Taking questions on Embedded Age Creation (2)

[Hammster]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Notice "heaven" is singular, not plural.

It isn't plural until after God finishes His creation.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Meaning that between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:1, God created two more heavens.

The breakdown goes like this:

1. First Heaven = atmosphere = 0-62 miles up.
2. Second Heaven = outer space = 62 miles up - edge of universe.
3. Third Heaven = Heaven proper.

Note this passage ...

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

... where Paul warns that adding an ess on to a single word can lead to a major misunderstanding.

Gotcha. Although I don't have a problem with either since it could be seen as a summary statement. But it's not a point of contention for me.

 

[AV1611VET]

Gotcha. Although I don't have a problem with either since it could be seen as a summary statement. But it's not a point of contention for me.

I take it you're easy to get along with ...

 

[Hammster]

I take it you're easy to get along with ...

My wife might disagree So would some on these forums. But my older kids think I'm pretty easy going. My 2 year old foster daughter is 50/50. But my 1 year old foster daughter thinks I'm the bomb.

 

[AV1611VET]

My wife might disagree So would some on these forums. But my older kids think I'm pretty easy going. My 2 year old foster daughter is 50/50. But my 1 year old foster daughter thinks I'm the bomb.

 

[verysincere]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Notice "heaven" is singular, not plural.

It isn't plural until after God finishes His creation.

Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Meaning that between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:1, God created two more heavens.

The breakdown goes like this:

1. First Heaven = atmosphere = 0-62 miles up.
2. Second Heaven = outer space = 62 miles up - edge of universe.
3. Third Heaven = Heaven proper.

Note this passage ...

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

... where Paul warns that adding an ess on to a single word can lead to a major misunderstanding.

The reason virtually every translation other than the KJV shows "heavens" (in the plural) is because that correctly renders the Hebrew Masoretic Text of Genesis 1:1. The word HASHAMAYIM has an -IM ending.....and that, AV, is PLURAL.

AV believes the King James translators are superior to the Old Testament prophets. So he ignores what the Hebrew text clearly says (including the PLURALITY of HASHAMAYIM and holds to man-made traditions instead.

AV lives in a simple world where one can arbitrarily make the Biblical text say whatever you prefer. He doesn't care about what the Bible actually says.

HASHAMAYIM = "the heavens"

1) The Apostle Paul didn't write in English. And he wasn't writing a commentary on Genesis 1:1. But AV doesn't care. He just pulls irrelevant factoids out of the air.

2) But you are correct that ignoring singular/plural morphology is problematic. So the -IM that makes the word PLURAL for "the heavens" is a serious error.

So as usual, AV defies the scripture whenever it denies his favorite traditions. He would have made an excellent Pharisee in his particular talent for ignoring what the Biblical text says.

 

[AV1611VET]

The reason virtually every translation other than the KJV shows "heavens" (in the plural)...

No.

Genesis 1:1 [AV700 Anglo-Saxon Bible] On angynne gesceop God heofenan and eorðan.

Genesis 1:1 [AV1389 Wycliff Bible] In the beginning God made of nought heaven and earth.

Genesis 1:1 [AV1534 Tyndale Bible] In the begynnynge God created heaven and erth.

Genesis 1:1 [AV1560 Geneva Bible] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Genesis 1:1 [AV1568 Bishop's Bible] In the beginnyng GOD created ye heauen and the earth.

... is because that correctly renders the Hebrew Masoretic Text of Genesis 1:1. The word HASHAMAYIM has an -IM ending.....and that, AV, is PLURAL.

The Masoretic Text can take a hike.

 

[verysincere]

The Masoretic Text can take a hike.

There you have it, folks. As far as AV is concerned, Moses got it wrong! (Of course, AV has to insist that Moses got it wrong because the Bible's Old Testament was written in Hebrew, not English.)

So, as far as AV is concerned, the Bible can take a hike!

(AV insists that we use archaic English Bibles and get our Biblical grammar from old translations. He has no idea why Old English rendered singular what the Hebrew Bible shows as plural. So rather than educate himself on translation dynamics and the differences between singular and plural in various languages [and even the "dual" in Hebrew], he simply declares everybody else wrong. In other words, he ignores Biblical evidence just as casually as he ignores scientific evidence. It sure beats having to study and to learn new things!)

 

[AV1611VET]

There you have it, folks. As far as AV is concerned, Moses got it wrong!

Moses wrote the Masoretic Text, did he?

 

[AV1611VET]

The reason virtually every translation other than the KJV shows "heavens" (in the plural) is because that correctly renders the Hebrew Masoretic Text of Genesis 1:1.

Here's another one, professor.

Genesis 1:1 [1899 Douay-Rheims Bible] In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.

 

[Kylie]

Apologies for reviving this thread from the dead, but, AV1611VET, what is the point of all this? I've nbever heard of anything like this idea, why do you believe it?

 

[Kylie]

Perhaps you could explain the difference between "X has the appearance of Y" and "X looks like Y."

As in how someone can say, "This rock has the appearance of being a million years old," but not, "This rock looks like it is a million years old."

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you could explain the difference between "X has the appearance of Y" and "X looks like Y."

As in how someone can say, "This rock has the appearance of being a million years old," but not, "This rock looks like it is a million years old."

If you sold your car, and it was brand new in 2015, would you tell the buyer, "It looks like it's 7 years old"?

Or would you tell him, "It is 7 years old"?

 

[Kylie]

If you sold your car, and it was brand new in 2015, would you tell the buyer, "It looks like it's 7 years old"?

Or would you tell him, "It is 7 years old"?

It IS seven years old, since it has actually existed for 7 years.

If I made the car yesterday and did so in such a way that every possible test indicated that it was 7 years old, could I honestly tell him it was 7 years old? No. Could I tell him it had 7 years of age? No. Those would be lies.

And even if I documented that I had made the car yesterday, anyone who read that documentation and examined the car would conclude that I was trying to defraud the buyer. "Kylie says that the car is brand new, but every test indicates it's seven years old. She's trying to rip you off, pal."

 

[AV1611VET]

It IS seven years old, since it has actually existed for 7 years.

If I made the car yesterday and did so in such a way that every possible test indicated that it was 7 years old, could I honestly tell him it was 7 years old? No. Could I tell him it had 7 years of age? No. Those would be lies.

And even if I documented that I had made the car yesterday, anyone who read that documentation and examined the car would conclude that I was trying to defraud the buyer. "Kylie says that the car is brand new, but every test indicates it's seven years old. She's trying to rip you off, pal."

Just don't make a dress tomorrow so old it will fall apart the next day and sell it to someone as "brand new".

 

[Kylie]

Just don't make a dress tomorrow so old it will fall apart the next day and sell it to someone as "brand new".

Yeah, because if I embed age into it, people would just conclude that I'm being deceptive, won't they?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, because if I embed age into it, people would just conclude that I'm being deceptive, won't they?

Yes.

If you embedded age into it and then sold it as brand new, you would be deceptive.

You would have to tell them that, even though you made it yesterday, it is going to fall apart with age tomorrow.

2 Peter 3:5a For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old,

You could put a sign on it that says:

PLEASE NOTE: BY THE WORK OF MY HANDS, THIS DRESS IS OLD.

 

[Kylie]

Yes.

If you embedded age into it and then sold it as brand new, you would be deceptive.

You would have to tell them that, even though you made it yesterday, it is going to fall apart with age tomorrow.

2 Peter 3:5a For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old,

You could put a sign on it that says:

PLEASE NOTE: BY THE WORK OF MY HANDS, THIS DRESS IS OLD.

And here's the point you keep missing...

By the time it gets to tomorrow, the dress only has one day of age.

Also, you missed the point.

The deception is not that I made it and tried to pass it off as new.

The deception is that I made it today and tried to pass it off as being much older.

 

[AV1611VET]

And here's the point you keep missing...

By the time it gets to tomorrow, the dress only has one day of age.

As I point out time and again:

The dress is one day old existentially; but old as the hills physically.

It has maturity without a history.

Also, you missed the point.

With all these points I'm missing, you'd think I was an educated atheist!

The deception is not that I made it and tried to pass it off as new.

The deception is that I made it today and tried to pass it off as being much older.

Then make it today and pass it off as brand new.

God made the earth brand new (existentially), but as old as the hills (physically).

 

[Kylie]

As I point out time and again:

The dress is one day old existentially; but old as the hills physically.

And how can it get all that physical age if it didn't physically exist for it?

It has maturity without a history.

Maturity requires history.

With all these points I'm missing, you'd think I was an educated atheist!

I don't think there's much danger of that.

Then make it today and pass it off as brand new.

But people would think my claim that it was brand new was a lie.

God made the earth brand new (existentially), but as old as the hills (physically).

Physically requires existence.

Unless you'd care to show me something that is physical but does not exist.

 

[AV1611VET]

And how can it get all that physical age if it didn't physically exist for it?

The technical term is "embedded."

Maturity requires history.

Not if God makes it.

I don't think there's much danger of that.

Thanks for the compliment.

But people would think my claim that it was brand new was a lie.

And they would be existentially wrong, but physically right, wouldn't they?

Physically requires existence.

Yup -- so get it sold before it falls apart tomorrow.

Just let them know it's old though.

Unless you'd care to show me something that is physical but does not exist.

That's neat.

Got anything in mind?