juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
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.
CactusJack isn't discussing the same verse as you are with Chalnoth. At least try to keep up, please?
Do the seas overflow? No? Great, got your answer there.I don't understand your example. We do see a cup or a bowl can be filled and overflow.
100 years ago, easily. Given that there is a limited space for oceans to occupy, and 100 years ago we were easily aware of that.Also, could anyone visually see the ocean like a cup, even at 100 years ago?
More than 2000 years ago, why not? There are lakes of which we cannot see the other side, but we can know they are lakes because as nomads we can travel around them. There is no specific reason why a nomad wouldn't perceive a sea as a specifically big lake. All it would take is a person to see the earth as a disc with a finite circumference.
edited to add: And we have clues from the bible that the Jews saw the earth as having a finite circumference.
Not necessarily. It is one thing to recognize vapor and water, it is another to recognize the two as related. Psalm 13 5:7 and Jeremiah 10:13 do not make the connection between the two. In fact, if you actually read the verses you'll see they are made out to be distinctly different substances.The type of recognition is related.
The logic is in the text. He says the rivers go into the sea, and yet it doesn't fill. So the water from the sea must go back to the river. Why is it so difficult to see the logic in that statement?Why do you say this is a "simple" "deduction"? Show me the logic. I don't see the simplicity and I don't think you can deduct the statement from the observation.
i think people need to understand what the jewish world view was, they didn't connect rain and oceans and vapor.The logic is in the text. He says the rivers go into the sea, and yet it doesn't fill. So the water from the sea must go back to the river. Why is it so difficult to see the logic in that statement?
considering the authors of the bible didn't believe the ocean was limited i doubt the concept even popped into their heads.I don't understand your example. We do see a cup or a bowl can be filled and overflow.
Also, could anyone visually see the ocean like a cup, even at 100 years ago?
they believed the ocean was infinite
I'd buy that. Since this side discussion started, I've strongly suspected that the author of this text believed something wholly wrong about how the water got from the sea to the rivers. He doesn't explicitly say what he believes in this regard, however, so it's difficult to say. But him being wrong is the expected result, as most beliefs are.i think people need to understand what the jewish world view was, they didn't connect rain and oceans and vapor.
they believed the water above was a giant ocean that was held up by the dome of the sky. i would surmise david believed this, since the bible doesn't appear to have any other understanding of the world.
i really don't think they would have got the concept of any water cycle since they believed all water from the sky hit the earth then flowed out into the sea, which was a huge ocean
it's hard for people to understand this though, mainly i think because they haven't even bothered to learn jewish cosmology (still working on it myself)
Do the seas overflow? No? Great, got your answer there.
100 years ago, easily. Given that there is a limited space for oceans to occupy, and 100 years ago we were easily aware of that.
More than 2000 years ago, why not? There are lakes of which we cannot see the other side, but we can know they are lakes because as nomads we can travel around them. There is no specific reason why a nomad wouldn't perceive a sea as a specifically big lake. All it would take is a person to see the earth as a disc with a finite circumference.
edited to add: And we have clues from the bible that the Jews saw the earth as having a finite circumference.
I can see you are another one stands on the opposite side to Chalnoth on this issue. I agree with you.
The logic is in the text. He says the rivers go into the sea, and yet it doesn't fill. So the water from the sea must go back to the river. Why is it so difficult to see the logic in that statement?
For the record --- I caught that little faux pas too.Next time when you criticize the logic of Creationist, please remember what you said here. You are qualified to be a creationist.
For the record --- I caught that little faux pas too.
No, he didn't describe any process whatsoever. He merely stated that water got back to the rivers. If he had described a process, then that means he would have described how it got back. He did not.To summarize: (if you do not agree, then please try to modify it)
King Solomon described a natural process nearly 3000 years ago which is proven true only in recent centuries. This is an example on the nature and the quality of science message in the Bible.
You may as well --- even though they're choking on theology as it is.Hey, AV, a question for you: Do you think I should give them another example again?
Where did I write anything even remotely resembling what you write above?I can see you are another one stands on the opposite side to Chalnoth on this issue. I agree with you.
King Solomon did not write about any natural process. What he stated about water flowing from and to the seas does not indicate the hydrological cycle. In fact, what is written elsewhere in the bible specifically contradicts the hydrological cycle.
King Solomon described a natural process nearly 3000 years ago which is proven true only in recent centuries. This is an example on the nature and the quality of science message in the Bible.
No, he didn't describe any process whatsoever. He merely stated that water got back to the rivers. If he had described a process, then that means he would have described how it got back. He did not.
In fact, what is written elsewhere in the bible specifically contradicts the hydrological cycle.
Where is that? If you could not find the verse, you may just describe the contradiction. I might be able to find the verse for you.
I warned them about straying outside of Genesis 1 until they understood it, but they wouldn't listen.
He did not provide any point of the process. He didn't even mention a process at all. He just said that the water returns. He did not talk about how it does so at all.Solomon set up the frame and gave a few salient points of the process. He left many parts in blank and were filled in by modern science. Otherwise, we would have known the hydrological cycle 3000 years ago.
-----
That is it. If you still don't get it, too bad.
Psalm 13 5:7 and Jeremiah 10:13.Where is that? If you could not find the verse, you may just describe the contradiction. I might be able to find the verse for you.
I already treated this in an earlier post. At least try to follow along Juvenissun. Having to repeat myself again and again gets boring.
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?