First Water?

I admitted to the mistake on a later post, mentioning it as typo, did I not? And your repeated references to it verify that I made a mistake.I corrected it because I meant to convey "water", and am fully aware that Hebrew and Greek are not the same language.This message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 04:21 AM

You sounded in your own words as if you did not grasp his point, and compared it to the idea of presuming a psychological abnormality of God's.You said you could be wrong, and asked if anyone else had more knowledge on this, and I think my comments were correct then.I also asked if someone could address the science of what he was talking about, and I am still asking.

My argument is based on what the text states. The text says that the light created in 1:3 is day, that the dark seperated from it in 1:4 is night, and that when the text says that there was an evening and a morning it means what it says. The day is connected with the sun, but the connection is that the sun was put in the sky to rule the day (Genesis 1:16).So my argument is what the text actually states, and that the author was wrong (not stupid) is a conclusion. In the absence of any explanation which fits the text better I do not think that an unsupported assertion that the author would have to be stupid can carry the weight of the argument.

I think the evidence fits much better if we read this as the creation of the universe rather than the way you are reading it.

No, "without form" means "unshaped" and "void" as an adjective means "empty" or "uninhabited". If you want to claim that they mean "does not exist" try to come up with some support. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 10th Edn.

Which evidence ?

My mistake. (?) I thought you were refering to a typo in the Bible. I alluded to that in a later post and you didn't respond. My references verify that I know you made a mistake. To my knowledge, you never admitted it. The "correction" was dishonest. You should have openly acknowledged the error in a later post. If it was necessary to change the original post, you should have made a note there of the edit. You should also have made a note in a later post where you acknowledged the error.Scrupulous honesty is required if you want to be trusted.Now, how about answering the questions that you've been avoiding?

---

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

I based my response on my understanding of the physics. I didn't keep up physics through undergraduacy but I studied it throughout highschool and am familiar with the concepts of relativity. I am simply prepared to believe that someone with a better understanding could provide further insight showing where I was making a mistake.Being prepared to accept that I may have made a mistake is not the same as saying that I have made a mistake.If you can see a mistake then why not point it out to me? Which it is. Simply claiming that there are variable frames of reference for time in existence is just as consistent an argument if the variance is thorugh physical effects such as redshift or through a perceptual difference such as I suggested. Why don't you actually address the points I raised vis the time dilation effects associated with redshift are reliant on discrepancies between frames of reference and there are not differing frames of reference in the given scenario. You might perhaps argue that God lives at the centre of the universe, for instance, and therefore as we move away with the expansion of the universe our frame of reference would differ with his.But as I have pointed out there are any number of other possible ways to introduce a variance between god's perceptions and our own.TTFN,WK

why? it clearly states there's something around from which god creates: the deep. god creation is not the universe. nor does a universe exist in the eyes of genesis. all it talks about is our planet, and a few elements of solar system.of course, i BELIEVE god created everything. but the bible doesn't explicitly say that. even if there weren't tons textual degradations (and there are), i wouldn't even agree with that. i don't think the bible is trying to report on reality. i think it's trying to tell the reader something. genesis is very point-driven. lots of the stories (maybe all? that thread died long ago) have very explicit reasons. the details leading up to the reasons are not really so important. well, "feet" is a hebrew euphemism for genitalia. so, literally, she was covering his genitalia with something. and the context indicates something sexual going on. whether it was her mouth or another part of her anatomy, i'm sure we could debate at length. in short, i took a guess. but one based on good reasons.and yes, it does explain the story, doesn't it? no, i try to take into account how the people who wrote it would have read it. i don't read the idioms literally (because idioms are by definition not literal). but the concept, i think are literal.except maybe revelation. i had an opinion on the book a while ago, but i thought better of it. now, i just don't know. it could be entirely metaphorical, a sort of coded message. it could be fiction. it could be the ravings of a madman. and, it could be literal prophesy. someone should start a thread on that. quite, but we can't pervert the literal to get to the spiritual conclusion we want. let alone the scientific one. the bible still means what it says, even if it's not indicating that actions happened, and the stories (even the parables) can be read literally. you just have to understand that they're not factual accounts. you can then build the spiritual meaning on top.the jews have a system of understand: PaRDeS.
p'shat: the literal
remez: the symbolic
d'rash: (also midrashim) the teaching
sod: the mystical meaning.even with the mystical meanings (sometimes STRONGLY metaphorical) applied, the text is still founded in the literal. well god knew that pharoah would say no. in fact, i think the text says that god MADE pharoah say no. but you're correct if you're asserting that christ symbollically applies to this. no, it does. i love this stuff. it's just that we have to get the literal straight FIRST. i tried to show you why with the explanation of the flood, and how it symbolically applies to creation, only in reverse. if genesis 1 is not talking about water, then not only does genesis 6 not make any sense, but the symbolic meaning is completely gone.

---

אָרַח

That could well be but I don't see it in the Babylonian Talmud so that is why I'm asking if it could have been translated under a different section or name. Which simply indicated that you don't understand the Talmud.The Talmud is a collection of debates between Rabbis. You cannot pull an interpretation from the Talmud without including "On the otherhand ..."This is the problem with your theology as well as that of folk like Buz, WT, Faith as such. You look for the sure answer, but if you examine the history of Biblical studies (which is what a Rabbi does) you will find that it is never uniform and is not even conducive to comparisons with science.This issue is not peripheral, it's central to the question. The author you're quoting is misusing the Talmud and Torah, and so is simply ranting. He's making stuff up and then cherry picking passages or quotations that support his preconceived opinion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So PaulK, would you be willing to concede you were wrong if it can be shown that the writer of Genesis 1 did think that light came from the sun, not just that the sun was there "to rule over the day"?Your argument rests that the text does not suggest the sun was created to give light on the earth, correct?

quote:

---

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

---

But the text says otherwise, PaulK.

quote:

---

And God said, Let there be lights ....to divide the day from the night...And let them be for lights...to give light upon the earth (Genesis 1:14-15)

---

Hmm...."to give light upon the earth", ....wonder what the writer is trying to say there?This message has been edited by randman, 06-03-2005 12:33 PM

So PaulK, let's look at your quote of the definitions again. Please note the definition "containing nothing" and the example of containing no space.

​

Here is definition number 1 done by a quick web-search.

​

"Containing no matter; empty."

​

Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's QuestionsThat's the definition I go with. The coupling of the "without form and void" suggest that it has not been physically created yet, imo.

When was "light" created?Have you ever even read the Bible?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I did acknowledge the typo. There was no dishonesty on my part. But if you want to continue to make a mountain out of a molehill, imo, that says more about you than it does about me or anyone else.

As I said my argument rests on what the text does say. And what it does say is that daylight was created and exists as a thing in itself, apart from any light from the sun. The author of Genesis would have to be truly stupid not to realise that the sun does shine light onto the Earth.Your argument then is against a strawman. The verses you quote are consistent with my position and therfore your argument fails.