basic reading of genesis 1:1

Well no shit...The original text translated literally into english doesn't make any sense at all... 'In beginning created god sky earth' or whatever.Any translation is going to be clouded by interpretation.But that hasn't stopped you from claiming that the test says something very specific and if people don't agree with what you say it is, then they must conclude that god is a liar or it isn't his word.You're just as guilty of forcing an interpretation as you are accusing others of doing.

Hi arach, thanks for the reply. I couldn't find it, but while you were gone for that while, I brought your name up in a debate with ICANT and he said that you were the one who doesn't know anything about hebrew The context was me explaining to him how you had showed me in the past that the phrase in Gen was better translated as 'when god was creating'...Fortunately, the record speaks for itself. Depends I mean, sure, if that's what it means then put it in there. But if you were translating just strictly what it literally said, then I think they should be left out if they're not written there. The reader would need to understand they were implied to make any sense out of it. I don't know enough about hebrew or the parts of languages to really know what your talking about enough to make any intelligible comment. But I do think I understand what you're saying so thanks for sharing. I was thinking about my claim... If you're just translating one word, say rojo in spanish, then really there's no interpretation to cloud the fact that it simply means "red". I see that. I think that I was originally thinking that there's always going to be some idioms or idiosyncrasies that just don't directly, or literally, translate from one language to another.Like the greeting: "What's up?" doesn't get translated into spanish as lo que esta arriba (what is upwards?) because that wouldn't make any sense. Converly, we don't translate que pasa (accents removed) as "what has passed?" because we don't talk like that in 'Merican. But those would be the strictly literal translations, right? (Spanish is the only other language I know anything about besides Engligh)So if the hebrew says "On beginning", then I suppose that would be the literal translation, but I wouldn't translate it like that if I wanted anyone to understand what was actually meant to be said. I'm familiar with the Gap Theory and ICANT's (mis)use of it. I've actually refuted his interpretation in another way if you care to read it:This is the refined version, Message 263, of the earlier argument I simply stumbled upon myself, Message 198.Basically, I can't puts Gen 2 - Gen 4 in between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, and then continues on with Gen 5 after Gen 1, IIRC. THe problem I exposed is that the characters at the end of Gen 4 and the beginning of Gen 5 are the same people with the same names so they couldn't be talking about two different groups of people. ICANT's only response is that there could be two different families with the exact same names Being refuted in the past does not stop ICANT from repeating his same old arguments and claiming they've never been refuted. He is not an honest person. That just raises more doubt in him knowing anything about hebrew either.He simply debates like old people do (and he is an old person). They're stuck in their ways as they have been for years and they're not going to actually listen to anybody that challenges them or change their position at all. You've certainly got a solid case against him. I'll remember this, and my other rebuttle of his interpretation, next year when he tells some new guy that he has this interpretation that nobody has ever refuted before.