Creation as presented in Genesis chapters 1 and 2

Still hanging on to the yom shtick. Given our stroll through symbolism, I'm surprised you don't see it in Genesis 1. Popped right out at me. That's probably because I feel Genesis 1 was written by a priestly writer who wrote after the collapse of the Northern Kingdom. So I searched and found: Introduction to Covenant CreationApocalyptic symbolism uses collapsing-universe language to describe God's judgments.Look at Genesis 1:1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.What did we learn the phrase "heavens and earth" symbolized? Religious/political authorities and the nation they governed. I've mentioned before that the seven day lineup was a setup for the sabbath rule. Same writer.Notice the change when we get to the A&E story. Now the switch when the older J story begins. Remember I told you that "these are the generations" refers to what follows. If we apply the symbolism, then the Redactor was saying that the following texts would tell about the generations of the Hebrew nation. The phrase isn't the same and carries no symbolism that I've found so far.The Priestly writer lived in an apocalyptic time.A very different and interesting view of Genesis 1. From this perspective the creation story isn't about the planet, but a specific group of people. IMO, most creation stories are about the individual group and not so much the planet.Just a twist to the same old argument.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

There are so many figurative uses of the word day in the bible that it surprises me no one mentions them. I guess if you are looking for the literal uses of the word its easy to bypass the figurative uses.

---

But what you haven't learned and refuse to hear is that just because a word is used figuratively in another sentence doesn't mean it is used figuratively in all sentences.Until you provide the indicators within the sentence that tells us that the figurative meaning of yom is to be used, you're just wasting posts and time.Show me the real indicators, Peg. Keep the yom discussion in the other thread. Don't clutter this one up.ABE: You like figurative and symbols, but didn't even address Message 27. That's straight from what we discovered in another discussion. How does that play into your extended time period?Edited by purpledawn, : ABE

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

As I said in Message 27, what if Genesis 1 was written in a reverse apocalyptic language?If "heavens and earth" refers to government and nation in apocalyptic prophetic writings, why not in Genesis 1?At that time erets doesn't encompass the planet, so the creation aspect isn't necessarily more than a local issue.I've have no major quibble with your natural reading of the story, but it is an intriguing thought when viewing the story through apocalyptic symbolism.Although I don't think even that view would help Peg and her yom issues.

quote:

---

Have you studied Preterist beliefs?

---

Just read a little, but not really concerned with their doctrines. I think most anyone's doctrines jump through some hoops. It doesn't mean they can't contribute a piece to the puzzle. I'm looking at what's written. I'm not worried about whether it clashes with someone's belief system or doctrine.The Bible has apocalyptic language. I don't think that is contested other than by extremists. In those days (that's for Peg ) exaggeration was a style of writing. I think scholars have determined that also.So given that Genesis 1 was in all reality written by a Priest after the collapse of the Northern Kingdom, it could very well be written in that type of language instead of what we think it is saying.As I said to Peg, when there is symbolism involved we have no way to know what it stands for without knowing the history of the culture and discovering what their symbols or idioms were. Those we can't discover are lost to us. Which means there could be parts of the Bible that we are reading incorrectly and will always read incorrectly because the meaning is lost in time.You probably know what I mean when I say, "You really blotted your copy book this time."; but my daughter wouldn't know. My grandson won't know. They would have to research back in history. With the internet, as long as the information is there they can find out. Once that is gone or falls off the radar, it will be lost.

quote:

---

Are you saying erets in Genesis 1:1 is not the earth?

---

No, I'm saying it's not the Earth. Capitalization conveys a whole different view. Not The PlanetErets at that time was not the name of the planet. (Globe of Crates)
It referred to local or known lands and regions or countries. From our perspective the word land is a better translation really, since Earth is now the name of the planet and we tend to use the word land to refer to local areas, regions, kingdoms, and countries. The average person wouldn't have imagined beyond what they knew.Given that, even the natural reading refers to a limited area, not the planet. Why would it be a stretch to think the writer was writing in an apocalyptic manner to present the creation of the nation?It is intriguing. I may have to start a thread concerning Preterism and you can show me what they ignore in the Bible. It will be a week before I can get to that, but I do find it interesting.

quote:

---

Are you saying that the verse by verse presentation is what the KJV Bible literally says?

---

I don't understand what you're asking.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

that same goes the other, just because it is used literally in one verse does not mean it is used literally in all verses.

---

Exactly! Hence the indicators or clues.

quote:

---

I guess you've fixed that argument though by claiming that there are no indicators in a sentence showing when the word is used literally. Yet you demand the opposite for when a word is used figuratively.

---

Go back and read the article. I'm not demanding anything. I didn't create the rules of grammar and language. You're supposedly studying Hebrew. Go check your books. There are indicators in the language, just like there are in the English language that tell us when a figurative meaning of yom/day is used. I didn't decide that. I have no authority to change those rules, just as you don't.If you're going to continue this, please take it back to the proper thread.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

I don't care if it was in the book of Exodus the words written in Genesis 2:4 would be refering to Genesis 1:1 along with the following verses.

---

Genesis 2:4 is not referring to Genesis 1:1. According to the Documentary Hypothesis, Genesis 2:4a was written by the Redactor. The Redactor is the one who added the "These are the generations" type lines, the genealogies, and the ages of the people.The word "toledoth" deals with descendants of people. The line takes the reader forward, not backwards. The A&E story, for the Redactors manuscript, starts the stories of the people of the Hebrew Nation. As I noted before, notice the difference in the wording. The Redactor would have been very familiar with apocalyptic language. These are the generations, or account if you wish, of the creation of the Hebrew Nation.The just-so-type A&E story starts off the lot by explaining why certain things are they way they are in the Hebrew Nation.The Priestly creation story, was basically a set up for the Sabbath rest which is for the Hebrew Nation, not all nations in the area or on the planet. The Priestly creation story doesn't concern the planet.God created the sky and the land and what they could see in the sky. Neither story is speaking of a planetary or universe creation as we understand them today.Neither story has anything to do with science, nor should one try to reconcile them with our knowledge today.They were stories for a very specific group of people, like most creation stories are.Our biggest problem is that the final product we have is a cut and pasted product. An author is usually consistent and has a point to what he is presenting. Unfortunately in many of the OT stories we have, the original authors' flow has been interrupted. What we have is the point the Redactor was trying to make, not necessarily the original authors. We have large chunks, but as in the case with the creations stories, the Priestly point isn't necessarily the older Tribal point.My discussions with Peg concerning "yom" in Genesis 1 eventually caused me to search the internet differently. I still disagree with her assessment of the word in Genesis 1, but I stumbled on to some interesting ideas. One being the idea of Covenant Creation that I mentioned in Message 27, which is from Preterism. (I will get to that thread this week.) Because I agree with the Documentary Hypothesis, that various writers contributed to the first five books; I tried to research how the Priestly writer's creation story meshed with the rest of his writings in the Bible and I found temple-as-cosmos motif.Genesis 1 was written by P, the Priestly writer. Exodus 25-31 (creation of the tabernacle) was also written by P. The first six speeches to Moses depict the building of the tabernacle and the seventh declares the sabbath. They are consistent in theme.Either way, the creation stories are not science and I don't feel that either were intended to be taken as actual reported events. They were stories designed for the masses. They had their purpose for their audience, now they are foundational myths that can be used for lessons as we see in the NT.P.S. I search the internet for corroboration of my thoughts, not to tell me what to think. This enables me to show readers that I am not alone in what I'm thinking. There are scholars and clergy who have thought along the same lines. Whether we come to the same conclusions or beliefs is another issue.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

I am affirming what is said in the KJV Bible.

---

Affirming is nothing more than positive assertion and no that isn't what you've been doing. Seriously, you want me to believe this thread is about whether you can quote the KJV correctly? Are those the English words in our KJV translation of the Bible? Yes. Big whoop! What a discussion.You're asserting that there are two different stories. Affirming doesn't change the issue.You can't even acknowledge that I'm also saying they are two different stories.Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

quote:

---

But I am approaching these two stories as written in the KJV Bible as the absolute truth.

---

That's fine, but if you are putting a different meaning to the words, the sentence, or story; then you're missing the truth that was given to the audience of the time. Which truth?In Genesis 1:1 the narrator says: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.If we view the word earth as being the name of our planet and that the word is referring to our planet, then we are not understanding the reality of the time or the spiritual reality of the time.A fictional story can present a spiritual reality even though the event isn't real. If that wasn't possible, then parables would have been useless as teaching tools.Thousands of years later we need to understand what the writer actually meant by heaven and earth.Was it the creation of the Hebrew Nation (people, land, government)?
Was it the creation of the land and sky known to the Hebrew people?
Was it a simple parallel story to the temple creation?
Was it the creation of the planet and space as we know it today?Words are useless if we don't understand how they are being used. Meanings change or are lost over time. Verbal stories were usually updated as they pass from one generation to the next; but once they were put to paper, they were frozen in that time.Attempting to understand what was being said to the audience of the time doesn't negate the spiritual reality of the time. Quite the contrary. We can't upgrade the story and message if we don't really know what the audience understood.If the audience understood that the Genesis 1 creation story was a parallel to the temple or creation of the Hebrew nation or creation of the land and sky for the Hebrews, then upgrading the story to refer to creation of the planet isn't presenting the same meaning to the story.If the audience understood that the Genesis 2 story explained why Hebrew life was the way it was, then upgrading the story to refer to creation of the first humans or a fallen nature is incorrect. We are not getting the spiritual reality the story was presenting. We are merely trying to fit the story to our current spiritual reality. That negates the idea of absolute truth.From what I can tell, absolute truth means it can never be proven wrong or found faulty.Yes, the line says that God created the heaven and the earth; but what did that mean to the original audience?Long long ago, God created ...

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

None of these happened in the beginning. They had to happen after the heaven and the earth was created and furnished as described in the two stories found in chapter 1 and chapter 2.

---

But one would have to know what the author meant by "heaven and earth" in Genesis 1:1 before one could say for sure.

quote:

---

This is the only logical conclusion as the heaven and the earth had to begin before anything else could exist.

---

The people at the time of Moses wouldn't envision the planet or space as we know it today. Words also gain meanings over time. The word "earth" doesn't mean planet and was not the name of the planet when Moses supposedly existed. If you go by the "book" it means dry land. Our planet is not all dry land. The author of Genesis 1:1 told his readers what eretz meant. It refers to dry land as opposed to the sea.

quote:

---

But Moses was told by God to write in a book all the thing that he had been told by God including all the things the people heard God say to Moses. These were to be placed in the side of the ark and rehearsed to the people during the seventh year sabbath.

---

The Book of the Law. We don't know that Genesis 1:1 was in that book. Given what was written in Deuteronomy concerning the Book of the Law, I doubt that it was.

quote:

---

What the audience understood in those days God to be saying then did not make a bit of difference as it does not make a bit of difference today.

​

God said what He said even if Moses wrote it down wrong. Or if the scribes changed the wording around to suit their biases. Or as our new translations come out pretty regular now.

​

It's man's responsibility to get it right.

---

That's an excuse to ignore truth and reality. When you do that, you lose credibility. Seriously, "God said what he said even if Moses wrote it down wrong...?" That's nonsense and you know it. You've essentially negated the usefulness of the Bible writings.

quote:

---

That is why Jesus sent the Holy Spirit to lead us and guide us in all truth.

​

Since today we have so many people that know not God the Father, God the Son or the Holy Spirit must less have the Holy Spirit abiding in them to lead them and guide them in all truth mankind is really messing up what God gave to Moses, the Prophets, The Apostles and the Disciples.

---

You assume I'm not lead by the Holy Spirit in understanding the reality of the Bible writers because my views differ from yours. The Holy Spirit isn't given to support doctrine or tradition.

quote:

---

The Bible is foolishness to those who have not the Holy Spirit to lead them and guide them in all truth. 1 Corthians 2:14

---

You're the one who is presenting the Bible as foolishness. I haven't. Many lessons from the Bible influence my daily behavior. One has to understand the original lesson before one can upgrade it for today.

quote:

---

Rather than to jump through all the hoops to make it say what someone wants it to say, wouldn't it be better to just take it as God said what He meant and meant what He said.

---

But you obviously don't know what God meant. Just going by the book as you wish, the word eretz doesn't refer to the planet. It refers to dry land. There is a difference between Earth and earth in our language. Also by the book God called the firmament, heaven. Firmament is not space. I prefer the natural reading of the text, but we still have to understand what God wanted the writer's audience to know. We have to understand what the words meant then, not now. Language evolves.

quote:

---

I think I will stick with the meanings that was around for thousands of years rather than from our newly enlightened educated elite who know better than anyone else what was meant.

---

How many thousands of years? Whose meanings? Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English? The English language wasn't around at the time of Moses. Scientific knowledge was considerably different in 400 CE than in the time of Moses.

quote:

---

I wonder what book they use to get what they think the people understood the words to mean. The only place I can come up with is their imagination.

---

I expected better from you. I'm confident you know how scholars and historians research to figure out ancient languages, whether for the Bible or any other ancient book.Much is lost over time. Odds are, we're all just guessing; but scholars and historians at least make an educated guess.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

I also brought up the temple as cosmos motif.

quote:

---

I am trying to examine and find out exactly what is written in the KJV Bible and have gotten very little input from anyone. (Message 164)

---

quote:

---

I am trying to determine what the story is that is being told in Genesis chapter 1 and 2. using what is written in the KJV Bible, along with the LXX and Hebrew text.

---

These aren't the same. For the first, all we have to do is read a KJV Bible. We can see what is written. In the second, we have to understand what the writer was telling his audience to know what story is being told. Yes, we have to understand what it meant in their day, not ours.This article is interesting and doesn't even bring up the P word. It has Moses as the author and shouldn't harm your belief system. Making Sense of Genesis 1It hits on the same thing I've been saying, modern meanings don't help us understand an ancient writing. We have to try and understand what the audience would have understood in their time. It isn't a factual scientific account of the creation of the planet. That is the spiritual reality of the story for the Hebrews. Israel's God brought order to their civilization.The Genesis 2 creation is a just so story, probably for children. It explains why we have knowledge of good and evil, why we have to work for a living, why men and women have sex, why women have pains in childbirth, and why the snake has no legs. It is not an actual event.We can't understand the stories if we don't understand the original audience. The stories weren't written in English. They weren't written for the current population to understand.They were written for ancient Hebrews to understand. So we have to figure out what the ancient Hebrews understood.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

Why do we have to understand what the ancient audience understood the writer to mean, to be able to understand what is written in the KJV Bible?

---

OK, straight reading with modern understanding. In Genesis 1 the narrator tells us: So the narrator is telling us that God first brought the sky and land into existence. That's all. Neither heaven nor earth are capitalized, therefore in modern reading heaven only refers to the the expanse of sky we see above our heads and earth only refers to the ground. Notice all these verses start with "and". (BTW, there is nothing in the first sentence that says the land was created to be inhabited.) The narrator goes on to tell us (And) that this ground that God brought into existence was without form and that the depths of the sea were dark and that the supernatural essence of God moved across the top of the waters. The narrator tells us that God spoke light (illumination) into existence.In 4, and God separates the light from the darkness.In 5, and God calls the light portion "Day" and the dark portion "Night". Thus we have day and night and a solar day is born. Then God spoke a firmament into existence and put it in the middle of the waters. Firmament is the vault or arch of the sky.In 7, the narrator tells us that (and) there are now waters above the arch and waters below the arch.In 8, and God calls this arch, Heaven. So now God is gathering the waters under the arch into one place (not many places) so the dry land would appear.In 10, God names the dry land, Earth, and the waters that have been gathered together in one place he called, Seas.Now earth and heaven are capitalized in the KJV because they are written as names in the story. They refer to dry land and the arch per the story. Even in straight reading we take what the story says.In 11, God had the ground start to grow plants. So in 14-18, God put lights in the arch. A big light, a little light, and twinkle lights. Then God creates fish and birds (20-22). The birds would fly above the ground (not the planet) in the open arch of the sky (not space). In 24-25, God creates the land critters.In 26-27, God creates people.In 29-30, God says that the birds, beasts and all that crawl on the land can eat plants for meat. So now the arch and the land are finished, plus the multitude within.Heaven was singular in 1:1 and the multitude wasn't included in 1:1.Create the foundation, then decorate.In 2:2-3, God ended his work on the seventh day and rested. He then blessed the day and set it aside for religious use. Now the narrator is going to tell us about the people God created. Generations deals with people. The narrator is telling us that back when God made the earth and the sky, before anything was growing, and before man was around, God caused a misty rain. God formed man from dust and blew into his nose. The man then came to life.In 8, God planted a garden towards the east in Eden,where he placed the man.In 9, God caused the plants to grow, plus the special tree of life and the tree of knowledge.In 10-14, the narrator gives us a geography lesson. God places man in the garden, again; but this time to prepare it and manage it. God sets the boundaries of what the man can eat and over exaggerates a threat of death (as is common today) if disobeyed.In 18, God realizes a man needs someone to help him tend the garden. Now God brings out the animals and birds for Adam to name and search for a helper. No helper suited his purpose.In 2:21-22, we have major surgery and a rib is removed from Adam. Woman is made from bone and taken to Adam. Men from dirt and women from bone.In 23, Adam accepts the woman and calls her woman.In 24, the narrator states that a man will leave his family, stick with the woman and make a baby.In 25, they are naked and not ashamed.From a modern perspective, the stories don't have the same intent.Genesis 1 is basic creation, building the base and then filling it. Mankind isn't the point of the story. God creating and resting is the point of the story.Genesis 2 is about mankind and how they progress. The A&E story is still a just so story. The creation elements aren't the point of the story. The people are the point of the story.Neither story is written as an actual event from a modern viewpoint.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

The 'earth' (erets) does not only mean 'land' in hebrew. The word ’adhamah′ is translated ground, soil, or land and its not the word used in genesis 1. Really, 'erets' is refering to the earth, as opposed to heaven, or sky therefore it should be read as the entire 'planet'.

---

Sorry Peg, ICANT said modern natural reading as presented in the KJV. In English, the word earth only applies to the planet when it is capitalized. The KJV did not capitalize the word earth. Without the capitalization the word earth means soil, land, ground, or mortal life.

quote:

---

Also, 'earth' cannot refer to the 'land' in verse 1 because as the following verses show, there was no land until day 3.

---

Sure it can. That's how the story is written in KJV. Read it again. Land wasn't created on the third day. The waters were rearranged so the land was exposed. The land was created in 1:1.

quote:

---

there is no ground spoken of in this verse...only waters are mentioned, otherwise known as the 'abyss' (emim). The entire planet was covered in water.

---

Read it again. "And the earth was without form. That's land.

quote:

---

what is it about the story that proves it is not written to be viewed as an actual event?

---

It's the thing you've been harping on in various threads. We know that the sun, moon, and stars take longer than a 24 hour day to manifest themselves.We know the sun, moon, and stars aren't affixed in an arch in the sky between the waters.Plants growing before the sun is situated and we know that birds and beasts eat more than just plants for food.So from a modern viewpoint, it's a fictional story and not something to be taken as a factual event.Genesis 2 is easy. Talking snake, magic trees, man made from dirt, and a woman built from bone. Obviously a fictional story.ICANT set the parameters, not me.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

you can read any translation you like but if you take a word out of context then whats the point?

---

I'm working within ICANT's parameters. Nothing has been taken out of context. I'm reading the stories as they are presented in the KJV.

quote:

---

In this case, the hebrew word 'erets' is used. However, in Gen 3:23 the word adama is used and is translated as 'ground'. Incidently, this is where the name 'Adam' originates from also....because Adam was taken from the 'ground' he was named after the ground....the hebrew word being adamah.

​

So you can claim that erets means ground/land/dirt whatever you like, but if the facts show that the hebrew word for ground/land/dirt is actually something else, then you are plain and simply wrong.

---

I'm going by the English used in the KJV and the modern meanings of those words. Hebrew is irrelevant. The word earth is used and it is not capitalized. Verse 3:23 does not tell me how to read Genesis 1. Remember, the A&E saga is a different story than the Genesis 1 tale.

quote:

---

No, the ERETS (earth) was created before the first day.
Moses doesnt mention the ADAMAH (ground) until Gen2:6 where it reads:
andhumidity he-is-ascending from theearth (erets) andhe-irrigated all-of surfaces-of theground (adamah)

​

The KJV makes this differentiation between the hebrew words for it reads:
But there went up a mist from the EARTH, and watered the whole face of the GROUND

​

So if you want to look at what the KJV is saying, then you'd have to acknowledge that it makes a clear distinction between 'earth' and 'ground'

---

The words earth and ground are synonyms, but do have differences. Understand the differences between them and you'll see we don't need to make earth mean planet, which it doesn't since it isn't capitalized.The mist came up from the land and watered the dirt or the mist came up from the ground and watered the ground. Any way we look at it the mist came up from the ground, land, soil and watered the ground, land, soil.

quote:

---

correct. So rather then accept that this proves that the 'days' are longer then 24 hours (as the hebrew word can be defined) you simply disregard the entire account as ficticious?

---

The Hebrew is irrelevant. In KJV English, it is written as a 24 hour day. You can't change that, although you're trying. In a modern understanding, it's fiction.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

all you really need to know is how are the two words different.
Why is erets used and translated as 'earth' and why is 'adamah' used and translated as ground.

---

You're still not "listening". The difference is between earth and ground, not eretz and adamah. We're looking at modern English here, not ancient Hebrew.

quote:

---

Your claim is that erets means ground. Even the KJV translators can see the difference because they translate adamah as ground.

---

I'm not talking about eretz. I'm talking about the word earth. The English word "ground" is not part of Genesis 1 in the KJV.

quote:

---

Are you trying to tell me that in english, if earth is not capitalized, it means ground/dirt/land?

---

Yes, that is the rule. As the name of the planet, the word earth would be a proper noun and therefore capitalized. I didn't make the rule, Peg. Or is it peg?

quote:

---

that is a crazy grammatical rule to place on the bible...or any other piece of writing. Here is a short exerpt from the 'extreme science' website....tell me why they are not capitalizing the word 'earth' in this article:

---

It is for anything written in English. As I've said many times, I didn't create the rules.I have no way of knowing why the writer didn't capitalize the word earth when he was referring to the planet. He should have. A good editor would have corrected the mistake.

quote:

---

Seriously purpledawn, some of these so called 'rules' you come up with appear to only be for the purpose of supporting your strange ideas lol.
Its as if you will bend over backwards in order to discredit the bible....anyway you can.

---

I haven't done anything to discredit the stories in the Bible. I can't say the same for doctrines or traditions though.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

Well the KJV Bible was written in 16ll. I have a dictionary of that day of the words used in the KJV Bible. I do have an original 1611 KJV Bible.

​

Not only that I did study Hebrew in college so I did not have to take what somebody else said the original words said.

---

And that's why I expect better from you.So is the dictionary actually dated 1611 or is it just a dictionary for the words used in the 1611 KJV?Please share the meaning of earth from that dictionary.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion