Summations Only

It just occurred to me, considering what I said earlier about the probable Jewish use of the term "oikoumene," that if they did use it as others (Greeks and Romans) had done then it would have been a reference to their own homeland, much as many Old Testament authors appear to have employed the terms "tebel," "'adamah," and "'erets" in exclusive reference to Israelite territories.Alternatively, first century Jews may have employed "oikoumene" to describe the greater Jewish community, including the far flung synagogues of Rome and Babylon. Such usage also has OT precedents in that "'erets" is often employed metaphorically as a reference to the body politic of Israelites.

---

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

So, what does the Bible mean by earth?

quote:

---

God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: Genesis 1:10

---

In other words: Earth is "Land." Earth is the dry part / Sea is the wet part.This is the initial and perennial understanding of the term earth as it is used throughout the Bible. The ancient concept isn’t difficult to grasp. - Earth - dry / Sea - wet.Unless the meaning of dry [land] is stretched to include wet Seas, then Genesis 1:10 cannot be describing the globe.Likewise, Genesis 7:22 cannot be describing a global flood.The Bible speaks for itself.

---

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

It is gratifying to see such an article appearing, as it does, in an ostensibly Christian setting. Sounds like the author has been looking over my shoulder. It is hard for me to believe sometimes, but it is now twenty years since I began singing this song. Not in the Bible, you understand. I began singing this song when a member of the "fundie" clergy publicly attacked my public efforts to promote planetary stewardship, which the preacher called "ecology," and asserted that it is "contrary to humanity," and "unnecessary," because,

quote:

---

"God is going to roll up this old earth, throw it away, and give us a new one."

---

At the time this thoroughly pissed me off.Twenty years earlier, by virtue of being a heretic, I was pressured out of the ministerial training program of my church. I was already an avid student of the Bible and had been in the program long enough to acquire a few preacher tools. Subsequently, I continued to study and surpassed all my clergyman friends in knowledge of the Bible. But the course of my formal education had to change, so I switched my studies to biology/pre-med, and came to know the importance of preserving our habitat. So, when that man attacked my mission, in the local newspaper, I was sure I knew more about the issues than did he. I was also sure that he was not alone in his ignorance and negatory attitude. Indeed! Few people understood the recent theories of Pythagoras (500 BC) and Aristotle (300 BC) and fewer still accepted their validity; least of all persons of faith. It took 1600 years for the Church to perceive the wisdom of Aristotle's belief. And we are only discussing the concept of a terraqueous globe.And the heliocentric vision of Eratosthenes? Forget it. He believed pretty much the same thing Copernicus would be teaching nearly 2,000 years later; and getting a similar reception. Few people understood it, fewer still accepted it, and least of all persons of faith.It changes pretty much everything which believers believe about the Bible (IMO). It changes our idea of the scope of The Creation. It changes what we make of The Great Commission. And it changes what we imagine to be The Kingdom of God; AKA "Christ's Global Dominion."

---

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

I expect it is quite embarrassing if you believe the Bible to be a true revelation of the universe and its creator; A creator who, for example, made man with a foreskin on his penis, then, a few thousand years later demanded that he remove that foreskin with an old fashioned knife manufactured by banging rocks together.A few thousand years after that this eternal, unchanging, deity relented and said we didn't have to do that any more. But that was only after we arrested his only child and tortured him to death. Now, the creator will do pretty much anything we ask. So long as we remind him of what happened to his kid in Israel two thousand years ago.Just a for instance, you understand. - There's more where that came from.Did you happen to read the one and only response that author got to his article on that web? A rather lame retort, I'd say. After checking out the home page of that site I think he must be somewhat of a heretic thereabouts; at least that is what I gathered from their introductory video The American Christian Science Affiliation. In the video Randy Isaac, executive director of the ASA, defines "Science:" as "a study of God's creation."

quote:

---

"There is a prevailing myth in our culture, of conflict between Science and Faith. The terminology has been sometimes used that there is a "War" between Science and Faith. And yet, as Christians, we know that God created this world and that, inherently, there is not a conflict between what he has created and what he has revealed to us through his word."

---

Perhaps my favorite part of the video was an appearance by Margaret Towne, an editor of the ASA NEWSLETTER who enthusistically reported,

quote:

---

"A lot of pastors don't deal with the issues of science, and I think that's partly because they aren't trained in Science, although, it's very interesting, that seminaries now are starting to hire faculty who are involved in science and religion, and so people who are preparing for the ministry will have more opportunities to know about this Scientific world that we live in; and we're such a dominantly scientific world that ...

---

They cut her off there, leaving me to wonder if she were being censored. I figure she had already exposed a fundamental weakness of creationist religion: clergymen who don't know what they are talking about when it comes to questions of science. My previous, and continuing pet peeve is: clergymen who don't know what they are talking about when it comes to their own purportedly foundational documents: the anthology we call the Holy Bible. Indeed! When I was in my third year of Bible College we were holding worship services in the gymnasium because our student body had outgrown the meeting hall in our administration building. In fact, our numbers were so great that we had to hold two services in order to accomodate everyone's desire to attend. So there came a movement to erect a church building. The building committee employed various enticements to elicit our support, financial and otherwise. One argument in favor of giving was that the new structure would be large enough to accomodate us all in one big happy single weekly worship service. Another argument enticed us with the thought of real church pews padded with six inches of foam rubber; beatiful music from a real pipe organ; and a dazzling light show from numerous six-inch-thick color-tinted windows.One sales pitch I found particularly distasteful. "Jesus is coming soon," they crooned, "and Sister White {SDA version of Joseph Smith, or Mary Baker Eddy} tells us we should raise churches because in the time of the end {of the world} throngs will flock to us to hear God's message." {ain't we special!?}The building we erected was an engineering marvel. I lived on campus so I got to see it take shape gradually over a period of months. I won't take the time now to describe it but I can tell you that with proper maintenance, the structure could easily last 500 years, possibly a thousand. So I wonder if we'll have paid off the loans before Jesus comes?BTW, We still had to hold two services weekly. And yes, they knew that we would have to do that, even as they promised us the moon. And whereas the gymnasium may not have been conducive to the "spiritual" atmosphere in which the clergy feel most comfortable, it was, after all, paid for and utilized free-of-charge as part of the benefits for which we paid such outlandish tuition and fees. NOW, we had to collect money to finish paying for our new church, and in order to keep the doors open we had to collect a thousand dollars a week, just to pay for the utilities. Very hard. Even for me. Which seems odd to me because I think of this gospel as it were my invention. I find the truth of it quite liberating. Even so, all that brainwashing...errr...early training, is difficult to overcome. So I have demons, so to speak. Sad but true. But what a fantasy they spin. I mean: Wouldn't it be great if you and I and our friends could rule the world? Us versus them; whoever they are. We'd show 'em how its done. Us and God. They'd better watch their evil asses now!

---

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

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).

---

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.

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; 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." 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:

---

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

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]. The situation is identical in verse 10.

quote:

---

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

---

OK. But we are not questioning the verb tense. We are questioning the noun. I agree. It is the same universe. 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 - - -

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 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 - - -

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? 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 - - -

Two observations:1) - Where some Bibles say "whole earth" other Bibles say "whole land." If 'erets simply means land, and is today improperly rendered "earth," then it is perfectly understandable why those Bibles do that. Some pre-Copernican translations did it too but for a different reason. In the early days of English Bible translation (14th to 16th centuries) "earth" was just another word for "land." In those days, a "planet" was understood to be a star which wanders among the other stars. It would have seemed silly to them to imagine "earth" as a "star."2) - The biblical expression "whole earth," or its alternate "all the earth" (same expression in Hebrew - also translated "all the land") is used to describe the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, and the Macedonian Empire. I doubt you imagine those empires to have encompassed our planet. Eh?

---

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

Indeed they are. People choose what goes into the Bible, and people choose how the Bible shall read. If instead of "Heaven and Land," you said "Sky and Land," it would make more sense. Yes?Wouldn't the following make more sense if it were translated that way?

quote:

---

2Sa 18:9 And Absalom met the servants of David. And Absalom rode upon a mule, and the mule went under the thick boughs of a great oak, and his head caught hold of the oak, and he was taken up between the heaven and the earth; and the mule that was under him went away.

---

I think "between the sky and the ground" would make more sense but I haven't found a version which reads that way.Then there's the following:

quote:

---

"Sovereign LORD, you made the earth and the sky by your great power and might; nothing is too difficult for you. Jer 32:17 (GNB)

---

So, it is not unprecedented for translators to say "sky" instead of heaven, and "land" instead of earth. I think this should happen more often, but then no translator has asked me what he should do in this regard. Almost all of it.I don't believe the author was attempting to describe creation of the universe.As you may have noticed, in verses 9 and 10, "Earth" appears in the water under the heaven. It is the "dry" stuff [land] which is called "Earth." The wet stuff, the waters, are called "Seas." I believe the plural is used in this case because they are the same seas which serve to border the promised 'eretz ("earth") which is, has been, and will be the only 'eretz of significance to Jews from time immemorial. 'eretz Yisrael, At Genesis 1:10 "Earth" is defined as "dry." "Earth" cannot be "dry" if it is covered with water. People did not imagine planet earth in those days but they did imagine that "earth" sat on "foundations" which were in the sea. Yes I do. And you can too. All you need do is look up the biblical expressions; read them in their context; and give it a little thought.There are a number of search engines which will make the task easier. My personal favorite is: The Blue Letter BibleHappy Hunting

---

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

You are paraphrasing The Message which is itself a paraphrase, NOT a translation, of the Bible. I like a lot of what Peterson has done with that but much of it is simply his own opinions presented as if they were "The Word of God."Somehow, I imagined you to be more intelligent than your current argument would allow. It is your understandin which "they" have changed. They, being - Eugene Peterson. Since "the postee" wants to be spoon fed so he can spit the pablum back in daddy's face.If you can get on the internet and post bullshit, then you can get on the internet and do your homework. Anything less is laziness and willful ignorance. If you care about Bible truth then you'll read a serious translation and forget Mr. Peterson's Funny Book Bible.

---

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

I think a lot of people get that impression. It is pretty much the way I heard it in church school as I was growing up, and again in Bible College when I was old enough to know better, yet didn't. The first few verses of Genesis are more mysterious to us than they were to the ancients who first read them. They were clear to the ancients because they reflected a worldview common to peoples of the ancient Middle East. In order to understand the Genesis worldview, one needs to understand the ancient worldview in general. I have been studying just that for the past twenty years, and because of that study, I am able to share a few points of the "science" which ancient children learned in school. These things were such common knowledge as to be no brainers and to have reiterated them in the Genesis narrative would have been silly; like inserting first grade science trivia between the lines of a doctoral thesis. Here's what every ancient schoolboy knew (sorry, girls didn't go to school way back when). Aristotle's "chemistry" asserted that everything was made from water. Saint Peter apparently believed in that "chemistry":

quote:

---

2Pe 3:5
... the earth was formed out of water and by water. NIV
... earth was formed out of water and by means of water, NRSV
... the earth was formed out of water and by water, NASB

---

Aristotle identified four elements: Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water. In the Genesis narrative, Water is "water" (duh); "Earth" is "the dry" [land]; Fire is "light" (in ancient languages, words for 'fire' and 'light' are often interchangeable); and Wind is "Spirit." Spirit is a Latin word for wind. In 1970 The New English Bible introduced an alternative reading at Genesis 1:2. Instead of the traditional, "Spirit of God," they called it "a mighty wind." The reading was not well received and after reshuffling the committee, work was begun to correct what the society perceived to be a problem. The Bible was reissued as The Engish Revised Version in which the traditional reading prevailed but the alternative was retained as a footnote. Later, the NRSV would publish it as, "a wind from God." I have spent a lot of time investigating this reading and am confident that "mighty wind" is the superior rendering. For one thing, it makes the narrative sound more like the "science" textbooks of its day. And besides that, we are supposed to be translating it into English, yes? Well, HELLO!! - "Spirit" is a Latin word.The creation narrative was a product of its time and as you can see, a number of Bible translators understand that. They understand the science of the times, and therefore understand what the author must have had in mind. The alternative: to imagine that they were couching 21st century science in a Bronze Age dialect of Goatherdereze is simply insane.

The ancient text becomes gibberish if one ignores:
--- "Who Said, To Whom, And Under What Circumstances?"

---

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

Did you even try what I recommended to you? How can you say that with a straight face?After less than one minute of searching "whole earth" I came upon the following. What do you call this?

quote:

---

"How is the hammer of the whole earth cut asunder and broken! how is Babylon become a desolation among the nations!" Jer 50:23

---

In less than two minutes I found this excerpt from a letter written by the king of Babylon:

quote:

---

"Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you." Dan 4:1

---

I gave you Eugene Peterson's name in post #82. I know how time consuming it can be to paste a copied name into a search box but I was hoping that you would do it anyway. Pastor Peterson produced a Bible which has clearly been an influence on you. In message 82 you wrote: How odd you didn't care enough to google him after being told that you were paraphrasing his Bible.

---

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

I'm going to drop the bit about how the expressions "whole earth" and "all the earth" are used in biblical context, for that question seems to be outside your expertise and perhaps beyond your grasp. Besides, you appear to be unwilling to explore it.I will instead point up what I see as a contradiction in your writing and thus, perhaps, a contradiction in your thinking.You have written: How do you hold both of those thoughts in your head at the same time? How is it that "a completed universe" has no planet earth? You have written that "The earth...was brought on line later." When I read that I hear you saying, "The universe was complete, but wasn't."Later you write: Now I hear you saying that during the first part of the beginning, the universe was complete; and then sometime later in the beginning, God created Earth.Still confusing.Seems to me you are grabbing at linguistic straws while dodging whole bales of scriptural evidence. Seems to me you are desparate to prove that the writer of Genesis was sharing advanced cosmogony with God's chosen people. I think that unlikely for a number of reasons, one being that such information would have been completely useless to them. If he wanted to give them a leg up, there are a number of simple down to earth improvements he could have whispered in their ears.Perhaps the most persuasive reason to believe Genesis was NOT intended to reveal advanced knowledge is that its creators and target audience, the Jews, God's chosen people, did not, in 5,000 years of chosen people history, produce a single aspirin or roll of toilet paper with which to amaze us heathen folk. Just like everyone else in the ancient Middle East (and some in the modern Middle East) they used their fingers. Praise the Lord and pass the toilet paper.

---

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