• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Where is a "6000 year old earth" found in scripture?

yeshuasavedme

Senior Veteran
May 31, 2004
12,811
779
✟112,705.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Even if you use "evening and morning," in its contemporary sense (and not the Hebrew context and image device,) then it still begs the question of where an evening and morning can come from if there is no sun or moon
The Bible tells us the Light was separated from the darkness on day 1, and the darkness He called "night" and the light He called "Day", and the evening and morning [together to one rotation of the light in the circle of the earth] make "one Day".
The light is not the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars.
The light was stretched out from the earth with the stretched out heavens, between the divided/cut in half waters of the globe on day 2.
The sun is not the created light of day 1, but governs that light by day and the moon by night...
 
Upvote 0

yeshuasavedme

Senior Veteran
May 31, 2004
12,811
779
✟112,705.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ted, here is the dictionary meaning for congeal, which is used in the Scripture for the waters that stood in a heap after the strong/powerful east wind blew all night upon just that pathway God was making.
"to change from a soft or fluid state to a rigid or solid state, as by cooling or freezing:..."

Exo 15:8 And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap, and the depths were congealed literally, "frozen", in the heart of the sea.

http://ulpan.com/yddh/how-to-say-frozen-in-hebrew/
The Hebrew word for frozen is
Hebrew word קָפָא qâphâʼ

The Hebrew word translated "congealed" in Exodus 15:8 means "frozen", in Hebrew, as the link I gave above, shows.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi YSM,

Congeal means to merely turn a liquid or syrupy fluid hard. When making fudge one takes a drop of the hot sugar mix and drops it into a class of water to see if the liquid will congeal. It is often used to speak of fat that has cooled which was previously liquid. When you cook meats with fat in it the fat will be liquid as it cooks, but if you leave the pan out to cool for a while that fat will congeal. It may mean freezing, but doesn't necessarily. I guess Dr. Gray was right. Apparently this happens quite regularly in the middle east when the cold winds blow through the pass. The sea freezes.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi YSM,

Here's the Strong's reference for the very verse in question: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7087.htm

Notice that it translates the word as only condensed; became firm walls. The Hebrew word can be used to describe water turning into ice, but that doesn't seem to be the clear understanding that Strong's has of its use in this instance.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

greenguzzi

Post-Evangelical, Social Anarchist, One of The Way
Aug 25, 2015
1,147
733
Sydney Australia
✟41,363.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
(Electromagnetism and "electric" are not the same. But you seem to use the terms interchangeably. That's not a criticism or a problem. But I wanted to point it out because otherwise it might make this reply seem a little confusing.)
Everything is electric in this creation. Your body is electric, your heart is run by electric powers.
No, not everything in this creation - or in our bodies - is electric. However electric charge and electromagnetic forces are involved in this creation, and therefore also in our bodies.

My heart, like the rest of my body, is powered by ATP, which is manufactured in the cell nuclei by the mitochondria. The mitochondria uses chemical reactions to make ATP. At the most fundamental level, chemical reactions occur by electrons exchanging photons. Photons carry the electromagnetic force. So in this you are correct.

When you said that my heart is "run" by electric powers I took that to mean "powered by". But it is sufficiently vague to also mean "controlled by". In which case you are also correct. The nerves transmit signals and control and muscles via an electrical discharge across the nerve cell wall.

The forces of the nature of all things is spirit, and are held together by the Electro- magnetic powers -the powers of the heavens [or, as the Word says "the firmament of His powers"]
Now here's where you are wrong. There are at least four forces of nature. The three forces of the standard model, plus gravity. So that's the gravitational, weak nuclear, electromagnetic, and strong nuclear forces. The electromagnetic (or "electric") force alone is not enough. Without the other fundamental forces the universe would contain nothing but photons. (Maybe that was the "void and without form" phase.)

If there were only the electromagnetic force (and the others were absent) then not even atomic nuclei would form, let alone things as complex as atoms or people or planets. The fact that you and I are here debating this proves that everything is NOT just electric in this creation. And we haven't even begun to talk about fermions and bosons yet!
[...]as the Word says "the firmament of His powers", set in place by God at the beginning of creation hold the earth in place, and the heavens in place [...]
I agree with that in its essential meaning. God did create all the forces and particles and laws of nature. When one uses real science to behold the universe one discovers an awesome Creator. There is no need for pseudo-science like the electric universe woo.

and by them, the sun and moon are connected to run the same paths in the circling heavens, with the moon falling behind a certain number of days in each certain number of years until they begin at the same points after so many years, again [chapter 74 lists those numbers...http://summascriptura.com/html/Enoch_1_RHC.htm#99:2].
That's just bad science mixed with bad theology. Actually it's not even that, it's just nonsense. You might as well base your understanding of God and His creation on Jabberwocky.
 
Upvote 0

tatteredsoul

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2016
1,942
1,035
New York/Int'l
✟29,634.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Hi tatteredsoul,

Similarly those who claim that you can not have a 'day' without the sun, are others who say that you can't have an evening and morning without the sun or moon. Oddly enough, at 1a.m. I can't find the sun out anywhere to tell me that it's morning. Evening and morning are merely two equal halves of the period of a day. Just as a.m. and p.m. are not defined by the rising or setting of either the sun or the moon.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Telling time - sunset to sundown, new moon to new moon - was later specificied to the Hebrews in Exodus et cetera. Sundown to sundown was defined as a day, new moon to new moon as a month.

You may not be able to find the sun at 1am (even though that time is a Roman chronology,) but I bet you notice a difference between day covering and night covering, or the breaking through of that covering to have a difference in the firmament.
 
Upvote 0

tatteredsoul

Well-Known Member
Feb 4, 2016
1,942
1,035
New York/Int'l
✟29,634.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The Bible tells us the Light was separated from the darkness on day 1, and the darkness He called "night" and the light He called "Day",

You had me until...

and the evening and morning [together to one rotation of the light in the circle of the earth] make "one Day".

Please don't take this as an insult, but I don't think you studied "choshek" and "ore" in Hebrew (darkness and light.) I say that not because I think you are necessarily wrong, but because you basically "get it" without knowing it.

Choshek is darkness in a sense - evil, death, pain, malign, etc. Notice the earth became without form... dust like Heylel became prideful even though he was made perfect, the earth became void even though it was made perfect (unless you think God makes things imperfect.) Part of perfection is being having the capacity to be imperfect; being perfect means overcoming that capacity and maintaining perfecfion. No doubt you know this.

Ore is illumination in every possible sense - including intelligence and wisdom, life, etc. So, when Genesis is talking about separating light from dark, orbital bodies becoming void, and defining time it is very deep - the Ancient Hebrews knew this. Despite what we may have been taught they were not dumb illiterate cave dwelling intellectual derelicts. They were most likely "smarter" than your modern Nobel scientist. So, the dynamics of creation weren't farfetched notions of layered speech. They spoke Hebrew. They knew the connotations. Many of them saw "Michael Bay" miracles, angels, demons, and a few saw the Word of God Himself.

I think you think you know what you are talking about (just like me,) but I also think you are close and on to something. I don't agree with you in part, but check me out and consider my argument; perhaps one of us can solidify the other's alignment. I will do the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yeshuasavedme
Upvote 0

greenguzzi

Post-Evangelical, Social Anarchist, One of The Way
Aug 25, 2015
1,147
733
Sydney Australia
✟41,363.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Yes, I'm sure that you do, but have you honestly considered the similarities to what all known scientific evidence would have told us was the truth about Adam's existence and age on day two of his life with what all known scientific evidence tells us about the age of creation. Any scientist would have told us on day two of Adam's life that he 'appeared' to be about 20-30 years old. That he had passed through the birth and weaning years with his parents and grew into quite a healthy young man.

We, similarly, think to imagine that we can date the earth and the universe based on our great scientific knowledge and understanding. We measure and prod and poke and study and create great theories and 'truths' that lead us into direct contradiction to what God has told us, but because we think of ourselves as so much wiser than we really are and trust men and women who have given of their life's work to study these things with great doctoral degrees in their fields, we believe the lie rather than the truth. This is the exact same thing that Satan did and that Eve did. They believed of themselves to be wiser than God. That the real truth was gained through the exhaustive studies of men rather than the trust of God.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
The creation account in Genesis isn't a scientific document. It is truth, and it tells us a lot about God and His creation, and about our relationship with Him and His creation. However it isn't literally factual. Yes, God is directly responsible for the creation of Adam, but He didn't literally create him as an adult made out of dust. He didn't literally breathe the breath of life into his nostrils. We are not made of dust, and life is not nostril-breath. Yes God created Adam, and yes He gave him life. But not using nostril-breath and ash; because that's not how God's universe works. It's a wonderful mythical (and truth filled) story! The same applies to the six-days of creation and the seventh day of rest. A profoundly important and informative story, but it's not talking about a literal week.

The Genesis creation account is a myth, a hugely important story, and most importantly a polemic. It is absolutely true, but it isn't literally factual. So the problem of apparent age is irrelevant, because it never actually happened like that.
An extreme example of the logic you are using is that God placed the dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith. But God isn't a deceiver. He reveals His truth in His creation as well as in His word. God doesn't tell lies in His word, and He doesn't tell lies in His creation.

I sometimes wonder if the problem the literalists have with Genesis is the "myth" word. They think that the "mythical" genre is somehow inferior or less truthful to the "historic" or "scientific" genres. That's a modern prejudice, "mythical" doesn't mean that it's false or inferior. It's just a different genre, and therefore needs to be read differently.

Yes, there are lies out there. But by-and-large those lies don't come from science. There are some bad players in science; Richard Dawkins is the first one that comes to my mind. The lie that these bad players fall for it to expect science to explain everything. Science can only ever explain the physical/material part of the creation. These educated fools try to apply science to realms beyond science.

But conversely, men of faith sometimes throw the baby out with the bath-water. They dismiss all of science because of these bad players. This is tragic, because the scientific method is a wonderful tool for understanding the creation, which leads to worshipping God the Creator.

There is this idea that "men of science" use their reason to consider themselves wiser than God, whereas "men of God" use their reason to trust God. This is not true: When someone decides that the creation account of Genesis is literal rather them mythical, then they are using bad reasoning. Which is just as flawed as when Dawkins uses bad reasoning to decide that science disproves God.

The problem isn't science versus faith. The problem is bad reasoning versus good reasoning. Christ redeems everything, including our reasoning and including science. Or he will if we let Him.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good morning YSM,

I want to offer you an apology. I'm sorry that I got a bit flippant there at the end. I gave your idea some further consideration and I'm be doing some praying and studying on the matter. After considering the various understandings of 'congeal', yes, I agree that it can mean 'frozen water'. I have some problems with the logistics of such and Miriam's song is the only place that mentions that manner of separating the waters. It's possible, as this is a song and so records the words that Miriam sang about the event rather than God's account of the event, that as the Isrealites passed through the sea that the waters standing tall appeared to them as having been hardened in order to maintain that position. Whether or not she meant to infer to us that these waters which appeared to be hardened also looked as if they were frozen in place is another matter.

I agree that it is my own battle cry that when God performs a miracle there is no way for us to explain it by natural means, and so my requests to you for proof of sea water freezing at sea level along the latitude of the Red Sea are fairly meaningless. If God wanted the water frozen, then all God has to do is command that it be so and it will be so.

The logistics problem comes in to play when I consider how quickly all of that ice could have melted to allow the sea to return to its normal state and drown the pursuing Egyptians. Also, it's hard for me to think to imagine that an ice dam would stretch across an entire sea bed in that manner, but again, God can command what seems completely unimaginable to us in a moment. Finally, the account as given by Moses in writing the account down for us only says water and it seems to me that Moses would have mentioned that they were passing through walls of ice.

So, in the end, I will consider that the waters froze in place, but I also will keep in mind that 'congealed' doesn't necessarily mean frozen and Miriam may have just been using that word to simply say that the waters seemed to stand 'hardened' in place.

No matter, please accept my sincere apology for sounding flippant in my last reply to you.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good morning greenguzzi,

In reading your last response, it would seem that you and I have very little ground in which we can stand in agreement. You basically deny any of the creation account as being literally true. You've found a way in which you have reasoned that you can count the writing as 'true', but somehow deny that any part of it actually is 'true'. My mind can't do that. Call it stubbornness or being closed minded, but the idea that the creation account somehow passes on to us some kernels of philosophical truth without there being any truth to actual statements made within it, isn't reasoning that I will accept regarding this place in the Scriptures.

God bless you
In Christ, Ted
 
  • Like
Reactions: yeshuasavedme
Upvote 0

yeshuasavedme

Senior Veteran
May 31, 2004
12,811
779
✟112,705.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Telling time - sunset to sundown, new moon to new moon - was later specificied to the Hebrews in Exodus et cetera. Sundown to sundown was defined as a day, new moon to new moon as a month.

You may not be able to find the sun at 1am (even though that time is a Roman chronology,) but I bet you notice a difference between day covering and night covering, or the breaking through of that covering to have a difference in the firmament.
I used to think the Jews were right in the calendar, until I read the Book of Enoch and the Dead Sea Scrolls....
The Calendar God established is still in force and can never change, but men have changed it, even the Jews did, when they returned from Babylon....

The day indeed begins at sunset, but the new moon never determines the beginning of the month, and the translaions err when they translate month as moon.
The sun's entry into the established paths [electromagnetic portals of entry in it's circle of the earth in the circle of the heavens] begin the seasons, and the months are calculated by the sun's rising and setting in the eastern to north eastern and back to eastern and then to the south eastern and back to the eastern to make make one full year of 360 days, counted with their parts [we call then hours, and we are off], with the four stop days [not counted with hours/parts] and 364 numbered days to a year. The year forever has 364 days, but only the four days are never numbered in the weeks of the year, and the years always beginn at Spring Solstice for religious year, and Fall Solstice for number of years since creation..



The Sun's portal entries establish the months and the years. The DSS Essenes separated themselves from the Pharisees in Jerusalem for one reason of a dispute on the calendar....even they set the fourth day as the beginning of the year, but they were in error there also, as it begins at Spring Equinox for religious year, and fall equinox for numbered years from creation.
There are exactly 360 days in God's calendar as revealed by Enoch, and four "stop/Sabbath" days that are not numbered in the days of the week days in the year, but the four "stop" days are added in number of days to a year at the end of the year, but they never have a counted week day, as to the weeks.
Because the days are counted in "parts" in God's universal never changing calendar, and the parts are lengthened and shortened as to light and darkness, through the year, the "parts" of the four "stop/Sabbath days" are never counted in the calendar God ordains, so the year always comes exactly to 360 days/ 52 weeks, and the four stop/sabbath days added to the number of days in the year make a year 360 exact days, from the beginning to eternity, says Enoch, and Enoch says men will [and have] erred as to the years when they do not calculate them by God's revealed calendar, established in the heavens.
So Equinox from the center of the earth [God's stated navel/midst of the earth =Mount Zion] begins the counting of the year's days, and the numbering of the year's weeks, and because the stops/sabbaths are not counted, every festival or anniversary of any event returns on the same day of the week each year, in God's calendar.
So, men err, but God will set it all right when Jesus/Yeshua returns to reign.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuasavedme

Senior Veteran
May 31, 2004
12,811
779
✟112,705.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I post mostly on a small tablet and cannot see the mistakes I make easily on the very small screen, until I post, and usually, I then edit mistakes....my edit button is gone, so I see I made an error and repost this to correct:

I used to think the Jews were right in the calendar, until I read the Book of Enoch and the Dead Sea Scrolls....
The Calendar God established is still in force and can never change, but men have changed it, even the Jews did, when they returned from Babylon....

The day indeed begins at sunset, but the new moon never determines the beginning of the month, and the translaions err when they translate month as moon.
The sun's entry into the established paths [electromagnetic portals of entry in it's circle of the earth in the circle of the heavens] begin the seasons, and the months are calculated by the sun's rising and setting in the eastern to north eastern and back to eastern and then to the south eastern and back to the eastern to make make one full year of 360 days, counted with their parts [we call then hours, and we are off], with the four stop days [not counted with hours/parts] and 364 numbered days to a year. The year forever has 364 days, but only the four days are never numbered in the weeks of the year, and the years always beginn at Spring Solstice for religious year, and Fall Solstice for number of years since creation..



The Sun's portal entries establish the months and the years. The DSS Essenes separated themselves from the Pharisees in Jerusalem for one reason of a dispute on the calendar....even they set the fourth day as the beginning of the year, but they were in error there also, as it begins at Spring Equinox for religious year, and fall equinox for numbered years from creation.
There are exactly 360 days in God's calendar as revealed by Enoch, and four "stop/Sabbath" days that are not numbered in the days of the week days in the year, but the four "stop" days are added in number of days to a year at the end of the year, but they never have a counted week day, as to the weeks.
Because the days are counted in "parts" in God's universal never changing calendar, and the parts are lengthened and shortened as to light and darkness, through the year, the "parts" of the four "stop/Sabbath days" are never counted in the calendar God ordains, so the year always comes exactly to 360 days/ 52 weeks, and the four stop/sabbath days added to the number of days in the year make a year [EDIT] 364 exact days, from the beginning to eternity, says Enoch, and Enoch says men will [and have] erred as to the years when they do not calculate them by God's revealed calendar, established in the heavens.
So Equinox from the center of the earth [God's stated navel/midst of the earth =Mount Zion] begins the counting of the year's days, and the numbering of the year's weeks, and because the stops/sabbaths are not counted, every festival or anniversary of any event returns on the same day of the week each year, in God's calendar.
So, men err, but God will set it all right when Jesus/Yeshua returns to reign.
 
Upvote 0

yeshuasavedme

Senior Veteran
May 31, 2004
12,811
779
✟112,705.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good morning YSM,

I want to offer you an apology. I'm sorry that I got a bit flippant there at the end. I gave your idea some further consideration and I'm be doing some praying and studying on the matter. After considering the various understandings of 'congeal', yes, I agree that it can mean 'frozen water'. I have some problems with the logistics of such and Miriam's song is the only place that mentions that manner of separating the waters. It's possible, as this is a song and so records the words that Miriam sang about the event rather than God's account of the event, that as the Isrealites passed through the sea that the waters standing tall appeared to them as having been hardened in order to maintain that position. Whether or not she meant to infer to us that these waters which appeared to be hardened also looked as if they were frozen in place is another matter.

I agree that it is my own battle cry that when God performs a miracle there is no way for us to explain it by natural means, and so my requests to you for proof of sea water freezing at sea level along the latitude of the Red Sea are fairly meaningless. If God wanted the water frozen, then all God has to do is command that it be so and it will be so.

The logistics problem comes in to play when I consider how quickly all of that ice could have melted to allow the sea to return to its normal state and drown the pursuing Egyptians. Also, it's hard for me to think to imagine that an ice dam would stretch across an entire sea bed in that manner, but again, God can command what seems completely unimaginable to us in a moment. Finally, the account as given by Moses in writing the account down for us only says water and it seems to me that Moses would have mentioned that they were passing through walls of ice.

So, in the end, I will consider that the waters froze in place, but I also will keep in mind that 'congealed' doesn't necessarily mean frozen and Miriam may have just been using that word to simply say that the waters seemed to stand 'hardened' in place.

No matter, please accept my sincere apology for sounding flippant in my last reply to you.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
God bless you, Ted!
....as I said, it was Jonathan Gray's telling of it which was in a book or online video, that brought this to my attention, and checking it out, the water standing in a heap -as frozen- is what the Hebrew conveys...
The Hebrew is exactly the word for "frozen" when applied as a verb to "water".
It was a miracle....Gray shows the place they went over, and it is about 1,000 meters deep water there, by a natural bridge under the water [which can even be determined on google earth], for a certain width that I forget the measure of, but was wide enough for them to pass through in timely manner, which underwater bridge was formed from both sides of the sea by the flood of Noah's water,s and met, making a bridge underwater of 1,000 meter deep -but I do not know if I remember that depth correctly; but the water is 5,000 meters deep [again, I may not remember exactly], on each side of that bridge, I think I remember, but do not quote me, and I am too pressed for time to go check it out at the moment....
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi YSM,

Even though you asked me not to quote you, I'm going to for the clarity of others who may read this response. They will know what I was responding to. You replied:
It was a miracle....Gray shows the place they went over, and it is about 1,000 meters deep water there, by a natural bridge under the water [which can even be determined on google earth], for a certain width that I forget the measure of, but was wide enough for them to pass through in timely manner, which underwater bridge was formed from both sides of the sea by the flood of Noah's water,s and met, making a bridge underwater of 1,000 meter deep -but I do not know if I remember that depth correctly; but the water is 5,000 meters deep [again, I may not remember exactly], on each side of that bridge, I think I remember, but do not quote me, and I am too pressed for time to go check it out at the moment....

Yes, I too have seen the evidences of the underwater natural bridge and also seen that there is a marker on the shores of both sides of the underwater bridge which seem to indicate it as the place of the crossing. Those markers are claimed to have been placed long ago. Perhaps even shortly after the Israelites made the crossing. This article makes the claim that king Solomon may have placed the columns and that they are referenced in the writings of Isaiah. One of the most amazing claims that this article makes is that the town on the one side of the crossing point is actually named: waters of Moses' opening.

So, we seem to be in agreement as to the place, just not clear about the 'method'. I honestly am unable to proclaim any 'method' for any of God's miracles. I just know that He did them, but the 'how' is always elusive to me. Just as the conception of Jesus, God's word tells us that the Holy Spirit came over her and she conceived. Of course, the Holy Spirit, being spirit, I can't imagine has any organs with which to produce sperm. So, the actual 'how' a fertilized egg came to be in Mary's womb is a mystery to me, but the fact that it did is without question. It just seems to me that if the waters were frozen, that Moses, in his account, would have made some comment that the waters parted and stood frozen, rather than to account that there was 'water' on both their left hand and on their right. I can also imagine that Miriam, as she passed through these two walls of water, would have likely expressed that phemonenon as their being 'frozen' in place while not actually meaning that the water itself was frozen. It's likely a question that I will have to add to my list of questions for the Lord in the day that I meet him face to face. That is, of course, if at that time I really care to know.

However, God made possible the crossing of the sea, it seems clear that it was a very deep sea and it separated and converged pretty quickly.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

yeshuasavedme

Senior Veteran
May 31, 2004
12,811
779
✟112,705.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi YSM,

Even though you asked me not to quote you, I'm going to for the clarity of others who may read this response. They will know what I was responding to. You replied:
...
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
I meant that I was thinking the depth of the water over the underwater bridge and the depth of the water on each side was just off the top of my head, so not to quote those numbers as fact, cause I did not want to take the time to go look them up....otherwise, please quote me:) -sorry for not making the cliche clear on the numbers not being exactly accurate, so not to "quote" me/them, but they needed checking...
Thanks Ted, for your always being easy to discuss with....
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I meant that I was thinking the depth of the water over the underwater bridge and the depth of the water on each side was just off the top of my head, so not to quote those numbers as fact, cause I did not want to take the time to go look them up....otherwise, please quote me:) -sorry for not making the cliche clear on the numbers not being exactly accurate, so not to "quote" me/them, but they needed checking...
Thanks Ted, for your always being easy to discuss with....

Morning YSM,

No worries. I knew what you meant and was just having a bit of fun at your expense. What really boggles my mind to consider is that it may well be that when God created the heavens and the earth He may well have intentioned that underwater bridge structure to be where it was for just the purpose for which he seems to have used it. We serve an awesome God!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

yeshuasavedme

Senior Veteran
May 31, 2004
12,811
779
✟112,705.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Morning YSM,

No worries. I knew what you meant and was just having a bit of fun at your expense. What really boggles my mind to consider is that it may well be that when God created the heavens and the earth He may well have intentioned that underwater bridge structure to be where it was for just the purpose for which he seems to have used it. We serve an awesome God!

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Gray said it was formed from the drainage of the flood waters of Noah, and showed why he can state that in his video on it, and showed that one formed on each side as the waters drained til, stretching out, they connected -which is fascinating to consider that God indeed made a bridge underwater that the Israelites would cross over on dry ground 850 years after flood [Noah died when Abraham was 58, and that was 350 years after flood, Abraham received the promise of the land age 70, and 430 years later -minus the time to trek to Sinai, in Arabia,[ as Paul said it was], Israel crossed over. If my math is correct, then that was 850 years before it would be used for that mighty miracle, God prepared it!
 
Upvote 0

greenguzzi

Post-Evangelical, Social Anarchist, One of The Way
Aug 25, 2015
1,147
733
Sydney Australia
✟41,363.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
You've found a way in which you have reasoned that you can count the writing as 'true', but somehow deny that any part of it actually is 'true'. My mind can't do that.
I'm pretty sure that your mind can do that. I'm sure that your mind does it often. For example when Jesus tells us He's the "bread of life" do you take it to mean that He is literally made of bread? Or when He says he is "the light of the world" that he is made of photons? Or how about "So now let Me tell you what I am going to do to My vineyard: I will remove its hedge and it will be consumed". Does the LORD really tend to literal vineyards? No, of course not. We understand that these words are true, but not literally true.

In Genesis 2, God (Jehovah) is described as creating Adam from the dust of the ground and given life by the breath of God. But God (Jehovah) doesn't have lungs or breath. Here God has been anthropomorphised in the text; the words are true, but not literally true.

but the idea that the creation account somehow passes on to us some kernels of philosophical truth without there being any truth to actual statements made within it, isn't reasoning that I will accept regarding this place in the Scriptures.
Here I think you are close to the issue. It's not that your mind can't do this, but that you are not willing to accept it. That in itself offers no insight at all as to the validity of my thesis.

By the way, I didn't mean to imply that the creation account offers "some kernels of philosophical truth". That sounds very wishy-washy and puny. No, it is absolutely, importantly, even fundamentally true. Just not literally true. I know it's a difficult thing to grasp. But only because we modern westerners are not exposed to this type of writing outside the bible. The fact that you summarised my opinion in this way suggests that I did a poor job in communicating it. I'm not suggesting that the creation account is less than you think it to be, but more. I believe that one of the reasons God chose to use a myth language to explain creation to us is because we could not even begin to understand what actually ("literally") happened. In fact I doubt there are even human words that could describe it.

Now, because God delivered the creation account in this way, then that's how we should accept it. The problem comes when we try to extrapolate the creation account as if it were a historic or scientific genre. Doing this leads to folly (see above for examples). If we insist in extrapolating it, then we must do so recognising its true genre - myth.

These ideas that I'm offering are not my own, and they are not new or fringe. They are views held by many leading biblical scholars both modern and ancient. They are well within the spectrum of Christian orthodoxy. From the earliest Christian writings right up to the modern times, many Christian scholars have understood Genesis in this way. This is not a reaction to science or a reaction to some new philosophy, it comes from studying the text itself. I challenge you to investigate.
 
Upvote 0