No reason to believe X is true, other then my interpetation of Y must be true.

[Split Rock]

Land, territory etc (i.e. the land from a political perspective) is all well within the meaning of the word 'eretz' (earth). It does not refer solely to the land (rock, sediment, soil etc). In fact, for the latter, the word 'adamah' is more commonly used as in Genesis 9:2, rather than 'eretz'.

Thanks for that post.

I suspect that AVET will fall back on "the KJV1611 says earth, so it means earth." Anything to keep the Bible squeezed into his own world view.

 

[AV1611VET]

In fact, for the latter, the word 'adamah' is more commonly used as in Genesis 9:2, rather than 'eretz'.

Now we're going to resort to speaking in tongues to make our point?

The King James Bible says "earth".

 

[Tomatoman]

I can't help speculating that in order to keep insisting on something as silly as AV's bible beliefs, someone would have to have had an experience they consider to be religious. This would make all discussion ultimately academic because they would 'know' they were right.

Unfortunately all such experiences can be explained psychologically. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that people who cling to these quite mad literal interpretations of the bible are doing so because of a misinterpretation of something that happened to them. In other words they are deluded.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Gen 9:11:
"I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth ."

When God said the earth was destroyed was He referring to rocks being destroyed?

Also:

Rev 11:18:
"The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great — and for destroying those who destroy the earth."

How do we destroy the earth? It is certainly not referring to rocks. Therefore the earth can be spoken of as "earth" without referring to rocks.

So... god created the earth, without creating the earth? Makes perfect sense.

 

[lucaspa]

There were no rocks until the 3rd Day -- I said Day 1.

You don't think there are rocks under the water? What is the water sitting on, AV?

And why concentrate on rocks? Did you forget the other two examples I gave?

Do you see why you try so hard to confuse yourself?

You can't break this down properly, can you?

No, I can break it down properly. It's you who is trying to confuse things because you can't address the issue.

According to you, rocks came in Day 3. So tell us, why would there be sedimentary rocks on Day 3? Why would there be metamorphic rocks?

 

[lucaspa]

24

160

You've got a globe of water more than 7,900 miles in diameter. Where did all that water go, AV?

Go back to the post where I talked about ad hoc hypotheses. That is what you are doing. You are desperately trying out ad hoc hypotheses to save your interpretation of Genesis 1 from falsification. In the vernacular, it's called pulling it out of your behind.

But the ad hoc hypotheses are getting you into more falsifications. There is no way that the dissolved minerals in the water would be sufficient to create a continent, much less the 7,897 miles of rock beneath the oceans. It also violates a plain reading of Genesis 1. Genesis 1 clearly says "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so."

If what you claim happened, the passage should say "And God said, Let the rock in the water come out of the water together in one place, and let the dry land appear"

Not only is your idea falsified by God's Creation, but it's falsified by the very literal interpretation of Genesis 1 you are trying to defend. Defeated by God in both places, AV.

 

[Split Rock]

Thanks for that post.

I suspect that AVET will fall back on "the KJV1611 says earth, so it means earth." Anything to keep the Bible squeezed into his own world view.

Now we're going to resort to speaking in tongues to make our point?

The King James Bible says "earth".

BULLSEYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I rule.

 

[lucaspa]

Gen 9:11:
"I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth ."

When God said the earth was destroyed was He referring to rocks being destroyed?

Also:

Rev 11:18:
"The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great — and for destroying those who destroy the earth."

How do we destroy the earth? It is certainly not referring to rocks. Therefore the earth can be spoken of as "earth" without referring to rocks.

The reference here is to the surface of the earth. Where humans live. And yes, we have to refer to rocks when we do that, because that is the surface of the land.

If you are going to have "the earth was without form and void", you still need rocks .

At the bare minimum, AV's proposal needs which are going to precipitate out to form dry land. Which also means isotopes with half-lives less than 50 million years.

 

[Split Rock]

Land, territory etc (i.e. the land from a political perspective) is all well within the meaning of the word 'eretz' (earth). It does not refer solely to the land (rock, sediment, soil etc). In fact, for the latter, the word 'adamah' is more commonly used as in Genesis 9:2, rather than 'eretz'.

Now we're going to resort to speaking in tongues to make our point?

It is very telling AVET, that you consider determining what the authors of Genesis actually wrote and intended to be "speaking in tongues." You care very little for what your Holy Book actually says and much more for what you want it to say.

 

[lucaspa]

I can't help speculating that in order to keep insisting on something as silly as AV's bible beliefs, someone would have to have had an experience they consider to be religious. This would make all discussion ultimately academic because they would 'know' they were right.

Has AV claimed such experience? Most creationists have not. Also, it does not automatically mean that they "know they were right". God has to be consistent. Therefore their experience of what God tells them has to match what God tells other people. Here, obviously, that is not the case.

Unfortunately all such experiences can be explained psychologically.

Welcome to one of the ad hoc hypotheses of atheism. The personal experiences of theists with deity would falsify atheism. So we have the ad hoc hypothesis that all these experiences have no basis in external reality. BUT, we can independently test for that in looking at the overall psychology of individuals who claim experience of deity. And guess what? Most of them do not show any other psychological disturbances. Yes, a few like the preachers on the streetcorner do. But not the vast majority who report personal experiences of deity. Of course, those individuals do NOT report experiences telling them creationism is true.

 

[lucaspa]

That only leaves igneous rock. However, igneous rock forms from volcanic activity, and there wasn't any, so where does that leave you?

No, igneous rock on the surface today comes from igneous rock beneath the surface that has been squeezed up thru fissures in sedimentary rock -- volcanic activity. However, below the sedimentary rock the mantle is all igneous rock, and it is pretty uniform. The Canadian Shield is original igneous rock on the surface. Homogeneity of the Earth's Mantle

So the originally created rock could be the igneous rock that makes up the deep mantle, It would just be all over the surface like it is in the Canadian Shield.

And yes, on top of that would have to be a layer of soil for the plants to grow in.

 

[Doveaman]

Isn't god capable of speaking in metaphor?

Yes, God is quite capable of speaking in metaphor, but he doesn't speak in metaphor at your command.

 

[lucaspa]

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

This water now makes up our oceans.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Essentially, God is telling the waters to "stand aside" -- something is about to be revealed.

And here you have falsified your own theory about Terra Aqua and how land appeared! I told you scripture refuted it. Nice of you to do the heavy lifting yourself.

It is a single supercontinent called Eden in the Bible, or Pangaea in other writings.

NO! Eden is a land, but it is not the only land.

Now, Eden is located at the headwaters of 4 rivers. That right there eliminates Eden as a supercontinent, because the rivers are flowing out of Eden. But if Eden were the supercontinent, then it would all be Eden and the rivers would not be "out of" it. The Bible refutes that idea:
"And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. "

See that bold? This is reinforced:
"And the name of the second river [is] Gihon: the same [is] it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. "

A land other than Eden!

It's amazing, AV. You tell us "science can take a hike", but you want the Bible to correspond to science. Science has told us that there used to be a supercontinent and it's been named "Pangea". Instead of telling science "to take a hike", you want the Bible to say there was a supercontinent. You even try to make "Eden" = "Pangea". But all that does is call scripture further into disrepute because it's clear from scripture that Eden cannot possibly be a supercontinent. Not without violating the scripture you supposedly want to defend for accuracy.

Do you believe in anything other than validating your own ideas? Nothing seems to be sacred to you, not even God.

 

[Split Rock]

Yes, God is quite capable of speaking in metaphor, but he doesn't speak in metaphor at your command.

So then, He only speaks in metaphor when you and AVET want Him to?

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Has AV claimed such experience? Most creationists have not. Also, it does not automatically mean that they "know they were right". God has to be consistent. Therefore their experience of what God tells them has to match what God tells other people. Here, obviously, that is not the case.



Welcome to one of the ad hoc hypotheses of atheism. The personal experiences of theists with deity would falsify atheism. So we have the ad hoc hypothesis that all these experiences have no basis in external reality. BUT, we can independently test for that in looking at the overall psychology of individuals who claim experience of deity. And guess what? Most of them do not show any other psychological disturbances. Yes, a few like the preachers on the streetcorner do. But not the vast majority who report personal experiences of deity. Of course, those individuals do NOT report experiences telling them creationism is true.[/quote]
Source?

As for the religious experience, it is essentially the same in terms of physiological response (increased heart rate and adrenalin, loss of concsiousness, crying, etc.) the world over, since recorded history, regardless of particular faith or belief. To say that this subjective experience is somehow proof of a particular supernatural deity or phenomena is absurd. All human behavior and experience can be explained in physical terms. Use that which is necessary to explain, and nothing more.

 

[juvenissun]

No, igneous rock on the surface today comes from igneous rock beneath the surface that has been squeezed up thru fissures in sedimentary rock -- volcanic activity. However, below the sedimentary rock the mantle is all igneous rock, and it is pretty uniform. The Canadian Shield is original igneous rock on the surface. Homogeneity of the Earth's Mantle

So the originally created rock could be the igneous rock that makes up the deep mantle, It would just be all over the surface like it is in the Canadian Shield.

And yes, on top of that would have to be a layer of soil for the plants to grow in.

Hey, Lucaspa. Occasionally, I am still reading what you said, particularly things about geology.

I don't even know where to start to correct what you said. It is simply a mess. Well, you were not talking to me. So I will let you go.

 

[juvenissun]

That only leaves igneous rock. However, igneous rock forms from volcanic activity, and there wasn't any, so where does that leave you? Its the same problem as having sedimentary or metamorphic rock. I would suggest, it would either be a type of rock that cannot be formed by natural processes, or a uniform layer of somekind of rock... the type really doesn't matter. On top of that would need to be a good layer of soil.

Look at satellite Io of Jupiter. It is now a globe covered with igneous rocks. The earth was probably not like that before (much milder volcanism). But it gives you an idea of possibility. In this case, soil was not needed.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't think there are rocks under the water?

No.

What is the water sitting on, AV?

109

 

[AV1611VET]

BULLSEYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

cute

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, Eden is located at the headwaters of 4 rivers.

Try the Garden of Eden.