Old Earth/Young Earth

[Calminian]

A double emphasis on DIE is not a figure of speech in English.....Greek...to die off, to be dead, to lie dying, to be slain.........so.........! APOTHNESKO<----GREEK not HEBREW..........!

I have no idea what you're saying above, but I asked a simple questions. Do batteries die? If they do, does that meant they were living souls. It's a simple question.

I've attached several articles that will explain this to you in detail. Would it take too much time just to read through them?

The Bible never refers to plants as living souls (nephesh chayyāh). Nephesh (souls) is a term reserved only for humans and breathing animals. This is an issue of ancient biblical nomenclature. What's happening is, you're trying to take modern definitions and apply them to the ancient text. I would merely ask you to study this issue and these terms I'm giving you.

I know the argument you're making and the sources you got them from. I'm merely asking you read up on the counter arguments so you understand what the Bible really means by these terms. It's not even an issue of figures of speech, it's an issue of definitions in ancient biblical nomenclature.

 

[dcontroversal]

I have no idea what you're saying above, but I asked a simple questions. Do batteries die? If they do, does that meant they were living souls. It's a simple question.

I've attached several articles that will explain this to you in detail. Would it take too much time just to read through them?

The Bible never refers to plants as living souls (nephesh chayyāh). Nephesh (souls) is a term reserved only for humans and breathing animals. This is an issue of ancient biblical nomenclature. What's happening is, you're trying to take modern definitions and apply them to the ancient text. I would merely ask you to study this issue and these terms I'm giving you.

I know the argument you're making and the sources you got them from. I'm merely asking you read up on the counter arguments so you understand what the Bible really means by these terms. It's not even an issue of figures of speech, it's an issue of definitions in ancient biblical nomenclature.

The source I got it from is the BIBLE and your assumption is incorrect.......

Originally Posted by dcontroversal

A double emphasis on DIE is not a figure of speech in English.....Greek...to die off, to be dead, to lie dying, to be slain.........so.........! APOTHNESKO<----GREEK not HEBREW..........!

In reference to you arguing about a seed falling to the ground and dying in order to produce fruit.........!

Originally Posted by dcontroversal

Was Jesus mistaken when he said....except a seed FALL TO THE GROUND AND DIE it cannot bear fruit? John 12:24??? As applied unto wheat!

YOU
No. He's using death in various ways just as we do in english. We will sometimes say that certain fads die out, and things of that nature. But Jesus knew that seeds were not living in the sense of nephesh. They did not have the breath of life.

 

[Calminian]

Seeds don't die, if they did they could not propagate. ….

Same question to you, do batteries die?

In english words have large semantic ranges, and can be used in many ways. When it comes to batteries the term "die" has become almost exclusive in describing them running out of energy.

We also use die in the sense of things coming to an end, as in a style dying out. Would we then conclude that batters and styles were living souls?

The whole argument is silly. In english, you would take the time to understand the terms and then could easily figure out what is meant by certain terms. Yet for some reason, you won't do this in the case of the ancient biblical writers. You're forcing modern nomenclature onto an ancient text. I'm just wondering why?

I'm not even criticizing you're unbelief in the Bible. But if you're going to question the Bible and challenge it, should't you at least want to understand what the ancient writers meant by their word?

 

[Calminian]

The source I got it from is the BIBLE and your assumption is incorrect.......

Originally Posted by dcontroversal

A double emphasis on DIE is not a figure of speech in English.....Greek...to die off, to be dead, to lie dying, to be slain.........so.........! APOTHNESKO<----GREEK not HEBREW..........!

In reference to you arguing about a seed falling to the ground and dying in order to produce fruit.........!

Originally Posted by dcontroversal

Was Jesus mistaken when he said....except a seed FALL TO THE GROUND AND DIE it cannot bear fruit? John 12:24??? As applied unto wheat!

YOU
No. He's using death in various ways just as we do in english. We will sometimes say that certain fads die out, and things of that nature. But Jesus knew that seeds were not living in the sense of nephesh. They did not have the breath of life.

Forgive me, I'm just not understanding your posts. If you believe the above are quotes from the Bible, I can only say you're mistaken. Perhaps you're reading from a commentary portion of a study bible. I literally have no idea what you're saying. I'll just have to leave it at that, unless you want to clarify.

 

[Bookends]

Was Jesus mistaken when he said....except a seed FALL TO THE GROUND AND DIE it cannot bear fruit? John 12:24??? As applied unto wheat!

Ha, must something be alive or living, before it can die!

 

[dcontroversal]

First of all you must be getting dementia<--Disclaimer..no offence to anyone dealing with this...!
Second of all I quoted JESUS in JOHN 12:24 that ruins your theory about SEEDS and them DYING...
Third...your use of batteries to try and prove a biblical truth is ignorant as there is no viable comparison....
Fourth...Real easy to plead ignorance or a lack of understanding when the word of God proves your stance wrong..
Fifth...You seem to be the one who is quoting commentaries.....and your assumptions are incorrect dude!

So....God back and re-read what you and I were discussing and come to the light and the truth.....

 

[Percepi]

Hebrew has several nice words for branch, and the author could have easily stated the animal moves its tail like a cedar branch (which would be a very strange statement to make considering the point God was making). But your real argument is not the text. The text is clear. Your real hang up is you believe modern scientists more than the Bible. I believe the Bible more than modern scientists. That's really the essence of our disagreement.

Honestly, my understanding of the Hebrew language is quite limited, but it's clear the movement of tail was being defined and not the look.

You believe the evidence presented through a naturalistic filter, and I believe the clearly written historical evidence of the Bible, which is proven to be accurate by archeologists all the time.

A naturalistic filter? Empirical evidence is only possible in a physical realm. It's literally impossible to have supernatural evidence since supernatural refers to something outside the realms of naturalism, a realm that can not be experienced or measured by human beings. If it could, then it would no longer be supernatural.

There is all other historical evidence that dinosaurs and man lived together, in the numerous dragon legends we find all over the world. These are usually in the form of dragon vs. hero or dragon slayer. Yet more evidence that leads me to believe the deep time assumptions of scientists are wrong.

Legends evolve over time. When people witness creatures in foreign lands, it's easy for their descriptions for such beasts to either be misunderstood or exaggerated. This is what we see all the time. If you want to verify the legends that dragons once existed, then you would need to find evidence - not hearsay.

AronRa does a wonderful job going over many myths involving both dinosaurs and dragons. He goes over dragons at approximately 32:00~33:00 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5kckGxwJr4

Well my correction would come either from showing me that my interpretation of the Bible is wrong (which old earthers try to do all the time) or by showing me the Bible is inerrant.

If you accept the Bible to be true and you're not willing to even doubt the Bible, it would be impossible for me to prove the Bible wrong because you would automatically assume my arguments to be wrong. For me to prove anything to you, you must first be willing to change your mind.

Second of all, it's your responsibility to prove the Bible to be true. It's not my responsibility to prove it false. The reason for this is because a lack of evidence isn't evidence in itself. There's zero evidence that a walrus doesn't live under Pluto's surface, but that isn't prove that a Walrus does live under Pluto's surface. If I claimed to have won the lottery, it would be up to me to prove I won the lottery, not for you to prove I didn't win the lottery. Etc. etc. etc.

if scripture is god breathed and perfectly reliable, then why would you discourage me from using it as evidence?

And if it isn't god breathed and was instead written from the imagination of men, then it wouldn't be evidence. That's why the Bible itself isn't proof, but rather a document. Outside sources that verify the Bible would be evidence, but not the Bible itself since it's the Bile that's being scrutinized.

Well you're assuming that men just latch onto the gospel blindly, but this historically has not been the case. Many hardened skeptics have come to believe the gospel.

When people aren't willing to change their views of the Bible no matter what, then it's blind. How one concludes the Bible to be true may or may not be blind, but their decision to hold onto their views no matter what makes them blind.

Simon Greenleaf for instance, was an atheistic jew who was very influential in our country and putting together a system in evaluating evidence for our courts of law.

I can't find any evidence that Greenleaf was ever an atheist, or that he became a Christian while trying to debunk Christ's resurrection.

The stereotypes you have in your head about christians are wrong and I think other skeptics are putting them in your head.

I'm not trying to stereotype. If I said anything that's untrue about you or your friends, let me know.

Sorry, this sounds like a copout. You spend tons of time on this stuff. Now all of the sudden you're too busy?

My responses don't eat up nearly as much time as they would if I wanted to delve into sources and explanations to support every single point I have. And, admittedly, I'll often spend more time responding to people like you than I should despite the fact I believe we'll get nowhere.

If I'm going to take the time to debate, I need to make sure I can accomplish something regardless of what the outcome is for me personally. I could be convinced, but if I'm not convinced, it will have all been a waste of time unless I can potentially change my opposition's views.

So if you really want me to delve into evolution, tell me, are you willing to change your mind about the validity of creationism or even your interpretation of the Bible if I were to present the correct evidence, or would you automatically assume all evidence I present to be false based on the fact that you will never question your understanding of the Bible?

 

[Calminian]

First of all you must be getting dementia<--Disclaimer..no offence to anyone dealing with this...!
Second of all I quoted JESUS in JOHN 12:24 that ruins your theory about SEEDS and them DYING...
Third...your use of batteries to try and prove a biblical truth is ignorant as there is no viable comparison....
Fourth...Real easy to plead ignorance or a lack of understanding when the word of God proves your stance wrong..
Fifth...You seem to be the one who is quoting commentaries.....and your assumptions are incorrect dude!

So....God back and re-read what you and I were discussing and come to the light and the truth.....

Truly one of the most bizarre dialogs I've had. I have no idea what point you're making, and I know you've completely ignored the points I've made. Duly noted that you believe the bible teaches that plants are living souls. I disagree with you based on the biblical evidence.

Nephesh chayyāh
A matter of life … and non-life

 

[Calminian]

Honestly, my understanding of the Hebrew language is quite limited, but it's clear the movement of tail was being defined and not the look.

Sorry, not buying it. I don't think in a million years you would ever come up with that interpretation if there wasn't a problem with the science. It's a desperate attempted to turn that animal into a modern animal. Because if the text really says what it says, it will shake your faith.

A naturalistic filter? Empirical evidence is only possible in a physical realm. It's literally impossible to have supernatural evidence since supernatural refers to something outside the realms of naturalism, a realm that can not be experienced or measured by human beings. If it could, then it would no longer be supernatural.

Exactly. So then, what if our origin was actually supernatural and not natural? Would that indeed limit the usefulness of science as I'm suggesting?

Legends evolve over time. When people witness creatures in foreign lands, it's easy for their descriptions for such beasts to either be misunderstood or exaggerated. This is what we see all the time. If you want to verify the legends that dragons once existed, then you would need to find evidence - not hearsay.

Well, testimonial evidence his quite powerful on its own, especially corroborating testimonies. But in addition to these legends would have also found the dragon bones/fossils (later named dinosaur bones). We are even now finding soft tissue in these not so fossilized bones). And yet you still won't believe. Why not??

If you accept the Bible to be true and you're not willing to even doubt the Bible, it would be impossible for me to prove the Bible wrong because you would automatically assume my arguments to be wrong. For me to prove anything to you, you must first be willing to change your mind.

Second of all, it's your responsibility to prove the Bible to be true. It's not my responsibility to prove it false. The reason for this is because a lack of evidence isn't evidence in itself. There's zero evidence that a walrus doesn't live under Pluto's surface, but that isn't prove that a Walrus does live under Pluto's surface. If I claimed to have won the lottery, it would be up to me to prove I won the lottery, not for you to prove I didn't win the lottery. Etc. etc. etc.

Disagree that's in my responsibility to prove the Bible to you. I only do that for people open-minded and willing to dialog. You've made up your mind. If you are not will to believe the Bible is true it would be impossible for me to prove it to you because you would automatically assume my arguments to be wrong. You must be willing, and it looks like you're not willing to take any of the steps I've suggested.

And if it isn't god breathed and was instead written from the imagination of men, then it wouldn't be evidence. That's why the Bible itself isn't proof, but rather a document. Outside sources that verify the Bible would be evidence, but not the Bible itself since it's the Bile that's being scrutinized.

What's ironic about this is, almost everything we know about history comes from ancient documents. Do you believe that Gandhi and Napoleon ever existed? Do you believe Alexander the Great ever existed? There's absolutely no scientific evidence.

When people aren't willing to change their views about the Bible no matter what, then it's blind. How one concludes the Bible to be false may or may not be blind, but their decision to hold onto their views no matter what makes them blind.

I can't find any evidence that Greenleaf was ever an atheist, or that he became a Christian while trying to debunk Christ's resurrection.

LOL. He actually wrote a book on it: The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence.

So if you really want me to delve into evolution, tell me, are you willing to change your mind about the validity of creationism or even your interpretation of the Bible if I were to present the correct evidence, or would you automatically assume all evidence I present to be false based on the fact that you will never question your understanding of the Bible?

Oh I'm totally open. You show me the Bible has errors and should not be relied upon, and will stop believing it.

Frankly, i think it's you that's so stubborn in his faith you won't consider an alternative.

 

[Cycel]

the trees and forests were all like the red woods in California....like hundreds of meters tall.......

2. In my dream the trees and forest were hundreds of meters tall

A few years ago I seen a report by a group of geologists, and they all said without exception that the thickness of the coal seams all seem to indicate that the forests at one time were hundreds of meters tall, and maybe even pushing 1000 meters tall....

My understanding is that the tallest trees of the carboniferous era were no more than 30 metres in height. "Pushing 1000 meters tall"? That would be totally erroneous. I believe your memory is faulty. Can you provide me with a scientific source for your claim?

Sorry to jump on you here, but it doesn’t look as though things match up.

 

[kennethcadwell]

My understanding is that the tallest trees of the carboniferous era were no more than 30 metres in height. "Pushing 1000 meters tall"? That would be totally erroneous. I believe your memory is faulty. Can you provide me with a scientific source for your claim?

Sorry to jump on you here, but it doesn’t look as though things match up.

This is off subject for a minute, but I thought you would find this interesting Cycel.

The science channel tomorrow night is going to have a special on their show, " The Unexplained Files. "
In this special they are going to show a humanoid skeleton that was found that is over 9 feet tall.

 

[Percepi]

Sorry, not buying it. I don't think in a million years you would ever come up with that interpretation if there wasn't a problem with the science. It's a desperate attempted to turn that animal into a modern animal. Because if the text really says what it says, it will shake your faith.

The Bible is clearly referring to how the tail moves and not how it looks. If that doesn't make sense to you, forcing you to assume it's referring to the look, then maybe it's you who's looking for reasons to confirm your faith. All I know is that the Bible is referring to the movement of the tail, not the look.

Exactly. So then, what if our origin was actually supernatural and not natural? Would that indeed limit the usefulness of science as I'm suggesting?

If our origin stems from something that is supernatural, then it would be impossible to know for sure. This is why I base my beliefs on what can be known, on naturalism, rather than something that can't be known.

Well, testimonial evidence his quite powerful on its own, especially corroborating testimonies.

Actually, testimonial evidence isn't very reliable. That's not to say it can't be used, but it does require evidence on the side to verify whether or not the testimonies work.

But in addition to these legends would have also found the dragon bones/fossils (later named dinosaur bones).

The video I linked, though a bit long, does explain this myth away.

We are even now finding soft tissue in these not so fossilized bones).

We're finding soft tissue inside of fossilized bones, as explained in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE

And yet you still won't believe. Why not??

Because I don't take legends seriously for one. For another, I understand that many of the arguments around the soft tissue discovery are either entirely wrong or ignores the scientific explanation.

Disagree that's in my responsibility to prove the Bible to you. I only do that for people open-minded and willing to dialog. You've made up your mind.

I never said I would never change my mind. I will change my mind in the light of evidence, but the evidence you provided has been incredibly weak, fallacious, or entirely wrong. You're also trying to turn the tables and make yourself look open minded and make me look close minded, even though you admitted yourself that you always take he word of the Bible over anything else.

If you are not will to believe the Bible is true it would be impossible for me to prove it to you because you would automatically assume my arguments to be wrong. You must be willing, and it looks like you're not willing to take any of the steps I've suggested.

Steps such as?

And please, don't tell me the first step to believing is to believe.

What's ironic about this is, almost everything we know about history comes from ancient documents. Do you believe that Gandhi and Napoleon ever existed? Do you believe Alexander the Great ever existed? There's absolutely no scientific evidence.

As I said, outside sources verifying the existence of Jesus would be evidence, sources that were unaware of the Bible. Much of what we know about Alexander the Great and Napoleon are based off of witness documentation. However, we have a large number of people who have verified things Alexander the Great has done who would have never known of one another, as well as other proofs that coincide with historical documents such as archaeological artifacts.

History isn't as simple as "This ancient document says A, therefore A." There's a lot more work that goes into studying and verifying history than that. I'm not well versed in the verification of historical figures and events, so that's really the best explanation I an provide.

LOL. He actually wrote a book on it: The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence.

Where in the book does he mention he was an atheist who learned of God while trying to debunk his existence? I skimmed through a PDF of the book and couldn't find the word "atheist" or "nonbeliever". I found "Atheism" and "unbeliever", but none were referring to himself. Please help me find this testimony in which he was converted.

Oh I'm totally open. You show me the Bible has errors and should not be relied upon, and will stop believing it.

Frankly, i think it's you that's so stubborn in his faith you won't consider an alternative.

You said you use the Bible to determine whether you can rely on man's word. This means if I present contradictions or flaws in the Bible, you could easily assume what I said to be false since you believe the Bible to be infallible. But, I'll take your word that you'll be open minded and we can discuss this and see where we go if you want.

 

[Cycel]

This is off subject for a minute, but I thought you would find this interesting Cycel.

The science channel tomorrow night is going to have a special on their show, " The Unexplained Files. "
In this special they are going to show a humanoid skeleton that was found that is over 9 feet tall.

I only have basic cable so I probably wouldn't be able to get the show. I checked Wikipedia and the tallest man ever recorded by Guinness was an American at 8 feet 11 inches -- pretty close to 9 feet. If you watch the program let me know what they say.

 

[Percepi]

I only have basic cable so I probably wouldn't be able to get the show. I checked Wikipedia and the tallest man ever recorded by Guinness was an American at 8 feet 11 inches -- pretty close to 9 feet. If you watch the program let me know what they say.

Robert Wadlow, born and raised in the same town as me. He died far too young.

 

[Calminian]

The Bible is clearly referring to how the tail moves and not how it looks. If that doesn't make sense to you, forcing you to assume it's referring to the look, then maybe it's you who's looking for reasons to confirm your faith. All I know is that the Bible is referring to the movement of the tail, not the look.

But this is what I would say if an animal had a tail that was like a tree. If he had a tail like a twig I would say he moves his tail like a twig.

I think you're in denial, Percepi. I think this passage is shaking your faith, and you're resorting to desperate arguments.

If our origin stems from something that is supernatural, then it would be impossible to know for sure.

But, even if true, that doesn't answer the question. you can't just simply decide something isn't true because you don't like what it implies. That's blind faith, and I thought you were agains that?

Actually, testimonial evidence isn't very reliable. That's not to say it can't be used, but it does require evidence on the side to verify whether or not the testimonies work.

But even scientific evidence is based on the testimony of experts. Most people haven't done the research themselves, but rather are trusting others to do it and testify to it. You haven't done the experiments first hand, but are trusting the testimony of others. Correct? So then even you are trusting in hearsay in determining your worldview.

And You many not be aware of this, but did you know that eye-witness testimony can be more weighty in court than scientific testimony? For instance, a scientist may testify that a man has gunfire residue on his hand linking him to a shooting, but if 2 or 3 witnesses say they saw others framing the man, forcing him to fire the gun, and planting the residue, the scientific testimony will be rendered useless. The testimony will win out over the scientific testimony, by proving the scientist had false presuppositions.

Because I don't take legends seriously for one. For another, I understand that many of the arguments around the soft tissue discovery are either entirely wrong or ignores the scientific explanation.

And all based on testimony, the exclusive narrow testimonies you choose to listen to. Here's an an entire radio show on soft tissue. But something tells me you'll refuse to listen to an opposing point of view. You'll only take in testimony that supports your starting premise.

As I said, outside sources verifying the existence of Jesus would be evidence, sources that were unaware of the Bible.

Well here's another thing you many not have know. The Bible is not one book. It's 66 separate books, with 27 making up the new testament. And we don't just have one gospel account, but rather 4 different gospels, 2 by jews, 2 by gentiles. We also have letters from the early apostles, who knew Jesus personally, or knew witnesses who knew them directly. Then we have the writings of the early church fathers who knew these original apostles and were discipled by them.

The Bible is a compilation of the corroborating books you're asking for. It's been put in one package, but the contents are all from differing sources—over 40 different authors, writing over a 2000 year period (longer if you include the source authors Moses used) on 3 different continents. It's the best source of historical corroborating evidence known to man.

Percepi, I've come to the firm conclusion your issue is not evidence. You're a man of deep faith, trying to protect that faith by narrowing your intake of information. I think we need to deal with that first, before we can move on.

 

[Percepi]

But this is what I would say if an animal had a tail that was like a tree. If he had a tail like a twig I would say he moves his tail like a twig.

I think you're in denial, Percepi. I think this passage is shaking your faith, and you're resorting to desperate arguments.

Moves like =/= looks like

I saw a man who had the strength of two horses. Does this mean he looked like two horses, no. It described his strength.

But, even if true, that doesn't answer the question. you can't just simply decide something isn't true because you don't like what it implies. That's blind faith, and I thought you were agains that?

I never said it isn't true. I said that if it were true, there would be no way of knowing.

But even scientific evidence is based on the testimony of experts. Most people haven't done the research themselves, but rather are trusting others to do it and testify to it.

It's always possible that sources are wrong. I can look at a scientific paper and understand that it's technically possible for that paper to be entirely fabricated. But I trust the scientific community due to the mass number of scientists who scrutinize each other's studies, the results of research being used in today's technology, and the ability to analyze the works of these scientists to understand how they came to their conclusions. It's not as simple as saying, "In the end, both are giving their testimony, so both are equally reliable." There are numerous variables you are ignoring.

And You many not be aware of this, but did you know that eye-witness testimony can be more weighty in court than scientific testimony? For instance, a scientist may testify that a man has gunfire residue on his hand linking him to a shooting, but if 2 or 3 witnesses say they saw others framing the man, forcing him to fire the gun, and planting the residue, the scientific testimony will be rendered useless.

Actually, the scientific data would be used to verify the testimonies, not contradict them.

And all based on testimony, the exclusive narrow testimonies you choose to listen to. Here's an an entire radio show on soft tissue.

Actually, I could go out of my way and critique your buddy's arguments. It's not about choosing which testimony I want to hear, but which one holds more weight. Again, you're assuming that all communication is hearsay, therefore it's all equally reliable/unreliable. But you're not taking into account all the variables as to why we can more readily trust scientific claims over simple eye witness testimony.

Also, I know I'm not addressing your point, but did you actually watch the video I linked?

Well here's another thing you many not have know. The Bible is not one book. It's 66 separate books, with 27 making up the new testament. And we don't just have one gospel account, but rather 4 different gospels, 2 by jews, 2 by gentiles.

Scholars have determined that many of the books in the Bible were written with knowledge of pre-existing books, edited as a means to be more cohesive, or straight up plagiarized from one another. More importantly, testimony alone doesn't work. I know you just went over how everything is testimony or hearsay, but you have to look at the evidence presented. If you doubt the evidence, dig deeper.

In the end, you're trying to discredit science because it's technically possible that it's all just hearsay, made up, ignoring the fact that science is heavily scrutinized and tested whereas simply hearsay "I saw it, but I can't prove it", can't be verified by anyone.

Percepi, I've come to the firm conclusion your issue is not evidence. You're a man of deep faith, trying to protect that faith by narrowing your intake of information. I think we need to deal with that first, before we can move on.

Your firm conclusion is entirely wrong. I don't rely on faith. I don't believe in something despite lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary - I accept evolution based on the evidence that exists for it. If the evidence is wrong, then I'm wrong, but that still wouldn't make my views faith based. I told you this, and you toyed around with semantics so you could try to make it sound as if I blindly trust in science as if all things we hear from other people are equally reliable. That's bogus and dishonest.

I have an issue, people trying to portray my views as something they aren't.

 

[Bowman]

It is funny how a lot of people who will debate the bible will quote another man and what he believed and taught instead of making a stand on something that God has taught them by diligent study...kind of chunks what John said about not needing any man to teach you anything as the Spirit of God will go before us and lead and guides us into ALL TRUTH. It is equally unimpressive how linguistic grammar is rejected when it is obvious that God has either said something and or left something out on purpose that gets overlooked and or spiritualized away......TRAGIC for sure!

Show us a specific 'rejection'...

 

[Bowman]

I'm actually pretty well versed on the tablet theory. Any questions you have on it, feel free to ask. The essence of it is based on all the toledoth statements found throughout scripture. Toledoth is the hebrew word for generations, histories or accounts. It's so significant that the Septuagint translators used the greek translation of this word as the name of first book of the Torah. Genesis is the greek translation of toledoth.

We find that Genesis is divided by phrases with this word into very discernible sections.

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created…. (Gen. 2:4a)
This is the written account of Adam’s line…. (Gen. 5:1a)
This is the account of Noah. (Gen. 6:9a)
This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth, Noah’s sons, who themselves had sons after the flood. (Gen. 10:1)
These are the clans of Noah’s sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. (Gen. 10:32a)

This is the account of Shem. (Gen. 11:10a)
This is the account of Terah. (Gen. 11:27a)
This is the account of Abraham’s son Ishmael, whom Sarah’s maidservant, Hagar the Egyptian, bore to Abraham. (Gen. 25:12)
This is the account of Abraham’s son Isaac. (Gen. 25:19a)
This is the account of Esau (that is, Edom). (Gen. 36:1)
This is the account of Esau the father of the Edomites in the hill country of Seir. (Gen. 36:9)
This is the account of Jacob. (Gen. 37:2a)
The basic hypothesis is that these are colophons (concluding signatures) rather than subject titles, and they are indicative of the original authors whose names they bare. We have good archeological evidence now from thousands of clay tablets found in the middle east that colophons were very common in ancient writings, and it would seem now that Genesis is the compilation of many such ancient writings. It's sort of the opposite of JEDP.

Have I convinced you I'm familiar with the theory? The article I cited is the best intro to the subject. Henry Morris endorses this theory in his commentary on Genesis, and there are many articles on it I can point you too, including my own, but mine is not a good introductory one.

Tell us why the MT differs from the LXX on the toledoth...

 

[dcontroversal]

My understanding is that the tallest trees of the carboniferous era were no more than 30 metres in height. "Pushing 1000 meters tall"? That would be totally erroneous. I believe your memory is faulty. Can you provide me with a scientific source for your claim?

Sorry to jump on you here, but it doesn’t look as though things match up.

First of all that was a few years ago and I have slept since then.
Second We have trees TALLER than the Statue of Liberty in a time frame that does not have the oxygen saturation that was before the flood
Third Go study geology as it was geologists that estimated the height of the forests and all I did was make reference to something I read YEARS ago
Fourth...YEAH funny how 30 meter tall plants and trees could produce coal seams hundreds of meters thick...

Seems you info is flawed Cycel or SPOCK

 

[dcontroversal]

Show us a specific 'rejection'...

The fact that the word GOOD is not specifically applied unto the HEAVEN and MAN when created...it is generically applied in verse 31 and is directly applied unto every aspect of creation when created and SKIPPED when the heaven is made and when man is made.

There is a reason why it was not inspired and added to the above two as it was to all aspect of creation.....vs. 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25 <--Good applied unto all things found in creation in verses listed...

Good is left out of the heaven when it was made verse 6-8 and when man made verse 26-28......there is a reason for sure as God does not mince words or miss words......Yes it is generalized in verse 31 about everything, but skipped without particular application to the heaven (Space and where birds fly) and about MAN

Heaven<---prince of the power of the air already here
MAN<---NONE good no not one......