Creation

Same place as you got your information about βιβλίον, I'd wager.Revelation 6:14 - KJV

quote:

---

And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

---

quote:

---

καὶ οὐρανὸς ἀπεχωρίσθη ὡς βιβλίον εἱλισσόμενον καὶ πᾶν ὄρος καὶ νῆσος ἐκ τῶν τόπων αὐτῶν ἐκινήθησαν

---

'Scroll', βιβλίον is the noun. The verb is 'rolled together', εἱλίσσω. A variant of this verb, ἑλίσσω, is used in Hebrews 1:12

quote:

---

And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up....

---

εἱλισσόμενον is εἱλισσό and μενονErm, no - that would be ἱδρώς surely? Find me a translation of Rev 6:14 that reads

quote:

---

And the heaven departed as a scroll when it sweats; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Hi Mod, I don't know what your wager was but you lost. I use a scholars program for Greek and Hebrew. One that is used in making translations of the original texts we have.And yes I check Blue letter Bible as a quick reference.εἱλίσσω means sweat.είλισσόμενον means melting.ίδρώς means perspiration.μενον means me. If I could find you one it would be a false translation.There is no Greek text that has εἱλίσσω in it. Revelation 6:14.You even quoted Revelation 6:14 from the Greek TR text and it does not have εἱλίσσω in it.God Bless,

Any evidence for this whatsoever? Strong's says: heiliss: roll together.

quote:

---

είλισσόμενον means melting.

---

According to whom? Everywhere I look I see είλισσόμενον as a form of εἱλίσσω eg:

quote:

---

Forms and Transliterations
ελισσόμενον

---

Thayer's Greek: 1507. (heiliss) -- roll together. Your translation, unlike all the translators of the Bible would have Revelation 6:14 read

quote:

---

And the heaven departed as a melting scroll

---

Scrolls don't melt. It would make the simile nonsensical. I think you are using your program wrong, or you need a new program.- - Wiktionary Strong's says it contains a form of εἱλίσσω. Every translation out there translates it to mean a form of the verb εἱλίσσω 'to roll up' in a tense that should be translated somewhere along the lines of 'when it is rolled'.

quote:

---

1 In the beginning, God created the (1)heavens and the (2)earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. -ESV

---

IF you read the passage in order, the (1)heavens (space) and the (2)earth (material) were created by God and then God created everything in the earth that we know and understand. There are inferences you can draw out of the passage but they would only become apparent with a further understanding of reality (no pun intended). The author didn't have to understand the universe as we do today in order to get the order correct as we understand it within the scientific realm of thinking (i.e. space first then material). FYI: I am not claiming to know what the author is aware of regarding his understanding of the universe or multiverse, etc. I think how you interpret the passage does depend on who is reading it. In order to avoid pointless conversation I will not use any example. I was referencing a point that the big bang hypothesis would need to explain a larger outside space to exist for it to expand. In any other case it would not explain itself because something expanding does need a place to expand. However, where that place came from could not be explained within the realm of Science. You will continually have the issue of needing an explanation to further explain the issue of where the space came from initially. The issue you speak of is created by the interpreter. In my point of view using Science, whether popular or not, is not always the solution. In some situations, and I'm sure you will find this wrong in this context, you determine the conclusion by trial, being the judge and the jury. You can't specifically reproduce some of these issues in a lab.

IF you read the passage in order and if space were to be created time would have been ticking regardless of if the author realized it. I will make the same point above. The author didn't have to be aware of the Science in order to author the correct sequence of events. What you don't seem to be understanding is that, and I'm being objective in this context, if the author was picked by God to author the passage then God would know what was going to be written and that is all that is required for it to be the truth. And further God would also know the people who would be reading it and how they would be interpreting it from generation to generation. If you are being objective you will have to accept this point. There is absolutely no way around it. If God knew what would be authored, that is all that is required for it to be the truth....I think the issue here is that what you preconceive being the inspiration of God. I will help you out a bit, probably a waste of my time. However, God, if it be GOD, is omniscient and the author was an ancient human. FYI: I am not suggesting the author didn't know the Science, I am just allowing for an objective reason of thought. IF you are going to argue God is just imaginary then you are not being objective. I was making another point regarding the generations of mankind in scripture. The reason we have generations in scripture is to link to the savior. IT was NEVER, at least it is not scriptural in my opinion, that the generations were used to provide every person that lived from Adam to Jesus, or an age of things (refer to a concordance on "begat" and "son" rooted in the Hebrew. Defined as: x begat a lineage that lead to y). And there is not a single jot in scripture that limits mankind to being less than hundreds of thousands of years old. Further if you study the order of creation it is correct all the way to when mankind came on the seen from a Scientific perspective. Of course this is presuming that dating methods provide accurate information which is under dispute. I do realize within the conventional world of Science they think they are gods but if they are being reasonable and objective there are alternative "theories" to a gravitational based universe. I prefer an electric universe that is described using the Birkeland current. I presume according to you, that we should JUST listen to your side because you know what God is thinking, eh? I mean if it be God is real, somehow you just seem to know the truth regarding God. It's your version of reality because you say it.Edited by DOCJ, : Edited by DOCJ, : 😊😊😊😃😃😁

" 14. departed--Greek, "was separated from" its place; "was made to depart." Not as ALFORD, "parted asunder"; for, on the contrary, it was rolled together as a scroll which had been open is rolled up and laid aside. There is no "asunder one from another" here in the Greek, as in Ac 15:39, which ALFORD copies. "Welcome to the Future - StudyLight.orgRev 6:14 -And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. I do not see the sun in there anywhere. You seem to be trying to adjust it to what you think science demands. I do see that the sun will go out...dark in the very end. Cities will need to use candles. Well, since every tower on earth will shake to the ground, maybe using the word city is a stretch, but you get the drift. Beliefs. They might as well say they believe a turtle had a bowel movement and out popped the universe. You mentioned you thought the sun did the melting. That won't work for the stars!The heat thing probably refers to the earth area anyhow. We do see God sends fire from heaven to melt the surface of the earth and cleanse it after the 1000 years reign. Probably that is when Peter is talking about...not constellations 'melting'! Actually stars are not even mentioned till several verses later. You infer that because you want to get billions of years in by verse one for no apparent reason.

If the Sun "goes out" there will be nothing left alive to light the candles.

Yet there will be. That tells me science doesn't really know how the sun works...or will work.

You must be some kind of undiscovered genius - do you work as a clerk in a patent office by any chance?Anyhoo, let's see your workings. Out with it, this is your second Nobel Prize chance.

It is elementary that if the bible is true, that the sun does or will not work the way science has conceived.The test will come. Better have some candles ready I guess. The stars, when they fall, and go out will be at the same time, so we can't blame the sun.

Then we don't have much time, quick, show up the maths.

?=u

The Bible is not true. We know that.

There is no distinction between "space" and "material" in Genesis 1. Did the Hebrews even have a concept of "space"?

Sure, it's possible for an author of fiction to make up something that coincidentally agrees with reality. There's nothing objective about the concept of "God", so your point is moot. What if God knew that He was dictating fiction? On the contrary, I'm saying that we should just read the text as it is written. You're the one who's trying to shoehorn "truth" into it.