JLK

:banghead:
Of course ha-shamayim v'et ha-aretz means something like "universe", the question is what exactly is meant by universe. Everything created, under raqia on the entire surface, all that is practically accessible, as I allege? This little one-liner doesn't touch explaining it.
In English, "universe" traditionally is space and its contents that we sense - or more sophisticatedly our apparently now causally-closed spacetime "bubble" etc - but then in a more esoteric conversation we chatter about QM and speak of multiple universes, perfectly comprehensibly and grammatically appropriately. Does "universe" always mean absolutley everything/allthings? No.
As for "all things"... in the OT God has a Throne and a Temple and/or a Dwelling Place. These are "things" - did He create them and was He ever (implausibly) without them, or are they His eternal permanent uncreated accouterments? Claiming they must be metaphorical assumes your conclusion.

To begin to definitively prove your case you need to show the grammars discussing the usage of ha-shamayim v'et ha-aretz in a analogous esoteric context of all this entire supercosmology and applied to it all - including, say, the "third heavens" Paul mentions somewhere in the NT, etc. A context in a text I don't think exists, which is why Jews were arguing about it as links above show.

And you complain about frustration! It should have been obvious to you that trotting out this tiny blurb does nothing to discount this interpretation -- obvious that is, if you had the slightest ability/desire to take it seriously. But chucking exnihilo tradition or destroying concordism by acknowledging the raqia' = sheet/dome is unthinkable. You Cannot Be Wrong.
And give general outlines of these possibilities ala Matzke's scenario, rather than pulling improbabilities out of thin air as you simply did.
Ultimately, at the end of the day, if you had to justify why you think the big black walnut I'm looking at (incompletely sequenced, incompletely understood) developed non-supernaturally from a walnut, you'd have to resort to simply saying "biblical days of creation are over" or something, instead of trying to apply and extend a detailed naturalistic induction. If you did try, all your current techniques of argument could be mirrored against you.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: Are you really interested in following the evidence wherever it leads? Well of course you aren't. If the Bible had historical evidence that is the same quality as it is now, except that God is evil and will send everyone to hell, how many people in the world today would believe and promote the evidence? Surely very few. Under such a scenario, today's fundamentalist Christians would hope that the evidence turns out to be wrong, and they certainly would not promote it, even though they currently hope that the very same quality of evidence turns out to be right, and they promote it. The reason why should be obvious to everyone. The reason is EMOTIONAL PERCEIVED SELF-INTEREST, certainly not LOGIC AND REASON. Some fundamentalist Christians will counter by saying that under the scenario that I mentioned, it would be logical to hope that the evidence is wrong, not promote it, and live life with hope that the evidence turns out to be wrong. I agree, so would I, but hoping for the best would not make it any more probable that the evidence would turn out to be wrong. If we leave emotions out of it, and try to approach this issue like a computer would, free of any biases, the logical and consistent approach would be to consider evidence without being influenced by self-interest. Emotions often interfere with logic and reason.

Some fundamentalist Christians will use the argument that faith is an important part of belief. My reply to that is that if you make up a false religion, what other choice do you have except to require faith? There is not any need for a God to require faith about anything except for his identity. As far as I know, it is not possible for any being to prove who he is. Requiring faith is counterproductive if your goal is to encourage people to believe that you exist, and to know what you want them to do with their lives. I am not aware of any credible evidence that requiring faith is necessary towards the achievement of any worthy, just, and fair goals.

In my post #70 I provided more proof that you ARE NOT willing to seriously consider ANY evidence that disagrees with the Bible. Even if 99.99% of biologists were evolutionists, you would still not become an evolutionist. Will you admit that that is true?

Since you are not qualified to discuss complex issues in biology, you have taken the word of people like Behe, but why did you do that? Do you normally endorse the position of a scientist who is in a distinct minority? Well of course you don't, so why have you made an exception in this case, as if anyone did not know why?

Sauron

No, that's your claim. You have yet to prove it.

1. That assumes that the religious writers of such commentaries are unbiased enough to separate fact from myth. There is no evidence that such is the case.

2. I hope you aren't including yourself as one of those experts who has "studied these matters". Watching you try to lecture everyone on ancient military strategy, maritime technology, and cellular biology has demonstrated conclusively that you are anything *but* an expert.

Quoting another potential mistranslation does not refute Dlx2's point, especially when Dlx2 gave a detailed explanation of etymological connection.

Tsk, tsk. What's the matter, lee? Usually you're big into etymologies - at least when you think they work in your favor. But apparently you're unable (unwilling) to discuss this topic on that level now. So much for "commentaries and lexicons."

Sauron

Oh, please. Talk about pot-kettle-black. This is an apt description of your debate style, lee.

In each debate you've participated in, you are shown time and time again overwhelming evidence that your pet hypothesis is wrong. Yet you insist on clinging to one solitary quotation that you read in a paper, or an article someplace.

Do I really need to take you back through the Tyre and Babylon threads to show you how, in the face of mountains of contrary evidence, you tried to hang your argument on a solitary, out-of-context citation that was usually 50 or 100 years old?

Actually, you've been the *cause* of every such thread.

lee_merrill

Well, the universe we are in, all of nature we can observe, have I not said this? Why make a mare's nest out of this, and wrangle over this point?

This may in fact be the problem, that no point can be dropped, but again, if there are specific objections that I need to address, that are cogent and pertinent to my comments, let's discuss them, but let's please not get distracted.

I may have examined his argument, and those who have replied to him, and concluded Behe's points are better. But again, let's not open lots of other topics.

Jubal_DiGriz

This thread started out quite interesting, but seems to be derailed. Or maybe not. With all this discussions about translation and multiple meanings, it might be safe to say that relying only on Genesis will produce no coherent idea that also matches with basic physical observation.

Perhaps the entire idea is futile. A hypothesis must be able to make predictions, and all the creationist literature I've read is reactionary, and never anticipates future data in any real way.

lee_merrill

Now the objections have been baseless, is the problem, tohu most certainly does not mean a mythical monster, these objections only have a semblance of cogency because most people aren't at all acquainted with Hebrew.

But yes, the thread has been derailed, I listed several observations, clear ones, there was a beginning, next we may note the appearance of light (these are not subtle points in the text) and the arrangement of land and sea, all these correspond with observations, then birds after fishes, simple to more complex life, and lately, man.

Now if you want predictions, I think you will have to read other texts than historical ones, yet when the Bible was saying the universe had a beginning, when all the scientists (Einstein, notably) were saying it was static and probably eternal, this would be one prediction, if that is what you meant.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: Consider the following:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_bibl.htm

Creation is described in Genesis 1:1 to 2:3 as occurring in six "days":

Day 1: creation of light and its separation from darkness.
Day 2: separation of the sky and oceans.
Day 3: separation of land from the oceans; spreading of plants and grass and trees across the land.
Day 4: Creation of the sun, moon, and stars.
Day 5: Creation of sea animals and birds.
Day 6: Creation of the land animals. Creation of humanity, "someone like ourselves" (Living Bible).
Day 7: God rested. Followers of the Documentary Hypothesis believe this to have been a later addition, 4 placed there to give theological justification for the Sabbath (Saturday as a day of rest).

This sequence does contain some problems.

Light was listed as being created on day 1, but its source (the sun and stars) did not appear until day 4. Most creation scientists, who generally support the literal interpretation of this creation story, have a solution to this puzzle. Many say that light initially came from God, before he created the sun and stars.

Birds were said to be created before other land animals. Paleontologists, who almost universally support the theory of evolution, point out that the fossil record shows the opposite order. Creation scientists discount this belief. Most regard the rock layers containing the fossil record as having been laid down during the flood of Noah; thus, the fossils do not represent the evolution of the species of animals and birds.

The most controversial debate over this creation story relates to its time span. Genesis 1 and 2 explain how Creation of Earth's life forms, the Earth itself, and the rest of the universe took six days. Supporters of the theory of evolution find evidence for a universe that has been evolving for about 14 billion years.

In the first account, God created fruit trees before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam, then the fruit trees, then Eve.

In the first account, God created animals before Adam and Eve; in the second account, God created Adam, then the animals, then Eve.

Genesis 1:20 describes how God had "the waters bring forth...fowl"; in Genesis 2:19, God formed them "out of the ground". In the first account, God created the fish on the 5th day; in the second account, the fish of the sea were not created at all.

[Johnny Skeptic: It is interesting to note that even some evangelical Christian geologists have enough intelligent, and enough honesty, to admit that a global flood did not occur, but whoever said that inerrantists ever pay any attention to scientists when scientists disagree with the Bible? As far as inerrantists are concerned, the Bible has to be right no matter what. What scientists say is irrelevant. Inerranists are never willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Since they always assume their conclusions PRIOR to having debates, why do they bother to have debates at all? I do not assume my conclusions prior to debates. If a God exists, and showed up and spoke a new galaxy into existence, that would convince me that intelligent design exists. At present, I am not reasonably certain whether or not intelligent design exists. That is why I am an agnostic.

Now Lee, as I have told you on many occasions, even if intelligent design exists, that would still not come anywhere near providing sufficient evidence that the Bible is true. I know, all that you want to discuss is the Genesis accounts of creation. That is because you always try to conceal the fact that you always assume your conclusions PRIOR to having debates, and that you would not become an evolutionist even if 99.99% of biologists were evolutionists.

Isn't it true that you almost always agree with a sizeable consensus of scientists except when they disagree with the Bible? If so, why do you agree with them on those occasions, possibly because you believe that they know a lot more about science than you do? Please answer the questions. I predict that you won't. Being evasive will not help you because I plan to frequently remind readers about your evasive and bogus tactics whether you reply to my arguments or not.]

lee_merrill

And I have been addressing objections, why do you not address the predictions I mention? Strange that people ignore my points, and insist that I address all of theirs.

Before some other land animals, again, this is not a comprehensive list.

And seed in Hebrew is a broad word, it means more than seeds like an apple seed, spores would no doubt be considered by Hebrews as seeds as well.

Or he made samples one by one specially for Adam to name, which would also show why there were gaps in the second chapter accounts.

Not if their arguments seem to be speculative, or are evidently uncompelling, I actually kind of like what I hear of string theory, though this is a minority opinion--or should I not think for myself?!

lee_merrill

Note to Johnny: I listed several observations, clear ones, there was a beginning, next we may note the appearance of light (these are not subtle points in the text) and the arrangement of land and sea, all these correspond with observations, then birds after fishes, simple to more complex life, and lately, man.