'hashamayim in intended to be a "compound noun". The object-prefix et- is added twice, and the words are still disjointed. In every other language I have ever seen, when a compound noun is used, the grammatical prefixes and suffixes are added once. Like, we do not say "undering stating", we say "understating". We say "dragonflies", not "dragons flies". And "dragons flies" are a problem for which a dragon needs insect repellant, not small insects of a different type; "under stating" is telling someone something while both of you are looking for an object under a bed. I think that comparison to every other language proves that they are in fact two things: heaven, and earth. We see them separated by the firmament and later, "heaven is the heaven of the Lord, but the earth He has given to the children on men".
And all the modern references do not change the fact that the ancients wrote down that creation occurred when God separated the individual elements from primordial chaos, and earth is what stayed at the bottom. In this context, water and chaos need to be different things, for the standard ancient understanding to work.
Well, that's not what I meant, but it could have been included in the language. The water fills the place in which God is going to create. Otherwise there could not be waters above the firmament later.
Jeremiah saw what he saw as a spiritual vision. He is simply saying that when Israel is not its homeland, it's as if the world no longer exists. It is poetic hyperbole, what Jeremiah sees not what is, since heaven surely still had light.
Ps. 104:6 says it is covered with the "deep", then in the next half verse it says the waters stood above the mountains. Your conclusion is of course based on the standard parallelism in Hebrew poetry. However, one could also use the parallelism to conclude that water above the mountains is merely one type of the deep, and they are not the same thing. Besides, I thought you said you were going to get the scientific method out of Genesis. If you must go to Psalms to prove your point, you are not doing that. It is difficult to use psalms to interpret genesis, as the Hebrews argue that the ketubim are not subject to the same level of inspiration as torah.
I have never before heard of compound nouns in Hebrew. The various grammars I have seen have never mentioned them. I suppose you could use that term for names, like Elijah (Yhaweh my-God). I find it difficult to believe that haeretz v'hashamayim in intended to be a "compound noun". The object-prefix et- is added twice, and the words are still disjointed. In every other language I have ever seen, when a compound noun is used, the grammatical prefixes and suffixes are added once. Like, we do not say "undering stating", we say "understating". We say "dragonflies", not "dragons flies". And "dragons flies" are a problem for which a dragon needs insect repellant, not small insects of a different type; "under stating" is telling someone something while both of you are looking for an object under a bed. I think that comparison to every other language proves that they are in fact two things: heaven, and earth. We see them separated by the firmament and later, "heaven is the heaven of the Lord, but the earth He has given to the children on men".
And all the modern references do not change the fact that the ancients wrote down that creation occurred when God separated the individual elements from primordial chaos, and earth is what stayed at the bottom. In this context, water and chaos need to be different things, for the standard ancient understanding to work.
Its an ocean, brother...oceans have earth beneath them.
Come on...
The earth ALREADY existed when this phrase was used....same as it did in Gen 1....
Come on...
Scripture does not contradict other scripture.
Even a plain English reading of Psalm 104 tells us that the earth was COMPLETELY covered with water, as the surface was smooth....before dry land and the mountains rose up.
Since you are having great difficulty in understanding Gen 1, support scripture needs to be brought in to assist in your understanding....after all, this is proper exegesis.
Besides, what are a few days spent on firmly establishing the frame of reference in Gen 1 going to do to you, when you have already spent decades in ignorance?
Unless you can show verifiable lexical evidence to the contrary, then you have little choice but to accept the implication of this compound Hebrew noun.
You are operating under your own world-view without ANY references...
Adam was most likely not created as an adult....and most assuredly did not perform all of his tasks in 24 hrs.
Likewise, Eve was the first human clone, from Adam, and, according to the Hebrew, great passages of time passed before God brought her back to Adam. She had to be raised.
Even YEC's see this as an issue, that is why they try real hard to say that God created Adam and Eve with apparent age...so that it can all fit within their fieldgoal of 24 hrs.....SILLY!
God was the first parent to Adam & Eve, they were raised as children, and that takes years of time...NOT 24 hrs...come on!
Likewise, Eve was the first human clone, from Adam, and, according to the Hebrew, great passages of time passed before God brought her back to Adam. She had to be raised.
Even YEC's see this as an issue, that is why they try real hard to say that God created Adam and Eve with apparent age...so that it can all fit within their fieldgoal of 24 hrs.....SILLY!
God was the first parent to Adam & Eve, they were raised as children, and that takes years of time...NOT 24 hrs...come on!
K
First, are any other CC'ers interested in this discussion? Unless someone responds positively, this will be the last post I make to this nonsense, unless you produce your reading of Genesis 1 that gives rise to the scientific method. That was my original question. I have demonstrated error after error in your readings, and will do so for this last time. We are not discussing the answer to the question I asked, but instead wasting a lot of time on this.
1. I have already stated it is not an ocean.
2. The second usage is poetic hyperbole referring to the first, when the earth did not exist in any form sufficient to recognize an ocean.
3. I have already explained that the interpretation of the verse in psalms is not certain.
4. The burden of proof is on you. No text of Hebrew lists such a thing as a compound noun, only compound phrases. I have shown you the lexical differences.
5. Ancient History Sourcebook: Philo Judaeus: The Creation of the World, c. 30 CE #11 clearly states the water covered the earth AFTER the firmament was put in place.
Classics in the History of Psychology -- Plato's Timaeus Part 1 #5 par. 2 clearly states all four elements were made at the same time. The water (as in ocean) did not exist first.
The Internet Classics Archive | Metaphysics by Aristotle The summary in part 3 clearly shows that the belief in primordial water, as you do, established a contradtiction.
These are the three primary framers of early Christian philosophy outside of scripture, Philo, Plato, and Aristotle.
1. I have already stated it is not an ocean.
2. The second usage is poetic hyperbole referring to the first, when the earth did not exist in any form sufficient to recognize an ocean.
3. I have already explained that the interpretation of the verse in psalms is not certain.
4. The burden of proof is on you. No text of Hebrew lists such a thing as a compound noun, only compound phrases. I have shown you the lexical differences.
5. Ancient History Sourcebook: Philo Judaeus: The Creation of the World, c. 30 CE #11 clearly states the water covered the earth AFTER the firmament was put in place.
Classics in the History of Psychology -- Plato's Timaeus Part 1 #5 par. 2 clearly states all four elements were made at the same time. The water (as in ocean) did not exist first.
The Internet Classics Archive | Metaphysics by Aristotle The summary in part 3 clearly shows that the belief in primordial water, as you do, established a contradtiction.
These are the three primary framers of early Christian philosophy outside of scripture, Philo, Plato, and Aristotle.
W
When I first saw this thread I was excited to discuss science from a creation viewpoint I started writing some notes. But as I went on and read more posts, I am so glad I did not post. I am really disappointed where this has all gone. I have gotten a few tidbits ,personally,without any help from the thread. I feel kinda in shock from the twisted ideas, attitudes,and motives. I am with you Kenisyes , See you latter
I am systematically demonstrating the derivation of the scientific method from Gen1.
This, of course, initiates with the frame of reference that the reader uses for making observations.
As expected, you have issue with this starting point because it then forces your YEC world-view into contradiction with itself and scripture.
You dropped-out earlier from a previous flood discussion, as it likewise conflicted with your YEC viewpoint, and you don't have much patience for others who call you on your unreferenced assertions...
No.
The only thing that you have done is to posit your unreferenced opinion.
Nothing more.
I am.
You are unwilling...because you know that it conflicts with your world-view....and the deeper you go into conversation, the deeper your world-view is in jeopardy.
You have a lot to lose...
Assertion without lexical backup is simply unreferenced opinion.
I thought that you prided yourself on exegesis?
The first part of ANY exegesis is to define your terms.
You can't even do that...
Gen 1.1 informs the reader that the earth was already created.
No.
You have not.
No.
You have not.
You have shown ZERO lexical offerings.
Where?
Who ever said that water existed first?
Where?
So...now the Holy Bible needs external help as it cannot speak for itself?
This, of course, initiates with the frame of reference that the reader uses for making observations.
As expected, you have issue with this starting point because it then forces your YEC world-view into contradiction with itself and scripture.
You dropped-out earlier from a previous flood discussion, as it likewise conflicted with your YEC viewpoint, and you don't have much patience for others who call you on your unreferenced assertions...
No.
The only thing that you have done is to posit your unreferenced opinion.
Nothing more.
I am.
You are unwilling...because you know that it conflicts with your world-view....and the deeper you go into conversation, the deeper your world-view is in jeopardy.
You have a lot to lose...
Assertion without lexical backup is simply unreferenced opinion.
I thought that you prided yourself on exegesis?
The first part of ANY exegesis is to define your terms.
You can't even do that...
Gen 1.1 informs the reader that the earth was already created.
No.
You have not.
No.
You have not.
You have shown ZERO lexical offerings.
Where?
Who ever said that water existed first?
Where?
So...now the Holy Bible needs external help as it cannot speak for itself?
second peter,,,3;8 "with the lord",,,regardless to how men may see it,,,the creation that is. we are told in the scripture that "with the lord" each day of creation was 1000 years long,i.e. "and the evening and the morning was the first day",,,,notice it from the beginning to the end was 1000 years long.
then there was the second day,,,the second set of 1000 years,,,,and the evening and the morning was the second day. (now the creation was 2000 years old),,,,then the third,forth,fifth,sixth and on the "seventh set of 1000 year divisions the lord rested from all his works",,,,,,,
the entire bible is written about the seven days of creation,(notice day six you are in,and day seven is not yet come i.e."mill. kingdom=7th day"),,,,,and then the eight which is the lords day when he rose from the grave and there is no ninth only the perpetual eight.,,,,,,,,,,
here is a key you will remember it as you read it,,,,,,,,,"six hundred for Noah was six hundred when he entered the ark,,,sixty and six for the image Nebuchadnezzar set forth for the earth to worship was sixty cubits tall and six cubits broad",,,,,(prophecies of day six),,,not 7,5,4,3,2,,,,,,,,in the first day the earth was "void and darkness",,,,flood. and Adam died in the "day he ate thereof,930 years old in the first set of 1000 years",,,,
in the days of Peleg gen. 10;25,,,,the earth was divided,,,,Pangaea,,,Continental drift,(dry land appeared),,,ect.ect.ect.,,,,,day 2.day.3.day.4,,,,,,,,,iat the end of day six,,,,,the evil one will come,not another the one who is wounded unto death(head/kingdom cut off/flood),,,,he will rise from the pit and stand among the heads of the beast in the earth all of them present at the same time and a stone cut out without hands will be cast hat the (whole beast/all seven heads together),,,,,
the seven days of creation,,,,they are not to be calculated by science,,,,they are a "prophecy of the number of days",,,,though the sun has set still for the slaughter at the voice of Joshuah(and),,,gone backward in the scripture,,,,so you know not the day(1000 years),,,,,nor hour(watch,4 of the day or 4 of the night of the 1000 year day),,,,,,,i.e. 500 years,250 years,,,125??????ect.
then there was the second day,,,the second set of 1000 years,,,,and the evening and the morning was the second day. (now the creation was 2000 years old),,,,then the third,forth,fifth,sixth and on the "seventh set of 1000 year divisions the lord rested from all his works",,,,,,,
the entire bible is written about the seven days of creation,(notice day six you are in,and day seven is not yet come i.e."mill. kingdom=7th day"),,,,,and then the eight which is the lords day when he rose from the grave and there is no ninth only the perpetual eight.,,,,,,,,,,
here is a key you will remember it as you read it,,,,,,,,,"six hundred for Noah was six hundred when he entered the ark,,,sixty and six for the image Nebuchadnezzar set forth for the earth to worship was sixty cubits tall and six cubits broad",,,,,(prophecies of day six),,,not 7,5,4,3,2,,,,,,,,in the first day the earth was "void and darkness",,,,flood. and Adam died in the "day he ate thereof,930 years old in the first set of 1000 years",,,,
in the days of Peleg gen. 10;25,,,,the earth was divided,,,,Pangaea,,,Continental drift,(dry land appeared),,,ect.ect.ect.,,,,,day 2.day.3.day.4,,,,,,,,,iat the end of day six,,,,,the evil one will come,not another the one who is wounded unto death(head/kingdom cut off/flood),,,,he will rise from the pit and stand among the heads of the beast in the earth all of them present at the same time and a stone cut out without hands will be cast hat the (whole beast/all seven heads together),,,,,
the seven days of creation,,,,they are not to be calculated by science,,,,they are a "prophecy of the number of days",,,,though the sun has set still for the slaughter at the voice of Joshuah(and),,,gone backward in the scripture,,,,so you know not the day(1000 years),,,,,nor hour(watch,4 of the day or 4 of the night of the 1000 year day),,,,,,,i.e. 500 years,250 years,,,125??????ect.
Last edited: