Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 241 of 1482 (785387)
06-03-2016 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by arachnophilia
06-02-2016 10:42 AM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi arach
arach writes:
er, the masoretic is not a translation.
Sure it is.
It is a translation of ancient Hebrew into Masoretic Hebrew.
arach writes:
we're discussing how to translate the masoretic.
You may be discussing how to translate the Masoretic text. I am discussing Biblical Hebrew and what it says.
arach writes:
the masoretic text is problematic here because it presents two words, a noun with a construct suffix and construct prefix (as indicated by the vowel points),
At least it is getting problematic finally.
ית is a feminine suffix that makes a masculine noun a female noun.
It is not a construct suffix as you assert.
You keep making the assertion that the first word in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 has a construct suffix.
You have yet to present any evidence to support such an assertion.
Your ’ - Wiktionary
source says:
ית feminine singular
For masculine singular adjectives in ־י ‎(-), replacing that ending to produce feminine singular forms.
No place does it say ית is a construct suffix.
arach writes:
no, in fact rashi presents this as a problem.
Actually it depends on what version of Rashi's commentary you are reading at the time.
quote:
[8] Ling. alt.: God as Judge said, "Let there be an expanse dividing the waters." / God said to the waters, "Be Still." And astonished, they became stable. back [9] Ling. alt.: God put the expanse and the waters in their proper condition, with a stable heaven separating the stable waters on earth from the stable waters suspended in an outer sphere. The initial work of creating the waters had begun. back
So yes rashi believed water came first which was the Aristotelian science view in his day.
arach writes:
he's arguing that you can't read it so literally.
Why can't the text be read literally?
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 238 by arachnophilia, posted 06-02-2016 10:42 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2016 8:16 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 245 of 1482 (785786)
06-11-2016 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by arachnophilia
06-09-2016 7:59 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi arach
arach writes:
right -- you no longer have a verb pointed as a perfect verb. you have an infinitive following a construct noun. it is only the vowel points that make this a verb.
Without any vowel points bra ברא is a primitive root verb which makes it in the Qal stem which makes it a perfect 3ps verb.
Vowel points only change words in the Masoretic text. Not in Biblical Hebrew.
arach writes:
you're kidding right? like, you can't possible be serious. really? really?
vowel points are a much lesser modification of the text than translating it into a whole different language.
I am very serious.
Anytime you can take Masoretic vowel point and add them to a word and change the word into something it is not those modifications are pure Heresy.
arach writes:
uh, the KJV is modern english. let's compare.
Yes but I use an original 1611. It reads kinda funny according to what we are used too.
Here is Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth."
arach writes:
now, the point of your argument. the samaritans are not using an older version of the bible. they are using a modified version of the jewish scriptures,
Who modified it?
arach writes:
Biblical Hebrew had no need for the Masoret's vowel points as it had consonants that served as their vowels.
it's comments like this that make me wonder if you even know what you're talking about.
quote:
The partial expresion of the vowels by certain consonants (א י ו ה ) which sufficed during the lifetime of the language, and for still longer period afterwards, must in the main have passed through the following stages.
(a) The need of a written indication of the vowel to be read first made itself felt in cases where, after the rejection of a consonant, or of an entire syllable, a long vowel formed the final sound of the word.
Page 33, 34 of Gesenius Hebrew grammer.
Consonants worked fine until the Masoretes waned to revive the dead language.
arach writes:
ברא is a primitive root verb which makes it Qal perfect 3ps.
again, for old time's sake, check the tense of ברא in gen 5:1. i'll wait.
ברא in gen 5:1 is a primitive root verb which makes it Qal perfect 3ps.
arach writes:
sometimes. i know we've discussed this before. in fact, i gave you a link to a textbook some nine years ago. note how the second paragraph of that chapter begins:
Yes and I have the text book in my library
arach writes:
incorrect. ראשית is the construct form of ראשן. the feminine form of ראשן is ראשנה. this happens to be the name of the girl i sat next to in hebrew class.
A suffix does not make a noun in the construct state.
That happens when one noun is followed by another noun.
Maybe you should have changed seats so you could have learned the lessons.
But then again you were studying modern Hebrew. That you are trying to apply to Biblical Hebrew.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : correct Hebrew writing
Edited by ICANT, : remove Smilies

"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 242 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2016 7:59 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by arachnophilia, posted 06-17-2016 7:23 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 246 of 1482 (785788)
06-11-2016 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by arachnophilia
06-09-2016 8:08 PM


Re: Implications of Gap Theory
Hi arach
arach writes:
how is a verb in a construct state?
When the נ or ת suffix is added, or a pronominal suffix is added as well as the inseparable prepositions added.
arach writes:
so you agree that biblical hebrew can turn verbs into nouns, and use them like nouns?
When a verb is turned into a noun it is no longer a verb in Biblical Hebrew it is a noun.
Most nouns as well as other words are made from verbs by adding suffixes or prefixes.
arach writes:
it's pretty close. you have the complex preposition, you have a verb acting as a noun, and you have it being modified by a further subject. the only thing that's different is that this noun is made by modifying the verb more. as i've point out numerous times, this depends on the verb -- as you can see in genesis 5:1, the verb in genesis 1:1 does not get significantly modified in its infinitive state.
The verb in Genesis 1:1 and 5:1 are not modified at all which leaves them in their primitive state which is Qal 3ps.
arach writes:
and that verb is an infinitive.
They are in their primitive state which is Qal 3ps. There is no prefix nor suffix so what makes the verb an infinitive?
arach writes:
The feminine suffix ת does not cause the construct state.
yes. it does. why do you think it's a ת and not a ה? there is a suffix that is just for signifying feminine gender, and it's ה.
quote:
Feminine Derivatives
In Hebrew all nouns are either masculine or feminine. In most cases a feminine noun is formed by adding ה(ah), ת (et) or ית (iyt) to the end of a noun.
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/vocabulary_anatomy.html
You will notice there are 3 suffixes added to a noun to make it feminine.
If memory serves me correctly when you have two nouns in the construct a feminine noun will always end with the ת.
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 243 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2016 8:08 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by arachnophilia, posted 06-17-2016 7:45 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 247 of 1482 (785999)
06-14-2016 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by arachnophilia
06-09-2016 8:16 PM


Re: translations
Hi arach
arach writes:
the masoretic hebrew is not a translation. it is the same language as ancient hebrew. it has only added vowel points. the vowel indicators were designed as points so that they could be added without disturbing the original text --
Biblical Hebrew was a dead language as far as speaking was concerned.
The Masoretic text was devised to make the Hebrew text speakable again.
Modern Hebrew that is taught today is totally different than the Hebrew the Bible was written in.
The vocabulary is similar, but the grammar and pronunciation are different.
Biblical grammar is generally more terse and complex, modifying words rather than using additional words.
arach writes:
in the original language. masoretic hebrew is just ancient, biblical hebrew with vowel points added. it is not a different language.
The Masoretic Hebrew bible was finished in 1100 AD that is not ancient. In fact it is almost modern compared to what Moses wrote.
The original had no vowel points rather, they used specific consonants as vowels.
You claim to be able to take those vowel points and change the meaning and structure of words and sentences of the original.
That means you have a modified original text which is what a translation is.
arach writes:
You may be discussing how to translate the Masoretic text. I am discussing Biblical Hebrew and what it says.
you're doing it in english. that is a translation. english is not hebrew. it is a different language.
Yes English is a different language. But if we set here and typed Biblical Hebrew you would not understand a word that was typed as you do not accept what the text says.
arach writes:
ית is a feminine suffix that makes a masculine noun a female noun.
no it isn't! how many times must we go over this? the generic feminine suffix is ה. not ת. not ית. not ות. different suffixes mean different things!
We will go over it until you get it right.
You have not presented any list that ית is a infinitive construct suffix which you have claimed.
I do not know what modern Hebrew says it is as I have not studied modern Hebrew nor do I have the time to waste to learn it at my age.
But yes suffixes do specific things. Following is a list that includes ית telling you that it is used to modify a masculine noun.
quote:
Feminine Derivatives
In Hebrew all nouns are either masculine or feminine. In most cases a feminine noun is formed by adding ה (ah), ת (et) or ית (iyt) to the end of a noun. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/vocabulary_anatomy.html
arach writes:
adjectives aren't nouns! come on, ICANT. you know this.
But Biblical Hebrew nouns are used as adjectives.
arach writes:
what does a construct state do? how is it using one noun to modify another?
The construct state occurs when you have one noun following another noun.
The first noun is modified by the second noun as the first noun is in the construct state and the second in the absolute state. When this construction occurs the first noun translation is to be followed by 'of' as it is in the possession of the second noun.
arach writes:
because, according to rashi, both readings are preposterous -- water precedes creation, or the text is out of order.
Water covers the earth in Genesis 1:2. According to verse 2 the earth existed.
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.
"And the earth" requires the earth to exist. It just exists covered in water.
But don't you put forth that the second story in Genesis 2:4-4:26 is a much older story than the one in chapter one?
The heavens and earth created in Genesis 1:1 that has its history recorded in Genesis 2:4-4:26 did not have any seas. It only had a river that flowed from Eden and went out and divided into 4 rivers that watered the land. There were no fish or sea creatures made or created in this story.
So the earth in the first story had no seas.
Water did not come first according to the Bible and the BBT theory would have produced a earth that water could not exist on until long after the earth existed.
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 244 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2016 8:16 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by arachnophilia, posted 06-17-2016 7:56 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 251 of 1482 (786178)
06-18-2016 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by arachnophilia
06-17-2016 7:56 PM


Re: translations
Hi acrah
arach writes:
sort of correct, however, masoretic hebrew is still biblical hebrew. it is not a translation; it is the addition of vowel points.
In Message 191 you said:
arach writes:
the simplest explanation is that vowels are incorrect. the consonants were written around 2,500 years ago, and the vowels only added some 1,000 years ago. there's a 1,500+ year gap between when ent.the author of genesis 1:1 wrote, and when someone added points this consonants. and here, the points are incoherent and inconsistent, if you read the text without vowels, you'd read it as a infinitive, and the text existed that way for a long time before the masoretes got ahold of it.
we already know that the masoretes added incorrect points elsewhere intentionally, based on how they though the texts should be read, rather than what they thought the authors actually meant. for instance, they fairly consistently mis-point the name of god. it's entirely possible that they mis-pointed the text here as well to represent their doctrine.
According to you the masoretes changed the text to represent their doctrine.
That means they translated the original text into what they wanted it to say, by adding the vowel points. Just like the guys that translated the KJV into the New World Translation.
arach writes:
alef was a glottal stop, and ayin was a voiced pharyngeal frictive. these are both consonants; please look this up. this is how they were pronounced in biblical hebrew.
We did not just study Paleo-Hebrew, we had to read it out loud.
We had no vowel pointings to read.
All we had was the consonants.
arach writes:
no, a translation is when you take a text in one language, and render it into another language. adding what amounts to punctuation is not a translation.
They translated something into the masorete text as the masorete text did not exist before they finished it in 1100 AD.
In Message 191 you said:
"the simplest explanation is that vowels are incorrect."
"the consonants were written around 2,500 years ago"
"the author of genesis 1:1 wrote, and when someone added points this consonants. and here, the points are incoherent and inconsistent"
"the text existed that way for a long time before the masoretes got ahold of it." About 1500 years.
"we already know that the masoretes added incorrect points elsewhere intentionally,"
Every vowel point is put exactly where they wanted it to be put as there was no vowel points before they put them to the text.
"based on how they though the texts should be read, rather than what they thought the authors actually meant."
So the results of their work is made to conform to their doctrine and what they believed.
"it's entirely possible that they mis-pointed the text here as well to represent their doctrine"
They didn't point it so as to support your doctrine or beliefs.
In Message 176 you said:בְּרֵאשִׁית
is in the construct state without a noun following it to make it in the construct.
In Message 176 you said:
quote:
בְּרֵאשִׁית has a construct ending
In Message 247 I gave you evidence where ית was a feminine ending.
In Message 249 you gave a source where every one of the examples has ית listed as a feminine suffix.
Nowhere is ית listed as a construct ending (suffix.
You also tell me "the ית here ties to the next word in a construct chain.
A feminine suffix does not tie anything to anything. It just turns the noun it is attached to into a feminine noun. It has no other purpose.
arach writes:
where it's tied in a construct pair, רֵאשִׁית מַמְלַכְתּוֹ, "the beginning of his kingdom". obviously this poses a problem as written, because here בָּרָא has the incorrect niqudot, and should be pointed as an infinitive construct as in genesis 5:1,
ית is not tied in a construct pair. It is the feminine suffix on a masculine noun that is in construct to the absolute noun that follows it.
You also say ברשית should be pointed as an infinitive construct. I tell you one more time the vowels you want to modify ברשית did not exist in the original text. They were added about 1500 years later.
In Message 176 You tell me: ברא
must be functioning as a noun, because the word that precedes it is in the construct state."
The word ברשית is not in the construct state as there is no noun following it. It is followed by the verb ברא which is not a noun and has no prefix to make it a noun.
As far as a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 I do not hold that view.
I believe the heavens and the earth were created in 6 light periods and 6 dark periods as recorded in the Bible. Exodus 20:11, 31:17 The seventh light period and dark period God ceased His work.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : Correct message number from 1

"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 250 by arachnophilia, posted 06-17-2016 7:56 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by arachnophilia, posted 06-18-2016 3:15 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 253 of 1482 (786201)
06-18-2016 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by arachnophilia
06-18-2016 3:15 PM


Re: translations
Hi arach
arach writes:
the masoretic text is the name of a specific set of manuscripts,
A text that was compiled between 700 and 1100 AD. A brand new version of the tanakh.
arach writes:
it is merely the addition of pointers to the text that help the reader with pronunciation.
If it is only for pronunciation why do you keep saying a word has to be pointed in a certain way for a text word to mean one thing and if it is pointed in a different way it changes the meaning to something else.
arach writes:
it is the same language. a translation is when you take something from one language and put it in another.
If It is not another language why doesn't the Masoretic text look like the language in my avatar?
It is not the original language that Moses wrote the Torah in. He could not read or write the Masoretic text. That means it is a different language regardless of what it is called.
arach writes:
as far as i'm aware, the NWT is translated from hebrew, aramaic, and greek
It takes Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Scholars to accomplish that.
arach writes:
yes, that is what i'm telling you: alef and ayin are not vowels, they are consonants.
But we got along just fine without vowels. We simply used the designated Hebrew symbols like we do the English designated symbols we call vowels today.
arach writes:
the masoretic text is the name of a specific set of manuscripts, not a translation. the text is not a translation. i do not understand why you are having a hard time with this. it's in the same language. it's not a translation.
Yes I know you keep saying it is not a translation.
So why don't it look like my avatar which is Genesis 1:1?
I am having a hard time understanding how the Masoretic text could be the same language of the text Moses wrote as he would not be able to read or understand it.
arach writes:
correct, they pointed it incorrectly to support your beliefs. the vowels force a particular reading, where the consonants imply a different one.
Well they did not have to point it to support my beliefs. Because it supports my beliefs without the Masoretic vowel points.
So the vowel pointing supports my beliefs, according to you.
According to you the vowel pointing's are wrong.
If the vowel pointing's are changed it would support your beliefs.
But according to you the vowel pointing's don't do anything but help with the pronunciation.
arach writes:
it is merely the addition of pointers to the text that help the reader with pronunciation.
SUMMARY
1. The Masoretic text supports the standard translation of Genesis 1:1.
2. According to arachnophilia the Masoretes pointed the verse wrong
which makes the standard translation wrong.
3. If the vowels pointing's are changed the text will support Rashi's beliefs.
4. But according to arachnophilia the vowel points do not change anything but the pronunciation.
5. Therefore according to arachnophilia the standard translation of Genesis 1:1 is accurate.
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 252 by arachnophilia, posted 06-18-2016 3:15 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by arachnophilia, posted 06-20-2016 7:47 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 255 of 1482 (786574)
06-23-2016 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by arachnophilia
06-20-2016 7:47 PM


Re: translations
Hi arach
arach writes:
are you sure you studied hebrew? sometimes the same set of consonants can be pronounced slightly differently.
What changes the sound of the consonants?
arach writes:
a language is the system of vocabulary, grammar and syntax that make up speech or writing.
OK
arach writes:
a script is the set of characters used to write that language.
OK
arach writes:
biblical hebrew can be written in any abjad alef-bet with the appropriate characters present. is has been written in paleo-hebrew (the script in your avatar), aramaic script (as in the masoretic), samaritan script, mishnaic script, rashi script, and modern simplified hebrew script. this doesn't change the language -- it just changes the bloody font.
So if we change the font to the one I am using in this message using certain fonts to represent the fonts in my avatar my KJV Bible is written in Biblical Hebrew according to arachnophilia. The added extra fonts and the rules that govern their use would/would not change the original text.
arach writes:
i can't even figure out what you mean by this. did you use vowels, or not? alef and ayin are NOT vowels.
א alef is a consonant that is pronounced as the first letter of its name.
ע ayin is a consonant that is pronounced as the first letter of its name.
So no we did not use vowels as Biblical Hebrew ( the language the original text was written in) did not have vowels.
It only had consonants and each consonant had its own pronunciation just as our English consonants have.
arach writes:
uh, because their handwriting was a little different:
Not only was their handwriting a little different, they added a vowel system to the language. You and others take that vowel system and change the meaning of what was written by pointing consonants in different ways.
That makes the version produced by the Masoretes a different language even though they use the Jewish script.
arach writes:
it's the same alef-bet and the same language, just written in a different script.
That being the case.
בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ
brashyt bra alhym hshmym and harts
according to archnophilia are the same thing (Biblical Hebrew), as the above line only uses a different font.
arach writes:
why do you think moses would have a hard time understanding it? it's a simple matter of learning a slightly different script.
Are you saying it would be simple for him to learn a completely new script system to replace the one he had been studying and using for nearly a hundred years?
I don't think so.
You are having a very hard time learning what Moses wrote as your primary language is English. Therefore you are trying to understand what Moses wrote from a western view. In other words you are trying to make the language Moses used into English with all the problems we have with English.
The language Moses used was a very simple language. It was not the convoluted mess that is called Biblical Hebrew today, which is viewed and studied from a western point of view.
arach writes:
that's a negative. without the vowels, it reads as infinitive, for reasons already discussed.
Your assertions do not make do not make your assertions a fact.
You have asserted that ית is an infinitive construct suffix.
You have presented no source that supports such an assertion.
You presented a link that lists ית as a female suffix.
I presented you textbook source that states ית is a female suffix that is added to a masculine noun to make it a feminine noun.
You claim בראשית is in the construct state.
But you have presented no way for בראשית to be in the construct state as it is not followed by a noun to put it in the construct state.
arach writes:
sometimes an infinitive construct is spelled using the same consonants, but pronounced different with different vowels. you have been shown that this is the case with ברא as gen 1:1 amd gen 5:1 use different vowels. the pronunciation changes, but so does the part of speech.
בָּרָא in Genesis 1:1.
בְּרֺא in Genesis 5:1.
What changes the part of speech of either of these verbs?
There are two prefixes that will change the part of speech of a verb.
מ From; also turns a verb into a noun.
משׁ Turns a verb into the person who does it.
Suffixes only add information, and does not change the part of speech.
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 254 by arachnophilia, posted 06-20-2016 7:47 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by arachnophilia, posted 07-01-2016 8:41 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 258 by Phat, posted 05-19-2017 8:49 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 391 of 1482 (827150)
01-18-2018 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by creation
01-14-2018 11:08 PM


Creation
Hi creation,
Sorry I missed this post but for some reason I do not get email notification when someone posts to my thread or when they reply to a post I have made to them.
creation writes:
quote:
The Bible does not say when the beginning was, just that it was.
It seems to say that In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Then it proceeds to explain how. One of the things that happened was He made Adam. From the chronologies, we can deduce about how long ago that was.
quote:
Genesis 1:1 KJV In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
This sentence has a Qal perfect verb, a subject, and object which make it a declarative statement.
The sentence starts with a noun that tells us when the action of the verb is preformed.
God is the subject of the verb which is perfect meaning a completed action.
The object of the verb heavens and earth is the results of the action of the subject of the verb.
Thus according to the Hebrew text you have the heavens and the earth existing and ready to be inhabited nothing else is required.
Genesis 1:2-2:3 has nothing to do with the beginning. The univedrse exists prior to Genesis 1:2.
The only part of the Bible that tells us anything bout the day the heavens and the earth began to exist begins with Genesis 2:4 and the following history of that day through Genesis 4:24.
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 390 by creation, posted 01-14-2018 11:08 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 9:47 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 392 of 1482 (827157)
01-18-2018 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Phat
05-19-2017 8:49 AM


Re: Giving This Topic Another Opportunity
Hi Phat,
This thread will do to discuss what you and your pastor talked about so I will copy and paste it over here after I answer this post. The reason I did not answer when you posted is that I do not receive emails when someone posts to my topics or reply's to a post of mine.
Phat writes:
I realize that this is a Bible-based thread, so I won't attempt to refute scripture with evidence...though some may choose to do so.
I don't see any problem with using evidence to prove scripture. I believe the Bible and True Science will agree. The science that says we think or I think in one sentence and two sentences becomes a fact and the Bible will not agree. Because that science is not based on facts.
Phat writes:
I like that you interpret the Bible without definite dates assigned to given events. This makes the belief that God created everything more plausible---in light of today's scientific evidence.
I believe the Bible is a literal account of what took place. It does not go into the detail that I would like for it to but that is ok.
As far as the beginning is concerned we will never understand that until we can ask one who observed the event. Until then we can only assume and guess.
Science does the same as just a few years ago the universe was said to be 8 billion years old. Today it is 13+billion years old with some going out to 20 billion years old. When someone starts figuring out how all the material got 5 miles deep in the earth to form the oil, natural gas and coal. We have used over 1 trillion barrels of oil and there remains over 3 trillion barrels in the earth. This oil is under 22k+ psi so it did not get from the surface to where it is today with the earth being the same size it is today. Where that oil is today was the surface of the land mass whether it was covered with water or protruded out of the water. That oil did not form overnight. It takes 98k tons of material to produce 1 gallon of gas. When multiplied out to the total amount of material needed just for the oil not counting natural gas and coal the number gets quite large. The earth is only so big and can produce only so much material per crop
Since the layers of overburden that covered the material had to be produced after the material had grown to cover it with the process to get all the material would have taken a very long time after the earth was created. Is 4 billion years sufficient time I doubt that it is but maybe time will tell if anyone ever decides to study the earths production of oil. All they care about is getting it out of the earth, not how it got there. We call oil fossil fuel as decayed matter is what the oil is made from. Enough on my little rant about oil.
Phat writes:
Personally, I am a cosmological creationist. I believe that God exists and that He is the original source for everything created. Whether or not He intervenes...specifically within human thinking...is what intrigues me these days.
If you are saying the Bible and Science will agree on the facts of how the universe began to exist I would agree.
As far as God intervening in our lives. He intervenes in the lives of those who have been born again and are members of His family. Those who have not been born again The Holy Spirit will deal with them trying to convince them of their condition and make the gospel available for them to hear. He will not coerce them nor give them a sign. He created mankind with the ability to know good and evil and to choose to believe in and serve Him. The Universe obeys His laws, the animals obeys His laws, and Angels obey His laws. Mankind is the only created existence that has a choice.
I can say that over the last 69 years of my life since I was saved in 1949 there are too many events I can look back on and see God's directions for me to not believe in and trust Him.
I will give 1 example here. Sometime in the spring of 1954 I was sitting in the rec-room drinking a coke and eating a pack of Tom's cheese crackers during recess and this beautiful young lady walked up and asked if the seat next to me was taken. I said no so she sat down. I asked her if she would like a coke, she said yes, so I went and got her one and a pack of crackers. She then told me she was trying to make her boyfriend jealous as she had cut her hair and he got mad because he belonged to a church that women were not allowed to cut their hair and he had told her not to cut hers.
About that time the bell rang ending recess and I had to go to class. Her boyfriend was setting on the porch of the ag building watching us all the time. Since he was my classmate and I had to go by him to get in the class room. He said, "I saw you sitting with my girl". I said to him Louis you can forget her I am going to marry her.
The day after graduation I married that young lady June 3, 1957.
All I know is that something told me this was the wife I needed. I did not know why but I do now. Ask your pastor what kind of a woman a pastor needs and he can probably explain it better in person than I can here. It takes a very special woman to fill the job of being a pastor's wife. My wife is the only woman in the world that could have been my helpmeet in what God had planned for my life. So he arranged our meeting and convinced me on sight that she was the one for me. We have been married now for 60 years and this June 3rd we will reach 61 years of serving the Lord together.
That is just 1 of thousands of events in my life that I see the hand of God leading me. So when someone tells me God does not exist I feel pity for them because they have missed so much in life.
Anyway I will copy your post about the discussion with your pastor and comment on it in this thread.
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 258 by Phat, posted 05-19-2017 8:49 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by Taq, posted 01-18-2018 3:59 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 394 by JonF, posted 01-18-2018 6:27 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 397 by Pressie, posted 01-19-2018 7:35 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 395 of 1482 (827163)
01-18-2018 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by Taq
01-18-2018 3:59 PM


Re: Giving This Topic Another Opportunity
Hi Taq,
Taq writes:
Why can't we use facts found in the present to reconstruct the past through the use of the scientific method? We do that all of the time when crimes have been committed, even when there are no living witnesses.
You can, and when you do you are basing your conclusions on some assumptions.
Taq writes:
What are these ages based on, and why do you reject their conclusions?
What they think the information that they had told them.
I just think it is a lot older than 20k years because the Bible tells me it was created in the beginning and I don't know when the beginning was, and neither does anyone else.
Taq writes:
You do know that the crust of the Earth is moving, right? Do you deny that the crust sinks into the mantle as it cools and increases in density? Do you deny that the weight of sedimentation also adds to the rate of subsidence?
You do know that sedimentation is an ongoing process, right?
Yes very slowly as it has not completely stopped yet from its division from the single land mass that existed in Genesis 1:9.
I don't think the land material that dives into the mantel could survive the temperature to produce oil that you could get with a drill.
Sedimentation that comes from space above our atmosphere to the earth adds to sedimentation. Anything that comes from planet earth is just transferring material from one location to the other.
It is said we gain about 15 tonnes per year and lose 95,000 tonnes per year. That is a loss.
Taq writes:
What evidence do you have that God had anything to do with this?
Simple I was there and I have a few thousand other things that God has directed and blessed me with. How do I know God is responsible for all these things in my life. We walk and talk together all the time.
Yea I know you think I am crazy and that is ok. But if you ever experience God like I have you will understand what I am saying. If you don't ever experience Him as I have you will continue to believe it is foolishness.
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 393 by Taq, posted 01-18-2018 3:59 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Pressie, posted 01-19-2018 6:16 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 402 by Taq, posted 01-19-2018 12:27 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 399 of 1482 (827177)
01-19-2018 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 396 by Pressie
01-19-2018 6:16 AM


Re: Giving This Topic Another Opportunity
Hi Pressie,
Pressie writes:
This was one of the funniest and creepiest things I've ever heard from a creationist. Were you checking it out when I was concieved?
What is your reading comprehension? Seems very low to me.
No I was not checking it out when you were conceived.
I was giving Phat an example of how I knew God was real in my life and Taq asked a question concerning that example I gave.
Here is what Taq was questioning.
Message 392
quote:
I can say that over the last 69 years of my life since I was saved in 1949 there are too many events I can look back on and see God's directions for me to not believe in and trust Him.
I will give 1 example here. Sometime in the spring of 1954 I was sitting in the rec-room drinking a coke and eating a pack of Tom's cheese crackers during recess and this beautiful young lady walked up and asked if the seat next to me was taken. I said no so she sat down. I asked her if she would like a coke, she said yes, so I went and got her one and a pack of crackers. She then told me she was trying to make her boyfriend jealous as she had cut her hair and he got mad because he belonged to a church that women were not allowed to cut their hair and he had told her not to cut hers.
About that time the bell rang ending recess and I had to go to class. Her boyfriend was setting on the porch of the ag building watching us all the time. Since he was my classmate and I had to go by him to get in the class room. He said, "I saw you sitting with my girl". I said to him Louis you can forget her I am going to marry her.
The day after graduation I married that young lady June 3, 1957.
All I know is that something told me this was the wife I needed. I did not know why but I do now. Ask your pastor what kind of a woman a pastor needs and he can probably explain it better in person than I can here. It takes a very special woman to fill the job of being a pastor's wife. My wife is the only woman in the world that could have been my helpmeet in what God had planned for my life. So he arranged our meeting and convinced me on sight that she was the one for me. We have been married now for 60 years and this June 3rd we will reach 61 years of serving the Lord together.
That is just 1 of thousands of events in my life that I see the hand of God leading me. So when someone tells me God does not exist I feel pity for them because they have missed so much in life.
Taq asked the following question concerning the quote above.
Message 393
quote:
What evidence do you have that God had anything to do with this?
I certainly was there when those events I talked about took place.
Next time read what you are commenting about before typing your quips.
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 396 by Pressie, posted 01-19-2018 6:16 AM Pressie has not replied

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


Message 400 of 1482 (827178)
01-19-2018 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 397 by Pressie
01-19-2018 7:35 AM


Re: Giving This Topic Another Opportunity
Hi Pressie,
Pressie writes:
This one is really, really funny.
ICANT writes:
As far as the beginning is concerned we will never understand that until we can ask one who observed the event.
Paternity tests, ICANT? I would love you to pay everything for my children. Are you really that unable to even try to think for yourself, ICANT?
Would you please explain how what you said is remotely about anything I said?
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 397 by Pressie, posted 01-19-2018 7:35 AM Pressie has not replied

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


Message 401 of 1482 (827179)
01-19-2018 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 398 by creation
01-19-2018 9:47 AM


Re: Creation
Hi Creation,
Creation writes:
From the rest of the bible we know a few things that quantify this. One example is that this universe or heavens, stars, etc,, will pass away suddenly. Fold up like a scroll.
Since you say the Bible says the heavens and the earth will fold up like a scroll, could you please supply book, chapter, and verse where I can find that?
I can't find where the Bible says it will pass away suddenly, nor fold up like a scroll,.
I can find where it will melt with fervent heat:
quote:
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2 Peter 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
God is then going to create a new heaven and a new earth.
quote:
Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
I believe Science tells us the earth will be consumed by our sun which would cause it to melt with fervent heat.
Some scientist believe the universe has melted many times in the past and had a new beginning to exist out of the melted blob of energy. They would use different words to express what I said, which is OK.
Creation writes:
So whatever the stars are, they will all cease to exist one day. We also know that stars were put there to be for signs and time for man on earth. From earth, we will also see them all disappear. So one cannot suggest that the stars were already here before the world in any meaningful way.
Yes they will melt as they are part of the heavens.
Where are you going to be standing when they melt?
The stars and everything in the heavens was created on day one which is found in Genesis 1:1-5.
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 398 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 9:47 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by Modulous, posted 01-19-2018 2:37 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 411 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:04 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 404 of 1482 (827189)
01-19-2018 2:47 PM


Phat's Pastor
Hi Phat,
In Message 341 Phat said:
quote:
I CANT, I thought I would share with you an exchange that I had with my own Pastor, recently.
He likely thinks much the same way that you do, and I know that his reply will be ridiculed here at EvC, but nobody here is as well known by me as he is, and I value his input.
This is our conversation:
ME --my faith has been tested lately...I believe, but I dont believe in what people tell me I need to believe in.
I believe that Jesus is Lord, that He is alive today and that He is Gods Son, Creator of all seen and unseen, but I do not believe in a word for word literal Bible...that stuff you guys teach about a literal Genesis and all that...makes no sense logically. I refuse to simply shut my eyes tight and declare that I believe THAT!
PASTOR--That’s your pitfall. The foundation of our faith is in Genesis. If you don’t believe that your foundation is built on sand and your faith will never be stable.
ME--I just have to be honest...I cant believe in something that is not logical.
Ken Ham is not a strong Christian, by the way. The reason I come to bug you is that I believe that you are, but my issue is with God and not humans.(although some humans are willfully ignorant)
PASTOR--You want a creator who does things according to your logic. You fail to realize He is beyond what our brains can fathom.
ME--my intelligence is likely my downfall...I wish I could just have the trusting faith of a child, but I must be honest with myself
and yes you have a point...
PASTOR--Your intelligence? Think about that statement. Your intelligence. It’s minuscule in comparison to an infinite God.
ME--I know. that I DO believe!
PASTOR--You.... you are your own issue. You have to learn the all-important lesson of dying to self.
I CANT writes:
Making the statement "Even if" is questioning God's existence.
The reason that I frame my statements that way is to present my belief the way that many people at EvC would understand. jar taught me the idea that God cannot be proven, thus to frame the issue as a belief against reality is more honest than to declare that what I believe is reality.
Phat I will address you conversation with your Pastor after which you can see where we might agree.
Phat writes:
but I do not believe in a word for word literal Bible...that stuff you guys teach about a literal Genesis and all that
Phats Pastor writes:
That’s your pitfall. The foundation of our faith is in Genesis. If you don’t believe that your foundation is built on sand and your faith will never be stable.
I agree with your Pastor completely.
I tell people all the time if you can believe Genesis 1:1 you will not have any problem with any part of the rest of the Bible.
My question to you is why do you not believe in a literal reading of the Bible?
Yes I know that there are copyist and redactors that have copied the Bible over the years. I also realize there are those who translated the Bible we have today from the older manuscripts. I don't know which version you use but I use the KJV as it is the best English version we have. Does it have problems? I find the first mistake in verse 2 of the Bible. The LXX translators some 2300 years ago translated the vav ו conjunction that starts the 2nd verse as a disjunctive conjunction. The Masoretic text marks the vav ו of the second verse as a disjunctive conjunction. The KJV translators translated it as a conjunctive conjunction, 'and'. The LXX translated it as 'now'. A disjunctive conjunction could be translated now, or but which would be a better translation.
The Cardinal number (one) אפם is used in Genesis 1:5 but is translated as (first) דאשון.
I have spent almost 50 years of my life studying Biblical Hebrew so I don't have to accept what I am told the old manuscripts says. I can study it for myself and reach my own conclusions to compare with those available.
But you are so confused by what science says about creation and what YEC"S say about creation. If that was the only choice available I would probably choose science because most of what the YEC"S say does not even agree with what the Bible says.
Phat writes:
I just have to be honest...I cant believe in something that is not logical. Ken Ham is not a strong Christian, by the way.
As I said what YEC"S spout is not logical or Scriptural.
As far as Ken Ham goes I do not even know if he is saved but I do know he is not Christ like which is what a Christian is. Ark encounter is an endeavor to make money not to show people what Noah's Ark looked like. Had he use the description in the Bible the ark would have been built as a rectangle with a flat bottom not like a modern day boat. The ark was to float a lot of cargo not to traverse through the sea. His ark would have had less than half the volume of the ark I drew over 20 years ago, according to the text.
The things the YEC"S put forth that happened during the flood is based on the visions Ellen G. White claimed to have been given after she was in a coma for 2 weeks from being hit in the head while on the way home from school. These visions came to here a few years later. I have presented this before giving where that information can be found. But google is just as good and probably faster that looking up my posts.
Phat's Pastor writes:
You want a creator who does things according to your logic. You fail to realize He is beyond what our brains can fathom.
He is spot on Phat.
Phat writes:
ME--my intelligence is likely my downfall...I wish I could just have the trusting faith of a child, but I must be honest with myself
and yes you have a point...
PASTOR--Your intelligence? Think about that statement. Your intelligence. It’s minuscule in comparison to an infinite God.
I agree Phat your intelligence is not the problem but what little you and I have is minuscule compared to God.
I would say the problem is not the intelligence but the knowledge. Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
Knowledge is facts, information, and skills acquired.
You know the old saying about a computer, "garbage in, garbage out". The same applies to your processing center. You put garbage into your thinking process and you will get garbage out.
You have been reading a lot of garbage since I met you.
Phat writes:
ME--I know. that I DO believe!
PASTOR--You.... you are your own issue. You have to learn the all-important lesson of dying to self.
I agree that you are your biggest problem.
Your statement that you do believe, could you explain exactly what you believe? You can answer this is a private message if you choose to do so.
I am going to try to address your questions concerning what the Bible says or does not say over the next few weeks. I am not going to be baited into wandering off from addressing what the Bible says. I will make statements where science and the Bible agree.
Now any Scripture I give you I want you to understand what it says. So it will be necessary for you to know the answer to some questions you need to ask about each one.
1. Who is doing the speaking/writing?
2. What is he/she speaking/writing about?
3. Where is he/she speaking/writing?
4. Why is he/she speaking/writing?
5. When is he/she speaking/writing?
The first Scripture to discuss.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Phat analyze that verse.
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : correct link

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

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


Message 405 of 1482 (827211)
01-19-2018 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by Modulous
01-19-2018 2:37 PM


Re: evolution
Hi Mod,
Mod writes:
The word to roll up (like a scroll) is ἱί
Where did you get your information from?
The word βιβλίον is the word used in Revelation 1:11.
It appears in the Greek text 32 times in 28 verses.
It is translated book 29 times, bill 1 time, scroll 1 time and writing 1 time.
The meaning of βιβλίον is 1.a small book, a scroll, a written document.
The word εἱλίσσω that you used would be translated sweat in English.
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 403 by Modulous, posted 01-19-2018 2:37 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by Modulous, posted 01-20-2018 9:31 AM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024