Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,648 Year: 4,905/9,624 Month: 253/427 Week: 63/103 Day: 7/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the Bible say the Earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 319 (495551)
01-23-2009 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by ICANT
01-22-2009 9:10 PM


The earth existed in Genesis 1:2 as it starts with "and the earth".
OMG that is idiotic.
What it is saying is:
"and the earth didn't exist"
Oh, but that says "and the earth" so it must meant that the earth existed!
Seriously?
If someone tells you that they don't have money do you conclude that they must have money because they said "have money"!?
You can do better than this ICANT....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2009 9:10 PM ICANT has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 5045 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 272 of 319 (495558)
01-23-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by ICANT
01-22-2009 10:13 PM


Re: What original text?
First I would have to know which Lamech you are talking about.
There is only one whose age is given, so its obviously him, but I'll post Bible references from now on to keep things clear.
Now as to your question which one is the closest to the original, I would say probably the LXX as it was closer to the events in question.
As you may have seen in my reply on the other thread the LXX has Methuselah living 14 years after the Flood, quite a serious error that, an error that the other two texts do not make. This does show a flaw in your argument that the closer to the original the more likely it is to be accurate.
But they all are probably wrong.
Well they most definitely are wrong if we take them as historical texts. if we take them as an accurate transmission of the original text then one may be correct. But there's no way to know what was in the original, it is sheer guesswork or desperation.
Did I say there was original manuscripts available today.
I don't recall that I said you did.
That doesn't mean they did not exist in the past and those are inerrant.
I know. But my argument is that there is no way to know if the original were inerrant or not. You claim that they were and I am intrigued as to how you arrive at that conclusion.
We do have copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies etc.
Yes, and the oldest copies we have are seperated by more than a thousand years from the events they describe. You would think that they would have been a bit more careful when copying them. I mean God gives you a book and you make a right arse of copying it, does seem a bit odd.
That is the reason when Jesus left He sent the Holy Spirit to lead His followers in all truth.
That HS does seem to have a great tendancy to blind people.
Take care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2009 10:13 PM ICANT has not replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 273 of 319 (495650)
01-23-2009 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by ICANT
01-22-2009 8:13 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
Every time I make a statement like that I am accused of appealing to authority.
Then you're going to have to explain why a sentence literally dozens of sentences away from 1:1 is the logical next thought in the story rather than the sentence that immediately follows 1:1. Otherwise, you are claiming that Genesis is a story told by a four-year-old who is incapable of carrying a throughline past the glimpse of a shiny object.
quote:
That says in the beginning. When was that?
What part of "the beginning" is escaping you? The "when" is "the beginning." There is no "before." If there were a "before," then it wouldn't be "the beginning."
quote:
It does not say God is going to create the heaven and the earth.
I didn't say it did. You seem to be having a problem with how stories are told. The story is being told here and now to people in the present about what happened in the past. The heavens and the earth had to have been created at some point in time because they're here now. When were they created?
That's right: "In the beginning."
quote:
It does not say this is the beginning of the creation of the heaven and the earth.
Actually, that's precisely what it says. That's the point behind saying, "In the beginning." The creation of the heavens and the earth didn't happen later, it happened "in the beginning."
Now, this doesn't mean it happened instantaneously. There are six days of work god puts into creating the universe and all that's in it. But that's what is meant by "the beginning." There is no "before." If there were a "before," then it wouldn't be "the beginning."
quote:
If that is the case where did he create the light?
The text doesn't say. Presumably where god is. I see where you're going with this, though. You're trying sneak in a "before." But there is no "before." If there is a "before," then it isn't "the beginning." Since we are at the beginning, all occurrences happen after that moment.
quote:
I do have a problem with you telling me that there was nothing in existence until verse 3. There was no space, no water, no nothing according to you.
Incorrect. There was water. The text says so. God moves over it. Have you not been paying attention? The Bible contradicts geology for the Bible says water came first. It was the other way around: Water came second. But the Bible has water being there first thing.
quote:
quote:
How could that be when we're at the beginning and thus there is no "before"? Oh, that's right..."beginning" doesn't actually mean "beginning." It means "later."
This was in response to me saying the heaven and the earth existed prior to Genesis 1:2.
Exactly. "Beginning" doesn't mean "beginning." It means "later." The text directly says that the heavens and the earth were created at "the beginning," but here you are telling us that it was created "before." Thus, the "beginning" isn't really the beginning...it's "later."
quote:
Genesis 1:2 starts off with The earth.
Incorrect. Genesis 1:2 specifically and directly points out that the earth did not exist. Remember, this is a story told to people in the present about what happened in the past. It is a story of creation, so it is pointing out that the world the people in the present live in did not exist. "In the beginning, god created everything. All that is was not, but god moved and made all. First, god created light...."
Is this really so difficult to understand?
quote:
So the earth wasn't created until the third day, according to Rrhain.
Incorrect. The earth wasn't created until the third day according to the Bible:
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
Since the earth did not exist in Gen 1:2 (without form and void) and did exist in Gen 1:9, this means the earth was made after "the beginning," not before.
quote:
So Rrhain when was the universe created for all these things to exist in as they were created?
In the beginning.
What's so hard to understand?
quote:
You are saying void means it didn't exist.
The Hebrew word ‘ definition 1) emptiness, void, waste.
That is the word translated void in Genesis 1:2. I don't see does not exist in there.
Huh? What part of "void" is escaping you? Besides, you're forgetting the entirety of the phrase:
tohuw: formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness, nothingness, empty space, that which is unreal
That's how the earth is described: Nothingness.
What part of "nothingness" is not accurately described as "not existing"? What part of "empty space" doesn't coincide with "not existing"?
Every time the Bible uses "bohuw," it uses it along with "tohuw." The point is to call out the sheer nothingness, the imagery of emptiness and complete absence of substance and form.
But then again, you've already admitted you've abandoned the text. No wonder you're picking out individual words, applying the logical error of equivocation, and then insist that context has no effect upon what a passage means.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2009 8:13 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2009 9:21 PM Rrhain has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 274 of 319 (495657)
01-23-2009 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by New Cat's Eye
01-23-2009 11:05 AM


Re: Same Adam
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes:
What you are doing is dishonest.
You did the same circle you always do when you discuss this.
Why did you not address my reasons for them being different.
I will take this a little slower as it seems you can not digest much at the time.
The man formed from the dust of the ground in Genesis 2:7 was formed and became a living soul prior to any animal, plant, or fowl there was no water creatures. The woman was cloned from a rib taken from the man last.
The man created in the image/likeness of God in Genesis 1:27 was created at the same time as the woman, which was not cloned from one of his ribs.
They were created after all animals, plants, fowl and water creatures.
Please explain how these two men and women can be the same.
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 270 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-23-2009 11:05 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 8:51 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 300 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2009 3:30 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 303 by Peg, posted 01-28-2009 5:10 AM ICANT has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 275 of 319 (495658)
01-23-2009 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by ICANT
01-22-2009 9:02 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
I guess it could as that is the primary meaning of "hayah".
Logical error: Equivocation.
Just because something can mean a certain thing doesn't mean it actually does in every single instance. One must look at the context of the phrase as a whole:
"Be careful not to work it too much for it can become inflammable and might catch fire."
"Don't worry about getting it too hot for it is inflammable and won't catch fire."
Hmmm...same word, completely opposite meanings. The only way to determine what is meant by the word "inflammable" is to look at the rest of the phrase.
And thus, we see that your forcing of "became" upon the phrase makes no sense. It is not enough that hayah "can" mean "become." The question is whether or not the specific phrasing used here indicates it means "became" in this context.
And it doesn't. The conjugation is the perfect. The rest of the sentence is all about sheer nothingness, repeating the description in two ways to emphasize the point. All of this comes together to show that there wasn't any previous process. It is "the beginning." Nothing exists. All that happens will happen after this moment which is "the beginning." The earth, that very thing that you are standing on right here and now, all that you see, all you know, none of it exists.
quote:
I am glad you are willing to let the primary meaning of a word at least be the meaning of that word sometimes.
Just not when you want it to be something that suits your point of view.
Incorrect. Just not when the context indicates it doesn't mean that. Since the word has multiple meanings, you have to look to the context of the entire passage to find out what it is. You, instead, want to isolate the word from the rest of the passage, hook it to other sentences that are in no proximity to this one word, and then insist that this equivocation is justified.
The whole story of Gen 1 is how god starts with absolutely nothing and then proceeds to create everything. To ignore that context is a failure.
quote:
I hold the universe and the earth were completed in Genesis chapter 1 and verse 1.
But that's immediately contradicted by Gen 1:2. The earth is without form and void, completely and utter nonexistence.
quote:
If there was no verse 2 it would not make any difference.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that? A passage that specifically and directly calls out the non-existence of the earth has no bearing on whether or not the earth exists?
quote:
So I don't care if there was absolutely nothing at Genesis 1:2 and God had to completely start over from scratch. That does not change the fact that the heaven and the earth existed at Genesis 1:1.
Huh? If the earth doesn't exist in 1:2, how can it exist in 1:1 since that is the beginning?
Oh, that's right..."the beginning" doesn't actually mean "the beginning." It means "later."
The existence that we are experiencing right here and now is the existence that had its "beginning" as described in Genesis 1. When the text says this:
Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Then we can simply ignore it. After all, "heaven" doesn't actually mean "heaven" because "heaven" already existed even though the text just said that nothing existed. This entire description of god creating heaven as the firmament that divides the waters from the waters, well, that's just a bunch of word salad that only seems like it's saying something. All that talk of creation is just a lie. Heaven already existed.
When the text says:
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Well, that's a lie, too. That description of god creating the earth and having it arise out of the water, more word salad. The earth already existed even though the text just said back in 1:2 that the earth didn't exist at all in any form.
quote:
But you don't get the universe created at all.
Huh? What do you think the firmament is?
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Ergo, the firmament is the universe.
quote:
According to Rrhain we get lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: verse 14.
Incorrect. I didn't write the Bible. We know you've abandoned the text, but you can at least get the authorship correct. I didn't write these passages.
quote:
When did we get all the other stuff that is out there in the universe?
When the firmament was created. That's what the firmament is. Are you saying that when the text talks about the stars being placed in the firmament, they aren't really being placed in the firmament? Is this yet another word that doesn't actually mean what it means? The "firmament" isn't really the "firmament"? If the stars being placed in the "firmament" aren't actually being placed in the "firmament," where are they being placed?
So let's see...Gen 1:1 isn't actually followed by Gen 1:2 but rather by Gen 2:4. "Beginning" means "later." "Firmament" means something other than "firmament."
Yep...you weren't kidding when you said you had abandoned the text.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2009 9:02 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2009 10:00 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 276 of 319 (495659)
01-23-2009 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by ICANT
01-22-2009 9:10 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
Jesus told the Pharisees they didn't know the scriptures. Why should they be any better today?
Gee...anti-Semitic much? And you wonder why people call you a bigot?
Once again, you attempt to force a Christian interpretation upon a Jewish text written by Jews and for Jews. And here you are saying that Jews don't know their own religion.
quote:
But the earth existed in Genesis 1:1.
No, it didn't. God can't create something that already exists. If it exists, then it has already been created. Since Gen 1:1 indicates that god created the earth, it cannot exist yet.
quote:
The earth existed in Genesis 1:2 as it starts with "and the earth".
Huh? A statement that the earth does not exist is indicative of the existence of the earth?
So if I say, "The million dollars in my pocket does not exist," then I actually do have a million dollars in my pocket?
So now we've got more words that mean the exact opposite of what they say: "Formless" means "having a form." "Void" means "extant." "Beginning" means "later." "Firmament" means "not the firmament."
quote:
But no according to Rrhain's interpertation nothing existed until light was called for in Genesis 1:3.
Incorrect. I didn't write the Bible. The Bible indicates that the heavens and the earth were created in "the beginning" and that the only thing created on the first day was light. Heaven wouldn't come along till the second day and the earth wouldn't come along until the third.
But hey, with ICANT's new language, none of that matters. "Beginning" means "later"! A passage that directly says that something doesn't exist is proof positive that it does! Never mind that the passage you really wish would come next in the narrative doesn't actually show up until dozens of sentences later. You can simply ignore everything in between and declare that it follows immediately!
You weren't kidding when you said you had abandoned the text.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by ICANT, posted 01-22-2009 9:10 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2009 9:37 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 277 of 319 (495662)
01-23-2009 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by harveyranderson
01-23-2009 1:26 AM


harveyranderson writes:
quote:
The Bible does not say how long the earth was in existence before the creation.
Incorrect. The Bible directly states that the earth didn't exist at all until it was created on the third day.
quote:
The days of creation were one thousand years each (seven Thousand years).
Incorrect. The days of creation were literal, 24-hour days.
quote:
Adam was told by God that if he ate of the forbidden fruit that he would die that day.
Correct, but incomplete. Not just "day" but before the sun set for god is referring to literal, 24-hour days.
quote:
Since a day is a thousand years, and no man has lived a thousand years, Adam did die in that day.
Incorrect. A "day" in this context means a literal, 24-hour day.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by harveyranderson, posted 01-23-2009 1:26 AM harveyranderson has not replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 278 of 319 (495666)
01-23-2009 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by ICANT
01-23-2009 7:52 PM


ICANT writes:
quote:
Please explain how these two men and women can be the same.
What? A book that was cobbled together over centuries, written by countless anonymous authors, and then edited and redacted by other anonymous people has produced a throughline that is not internally consistent? Madness!
But to answer your question more directly, we know they are the same one because Gen 5 immediately follows Gen 4. Gen 4 ends with the description of Adam having a son, Seth, and that son having a son, Enos. Gen 5 begins with a description of Adam having a son, Seth, and that son having a son, Enos.
Your implication is that this is all a coincidence. That the "Seth" of the "Adam" in Gen 5 is a different "Seth" because of this unjustified claim of yours that lineages are only given from the first born son.
Never mind that Gen 4 is all about how the first born sons of Adam and Eve had one being killed and the other running away. We are given a geneology of Cain, but that part of the story ends with Lamech.
Thus, Adam and Even don't really have any lineage of their own until they have Seth.
But this Seth, born to Adam and having a son named Enos, is a completely different Seth than that other Seth who was born to Adam and having a son named Enos. It's just a coincidence.
Why? Because one passage says that humans were "created," though not indicating how, while another passage says that humans were "formed," as if that were an indication of something different. The former specifically calls out that this human was made in god's "likeness" while the other doesn't mention it...which clearly means that what...he wasn't?
Of course, this poses a problem:
If the Adam of Gen 2 is not the same Adam as the Adam of Gen 5, then why on earth did Jesus need to come and redeem mankind? Jesus would only need to redeem the progeny of Gen 2 Adam and his descendants via Cain and Gen 4 Seth.
But the descendants of Cain and Gen 4 Seth all perished in the flood. The only survivors were Noah and his family, Noah being traced back to Gen 5 Adam who is Gen 1 Adam and never experienced a fall having never been in Eden nor eating of the tree of knowledge.
Congratulations, ICANT. You just invalidated the entire reason for the existence of Jesus.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2009 7:52 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2009 10:08 PM Rrhain has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 279 of 319 (495670)
01-23-2009 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Rrhain
01-23-2009 7:30 PM


Re Beginning
Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes:
What part of "the beginning" is escaping you? The "when" is "the beginning." There is no "before." If there were a "before," then it wouldn't be "the beginning."
Well I raise that question because God is eternal.
So when He is referring to the beginning when was that?
Was it 6k years as some claim?
Was it 13.7 Billion years as some claim?
Or was it a lot longer than that as God is eternal?
So I ask the question again, "When was the beginning?"
Rrhain writes:
The heavens and the earth had to have been created at some point in time because they're here now.
Why did they have to be created at some point in time?
That would not be the beginning, would it?
Rrhain writes:
There is no "before." If there were a "before," then it wouldn't be "the beginning."
Why couldn't there be a before?
Would that be because science says there can't be a before?
God is eternal.
He had to exist before.
But then Since He existed before then the universe is really very old.
Rrhain writes:
Incorrect. There was water.
If there was water, where did it come from?
Where was it at?
Rrhain writes:
In the beginning.
What's so hard to understand?
Well you say there is water there.
But you say light was the first thing created as that is where God started in Message 259.
quote:
And he started by first creating light,
So if light was the first thing created where did the water come from?
Rrhain writes:
"In the beginning, god created everything. All that is was not, but god moved and made all. First, god created light...."
There you go again light was first.
Rrhain writes:
Is this really so difficult to understand?
What you are saying is really difficult to understand.
Because the Bible says:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Rrhain writes:
Huh? What part of "void" is escaping you? Besides, you're forgetting the entirety of the phrase:
No I have not forgot what the text says.
And you won't let me forget what you think it says either.
Rrhain writes:
That's how the earth is described: Nothingness.
Amazing that you would choose the 5th definition just because it fits what you want the text to say.
Rrhain writes:
What part of "nothingness" is not accurately described as "not existing"? What part of "empty space" doesn't coincide with "not existing"?
I always thought space was something.
Now you telling me it is nothing, it does not exist.
Rrhain writes:
Every time the Bible uses "bohuw," it uses it along with "tohuw." The point is to call out the sheer nothingness, the imagery of emptiness and complete absence of substance and form.
Then why are they translated confusion and emptiness in:
Isaiah 34:11 But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness.
By the way they are used together in one more place.
Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
God made this statement.
He said He beheld the erts land, earth. This is referring to Genesis 1:2.
These are the only times they appear together as "bohuw" only appears in 3 verses.
"tohuw" does appear 16 more times and is translated nothing in:
Job 6:18 The paths of their way are turned aside; they go to nothing, and perish.
So I think you are the one doing the twisting and streaching of words.
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 273 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 7:30 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 10:38 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 280 of 319 (495672)
01-23-2009 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Rrhain
01-23-2009 8:14 PM


Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes:
Gee...anti-Semitic much? And you wonder why people call you a bigot?
If you want to call me a bigot because of something Jesus said go ahead.
Rrhain writes:
No, it didn't. God can't create something that already exists.
No but He can sure work on it.
Rrhain writes:
But hey, with ICANT's new language, none of that matters. "Beginning" means "later"!
But I have the heaven and the earth created in Genesis 1:1 like the Bible.
On the other hand you don't have anything until there is light created in verse 3.
So who is doing things later?
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 276 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 8:14 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 10:42 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 281 of 319 (495677)
01-23-2009 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Rrhain
01-23-2009 8:03 PM


Re Firmament
Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes:
Huh? What do you think the firmament is?
1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Ergo, the firmament is the universe.
Lets see if I get this straight.
The lights made in these verses according to you were placed in the firmament.
Are those lights in the milky way galaxy?
It seems like they were there the last time I checked.
So where are all those other galaxies?
As I said you never got the universe created.
Rrhain writes:
When the firmament was created. That's what the firmament is.
Yes but the firmament is in the universe not the other way around.
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 275 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 8:03 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 10:46 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 282 of 319 (495681)
01-23-2009 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Rrhain
01-23-2009 8:51 PM


Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes:
What? A book that was cobbled together over centuries, written by countless anonymous authors, and then edited and redacted by other anonymous people has produced a throughline that is not internally consistent? Madness!
You make this statement.
Then you want me to explain how things could have gotten mixed up in Genesis.
I am not going to chase the rest of those rabbits you turned loose.
We can do those at a later date.
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 278 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 8:51 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 10:49 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 287 by Rrhain, posted 01-23-2009 10:54 PM ICANT has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 283 of 319 (495685)
01-23-2009 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by ICANT
01-23-2009 9:21 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
Well I raise that question because God is eternal.
Irrelevant. We're not talking about god. We're talking about everything else. Genesis 1 is about the creation of everything else. Thus, this is the "beginning" of everything else. It cannot have existed "before" because then it wouldn't be the "beginning."
But, this is consistent with your claim that "beginning" actually means "later."
quote:
So when He is referring to the beginning when was that?
With regard to Gen 1? Irrelevant. It doesn't matter how long ago "the beginning" was. The story is describing what happened at the beginning, not when the beginning happened with respect to today.
It is via later stories regarding what happened after the beginning that lets us determine when the beginning happened.
quote:
So I ask the question again, "When was the beginning?"
Why does it matter?
quote:
Why did they have to be created at some point in time?
Because the text says they were, assuming that the text is describing actual events.
But since you've abandoned the text, I am not surprised that you are implying that "god created the heavens and the earth" doesn't actually mean god created them.
So we've got yet another word to add to your list of words that don't actually mean what they mean. "Created" means "already existed and was not created," "beginning" means "later," "formless" means "has a form," "void" means "extant, "firmament" means "not the firmament."
Any others?
quote:
That would not be the beginning, would it?
Indeed, and if the Bible didn't mention anything about the creation of the heavens and earth, then you might have a point.
But, alas, it does. It not only directly states that god created them, it describes when (in relation to "the beginning") they were created:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Of course, since "created" means "already existed and was not created," then this isn't a problem for you.
You weren't kidding when you said you had abandoned the text.
Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
But, of course, "firmament" means "not the firmament," so this isn't a problem for you.
You weren't kidding when you said you had abandoned the text.
1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
Oh! And I guess we found another term that doesn't mean what it means: Earth. Since "earth" means "not the earth," this isn't a problem for you.
You weren't kidding when you said you had abandoned the text.
quote:
Why couldn't there be a before?
Because this is the "beginning." If there were a "before," how can this be the "beginning"?
Especially since the text directly says that the earth didn't exist? How could it have been created "before" if it doesn't exist at the "beginning"?
quote:
God is eternal.
He had to exist before.
Irrelevant. We're not talking about god. We're talking about everything else.
quote:
If there was water, where did it come from?
Where was it at?
Don't know. The text doesn't say. Why does it matter? We're not talking about the creation of the waters. We're talking about the creation of the heavens and the earth.
quote:
Well you say there is water there.
But you say light was the first thing created as that is where God started in Message 259.
Indeed. What's the problem? Who said god created the waters? The text doesn't say anything about the waters. It simply says that god moved over the face of the waters and the first thing created was light.
quote:
So if light was the first thing created where did the water come from?
Don't know. The text doesn't say. Why does it matter? We're not talking about the creation of the waters. We're talking about the creation of the heavens and the earth.
quote:
There you go again light was first.
Indeed. What's the problem? Who said god created the waters? The text doesn't say anything about the waters. It simply says that god moved over the face of the waters and the first thing created was light.
quote:
Because the Bible says:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Indeed. You will notice that nothing is said about the waters. Instead, the firmament (called "Heaven") is created and divides the waters from the waters. Thus, we don't know where the waters came from. What's the problem? Who said god created the waters? The text doesn't say anything about the waters. It simply says that god moved over the face of the waters and the first thing created was light.
quote:
And you won't let me forget what you think it says either.
Incorrect. Are you claiming I am misquoting?
Well, no wonder you have so many words that don't mean what they mean. No wonder you insist that "beginning" means "later," "created" means "already existed and was not created," "formless" means "has a form," "void" means "extant, "firmament" means "not the firmament," and "earth" means "not the earth."
quote:
I always thought space was something.
And thus, completely missing the point. There's the waters. But there is no earth in them. The earth does not exist, being bohuw and tohuw, non-existent and without existence.
quote:
Then why are they translated confusion and emptiness in:
Because you are engaging in the logical error of equivocation, insisting that "confusion" must mean "muddled thinking" in this context, even though it also means "chaos" as in "non-existence."
Notice that you have once again ignored the entire phrase: "Stones of emptiness." Do you really think that phrase has no effect upon the meaning of the sentence as a whole?
quote:
By the way they are used together in one more place.
Indeed, meaning the same thing: Without form and void, indicating that nothing existed, everything's gone.
quote:
"tohuw" does appear 16 more times and is translated nothing in:
Job 6:18 The paths of their way are turned aside; they go to nothing, and perish.
So I think you are the one doing the twisting and streaching of words.
Huh? You give a quote that uses the exact meaning I'm claiming and you conclude that I'm "twisting and streaching [sic]" the words?
I guess we found yet another word that doesn't mean what it means: "Nothing" means "something."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2009 9:21 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by ICANT, posted 01-24-2009 12:46 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 284 of 319 (495687)
01-23-2009 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by ICANT
01-23-2009 9:37 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
If you want to call me a bigot because of something Jesus said go ahead.
Huh? Last time I checked, Jesus was talking about the Pharisees. Since when were all Jews Pharisees?
And you wonder why you get tagged as a bigot.
quote:
No but He can sure work on it.
And since god says he created the heavens and the earth and since the heavens and the earth get created after "the beginning," then it necessarily is the case that they didn't exist "before."
quote:
But I have the heaven and the earth created in Genesis 1:1 like the Bible.
But that contradicts the text which has heaven created on the second day and earth created on the third.
But, you already admit you have abandoned the text, so this is not surprising.
quote:
On the other hand you don't have anything until there is light created in verse 3.
Incorrect. The Bible doesn't have anything until light is created in verse 3.
I did not write the Bible.
But, you already admit you have abandoned the text.
quote:
So who is doing things later?
God. He creates heaven and the earth later than light. But these first six days all are "the beginning."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2009 9:37 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by ICANT, posted 01-24-2009 2:52 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 285 of 319 (495688)
01-23-2009 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by ICANT
01-23-2009 10:00 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
The lights made in these verses according to you were placed in the firmament.
Are those lights in the milky way galaxy?
I'll answer your question with some questions of my own: Is the Milky Way made up of stars? Are stars part of the lights? Are the lights placed in the firmament?
Then what do you think?
quote:
So where are all those other galaxies?
Huh? Are not the other galaxies made up of stars? Are not stars part of the lights? Are not the lights placed in the firmament?
Then what do you think?
quote:
As I said you never got the universe created.
Huh? What do you think the firmament is? In our current terminology, the stars are in "the universe." In the text of the Bible, the stars are in the "firmament." Therefore, the "firmament" is the universe.
quote:
Yes but the firmament is in the universe not the other way around.
Incorrect. The firmament IS the universe.
That's why we call it the "heavens."

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by ICANT, posted 01-23-2009 10:00 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by ICANT, posted 01-24-2009 2:55 PM Rrhain 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