Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry! you were the one who came blazing in here with bolded type mentioning 'became' - refer to post #21. It was not our conversation.
Nope, sorry, post #21 was my reply to SeekerSA who wrote about the earth being formless and void.
He wrote before my post this:
Quote:
The concept that the earth was w/o form and void and everything was water is thus implausible.
Try again.
05-07-2012, 12:55 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Nope, sorry, post #21 was my reply to SeekerSA who wrote about the earth being formless and void.
He wrote before my post this:
Try again.
Your are so prideful - Seekers was refering to water - his post was not about the verb 'was' or 'became' - you are the one who highlighted that.
Here is the first line of his his post #20:
'One of the problems with Genesis and that which we know of the origins of how planets form - water came much later.
An old earth would probably have had hills and valleys and as water formed by whatever means, gravity pulled it to the lowest area and formed the seas.
The concept that the earth was w/o form and void and everything was water is thus implausible. Earth was never a pure water planet despite being 70% water.'
The focus you brought to the thread (the translation of the verb hayah) was not an aspect of his post.
Furthermore, the issue was not being discussed, by me or whoppers, as you suggested prior to your post - # 21.
Shiloh, if your interested in doing some futher reading on Genesis I'd suggest F.J. Mayers book "Ain Soph", it is his work on the first 3 chapters of Genesis and show the mistakes that most Christians believe is fact. The book was written about the turn of the 20th century. Heres the link: Introduction to The Unknown God | Inner Life | dreamhawk.com
Your are so prideful - Seekers was refering to water - his post was not about the verb 'was' or 'became' - you are the one who highlighted that.
"Your are so prideful" or "You are . . . ."?
Pride has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
Here is the first line of his his post #20:
'One of the problems with Genesis and that which we know of the origins of how planets form - water came much later.
An old earth would probably have had hills and valleys and as water formed by whatever means, gravity pulled it to the lowest area and formed the seas.
The concept that the earth was w/o form and void and everything was water is thus implausible. Earth was never a pure water planet despite being 70% water.'
The focus you brought to the thread (the translation of the verb hayah) was not an aspect of his post.
Furthermore, the issue was not being discussed, by me or whoppers, as you suggested prior to your post - # 21.
I know what Seekers whole post was about in #20. I was answering to this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekerSA One of the problems with Genesis and that which we know of the origins of how planets form - water came much later.
An old earth would probably have had hills and valleys and as water formed by whatever means, gravity pulled it to the lowest area and formed the seas.
The concept that the earth was w/o form and void and everything was water is thus implausible. Earth was never a pure water planet despite being 70% water.
So I responded with this:
Quote:
A much better translation is:
"by the Elohim were the heavens and the earth. Yet the earth became a
chaos and vacant, and darkness was on the surface of the submerged
chaos. Yet the spirit of the Elohim is vibrating over the surface of the
water. (Genesis 1:1-2)
The Bible does not describe the earth as being a "pure water planet." God separated the water from the existing earth:
Gen 1:9 And saying is the Elohim, "Flow together shall the water from
under the heavens to one place, and appear shall the dry land." And
coming is it to be so. And flowing together is the water under the heavens
to one place, and appearing is the dry land.
The rest of what you wrote that early man was flat earthers and didn't understand water cycle is unfounded.
Besides, I thought this thread was if God created the earth out of nothing not if early man was a flat earther or knew of water cycles.
I was merely interjecting on a point he brought up and after I was done I tried steering the topic back to "creation out of nothing" as you can tell by my last sentence.
In your post #22, rather than getting back to the original intent of the OP you barge in and go off topic on Hebrew grammar and how I was wrong with "the earth became chaos and vacant." Don't blame your faults on others.
05-07-2012, 02:18 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
"Your are so prideful" or "You are . . . ."?
Pride has nothing to do with it.
I know what Seekers whole post was about in #20. I was answering to this:
So I responded with this:
I was merely interjecting on a point he brought up and after I was done I tried steering the topic back to "creation out of nothing" as you can tell by my last sentence.
In your post #22, rather than getting back to the original intent of the OP you barge in and go off topic on Hebrew grammar and how I was wrong with "the earth became chaos and vacant." Don't blame your faults on others.
How you expect to make declarative statements loaded with obvious theological biases without anyone commenting is beyond me.
Seeker did not bring up the topic of 'was' or 'became.'
I did not realize that I could 'barge' into my own thread. Ha! Ha! That is funny! Seeing that the topic is Genesis verses 1, 2, and 3 it is perfectly legit for me to comment on the grammar of verse 2 esp. after you brought up 'bacame' as the translation.
How you expect to make declarative statements loaded with obvious theological biases without anyone commenting is beyond me.
Seeker did not bring up the topic of 'was' or 'became.'
TY, Etroll is trolling me on all threads but I am having a whale of a time
Quote:
I did not realize that I could 'barge' into my own thread. Ha! Ha! That is funny! Seeing that the topic is Genesis verses 1, 2, and 3 it is perfectly legit for me to comment on the grammar of verse 2 esp. after you brought up 'became' as the translation.
I am enjoying the intelligent discourse here of which Etroll is is not part of.
My single post thus far was merely to highlight the YEC folk of mixing the two floods and the gap theory and to say I heard/saw this in 1983ish wrt Pangea rapidly moving apart and was thoroughly refuted by geologists.
As for the ancient languages, I am not qualified to comment, I, unlike others, know my limitations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
