It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

...people began to call upon the name of the LORD

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

And it was a Void. Look up void.




posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: SarMegahhikkitha

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: SarMegahhikkitha
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I'm not writing for your benefit, I'm writing for the benefit of others who don't know better, since I know you have no intention of actually reading what I write. If you think the example with "lighten" and "brighten" is absurd, then congratulations, you've just called your own claim absurd. Both claims are: a plural ending that had ceased to be productive in the author's time can be applied randomly. In my case, it's the /n/ plural being applied to "light", in your case, it's the dual plural being applied to "shem" (after THE DUAL CEASED TO BE PRODUCTIVE BY THE TIME OF BIBLICAL HEBREW). That means Moses couldn't just add "-ayim" to words randomly; only a limited number of words retained their ancient dual forms in his time. "Shem" is not one of them. Showing me other words that retained dual forms does not address my claim. Showing me that "shem" is masculine does not address my claim; so are avot, shulhanot, yeraqot, and halonot, yet do they all have dual forms? Gender had nothing to do with the reason "oxen" and "children" retained their /n/ plurals.

The only thing you can do to counter my claim is prove the usage of the dual form of "shem" in Biblical/Mishnaic Hebrew or prove that the dual form continued to be a productive category in Biblical Hebrew.


Oh dear. You keep rambling on claiming verbs can be plural in English, there never were, there sure aren't such a thing now, and I honestly doubt there will ever be plural verbs in any language. Read what you write for heaven's sake. It's like saying the genitive -s suffix in English is or once was (historical anachronism) the plural -s suffix. You are WRONG. And as for there not being any dual nouns in Biblical Hebrew. Hah bloody hah. Like I have shown there is one in the first verse of Genesis.

There are several nouns in Biblical Hebrew that takes the dual form. The nouns /mayim/ (waters/floods) and /shemayim/ (heavens, skies, alt. names) are two such. And here you have 28 occurences of /enayim/ dual of /ayin/ means (pair of) eye(s):

==> biblehub.com...

I could list a bunch of others, but I don't like to feed trolls, so shu! Your opinion may have been made popular, but there should be no doubt that hehe, the Hebrew biblical texts contain quite a few examples of the dual form.

Strong's Hebrew:
H3767 /kera/ «legs», has dual
H3610 /kilayim/ «kinds», is dual (of H3608 /kele/ «seperation»)
H7620 /shabua/ «weeks», has dual
H3608 /kele/ «prison», has dual

These are four more nouns taking the dual form. So again: You are utterly dead wrong! Your assertion may be popular at the moment, but the fallacy is so obvious. There are plenty examples of dual forms of nouns in the bible.


>The fallacy is so obvious

Yeah, it's called "straw man". It's when someone clearly states their arguments (i.e. "/n/ pluralization like 'oxen' and 'children' can't be applied randomly to /s/ plurals like 'lights' to form 'lighten', just like dual plurals in Biblical Hebrew only existed for a limited subset of nouns and can't be applied randomly") and you go off on a tangent pretending they said something else entirely. I very clearly wrote "a limited number of words retained their ancient dual forms in Moses' time" and you went on to disprove something I never claimed, that the dual form doesn't exist. I have very clearly claimed, again and again, that it CEASED TO BE PRODUCTIVE (i.e. could no longer be applied randomly).

This would really blow your mind if you had basic reading ability: Dual plurals in Biblical Hebrew were so much an artifact of ancient Hebrew, that for many nouns the dual form is simply their standard plural form, and doesn't connote 2, and the Bible has undeniable examples of this.


For the thirteenth time, Lighten and Brighten are shrortenend forms, contractions and has nothing to do with plural. Lighten means to light up, brighten means brightening.
edit on 10-9-2017 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: spy66

And it was a Void. Look up void.


No it was not. This is what verse 2 state:

And the earth was without form, and void;


void: www.thefreedictionary.com...



1. Containing no matter; empty.
2. Not occupied; unfilled.
3. Completely lacking; devoid: void of understanding. See Synonyms at empty.
4. Ineffective; useless.
5. Having no legal force or validity; null: a contract rendered void.
6. Games Lacking cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand.

1.
a. An empty space.
b. A vacuum.



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: spy66

And it was a Void. Look up void.


No it was not. This is what verse 2 state:

And the earth was without form, and void;


void: www.thefreedictionary.com...



1. Containing no matter; empty.
2. Not occupied; unfilled.
3. Completely lacking; devoid: void of understanding. See Synonyms at empty.
4. Ineffective; useless.
5. Having no legal force or validity; null: a contract rendered void.
6. Games Lacking cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand.

1.
a. An empty space.
b. A vacuum.


Look up void. It means nothningness. It's an adjective. Describing the formless matter that was the Eretz. Eretz means land, not planet. In this contrext, the land had no soil and was unfit for agriculture.
edit on 10-9-2017 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: spy66

And it was a Void. Look up void.


No it was not. This is what verse 2 state:

And the earth was without form, and void;


void: www.thefreedictionary.com...



1. Containing no matter; empty.
2. Not occupied; unfilled.
3. Completely lacking; devoid: void of understanding. See Synonyms at empty.
4. Ineffective; useless.
5. Having no legal force or validity; null: a contract rendered void.
6. Games Lacking cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand.

1.
a. An empty space.
b. A vacuum.


Look up void. It means nothningness. It's an adjective. Describing the formless matter that was the Eretz. Eretz means land, not planet. In this contrext, the land had no soil and was unfit for agriculture.


Yes, and it also means a empty Space and vacuum. It fits a lot better.

I chose to think that i am right and you are wrong.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: spy66

And it was a Void. Look up void.


No it was not. This is what verse 2 state:

And the earth was without form, and void;


void: www.thefreedictionary.com...



1. Containing no matter; empty.
2. Not occupied; unfilled.
3. Completely lacking; devoid: void of understanding. See Synonyms at empty.
4. Ineffective; useless.
5. Having no legal force or validity; null: a contract rendered void.
6. Games Lacking cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand.

1.
a. An empty space.
b. A vacuum.


Look up void. It means nothningness. It's an adjective. Describing the formless matter that was the Eretz. Eretz means land, not planet. In this contrext, the land had no soil and was unfit for agriculture.


Yes, and it also means a empty Space and vacuum. It fits a lot better.

I chose to think that i am right and you are wrong.


Void used in Genesis 1:2 is an adjective, not a noun, so it can't mean vacuum as you say. Formless and void means that the land (eretz) was fruitless and unfit for food production. A wasteland.
edit on 11-9-2017 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 03:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: spy66

And it was a Void. Look up void.


No it was not. This is what verse 2 state:

And the earth was without form, and void;


void: www.thefreedictionary.com...



1. Containing no matter; empty.
2. Not occupied; unfilled.
3. Completely lacking; devoid: void of understanding. See Synonyms at empty.
4. Ineffective; useless.
5. Having no legal force or validity; null: a contract rendered void.
6. Games Lacking cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand.

1.
a. An empty space.
b. A vacuum.


Look up void. It means nothningness. It's an adjective. Describing the formless matter that was the Eretz. Eretz means land, not planet. In this contrext, the land had no soil and was unfit for agriculture.


Yes, and it also means a empty Space and vacuum. It fits a lot better.

I chose to think that i am right and you are wrong.


Void used in Genesis 1:2 is an adjective, not a noun, so it can't mean vacuum as you say. Formless and void means that the land (eretz) was fruitless and unfit for food production. A wasteland.


What did God create when he said: Let there be light?



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66


Text What did God create when he said: Let there be light?

Not wanting to be argumentative. God did not create light nor did He create darkness. I know it sounds very confusing to us but God brought forth from that which exists within Him.

Psalms 139:12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

As you can see, darkness and light is God or is of God. It is not created from the terrestrial substance in Genesis 1:3.
It emanates from the Father and not from the created substance. It is called primeval light by many scholars.

That differs from Genesis 1:14-19 in the fourth day of creation. Here [In the fourth day] you can understand that this light is made from the creation substance and does not emanate from the Father.

God is light and God is darkness also. How can this be? Because darkness is the absence of light but still exists as darkness. Light was brought forth for our understanding only and not for God's understanding.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: spy66

And it was a Void. Look up void.


No it was not. This is what verse 2 state:

And the earth was without form, and void;


void: www.thefreedictionary.com...



1. Containing no matter; empty.
2. Not occupied; unfilled.
3. Completely lacking; devoid: void of understanding. See Synonyms at empty.
4. Ineffective; useless.
5. Having no legal force or validity; null: a contract rendered void.
6. Games Lacking cards of a particular suit in a dealt hand.

1.
a. An empty space.
b. A vacuum.


Look up void. It means nothningness. It's an adjective. Describing the formless matter that was the Eretz. Eretz means land, not planet. In this contrext, the land had no soil and was unfit for agriculture.


Yes, and it also means a empty Space and vacuum. It fits a lot better.

I chose to think that i am right and you are wrong.


Void used in Genesis 1:2 is an adjective, not a noun, so it can't mean vacuum as you say. Formless and void means that the land (eretz) was fruitless and unfit for food production. A wasteland.


What did God create when he said: Let there be light?


God didn't create anything other than words. He saw light shining through the dense fog, and he called it light. The Light he created was the word Light.



posted on Sep, 11 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
a reply to: Seede

KJV is Satan's translation:
==> KJV: And I stood upon the sand of the sea
==> ESV: The dragon stood on the shore of the sea.


KJV is te Bible of Satan



There should be no doubt about it.

The creator God rested on the seventh day as stated in Genesis Chapter 2 verse 2.

Lord God is the imposter who took credit for Gods creation. And then implemeted his own in Chapter two and so forth.

Lord God even goes as far as to state that he "made" the Earth and the Heavens. The order this is stated in is not even alined With Genesisi Chapter 1: In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth.

- Why would God the creator,.....create more then one heaven?

The once who think that the City, New Jerusalem is some sort of heaven should think twice about that, by Reading what is stated in Revelations Chapter 22. verse 2. You should be able to understand that the Bride. New Jerusalem is actually Lord Gods Garden of Eden.

- Lord God planted a garden eastwards in Eden. There he put the tree of life. Now what is located in the streets of New Jerusalem? Read Revelation Chapter 22 verse 2.

- An other Clue is that Lord God created the beast...the serpent. Where is the serpent still located? Yeah, it is still located in the garden of Eden. The serpent was never cast out by Lord God.

- There are more Clues in Revelations that the City, New Jerusalem is Lord Gods heaven (hell). The verse in Reevelation Chapter 22. verse 4. Actually hints you to what is mentioned in Revelations 13, verse 16. If this dosent bring up some serious thought i dont know how.....


WOW.
.
That just explained a ton to me....stuff I've already been pondering.
edit on 11-9-2017 by Matrixsurvivor because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 04:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Matrixsurvivor

No. God created humans on the fifth day. The ruddy, blond and blue eyed Adam was mixed up from the existing humans on the sixth day, in «God's likeness». After the Flood we don't hear nothing from God until Moses. God ended his sixth day by destroying the land he had made, so he could have some rest for about 1000 years. It's a simple equation. The «animals» in Eden were humans. Like Lilith, «the serpent.» With Abraham and Jacob et el, God is not communicating directly as before, but through his angel(s).
edit on 12-9-2017 by Utnapisjtim because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Like I said over and over, Genesis 1 doesn't really display the God character as doing anything but observing and acquiring (declare and conquer) land and environment and making names, numbers and words, language, starting with what may be two maps, one relating to astronomy another to geography, some sort of territorial acquisition. The El-Hayam (lit. «Father of Yam») translated God in our bibles, is making himself a life, building ground, irrigating and seeding, and at the same time he is developing his language and his nation, and it ends (or starts) with The Father of Yam (Elohim is a plural word, while the alternate reading El-Hayam means Father of Yam, Yam was the water dragon) teaming up with some undisclosed mother goddess to father humans so they can carefully till the ground according to his plans so he himself can rest for an aeon or two. As it turned out-- That was not gonna happen.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join