The Big Bang (Genesis 1:2-3)

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The word re'im comes from the word raam, which means to rise. The exact definition of re'im is unknown, it is a reference to an extinct animal. Since it is extinct and we don't know the exact definition, it really could have been a unicorn. The word used does not have an exact definition, so not even you know whether it was really a unicorn or not, no one does.

I don't know what the animal referred to actually was, neither do you. I was only responding to a humorous post with a humorous post of my own. Don't get so butthurt.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: cooperton

So 7 days is 7,000 years, 7,000 years plus give or take 6,000 years equals out to about 13,000 years. Still doesn't add up to 13 billion years.

Or each day is 2 billion years and it does. I already showed you the word used is used to denote a period of time. Day 1 can be 2 billion, day 2 1 billion, and it's 100% Biblically accurate.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So basically you don't know how long it took, you just choose to believe it means what you want it to mean.

Confirmation bias at its finest.

I think the real hilarious question is WHAT IN THE WORLD WAS THE KJV THINKING WHEN THEY USED UNICORN?? Was King James a troll?

"Hey Bob I don't know what re'em means you have any idea?"

"I don't know Jamie old boy, nobody else will either"

"Just give me anything Bob, I've been translating all day I am wrecked"

"Yeah that party was nuts last night, WINE everywhere! How about Unicorns!?"

"Whaatttt no way! Your crazy! Ahh screww it my hangovers coming back. Here goes nothing!"....

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Yes, there are a lot of inconsistencies with contemporary science. But, this is an example of where science has confirmed a description in the bible, the big bang. Every year scientific "fact" is disproved by new scientific "fact". As our scientific knowledge becomes more complete, I believe we will see more and more congruence with the Bible.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Because it was alive when the Bible was written, and extinct thousands of years later when the KJV was created. How is that difficult to understand?

How long ago was the bible written . When did they die out , last week .

originally posted by: cooperton

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

(Genesis 1:2-3)


Similarly, our current explanation for the dawn of our universe is that there was an inexplicable explosion of light from emptiness - the big bang.

How were these biblical writers able to know this? We are left with the conclusion that this was indeed Divinely inspired.

No, we're left with the conclusion that you've decided to interpret it that way.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The word re'im comes from the word raam, which means to rise. The exact definition of re'im is unknown, it is a reference to an extinct animal. Since it is extinct and we don't know the exact definition, it really could have been a unicorn. The word used does not have an exact definition, so not even you know whether it was really a unicorn or not, no one does.

I don't know what the animal referred to actually was, neither do you. I was only responding to a humorous post with a humorous post of my own. Don't get so butthurt.

No, you said it WAS a unicorn. That is where you stepped from the realm of possibilities to the realm of facts. As to evidence it's an ox not a horse/unicorn ...

Isa 34:7
Wild oxen will also fall with them
And young bulls with strong ones;
Thus their land will be soaked with blood,
And their dust become greasy with fat.

Vs.

Isa 34:7
And the unicorns shall come down with them,
and the bullocks with the bulls;
and their land shall be soaked with blood,
and their dust made fat with fatness.

Since when are Unicorns "bulls and bullocks"? Clearly the word refers to something oxen, not equine.

a reply to: cooperton

Did you even read my post? I have no idea how you cling to your conclusion after reading my post. Or some of the others that related to the OP. ...Seriously?

If you don't mind could you break down my post in a more elaborate reply?

Also I never said there are a lot of inconsistencies with contemporary science and I'm inclined to disagree. Every year science is learning new facts that lead to a better understanding of previous facts. Sure, sometimes things end up being wrong, but are replaced with better understood models. Like when it turned out to be wrong that the Sun revolved around the Earth (btw the Bible suggests the out-dated Geocentric model).

Edit to add:

These verses imply the Geocentric model:

Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. Joshua 10:12-13

The sun and moon stood still in their habitation at the light of thine arrows as they sped, at the flash of thy glittering spear. Habakkuk 3:11

Yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat. Psalms 19:4-6

The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. Ecclesiastes 1:5

Tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved. 1 Chronicles 16:30

The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved. Psalms 93:1

Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity." Psalms 96:10

Up until about four centuries ago the Geocentric model was the position of the RCC, based off of the scriptures and an honest lack of understanding about the solar system.

As you can see (hopefully) any "science" in the Bible reflects things known or believed at the time it was written.

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Because it was alive when the Bible was written, and extinct thousands of years later when the KJV was created. How is that difficult to understand?

How long ago was the bible written . When did they die out , last week .

Aurochs are a possible candidate for this animal, they become fully extinct in the 1600s, but were gone from this part of the world before Jesus' time. I believe it was a few hundred years before Christ when they were gone from Greece.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I never said "re'im" means unicorn, I was only pointing out the fact that a certain version of the bible says unicorn. Please don't put words in my mouth.

The verses in no way say the "unicorn" (or whatever it is) is a bull or a bullocks, that conclusion is, well, bullocks. It says the "unicorn/wild oxen" will come down and then the bulls and bullocks will come together. There is no reference to "re'im" being oxen or equine. There is no exact definition for the word.

I still find it hilarious you are going to such great lengths to deny unicorns being in the bible yet have no problem with a talking snake. LOL.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The verses in no way say the "unicorn" (or whatever it is) is a bull or a bullocks, that conclusion is, well, bullocks. It says the "unicorn/wild oxen" will come down and then the bulls and bullocks will come together. There is no reference to "re'im" being oxen or equine. There is no exact definition for the word.

I never said "re'im" means unicorn, I was only pointing out the fact that a certain version of the bible says unicorn. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I still find it hilarious you are going to such great lengths to deny unicorns being in the bible yet have no problem with a talking snake. LOL.

The only thing I am doing is correcting ignorance. If only unicorns come down, how do old and young bull come together? Unicorns are not bulls. Clearly the animal described is oxen, not equine. Anyone interested in truth sees it plainly.

a reply to: birhan

It's possible it was used because English travelers were reporting sightings of "unicorns". There are antelopes/deer that can grow a single horn as a deformity. All in all it's a fairly bad translation, and it's not the only instance. The KJV is a pretty horrible translation as far as I am concerned.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Where does it say "only" unicorns will come down? You're not reading it for what it says, you're reading it in a way to somehow demonize me. Nowhere does it say "only" unicorns come down, it denotes several different species, not just unicorns (or whatever "re'im" was).

So, it may be like a ping-pong ball. It goes out, it comes back in, it goes out.....

Perhaps the only true version of perpetual motion that really exists. The mechanics of this do not have to subscribe to the laws of thermodynamics, as it invents it on the fly.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

No, the only species mentioned is unicorns. Unicorns will come down, the old with the young. Bull and Bullocks are not species, they are a descriptor of a species, of which "Unicorns (ox)" is the only one named. Bull and Bullocks is not a descriptor of any equine species.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Fair enough .

Aurochs are a possible candidate for this animal, they become fully extinct in the 1600s, but were gone from this part of the world before Jesus' time. I believe it was a few hundred years before Christ when they were gone from Greece.

But the real problem i have is with the word believe . Believing and knowing are two entirely different animals .

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Key word "AND" bullocks with the bulls, denoting a difference between the "unicorn" and the bulls/bullocks. Are bulls and bullocks somehow different from an oxen (unicorn)? I thought they WERE oxen? Why use the word "AND" when it is talking about the same species?

If it were as you say it would read "wild oxen will fall with them, bullocks with the bulls". Notice how the word AND denotes a different species, whereas without AND, it implies the bulls and bullocks are the wild oxen being spoken of.

Why is this even being debated? You believe a talking snake existed, that's even more ridiculous than a unicorn existing.

a reply to: hutch622

You are welcome to fact check me.

Interesting fact. There are ZERO wild cattle species alive. Every single one is extinct. The last one died in Europe in the 1600s. They were gone from most of the world far earlier. The Bible is clearly referencing a wild species of cattle (such as the Auroch), which was extinct because they are extinct from the entire world. There are some wild bovine species, but no true wild cattle in existence, anywhere.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Key word "AND" bullocks with the bulls,

That word "and" is a filler word and does not actually exist. You claimed multiple species were named. They were not. The ONLY species named was the "unicorn (ox)", and then the descriptor used was bull and bullocks.

Your claim the word AND means it must be a different animal is likewise false.

"And the Men shall come down with them,
and the old with the young;
and their land shall be soaked with blood,
and their dust made fat with fatness."

So the old and young are not people, and must be a new species?

If you wish to be ignorant you are welcome to it.