Earth Tilt Question

[Standing Up]

Where do you get the idea the seventh month became the first month?

Ex. 12:2 This month [shall be] unto you the beginning of months: it [shall be] the first month of the year to you.

Gen. 8:4 In the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat.

 

[Assyrian]

But didn't some time pass in between?

 

[juvenissun]

Ecc 1 seems to imply that the seasons were established from the beginning of the earth.

Which verse?

 

[juvenissun]

Bread existed before the last supper and lambs before the Passover, doesn't stop them being given deep symbolic meaning and used as the signs of covenants. Personally I wouldn't quibble with God about how common rainbow is or try telling him a river would be a better symbol. I think it is up to him to chose his own symbols, he is quite good at it, what we need to do is to try learn how to understand the meaning of the symbols and metaphors he does use.

For people who had just been through a catastrophe like the flood, the promise that the normal cycles of life on earth would continue seems quite relevant to me.

That is exactly what we are doing. So, what is the meaning of the rainbow according to you? I guess 10 persons could give 10 different versions of understanding. Is that the way we should read the Scripture? If so, why do you oppose my way of understanding (is mine not a version of metaphoric meaning?), while I don't remember I ever opposed yours, no matter how would you interpret it.

Metaphoric way of interpretation ALWAYS make sense no matter what it says. It renders any version of metaphoric interpretation to merely a personal opinion with little general significance. And that is boring.

 

[Mallon]

Which verse?

All of it.

 

[Papias]

Juve wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

But by changing the meaning of the words we see, doesn't that throw into question any literal reading of any part of the Bible?

I see two stages of doubt that your point raises - first, in reading any text, we now have to doubt if this is an accurate translation of the Hebrew (OT) or greek (NT) words - so no verse can be taken at face value without checking every word in the lexicon before speaking. What a pain - can you see being able to even do a reading from the Bible with this requirement?

Second - is the lexicon divinely inspired? Or was it made by humans and could thus not know for sure what the ancient words meant? If that's the case (and it seems inevitable), then we can't be sure of any literal reading, even after checking the lexicon, because any word could have a different meaning from the plain english (stage 1 above) or from what is in the lexicon (stage two, this paragraph).

Papias

Yes, it is very inconvenient. That is why many blessed ones study Hebrew.
​

OK, but what Hebrew do they study? Modern Hebrew? Does anyone know for sure what all the words of ancient hebrew meant? I mean, look at the differences between chaucer's canterbury tales, just 1000 years ago, and modern english - and multiply that by 2.5 (going by modern dating) or by 3.5 (going by fundamentalist dating of the pentateuch). Who teaches them - aren't those all fallible humans? Again I have to ask - do you think the lexicon (or the teachers of Hebrew) to be divinely inspired and divinely protected?

. I would say that at least 80% of the translation is trustworthy on the main message.

On what basis? To say it is 80% right, you need to be comparing it to a standard you know is right - and if you have that, then why not just enlighten everyone by bringing it forth? If you don't have a known to be correct standard, then what is that 80% based on? Just a warm and fuzzy feeling?

How much details should one investigate is a matter of extra effort, which is special to the person.

Begging your pardon, but doesn't that sound a little cavalier, if one considers it to be the word of God? I mean, if I thought I could get 0.001% closer to the real word of the master of the universe, wouldn't I happily expend hundreds of hours to do so?

But if I continued to overlook it, it will not hinder the main message of the Gen 1 either. In this sense, the lexicon is still very useful, even it may not solve all the problems.

What do you mean by "useful"? Do you mean "correct", as in "divinely inspired"? Or do you mean something else? If it is "useful", but is still the work of fallible humans, then aren't you putting fallible humans above the word of God? Or are you saying that the Bible itself is the word of humans, so using a human work to affect it is OK? Just trying to figure out what you are saying, no offense meant.

Papias

 

[Standing Up]

Ex. 12:2 This month [shall be] unto you the beginning of months: it [shall be] the first month of the year to you.

Gen. 8:4 In the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat.

What this means is that at Noah's time, the first month was at the fall equinox. The 7th month was at the spring equinox.

If there was no earth tilt prior to the flood, these months don't particularly matter, do they? IOW apparently that is the first mention of seasons.

Then in Ex 12:2 Noah's 7th month becomes the mark for the 1st month to start the passover.

Gen. 1:14 seasons is mow'ed

Gen. 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

It seems as though the flood is related to the tilt that led to that sow/reap, cold/hot, summer/winter.

Day/night may be mentioned to indicate lengthen/shorten, which would be unlike before. But at the fall/spring equinox, day/night is exactly the same. In the NT, at Passover time, Jesus said, are there not 12 hours in the day?

 

[Assyrian]

That is exactly what we are doing. So, what is the meaning of the rainbow according to you?

I would say it was chosen as a sign for the covenant because as Standing Up says, when you see a rainbow it usually means the rain has stopped and the sun is shining.

I guess 10 persons could give 10 different versions of understanding.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

Is that the way we should read the Scripture? If so, why do you oppose my way of understanding (is mine not a version of metaphoric meaning?),while I don't remember I ever opposed yours, no matter how would you interpret it.

I may have missed it, but I don't remember you giving any metaphorical interpretation for the rainbow, you just jumped in with a historical claim that for the rainbow to have a symbolic meaning it can't have existed from Genesis 1.

Metaphoric way of interpretation ALWAYS make sense no matter what it says. It renders any version of metaphoric interpretation to merely a personal opinion with little general significance. And that is boring.

Yet the OT is full of symbolic imagery of Christ no one understood from Sabbaths and sacrifices to the OT prophecies. Although the prophets did not understand the meanings, and no one would fully understand until Christ came, Peter tells us they 'enquired and searched diligently', rather than dismiss their search as insignificant and boring. I must say though, I do understand, as a younger Christian I was much more of a literalist and had very little time for figurative interpretations like typology, it seemed to me you could make up any meaning you liked. Thing is, my literal reading of scripture told me that wasn't the attitude to metaphor and symbolism people in the bible had.

 

[Standing Up]

I would say it was chosen as a sign for the covenant because as Standing Up says, when you see a rainbow it usually means the rain has stopped and the sun is shining. -snip-

So you don't see a sense that if the rainbow existed before the flood, it would not have that same meaning to them? IOW, when it rains again (after the flood), when you see the rainbow, then you know the rain has stopped. Before, you didn't worry about rain. Rain is something new and associated with a flood. But God has said watch for the rainbow.

.

 

[Assyrian]

What this means is that at Noah's time, the first month was at the fall equinox. The 7th month was at the spring equinox.

How do you know? What makes you think the first month of the year in Noah's time was in the fall equinox?

How could you even have an autumn equinox, if as you claim, the earth's axis wasn't tilted?

If there was no earth tilt prior to the flood, these months don't particularly matter, do they? IOW apparently that is the first mention of seasons.

Your argument does work that way, but you can't simply reverse it. If there was no tilt in the earth's axis then the there would be no seasons and the time of year would not particularly matter, but it does not follow because months were not mentioned up until then, that this was the reason. In fact Genesis 1 tells us the sun and moon were supposed to mark out the calendar, days and seasons and years, but how does the moon mark out the calendar? In months. Just because somewhere in the bible is the first mention of something, does not mean it is the first time it existed.

Then in Ex 12:2 Noah's 7th month becomes the mark for the 1st month to start the passover.

How do you know this? What makes you think that when the Hebrew calendar was instituted at passover, it was the seventh month of the Noachian calendar that became the first month of the new canlendar?

Gen. 1:14 seasons is mow'ed

Gen. 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

It seems as though the flood is related to the tilt that led to that sow/reap, cold/hot, summer/winter.

Day/night may be mentioned to indicate lengthen/shorten, which would be unlike before. But at the fall/spring equinox, day/night is exactly the same. In the NT, at Passover time, Jesus said, are there not 12 hours in the day?

Except every day had twelve hours back then, summer, winter or equinox, because hours were measured as 1/12 of the day or night, not 60 minutes on a wristwatch. Even that was a NT convention, in the OT the day and night were divided into watches, dividing the day and night in 3 or 4. As I said difference in length of day or night would have been unnoticable and unmeasurable, and the passage is talking about day and night not ceasing, not about varying in length, and day and night had existed since the creation of the world.

 

[Assyrian]

So you don't see a sense that if the rainbow existed before the flood, it would not have that same meaning to them? IOW, when it rains again (after the flood), when you see the rainbow, then you know the rain has stopped. Before, you didn't worry about rain. Rain is something new and associated with a flood. But God has said watch for the rainbow.

The bible doesn't say rain was something new, nor does it say there weren't rainbows before the flood. What is does say is new is that the rainbow was associated with God's covenant. As for associating rainbows with the end of rain, that come from common experience, you need sunshine and clouds for a rainbow which you normally get after the rain is passing or has already passed.

 

[Standing Up]

How do you know? What makes you think the first month of the year in Noah's time was in the fall equinox?

How could you even have an autumn equinox, if as you claim, the earth's axis wasn't tilted?

The 7th month became the 1st month. Just for ease, if 9/1 is the first month for Noah, then the 7th month begins 3/1. Then in Ex. 3/1 becomes the first month, marking the countdown to Passover. So, very roughly speaking 9/22 is fall equinox and 3/22 is spring.

But right, no earth tilt, one wouldn't be aware of it (change of seasons, hot/cold, etc).

Your argument does work that way, but you can't simply reverse it. If there was no tilt in the earth's axis then the there would be no seasons and the time of year would not particularly matter, but it does not follow because months were not mentioned up until then, that this was the reason. In fact Genesis 1 tells us the sun and moon were supposed to mark out the calendar, days and seasons and years, but how does the moon mark out the calendar? In months. Just because somewhere in the bible is the first mention of something, does not mean it is the first time it existed.

The first sighting of crescent moon marks the start of the month.

How do you know this? What makes you think that when the Hebrew calendar was instituted at passover, it was the seventh month of the Noachian calendar that became the first month of the new canlendar?

It's just what it says, if you read through Ex. 12. It says, this will be the first month, not the 7th.

The specific connection is the 17th. Noah's ark rested on the 17th. Passover the 14th, 15t, 16th (death, burial, and resurrection) 17th rest.

But not really trying to argue theology here.

Anyway, it seems that there is a connection between Noah's flood and earth tilt and seasons and equinoxes (equinoxes always there, just not unique points in time). Just wondering if there's any science there. Comet impact is one. The flood may be another.

 

[juvenissun]

Juve wrote:



OK, but what Hebrew do they study? Modern Hebrew? Does anyone know for sure what all the words of ancient hebrew meant? I mean, look at the differences between chaucer's canterbury tales, just 1000 years ago, and modern english - and multiply that by 2.5 (going by modern dating) or by 3.5 (going by fundamentalist dating of the pentateuch). Who teaches them - aren't those all fallible humans? Again I have to ask - do you think the lexicon (or the teachers of Hebrew) to be divinely inspired and divinely protected?


On what basis? To say it is 80% right, you need to be comparing it to a standard you know is right - and if you have that, then why not just enlighten everyone by bringing it forth? If you don't have a known to be correct standard, then what is that 80% based on? Just a warm and fuzzy feeling?


Begging your pardon, but doesn't that sound a little cavalier, if one considers it to be the word of God? I mean, if I thought I could get 0.001% closer to the real word of the master of the universe, wouldn't I happily expend hundreds of hours to do so?




What do you mean by "useful"? Do you mean "correct", as in "divinely inspired"? Or do you mean something else? If it is "useful", but is still the work of fallible humans, then aren't you putting fallible humans above the word of God? Or are you saying that the Bible itself is the word of humans, so using a human work to affect it is OK? Just trying to figure out what you are saying, no offense meant.

Papias

So, according to you, is there any good way to read the Scripture?
Or, you read yours and I read mine? I guess this might be what your idea is.

You can not deny everything because of some difficulties. That is what my 80% meant. To you it might only be 50% or less. Is that right? If the assured message is less than 50%, you may as well to choose other religion to believe.

 

[juvenissun]

I would say it was chosen as a sign for the covenant because as Standing Up says, when you see a rainbow it usually means the rain has stopped and the sun is shining.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

I may have missed it, but I don't remember you giving any metaphorical interpretation for the rainbow, you just jumped in with a historical claim that for the rainbow to have a symbolic meaning it can't have existed from Genesis 1.

Yet the OT is full of symbolic imagery of Christ no one understood from Sabbaths and sacrifices to the OT prophecies. Although the prophets did not understand the meanings, and no one would fully understand until Christ came, Peter tells us they 'enquired and searched diligently', rather than dismiss their search as insignificant and boring. I must say though, I do understand, as a younger Christian I was much more of a literalist and had very little time for figurative interpretations like typology, it seemed to me you could make up any meaning you liked. Thing is, my literal reading of scripture told me that wasn't the attitude to metaphor and symbolism people in the bible had.

Figurative interpretation of the Scripture should be the last, and is still yet a temporary way of reading. The problem with you seems to be that you read any verses figuratively whenever you can. Forgive me to criticize again, I think it is lazy (not bother to do further study/research), self-justified and self-comforting.

 

[Assyrian]

The 7th month became the 1st month. Just for ease, if 9/1 is the first month for Noah, then the 7th month begins 3/1. Then in Ex. 3/1 becomes the first month, marking the countdown to Passover. So, very roughly speaking 9/22 is fall equinox and 3/22 is spring.

But right, no earth tilt, one wouldn't be aware of it (change of seasons, hot/cold, etc).

You still haven't answered my question. How do you know Noah's calendar began in either the autumn equinox or 9/1?

The first sighting of crescent moon marks the start of the month.

So if they had the moon they could measure months. And the moon was around before mankind walked the earth.

It's just what it says, if you read through Ex. 12. It says, this will be the first month, not the 7th.

Again, I know the passover was the first month of the new calendar, what I am asking is how you this was the seventh month of the old calendar.

The specific connection is the 17th. Noah's ark rested on the 17th. Passover the 14th, 15t, 16th (death, burial, and resurrection) 17th rest.

That might tell you the day of the month, it would not tell you which month.

But not really trying to argue theology here.

Anyway, it seems that there is a connection between Noah's flood and earth tilt and seasons and equinoxes (equinoxes always there, just not unique points in time). Just wondering if there's any science there. Comet impact is one. The flood may be another.

You need to establish the connection between the flood and the earth's tilt first, simply being the first time they are mentioned doesn't mean it was the first time they existed or that seasons are actually connected to the flood. The first reference to ice or frost is Gen 31:30, yeast isn't mentioned until Exodus 12:15, ostriches are first mentioned Job 39:13, seaweed isn't mentioned until Jonah 2:5, but it doesn't mean it is the first time any of these ever existed. It doesn't mean ostriches are the result of Job's boils, or seaweed the result of Jonah being swallowed by a whale.

 

[Assyrian]

Figurative interpretation of the Scripture should be the last, and is still yet a temporary way of reading.

I would agree it is the last way we should understand scripture, but does last mean it is an optional extra, or is it what God has been preparing our hearts to receive? Jesus began his most in depth exposition of the figurative meanings of the OT on the road to Emmaus, Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Heb 5:11 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.
12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food,
13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.
14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

1Cor 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

We are supposed to get beyond the plain meaning the natural man or a small child can understand.

The problem with you seems to be that you read any verses figuratively whenever you can. Forgive me to criticize again, I think it is lazy (not bother to do further study/research), self-justified and self-comforting.

That would be funny if it wasn't so... no, it's just funny. TEs here seem to be the one who put the work into understanding what a text meant in the very different context and culture it was written in, and going from there to trying to understand what God is speaking to us in the text. For me, I love trying to get to grip with how writers later in the bible interpreted the earlier text they quote, rather than assuming these people from a very different time and culture understood the same way 21st century literalists do.

Literalists on the other hand proclaim that the great virtue of literalism is it doesn't require any effort whatsoever, the reading is so simple even a child could understand it. Where they do put in the effort is turning texts upside down to make them fit with the science they do accept.

 

[juvenissun]

I would agree it is the last way we should understand scripture, but does last mean it is an optional extra, or is it what God has been preparing our hearts to receive? Jesus began his most in depth exposition of the figurative meanings of the OT on the road to Emmaus, Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Heb 5:11 About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.
12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food,
13 for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.
14 But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

1Cor 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

We are supposed to get beyond the plain meaning the natural man or a small child can understand.

That would be funny if it wasn't so... no, it's just funny. TEs here seem to be the one who put the work into understanding what a text meant in the very different context and culture it was written in, and going from there to trying to understand what God is speaking to us in the text. For me, I love trying to get to grip with how writers later in the bible interpreted the earlier text they quote, rather than assuming these people from a very different time and culture understood the same way 21st century literalists do.

Literalists on the other hand proclaim that the great virtue of literalism is it doesn't require any effort whatsoever, the reading is so simple even a child could understand it. Where they do put in the effort is turning texts upside down to make them fit with the science they do accept.

Take this thread to demonstrate how does a literal reading of the Scripture work. It is much more sophisticate than you ever know.

The word "season" and "rainbow" is first mentioned after the Flood. So, together with other reasons, it literally suggests that there were no season and no rainbow before the Flood. This will bring A LOT of troubles to the established geological understanding. I, as a geologist, do not know how could geology be modified to fit the idea. Now, if I allowed myself to read it figuratively (like you do), everything would be just fine. No problem, easy, harmonic, beautiful, and peace of mind. (this is why I called it lazy)

But, I am a literalist (as you called it). What should I do? I, personally, will start to review what geology knows and to explore a possibility of retrofitting related knowledge to the "new" "data". It is hard and I may not go very far in my life. But, as everyone knows, this is the process of learning. It pleases God. And it is what God calls His faithful ones to do.

Practically, how would this "benefit" me? Among many options, I picked up the feature called varve to reconsider its origin. Since I learned what it is, I never questioned (no reason to) the suggested process of varves formation. Now I do. The tentative title of research may read like this: Could a varved deposit be made by nonseasonal processes?

By the way, this is also a good example of "Creation Science", which many people blindly said that it does not exist.

 

[Mallon]

Where can I read your geological research papers, juvie?

 

[Standing Up]

You still haven't answered my question. How do you know Noah's calendar began in either the autumn equinox or 9/1?

So if they had the moon they could measure months. And the moon was around before mankind walked the earth.

Again, I know the passover was the first month of the new calendar, what I am asking is how you this was the seventh month of the old calendar.

Ex. 12:2

KJV This month [shall be] unto you the beginning of months: it [shall be] the first month of the year to you.

YNG `This month [is] to you the chief of months -- it [is] the first to you of the months of the year;

NASB "This month shall be the beginning of months for you; it is to be the first month of the year to you.

If that month was already the first month, then God wouldn't have said, this month -shall be- ... IOW, why state the obvious?

At the flood, months, years, days are being counted. The assumption of a calendar is there. Will it end up being the same calander for Moses? Apparently so, it is implied.

That might tell you the day of the month, it would not tell you which month.

You need to establish the connection between the flood and the earth's tilt first, simply being the first time they are mentioned doesn't mean it was the first time they existed or that seasons are actually connected to the flood. The first reference to ice or frost is Gen 31:30, yeast isn't mentioned until Exodus 12:15, ostriches are first mentioned Job 39:13, seaweed isn't mentioned until Jonah 2:5, but it doesn't mean it is the first time any of these ever existed. It doesn't mean ostriches are the result of Job's boils, or seaweed the result of Jonah being swallowed by a whale.

I see your point. We know the calendar was in existence--Noah's ark rests on the 17th day of the 7th month. Later the 7th month becomes the 1st month (again the relationship is due to the 17th).

The only other relationship is to the equinoxes that I can see.

 

[Assyrian]

Take this thread to demonstrate how does a literal reading of the Scripture work. It is much more sophisticate than you ever know.

I don't know, I have come across literalist arguments often enough, one thing it convinces me is that TEs care more for what the literal meaning of the text actually says than literalists.

The word "season" and "rainbow" is first mentioned after the Flood. So, together with other reasons, it literally suggests that there were no season and no rainbow before the Flood.

And oddly, you have made no attempt here to look at what the literal text actually says. Yo see some significance in this being the first mention of the text, and I am aware of the literalists reasoning that the first mention is the first time these things exist, but the text does not say that, and there is nothing in scripture to tell us to take the first mention of a subject as the first time it existed. That is a completely extra biblical rule of exegesis, or rather eisegesis, you are not looking at what the text tells us but reading your meanings into the text, the same with the 'other reasons you mention' presumably wild creationist speculations about a tilting axis that is mentioned nowhere in scripture, but again is read into this passage.

This will bring A LOT of troubles to the established geological understanding. I, as a geologist, do not know how could geology be modified to fit the idea. Now, if I allowed myself to read it figuratively (like you do), everything would be just fine. No problem, easy, harmonic, beautiful, and peace of mind. (this is why I called it lazy)

But, I am a literalist (as you called it). What should I do? I, personally, will start to review what geology knows and to explore a possibility of retrofitting related knowledge to the "new" "data". It is hard and I may not go very far in my life. But, as everyone knows, this is the process of learning. It pleases God. And it is what God calls His faithful ones to do.

Practically, how would this "benefit" me? Among many options, I picked up the feature called varve to reconsider its origin. Since I learned what it is, I never questioned (no reason to) the suggested process of varves formation. Now I do. The tentative title of research may read like this: Could a varved deposit be made by nonseasonal processes?

By the way, this is also a good example of "Creation Science", which many people blindly said that it does not exist.

I really don't understand why creationists criticise figurative interpretations which at least stick closely to the imagery used in scripture, when their own so called literalism produces far wilder meanings much further from the actual meaning of the text.