Do Creationists Believe in the Universe

[Crumbacher]

Are you aware of the stringent practices the Jews had to undergo when copying the OT manuscripts? Try looking it up some time and you'll understand why there are very few discrepancies between copies of the OT. They had to bathe themselves before writing the name of the Lord (the tetragrammaton). In some verses where it appears thrice, that's three times they had to bathe just while copying those verses. If they made a single mistake, they had to burn the manuscript and start again. So your concept of the KJV translators "correcting" a process that was so precise is not only laughable, but ridiculous and unrealistic.

You asked the ridiculous question, Why did they render it singular on so many occasions and plural on so few? (paraphrased) Let me ask you a question: Why did the KJV translators give 5 (or more, in some cases) different translations to a single word? They weren't correcting anything. They were choosing what they thought was the best translation of that word in that particular context. Some words mean 5 or more different things, and so they had to choose what they thought was the best meaning in that particular context. There choice was not always correct. That is also why they included marginal variances as to different renderings because they were not sure its exact translation.

English is the worst language to translate the Bible into. Why? Because our words are so flat and void of meaning. The Greek had 4 words for love, whereas our word basically blankets every form of love. Poor translation. Passages that speak about waiting on the Lord, the English word "wait" is flat and unexpressive. If you examine the Dutch translation, it uses a word that is more expressive and lines up precisely with the meaning of the original. The word they use means to "wait expectantly," like a pregnant woman waits expectantly for the birth of her child. That is precisely what the Hebrew word means, to "wait patiently, wait expectantly," but the English rendering "wait" is the poorest translation possible. They should have rendered it "wait expectantly." Even the Spanish language translates verses better and clearer than the KJV or any other English Bible. Why? Because its language, like many others, has degrees of words.

A KJVO preacher did a sermon on some of the "wait on the Lord" passages. He gave his congregation some ideas of what he thought the word meant, but ultimately told them he wasn't sure. When I heard that, I was flabbergasted. I have any number of books I could tell them exactly what it means, and him as a pastor could not tell them a thing. The guy is gifted as an evangelist. He should not be preaching from the pulpit.

 

[Crumbacher]

Anyway... That's the extend of my posting on this site. I won't be back. Wasn't what I was looking for, so I'll keep looking.

Take care y'all, and God bless!

 

[pat34lee]

Hey it's science that says a meteor or comet killed off the dinosaurs and left all the fossils. Now you want to complain because I say the same thing? Do you know what "you" believe?

This is getting too spread out, so I'm going to concentrate on a 2 or 3 things. You seem to be an OEC, so I am going off that assumption. If you are not, let me know exactly what you believe.

OEC's try and make Genesis and evolution mesh, when they are opposite views. Evolution is not in the fossil record, only perfectly formed animals and plants. There may have been meteors in the past, but they didn't kill off the dinosaurs. We did, like we killed most other large carnivores. At the time, they were called dragons.

From your first link, to asah:

II. 1. make (670 + t.):
a. with object concrete, ark Genesis 8:6, altar Genesis 13:4, idols Judges 18:24,31 +, etc.
b. often of God's making (creating) Genesis 3:1 (J), Genesis 1:7,16,25 (P), Nehemiah 9:6; Job 9:9; Proverbs 8:26; 2Chron 2:11; Psalm 95:5 +; making man Psalm 100:3; Psalm 119:73 (made by God's hands), in the womb Job 31:15 (twice in verse); making, constituting, nation Deuteronomy 26:19; Deuteronomy 32:6,15; participle suffix עשֵֹׁהוּ his Maker Isaiah 17:7; Proverbs 14:31; Proverbs 17:5 (הָעשֹׁוֺ Job 40:19 is improbable, most read הֶעָשָׂוּי, with various interpretation of following words); עשֶֹׁךָ Isaiah 51:13, עשֵֹׁנִי Job 32:23 (Ginsb; Job 32:22 van d. H. Baer), עשֵֹׁנוּ Psalm 95:6; so apparently plural participle עשָֹׁ֑י Job 35:10, עשַֹׁיִךְ Isaiah 54:5 (Ges§ 124k explanation as sg.).
c. make something, with לְ reflexive, make for thee Exodus 20:4; Deuteronomy 9:12; Deuteronomy 10:1 +, for (ל) another 1 Samuel 2:19; 2 Samuel 7:11; 1 Kings 2:24 +; object מִשְׁתֶּה banquet Genesis 40:20; Esther 5:4, also (no ל) Genesis 29:22 (E) Judges 14:10; Esther 5:5,12 and (figurative, ׳י subject) Isaiah 25:6; with ל of thing, Deuteronomy 22:8; with ל of animal Genesis 33:17 (J).​

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Animals were made en mass, as were the plants. Only Man, including Adam and Eve were individually created and given life. They did not know good and evil until they ate from the tree in the garden.

How was the serpent able to trick Eve? Because she was told, presumably by Adam, something different than what God told Adam.
Genesis 2:15-17 vs Genesis 3:2-3
This is why adding to the word is as dangerous and as much a sin as taking away from the word.

 

[pat34lee]

Are you aware of the stringent practices the Jews had to undergo when copying the OT manuscripts? Try looking it up some time and you'll understand why there are very few discrepancies between copies of the OT. They had to bathe themselves before writing the name of the Lord (the tetragrammaton). In some verses where it appears thrice, that's three times they had to bathe just while copying those verses. If they made a single mistake, they had to burn the manuscript and start again. So your concept of the KJV translators "correcting" a process that was so precise is not only laughable, but ridiculous and unrealistic.

That is only true of the Masoretes, and from about 500-1000 AD when they were re-writing the Tanakh to change it from the earlier Hebrew which closely matched the Septuagint. Even then, I think it was rarely that strict except in stories.

The KJV Old Testaments today come mostly from the Hebrew Masoretic version.

 

[AV1611VET]

What makes you think only the KJV was doubly inspired and not Wycliff's work or Tyndale's work or the 1560 Geneva Bible?

Here is the line of inspired Translations, as I see them:

• AV330 Gothic Version
• AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
• AV1389 Wycliffe Version
• AV1525 Tyndale Version
• AV1560 Geneva Bible = God's choice for the Pilgrims
• AV1568 Bishop's Bible = God's choice for England
• AV1611 King James Version = God's choice for the world

 

[AV1611VET]

I actually study, like the Bereans (Acts 17:11). You should try it some time (2 Tim. 2:15).

I've been saved since you were potty-trained, Scot.

What makes you think I haven't?

 

[AV1611VET]

As far as Concordances go, you can use this saying:
Strong's for the strong; Young's for the young; and Crudence's for the crude.

Yes -- I'm well-familiar with that saying.

Also, I do not recommend Vine's. Not only is it confusing to navigate, but it is lacking in detailed information regarding the words.

Never used one.

 

[AV1611VET]

No they're not. I'd like to see your reasoning for thinking that.

You said it yourself in Post 149:

If you're referring to Lucifer being translated as "morning star" in some Bibles, I've got a newsflash for you. They did not replace Lucifer with Jesus. That is a strawman argument. First of all, Jesus is the Bright and Morning Star (capitalized). Satan's name, Lucifer, means "day star" or "morning star" when translated.

For the record though, here's the entry in Strong's on "Lucifer:"[VERSE=Isaiah 14:12,KJV]How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations![/VERSE]heylel: from 1984 (in the sense of brightness); the morning-star:--lucifer.

Notice Lucifer is referred to as "the morning star"?

Now notice:[VERSE=2 Peter 1:19,KJV]We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:[/VERSE]Here's the entry on "day star:" phosphorous: from 5457 and 5342; light-bearing ("phosphorus"), i.e. (specially), the morning-star (figuratively):--day star.

 

[Givemeareason]

You are aware that they could see more back then than we can see today, right? Compare looking up at the sky at night out in the country to looking up at the sky at night in the city. The lights of the city blind much of what we can see. Obviously they could not see the whole of the universe, just as they could not see the whole of the ocean. There is stuff that genuine science has revealed through individuals who believed their Bibles. In case you didn't know, the majority of the fields of mathematics and science were founded by Christians who believed their Bibles. "Science" used to teach that the ocean floor was flat, but the Bible, 3000 years earlier, spoke of mountains and valleys in the ocean. Matthew Mead(?) believed his Bible and founded oceanography.
The extent of their knowledge of the universe has nothing to do with the creation account passed down from God, Who was there, to Moses when he recorded Genesis. And the order of the creation account is not problematic either. Ever see a potato grow in darkness? Other plants do it too. There's no question as to the fact that plants have been scientifically observed to grow in darkness. The question would be HOW LONG they can grow in darkness without light. The Genesis account is a difference of 1 day. I've seen potatoes grow for weeks in darkness.

Western civilization was built on many accomplishments by Christians. The extent to which they believed their bibles is quite another matter. To argue and try to reconcile Genesis with what we know now is something else.

 

[AV1611VET]

To argue and try to reconcile Genesis with what we know now is something else.

T'aint hard a'tall.

 

[Givemeareason]

T'aint hard a'tall.

Then you should not need to argue and reject science if that were the case.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is not about astrology. We are talking about astronomy and seeing things far beyond the naked eye.

I'd say claiming to see far beyond what we are capable of, by the science.

Yet if you believe that, then why do you accept the claimed distances of the Hubble telescope? A telescope merely gathers more light and allows the observer to make an image brighter. The Hubble has an objective lens of 357.14 times the diameter of that of the eye, the surface area 127,551 times that of the eye. This means Hubble collects 127,551 times more light than the human eye. If all this light were used to create brighter rather than larger images than the naked eye sees, then the light of those images must be 127,551 times brighter than the images the naked eye sees. For this reason, the telescope can make a star appear 127,551 times brighter.

Assuming that a star is so far away that it is barely visible to the naked eye, we know that the Hubble telescope can make the star appear 127,551 times brighter. Does this mean that the Hubble telescope enables an observer to see the star if it were 127,551 times farther away? The answer is no. The Inverse Square Law says that the light that we receive from a star is inversely proportional to the square of its distance. According to this law, at that distance, the light of the star becomes 127,551^2 or 16,269,262,700, times dimmer, far too dim for us to see with the telescope. This raises the question: What is the maximum distance an object can be seen through the Hubble telescope? The answer is 357.14 times the distance that the naked eye can see. The reason is that an object 357.14 times farther away, its light becomes 127,551 times dimmer. Since the Hubble telescope can make a star appear 127,551 times brighter, then looking through the telescope the star would be barely visible.

Are you suggesting the unaided human eye can see 36,400,291 light years, since it is claimed the Hubble can see 13 billion light years?

 

[Givemeareason]

I'd say claiming to see far beyond what we are capable of, by the science.

Yet if you believe that, then why do you accept the claimed distances of the Hubble telescope? A telescope merely gathers more light and allows the observer to make an image brighter. The Hubble has an objective lens of 357.14 times the diameter of that of the eye, the surface area 127,551 times that of the eye. This means Hubble collects 127,551 times more light than the human eye. If all this light were used to create brighter rather than larger images than the naked eye sees, then the light of those images must be 127,551 times brighter than the images the naked eye sees. For this reason, the telescope can make a star appear 127,551 times brighter.

Assuming that a star is so far away that it is barely visible to the naked eye, we know that the Hubble telescope can make the star appear 127,551 times brighter. Does this mean that the Hubble telescope enables an observer to see the star if it were 127,551 times farther away? The answer is no. The Inverse Square Law says that the light that we receive from a star is inversely proportional to the square of its distance. According to this law, at that distance, the light of the star becomes 127,551^2 or 16,269,262,700, times dimmer, far too dim for us to see with the telescope. This raises the question: What is the maximum distance an object can be seen through the Hubble telescope? The answer is 357.14 times the distance that the naked eye can see. The reason is that an object 357.14 times farther away, its light becomes 127,551 times dimmer. Since the Hubble telescope can make a star appear 127,551 times brighter, then looking through the telescope the star would be barely visible.

Are you suggesting the unaided human eye can see 36,400,291 light years, since it is claimed the Hubble can see 13 billion light years?

I don't know where you are getting this argument from but the objective is the eyepiece or where the light is focused to. The mirror collects the light. The Hubble has the advantage of not having an atmosphere to peer through. It can magnify however it likes. Are you saying the hubble cannot do this?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is getting too spread out, so I'm going to concentrate on a 2 or 3 things. You seem to be an OEC, so I am going off that assumption. If you are not, let me know exactly what you believe.

OEC's try and make Genesis and evolution mesh, when they are opposite views. Evolution is not in the fossil record, only perfectly formed animals and plants. There may have been meteors in the past, but they didn't kill off the dinosaurs. We did, like we killed most other large carnivores. At the time, they were called dragons.

First, if you are assuming I accept evolution in the slightest, you would be completely wrong. There is no Fairie Dust of evolution through mutation or transitory species. An Asian mates with an African and an Afro-Asian is produced. A Husky mates with a Mastiff and a Chinook is produced. No evolution through mutation and no transitory species or forms involved. First let us get clear what we observe, before we pretend it happens differently in the past, ok? It occurs from the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits. There is no need for us to pretend otherwise - agreed?

Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Animals were made en mass, as were the plants. Only Man, including Adam and Eve were individually created and given life. They did not know good and evil until they ate from the tree in the garden

This is your assumption, yet animals were not the subject of the Bible - nor was any time spent describing them. The animals all came before Adam two by two - male and female. This was to show Adam he himself as yet had no helper or companion and her value. We can be fairly certain God is consistent in His actions. You "assume" the animals were not created the same way man was - despite the fact the Bible uses what you translate as soul when talking about animals too.

So I can accept Moses and God calling both animals and humans souls, or your version. Sorry - you loose out.

How was the serpent able to trick Eve? Because she was told, presumably by Adam, something different than what God told Adam.
Genesis 2:15-17 vs Genesis 3:2-3
This is why adding to the word is as dangerous and as much a sin as taking away from the word.

It says nothing of the sort. Again with assumptions.

"And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

"The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Let's get it straight the woman added the not touch it clause, and I am sure the serpent probably spoke from within the tree - showing that touching it would not cause death. Adam was judged guilty because he was told directly by God, and "chose" to disobey. IMO because he did not want to loose that companion - made clear by the procession of male and female, two by two until every animal had passed before him to be named. You are assuming in the first case the animals were created differently when the same word is used, just because the Bible goes into more detail with man - the subject of the Bible - not the animals. In the second case you again assume Adam must of misspoke, even if it was the woman that did.

Adam was condemned because he willingly disobeyed and when confronted did not ask for forgiveness - but tried to blame the woman "The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”" And ultimately tried to shift the blame to God Himself since He put the woman there.

 

[JacksBratt]

I started to wonder if Creationists even believe in the universe since I know they argue against the Big Bang. Since there was no concept of the universe when Genesis was written I am wondering if they also deny the universe in order to retain the earth centered view of all existence. Otherwise, I don't see how they can reconcile belief in Genesis with the modern view of the universe.

I am not sure creationists as a whole disagree with the Big Bang theory.

1st, to "Giveme areason", please, give me a reason to respond to your pointless post........


2nd, to "oncedeceived", I believe in the Big Bang, God made it. When He spoke everything in this universe into existence. All from nothing..... That is the only true, believable, explanation for all this matter out of nothing, in an instance.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't know where you are getting this argument from but the objective is the eyepiece or where the light is focused to. The mirror collects the light. The Hubble has the advantage of not having an atmosphere to peer through. It can magnify however it likes. Are you saying the hubble cannot do this?

And we were discussing the size of the mirror - the light gathering surface of it which is 127,551 times that of the pupil.

You need to look up how telescopes work. Magnification spreads out the light in a wider area - making images "less" bright.

http://starizona.com/acb/basics/equip_magnification.aspx
"Another reason for keeping the magnification low has to do with image brightness. An unfortunate law of physics dictates that when the magnification is doubled, the image gets four times dimmer. "

Magnification only makes the distance you can see even less.

So yes, if you are implying magnification allows the Hubble to see further - I am claiming it cannot do this.

 

[Givemeareason]

And we were discussing the size of the mirror - the light gathering surface of it which is 127,551 times that of the pupil.

You need to look up how telescopes work. Magnification spreads out the light in a wider area - making images "less" bright.

http://starizona.com/acb/basics/equip_magnification.aspx
"Another reason for keeping the magnification low has to do with image brightness. An unfortunate law of physics dictates that when the magnification is doubled, the image gets four times dimmer. "

Magnification only makes the distance you can see even less.

So yes, if you are implying magnification allows the Hubble to see further - I am claiming it cannot do this.

I know something about telescopes as I designed and built a 10 inch Newtonian when I was in my 30s. I don't see where there would be any limit to magnification. The limit is in the amount of light collected and how much it is being obscured and diffused. I am not that familiar with the hubble but I am sure it has many image enhancement features. You think astronomers are just making things up so they can disprove Genesis?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is only true of the Masoretes, and from about 500-1000 AD when they were re-writing the Tanakh to change it from the earlier Hebrew which closely matched the Septuagint. Even then, I think it was rarely that strict except in stories.

The KJV Old Testaments today come mostly from the Jewish Masoretic version.

The KJV is the lowest rated in accuracy compared to the old texts of all the translations available.

http://courses.missouristate.edu/markgiven/rel102/bt.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20040602211507/http://hector3000.future.easyspace.com/colwell.htm

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I know something about telescopes as I designed and built a 10 inch Newtonian when I was in my 30s. I don't see where there would be any limit to magnification. The limit is in the amount of light collected and how much it is being obscured and diffused. I am not that familiar with the hubble but I am sure it has many image enhancement features. You think astronomers are just making things up so they can disprove Genesis?

So you are just going to ignore what every single telescope manufacturer has to say on the subject of magnification so you can continue your incorrect beliefs?

No, I think they are just making stuff up to prop up the 95% Fairie Dust they require in their theories because they think they can treat plasma like solids, liquids and gasses. And then when it doesn't match reality - start making up that 95% Fairie Dust. I think their egos prevent them from admitting they are wrong and have not a clue.

Who mentioned anything about religion except you? If I chose to accept the Big Bang theory because of religion - it would be on the top of my list, since a priest invented it.

I'm objecting on purely scientific grounds in which every single manufacturer of telescopes agrees, as does every piece of the science.

http://www.telescope-optics.net/telescope_magnification.htm

http://starizona.com/acb/basics/equip_eyepieces_understanding.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnification#Measurement_of_telescope_magnification

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1230/phys1230_fa01/topic40.html

"There is the usual trade-off between magnification, which increases as the focal length of the first lens is made longer and light-gathering power, which depends on the inverse of the f/number of the first lens and therefore decreases as the focal length is made longer so that the f/number is made greater."

http://old.observers.org/beginner/eyepieces.freeman.html
"Not enough light. When you look at any particular object, the amount of its light entering the front of your telescope is fixed. If you are looking at an extended object, like the surface of the Moon, or a planet, or a galaxy or nebula, then as you increase magnification, that light is spread out over an ever-greater area of the retina of your eye, so the image looks dimmer and dimmer. Spread it out too much, and it will become too dim to see at all. What's more, various kinds of fine or low-contrast detail become hard to see before the object itself vanishes."

 

[AV1611VET]

The KJV is the lowest rated in accuracy compared to the old texts of all the translations available.

That's because It doesn't say "a God" in John 1:1, does It?