My theory on creation.

[tevans9129]

That is only because you are running it through a filter. That makes no sense at all. If you are confused why not look at the countless interpretations here:

So, when you said that you would answer all of my new questions, you were not being honest were you? Why else would you avoid the questions after saying that you would answer them?

"running it through a filter." Really, what filter am I running it through SZ?

And why on Earth are you referring to the Septuagint? Do you know what that is?

You ask me if I know what it means, really?

How about I refer to it because it was translated from the original Hebrew into Greek in the second century BC, did you not know that? If you did, why would you even ask the question? Furthermore, I also quoted, for your convenience, the original Hebrew which you seem to ignore, why?

I do not think I am the one confused, I have access to well over 30 different translations, in addition to the original Hebrew and Greek and none of them claim the earth is fixed as you claim.

Taken in context and compared to other like content the proper definition by Hebrew linguistic experts for kûwn, is...

"to be established (founded) v. — to be set up or founded."

כון kwn to prepare, make ready; to erect, set up; to determine, fix, appoint; to make firm; to feel inclined, be intent on, be firmly resolved (25x)
Nifʿal: Judg 16:26, 29; 1 Sam 20:31; 2 Sam 7:16, 26; 1 Chron 16:30; 17:14, 24; 2 Chron 29:35; Ps 89:37; 93:1–2; 96:10; 101:7; 102:28; Prov 12:3; 16:12; 25:5; 29:14; Isa 2:2; Micah 4:1; Hiṯpôlēl: Prov 24:3; Isa 54:14; Pôlal: Ps 37:23; Hofʿal: Isa 16:5
בנה bnh to build, develop buildings; rebuild (2x)
Nifʿal: Num 13:22; 1 Kings 3:2
יסד 1 ysd 1 to found, establish, lay a foundation; to destine, allocate (1x)
Nifʿal: Exod 9:18

 

[tevans9129]

It is your turn. Do you believe the myths of Genesis?

No, I believe Genesis just as it is written. But, I do not try to pass it off to non-Bible believers as a scientific fact, do I? Actually, I do not even try to pass it off to those who say they are Christians as a scientific fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, when you said that you would answer all of my new questions, you were not being honest were you? Why else would you avoid the questions after saying that you would answer them?

"running it through a filter." Really, what filter am I running it through SZ?

I have been answering all of your questions. You need to answer some of mine in the mean time. What questions of yours have I been not answering?

And you have a filter based upon an inconsistent belief. That is why I asked you the question that you have ducked probably three times now.

You ask me if I know what it means, really?

No, I asked you if you knew what it was. Is your reading comprehension that bad?

How about I refer to it because it was translated from the original Hebrew into Greek in the second century BC, did you not know that? If you did, why would you even ask the question? Furthermore, I also quoted, for your convenience, the original Hebrew which you seem to ignore, why?

Oh, you do know what it is. Why did you not refer to a Russian Bible that had been translated from the original Hebrew? You took an extra and unneeded side trip of an added translation. The translation of a translation will tend to be less clear that a direct translation from the original.

I do not think I am the one confused, I have access to well over 30 different translations, in addition to the original Hebrew and Greek and none of them claim the earth is fixed as you claim.

That is only because you are confused. Your example of taking an unneeded and unwise extra translation that could only lead you away from the meaning of the verse in question.

Taken in context and compared to other like content the proper definition by Hebrew linguistic experts for kûwn, is...

"to be established (founded) v. — to be set up or founded."

כון kwn to prepare, make ready; to erect, set up; to determine, fix, appoint; to make firm; to feel inclined, be intent on, be firmly resolved (25x)
Nifʿal: Judg 16:26, 29; 1 Sam 20:31; 2 Sam 7:16, 26; 1 Chron 16:30; 17:14, 24; 2 Chron 29:35; Ps 89:37; 93:1–2; 96:10; 101:7; 102:28; Prov 12:3; 16:12; 25:5; 29:14; Isa 2:2; Micah 4:1; Hiṯpôlēl: Prov 24:3; Isa 54:14; Pôlal: Ps 37:23; Hofʿal: Isa 16:5
בנה bnh to build, develop buildings; rebuild (2x)
Nifʿal: Num 13:22; 1 Kings 3:2
יסד 1 ysd 1 to found, establish, lay a foundation; to destine, allocate (1x)
Nifʿal: Exod 9:18

To fix, and to make firm, imply a nonmoving Earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I believe Genesis just as it is written. But, I do not try to pass it off to non-Bible believers as a scientific fact, do I? Actually, I do not even try to pass it off to those who say they are Christians as a scientific fact.

I like to tell people that expecting the Bible to be a book on science is like expecting Bill Gate's diary to be a computer manual.

 

[bhsmte]

No, I believe Genesis just as it is written. But, I do not try to pass it off to non-Bible believers as a scientific fact, do I? Actually, I do not even try to pass it off to those who say they are Christians as a scientific fact.

Does this mean you have a literal belief of Genesis?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I believe Genesis just as it is written. But, I do not try to pass it off to non-Bible believers as a scientific fact, do I? Actually, I do not even try to pass it off to those who say they are Christians as a scientific fact.

Then you are not being consistent. It is the scientific method that tells us that the Earth moves. That the Earth is a sphere. That same scientific method tells us that the stories of Genesis are myths. That is why I asked about the verses that tell us that the Earth does not move. Or did you forget how Galileo got in trouble for pointing out that the Earth does move around the Sun?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like to tell people that expecting the Bible to be a book on science is like expecting Bill Gate's diary to be a computer manual.

Then you really should be consistent with that statement.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Genesis 1 is what is known as a frame story

I'm sure they knew that when they told it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You can deny reality, but you will simply be wrong. The Genesis account is clearly myth. I can claim that forests prove the Paul Bunyan story. No one who has investigated them will take me seriously. And no one that has studied life will take your claims seriously either.

You cannot prove that what Genesis portrays is myth. But from a primative point of view, it explains what God did. It's not science, it's not history. But it's not myth (in the sense that it's a false narrative). It is a story that was handed down for a long time, but that doesn't make it untrue, which is all any creation-believer says. Some say it's literally true, and most say it's figuratively true.

 

[tevans9129]

Did you write this?

So when the Bible only describes the Earth as being immobile and flat with everything rotating around it...

And did you also write this?

Really? The first source that I hit on does not have that exact phrase, but it has that exact meaning:

Would you quote the exact verse, in context, that has that exact meaning, "Earth as being immobile and flat with everything rotating around it..." can you do that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You cannot prove that what Genesis portrays is myth. But from a primative point of view, it explains what God did. It's not science, it's not history. But it's not myth (in the sense that it's a false narrative). It is a story that was handed down for a long time, but that doesn't make it untrue, which is all any creation-believer says. Some say it's literally true, and most say it's figuratively true.

Yes, if you want to look at it as allegory that is fine. And a lot of myth has that sort of beginning. It still is myth since there never were only two people, the entire Earth was never flooded, in fact the human race was never even threatened by a flood. Though there probably was a large flood that inspired the story. Noah, of Noah's ark fame is roughly as real as Santa Claus.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Would you reference the verses that you are using for this view?

In Genesis 1, there was a void, then God created the various things, then man, then rested (Genesis 1, entire). Genesis two is centered on man and God's creation of Eve, rather than the step by step process of Genesis 1.
Genesis 2 suggests, possibly, that evolution took place, because God tells Adam that he can eat the produce of trees and plants, which had already been growing.

 

[tevans9129]

Does this mean you have a literal belief of Genesis?

Even though you did not answer my question, I will answer this one. I absolutely do have and will until Science can provide empirical evidence of, "in the beginning," where, when and how did space, matter, energy, time and natural laws came into existence and, in what sequence. Furthermore, I will make a bold prediction that science never will provide answers to those questions from the natural laws of science. MY belief. If one does not accept Genesis, you might as well throw out the entire Bible because Genesis sets the foundation for all of scripture, IMO.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you write this?



And did you also write this?



Would you quote the exact verse, in context, that has that exact meaning, "Earth as being immobile and flat with everything rotating around it..." can you do that?

I said that I would answer your questions. I did not say that I would answer the same question multiple times. I already gave you this link with over 20 interpretations, most of which make the Earth stationary when read in context:

1 Chronicles 16:30 Tremble before him, all the earth! The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It can be tested by the explanatory power to competing models. The two are mutually exclusive esp blind watchmaker which does not allow the supernatural in the first place. Blind watchmaker is atheistic and so is evolution as depicted in textbooks. Everyone agrees on change over time. That is a far cry from blind watchmaker and common descent as they define CD.

You're speaking of Darwinism. Evolution is not necessarily Darwinism. Evolution, when God is the one who begins everything and directs everything, only expands on Genesis 1-2. Darwin's problem (and many today) is that he takes God out of the picture. Or tries to.

 

[tevans9129]

I already gave you this link with over 20 interpretations,

Do you see "fix" in the source that you provided? I do not.

Do you see anything at all that supports your statement?

"So when the Bible only describes the Earth as being immobile and flat with everything rotating around it..."

Obviously, you have no idea what context mean or else, you just ignore it and that is my guess.

 

[tevans9129]

it's not history.

Genesis is not history, really?

 

[tevans9129]

Did you write this?



And did you also write this?



Would you quote the exact verse, in context, that has that exact meaning, "Earth as being immobile and flat with everything rotating around it..." can you do that?

No answer for either question.

 

[Speedwell]

You're speaking of Darwinism. Evolution is not necessarily Darwinism. Evolution, when God is the one who begins everything and directs everything, only expands on Genesis 1-2. Darwin's problem (and many today) is that he takes God out of the picture. Or tries to.

I don't think so. God is always in the picture and need not be tinkering with mere naturalistic processes because of it.

 

[tevans9129]

That is why I asked about the verses that tell us that the Earth does not move.

That is why I am still waiting for you to provide scripture, in context, just as it is written, that corroborates your statement...

So when the Bible only describes the Earth as being immobile and flat with everything rotating around it...