youngalexander

Explanation?

Pappy Jack

I guess the relevant verses of Genesis would be:

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.
.....
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.
.....
1:9 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.

Which seem to suggest that the water came before the dry land, which would be at variance with current understanding as at least one widely supported theory is that terrestrial water comes from impacts with comets, etc. This theory, aside, however, no other theory of planetary formation that I am aware of suggests that the Earth was at any time entirely covered by water.

Johnny Skeptic

Please state a comparison between what Genesis says about a separation of the land and the appearance of seas and what skeptic scientists claim happened.

-Jay-

Lee - your comment suggests that you believe that Hebrews ca. 3000 years ago knew about and recognized bacteria. Are you serious?

How? Did they culture E. coli up in their fine earthenware petri dishes and examine it with those most excellent Late Bronze Age microscopes that archaeologists somehow missed?



regards,

NinJay

lee_merrill

Well, I would say 'esev would be algae potentially, not 'ets.

Well, flax can be "trees":

Joshua 2:6 But she had brought them up to the roof and hid them with the stalks ['ets] of flax that she had laid in order on the roof.

Well, what I meant is that these terms ("wild animals" etc.) need not include all land animals such as reptiles and dinos, I'm not sure about small mammals.

But how is it that we are skipping over the correspondences? Every thread like this becomes immediately "look at all the difficulties!" This ignores the substantial correspondences as if they were not there, correspondences such as inanimate to animate, such as forming dry ground and simple to complex life, and finally man.

lee_merrill

The biggy bang, perhaps, was what I meant...

lee_merrill

Snowball earth might do!

lee_merrill

Well, I think it corresponds rather well, for example, the breaking apart of a supercontinent would form seas, plural.

lee_merrill

I meant if they were to know about them! They would classify them as such if it happened that they saw them in a Bronze Age microscope...

spin

Bad transliterations, lee_merrill. These are from some Jewish source which doesn't represent the letters as they are written but as they are said in Jewish circles. They are, in short, not scholarly and therefore not to be used in generic scholar fora.

As to ($B (which you write 'esev, but needs `eseb), 17 times it gets translated as herb in the KJV and 16 as grass. In the context found in Gen 1:12 it must be seen as terrestrial, as it is with grass [D$(], and trees and it produces seed. The notion of algae is simply -- and you've been told before with this false manipulation of yours -- simply wrong. Your linguistic skills have not improved.

The best you can say is that "flax trees" is an opaque term. It doesn't help you because one doesn't really know what is being referred to. However, it is irrelevant to what you were trying to advocate.


spin