If the universe is <10,000 old....

[Calminian]

What does the word "land" (eretz) refer to in the Flood accounts? 12 times it is used in Genesis 7, but in a sentence like this:

And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days. (Gen 7:24, ESV2011)​

there simply is no "land" to speak of. ...

IOW's the waters flooded the land. This is very normal language, and exactly the kind of language I would expect.

If today an island flooded, we would be fine to say, the ocean completely covered the island.

But what is an island? Isn't it dry land that is above the ocean surface? So if we say, the island got completely covered by the ocean, would that mean that an island is not really a piece of land above the ocean surface.

Of course not. The phrase simply means the dry land got covered by water. You could even say, the island ended up underwater. Or the water prevailed on the island. None of this would confuse the actual meaning of the term island.

And when you think about it, that phrase actually affirms the distinction between earth and sea. How could you say the waters flooded the earth, if the waters are part of the earth? You'd have to have meant the waters prevailed over the land.

 

[Calminian]

IOW's the waters flooded the land. This is very normal language, and exactly the kind of language I would expect.

If today an island flooded, we would be fine to say, the ocean completely covered the island.

But what is an island? Isn't it dry land that is above the ocean surface? So if we say, the island got completely covered by the ocean, would that mean that an island is not really a piece of land above the ocean surface.

Of course not. The phrase simply means the dry land got covered by water. You could even say, the island ended up underwater. Or the water prevailed on the island. None of this would confuse the actual meaning of the term island.

And when you think about it, that phrase actually affirms the distinction between earth and sea. How could you say the waters flooded the earth, if the waters are part of the earth? You'd have to have meant the waters prevailed over the land.

By the way, I just checked out that Particle preposition and its primary translations are upon, over, above.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

But translation has "earth", and in many of the verses, it is clear that it is talking about more than just the land.

I disagree. Let's see your verses.
​

I listed many of them back in post #204, and Shernren and Assyrian showed more from Gen chap. 7. You obviously can't have a flood that only floods the land areas and stays dammed out of the rivers and lakes. You saw from the map of of the Babylonian empire I posted that the land and water areas are intermingled, so the land doesn't form a single, round area, with no water. Yet, if you were to accept your explanation, then that is what Isaiah 40:22, would be saying.

Papias

 

[Calminian]

Cal wrote:


I listed many of them back in post #204, and Shernren and Assyrian showed more from Gen chap. 7. You obviously can't have a flood that only floods the land areas and stays dammed out of the rivers and lakes. You saw from the map of of the Babylonian empire I posted that the land and water areas are intermingled, so the land doesn't form a single, round area, with no water. Yet, if you were to accept your explanation, then that is what Isaiah 40:22, would be saying.

Papias

I have no idea what this post means. Simply quote some passage and make your case. Or youre free not to. I know of not one single passage that combines the land and the sea and calls them both earth. I do know of dozens of passages that list them distinctly.

 

[Papias]

Originally Posted by Papias

I listed many of them back in post #204, and Shernren and Assyrian showed more from Gen chap. 7. You obviously can't have a flood that only floods the land areas and stays dammed out of the rivers and lakes. You saw from the map of of the Babylonian empire I posted that the land and water areas are intermingled, so the land doesn't form a single, round area, with no water. Yet, if you were to accept your explanation, then that is what Isaiah 40:22, would be saying.

Papias

I have no idea what this post means. Simply quote some passage and make your case. Or youre free not to. I know of not one single passage that combines the land and the sea and calls them both earth. I do know of dozens of passages that list them distinctly.
​

Cal, I did post passages and their arguments - several in that post and several in post #204. What part of "Post #204" do you not understand?

Papias

 

[Calminian]

Cal, I did post passages and their arguments - several in that post and several in post #204. What part of "Post #204" do you not understand?

Papias

I did look at those and none make your case. So simply post your favorite and let's talk about it. Maybe I can even convince you you're wrong on this.

 

[philadiddle]

I did look at those and none make your case. So simply post your favorite and let's talk about it. Maybe I can even convince you you're wrong on this.

Do you think the original audience understood it to mean that the earth was flat or round? What about the audiences throughout the ages?

 

[Calminian]

Do you think the original audience understood it to mean that the earth was flat or round? What about the audiences throughout the ages?

What was flat or round? THe land? Of course not. It had mountains, valleys and ends (coastlines).

 

[philadiddle]

What was flat or round? THe land? Of course not. It had mountains, valleys and ends (coastlines).

I'm jumping into the middle of a conversation. I thought you were talking about whether the bible says the earth is flat or round but looking back there may be other details you guys are working out.

 

[Calminian]

I'm jumping into the middle of a conversation. I thought you were talking about whether the bible says the earth is flat or round but looking back there may be other details you guys are working out.

Indeed. The term earth is not a perfect translation for the hebrew word erets as the ancients described it in scripture. Earth is scripture is always distinct from the sea. The word simply means land, and I would submit it always means that. But for certain it never means planet earth. Nor is it every referring to an earth/sea unit.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them,​

 

[gluadys]

Indeed. The term earth is not a perfect translation for the hebrew word erets as the ancients described it in scripture. Earth is scripture is always distinct from the sea. The word simply means land, and I would submit it always means that. But for certain it never means planet earth.

"But for certain it never means planet earth."

You are right, though perhaps for the wrong reason.

The idea that the earth is a planet is post-Copernican and depends on two things: that the earth orbits the sun (rather than vice-versa) and that the other bodies orbiting the sun are more earth-like than star-like.

In pre-Copernican thought, both Christian and pagan, "planet" implied "star". In particular a "wandering star" (i.e. one not bound to a particular constellation) as opposed to a fixed star (part of a stable constellation).

Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and so on, were thought to be stars and made of the same substance as stars. Not until they were viewed through a telescope did their actual nature become known.

Whatever the Bible means by "earth" it definitely does not mean "star".
And, I agree, it doesn't mean "planet" in the modern sense either. Nor does it mean "globe" or "sphere".

It most likely means "dry land spread out horizontally over the waters beneath the 'erets' and under the overarching 'raquia' ".

 

[Calminian]

"But for certain it never means planet earth."

You are right, though perhaps for the wrong reason.

The idea that the earth is a planet is post-Copernican and depends on two things: that the earth orbits the sun (rather than vice-versa) and that the other bodies orbiting the sun are more earth-like than star-like.

In pre-Copernican thought, both Christian and pagan, "planet" implied "star". In particular a "wandering star" (i.e. one not bound to a particular constellation) as opposed to a fixed star (part of a stable constellation).

Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and so on, were thought to be stars and made of the same substance as stars. Not until they were viewed through a telescope did their actual nature become known.

Well you're close. Yes, the hebrew word translated star is also not a perfect match. A better translation might be luminary. To the ancients a star was merely a small light in the sky that wasn't the sun or moon. It doesn't make any conclusions about the actual substance, so it's not true to say that they believed they were all made of the same substance. But yes, this is another often misunderstood word.

Whatever the Bible means by "earth" it definitely does not mean "star".
And, I agree, it doesn't mean "planet" in the modern sense either. Nor does it mean "globe" or "sphere".

Nor does it mean flat pancake like disc made up of land and sea. That's the point. The the dry land is certainly not a luminary in the sky.

It most likely means "dry land spread out horizontally over the waters beneath the 'erets' and under the overarching 'raquia' ".

This last part you just made up. Raquia is merely the heavens. None of this last portions you wrote is based in scripture.

 

[Assyrian]

I think the problem is that while erets meant land, usually a region, if the Hebrews wanted to refer to all of creation they would talk about the heavens and the earth to sum up everything in all creation. Sometimes they would expand this to give a fuller description and say the heavens and the earth and the seas but that doesn't mean references to the heavens and the earth excluded the seas.

If you look at the end of the first creation account after the earth and the heavens and the seas were created, all of creation is summed up with Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

I listed many of them back in post #204, and Shernren and Assyrian showed more from Gen chap. 7. You obviously can't have a flood that only floods the land areas and stays dammed out of the rivers and lakes. You saw from the map of of the Babylonian empire I posted that the land and water areas are intermingled, so the land doesn't form a single, round area, with no water. Yet, if you were to accept your explanation, then that is what Isaiah 40:22, would be saying.

​

Papias

I did look at those and none make your case. So simply post your favorite and let's talk about it. Maybe I can even convince you you're wrong on this.
​

There were two examples in that post. One mentioned Gen 7, which Assyrian and others alreadys showed did not apply only to "just the land", but that at least "region" is a better fit.

The other was Isa 40, which again showed that "only the land" is not what is meant, because the God is certainly over many water features in the region, including rivers, lakes and seas.

As the previous posts have shown, a region like this:

can't be described as "only land", and all of the Biblical descriptions match with a view of shown here:

Papias

 

[Martyrs44]

Since the YECs who responded in the other thread I tried to make are ignoring my followup question, I'll try to be a little more direct.

If you think the universe is less than 10,000 years old because you reject the evidence for the big bang, then how would respond to an atheist who thought the universe was static and eternal?

Answer: Since each passing moment energy is being used (defined as 'work') that means there is less and less energy available. That means at one time there was 'x' amount available and that moment of total availability was the origin of the universe. The fact that the universe is slowly degenerating tells us it had a beginning.

Furthermore, since the 1st Law of Thermodynamics informs us that energy/matter/mass cannot be created nor destroyed

Quote: "The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of an isolated system (closed to all matter and energy) will remain constant over time."
and..."The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles..." Wikipedia.

So we know that natural processes cannot create matter. That leaves only a supernatural solution. Only God is Creator and natural law demands it. The only real question now is, are we going to trust Him and take Him at His word or will we trust the Darwinians who pile one guess upon another as it regards origins?

 

[philadiddle]

Answer: Since each passing moment energy is being used (defined as 'work') that means there is less and less energy available. That means at one time there was 'x' amount available and that moment of total availability was the origin of the universe. The fact that the universe is slowly degenerating tells us it had a beginning.

But scientists could easily be wrong about this couldn't they? After all they're wrong about so much else when it comes to scientific principles that dictate the big bang, evolution, etc.

Furthermore, since the 1st Law of Thermodynamics informs us that energy/matter/mass cannot be created nor destroyed

Wouldn't this mean that the universe didn't have a beginning? You just said that matter cannot be created.

 

[Martyrs44]

But scientists could easily be wrong about this couldn't they? After all they're wrong about so much else when it comes to scientific principles that dictate the big bang, evolution, etc.

The 1st Law is a well established fact of science as is possible. There is nothing we know of in nature that can or does create matter. The 'big bang' is only a theory and there is no evidence that it ever occurred. Some scientists claim it but they cannot even locate the foci of the so-called singularity despite decades of tracing the red shifts of stars and galaxies.

Wouldn't this mean that the universe didn't have a beginning? You just said that matter cannot be created.

Read my wording carefully: "...natural processes cannot create matter. That leaves only a supernatural solution."

God is not subject to natural law. He created natural law.

 

[Metal Minister]

But scientists could easily be wrong about this couldn't they? After all they're wrong about so much else when it comes to scientific principles that dictate the big bang, evolution, etc.

Wouldn't this mean that the universe didn't have a beginning? You just said that matter cannot be created.

IOW a big bang could never create matter. Only a supernatural force could. Add into this the mounting evidence against the big bang idea, and it begins to look more and more silly. The conservation of angular momentum, Hoyle's gas laws, the lack of matter, the very existence of binary systems refuted the idea that a massive explosion of nothing created everything.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[Metal Minister]

The 1st Law is a well established fact of science as is possible. There is nothing we know of in nature that can or does create matter. The 'big bang' is only a theory and there is no evidence that it ever occurred. Some scientists claim it but they cannot even locate the foci of the so-called singularity despite decades of tracing the red shifts of stars and galaxies.

Read my wording carefully: "...natural processes cannot create matter. That leaves only a supernatural solution."

God is not subject to natural law. He created natural law.

There are even 3 more logical explanations for the red shift(considering even stars we know are getting closer are red shifted)
1) Gravitational red shift
2) second-order doppler shift (I believe the most likely candidate)
3) energy loss shift.
All three of these are far more likely, and have more proof of their being correct than the speed red shift.

May God Richly Bless You! MM

 

[philadiddle]

The 1st Law is a well established fact of science as is possible. There is nothing we know of in nature that can or does create matter. The 'big bang' is only a theory and there is no evidence that it ever occurred. Some scientists claim it but they cannot even locate the foci of the so-called singularity despite decades of tracing the red shifts of stars and galaxies.

I was asking about the second law of thermodynamics. You don't think it's at all possible that they could be wrong about it?

Read my wording carefully: "...natural processes cannot create matter. That leaves only a supernatural solution."

God is not subject to natural law. He created natural law.

Your wording of the first law of thermodynamics isn't too important. What is the wording of the law itself as scientists describe it?