'swarms' are nano life forms which cannot be seen by the naked eye.
Swarms [small] of swarms [extremely small]. There is no other way of describing nano life forms in an ancient text.
Swarm of swarm, means smallest of small. It does align with nano
This includes life forms too small to discern with the naked eye.
There is only one reading of it possible. Else the text becomes incoherent with superfluous words. The Hebrew grammar is the epitome of writing, transcending Shakespeare and Isaiah. The term nano was my 'legitimate' input.
I particularly like that one because you are quite clearly stating that it has one reading, something you are contradicting later.
Its 'swarm of swarms' - as in small of small.
'swarm of swarm' - it is indiisputably referring to small of small - small as can be - extremely small, which is the only reading and in its correct context here.
Again, "only reading".
Now, let's start taking a look at your changing opinion.
Swarming is also used to describe groupings of some kinds of bacteria
Clearly that's "swarm" meaning "grouping" as is seen in your use of the sentence "swarming is also used to describe groupings".
I refer you back to Message 247 where you point out it is the "ONLY READING".
But let's move on.
Swarms can of course relate to small
"can"? Before you were saying that there was only one definition and that you had given it. That no other definition was acceptable.
I am not being dishonest, specially not compared to the thrash you post.
IMO, swarms can be any size when seen as identical similar things concentrated together and moving in a singular path - like locusts. However, it is also related to small and specially so when this is emphasized as 'swarms of smarms' and when airborn life cannot be allocated at this phase.
So, now you are giving two different definitions of "swarm" after stating that there can only be one definition.
I particularly like how you insist that you aren't being "dishonest" while directly contradicting yourself.
So, were you lying before? Are you lying now? Were they both lies?
I used the term nano life loosely. Its a diversion to focus on this.
Wait, before you were saying that the text was perfect and could only be read one way. Now, you are telling us that you are using terms incorrectly on purpose but that we should ignore your errors?
If the Bible is perfect but you are full of crap, how can you claim that the anything in the Bible is accurate without lying to us?
Swarms can refer to bacteria - I posted such a rendering. Swarms of swarms' do refer to size.
And now you've flipped back again. Before you admitted that it was groups, now you are going back to "it can only mean small".
Swarms can refer to bacteria.
Swarm: bacteria and any small life forms
It is you not me repeating the same jorgon
REALLY seems like the last three messages have been exactly you repeating the same jargon.
In summary, anyone looking through IamJoseph's posts will see exactly what we are talking about.
Creationists are incapable of honest discussion. They have to bend over backwards to try and force their fantasy view of the world into the reality around them that they end up making up words and definitions to do so.
Then they complain when the rest of us point out that they are lying.
Basically it comes down to this - they aren't worthy of debate.
They should simply be laughed at and denied access to public education.