Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,248 Year: 5,505/9,624 Month: 530/323 Week: 27/143 Day: 17/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Not The Planet
ringo
Member (Idle past 528 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 76 of 306 (581998)
09-18-2010 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
09-18-2010 2:56 PM


Re: Eretz and Adamah
ICANT writes:
I am sorry I could not find your dictionary online.
Neither could I find one that gave the primary meaning of earth that agrees with your definition.
What has "primary meaning" got to do with it? Your own source, which you quote-mined, also defines "earth" as:
quote:
land
country, territory
district, region
tribal territory
piece of ground
land of Canaan, Israel
If you want to insist on one definition over all of the others, you have to provide a compelling reason.
Edited by ringo, : Removed blank line.

"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2010 2:56 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3573 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


(1)
Message 77 of 306 (582044)
09-19-2010 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
09-18-2010 2:56 PM


Land (Exegesis) vs Earth (Eisogesis)
It is mind boggling that you don't realize the definitions you provided do not support that the English word "earth" means planet. The confirm that it is the name of our planet.
What you've shown is that the English word "earth" is used as the name of our planet. There aren't earths in our solar system, there are planets. From your Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary we can see that earth also means wire.
earth noun PLANET
earth noun SUBSTANCE
earth noun WIRE
earth noun HOLE
So how ridiculous to we really want to get?
As you have noted, the meaning of words evolve over time. It is incorrect to interpret ancient stories in terms of our own culture. When we interpret the Bible in terms of our own culture we are subjectively reading meaning into the texts (eisogesis) instead of objectively deriving meaning from the texts (exegesis).
You have a need for eretz to refer to the planet. The original writers didn't. They didn't have a concept of planet at that time.
The English word earth didn't refer to our planet until about the 16th century.
The name "Earth" derives from the Anglo-Saxon word erda, which means ground or soil, and is related to the German word erde. It became eorthe later, and then erthe in Middle English.[162] The standard astronomical symbol of the Earth consists of a cross circumscribed by a circle.[163]
Unlike the rest of the planets in the Solar System, mankind did not perceive the Earth as a planet until the 16th century.
The stories need to remain in their original historical context.
Show me that at the time the stories were written that the authors held the concept that they stood on a globe or planet.
quote:
I am sorry I could not find your dictionary online.
Neither could I find one that gave the primary meaning of earth that agrees with your definition.
If your talking about the definition from the post, that is your definition from the other thread. There wasn't a link.
By continuing to use the word earth when you are actually referring to our planet, it is you who are obfuscating. You want it to remain unclear and confusing. If you want to be clear, stop using the word earth. Use the other meanings of eretz or adamah instead.
Eretz and adamah refer to the land, ground, soil, region, etc. depending on how it is used; but the writers were not referring to the third planet from the sun. They didn't know they were on a planet.
Since you disagree, show me that the Genesis writers knew they were on a globe or planet.

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2010 2:56 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 09-20-2010 9:18 PM purpledawn has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2880 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 78 of 306 (582056)
09-19-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by ICANT
09-18-2010 2:56 PM


Re: Eretz and Adamah
ICANT writes:
All these including the definition of אדץ agree that earth is talking about the whole earth.
Two observations:
1) - Where some Bibles say "whole earth" other Bibles say "whole land." If 'erets simply means land, and is today improperly rendered "earth," then it is perfectly understandable why those Bibles do that. Some pre-Copernican translations did it too but for a different reason. In the early days of English Bible translation (14th to 16th centuries) "earth" was just another word for "land." In those days, a "planet" was understood to be a star which wanders among the other stars. It would have seemed silly to them to imagine "earth" as a "star."
2) - The biblical expression "whole earth," or its alternate "all the earth" (same expression in Hebrew - also translated "all the land") is used to describe the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, and the Macedonian Empire. I doubt you imagine those empires to have encompassed our planet. Eh?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2010 2:56 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 09-20-2010 8:29 PM doctrbill has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 143 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 79 of 306 (582330)
09-20-2010 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by doctrbill
09-19-2010 12:57 PM


Re: Eretz and Adamah
Hi doctrbill,
doctrbill writes:
1) - Where some Bibles say "whole earth" other Bibles say "whole land."
These some Bibles are translated by people. Some have their own bias.
What difference does it make how it is translated?
If Genesis 1:1 said: "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Land".
What part of the planet Earth could you exclude from what was created?
That would include all the land above water, below water and all the molten land to the center of the Earth.
So what is the problem?
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
What part of planet earth was covered with water according to this verse?
doctrbill writes:
2) - The biblical expression "whole earth," or its alternate "all the earth" (same expression in Hebrew - also translated "all the land") is used to describe the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, and the Macedonian Empire. I doubt you imagine those empires to have encompassed our planet. Eh?
Do you have some particular verses in the Bible you are refering too?

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by doctrbill, posted 09-19-2010 12:57 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by doctrbill, posted 09-20-2010 10:20 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 143 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 80 of 306 (582342)
09-20-2010 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by purpledawn
09-19-2010 11:18 AM


Re: Land (Exegesis) vs Earth (Eisogesis)
Hi PD,
purpledawn writes:
It is mind boggling that you don't realize the definitions you provided do not support that the English word "earth" means planet.
It makes no difference what you think about the definitions provided.
The Hebrew word אדץ that appears in Genesis 1:1 encompases the planet earth, all the land above water and under water all the way to the center of the Earth.
Now if you are not satisfied with the definition given by the Hebrew Scholars write your own lexicon.
purpledawn writes:
The English word earth didn't refer to our planet until about the 16th century.
So who decided to use it to represent the Hebrew word אדץ? It wasn't me.
Maybe it was people who thought that was the best English word available to explain what existed in the Heaven in Genesis 1:1 called אדץ.
purpledawn writes:
By continuing to use the word earth when you are actually referring to our planet, it is you who are obfuscating. You want it to remain unclear and confusing. If you want to be clear, stop using the word earth. Use the other meanings of eretz or adamah instead.
Why do I have to accept anything that does not describe what existed in Genesis 1:1.
purpledawn writes:
Eretz and adamah refer to the land, ground, soil, region, etc. depending on how it is used; but the writers were not referring to the third planet from the sun. They didn't know they were on a planet.
So use land if you prefer.
But all land includes all elements that constitute the Planet Earth.
For it to mean a region or specific parcel of land it would have to be specified like it is here:
Genesis 41:29 Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt:
Deuteronomy 34:2 And all Naphtali, and the land of Ephraim, and Manasseh, and all the land of Judah, unto the utmost sea,
These verses specify specific parcels of land.
purpledawn writes:
Since you disagree, show me that the Genesis writers knew they were on a globe or planet.
I have no idea who you are talking about when you say the writers of Genesis. I have no idea what those people might or might not know.
Now if you want to talk about the man who wrote the original story that is something different. I don't know what he knew either but I know he spent 40 days with God and God gave him everything needed to know exactly what he was writing about. He did not witness things that took place billions of years ago but I have no doubt he was informed of what took place.
Now what those people you keep talking about did to his original writings only confused the situation. That is the reason there is so much problems today. Too many people have had their hand in what we have today.
That is the reason paul tells us the scripture is spiritually descerned. In other words without the Holy Spirit to lead a person in all truth as Jesus said He would do the Bible is foolishness to the natural man.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by purpledawn, posted 09-19-2010 11:18 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by purpledawn, posted 11-01-2011 11:10 AM ICANT has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2880 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


(1)
Message 81 of 306 (582352)
09-20-2010 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ICANT
09-20-2010 8:29 PM


Re: Eretz and Adamah
ICANT writes:
Bibles are translated by people.
Indeed they are. People choose what goes into the Bible, and people choose how the Bible shall read.
What difference does it make how it is translated?
If Genesis 1:1 said: "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Land". ...
If instead of "Heaven and Land," you said "Sky and Land," it would make more sense. Yes?
Wouldn't the following make more sense if it were translated that way?
quote:
2Sa 18:9 And Absalom met the servants of David. And Absalom rode upon a mule, and the mule went under the thick boughs of a great oak, and his head caught hold of the oak, and he was taken up between the heaven and the earth; and the mule that was under him went away.
I think "between the sky and the ground" would make more sense but I haven't found a version which reads that way.
Then there's the following:
quote:
"Sovereign LORD, you made the earth and the sky by your great power and might; nothing is too difficult for you. Jer 32:17 (GNB)
So, it is not unprecedented for translators to say "sky" instead of heaven, and "land" instead of earth. I think this should happen more often, but then no translator has asked me what he should do in this regard.
What part of the planet Earth could you exclude from what was created?
Almost all of it.
I don't believe the author was attempting to describe creation of the universe.
As you may have noticed, in verses 9 and 10, "Earth" appears in the water under the heaven. It is the "dry" stuff [land] which is called "Earth." The wet stuff, the waters, are called "Seas." I believe the plural is used in this case because they are the same seas which serve to border the promised 'eretz ("earth") which is, has been, and will be the only 'eretz of significance to Jews from time immemorial. 'eretz Yisrael,
"from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the land."
What part of planet earth was covered with water according to this verse?
At Genesis 1:10 "Earth" is defined as "dry." "Earth" cannot be "dry" if it is covered with water. People did not imagine planet earth in those days but they did imagine that "earth" sat on "foundations" which were in the sea.
doctrbill writes:
The biblical expression "whole earth," or its alternate "all the earth" ... is used to describe the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, and the Macedonian Empire. ...
ICANT writes:
Do you have some particular verses in the Bible you are refering too?
Yes I do. And you can too. All you need do is look up the biblical expressions; read them in their context; and give it a little thought.
There are a number of search engines which will make the task easier. My personal favorite is: The Blue Letter Bible
Happy Hunting

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ICANT, posted 09-20-2010 8:29 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2010 2:09 PM doctrbill has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 143 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 82 of 306 (582472)
09-21-2010 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by doctrbill
09-20-2010 10:20 PM


Re: Eretz and Adamah
Hi doc,
doctrbill writes:
If instead of "Heaven and Land," you said "Sky and Land," it would make more sense. Yes?
No.
Not when Genesis 1:1 is speaking of everything you can see that exists and everything that exists that you can not see.
doctrbill writes:
I think "between the sky and the ground" would make more sense but I haven't found a version which reads that way.
Are you implying he was not hanging between heaven and earth?
He was hanging in the atmosphere between the ground that was under his feet and outer space that is above our atmosphere.
doctrbill writes:
So, it is not unprecedented for translators to say "sky" instead of heaven, and "land" instead of earth. I think this should happen more often, but then no translator has asked me what he should do in this regard.
Translators can say anything they desire to say but nothing they say changes the meaning of what was said. It is just their understanding that is changed.
doctrbill writes:
I don't believe the author was attempting to describe creation of the universe.
That is very apparant from reading your posts.
I suppose you prefer the story that the Universe came from ????? and began to exist because????? but all of a sudden it was there and began to expand because ????? well we know it did it is here and is expanding. Not a very good argument.
Because every time I ask the question where the Universe came from or what caused it to begin to exist I get the answer "We don't Know".
So if nobody knows, how do they know the Bible is wrong?
doctrbill writes:
As you may have noticed, in verses 9 and 10, "Earth" appears in the water under the heaven. It is the "dry" stuff [land] which is called "Earth." The wet stuff, the waters, are called "Seas."
But in the beginning there was no water. In fact science does not know where the water we have came from? They do have a lot of guesses but no theory yet.
Genesis 1:1 is talking about the beginning.
Genesis 1:2 is talking about billions of years after the beginning.
But what is the difference in the land that is wet and the land that is dry?
Remove the water and what do you have? Dry land I presume.
What is the difference in the dry land, the land covered with water and the land that is liquid at the core of the earth? I presume the only difference is their location and viscosity.
doctrbill writes:
At Genesis 1:10 "Earth" is defined as "dry." "Earth" cannot be "dry" if it is covered with water. People did not imagine planet earth in those days but they did imagine that "earth" sat on "foundations" which were in the sea.
The dry earth was caused to appear from the wet earth in verse 9 and in verse 10 that part of erets was called dry earth.
So what is the problem with that?
In Genesis 1:2 the erets was covered with water there was no dry land but erets existed.
It was then and still is now erets whether it is covered with water is dry or is molten.
doctrbill writes:
Happy Hunting
Since when has it become the responsibility of the postee to look up the information asserted by the poster at EvC?
Present your evidence.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by doctrbill, posted 09-20-2010 10:20 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by doctrbill, posted 09-21-2010 2:46 PM ICANT has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2880 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 83 of 306 (582484)
09-21-2010 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by ICANT
09-21-2010 2:09 PM


Re: Eretz and Adamah
ICANT writes:
Genesis 1:1 is speaking of everything you can see that exists and everything that exists that you can not see.
You are paraphrasing The Message which is itself a paraphrase, NOT a translation, of the Bible. I like a lot of what Peterson has done with that but much of it is simply his own opinions presented as if they were "The Word of God."
Are you implying he was not hanging between heaven and earth?
He was hanging in the atmosphere between the ground that was under his feet and outer space that is above our atmosphere.
Somehow, I imagined you to be more intelligent than your current argument would allow.
Translators can say anything they desire to say but nothing they say changes the meaning of what was said. It is just their understanding that is changed.
It is your understandin which "they" have changed. They, being - Eugene Peterson.
Since when has it become the responsibility of the postee to look up the information asserted by the poster at EvC?
Since "the postee" wants to be spoon fed so he can spit the pablum back in daddy's face.
If you can get on the internet and post bullshit, then you can get on the internet and do your homework. Anything less is laziness and willful ignorance. If you care about Bible truth then you'll read a serious translation and forget Mr. Peterson's Funny Book Bible.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2010 2:09 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by barbara, posted 09-21-2010 3:48 PM doctrbill has replied
 Message 86 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2010 1:51 AM doctrbill has replied

  
barbara
Member (Idle past 4918 days)
Posts: 167
Joined: 07-19-2010


Message 84 of 306 (582495)
09-21-2010 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by doctrbill
09-21-2010 2:46 PM


Re: Eretz and Adamah
My understanding of Genesis 1 is there was no land yet and the earth was all covered in water. God hovered over the dark oceans and turned the lights on.
I have always been curious about is the water in that not too much is ever mentioned about it except that it was always there. Considering how important the water is to life, I would think more information about its creation would have been important.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by doctrbill, posted 09-21-2010 2:46 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by doctrbill, posted 09-21-2010 6:24 PM barbara has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2880 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 85 of 306 (582513)
09-21-2010 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by barbara
09-21-2010 3:48 PM


Water Above the Stars
barbara writes:
My understanding of Genesis 1 is there was no land yet and the earth was all covered in water. God hovered over the dark oceans and turned the lights on.
I think a lot of people get that impression. It is pretty much the way I heard it in church school as I was growing up, and again in Bible College when I was old enough to know better, yet didn't.
I have always been curious about is the water in that not too much is ever mentioned about it except that it was always there. Considering how important the water is to life, I would think more information about its creation would have been important.
The first few verses of Genesis are more mysterious to us than they were to the ancients who first read them. They were clear to the ancients because they reflected a worldview common to peoples of the ancient Middle East. In order to understand the Genesis worldview, one needs to understand the ancient worldview in general. I have been studying just that for the past twenty years, and because of that study, I am able to share a few points of the "science" which ancient children learned in school. These things were such common knowledge as to be no brainers and to have reiterated them in the Genesis narrative would have been silly; like inserting first grade science trivia between the lines of a doctoral thesis. Here's what every ancient schoolboy knew (sorry, girls didn't go to school way back when).
1) - In the beginning, Everything was water; and Everything else was made from water.
2) - The sky is blue because of that water, which is still up there, high up above the stars.
3) - There's an invisible dome up there which keeps the water from crashing down.
Aristotle's "chemistry" asserted that everything was made from water. Saint Peter apparently believed in that "chemistry":
quote:
2Pe 3:5
... the earth was formed out of water and by water. NIV
... earth was formed out of water and by means of water, NRSV
... the earth was formed out of water and by water, NASB
Aristotle identified four elements: Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water. In the Genesis narrative, Water is "water" (duh); "Earth" is "the dry" [land]; Fire is "light" (in ancient languages, words for 'fire' and 'light' are often interchangeable); and Wind is "Spirit." Spirit is a Latin word for wind. In 1970 The New English Bible introduced an alternative reading at Genesis 1:2. Instead of the traditional, "Spirit of God," they called it "a mighty wind." The reading was not well received and after reshuffling the committee, work was begun to correct what the society perceived to be a problem. The Bible was reissued as The Engish Revised Version in which the traditional reading prevailed but the alternative was retained as a footnote. Later, the NRSV would publish it as, "a wind from God." I have spent a lot of time investigating this reading and am confident that "mighty wind" is the superior rendering. For one thing, it makes the narrative sound more like the "science" textbooks of its day. And besides that, we are supposed to be translating it into English, yes? Well, HELLO!! - "Spirit" is a Latin word.
The creation narrative was a product of its time and as you can see, a number of Bible translators understand that. They understand the science of the times, and therefore understand what the author must have had in mind. The alternative: to imagine that they were couching 21st century science in a Bronze Age dialect of Goatherdereze is simply insane.
The ancient text becomes gibberish if one ignores:
--- "Who Said, To Whom, And Under What Circumstances?"

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by barbara, posted 09-21-2010 3:48 PM barbara has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 143 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 86 of 306 (582548)
09-22-2010 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by doctrbill
09-21-2010 2:46 PM


Re: Eretz and Adamah
Hi doc,
doctrbill writes:
Since "the postee" wants to be spoon fed so he can spit the pablum back in daddy's face.
Here is the claim you made.
doctrbill writes:
2) - The biblical expression "whole earth," or its alternate "all the earth" (same expression in Hebrew - also translated "all the land") is used to describe the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, and the Macedonian Empire. I doubt you imagine those empires to have encompassed our planet. Eh?
Empire appears in the OT 1 time:
Est 1:20 And when the king's decree which he shall make shall be published throughout all his empire, (for it is great,) all the wives shall give to their husbands honour, both to great and small.
The word Assyrian and land appear in the OT in these verses:
Isa 23:13 Behold the land of the Chaldeans; this people was not, [till] the Assyrian founded it for them that dwell in the wilderness: they set up the towers thereof, they raised up the palaces thereof; [and] he brought it to ruin.
Mic 5:5 And this [man] shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.
Mic 5:6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver [us] from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.
The words whole and earth appear in 27 verses in the OT. Not one of them mention Assyria or the Assyrian Empire, Babylon or the Babylonian Empire or Macedonia or the Macedonian Empire.
All the land appears in that exact form 68 times in the OT.
These verses have the Empires you mentioned.
2 Ki 17:5 Then the king of Assyria came up throughout all the land, and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years.
Jer 40:4 And now, behold, I loose thee this day from the chains which [were] upon thine hand. If it seem good unto thee to come with me into Babylon, come; and I will look well unto thee: but if it seem ill unto thee to come with me into Babylon, forbear: behold, all the land [is] before thee: whither it seemeth good and convenient for thee to go, thither go.
All the earth appears in 59 verses in the OT.
Not one of them mention Assyria or the Assyrian Empire, Babylon or the Babylonian Empire or Macedonia or the Macedonian Empire.
So which of these scriptures are you refering too for support?
doctrbill writes:
If you can get on the internet and post bullshit, then you can get on the internet and do your homework. Anything less is laziness and willful ignorance. If you care about Bible truth then you'll read a serious translation and forget Mr. Peterson's Funny Book Bible.
I have no idea what Mr. Peterson you are talking about and did not waste my time googling the name.
doctrbill writes:
You are paraphrasing The Message which is itself a paraphrase, NOT a translation, of the Bible. I like a lot of what Peterson has done with that but much of it is simply his own opinions presented as if they were "The Word of God."
Genesis 1:1
בראשית
be-re-shit in beginning noun tells us when.
כרא ba-ra created verb of completed action tells us what.
אלהים e-lo-him God tells us who produced the action.
את et points out the object of the verb
השמים ha-sha-ma-yim the heaven
ואת ve-'et points out the object of the verb
האדץ ha-a-retz the earth
My Translation
In beginning created God the heaven the earth
What is pharaphrased in this declarative statement of completed action?
So what is left out of "the heaven"?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by doctrbill, posted 09-21-2010 2:46 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by doctrbill, posted 09-22-2010 11:21 AM ICANT has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2880 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 87 of 306 (582617)
09-22-2010 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by ICANT
09-22-2010 1:51 AM


"Whole Earth"
Did you even try what I recommended to you?
ICANT writes:
The words whole and earth appear in 27 verses in the OT.
Not one of them mention Assyria or the Assyrian Empire, Babylon or the Babylonian Empire or Macedonia or the Macedonian Empire.
All the earth appears in 59 verses in the OT.
Not one of them mention Assyria or the Assyrian Empire, Babylon or the Babylonian Empire or Macedonia or the Macedonian Empire.
How can you say that with a straight face?
After less than one minute of searching "whole earth" I came upon the following. What do you call this?
quote:
"How is the hammer of the whole earth cut asunder and broken! how is Babylon become a desolation among the nations!" Jer 50:23
In less than two minutes I found this excerpt from a letter written by the king of Babylon:
quote:
"Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you." Dan 4:1
I have no idea what Mr. Peterson you are talking about and did not waste my time googling the name.
I gave you Eugene Peterson's name in post #82. I know how time consuming it can be to paste a copied name into a search box but I was hoping that you would do it anyway. Pastor Peterson produced a Bible which has clearly been an influence on you. In message 82 you wrote:
ICANT writes:
Genesis 1:1 is speaking of everything you can see that exists and everything that exists that you can not see.
Peterson writes:
Genesis 1:1 - "First this: God created the Heavens and Earth--all you see, all you don't see."
How odd you didn't care enough to google him after being told that you were paraphrasing his Bible.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2010 1:51 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2010 2:00 PM doctrbill has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 143 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 88 of 306 (582651)
09-22-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by doctrbill
09-22-2010 11:21 AM


Re: "Whole Earth"
Hi doc,
doctrbill writes:
Did you even try what I recommended to you?
Yep. But after a 16 hour day some thing can slip by.
doctrbill writes:
After less than one minute of searching "whole earth" I came upon the following. What do you call this?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How is the hammer of the whole earth cut asunder and broken! how is Babylon become a desolation among the nations!" Jer 50:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does that verse support the assertion you made?
doctrbill writes:
2) - The biblical expression "whole earth," or its alternate "all the earth" (same expression in Hebrew - also translated "all the land") is used to describe the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, and the Macedonian Empire. I doubt you imagine those empires to have encompassed our planet. Eh?
doctrbill writes:
In less than two minutes I found this excerpt from a letter written by the king of Babylon:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nebuchadnezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth; Peace be multiplied unto you." Dan 4:1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How does that verse support your assertion?
doctrbill writes:
2) - The biblical expression "whole earth," or its alternate "all the earth" (same expression in Hebrew - also translated "all the land") is used to describe the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, and the Macedonian Empire. I doubt you imagine those empires to have encompassed our planet. Eh?
doctrbill writes:
I gave you Eugene Peterson's name in post #82. I know how time consuming it can be to paste a copied name into a search box but I was hoping that you would do it anyway. Pastor Peterson produced a Bible which has clearly been an influence on you. In message 82 you wrote:
ICANT writes:
Genesis 1:1 is speaking of everything you can see that exists and everything that exists that you can not see.
How can something or someone I did not know existed have any effect on what I believe or not believe?
How can I pharaphrase something that I have never seen?
So why would I look him up?
doctrbill writes:
How odd you didn't care enough to google him after being told that you were paraphrasing his Bible.
Since you peeked my interest I looked up Mr Peterson and his contemporary Bible that was published in 2001.
Something that was written in 2001 could have no effect on what I was teaching since 1969. Unless I was privilaged to somehow to be transported forward in time to read it.
I got what I said from the many years of the study of the Biblical Hebrew and Greek languages.
My take on what Genesis 1:1 says.
In the beginning. There is no possible way to determine when this took place. God is eternal and somewhere in eternity according to this verse He created the universe (heaven as Moses called it)
Our word universe traces its origin back to the Greek word holos
which means all, whole, completely.
The Greek word ouranos used in the LXX means 1)the expanse with all things visible in it. a)the universe, the world.
Thus I conclude that the heaven in Genesis 1:1 was refering to everything that could be seen.
This was a completed universe.
The earth is mentioned as a specific creation so it was brought on line later.
If that is refering to the time it was created in the beginning it would have been much smaller than it is today. God streached out the heavens and they are still expanding today.
Thus I conclude there is probably things out there we can not see as the hubble improvements have proved. I believe there are things still further out that we have not yet seen.
Thus my statement in Message 82
ICANT writes:
Not when Genesis 1:1 is speaking of everything you can see that exists and everything that exists that you can not see.
So no I was not phraphrasing what Mr. Peterson said.
My conclusions on Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the completed Universe.
Sometime during that beginning then God created the Earth.
During this light period (DAY) that had ended at Genesis 1:2 with the evening that ended the first day with the light portion of day two. All the things in Genesis 2:5-4:24 took place in that light period (DAY) as it was declared in Genesis 2:4.
Facts that agree with science:
The Heaven (Universe) had a beginning.
The Earth had a beginning.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by doctrbill, posted 09-22-2010 11:21 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by doctrbill, posted 09-22-2010 5:15 PM ICANT has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2880 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 89 of 306 (582669)
09-22-2010 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by ICANT
09-22-2010 2:00 PM


Re: "Whole Earth"
I'm going to drop the bit about how the expressions "whole earth" and "all the earth" are used in biblical context, for that question seems to be outside your expertise and perhaps beyond your grasp. Besides, you appear to be unwilling to explore it.
I will instead point up what I see as a contradiction in your writing and thus, perhaps, a contradiction in your thinking.
You have written:
ICANT writes:
This was a completed universe.
The earth is mentioned as a specific creation so it was brought on line later.
How do you hold both of those thoughts in your head at the same time? How is it that "a completed universe" has no planet earth? You have written that "The earth...was brought on line later." When I read that I hear you saying, "The universe was complete, but wasn't."
Later you write:
In the beginning God created the completed Universe.
Sometime during that beginning then God created the Earth.
Now I hear you saying that during the first part of the beginning, the universe was complete; and then sometime later in the beginning, God created Earth.
Still confusing.
Seems to me you are grabbing at linguistic straws while dodging whole bales of scriptural evidence. Seems to me you are desparate to prove that the writer of Genesis was sharing advanced cosmogony with God's chosen people. I think that unlikely for a number of reasons, one being that such information would have been completely useless to them. If he wanted to give them a leg up, there are a number of simple down to earth improvements he could have whispered in their ears.
Perhaps the most persuasive reason to believe Genesis was NOT intended to reveal advanced knowledge is that its creators and target audience, the Jews, God's chosen people, did not, in 5,000 years of chosen people history, produce a single aspirin or roll of toilet paper with which to amaze us heathen folk. Just like everyone else in the ancient Middle East (and some in the modern Middle East) they used their fingers.
Praise the Lord and pass the toilet paper.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ICANT, posted 09-22-2010 2:00 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by ICANT, posted 09-23-2010 4:11 AM doctrbill has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2880 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 90 of 306 (582680)
09-22-2010 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by New Cat's Eye
04-10-2009 1:38 PM


Re: Storm Surge?
My intent was to consider this for a time and come up with a wise answer. Then, I must have become distracted. By now you have probably witnessed that new thread discussing whether or not the Noah's Flood story is exaggerated. There is an excellent video in that thread which graphically demonstates how a mere river flood can appear to be "world" wide. In fact it is, to the victims, most of whom are born in that world and never wander outside it bounds. Anyhoo, I now have a response to your response which you posted so long ago.
Catholic Scientist writes:
the story could be based on an actual local flood. But the point of the story doesn't work if the writers knew that this flood did not cover the whole world.
Their "whole world" of course. But if by "whole world" you mean: the globe then, No. They had no notion of the global reality.
I don't know which version of the Bible you favor but I am not familiar with any which use the word "world" in the context of Noah's flood. I do know that the Hebrew version utilizes 'erets and 'adamah which generally refer to real estate and their greatest scope, with addition of modifiers "whole" and "all the" are applied to regions and even to imperial territories, but apparently, and for arguably excellent reasons, are never applied to anything larger than the Macedonian Empire.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-10-2009 1:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-22-2010 10:27 PM doctrbill has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024