Different state past

Jazer · Mar 29, 2012

verysincere said:
Have you never read Genesis 1 at all??

1) Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". The heavens refers to everything above the earth that one sees in the sky, including all stars, of which our sun is just one.

2) "Let there be light" soon follows. Don't you agree that that LIGHT was sufficient for photosynthesis?

I do not know of ANYONE that has actually read Genesis Ch 1 with even a fifth grade understanding. For example in Genesis 1:1 "God created the heavens and the earth" This word "CREATED" is used three times in Genesis Ch 1. We see God Created the Great Whale and God Created Man. We did a study on Great Whales once, they are mammals. They breath air, they have to go to the surface to breath.

Then in verse 1:3 we read: " And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. "And God said" is different from "God created". Of course no one pays any attention to that. Genesis Ch 1 is very very small. Yet no one pays any attention at all to what they are reading.

I know of Pastors that have an amazing ability to read Moses when it comes to all the details in Temple to tell us what each and every tiny detail means. But I do not know anyone that can give us a understanding of Genesis based on the words used in an expository sense.

Davian · Mar 29, 2012

Davian said:
Can you prove it? I don't think you can, even something as simple as this.

Just like you can't prove any of your bible stories.

dad said:
So if the earth orbits the sun, the bible is true? Ok. You might be not so far off after all.

Evasion noted.

dad, defeated.

verysincere · Mar 29, 2012

dad said:
The six days are evidently days. No way a plant could live long epochs with no sun.

"Let there be light" is from YOM #1. "Dad", need we remind you that light is the energy source for photosynthesis in plants?

Moreover, Genesis 1:1 says that "the heavens" were created "in the beginning". That includes stars. (Newsflash: the sun is a star and part of "the heavens.")

Of course, as you should be aware, plenty of Hebrew scholars associate the verb on YOM #4 with the idea of "making to appear." [This is not necessarily my exegetical position, but it is yet another answer to your imagined problem of light for the plants.] The text says that on YOM #4 it became possible to use the heavenly bodies for time-keeping.

dad said:
Creation week was a week, that is the strongest and best reading.

Tell me where you find this alleged "reading" in the Genesis text? Where does it says anything about "Creation week is a week"? Or even a Hebrew word best translated as "week" in English?

[Oh, that's right. You have no knowledge of Hebrew exegesis. And that explains a lot.]

dad said:
Get on topic.

If you consider all of this "off topic", why did you bring it up?

.

verysincere · Mar 29, 2012

Jazer said:
I do not know of ANYONE that [sic] has actually read Genesis Ch 1 with even a fifth grade understanding.

You really need to get out more.

(And perhaps get to know people who have more than a fifth grade level of education.)

Jazer · Mar 29, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Are you kidding me?

I have never said that, and never will.

When you say embedded age that is one of the things you are saying. Because there is more then just a lack of evidence. The physical evidence we find in the natural record shows that there was no world wide flood. Not 4300 years ago when Noah was alive and walked this earth. I live in a area that was covered with Glaciers around 13,000 years ago. When they melted they left about 15 feet of muck behind. If you say that muck was left behind by the world wide flood then you have to explain the layers of conglomerate rock under the muck. I am sure there are lots of places you could point at as evidence for a flood. But then you have to explain the layers under that. Perhaps you do not realize all the implications of your embedded age theory. Just about everyone draws their own conclusions. It's very interesting, you can get a lot of mileage out of it. But not very practical at all.

Jazer · Mar 29, 2012

verysincere said:
You really need to get out more.

Can't to much scar tissue in my heart. It does not pump enough blood for me to get out more.

(And perhaps get to know people who have more than a fifth grade level of education.)

I said people that function at a fifth grade level. It works for time magazine they written at a 6th grade level. FleschâKincaid readability test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am very happy and content to function at a fifth grade level. That way we can reach the most people. If you want to function at a higher level and reach less people that is up to you. I actually took two years of sunday school teacher training at the Bible college. Just to learn how to be more effective and learn how to better communicate with people.

AV1611VET · Mar 29, 2012

verysincere said:
Moreover, Genesis 1:1 says that "the heavens" were created "in the beginning".

No it doesn't.

That's a pet peeve with me.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It is not until Genesis 2 -- after creation is finished -- that we see 'heaven' plural.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

That's because there were two more heavens created in Genesis 1.

'Heaven' (or 'firmament') is nothing more than a containment field, and God created the containment fields, then populated them.

Again, notice how God words it:

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

dad · Mar 29, 2012

Davian said:
Evasion noted.

dad, defeated.

Don't you wish! Undefeated envy? Don't blame you. Anyhow you said this

"Do you believe that the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun?"

So yes, I do believe in reasonable evidence. We have that for the earth and sun rotation stuff. And you accused me of diversion? Ha.

Be reasonable. It might help with that losing thing.

dad · Mar 29, 2012

Elendur said:
It wasn't me who stated the garden was planted on day 6.

So when do you think it was planted?

dad · Mar 29, 2012

Farinata said:
Why am I suddenly reminded of this scene?

I give up...why?

AV1611VET · Mar 29, 2012

Jazer said:
The physical evidence we find in the natural record shows that there was no world wide flood.

I don't care what the natural record shows, the divine record says otherwise.

To acquire your point-of-view, one would have to first assume that the natural record is natural, and I'm not willing to do that.

These 'natural records' and 'fossil records' and 'civilization records' can all take a backseat to the Bible.

They run on the uniformitarian principle.

Kick God out of nature and everything will look like it aged.

AV1611VET · Mar 29, 2012

Jazer said:
I am very happy and content to function at a fifth grade level.

-- Good for you!

My wife's always telling me to 'grow up' --

Just because my burps are onomatopoeia and various short phrases, and my sneezes are specific words, doesn't mean I can't function in society!

dad · Mar 29, 2012

verysincere said:
"Let there be light" is from YOM #1. "Dad", need we remind you that light is the energy source for photosynthesis in plants?

Yom number 1? Elaborate? As for present state light, forget it. That can't get starlight here in a week. So why would we look at another feature of how it behaves here and try to molest the past with a mental projection of it t?

Moreover, Genesis 1:1 says that "the heavens" were created "in the beginning". That includes stars. (Newsflash: the sun is a star and part of "the heavens.")

So..? How does this relate to anything? The stars were for man to see, if you recall. Adam was a man. Connect the dots.

Of course, as you should be aware, plenty of Hebrew scholars associate the verb on YOM #4 with the idea of "making to appear." [This is not necessarily my exegetical position, but it is yet another answer to your imagined problem of light for the plants.] Thheree text says that on YOM #4 it became possible to use the heavenly bodies for time-keeping.

Well, I take it you are suggesting the stars were already here, but made to appear in creation week?

Isa 48:13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.

Here is seems to include the earth and heavens as done by Him. Not at separate times.

Isa 40:25 To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One. 26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

Isa 45:12 -I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. I guess you want a special exemption for stars being part of everything too?

Eph 3:9 -And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Are you suggesting that the stars were stretched out at some other time than creation week!?

This sure sounds like the stars were just made...

Ge 2:1 - Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. Now for a witness! Take the stand..maam....

Pr 8:27 -When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
Again the making of the heavens and earth are usually recounted as one event and time.

Elendur · Mar 29, 2012

dad said:
So when do you think it was planted?

I don't think it was planted, but if I would follow the bible I would go with AV (using the verses given).

verysincere · Mar 29, 2012

I normally spare myself many a "face-palm moment" by keeping some posters in my permanent ignore-list.........but G.J.T. enjoyed bringing this classic to my attention:

>Moreover, Genesis 1:1 says that "the heavens" were created "in the beginning".

No it doesn't.

That's a pet peeve with me.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It is not until Genesis 2 -- after creation is finished -- that we see 'heaven' plural.

Nonsense.

(And contra-biblical nonsense is my pet peave, as you put it.)

You make your assumption only because you ignore (or are unaware) that the Genesis text is written in Hebrew.

I assure you that HASHAMAYIM ("the heavens") in Genesis 1:1 is plural.

The -YIM suffix should make the plurality of the word quite obvious.

If you happen to actually investigate the Hebrew commentaries and translation issues, you will discover why the singular/plural issue can be very complicated when dealing with that word and context.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

That's because there were two more heavens created in Genesis 1.

Oh my, my, my........Will wonders never cease?........... [Words fail me.]

That kind of imaginative folly is just plain sad.

(But I suppose if one holds to the view that one can invent anything in the Genesis text you wish, just like pulling a rabbit out of a hat, then I suppose I should expect it.)

I hope readers of this forum will apply appropriate skepticism when they read the steady stream of confident but ill-informed pseudo-knowledge so often posted. [I'm trying to be as polite as I possibly can without being dishonestly vague.]

rambot · Mar 29, 2012

AV1611VET said:
I don't care what the natural record shows, the divine record says otherwise.

And there is problem #1: The natural record IS the divine record and I challenge you to prove otherwise. In the English Bible, we have ALL kinds of room for error. In nature, we have (for Christians) evidence of God RIGHT THERE.

dad · Mar 29, 2012

Elendur said:
I don't think it was planted, but if I would follow the bible I would go with AV (using the verses given).

I must've missed it. I notice that plants were made a few days before man. I also notice that a common interpretation of 'eastward' is 'in advance of' or 'before'. Therefore it makes sense to me that the garden was planted before man was put in it on day 6. In fact, I see no reason why this planting for the garden was not the main event in the plant creation day!? From there, they could spread out to the rest of the planet...which fits the evidence from science.

verysincere · Mar 29, 2012

Jazer said:
I am very happy and content to function at a fifth grade level.

Some punchlines need no setup.

(Yet, seriously, this does explain a great deal. I appreciate and applaud the honesty.)

verysincere · Mar 29, 2012

rambot said:
And there is problem #1: The natural record IS the divine record and I challenge you to prove otherwise. In the English Bible, we have ALL kinds of room for error. In nature, we have (for Christians) evidence of God RIGHT THERE.

Very well stated.

So many of my Christian brethren, especially traditional Young Earth Creationists, emphasize the possibility of fallible humans misinterpreting the scientific evidence---but they tend to IGNORE the possibility that fallible humans misinterpret the Bible.

Many need to be reminded that the doctrine of Bible inerrancy refers to the Biblical text itself not human interpretations of the Biblical text.

Bible-affirming Christ-followers are SUPPOSED to agree (and Christian theologians for centuries have emphasized this fact) that God authored BOTH the Book of Scriptures (the Bible) AND the Book of Creation (Science). Yet, American evangelical movements of the past century or so have tended to elevate the Divine Record in the scriptures while ignoring the Divine Record in God's Creation.

Your statement "The natural record IS the divine record" is an excellent reminder to those who dare imply that God has tried to fool us with deceptive evidence throughout his creation.

Tiberius · Mar 29, 2012

verysincere said:
You make your assumption only because you ignore (or are unaware) that the Genesis text is written in Hebrew.

I assure you that HASHAMAYIM ("the heavens") in Genesis 1:1 is plural.

The -YIM suffix should make the plurality of the word quite obvious.

If you happen to actually investigate the Hebrew commentaries and translation issues, you will discover why the singular/plural issue can be very complicated when dealing with that word and context.

Ah, but AV doesn't care about the originals. He only cares about the one they wrote in 1611.

As far as AV is concerned, the originals are wrong.

Different state past

Jazer

Guest

fallible

Exegete/Linguist

Exegete/Linguist

Jazer

Guest

Jazer

Guest

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Undefeated!

Gamer and mathematician

Exegete/Linguist

Senior Member

Undefeated!

Exegete/Linguist

Exegete/Linguist

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency