First Water?

That is not an acceptable answer here at EvC.I am pretty familar with the Talmud and have never come across that section. Now your source bases a lot of his material on that section and the interpretation included, so you are been asked to supply support that the section exists and just what it says.If you can't support your assertion, then drop it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar, this is something you could just as easily look up, and did not seem like a legit question. Rules can be abused as well, by trying to waste someone's time looking up peripheal matters.I am not a Talmudic scholar, but my impression was Chagiga was a treatise in the Babylonian Talmud (Gemera).But I do know the guy being quoted, Maimonides, is a "heavy-weight" in these matters, that he is indeed someone involved with the issue of how the Bible should be interpreted. Maimonides - Wikipedia Jewish views on evolution - WikipediaThis message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 12:51 AMThis message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 12:58 AM

maimonides is indeed a "heavy-weight." but he's just an interpretter, like any other rabbi.much of the talmud disagrees with itself. think of it like transcripts of a debate here. that's sort of what it is. rabbi's discussing their views. granted, most of them are more learned than your average poster here, but it's still just someone's opinion on the matter.

---

אָרַח

Agreed. It's an opinion, but it's a learned opinion which deserves a measure of respect.One of the things bothering me about this forum is the pretense that, say, a well-established concept in theology or biblical interpretation, some that I have presented, are treated as if they are absurd, or have no substantive backing.I do not expect someone to agree with me, but to falsely dismiss the line of reasoning as poor thinking and scholarship, as some have done, is wrong, and deeply flawed thinking.Argue your position, but don't make up stuff trying to denigrate someone else's view.I'll give an example. Someone posted the view that Genesis does not entail the creation of the universe, but that the earth exists in verse 1. I posited that the phrase "without form and void" means not occupying any physical space, but was a design or idea, but I noted that their position was one many held to and explained my position.My position is held as well, and fits the text just as well, and I would argue far better than the other way of reading it, but it can be reasonably read both ways. To assert it is unreasonableness, as was asserted, to read it the way I was reading it is just petty arrogance and ignorance, and not reflective of someone that really understands the text.

I don't think the problem here is lack of respect for other ideas. The real problem is your presentation of those ideas.You begin by presenting an idea as if it was the only idea, and you denigrate every comment that others make. You continually tell people that they don't understand. You habitually refuse to answer legitimate questions and you expect everybody to look things up for you.If you treat others with respect, you will get a lot more respect in return.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

but only as much as the next. well, what does well-established mean? the catholic church has used figures of christ in their ceremonies for more than a thousand years, and prayed to saints for just as long. they're very well established, but not very biblical.alot of times, established opinions really don't have substantual backing. we call this stuff "dogma." and the talmud has a lot of dogma in it. well, similarly, christians like to easily dismiss scientific works, when people spend their entire lives working on just a tiny aspect of the problem and publishing whole volumes on little bits of it. and yet sometimes, some of it IS poor scholarship and gets overturned.same deal with religion.i used to be interested in science as a kid, but now i find an ancient hebrew religion more interesting than anything. if you noticed, i've chosen to argue in this thread on almost a strictly religious level, and very rarely any science. i get a kick out of arguing against creationism with the bible, because i've found all too often they have to distort or misrepresetn the bible to make it mean what they need.i understand a lot about the text. more than the average believer, though not as much as some (like dr. bill, and jar, not to mention actual scholars like my teachers). but it's not like my opinion carries no weight at all. most of the time, i'm just arguing what the bible says, with very little interpretation. and the interpretation i argue is just context, and symbolism, nothing as fancy as metaphor. i've found that i'm far more literal than the literalists.because i think the bible is quite literal. it is what it is, and says what it means to say. i think that it's even literal at the cost of being right, a sacrifice the so-called literalists are not willing to make. here, there are some differening views. my opinion on the matter is that earth was made from the water. water is formless: it takes the shape of whatever form it's put into. and a vast expanse of water can be said to be void.however, i'd also like to suggest that text indicates that the earth exists prior to the described creation. when god collects the waters into one place, he's revealing land that's already there. i've heard the ancient hebrew versions indicate that the earth had always been there. so perhaps it just means the earth existed as a blank slate.

---

אָרַח

I think the better way to view the beginning of Genesis is as the creation of the universe, but then again, I agree with the faith perspective on reality, that the Bible and reality are harmonious, assuming there is no textual degradation in the translations.'Btw, on your comment on "uncovering one's feet", so you are suggesting that Ruth was giving Boaz a bj, and that maybe is part of why he was so motivated?Interesting to say the least.I am interested in language, but I would caution you not to be so "literal" that you misinterpret the language, but maybe you are not doing that. But just as an example, the idea that the city "coming down from God" in the Book of Revelation is sometimes considered a literal physical city, and if that was so, I would be a little worried about being turned into a literal physical pillar.Imo, I think God uses the literal to speak of the spiritual, and that the spiritual is the main part.When God told Moses to demand of Pharoah that he give them leave to go 3 days out to "make a sacrifice", did God really care so much about 3 days walking distance?I would argue he referred to 3 spiritual "days", levels of experience in Him, that it takes those 3 days of experience to get "out of Egypt".Somehow though, I suspect looking for deeper meanings does not sit well with someone so committed to literalism. I think that's shame for someone so interested in it though.\Nevertheless, Paul's comment "Does God take care for oxen?" supports both my view and your's. Certainly, Paul agrees with my approach to the scriptures, but I would argue that the literal is also true, that God does take care for oxen, but that Paul was right in emphasis. It's written "altogether" (exagerration for rhetorical effect) "for our sakes."This message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 03:24 AM

The justification for making each day shorter is that the rate of expansion is getting slower - but no figures are offered and no explanation of how they are chosen appears. Certainly the time dilation factor would not halve if velocity halved. And why would the Bible use these as "days" if it takes us thousands of years to get to a point where we can even guess what they Schroeder claims they refer to refer to ?So the same problems still apply. The days in the Bible appear to be oridnary day/night cycles. Not periods of 24 hours multiplied by some time dilation factor. If Schroeder's numbers do fit the history of the planet it will be because his interpretation of Genesis will be based on achieving that result. He can't have fruit trees on day 3 or whales or birds on day 4. He can't even have an evening and a morning on day one !Oh, and by the way the Bible does not state that the "The earth is a sphere hanging upon nothing". You are mixing a reference to Isaiah which mentions the CIRCLE of the Earth (and yes the word DOES mean "circle" - and DOESN'T mean "sphere") - and a reference to Job which only describes the Earth as "hanging on nothing".

But how could we have an ordinary cycle without the sun and the earth present?

You never offered any explanation of how "without form and void" could mean "a fully formed and populated idea" rather than "unshaped and empty". Which is not surprising, because it obviously doesn't.Please don't try to pretend that you are being treated unreasonably. Why not admit to the fact that some of your ideas just don't stand up to scrutiny ?

quote:

---

But how could we have an ordinary cycle without the sun and the earth present?

---

The Earth IS present as stated in Genesis 1:2, and the author of Genesis doesn't realise that daylight comes from the sun. The day is the light that was created in Genesis 1:3 and the night is the darkness seperated from the light in 1:4 - as stated in 1:5.

Well why not show where my error is in understanding his idea. He is talking about redshifts, I know what a redshift is and it won't explain a discrepancy in the same frame of reference such as that of the Earth. If my understanding is mistaken then show me in what way. Just stating that it is is totally worthless.The rest of your post seems entirely unrelated to this particular issue.TTFN,WK

quote:

---

the author of Genesis doesn't realise that daylight comes from the sun.

---

So people back then were so dumb as to not connect light with sunrise, eh? When they saw the sun come up, and sunlight (whoa must not realized sun gave light) sprang forth, the writer of Genesis just assumed that was not what was going on.And that's your argument?Well, OK dude. Somehow I don't think that is reasonable, but we clearly have different concepts of what of what reasonable is.

randman, I have a complaint about you.In Message 131 I quoted you as saying: I thought it was funny at the time that you would think mayim would appear in the New Testament, which was not written in Hebrew.Now I notice that you have edited your Message 130 to read "water" instead of mayim. Notice that your post was edited after mine was posted.That's just dishonest. Why don't you own up to making a silly mistake instead of trying to cover it up in such a clumsy way?

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

"Without form and void" actually literally means in the English without form and void (having no physical existence).But if you want to pretend otherwise, that's your business.