First Water?

quote:

---

We do see verses. We see the process of separating and gathering the waters, and then commanding the dry land to appear.

---

i.e. shaping the Earth. Where's the verses which show it being CREATED ?And when did you quote a respectable scholar arguing that "without form and void" meant "did not exist" ? Your "reading" still makes no sense, so I say so.

quote:

---

Hey, PaulK when are going to admit that the writer of Genesis was aware that the sun gave out sunlight?

---

I never denied it. And I answered your strawman in Message 225.

No, not at all. I'm claiming that both the author you quote as a source and you are failing to make it clear that there are equal and differeing interpretations.Let me cover both of your recent posts in this final attempt to get you to understand.The writers of Genesis had no understanding of either the universe or the world called Earth. Maimonides knew little more. There was nothing approaching what we would consider science during either period.The section of supposed Talmud that your source quotes, and you by extension, is most likely the Yad ha-Chazaka, which is a treatise written by Moshe ben Maimon and not part of the Talmud at all. It is simply one document, separate and of great import, but not part of the Talmud.A key, in fact essential, element of the Talmud is that it encourages differing opinions. This is in direct conflict with the writings of Maimonides where, if you will read his writings, he uses brevity and seldom documents his sources except by general mention in the preface.AbEOne other thing that must be added is that the Mishneh Torah is NOT the Torah. It is the title of one of Moshe ben Maimon's tracts and written about 1170 or so.This message has been edited by jar, 06-03-2005 01:16 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

We are not talking about the building blocks of the universe. If I understand him, arachnophilia accepts that interpretation of Genesis 1 and so do I.Your assertion was that the use of the word mayim for "liquid" suggested that the authors of Genesis understood the "quark-gluon plasma" in some scientific sense. My point is that if they had had any scientific understanding of the "quark-gluon plasma", they would have been more likely to use a word like "air" or "fire".Whether or not they take on different forms is irrelevant. The word "water" (mayim) is a poor description of "quark-gluon plasma" from a scientific viewpoint, so it seems unlikely that the authors of Genesis saw the building blocks of the universe in a scientific sense.Similarly, Maimonides probably didn't understand the building blocks of the universe as a "quark-gluon plasma", so his use of the word "water" (mayim) is also irrelevant.

---

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

After awhile, it's useless to argue with you because you just misrepresent my views.I don't think the writers of Genesis know what a quark-gloun plasma is. I think they, or the One that inspired them, used mayim to refer to a primordial substance out of which the rest of the creation was formed, to a degree, that mayim refers to the building blocks of the universe.Mayim would be appropiate for a number of reasons, one of which is that mayim as water can be changed into different forms, and thus the building blocks would need to be similarly adaptable.Maimonides also thought this same way, and probably has commanded more respect than arachno and others here, and probably knew the language and text better as well.That doesn't make him right, but it does lend some credibility to the view I am putting forth here. This not a novel and weird interpretation of Genesis and the use of mayim here. Considering Jewish scholars such as Maimonides felt mayim could refer here to something broader, namely the building blocks of the universe, I think is strong evidence that the text can reasonably be read this way.Keep in mind, at the time of Maimonides, no one had put forth the idea of a primordial liquid or plasma in science, nor the theory of the Big Bang. But they did put forth a view of the text, long before science, began to accept the same view, in terms of the Big Bang, the Primoridial building blocks, etc....So this view has borned out. It was predictive, if you would, of reality, and it has turned out now that science has begun to agree with this reading of the text.Wonder why?

I agree with the statement above, concernign Maimonides and science of that era, which is why it is all the more amazing that the interpretation of the text presented by Maimonides and others have lined up with science.Maimonides said it was wrong to consider "days" to mean 24 hour periods, in Genesis.Science now agrees.Maimonides said mayim referred to the building blocks of the universe and not necessarily water, and now science agrees that there was prior to the Big Bang, a substance from which other stuff was created.Maimonides and this interpretation states that "Let there be Light..." refers to the creation of light from the primordial substance (the Big Bang), and this interpretation has been consistent with science now, despite not so long ago, science insisting that the universe had no Big Bang to start it off.Maimonides also posited that the darkness referred to in the early part of Genesis 1 that was separated from the Light, was actually a form of dark energy or matter.Now, this is still speculative, but once again, science seems to be lining up with this view of the text. This view of the text has been remarkably predictive in terms of what science has discovered, and these "predictions" were made hundreds and even thousands of years before man had developed the technology to confirm via modern science that this was how it really happened.You can choose not to beleive, if you want, and it's probably set up that way so you can choose to doubt or believe, but for me, this is powerful evidence of the veracity of Genesis and this interpretation of Genesis.If you do not see this, I really don't know we have much more to talk about on the matter. This interpretation predicted:primordial substance prior to the Big Bang
the Big Bang
Dark matter and energyThat's enough for me, folks!

Okay, let's look at your views, in your own words.In Message 80, you said: Were you not suggesting there that:1. The authors of the Bible were ahead of science?2. The "building blocks/primordial fluid/quark-gluon plasma" was a "liquid"?In Message 97, you said: Were you not suggesting there that the "building blocks/primordial fluid/quark-gluon plasma" was a "liquid"?So, where have I misrepresented you?I have said that, no, the Bible says "water", not "liquid". And no, science says "plasma", not "liquid". And no, the authors of Genesis would have called the building blocks "air" or "fire" if they had any idea what they were. You have claimed that the Bible was ahead of science. But the idea of "building blocks" has nothing to do with science. Everything is built of building blocks - houses, etc. It's no surprize that the authors of genesis would have thought of the earth in the same way. That in no way suggests any scientific understanding.As for the Big Bang.... Are you aware that only those evil, atheistic evolutionists believe in the Big Bang? Some would think it blasphemy to even suggest it's in the Bible. The fact is, the Bible was written a long time ago by people who had little or no idea about how things work. Don't pretend it was ahead of science.

---

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

My comments on liquid relate the OP. Frankly, I could care less if the primoridial liquid is better described as a plasma or liquid (as it had been described). Mayim works either way for me, and for Maimonedes and others, long before science made this discovery.Also note, I never said the writers were ahead of people today as far as science, but the Bible is, as I amptly demonstrated with:Day not being a 24 hour period
a primordial substance prior to the creation of light
the Big Bang
Dark energy and matterI also reiterated that, for example, with prophets under divine inspiration, they do not always understand their own prophecy or they doubt it, and used John the Baptist as an example.Clearly no one but God was alive at the start of the universe so the writers would be describing something in their own language as they were inspired by God, and that inspiration can come as a feeling and insight to express things a certain way, even if one is not completely sure what the entire meaning is.'It's an intuitive process presumably.But if you approach this with unbelief or a presupposition that rejects the possibility of what I am talking about already, you can find your reasons.I think I've amply demonstrated my point, and the reasonableness of it.

Care to provide some references for sciences agreement? The only scientific reference provided in that article you were using before was a textbook.TTFN,WK

Mainstream science agrees that the earth cannot be only 6000 or so years old.Mainstream science agrees that the sun and moon did not form in a 24 hour period.Are you asking me to back that up? I would have thought that was not a contested fact.

Greetings Arach,Good to see you in the arena.As I'm sure you know, the key to understanding "the Word" is an understanding of the Words. The meaning of "without form and void" should not be such a mystery. Perhaps the definition of this expression fits in poorly with the popular 'theory' of creation? Please go this page, which I have prepared. It's the quickest and easiest way for me to present the facts.While I'm at it: forgive me if you already know this, but ... the idea of earth existing in a non-corporeal state was around at least as early as Philo, who argues profusely in favor of it.

---

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

Upon what do you base this assertion?

---

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

Upon the context given. I realize that in Jeremiah and according to many expositories, the term is used to denote "ruin" as you pointed out in your link. This is the argument used by the pre-Adamic man folks that insist "without form and void" shows there was a destruction upon the earth, and that the first chapter shows the restoration of the creation.There is evidence for that, I will grant you that.But the context, in my view, suggests something else, namely that the universe was created first without physical form, a design, and then formed and manifested according to that design.I would also remind you that arguing of how a phrase is used in a prophecy is not as solid an argument as you would think since phrases and terms can be used prophetically in a different manner and with different meaning that in other contexts.In Jeremiah 4:23-24, the whole verse is: In the vision, the heavens have no light, and the hills are swaying, and maybe this happens literally, or maybe not. I'd have to get into it more to give my opinion, but suffice to say, the concept of brought to ruin and destruction is not the same as just not having been completed.Different contexts create different meanings.

You are correct, of course, PaulK.Perhaps this page may be of help with future debates.
Forbidden

---

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

No. It's strong evidence that the Light was not perceived by the author to be sunlight. Mysterious Light

---

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