Split Rock
Conflation of Blathers
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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?In fact, for the latter, the word 'adamah' is more commonly used as in Genesis 9:2, rather than 'eretz'.
So... god created the earth, without creating the earth? Makes perfect sense.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.
There were no rocks until the 3rd Day -- I said Day 1.
Do you see why you try so hard to confuse yourself?
You can't break this down properly, can you?
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".
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.
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?
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.
That only leaves igneous rock. However, igneous rock forms from volcanic activity, and there wasn't any, so where does that leave you?
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.
It is a single supercontinent called Eden in the Bible, or Pangaea in other writings.
Yes, God is quite capable of speaking in metaphor, but he doesn't speak in metaphor at your command.
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.
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.
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.
cuteBULLSEYE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Try the Garden of Eden.Now, Eden is located at the headwaters of 4 rivers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?