Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
555 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK (2 members, 553 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,808 Year: 21,844/19,786 Month: 407/1,834 Week: 407/315 Day: 3/82 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 61 of 306 (545214)
02-02-2010 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by doctrbill
04-07-2009 4:23 PM


I'm not sure what the point of this topic is.

When Genesis says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", I should see that as NOT meaning the planet?

Obviously I am going to believe it means the planet. This isn't because I want to take over the globe, it's just because I think that's what it meant because I believe in the bible.

It also doesn't say; "and he made dinosaurs, after their kinds", or, "and he made people, and one day they will invent the microwave oven", or, "and this proves that God exists".

My point is, the bible doesn't try and prove anything, because the authors accepted the LORD's existence.

That they knew not how to refer to a "planet", or they didn't have any actual phrophetic insights, doesn't affect my belief in the veracity of the scriptures.

For me, trying to prove things because the bible mentions them in some form, or seems to, indicates a bit of a weak faith.

It's silly to base beliefs in those things, such as things like the circumcision on the eight day. The point is that we take the facts and make a decision as to whether we believe.

It would be a cheap or shallow belief system, if you were basing your faith on these mini-proofs. Sure, there is evidence for negatives and positives, but basically it comes to an impass.

I ASSUME this is what you were getting at. Sorry if you weren't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by doctrbill, posted 04-07-2009 4:23 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by doctrbill, posted 02-02-2010 12:46 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 62 of 306 (545223)
02-02-2010 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by ICANT
02-02-2010 12:49 AM


Re: Earth
In Genesis 1:9 the Hebrew word yabbashah means dry ground and preceeds erets, producing dry land as all the water was gathered into one place

The word 'erets does not appear after the word yabbesheth in Genesis 1:9 but it does appear after the word yabbesheth in Genesis 1:10 because 'erets is being defined by yabbesheth. In the King James Version, the word "land" is italicized or set in [brackets]; because it has been supplied by the translator. It appears that yabbesheth itself is being translated here: i.e. "God called the yabbesheth - 'erets" Which gives us the first and only biblical definition of the biblical term 'erets, AKA "earth."

Which brings us to another revelation provided by this verse: The collectected waters are called "Seas." They are not called "Water covered Lands."

Yes, 'erets is believed to have come from a word meaning "firm," and water if far from "firm." Thus the scriptural expression:

quote:
"Unstable as water" (Gen 49:4).

It does not distinguish from dry land or land covered with water.

But it does!!

quote:
"And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: ..." Gen 1:10

Please read the holy word carefully.

quote:
" Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2Ti 2:15

Edited by doctrbill, : to correct incomplete sentence, and to flesh out its thought.

Edited by doctrbill, : to clarify language.

Edited by doctrbill, : because I am sometimes clumsy late at night.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by ICANT, posted 02-02-2010 12:49 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 02-02-2010 5:16 PM doctrbill has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


(1)
Message 63 of 306 (545231)
02-02-2010 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by mike the wiz
02-02-2010 9:10 AM


mike the wiz writes:

When Genesis says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth", I should see that as NOT meaning the planet?

I know. It's just not right that this antiquated usage should be mucking up the Holy Scriptures. But this is not the only place it happens Mike.

Take this passage from the story of Gideon for example. Here, Gideon is challenging Jehovah in order to assess whether he understand's Jehovah's will. The challenge, which we might call an "experiment," involved the presence or absence of moisture in a wool blanket left out, overnight, on an outdoor threshing floor. Said Gideon to Jehovah:

quote:
"Behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; [and] if the dew be on the fleece only, and [it be] dry upon all the earth [beside], then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said." Jdg 6:37
From the Exodus story we read of a terrible plague of locust. I have emboldened the words which are given for the Hebrew term 'erets:
quote:
"For they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left: and there remained not any green thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the field, through all the land of Egypt." Exd 10:15
It is clear from this, and numerous other examples, that the translator saw no significant difference between "earth" and "land" and was willing to insert the word "earth" in places which make the Bible sound ridiculous to us today. Please understand that English language Bibles were first mass produced and widely distributed during the 16th and early 17th centuries (1535 to 1611) at which time NO institution of Christianity was prepared to concede the Copernican heresy. At that time in history, the word "earth" was not generally applied to the "terraqueous globe." AND, at that time in history, NO institution of Christianity, i.e. NO BIBLE PRODUCER was prepared to admit that the "terraqueous globe" is in motion; i.e. They didn't believe it is rotating, MUCH LESS going somewhere (orbiting the sun).

Obviously I am going to believe it means the planet.

Obviously; because that is what it means to us today. But it did not mean that to the ancients and it did not mean that to the men who set the precedent for English Bible language during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. That is why I say that it's just not right for this antiquated usage to be mucking up the Holy Scriptures. Modern scholars know better and say as much, if you are willing to hear what they have to say. Problem is, Bible producers get their paychecks from "good ol' boys" who want to leave well enough alone. It might be bad for business if several million "Bible Believing Christians" quit supporting those institutions which have kept them in ignorance. i.e. "The blind leading the blind."

...they knew not how to refer to a "planet"...

Oh, but they did!!

quote:
"And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of heaven." 2Ki 23:5

I must leave you now but before I do, here's one more glimpse of how ridiculous it can be to imagine the biblical term "earth" as if it meant the planet. Our example comes from a Civil War story (the war between Israel and Judah) in which the biblical author describes a victory celebration of the Israelite army saying:

quote:
"... behold, [they were] spread abroad upon all the earth, eating and drinking, and dancing, because of all the great spoil that they had taken out of the land of the Philistines, and out of the land of Judah." 1Sa 30:16
Here again, the word "earth" and the word "land" are both given for the very same Hebrew term: 'erets.

It's not enough to simply "read" the Bible. One must actually "study" it. Believe me when I tell you:

There's a Huge difference.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by mike the wiz, posted 02-02-2010 9:10 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2010 6:31 AM doctrbill has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 64 of 306 (545259)
02-02-2010 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by doctrbill
02-02-2010 11:24 AM


Re: Water
Hi bill,

doctrbill writes:

Please read the holy word carefully.

Are you sure there is no land or firm substance under water that would be called land if the water disappeared?

doctrbilll writes:

The word 'erets does not appear after the word yabbesheth in Genesis 1:9.

You are correct I was looking at verse 10.

But as Mike pointed out Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

This is a declarative statement of a completed action.

What we see today existed when God created it in the beginning. Whether Moses knew what it was or not does not matter.

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 62 by doctrbill, posted 02-02-2010 11:24 AM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by doctrbill, posted 02-02-2010 8:48 PM ICANT has responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 65 of 306 (545285)
02-02-2010 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by ICANT
02-02-2010 5:16 PM


Re: Water
ICANT writes:

Are you sure there is no land or firm substance under water that would be called land if the water disappeared?

Yes, of course there is. And as the narrative goes, it is called 'erets; but only after the water is removed from it.

quote:
"Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear:" Gen 1:9 KJV
Please note that the word "land" is italicized. Some editions enclose it in [brackets].

... I was looking at verse 10.

The situation is identical in verse 10.

quote:
"...God called the dry land Earth..." Gen 1:10 KJV

Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". This is a declarative statement of a completed action.

OK. But we are not questioning the verb tense. We are questioning the noun.

What we see today existed when God created it in the beginning.

I agree. It is the same universe.

Whether Moses knew what it was or not does not matter.

True enough. And even if we assume that he knew what he was describing, we are still faced with the question of what he meant by "'erets." Observe, for example, Deuteronomy 32:49 where Moses is commanded to go up Mount Nebo and "behold the land of Canaan." The Hebrew expression here given as "land," is 'erets. And in the following, from the same incident, Moses is told:

quote:
"...thou shalt see the land before [thee] ...". Deu 32:52
Here, "land" is given for 'erets.

Do you think Jehovah and Moses were speaking the same language?

In chapter 50, verse 23 of the book of Jeremiah, King Nebuchadnezzar is called "hammer of the whole earth." i.e. "the whole 'erets." In chapter 51 the Babylonian empire is said to intoxicate "all the earth" (verse 7); to destroy "all the earth" (verse 25); and that "all the earth" shall be slain at Babylon (verse 49). i.e. "all the 'erets."

We know that Nebuchadnezzars empire was fairly small as ancient empires go. We also know that he thorouglhy devastated "all the 'erets" of Israel.

Need more be said?


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ICANT, posted 02-02-2010 5:16 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ICANT, posted 02-02-2010 10:57 PM doctrbill has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 66 of 306 (545299)
02-02-2010 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by doctrbill
02-02-2010 8:48 PM


Re: Erets
Hi bill,

doctrbill writes:

True enough. And even if we assume that he knew what he was describing, we are still faced with the question of what he meant by "'erets."

What did the erets in Genesis 1:1 describe and what did Moses mean by it.

It seems to me he was refering to the entire earth.

According to the account of the heavens and the earth in the day the Lord God created them. There was no water except a river that divided into 4 rivers that watered the land. No fish were created in this account found in Geneses 2:4-2:25.

I think science puts forth it was dry in the beginning.

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 65 by doctrbill, posted 02-02-2010 8:48 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by doctrbill, posted 02-13-2010 11:52 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4662
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


(2)
Message 67 of 306 (545323)
02-03-2010 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by doctrbill
02-02-2010 12:46 PM


It's not enough to simply "read" the Bible. One must actually "study" it. Believe me when I tell you:
There's a Huge difference.

I do study it. Ofcourse, logically, studying it doesn't include agreeing with you. You should learn to seperate the two, they are not the same thing at all.

You reference "planets" in the bible. You have done a good job of telling me what the earth means, but are you going to tell me what "planet" means? What is the Hebrew word for planets? Does it mean spherical mass? Does it mean the same as, "stars"? Can we conflate the two?

You see - I am not at all dumb, even if I do lack a knowledge of Hebrew.

If you are stating that the earth would be unique to those people, then, then I am fine with that.

I study the bible, to know what it means. A knowledge of the original language is good, but I seek to know more than the syntax.

"Owph", for example, "flying thing", can put to bed silly claims about bats being one of our feathered friends. So I agree that studying words is good, but the words themselves don't give you the meaning, especially of the whole thing, if the whole thing is only relevant from a position of Christian belief. Therefore I study OUR bible. Sure - you might study scriptures, in a disjointed rational-fashion, which might give you some interesting syntax-insights.

That is why I say that it's just not right for this antiquated usage to be mucking up the Holy Scriptures. Modern scholars know better and say as much, if you are willing to hear what they have to say. Problem is, Bible producers get their paychecks from "good ol' boys" who want to leave well enough alone. It might be bad for business if several million "Bible Believing Christians" quit supporting those institutions which have kept them in ignorance. i.e. "The blind leading the blind."

Lot of claims in there, authority, epithets concerning ol' boys etc....I won't deal with those off-topic messy things that don't prove your case in the least. I'll deal with the things that you have earned merit with;

What I will say is that it is still irrelevant as to whether it meant a planet or not. If it did - fine. As you have indicated, it clearly didn't. Unfortunately for you, logically, even if you don't realise it, this is not particularly consequential. All it means is that a few ignorant Christians have now got bananas in their trumpets.

You seem to make a lot of allusions, it could just be my devious mikey-mind, but I suspect you attempt to undermine the Christians's understanding of the bible. All you can do is undermine an uninformed Christians lack of understanding, but this doesn't mean we are all the same or uninformed.

A lot of Christians, including me at times, are guilty of not digging into things, and taking them in context, but we do study the bible, we just don't agree with your conclusions.

You see, I study ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny, and I read about endogenous retro-viruses, and when I understand the topics, I don't agree with the evolutionary conclusions, even though I study it. I try to study the boring hypothetics of the cladistics etc...but it seems you conflate agreement with "studying". It strikes me as a little arrogant, that if I don't agree with you, then I haven't studied, or understood properly. This is a boring ad nauseum trait with some folk at EvC. Just because I believe my prayers are answered, doesn't mean I am not aware of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning and confirmation bias, and memory bias, and the problem of the modus ponen. Just because I am not in agreement with lining up craniates or looking into pseudogenes as something more relevant than what chance would show, doesn't mean I don't understand. Just because I don't accept that branchial folds are gill slits doesn't mean I didn't read properly. Just because I favour a sound syllogism rather than epithets and personal attacks, doesn't mean I am a poor deluded mikey. Just because you don't understand how I think or how I can possibly disagree with rational thought, doesn't mean I haven't studied epistemology, and the Gettier problem, JTBs, or the higgs boson.

(sorry for the tangeant)

For me, Genesis is clear, God formed the land, the seas were gathered together in one place, which indicates a pangea. (Indicates atleast). There are many other biblical passages which might evidence that the earth meant the dry parts of the planet, sure - but that doesn't preclude the earth as being NOT planet earth. That's logic 101. Again, if you don't know it, it aint mikey's fault!

I must leave you now but before I do, here's one more glimpse of how ridiculous it can be to imagine the biblical term "earth" as if it meant the planet.

Sure - I know what you mean. It would be like saying, "now the flood started to cover the planet", rather than earth.

I don't have any great problem with what you're saying though, I just don't think these type of arguments for or against Christians, ultimately mean much.

Okay - there are translations in favour of the planet. But they also don't change things such as Leviathan or Behemoth or flying serpants to "dinosaur", even though their monstrous descriptions would better suit it.

The atheist would likely say they were mythical creatures, the Christian, dinosaurs. It is fun to look into, but ultimately, I stay away from those arguments out of experience of them going nowhere.

I agree that it is not fair for the Christians to mis-use terms. I concede that planet is a mis-translation, but to me, it's not a big deal, because for me, there is only one bible, and it will be no less amazing or true, when I pick it up to meditate on it, as usual.

(My last post, as I intend to lurk at most).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by doctrbill, posted 02-02-2010 12:46 PM doctrbill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by doctrbill, posted 02-10-2010 9:59 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 68 of 306 (546452)
02-10-2010 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by mike the wiz
02-03-2010 6:31 AM


mike the wiz writes:


I suspect you attempt to undermine the Christians's understanding of the bible.

I understand why it may seem that way to you, and other Christians. From my perspective: I attempt to share a more accurate understanding of the Bible. My experience has been that most believers have little understanding of the Bible; including myself, when I was one of them.

I concede that planet is a mis-translation, but to me, it's not a big deal, because for me, there is only one bible, and it will be no less amazing or true, when I pick it up to meditate on it, as usual.

I am glad you concede the probability of bad translation. It is a big deal to me because, in a former life I placed my confidence in the face value of what I read. Then, thanks to a stint at Bible college, I learned to examine it for myself. Now, I find that it doesn't always mean what it seems to say.

This thread concerns one of those cases.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by mike the wiz, posted 02-03-2010 6:31 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1101 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 69 of 306 (546815)
02-13-2010 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by ICANT
02-02-2010 10:57 PM


Re: Erets
ICANT writes:

According to the account of the heavens and the earth in the day the Lord God created them. There was no water except a river that divided into 4 rivers that watered the land. No fish were created in this account found in Geneses 2:4-2:25.

It may seem a bit like nit picking but I would have to quibble over your first point and ask, What about the "mist" that went up and "watered the whole face of the ground."

I realize that fish are not mentioned but does that mean none were made? Rivers are mentioned, as you say, but there is no mention of rain or snow, which is where rivers come from isn't it?

I think science puts forth it was dry in the beginning.

Modern science does, but ancient science held that the universe was made from water. See Genesis 1:1 and 2 Peter 3:5. Any modern version will do, I suppose, but I like this one for this purpose:

quote:
"... earth was formed out of water and by water, .." NASB

Sorry for the delay in answering your post.


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ICANT, posted 02-02-2010 10:57 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
anthonylau 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 3424 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 04-24-2010


Message 70 of 306 (557244)
04-24-2010 12:55 AM


spam deletion

Edited by AdminAsgara, : spam deletion


  
LieutenantDan
Junior Member (Idle past 3353 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 07-03-2010


(1)
Message 71 of 306 (567979)
07-03-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Perdition
04-09-2009 12:49 PM


"Maybe the Bible really is just the origin story of the Hebrew people and not all people (which would explain where Cain's wife came from).
In that case, the flood would have been a local flood, destroying everything in the "known" world and destroying everything YHWH had created, but not everything in existence that had been created by another god or that had come about through natural processes. "

Interesting. This could be very possible. It would make sense, at least.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Perdition, posted 04-09-2009 12:49 PM Perdition has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 07-03-2010 6:01 PM LieutenantDan has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 72 of 306 (567981)
07-03-2010 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by LieutenantDan
07-03-2010 5:52 PM


Welcome to the fray, LieutenantDan,

Interesting. This could be very possible. It would make sense, at least.

It would also be consistent with the "worship no other gods" commandment.

Enjoy.

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
R ebel A merican Z en D eist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by LieutenantDan, posted 07-03-2010 5:52 PM LieutenantDan has not yet responded

  
nicoledc109 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 3336 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 73 of 306 (569035)
07-19-2010 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by kbertsche
04-08-2009 6:25 PM


Thanks you for the post.
Hi guys, Im a newbie. Nice to join this forum.

Edited by nicoledc109, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Remove signature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by kbertsche, posted 04-08-2009 6:25 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1793 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 74 of 306 (581661)
09-16-2010 8:03 PM


Eretz and Adamah
This is in response to ICANT's Message 55 in the Biblically, Was Adam The First Man? thread.

ICANT writes:

The only word available to Moses was erets.

The word planet did not exist when he wrote the Torah

In fact the definition is still changing.


The concept that the ground under his feet was part of a huge globe also didn't exist. What the word has become is irrelevant to what it meant at the time of the writing. The meaning at the time of the writing is what is important.

You do realize that the meaning of the word planet is not the issue.

quote:
If the ground in China, Australia, Japan, Europe and the Americas is considered a part of the earth then the ground in Genesis 2:5 would be any ground that existed at that time.

You are trying to apply a modern term that is still evolving to an ancient Hebrew word.


No, the ground in Genesis is the ground known at the time that pertained to the story. They didn't know that more ground existed. The storyteller is talking to a specific audience. The land and ground would be the land and ground they know.

Actually I would say you are applying a modern term to an ancient word. We have to get back to the beginning of the evolution. What the word meant then is what we need, not the newer meanings that have evolved since then.

quote:
Erets
According to Brown, Driver, Biggs Lexicon means:
1) land, earth

The modern definition of earth is land.
The Hebrew definition of earth is land.


None of which means planet. The word earth does not have a meaning of planet. The word earth is used as the name of our planet. There is a difference.

Eretz and adamah were not that all encompassing.


Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2010 2:56 PM purpledawn has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 75 of 306 (581993)
09-18-2010 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by purpledawn
09-16-2010 8:03 PM


Re: Eretz and Adamah
Hi PD,

purpledawn writes:

None of which means planet. The word earth does not have a meaning of planet.

Earth 1
Definition: The globe or planet which we inhabit; the world, in distinction from the sun, moon, or stars. Also, this world as the dwelling place of mortals, in distinction from the dwelling place of spirits.
Source

Earth
The globe or planet which we inhabit; the world, in distinction from the sun, moon, or stars. Also, this world as the dwelling place of mortals, in distinction from the dwelling place of spirits.

Source

Definition of EARTH
1: the fragmental material composing part of the surface of the globe; especially : cultivable soil
2: the sphere of mortal life as distinguished from spheres of spirit life — compare heaven, hell
3a : areas of land as distinguished from sea and air b : the solid footing formed of soil : ground
4often capitalized : the planet on which we live that is third in order from the sun — see planet table

Source

Earth
noun
1. ( often initial capital letter ) the planet third in order from the sun, having an equatorial diameter of 7926 mi. (12,755 km) and a polar diameter of 7900 mi. (12,714 km), a mean distance from the sun of 92.9 million mi. (149.6 million km), and a period of revolution of 365.26 days, and having one satellite.

Source

earth noun ( PLANET )
[S or U] (usually Earth) the planet third in order of distance from the Sun, between Venus and Mars; the world on which we live

Source

EARTH, n. erth.

1. Earth, in its primary sense, signifies the particles which compose the mass of the globe, but more particularly the particles which form the fine mold on the surface of the globe; or it denotes any indefinite mass or portion of that matter. We throw up earth with a spade or plow; we fill a pit or ditch with earth; we form a rampart with earth. This substance being considered, by ancient philosophers, as simple, was called an element; and in popular language, we still hear of the four elements, fire, air,earth, and water.


Source

'erets
Definition
land, earth
earth
whole earth (as opposed to a part)
earth (as opposed to heaven)

Source

I am sorry I could not find your dictionary online.

Neither could I find one that gave the primary meaning of earth that agrees with your definition.

All these including the definition of אדץ agree that earth is talking about the whole earth.

But you go right ahead an say it means anything you desire it to say. That is your privilage, just don't expect anyone else to agree with you.

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 74 by purpledawn, posted 09-16-2010 8:03 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 09-18-2010 3:20 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply
 Message 77 by purpledawn, posted 09-19-2010 11:18 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 78 by doctrbill, posted 09-19-2010 12:57 PM ICANT has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019