Hyper evolution in the bible

really? let's examine that one. the word in question is קדמ, or qedem. qedem, as a noun can be used to mean "before." this is because (as you'll probably note if you try to select the hebrew letters) hebrew read right to left. east, the right, comes first.so qedem, as a noun, can mean "antiquity" or "acient times" or "the beginning" (genesis). generally it just means before, "the front."here's an example.

quote:

---

Psa 139:5 Thou hast beset me behind and before (east), and laid thine hand upon me.

---

since "behind" ('achowr) can only mean after or behind, translating "east" as before makes sense here. it's also a noun.what's this bit about nouns, you ask?because if it's and adverb, it can ONLY mean eastward, the direction. not before.

quote:

---

n m
1) east, antiquity, front, that which is before, aforetime
  a) front, from the front or east, in front, mount of the East
  b) ancient time, aforetime, ancient, from of old, earliest time
  c) anciently, of old (adverb)
  d) beginning
  e) east

​

adv
2) eastward, to or toward the East

---

now, let's look at the verse:

quote:

---

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

---

subject = LORD God
verb = planted
direct object = garden
ADVERB = eastward
prep. phrase = in Eden.in english, "east" is a noun, and "eastward" is an adjective. don't believe me?

quote:

---

Main Entry: 1eastward
Pronunciation: 'Es-tw&rd
Function: adverb or adjective
: toward the east

---

the kjv, which i quoted above, uses english properly in the elizebethan sense. when it uses words, it uses them conjugated correctly, something we largely ignore in modern english. so you can be sure that this is an adverb, not a noun, if it weren't obvious from the sentance. and the adverb DOES NOT mean "before."qed. find me the word "merge" in the bible. or find me a verse that says there is a distint spiritual world, let alone that it will join the physical world (again). i'm sorry, but reading stuff the way you want to isn't evidence. it's the fallacy of positive instances. yeah, ok, let's check that one too.

quote:

---

Gen 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one [was] Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name [was] Joktan.

---

reading check! what's in the next chapter of genesis?oh hell, i know you'll have to look.

quote:

---

Gen 10:32 These [are] the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

​

Gen 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

---

hm, i wonder what's next, do you think?

quote:

---

Gen 11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

---

quote:

---

Deu 32:8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of God.

---

there's your great divide. the one that's ACTUALLY IN THE BIBLE. evidence please. no. do you mean to say that god does not interact with us today? how can he possibly in a separated world? yes, so was bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

---

אָרַח

Pett insults, and quiveling aside, I see no need to get to in depth into bible translation, andcommentary wars. The root issue seems to be that either you understand that Gen 2 is not meant as some precise order, and Gen 1 is. If you miss this, you cannot really get far in comprehension. Even if we grant, for the sake of arguement that the garden was simply in the eastern portion of Eden, the timing does not change. All that is at issue is if the plants were made the third day, and then, realizing it was in the garden, that this happened.
"2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, h and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. "
The next verse here does sound like it as well, as if these plants were made in the garden, like the tree of life which was specifically mentioned. Man, then, being formed, and "planted" or placed in this place of life as well. Can you provide any reason, save assumption that chap 2 is some strange alternative and contradictory sequence to 1? That is like saying God is a moron, and not looking at the preponderance of scripture, and what it must mean.

quote:

---

find me the word "merge" in the bible. or find me a verse that says there is a distint spiritual world, let alone that it will join the physical world (again). i'm sorry, but reading stuff the way you want to isn't evidence. it's the fallacy of positive instances.

---

New Jerusalem is a spiritual city of God, and it is distant enough that we can't see it, and that it will come down to the earth from the sky. Jesus' new body was both, as our ressurected bodies will be. You have admitted yourself the spiritual was at work, and you must admit it will be also. You also must admit in cases, like Jesus' ressurected body, it was physical, but also spiritual. If something was seperate, then together, the word merge is perfect. The word is mine, the concept is God's, and the bible's!Now, as to the old line that the devision was babel, there is truth to that! As well, some people I have heard raised the possibility that the continents were devided then, and there may also be some truth to that. Perhaps even a few other things, as well, that may very well apply to this fantastic time, and event of the devision.
Nothing comes close to more fitting the ultimate meaning of this, I would contend, than the final seperation of the spiritual and physical. Nothing else comes close to better explaining the flood, and old lifespans, and merged wonders of the ancient world! Nothing else combines with physical evidence, like say, the fossil record, so hand in glove, as well as bringing the bible together in a cohesive, and long overdue way! And what else sits so pretty, as to be bulletproof from science! Unlike valiant attempts like Walt Brown, and others, who became target practice!
What else throws that element of modern science that deals with the past or future on the basis of only the physical- into the clear light of being "so called science"? What else explains how the animals ate after the flood, and where the water came from, and went? -An a plethora of other former mysteries? Nothing!

quote:

---

Actually, I meant our present physical universe, and world.

​

no. do you mean to say that god does not interact with us today? how can he possibly in a separated world?

---

Interacting, of course, every day, in every way. But not on a scale that the whole physical only universe is merged with the spiritual! Locally, it is brought to bear, say, when the angel came to Mary, and the power of the Almighty overshadowed her, and she got pregnant with His Son! Universally, at the moment, no, locally, yes.

Basically, yes, although I have read a few tidbits where some have had dreams, or life after death experiences, and noticed some similar phenomena.

But Genesis 1 has the order flat-out wrong. Light before plants? Plants before the sun? A lesson in comprehension from the guy who can't recognize a simile when he sees one?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

Absolutely, Genesis 1 is infallible as the sequence. Gen 2, also is perfect, but not meant to be a second sequence to 1. Light was made before the sun. Which is an important point, and clue as well, because there was more at work then the kind of light we now get from the sun.

no. of course you don't. because you're wrong, and your position is indefensible and contrary to the bible, and you know it. genesis 1 has an order.genesis 2 has an order.genesis 1 and 2 are about the same length, and the same amount of detail. their orders are contradictory. if you can't get this, you cannt really get very far in comprehension as to what the stories are actually about, and why we have TWO of them. no, the garden was planted after man. plants may have been made first (and i can demonstrate that from the text if you really want) but the GARDEN was made after. it's not an assumption. it's a conclusion. trust me, i spent years believing they could be rectified. they can't. they're different stories, and they make sense as different stories. none of this indication of your idea. do we have souls? where do they live? no, you're reading far too much into it. far, far too much into it. all the verse is talking about is dividing the languages, and therefor the nations. not this spiritual-physical divide. not the continents. a duck says what? well, there you go. the spiritual interacting with the physical! we must be merged!oh, no? maybe your examples are all local too.

---

אָרַח

genesis 2 has a different sequence. read it again.

---

אָרַח

I haven't just thought about this starting with this thread. Chap 2 is not meant to be a sequence opposing chap 1.
Chap 1 atarts with nothing, and God created things in a sequence of days. Chap 2 starts with when they were already compleyed, and goes back for some close ups, and details.
Gen 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. "

uh, no. not quite. ignore the chapter and verse numbers, those were added in the middle ages.genesis 1 starts:

quote:

---

When God began to create heaven and earth --
(Genesis 1:1)

---

and ends:

quote:

---

Such is the story of heaven and earth when they were created.
(Genesis 2:4)

---

genesis 2 starts:

quote:

---

When the LORD God made earth and heaven --
(Genesis 2:4)

---

and ends:

quote:

---

Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh.
(Genesis 2:24)

---

see? they're like bookends. or, a sandwich! what's even funnier is that in the kjv, the chapter break is actually in the middle of a sentance. but we know better now.try reading the stories this way. ever wondered why day 7 wasn't in chapter 1? it fixes that problem.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-19-2005 11:18 PM

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

genesis 1 and 2 are about the same length, and the same amount of detail. their orders are contradictory.

---

They are only ordes as such in 1.
As I said, by the time 2 rolls around, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. " What more can I say?
"The making of the heaven and the earth in Gen. 2:4b, above is not described, but assumed," indicating that these verses refer, "not to origins of the heavens and the earth, but the sequel thereof." "When they were created" means "literally, in their being created."
Genesis 2 - Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
!!!!

quote:

---

no, the garden was planted after man.

---

Gen 2: 7, 8 "As Jamieson pointed out, the verb means, had formed," referring backward to the sixth day of creation. "
Genesis 2 - Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
So, we can't try using this stuff as some order other than the way it already was made!
"The arrogant critical bias to the effect that, The planting of the garden was subsequent to the creation of man, can be sustained only by misunderstanding every word in this second chapter of Genesis. The true meaning is simply that God had planted a garden in Eden, designed particularly for the primeval home of mankind. "
Genesis 2 - Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
Which is what I was trying to break gently to you!

quote:

---

it's not an assumption. it's a conclusion. trust me

---

I don't trust you, and you are wrong. Trust me.

quote:

---

none of this indication of your idea ..

---

( About New Jerusalem.) Can spirits eat? They eat in this city. Are there trees that are spiritual? There are real trees in this place, with fruit. Do spirits have mansions? This city does. Etc. It is indeed an indication that when it lands here, it will be a physical city, as well as spiritual, in other words, merged. Plain and simple!

quote:

---

do we have souls? where do they live?

---

When we die, in His city, that is now a spiritual place, but will also be physical when it lands, and in the merge. Our spirits, or other spirits, for that matter, can inhabit a body, and do inhabit our bodies we were given. They are seperate, yet bound together temporarily, while we live. Seperate, in the sense that our physical body will die, and be bound to the physical earth, but not our spirits. I believe our bodies will rise up to meet our spirits, and merge in the ressurection.

quote:

---

no, you're reading far too much into it. far, far too much into it.

---

No. You have just been missing the point all these years.

quote:

---

well, there you go. the spiritual interacting with the physical! we must be merged!

---

The universe is not at the moment. But there is a lot of interaction, that is true.

quote:

---

uh, no. not quite. ignore the chapter and verse numbers, those were added in the middle ages.

---

Nevrtheless, the chapters start with that, so it changes nothing.

quote:

---

uh, no. not quite. ignore the chapter and verse numbers, those were added in the middle ages.

---

No, actually. But since it is covered, all is well.

This has to be the most ridiculous topic in the history of this forum.Now, admittedly, there have been stupider posts (for example, some of my own), but I am talking about the topic as a whole.The only thing worse than this is someone who would claim that he has exemplary moral character. That's about the only thing worse.Simple, do you possess exemplary moral character?

no, there's only a TIMELINE in 1. 2 has an order. everything has order, especially in hebrew text. and then god... makes man again. hmm. thay'd be great for you, if both weren't the same tense, let alone qal imperfect. (click the little tense things)compare:

quote:

---

Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

---

"had made" is qal PERFECT. (click the little tense things) well, so far you've misunderstood a good many of them! in fact, your support misunderstands them, as i've clearly demonstrated. please learn grammar, and stop listening to people who have no idea what they're talking about. maybe when you learn grammar. you've shown gross ignorance and misunderstanding of the text. why should i trust you? you very evidently don't know what you're talking about. yes

quote:

---

Gen 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at eve...

​

Gen 19:3 ... and [Lot] made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

---

yes

quote:

---

Exd 15:25 And he cried unto the LORD; and the LORD shewed him a tree, [which] when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made sweet: there he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them,

---

yes

quote:

---

Gen 28:17 And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful [is] this place! this [is] none other but the house of God, and this [is] the gate of heaven.

---

notices that all of those examples are after your split. hey! there you go! the physical and spiritual are merged! well that's entirely different than your crazy sandwich idea! and so far, you haven't demonstrated that you can even read, and comprehend the bible. well then why do you cite interaction as proof of a merging?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-19-2005 11:42 PM

---

אָרַח

uh, no. see, the rest of us can look at the text and see that there are clear bookends from where one source ends and another picks up. each story begins with a set way.for instance, we don't need the chapter headers to know that this is the beginning of a chapter:

quote:

---

This [is] the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

---

it's written right into the text, and plainly obvious to see. chapters were added in the middle ages. verse numbers were added in the middle ages. line breaks were added in the middle ages. sentance breaks were added in the middle ages. VOWELS were added in the middle ages.the original text is a long, unbroken string of consonants. if you knew the first thing about the bible -- you'd know this.

---

אָרַח

well, you know what they say.

quote:

---

Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

---

of course, the previous verse is also kind of true here:

quote:

---

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

---

---

אָרַח