Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 193 of 306 (639529)
11-01-2011 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by purpledawn
11-01-2011 11:10 AM


Re: earth or Earth
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes:
Genesis 1:1 isn't written to refer to the "earth as a whole". Show me an instance where erets is used to mean the earth as a whole as opposed to a part.
Then what part of the world was it talking about?
What did the Hebrew word ארץ refer too in Genesis 1:2?
There was no arable land.
There was no place to stand.
There was nothing visible but water.
There was no inhabited earth, the abode of men an animals. Therefore there was no country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a track of land, territory, or region.
That only leaves two of your definitions.
The earth as a whole.
The earth as opposed to the heavens.
I think both of those would be the meaning of ארץ in Genesis 1:2.
Now since you disagree please present your argumentation to support you position.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by purpledawn, posted 11-01-2011 11:10 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by purpledawn, posted 11-01-2011 4:19 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 195 by doctrbill, posted 11-01-2011 4:58 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 196 of 306 (639585)
11-02-2011 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by purpledawn
11-01-2011 4:19 PM


Re: earth or Earth
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes:
Genesis 1:1, the storyteller is talking to his people and telling them their beginnings.
So in Genesis 1:1 according to you ארץ means people, or their beginnings.
What does ארץ mean the other 986 times it is used in the Old Testament?
Where do you find the definition of ארץ that states it means the beginnings of the people?
What does שמים in Genesis 1:1 mean?
What does צם in Genesis 11:5 and the other 2142 time it was used mean?
What does משפחה in Genesis 10:5 and the other 300 times it was used mean?
What does גוי in Genesis 10:5 and the other 557 times it was used mean?
purpledawn writes:
quote:
What did the Hebrew word ארץ refer too in Genesis 1:2?
There was no arable land.
There was no place to stand.
There was nothing visible but water.
There was no inhabited earth, the abode of men an animals. Therefore there was no country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a track of land, territory, or region.
That only leaves two of your definitions.
The earth as a whole.
The earth as opposed to the heavens.
The above definitions of Υην as well as ארץ is the ones you gave.
I asked you which one of the definitions fit what is found in Genesis 1:2.
You totally change the subject and tell me:
quote:
The Genesis 1 creation story is not a journal. The storyteller is speaking to his audience and telling them about the past. In Genesis 1:2, the storyteller is still speaking of the land the people knew. Hard to picture more than they know.
But there was no dry land for them to relate too in Genesis 1:2.
So I will ask you once again. Which of the definitions that you gave describe what is described in Genesis 1:2?
purpledawn writes:
The storyteller tells you himself. Since the yabbashah is called erets.
Yes the dry land was called Earth.
What was it called before it appeared out of the water when the water was gathered to one place?
That would have been wet land the only difference being it was covered with water.
purpledawn writes:
Erets is only talking about dry land,
Where do you get that definition of ארץ ?
purpledawn writes:
The earth as a whole, still refers to the dry land as a whole; not the planet.
You are saying that whole refers only to a part.
Where do you get that definition of whole?
My dictionary defines whole as Containing all components.
Therefore 'the whole earth' would refer to the water the dry land, the wet land, the crust, mantel and core. All of those things compose the whole Earth. Whether the 7 billionth person on Earth that was born on halloween knows the facts about the Earth or not.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by purpledawn, posted 11-01-2011 4:19 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by purpledawn, posted 11-02-2011 6:59 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 197 of 306 (639596)
11-02-2011 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by doctrbill
11-01-2011 4:58 PM


Re: earth or Earth
Hi Doc,
doctrbill writes:
There are two schools of thought regarding the first chapter of Genesis.
Correction I have a third.
doctrbill writes:
One group says it is like a journal: a day by day record
That can't be true. A journal is a day by day record that is kept by an observer. Who was the observer that kept the journal?
doctrbill writes:
You will note that Earth appears on the third day, and the heavens on the fourth day.
Your interpertation or conclusions is flawed.
The heavens and Earth existed in Genesis 1:1.
quote:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now if you would like to come up with a date for the beginning we could determine if your assertions are true or false.
The events you are talking about when our atmosphere was formed and dry land appeared was around 6,000 years ago. But that was not the beginning as the heavens and the Earth existed in Genesis 1:2. The Earth being covered with water.
The history (generations) of the heavens and the Earth that existed in Genesis 1:1 begins in Genesis 2:4 as that is the history of the day God created the Earth and the heavens.
The Hebrew word ביום which has the definite article means a specific day and is translated "the day".
That day had to be prior to Genesis 1:2 as the heavens and the Earth existed at that time and the Earth was covered with water, and the evening of day had come as darkness was over the face of the waters that covered the Earth.
Had the writer been refering to the 7 days of Moses as 'the day' the Lord God created the Earth and the heavens he would have used the Hebrew word לימים as that is the plural form for days.
doctrbill writes:
Another group says that verses one and two are an introduction to the story,
Mankind can say anything he/she desires to say. That does not make it true or a fact.
Genesis 1:1 is a declarative statement with a subject, a verb of completed action, with the results of that action.
Genesis 1:1 tells us when: In the beginning.
Genesis 1:1 tells us who: God.
Genesis 1:1 tells us what (God did) created.
Genesis 1:1 tells us the result of what God did. The heavens and Earth existed.
Therefore it can not be an introduction to a story.
It is the story.
Whatever follows Genesis 1:1 is to speak to Genesis 1:1, the problem is that the first verse that speaks to Genesis 1:1 is Genesis 2:4 which states it is the history (generations) of 'the day' the Lord God created the Earth and the heavens.
Why doesn't Genesis 2:4 follow Genesis 1:1?
Well we did not have verses and chapters until recently and anywhere along the line some copyist could have decided the order the words was copied in.
The problem is no one along the line changed the words in Genesis 2:4 nor the story that follows it, describing what happened that day.
doctrbill writes:
and that the body of the story begins with God creating light.
Where does the text say God ברא light?
doctrbill writes:
This makes more sense to me and it completely eliminates the mental gymnasitics required of the other interpretation.
Sure it does as it fits your worldview, and it does not make any difference what the test says.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by doctrbill, posted 11-01-2011 4:58 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by doctrbill, posted 11-02-2011 11:28 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 200 of 306 (639631)
11-02-2011 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by doctrbill
11-02-2011 11:28 AM


Re: earth or Earth
Hi Bill,
doctrbill writes:
I take it you are imagining a water-covered globe which has no atmosphere. And why, exactly, would you imagine that such a thing is possible?
I am not imagining anything.
The text says:
quote:
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
This says face of the waters.
This is the same waters that is gathered to one place and dry land appeared in Genesis 1:9
So yes the Earth existed in Genesis 1:2 covered by water with an unbreathable atmosphere.
doctrbill writes:
And what would be the point of having a water covered globe hanging out for thirteen billiion years with nothing useful to do and then suddenly, a second ago in geologic time: it develops an atmosphere?
Who said anything about the globe hanging out for thirteen billion years with nothing useful to do?
I believe the Earth has always existed in some form just not necessarly as it is today. There is a little rule about matter/energy can not be created or destroyed.
Genesis 1:1 tell us the heavens and the Earth was created in the beginning which no one has ever been able to tell me when the beginning was.
The history (generations of the day the Earth and the heavens was created is recorded in Genesis 2:4 - 4:24.
doctrbill writes:
1). "generations" which is given for the Hebrew toldah which the Jews translated to Greek as geneseos is better translated "origins."
The Hebrew word תולדות means:
) descendants, results, proceedings, generations, genealogies

       a) account of men and their descendants

            1) genealogical list of one's descendants

            2) one's contemporaries

            3) course of history (of creation etc)

       b) begetting or account of heaven (metaph)
Where in those definitions do you find origins?
The Hebrew word for origin is באר.
For something to exist it must be created or formed from something that already exists.
The Hebrew word for make, form is עשע.
doctrbill writes:
2). The "history" revealed in chapter two is different from the "history" revealed in chapter one.
Why wouldn't they be different.
They are about events that took place billions of years apart.
Can you find the age of Cain or any of his descendents?
Can you find were Cain or anyone other than Able or the young man Lamech killed died?
There is no information on those events recorded anywhere.
doctrbill writes:
Let me see if I understand you correctly. If something is stated as a complete sentence then it cannot be an introduction to the paragraphs which follow?
I am declaring that a declarative statement is a statement of fact which requires no further explanation to be a fact. It does not require answer or action from reader. It does not ask a question, give a command, or make a request.
Therefore the declarative statement of the fact God created the heavens and the Earth is completed action as the Hebrew verb requires as it is perfect tense.
doctrbill writes:
So there was a conspiracy to make Genesis sound as if God created everything in seven days, six thousand years ago
The only things created during the seven days you are talking about was what was translated whales in Genesis 1:21 and mankind in Genesis 1:27 nothing else was created during that time period, as it already existed but had become empty and uninhabitable.
doctrbill writes:
that the creator of the universe has been unable to protect his holy word from wicked men who would pervert it?
No, He has protected His Word. Mankind is just making it harder and harder to find a Bible that has the truth in it.
doctrbill writes:
Not very clever, those conspirators, eh?
I don't think there was conspirators.
I think they actually thought they were correcting what an earlier copyist had messed up. Even today those who translate the old text is doing the same thing. They are very sincere in what they are doing but are just sincerealy wrong.
Then there are those who are of their father the devil that prevert the Word of God just because they can and don't want anyone to have the truth of God's Word.
doctrbill writes:
Since you are so fond of Hebrew and cannot seem to grasp the concepts of English literature, then perhaps we should continue this conversation in Hebrew Only. Yes?
You can use as much Hebrew as you like.
Just give me the text that says God באר created light.
A little hint it does not as God is light.
doctrbill writes:
For me, this is an exercise in reading comprehension. I am here for the joy of sharing knowledge.
Good, then share the text that says God created light.
doctrbill writes:
Why are you here?
I am here to broaden my knowledge of many things.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by doctrbill, posted 11-02-2011 11:28 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by doctrbill, posted 11-02-2011 3:52 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 202 of 306 (639647)
11-02-2011 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by doctrbill
11-02-2011 1:44 PM


Re: earth or Earth
Hi Bill,
doctrbill writes:
That is not what it says though, is it Juan?
Genesis 1:1 says the heavens and the Earth existed.
Genesis 1:2 says the Earth existed but had become an empty waste.
Isaiah in 45:18 says God did not create the Earth תהו same word translated without form in Genesis 1:2
quote:
Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
So God created the Earth to be inhabited. The Earth was created in Genesis 1:1 and therefore was inhabitabable, and was to be inhabited.
I propose it was inhabited by the first life form which God formed from the dust of the ground and breathed into that form the breath of life and he became a living being.
God planted a Garden.
It was also inhabited by a lot of creatures that God formed from the ground as well as fowls to fly in the air.
God formed a woman out of the rib of the man.
doctrbill writes:
Does it mean "invisible"? And if earth is invisible , then how do we know it is there?
The Hebrew word תהו does not mean invisible, in Genesis 1:2.
doctrbill writes:
And what does it mean that God called the dry land Earth?
It means God called the dry ground Earth.
It does not mean the wet ground was not a part of the Earth.
It did not mean that the water was not a part of the Earth.
doctrbill writes:
If he called the land Earth, then what did he call the water?
God called the water that He commanded to gather to one place Sea. The translators used their knowledge that we have more than one sea to translate ימים as seas when it is a masculine singular verb form from the Hebrew word ים which is a masculine singular noun.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by doctrbill, posted 11-02-2011 1:44 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 206 of 306 (639673)
11-02-2011 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by doctrbill
11-02-2011 3:52 PM


Re: earth or Earth
Hi Bill,
doctrbill writes:
And yet you don't seem to be learning.
You mean because I don't agree with you or a lot of the other garbage that is peddled here.
I do a lot of reading and research and do gain a lot of knowledge whether you think so or not.
doctrbill writes:
That is an unscriptural assertion, and surprising for someone who is a stickler for the exact wording of "the Word."
What is unscriptural.
quote:
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And the earth was...that means it existed.
There was no dry land as the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters not the face of the dry land which did not exist until verse 9 as it was covered with water making it wet land.
Since there was nobody alive there I assume the air was not breathable and if I listen to Percy it was liquid, all the way up to he did not say where but it had to be divided with a firmament which is our atmosphere.
So do you care to explain why you think it is unscriptural?
doctrbill writes:
the Earth has always existed
And yet you say it was created.
Earth was created in the beginning
As I was saying ...
If you are going to quote me then quote what I said not chopping it off. Quote the entire declarative statement.
Concerning the Earth always existing I said:
quote:
I believe the Earth has always existed in some form just not necessarly as it is today.
Concerning the Earth was created in the beginning I said:
quote:
Genesis 1:1 tell us the heavens and the Earth was created in the beginning which no one has ever been able to tell me when the beginning was.
doctrbill writes:
matter/energy can not be created or destroyed.
I think you are confused.
quote:
The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of a closed system (in the sense of a completely isolated system) will remain constant over time. This principle is equivalent to the conservation of energy, in the sense when energy or mass is enclosed in a system and none is allowed in or out, its quantity cannot otherwise change (hence, its quantity is "conserved"). The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles; and that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products.
Source
doctrbill writes:
Where in those definitions do you find origins?
Everywhere.
Since I can't find one reference to origin could you please present just one.
doctrbill writes:
those who are of their father the devil that prevert the Word of God just because they can and don't want anyone to have the truth of God's Word.
That is the very definition of conspiracy.
If that is what a conspiracy is then you can call it a conspiracy.
But I thought a conspiracy was two or more people agreeing in secret to do a wrongful, or subversive act.
doctrbill writes:
I am here to broaden my knowledge
I sincerely doubt that.
You are welcome to your opinion and I hope you will allow me to have my opinion that I am learning something every day.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by doctrbill, posted 11-02-2011 3:52 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 207 of 306 (639685)
11-02-2011 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by purpledawn
11-02-2011 6:59 PM


Re: The Audience
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes:
quote:
So in Genesis 1:1 according to you ארץ means people, or their beginnings.
Not what I said.
In Message 193, you asked what part of the world was Genesis 1 talking about. The storyteller is telling them about their land. He is not telling them about the planet.
Not what I asked.
In Message 192 you said:
quote:
Genesis 1:1 isn't written to refer to the "earth as a whole". Show me an instance where erets is used to mean the earth as a whole as opposed to a part.
In Message 193 I said asking:
quote:
purpledawn writes:
Genesis 1:1 isn't written to refer to the "earth as a whole". Show me an instance where erets is used to mean the earth as a whole as opposed to a part.
Then what part of the world was it talking about?
So if erets does not mean the earth as a whole in Genesis 1:1 what part of the earth does it refer too?
purpledawn writes:
Sure there is. They were standing or sitting on it.
They may have been standing on dry land somewhere on Earth but they were not standing on dry land in Genesis 1:2 as there was none there.
purpledawn writes:
Actually what you quoted were the meanings for the Greek word ge.
I used your definitions for ge as you would not like the primary definition of erets which is:
1) whole earth (as opposed to a part)
2) earth (as opposed to heaven)
From Gesenius's Lexicon
purpledawn writes:
Not in the Bible. The writer makes it clear it refers to dry land.
Erets does not refer to dry land in Genesis 1:1 does it?
It refers to the definition of erets which is Earth.
Erets does not refer to dry land in Genesis 1:2 does it?
I forgot you said that refered to people which would have been covered in water.
It refers to the Earth that was covered with water.
In Genesis 1:10 the writer refers to the dry land as earth.
But the definition of erets is Earth as a whole as opposed to a part.
purpledawn writes:
Show evidence that it refers to the planet.
How is that possible? You won't accept the Lexicon definition of erets or ge.
purpledawn writes:
Show evidence that the audience understood the entire sphere.
What audience?
I am part of that audience and I understand it fine.
purpledawn writes:
Show me when the Jews knew there was more than the countries around them.
Why did they have to know there was more than the countries around them for it to exist?
The person that did the writing did not have to know there was anything other than the places he had visited to be able to write the Torah.
All he had to do was write down the things he was told during the 40 days he spent with God in the mountain.
I don't know that God didn't play him a video of the creation up to the point where he was born in Egypt. The text does not say that He did or didn't. But it would have been no problem for God.
I know people that don't know any place other than the county they live in exists today. They have never been out of the county.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by purpledawn, posted 11-02-2011 6:59 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by purpledawn, posted 11-03-2011 6:00 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 212 of 306 (639782)
11-03-2011 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by purpledawn
11-03-2011 6:00 AM


Re: The Land
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes:
The point of this thread is that the "whole earth" meaning (implying planet) is a later addition.
Kinda like the universe I presume.
Why do you think it was added later?
It was there all the time it was just understood at a later date.
Let me use an example.
In Leviticus 17:14 we find the statement: "the life of all flesh is the blood thereof". This statement has been in the Bible for a very long time yet no one came to the conclusion that it was a factual statement until recently.
In February 2010 the article found Here was produced.
Here is a short quote from it.
quote:
The Life of ALL Flesh Is The Blood I perceive from thirty years of blood research that the blood is the basic material of which the human body is continually being created or formed. I have referred to the red blood cell as the foundational stem cell. As is the blood, so is the body. Why? Because body cells are created from blood - the red blood cells.
So why wasn't this known prior to the 20th century?
Does people not understanding what was said in Leviticus change the fact that the life of all flesh is the blood?
Does the people of Noah's days after the flood not knowing the geography of the earth change what is said in Genesis 1:1.
purpledawn writes:
Long, long ago, before Starbucks ruled the world, coffee shops were real community spots with mismatched furniture, friendly faces and drinks that you could order without resorting to such phrases as "half-caf skinny with wings." Big Bear Cafe
In the above paragraph, we don't forget what Starbucks refers to just because the writer is referring to a time before Starbucks existed.
How do you compare something going backwards like this example.
Now if in Genesis 1:1 the writer had added Starbucks then you could compare it to Earth.
But then you would have a long time that no one knew what a Starbucks was.
That is what I said has happened to the word Earth.
purpledawn writes:
I have no doubt that the audience understood the story to refer to their land.
I have no doubt that you actually believe that and you are sincere in your belief.
That does not make you right and the scriptural text does not support your belief, but you are welcome to it.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by purpledawn, posted 11-03-2011 6:00 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 213 of 306 (639786)
11-03-2011 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by doctrbill
11-03-2011 6:01 PM


Re: The Land
Hi Bill,
doctrbill writes:
2) Rivers run down from higher elevations where they collect water from rain and snow. If it had never rained on earth then there could be no river.
Why not?
I take it you have never heard of Silver Springs, the largest spring in the world in Ocala Florida that is the head of a river that flows from Ocala into Lake Okeechobee.
Or any of the hundreds of others on planet Earth.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by doctrbill, posted 11-03-2011 6:01 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by doctrbill, posted 11-03-2011 10:33 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 215 of 306 (639802)
11-04-2011 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by doctrbill
11-03-2011 10:33 PM


Re: The Land
Hi Bill,
doctrbill writes:
Spring water also comes from preciptitation -- which falls upon the land at an elevation higher than that of the spring.
But it had not rained yet, so where did the water come from?
doctrbill writes:
In fact the text says, "a river" not a spring. But that is beside the point isn't it?
You mean to tell me those millions of gallons of water that comes out of Silver Springs and runs over a hundred miles to Lake Okeechobee is not a river.
BTW there is no mountains with snow in Florida for the water to run down hill from. Most of it is flatter than a flitter.
doctrbill writes:
Why are you not responding to the first point?
doctrbill writes:
Here's the problem(s):
1) The water which produced the mist is the water which falls back to water the ground. No net gain. Net loss in fact because of evaporation of the mist. That the mist was not enough to water the garden is evidenced in that a "river" was diverted to the garden "to water it."
If it's that important to you I will address it.
quote:
Genesis 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
That does not say anything about the mist coming down in the form of rain.
It says the water came up from the earth.
Reminds me of Gideon when he asked God to let the fleece be wet on the bottom and dry on the top.
It also reminds me of what happened to me when I bought my house when I was returning from the Cayman Islands after 13 years there. I was doing some painting and had plastic on the carpet to keep from getting paint on it. Well I had to leave in a hurry to return to the island and did not take the plastic off the carpet. When I got back 2 months later I had an inch of water on the floor where the plastic was. It had not rained but the water had come through the concrete floor. I had to ditch the carpet and seal the floor and then replace the carpet.
doctrbill writes:
Many people think the text is explaining why rain is unnecessary.
I don't.
The text is just saying the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth.
doctrbill writes:
The water of that river which irrigated the garden had to have originated in a land where it had rained.
Why?
If it had not rained at the time the river was flowing from Eden it did not come from rain or snow.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by doctrbill, posted 11-03-2011 10:33 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 243 of 306 (642237)
11-26-2011 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by purpledawn
11-26-2011 7:25 AM


Re: Land (Exegesis) vs Earth (Eisogesis)
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes:
6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth
Every verse that has erets in it as it means the dry land.
quote:
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
God called the dry land erets.
So erets = dry land.
I find no place where the word erets should have been translated anything other than dry land as God defined it.
If the word erets was translated as dry land there would be no question as to the entire dry land being covered with water.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by purpledawn, posted 11-26-2011 7:25 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 277 of 306 (642343)
11-27-2011 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by purpledawn
11-27-2011 5:06 PM


Re: Universal or Local Flood?
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes:
I feel the author's understanding is very relevant.
How do you propose to find the understanding that the author had?
All you have to examine is the words the author used to make his statements with.
quote:
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
God called the dry land erets.
Just to insure what is said in that statement. There was water and there was something sticking out of it and that something was called dry land.
What part of what was protruding out of the water was not dry land?
So erets = dry land according to the word used by the author.
quote:
Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
The author used erets = dry land in verse 19 and even added all the high hills were covered with water.
The waters prevailed upon the earth = erets = dry land.
What part of the dry land is left uncovered with water.
All the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.
What hill under the whole heaven was left uncovered?
It doesn't make any difference if the earth was as GM presented the flat earth what part of the dry land would be left uncovered.
Since the earth is the shape it is in what part of the dry land was left uncovered?
It makes no difference what shape the Earth was in all the dry land was covered with water?
If you disagree please explain what dry land was left out in the preceeding verse mentioned?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by purpledawn, posted 11-27-2011 5:06 PM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 286 of 306 (642457)
11-29-2011 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by purpledawn
11-28-2011 5:51 AM


Re: Muddy Waters
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes:
So I did say the words in the Bible didn't refer to the planet, or do I need your exact wording for you to understand?
Are you a mind reader that is able to read someone's mind from 3500 years ago?
How do you know what Moses knew or did not know?
I can agree that your redactors didn't have a clue.
But Moses spent 80 day's on mount sinai in two 40 day periods. That is a long time for God not to be able to explain to Moses what He wanted him to write. In fact He had time to take Moses back and let him see everything He did in creation and up until the time Moses went up on the mount the first time.
Now if you want to say God does not exist so this could not have taken place you are welcome to do so.
But if you believe God exists and is the all powerful God He claims to be then that would have been a piece of cake for Him.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by purpledawn, posted 11-28-2011 5:51 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2011 6:43 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 289 of 306 (642484)
11-29-2011 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by purpledawn
11-29-2011 6:43 AM


Re: Monolatry, Not Monotheism
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes:
And yet if I told you that God showed me that the story does not refer to a flood that covers the planet, you wouldn't believe me....would you?
I would ask you for the evidence that God showed you the story does not refer to a flood that cover all the dry land.
Then I would ask you which God you were talking about. The God of Heaven or the God of this world?
purpledawn writes:
If you believe we are made in God's image, why wouldn't that god tell stories just like we do?
God would not choose to lie but you and I can.
purpledawn writes:
Why give us that ability if we aren't meant to use it?
You were given the ability to choose, to believe whatever you desire and to do whatever you desire. Just look around you and see the choices people are making.
purpledawn writes:
Yhvh was going to destroy what he had created. Yhvh is the God of Israel.
The children of Israel did not exist at the time of the flood.
purpledawn writes:
Just because a god can flood the planet, doesn't mean the god did flood the planet.
But it is recorded that He said He was going to destroy everything that breathed the breath of life from off the face of the dry land, except what was in the ark.
Either He did or He lied.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2011 6:43 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2011 12:01 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 292 of 306 (642531)
11-29-2011 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by purpledawn
11-29-2011 12:01 PM


Re: Monolatry, Not Monotheism
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes:
Curious that you consider stories to be lies.
Anything I make up that is not based on facts is a lie. Now I can say anything I desire to say. That just does not make it true or based on fact.
purpledawn writes:
They supposedly did at the time the J writer told his story.
What does that have to do with who God was saying He was going to destroy?
purpledawn writes:
Their god said he would destroy what he had created.
And he did that about 400 years prior to the existence of the children of Israel. Which was about a 1000 years before they themselves existed.
purpledawn writes:
I'm sure several other gods in myths made the same such claim.
Well if all life forms that breath perished in the flood of Noah except those on the ark all of the descendents of those people would have a story of all life being destroyed, as that would be handed down from generation to generation.
purpledawn writes:
It is a shame you feel that way. Stories are wonderful training tools.
We are talking about the Word of God not training tools.
The flood story is not a training tool but a statement of fact. It is a history of the destruction of all life forms that breathed the breath of life on the face of the dry land, with a flood except those life forms on the ark.
A parable is a training tool.
The story of the rich man who lifted up his eyes in hell and saw Lazarus in Abraham's bosom was not a teaching tool. It was a statement of fact.
Your problem is you want to make statements of fact a story to suit your own personal needs to justify yourself to yourself.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2011 12:01 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by purpledawn, posted 11-29-2011 6:01 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024