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.
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.
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.
[/quote]
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.
05-02-2012, 11:49 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
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)
It not a 'much better translation' - there you go again cherry picking non possible translations to support some concept you believe in - it is the worst possible translation with no scholarly support. Did you even read the OP or the link in it and my comments on the waw disjunctive? It is not even worth arguing over - either accept it or move on. I will quote Heiser:
'In a nutshell, the theory is overturned by Hebrew grammar — specifically the fact that we have a classic waw-disjunctive beginning Gen 1:2 (Hebrew conjunction waw prefixed to a noun instead of a verb, which mars any narrative sequence). This is basically why no Hebrew grammarian defends the view. It matters not that one can find ONE (count it) other example of the verb hayah (“to be”) in an identical grammatical construction that could be translated “became” (a key idea in the gap theory) precisely because the waw disjunctive that begins 1:2 forbids a linear sequence of events. (And the fact that a search for the identical construction with hayah in Gen 1:2 where the meaning can be “became” only yields one result should also tell us something about the grammatical merits of the gap theory).'
"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)
Eusebius, your translation above is what we Jews call "shtuss." (you can google that word)
Keep in mind. The passage we're discussing is in a Jewish book (the Torah), written in a Jewish language (Lashen HaKodesh - Hebrew), given to a Jewish nation and transmitted without interruption from Jew to Jew for the last 3300 years. Your tranlation is just silly, as I'm sure is the book you read it from.
Eusebius, your translation above is what we Jews call "shtuss." (you can google that word)
Keep in mind. The passage we're discussing is in a Jewish book (the Torah), written in a Jewish language (Lashen HaKodesh - Hebrew), given to a Jewish nation and transmitted without interruption from Jew to Jew for the last 3300 years. Your tranlation is just silly, as I'm sure is the book you read it from.
I'm so glad you entered this conversation.
One of the basic arguments Christians make about the old testiments reliability is based on the accuracy of the Jewish transmittions.
So what do Christians say when the Jews point out that the Old Testiment is not only mis-translated, but also misinterpreted by Christians?
After all, if Christians claim that the Jews didn't get the Torrah right, why would they claim the old testiment would be any more reliable?
It not a 'much better translation' - there you go again cherry picking non possible translations to support some concept you believe in - it is the worst possible translation with no scholarly support. Did you even read the OP or the link in it and my comments on the waw disjunctive? It is not even worth arguing over - either accept it or move on. I will quote Heiser:
This is a much better translation:
"Created 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)
Why you could call it a "non possible translation" is beyond me. Of course it is a translation, the Concordant Literal Old Testament translation. The verse does not state God created the heavens and earth out of nothing. I suggest you move on.
Quote:
'In a nutshell, the theory is overturned by Hebrew grammar — specifically the fact that we have a classic waw-disjunctive beginning Gen 1:2 (Hebrew conjunction waw prefixed to a noun instead of a verb, which mars any narrative sequence). This is basically why no Hebrew grammarian defends the view. It matters not that one can find ONE (count it) other example of the verb hayah (“to be”) in an identical grammatical construction that could be translated “became” (a key idea in the gap theory) precisely because the waw disjunctive that begins 1:2 forbids a linear sequence of events. (And the fact that a search for the identical construction with hayah in Gen 1:2 where the meaning can be “became” only yields one result should also tell us something about the grammatical merits of the gap theory).'
"The first occurrence of this word is a notable example of its force. Gen.1:2
should read, `And the earth became...," not was. From this we know that
it was not "waste and void" but became so as the effect of some
interference. This is confirmed by Isa.45:18. Our point is that "becomes"
registers the effect or result of previous action and introduces no new
element.
After Genesis 1:1,2 God began restoring the earth to make it habitable again.
"The earth was formed and established fit to be indwelt in that first eon, yet it did not receive human inhabitants before it became a chaos and vacant. This is implied in the first few words of divine revelation: "Created by Alueim...the earth. And the earth became a chaos and vacant." The verb here is eie. The ei are the signs of the causative, cause to be, that is, become. Circumstances became such that a change from the primeval came to be, and darkness was made to cover the chaos. The details given beginning at Genesis 1:3, then, tell of Alueim in His adjusting of the earth to fit it to receive the human race, and not of its original creation."
One of the basic arguments Christians make about the old testiments reliability is based on the accuracy of the Jewish transmittions.
So what do Christians say when the Jews point out that the Old Testiment is not only mis-translated, but also misinterpreted by Christians?
After all, if Christians claim that the Jews didn't get the Torrah right, why would they claim the old testiment would be any more reliable?
Jesus, who was very knowledgeable of the Scriptures and what the Jews believed told the Jews of His day that they didn't understand properly. Some groups, such as the Pharisees believed differently about the bible than did the Sadducees. One group believed in a resurrection, the other didn't. So it all depends upon which group of Jews today you talk to. They don't agree amongst themselves.
Based upon the thousands year old Hebrew O.T. found at the dead sea caves we know the transmission to what we have today is accurate.
I have to say, that when it comes to Jewish scripture and literature, I have to default to Jews concerning their meaning and interpretation. They are their books afterall. To me that would be like some outsider from my tribe telling me what our traditional stories and dances really mean. Wait,we do get that...we call them anthropologists and NewAgers.
It's not like the Christian Church, particularly in it's Roman phase, didn't have their agendas. It is no stretch of the imagination to think that they didn't reinterpret the writings of the Tanahk to fit their new doctrines.
Jesus, who was very knowledgeable of the Scriptures and what the Jews believed told the Jews of His day that they didn't understand properly. Some groups, such as the Pharisees believed differently about the bible than did the Sadducees. One group believed in a resurrection, the other didn't. So it all depends upon which group of Jews today you talk to. They don't agree amongst themselves.
Based upon the thousands year old Hebrew O.T. found at the dead sea caves we know the transmission to what we have today is accurate.
So much to pick apart in your post, Eusebius. What Jesus may or may not have told the Jews in his time is irrelevant. He was irrelevant in his own time, if he existed at all. It was only later generations that assigned any importance to Jesus. You would agree with that, yes?
And the reason the Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed over ressurection of the dead, is that Sadducees did not accept the Oral Torah. One cannot be Jewish without accepting the authority and validity of the Oral Torah. And guess what, they ceased being Jewish in future generations. All who have come to seek to change or alter the Torah have perished from the earth in a matter of time.
I have to say, that when it comes to Jewish scripture and literature, I have to default to Jews concerning their meaning and interpretation. They are their books afterall. To me that would be like some outsider from my tribe telling me what our traditional stories and dances really mean. Wait,we do get that...we call them anthropologists and NewAgers.
It's not like the Christian Church, particularly in it's Roman phase, didn't have their agendas. It is no stretch of the imagination to think that they didn't reinterpret the writings of the Tanahk to fit their new doctrines.
Jesus is a Jew and He told us and tells us what the Scriptures mean.
The apostle Paul who is the apostle of the nations was a Jew and he taught us what the Scriptures mean and laid down for us the means of understanding them.
Again, the Jews today and in Jesus' day do not agree amongst themselves what the Scriptures mean.
I have to say, that when it comes to Jewish scripture and literature, I have to default to Jews concerning their meaning and interpretation. They are their books afterall. To me that would be like some outsider from my tribe telling me what our traditional stories and dances really mean. Wait,we do get that...we call them anthropologists and NewAgers.
It's not like the Christian Church, particularly in it's Roman phase, didn't have their agendas. It is no stretch of the imagination to think that they didn't reinterpret the writings of the Tanahk to fit their new doctrines.
I'm curious if anyone will challenge Fullback's statements above.
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.
