The Gap Theory

[nephilimiyr]

Hi Justified and genez,

I was wondering if I could get the two of you to give me your opinions, knowledgeable insights, and or beliefs on what the Hebrew word "reshiyth" actually means and also, what it would mean if the word was used with the "be" modifier.

One of my sources claims that the reshiyth used in Gen. 1:1 is used with this modifier in the original Hebrew. I don't know if this is true but this is what he says. Since you both have studied Hebrew I'd really appreciate your responses and will patiently wait.

 

[justified]

I was wondering if I could get the two of you to give me your opinions, knowledgeable insights, and or beliefs on what the Hebrew word "reshiyth" actually means and also, what it would mean if the word was used with the "be" modifier.

One of my sources claims that the reshiyth used in Gen. 1:1 is used with this modifier in the original Hebrew. I don't know if this is true but this is what he says. Since you both have studied Hebrew I'd really appreciate your responses and will patiently wait.

Ok, I guess one more time: בראשית ברא אלהים "in the beginning God created". I stop here because the Masoretic Text places an athnach at elohim, indicating a pause. This means that they understood the text to be a thesis for all that follows: "in the beginning God created" and what follows is the account of that.


The first word (most on the right, since it's Hebrew) is br'shyt, the one you are wondering about. The word-group RShT which makes up most of that word means "beginning." The ב tacked on at the beginning is not a modifier; it is a preposition. It means "in" or "during" or "between" or any host of things; it often as well means "when." Here it indicates a temporal relationship -- "when it was the beginning."

 

[nephilimiyr]

Ok, I guess one more time
: בראשית ברא אלהים "in the beginning God created".

Sorry but I know you had already given your opinion and or expertised knowledge of the meaning of the phrase you posted but I'm only concerned about the one word.

The ב tacked on at the beginning is not a modifier; it is a preposition.

Ok, well other scholars call it a modifier. The "reshiyth" is a noun, is it not? These same scholars say this noun always needs a modifier for it's actual meaning to be seen.

It means "in" or "during" or "between" or any host of things; it often as well means "when." Here it indicates a temporal relationship -- "when it was the beginning."

I'm just asking for the meaning of the root word, the noun, reshith. I didn't ask for the meaning of "in the beginning God created" or "br'shyt" or "be-reshith", just reshith.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Ok, well, let me go about it this way...When I've studied books written by Bible scholars, I've realized that the phrase "in the beginning" is much more complex than it seems to be and certainly more complex than what most anybody will tell you. In fact, most commentaries on it shows that almost all scholars have had trouble with what this one phrase means, and also importantly, in the case of translators, exactly what should be conveyed. This comes about because of the original Hebrew word used in the phrase.

Some scholars say that the noun reshith always needs a modifier in order for it's actual meaning to be seen. It can mean "beginning" but often it means something more akin to "previously" in English.

For example, Job 42:12, So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning (reshith)

To read this as the actual beginning of Job makes no sense. It odviously isn't talking about his conception or birth, though I suppose some may want to hurt themselves by trying to prove that, but it is odvious from the story that reshith is referring to the beginning of the story covered in the book of Job, prior to the misfortune that Satan brought to him.

Another such instance of the use of reshith is found in Proverbs 8:22, where Wisdom tells the reader,

Prov. 8:22, The LORD possessed me in the beginning (reshith) of his way, before his works of old.

Proverbs chapter 8 is considered a christophany of Jesus Christ appearing in the OT. Wisdom is the person of Jesus Christ who made man in his image. The aside is, if one assumes that reshith means "beginning" here, it must also be assumed that God also had a beginning. Since it is a basic premise of the Bible that the Lord has no beginning or end but is eternal, one must therefore assume that the "beginning" before his works means simply, before what can be seen in this age was created, but not before God and His existence.

It is also important to note that reshith is not the only word for "beginning" in Hebrew. And that when a true beginning is implied, such as in Psalm 102:25, a different word is employed.

What this means is that "in the beginning" in Genesis 1:1 can be seen to mean not in the beginning of all time and things, but the start of (for human beings) the current frame of history. Thus, the earth was molded and reformed at a specific time, i.e. gap theory.

Cont.

 

[nephilimiyr]

What I'm talking about is that reshith denotes the first in a series of things, or the first, chief, or principal thing. Thus, there isn't a specific starting of the heavens and the earth in the passage, but just a statement that they were part of the beginning period, before the creation/restoring story that comes in the following verses. In other words, "in the beginning" really is closer to being a "big inning" like they say in baseball, than just the point at which all things started. It tells that God made the heavens and the earth, but doesn't give an inking as to when or how.

This idea is bolstered by the fact that when Hebrew writers wanted to note the actual beginning of a time, as the time of day or week when a harvest commenced for example, the word employed was most often techillah. This word connotes an opening or commencement. And this passage avoids the use of this word. Techillah wasn't the word the author chose to tell about the beginning of the heavens and the earth. In other words, this opening passage of Genesis and the Bible isn't necessarily telling about the start of all things but rather denotes that a period took place during which that first state of being took place and during which God created the heavens and the earth.

This points to the idea that other events may have taken place before or during this "beginning" period, perhaps even outside of the realm of time and space as most people know them. "In the beginning" was a period different from the subsequent events that come afterwards in the rest of the chapter and may very well span a period of time many times longer than the time man has been on earth.

Look at the logic in the opening passages of the Gospel of John.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

The parallels between these two views are interesting. But what about the "beginning" used by John? Being in the Greek, it presents a good opportunity to see how the NT writers viewed the idea of the first verse of Genesis as well. How does the Greek word John chose for "beginning" compare to that of the Hebrew?

The word chosen was arche. As can be seen, this is the same word that "arch" comes from and indicates not simply a "beginning" but "a chief period of time", with the idea of a ruler's span of power behind it as well. John's "In the beginning" also conveys the idea of a period of time, not the commencement or creation of things.

The word translated into English as "made" in this passage is ginomai. This word conveys the idea of causing something to become something else or to assemble something into a whole. So, here again the idea is not of God (through Jesus Christ) creating the universe from nothing, but rather assembling and forming it into a whole, much as a potter might form a pot or a carpenter frame and build a house.

A similar idea of the universe was conveyed by the ancient Greeks. Their word cosmos which is often translated to mean "world" or even universe, actually suggests a creation that is fabricated from other materials becoming polished or adorned as it is fashioned, the word doesn't suggest something created from scratch.

 

[justified]

nephilimiyr,

you keep referring to these "scholars." Can you give me names? You used the plural, so I expect more than one. I will tell you my qualification: I trained under one of the most well-educated Semiticists i could. He studied under Cyrus Gordon, a legend in west-semitic philology. Just so you don't think I'm talking out my backside, you know? I used Weingreen's Practical Grammar to Classical Hebrew.

Ok, well other scholars call it a modifier. The "reshiyth" is a noun, is it not? These same scholars say this noun always needs a modifier for it's actual meaning to be seen.

It's incorrect terminology to call it a modifier. It's a preposition that can be pre-formed. You are correcting, "beginning" is a noun. But the scholars are wrong to say a noun always needs a modifier. Take the sentence "Jesus wept." That is, structurally, subject [noun] + predicate [verb]. No modifier is needed.

Or is it impossible to see the meaning of a sentence like "And Joseph went to Shechem to seek his brothers"? No, and no "modifier" or "preposition" is technically needed. I don't know necessarily what your scholars mean, but it sounds to me like they're wrong.

I'm just asking for the meaning of the root word, the noun, reshith. I didn't ask for the meaning of "in the beginning God created" or "br'shyt" or "be-reshith", just reshith.

That's called getting extra for your money. Say "thank you."

When I've studied books written by Bible scholars, I've realized that the phrase "in the beginning" is much more complex than it seems to be and certainly more complex than what most anybody will tell you. In fact, most commentaries on it shows that almost all scholars have had trouble with what this one phrase means, and also importantly, in the case of translators, exactly what should be conveyed. This comes about because of the original Hebrew word used in the phrase.

The word it self is a form of the word ראש "head, --> first." There's a great deal of rabbinic commentary, but none of these so far as I know is centered on lexical/grammatical difficulties.

What this means is that "in the beginning" in Genesis 1:1 can be seen to mean not in the beginning of all time and things, but the start of (for human beings) the current frame of history. Thus, the earth was molded and reformed at a specific time, i.e. gap theory.

You gave two examples out of 45 verses which use the term. I don't think that quite establishes anything. For example [my over-literal translations; you should cf. them to a reliable translation like NASB or ESV],

ותהי ראשית ממלכתו (Gen. 10:10) = "and they were the beginning from his kingdom"

It is a word for "firstfruits" in some passages (e.g. Exodus 23:19=34:26; Lev. 2:12; et. al)

והיה ראשיתך מצער (Job 8:7) = "though from smallness was your beginning"

All of these deal with absolute beginnings -- first things.

Here's one for you. I liked this verse, but with your version, it kinda' defeats the purpose:

ראשית חכמה יראת יהוה שכל טוב לכל-עשיהם תהלתו עמדת לעד (Ps. 111:10) = "the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the LORD; he has a good understanding who does to his praises are firm forever" (i know, it's extremely literal, but that's the point this time around).

It's used of the beginning of the reigns of kings in Jeremiah (e.g. Jer 26:1; 27:1; 28:1; 49:34).

And, a very important verse, because it contrasts the "end" with the "beginning" is here Isaiah 46:10a which, because I'm sick of typing from right to left, I will not include the Herbew of. Basically, it reads as the ESV, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done.

So, we've at least established "beginning" as a prominent meaning in many texts. What else can be said on the points you have raised?

It is also important to note that reshith is not the only word for "beginning" in Hebrew. And that when a true beginning is implied, such as in Psalm 102:25, a different word is employed.

This was a bad choice. The word you translate as "beginning" is פנים "face" or "before." The word does not mean beginning.

For example, Job 42:12, So the Lord blessed the latter end of Job more than his beginning To read this as the actual beginning of Job makes no sense. It odviously isn't talking about his conception or birth, though I suppose some may want to hurt themselves by trying to prove that, but it is odvious from the story that reshith is referring to the beginning of the story covered in the book of Job, prior to the misfortune that Satan brought to him.

Agreed. Remember Job is a poetical book. I have no problem reading here "beginning" as "time before he got screwed" you know?

Hebrew is a very flexible language; you have shown two instances where "beginning" does not fit; but you have to evaluate Genesis 1 on its internal probability. What does that passage suggest for itself as the meaning? Can we see what the author is trying to tell us?

This idea is bolstered by the fact that when Hebrew writers wanted to note the actual beginning of a time, as the time of day or week when a harvest commenced for example, the word employed was most often techillah. This word connotes an opening or commencement. And this passage avoids the use of this word.

Well, except that "firstfruits" is repeatedly designated by ראשית. Further, you can't say that the passage "avoids" the use of this word of yours, only that he does not use it. In fact, that words occurs less than half the times that ראשית does, so I'm not worried about it.

The word chosen was arche. As can be seen, this is the same word that "arch" comes from and indicates not simply a "beginning" but "a chief period of time", with the idea of a ruler's span of power behind it as well. John's "In the beginning" also conveys the idea of a period of time, not the commencement or creation of things.

The word translated into English as "made" in this passage is ginomai. This word conveys the idea of causing something to become something else or to assemble something into a whole. So, here again the idea is not of God (through Jesus Christ) creating the universe from nothing, but rather assembling and forming it into a whole, much as a potter might form a pot or a carpenter frame and build a house.

James Barr had something to say to you: etymology does not determine meaning. CONTEXT determines meaning. Be careful, because you are using your word-studies dangerously.

 

[dunkel]

I would love to see the context and passages you claim about.....

I'll have to dig up the specific ones I was referring to, but here are a few other spots that contain factual inaccuracies:

1 Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

I'm not so good at math, so here is someone else's explanation:

Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did "compass it round about."

Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

Four legged fowl?

Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..."

Hares (whatever the plural is) don't chew their cud.

1 Kings 4:26 says "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots..."

but

2 Chronicles 9:25 says "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots..."

Hm, 4,000 or 40,000?

And, it was not iron chariots. It was steel. Which was a prophecy of the future military automobile.

Thanks for the clarification.

Gee, that one would have had to been written around 1930! How did they sneak it into Bible retrocatively? Who counterfeited Luther's notes to include it in his translation? That was a lot of work to fool us!

There are many different ways to interpret that passage in particular and Revelation in general. Do not be so arrogant as to believe that you have the one correct way.

Like I said.... I would love to see the context of what you both claim.

I'll get back to you.

What I do find refreshing is how you both came out and now reveal how you are out to prove the Bible inaccurate.

I do not believe every word in the Bible is inerrant, if that's what you mean. As I said, if you're getting hung up on whether it's 4000 or 40,000 stalls or whether a hare chews it cud, or whether or not it was really 6 days, you're overlooking the actual message. Ya know, the actual important part.

That much has come to the surface! Hurrah! We who are here now know what it is we are dealing with. Duality of purpose..... "Purposeyim." Here to exegete, and to disprove what you exegete.

Alrighty then!

"Sure the Bible is the Word of God.... But, not all the Bible is the Word of God."

If I only had a dime for each time I have witnessed to that kind of mind.....

You'd probably have a fortune by now, eh? Super duper.

Proverbs 30:5

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."

Tell ya what, when I find a scrap of paper that God himself has written on, I'll take it at face value. As long as he's using fallible humans to do the actual writing, though, I'll be a little wary.

So? We Christians suffer from believing the sword we were handed is magic. That, its because we believe its magic, that we are brave in battle? That if we only knew it was not really magic?..... (then what?)

Um...ok...? Many people have fought battles, both figurative and actual, in which they raised their "magic sword", believing that it would save them. For some, it did, for others, it didn't. I guess that's how supersition is born.

And, your account of the plants coming first, and then man coming first, is easily clarified.

You can explain if you like, but it's not necessary. It's not a problem for me, but I guess it is for you if you found it necessary to find an explanation that satisfied you.

That is, if you have not thrown your hands up and prepared top surrender like you have.

Um, what?

Have a nice Day, GeneZ

Thanks.

 

[GenemZ]

I'll have to dig up the specific ones I was referring to, but here are a few other spots that contain factual inaccuracies:

1 Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

I'm not so good at math, so here is someone else's explanation:

Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did "compass it round about."

Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you."

Four legged fowl?

Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..."

Hares (whatever the plural is) don't chew their cud.

Hares do re-chew what they have partially digested. Except, they do not regurgitate like a cow does. They simply eat over again their pellets that they excrete. Its not the means by which they chew their cud, its the fact that they re-chew what was once already chewed and swallowed. So, yes, they do chew their cud.

As for the rest of what you offered? I used to debate in Compuserve in its glory days when it was not yet owned by AOL. Some very bright folks were over there. Atheists used to love the same segment you just offered me to disprove the Bible. Interesting how over here, its now a Christian who has gotten his hands on the same material. Very interesting.

As for what you said about the so called day reversal situation seemingly found in Genesis 1, and 2? Unless someone else asks me who I know hungers for truth, I see no sense throwing it your way at this point.

Some are here to prove all things. Others, only to try to disprove.

In Christ, GeneZ

 

[nephilimiyr]

nephilimiyr,

you keep referring to these "scholars." Can you give me names? You used the plural, so I expect more than one. I will tell you my qualification: I trained under one of the most well-educated Semiticists i could. He studied under Cyrus Gordon, a legend in west-semitic philology. Just so you don't think I'm talking out my backside, you know? I used Weingreen's Practical Grammar to Classical Hebrew.

Oh I don't doubt you know what you're talking about. I asked for your expertise not trying to use sarcasm but honestly wanting to know what you think. I haven't ever studied Hebrew in any kind of a structured course. I only have a HS edjucation but I have read some books by these scholars and they all have said that because of the ancient Hebrew used in Genesis 1 there has been much confusion. In fact, so much confusion that the first verses in Genesis has been interpreted in hundreds of different ways, and all by Bible scholars who feel they know the language.

My qualifications aren't important here, basically I have none, but the qualifications of those that I have gleaned my knowledge from can be just as impressive as your qualifications and because they at least have books that they have authored, doctorates, etc,. etc. these scholars should at least be given an ear.

Here's a list:
Mark Futato, beginning Biblical Hebrew (Eisenbrauns)
Gary Long, Grammatical Concepts 101 for Biblical Hebrew (Hendrickson, 2002)
Rabbi Noson Weisz, Will the real Homo Spiens Please Stand Up, Aish.com, Jerusalem
George Hawkins Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages, first published by Hodder and Stoughton in 1875, and presently available by Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids MI, 1975.
Henry Morris, The Genesis Record, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, 1976.
Clarence Larkin, Spirit World, Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate, Philadelphia PA, 1921.
Also: M. R. DeHaan, C. H. McIntosh, F. Delitzsch, A. C. Gaebelein, A. W. Pink, Donald Grey Barnhouse, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Stephen Quayle, and Chuck Smith.

The man I learned the most from however is Michael S. Heiser
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/
Go to his website and click onto his resume, I think you will be impressed enough. In short, he holds a Ph.D in Hebrew Bible and ancient Semitic languages U. of Wis-Madison; MA in ancient history from the U. of PA (major fields, ancient Israel and Egyptology)

Most of the stuff on the website (books, papers, newsletter) are for sale but not all. He doesn't consintrate on the theories of creation but has professed and explained his belief in the gap theory. He consintrates more on the "divine council" and is a staunch critic of Zercharia Sitchin yet professes and explains his own belief in ET.

Otherwise, thank you for your indepth reply, I appreciate it.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Hares do re-chew what they have partially digested. Except, they do not regurgitate like a cow does. They simply eat over again their pellets that they excrete. Its not the means by which they chew their cud, its the fact that they re-chew what was once already chewed and swallowed. So, yes, they do chew their cud.

Gross!!!
I didn't know that

As for the rest of what you offered? I used to debate in Compuserve in its glory days when it was not yet owned by AOL. Some very bright folks were over there. Atheists used to love the same segment you just offered me to disprove the Bible. Interesting how over here, its now a Christian who has gotten his hands on the same material. Very interesting.

They do feel they have the logical excuse to do so. After all, it was men who wrote the Bible, not God...sounds logical.

Some are here to prove all things. Others, only to try to disprove.

I agree and I ask myself why this would be? I know what the narrow answer would be but I'm not looking for narrow answers.

 

[justified]

The man I learned the most from however is Michael S. Heiser
http://www.michaelsheiser.com/
Go to his website and click onto his resume, I think you will be impressed enough. In short, he holds a Ph.D in Hebrew Bible and ancient Semitic languages U. of Wis-Madison; MA in ancient history from the U. of PA (major fields, ancient Israel and Egyptology)

I appreciate it. One of the things I've noticed in the fields is there is kind of an extra-proportion of people interested in aliens and crazy stuff who study egyptology and the ancient near east. i don't know why.

As far as other good commentaries, let me suggest the volumes by Gordon Wenham and also the commentary on Genesis in the New International Biblical Commentary Series (NIBC). They both are technical, but there's enough in there to follow along without knowing Hebrew.

And there's no shame in a HS education. I almost never went to college.

 

[nephilimiyr]

[/font]
I appreciate it. One of the things I've noticed in the fields is there is kind of an extra-proportion of people interested in aliens and crazy stuff who study egyptology and the ancient near east. i don't know why.

As far as other good commentaries, let me suggest the volumes by Gordon Wenham and also the commentary on Genesis in the New International Biblical Commentary Series (NIBC). They both are technical, but there's enough in there to follow along without knowing Hebrew.

And there's no shame in a HS education. I almost never went to college.

Thank you much! I'll do a Google on Gordon Wenham right now.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Oh! I just noticed on the bottom left hand corner of michael heiser's website that he has put his view of creation on-line. I'll have to check that out as soon as I do that Google search.

 

[justified]

you can't find these commentaries online, bud. You'll have to go to a library. A local library may do interlibrary loan for you; otherwise, check a university library or something.

 

[nephilimiyr]

you can't find these commentaries online, bud. You'll have to go to a library. A local library may do interlibrary loan for you; otherwise, check a university library or something.

Yeah I found that out. I did find something he wrote that doesn't apply to what we are talking about but was interesting enough, in fact it was pretty good reading.
http://jri.org.uk/resource/bible_wenham.htm

 

[dunkel]

Hares do re-chew what they have partially digested. Except, they do not regurgitate like a cow does. They simply eat over again their pellets that they excrete. Its not the means by which they chew their cud, its the fact that they re-chew what was once already chewed and swallowed. So, yes, they do chew their cud.

Cud = poo? I had no idea. I guess my dog chews the cud, also.

As for the rest of what you offered? I used to debate in Compuserve in its glory days when it was not yet owned by AOL. Some very bright folks were over there. Atheists used to love the same segment you just offered me to disprove the Bible. Interesting how over here, its now a Christian who has gotten his hands on the same material. Very interesting.

Gotten my hands on it? Um, it's right there in the Bible. Are there certain passages of the Bible I shouldn't have my hands on? And is it significant that you offered no refutation to the points?

BTW, my point is not to "disprove" the Bible. I think you're bit a tad defensive. Maybe animosity left over from your Compuserve days, I don't know. My purpose is to get people to look past all the details into the real meaning of the message. Who cares whether Creation is literal or figurative? Get over it. As I said, does it matter of it's 4,000 or 40,000 stalls? Of course not. Not to me, anyway. You may need to do mental backflips to explain how Solomon had 4,000 stalls when one of the passages was written, but then decided he needed more the next day, so he built another 36,000 stalls or something. Or perhaps it was a scribe's simply translation error? Hm, that opens a whole new can of worms, doesn't it?

As for what you said about the so called day reversal situation seemingly found in Genesis 1, and 2? Unless someone else asks me who I know hungers for truth, I see no sense throwing it your way at this point.

Maybe this is supposed to bother me or something? NO!! GIVE ME YOUR KNOWLEDGE!! Or whatever. Not sure why you brought it up again...as I said, if you have some sort of explanation, post it. If not, well, that's ok, too, because my understanding and/or belief in Genesis is not predicated on whether Adam or the trees were created first. And every minute that you spend on figuring out how to explain that is a minute taken away from the real meaning of Genesis.

Some are here to prove all things. Others, only to try to disprove.

Thanks for pointing that out. I am assuming that you are one of the ones "here to prove all things" and assuming that I am here "only to try to disprove". Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, that is what I'm after...the truth. Yes, the truth is contained in the Bible. The difference is that your truth seems to hinge on specific details, while I try to look a little deeper. But, hey, to each his own, I guess.

In Christ, GeneZ

Word.

 

[GenemZ]

Cud = poo? I had no idea. I guess my dog chews the cud, also.

Dogs will do that on occassion. Not as means to normal digestion.

Gotten my hands on it? Um, it's right there in the Bible. Are there certain passages of the Bible I shouldn't have my hands on? And is it significant that you offered no refutation to the points?

Sure you did. You just did your own searching. Its just coincidental that you got the same points in your Bible by mere "searching" as the Atheists did from their talking points?

But? Look at your own words!

They betray you!

I'll have to dig up the specific ones I was referring to, but here are a few other spots that contain factual inaccuracies:

1 Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."

I'm not so good at math, so here is someone else's explanation:

Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did "compass it round about."

I see.... You're not so good at math? Not so good at math!?

Yet, you were able to pick that out? By just reading through your Bible?

And, someone else had to explain it for you?

Something does not line up. Now, does it?

And, that's as simple as 1 plus 1, equals 2.


"Seen many kinds.... Seen many ways....

....But the Truth, Life, and the Way....

Is the only one that pays."

Have a nicey nice, Day! GeneZ

 

[dunkel]

Dogs will do that on occassion. Not as means to normal digestion.

Not that I don't love a good eating dog poo discussion (my fault, I guess, I brought it up), but you're only proving my point. You're so concerned about whether or not hares really chew the cud that you're overlooking the whole point of that passage. Don't eat dirty animals. Great, move on. But you'd rather do mental gymnastics, twisting and spinning words just so that you can keep intact the idea that every word in the Bible is 100% true. Is that what you think God wants? Or did he just not want the Israelites to eat dirty animals?

Sure you did. You just did your own searching. Its just coincidental that you got the same points in your Bible by mere "searching" as the Atheists did from their talking points?

What does it matter where I got the quotes? I never said it was original research. I just said that I have my hands on it now...well, actually, YOU said that and I agreed. Are you disputing that the quotes are accurate? Are you disputing that they say what I said they say? Are you disputing my interpretation? Or does it just make it easier for you to dismiss what I have to say, not based on the content, but based on where I got the quotes?

But? Look at your own words!

Um...getting worked up, are we?

They betray you!

Yup, I got all three...bold, underline, AND italics.

I see.... You're not so good at math? Not so good at math!?

No, not really. I blame myself, of course. I was put in the accelerated program, but there was too much time by myself, so I ended up sleeping a lot. Um...but what does that have to do with anything?

Yet, you were able to pick that out? By just reading through your Bible?

Stalling

And, someone else had to explain it for you?

Yes...and more stalling.

Something does not line up. Now, does it?

Right...the passage that I quoted...it doesn't add up. And you're not saying that it does, are you? You're not saying that they had a different concept of pi than we have today, are you? You just don't like the way I found this particular verse, so that's easier for you to attack then the actual content of what I said.

And, that's as simple as 1 plus 1, equals 2.

*gets out calculator*

*figures out how to turn it on*

Ok...one...cross symbol...one...enter...yeah, 2. Man, you're good.

"Seen many kinds.... Seen many ways....

....But the Life, and the Way....

Is the only one that pays."

Have a nicey nice, Day! GeneZ

Forgive me...I edited your quote. Cause you're not interested in the truth.

 

[GenemZ]

What does it matter where I got the quotes?

Because I have only seen those who are out to disprove the veracity of the Bible use the same exact ones! That's why.......

I am not stalling anything. I sense something afoot here that is playing it cool, even when exposed. For you claimed you found these on your own.

Gotten my hands on it? Um, it's right there in the Bible

Even in Compuserve when dealing with proud and belligerent atheists, they conceded the point on the hare chewing his cud. They also stopped using it.

You? No big deal...... I am simply twisting words.


There are some (not many) small typos in certain copies of texts of Scripture. Easy to figure out. Errors that would only require a tiny slip of the pen when making a transcription. There are other things that appear to be errors when read in the translation, but the original text would clarify once the original language is understood correctly.

As for your mathmatical discrepancy?

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/piwrong.html

Grace and peace, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

you keep referring to these "scholars." Can you give me names? You used the plural, so I expect more than one. I will tell you my qualification: I trained under one of the most well-educated Semiticists i could. He studied under Cyrus Gordon, a legend in west-semitic philology. Just so you don't think I'm talking out my backside, you know? I used Weingreen's Practical Grammar to Classical Hebrew.

Cyrus Gordon retired in 1989. A Jew. Not a Christian. No Holy Spirit. He taught at Brandeis. Hardly a theological seminary. Secularism personified.

Here is a current anti- Bible position held by a prof who teaches the Hebrew Bible there now....

http://my.brandeis.edu/news/item?news_item_id=104196

Makes a statement. Yes?

Hardly a fertile ground for a born again believer. Even the scholarly Pharisees searched the Scriptures all the time and could not see Christ. That is something that those who think simply having an education is everything miss.

Exegetical issues are debated amongst qualified scholars today. There are areas of contention today. Surely you must know this. Yet, you come here to debate non-exegetes? Ones who depend on others for their exegesis?

What kind of game do you wish to play with us? Who can defend themselves against you (on your terms), even when you are dead wrong? That's the point.

In Christ, GeneZ