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.
Why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!
page: 16share:
reply to post by edmc^2
I was wrong. I just read "synthesized" in the story and figured the DNA was from scratch. I know that they used parts to cheat a bit. Still they managed to mold life and soon they may create life but it really doesn't matter. If they ever get a bunch of separate chemicals throw them together and form life you will just argue that the without the life known as humans it would have never happened.
I'm still not convinced especially after all the info sigismundus is posting which shows how inconsistant the bible is and how certain translations may be incorrect.
I see you taking a handful of correlations that fit to say the bible is factual and overlooking many more which prove the opposite.
I was wrong. I just read "synthesized" in the story and figured the DNA was from scratch. I know that they used parts to cheat a bit. Still they managed to mold life and soon they may create life but it really doesn't matter. If they ever get a bunch of separate chemicals throw them together and form life you will just argue that the without the life known as humans it would have never happened.
I'm still not convinced especially after all the info sigismundus is posting which shows how inconsistant the bible is and how certain translations may be incorrect.
I see you taking a handful of correlations that fit to say the bible is factual and overlooking many more which prove the opposite.
edit on
23-4-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
For once, I actually agree with Madness, shocking isn't it.
Using hellfire dogma to justify a position on creation is just about the worst possible thing a christian can do.
For once, I actually agree with Madness, shocking isn't it.
Using hellfire dogma to justify a position on creation is just about the worst possible thing a christian can do.
Hi edmc -
As I mentioned, The Poem of Job (beginning with chapter 3) has a number of ‘pagan’ (Babylonian, Akkadian & Egyptian) ‘Wisdom’ Literature type sources from whence it drew its subject matter and style of utterance (see the Babylonian Dialogue of Tabu-Utul-Ba’al or the earlier the Egyptian ‘Complaints of Khakheperre-sonb’ or the famous ‘Dialogue of a Man Weary with his Life’ ) etc.
The problem here for moderns reading the garbled text of Job in some random English ‘translation’ of whatever source material it ‘translates’ is .. exactly how DOES one translate ancient paleoHebew POETRY accurately – since it uses language both obscure and un-pointed (using almost no vowels) - so we cannot always be sure of the exact meanings.
Later Masoretic vowels added to the confused consonantal text c. 960 AD were basically intelligent guesses, and no more.
They were as flummoxed by the arcane foregin poetry in front of them as we are to-day. Their consonantal text was not the same as the Hebrew consonantal text in front of the Alexandrian Greek Speaking Jews in the 1st century BCE who produced the Greek versions of the Hebrew scriptures, especially the LXX Septuaginta.
To add insult to injury, the mishmash of hand-copied textual MSS of the poetical sections of ‘Job’ over the millennia (especially by comparing all the differing Hebrew underlaying Hebrew consonantal textual Vorlagen to the LXX, the later Masoretic MT version, the Syriac, the Chaldeean and other tattered Dead Sea Scroll Aramaic Targum-like copies !) show a gross ‘fluidity of text types in antiquity’ (Emmanuel Tov) which bears abundant witness to the fact that the copyists were each in their own way trying to make sense of the messy and confusing paleoHeb consonants that were staring in front of them
Scholars have known for centuries that Job is full of broken literary fragments - (despite numerous emendations in an attempt to make sense of them) are woefully full of interrupted speeches, many ‘hapax legomena’ (obscure Heb. terms that only occur once in a given text or in Hebrew writings as a whole - and whose original meaning is now lost) grammatical & textual lacunae, contradictory assignations of the names of Job’s daughters, confusion as to who actually is speaking at times in some of the ‘speeches’ (Job and his speaker-friends (Elihu, Bildad etal.) sometimes are mislabeled in the text, and also contain a number of smaller and larger textual insertions (e.g. chapter 28, which is in a later Hebrew accent by another writer which ‘interferes’ with the logic of chapter 27 and chapter 29, etc.)
So you really picked doozie of a messy text to quote to support ‘modern science’ from in Job 26:7—
And your own faulty translation of : ‘tela [ha]eretz al-Belimah’ (which you render as ‘he suspends the Earth upon Nothing’ - has little if any textual grammatical basis to translate it as such - NOTHING it is based on the wild guesses of the Septuagintal Greek LXX in c. BCE 100 who tried to find a parallel term in Greek for the Hebrew BELIMAH they surely could not make sense out of.
The weird Hebrew term ‘Belimah’ is Hapax - it is a term occurs nowhere else in Job or in any ancient Heb. Literature –although in the much later Aramaic Sefer Yetzirah (2nd century to 9th century AD) the author (whoever he was) makes Belimah a god like entity – in fact Sefer Yetzirah (i.e. the Kabalistic ‘Book of Formations’) understood belimah as something real and ‘positive’ by pairing it up in his commentary with the words of Psalms 104:5 (a ‘creation psalm’)
"He who built up the earth upon its solid Foundations, that it should not ever be moved forever." The Sefer Yetzirah holds that ‘the 10 Sefirot was in fact The Belimah’ etc.
At any rate, according to this later Rabinnical poetical ‘pairing of the earth stands on something. This something, (i.e. solid palpable foundations) is called belimah. It is NOT ‘no-thing’ as you have mis-understood it to be – and has nothing whatsoever to do with modern cosmology.
When facing HAPAX LEGOMENA in ancient poetry, scholars wishing to understand what a rare Hebrew poetical word means, often find it helpful to examine the parallel line before or after it - Hebrew (like Sumerian, Akkadian, Babyloinian, Ugaritic etc.) poetry makes abundant use of ‘Double Poetic Parallelism’ (with the 2nd line emphasizing or even explaining in other words the meaning of the 1st line)
Here is a quick and famous example of ‘poetical parallelism’ where the 2nd line repeats the general gist of the 1st line: (e.g. Psalm 8:4 – ‘What is MAN that you are MINDFUL OF HIM? What is the SON OF MAN that you should CARE FOR HIM? – where MAN = SON of MAN and BE MINDFUL = CARE FOR etc.)
Your rare and weird cosmological mis-quote in Job 26:8 that you are trying (for whatever reason) to foist upon educated and thinking ATS members as ‘inspired by the god of the Jews’ as somehow mysteriously foreshadowing modern cosmological ‘space’ views has absolutely NO bearing on modern cosmological science - which you should be able to see from reading around the mangled text itself –
The textual core of Job is NOT science, but a messy hotchpotch of ancient un-pointed (unvowelled) paleo-Hebrew poetical fragments (written with an Elamite ‘pagan’ paleo-accent) reflecting the pre-Scientific world view held in the 7th century BCE by Israelitish priests borrowed from their more-sophisticated neighboring kingdoms who conquered them and into whose lands their priests were exiled (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon etc.).
Unfortuntately, nobody today seems to know what ‘upon Belimah’ DOES mean – all we can see is that BELIMAH stands in parallelism to TOHU (=watery chaos)
It could just be a weird poetical substantive grammatical form of the verb ‘Balah’ with –the suffix MAH added for some odd reason (some think MAH is a rare poetical singular of Mayim, ‘water’- who knows) –
This poetical fragment of Job’s speech at the opening of Job chapter 26 does seem to make use of some of the same kind of ‘weird cosomological watery chaos language’ found in the Babylonian vocabulary stuffed version of the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a), and goes a whole step further a view verses later to speak about PILLARS and THE TWISTING SERPENT - ancient Canaanite and ‘pagan’ images not even mentioned in Genesis Myth #1 e.g. (e.g. ‘Lotan’, the Canaanite Serpent-Dragon Monster slain by the god YAM (‘sea’) later called by the Rebbes LEVIATHAN by adding different vowel points to L-O-T-N)
Examination of the poetical parallelism can be instructive: below are (3) poetical paleoHeb poetical phrases that are in the consonantal proto-Masoretic Text which surround your quote
l. ‘n-tah tz-phon al-t-hu , 2. t-lah ertz al b-li-m-h (?), 3. velo n-beqa’ ‘an-v (?) tech-tem
NB: the Old Chaldean, the Hebrew Consontantal Textual Underlay (‘Vorlage’)to the Greek LXX Septuaginta and Symmachus’ Vorlage etc. do not match each other letter for letter, but you used the MT so here it is according to their own 10th century AD text(s)
These odd phrases could be roughly ‘translated’ into ‘modern English’ in various ways, depending on where you put the vowels (and even depending on what consonants are denoted) as follows
l. ‘He stretches out Tzaphon (‘The North’ where the gods dwell) upon the Chaos’ (Heb. ‘Tohu’)
Tohu comes from ‘tahah’ meaning ‘to flail the arms about in chaotic confusion’; related to the Aramaic ‘Tehom(ah), ‘watery Chaos’ expressed in the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews as both TOHU wa BOHU (‘chaotic’ and ‘devoid of purpose’ and also later as TEHOM (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) ioften translated into English as e..g. ‘The (watery) Deep’) or ‘the Waters’ (of Creation).
The intensive form of TOHU is TEHOMOTH (cf; Tehomah in Aramaic) and suggests the Babylonian chaos Monster-goddess ‘TIAMAT’ whom the Babylonian clan god Marduk splits in two pieces to divide salt water from fresh water at the creation (waters above v. waters below)
2. ‘He drapes the Earth over the Belimah’ (‘Hemmed in Waste’ ?)
Nobody actually knows what BELIMAH means –the Rebbes don’t even know if it is supposed to be ONE word or TWO words. Technically it is not even a recogniseable word in Hebrew at all.
We note that the Old Chaldean Heb. text version of Job 26:7 simply has as an underlay ‘qAl-Mayim (‘upon the Waters’) ignoring the inclitic ‘Beli’ which literally means ‘without’ (i.e. without ‘additional support’ etc. )
Some modern Rabinnic scholars see the Heb. as a substantive (BELIMAH) from the verb B-L-M ( ‘to hem in’ or ‘bridle’, ‘control’) as in the bridling of a Donkey (as in Bala’am’s Ass) ;
See Psalms 32:9 (“be not like the horse whose mouth must be bridled (BALAM) by a bit and with a rein’) – Rabbinic literature e.g. as some expressions in the Sefer Yetzirot which use phrases like ‘Bridle (BALAM) your mouth about this subject’ (i.e. don’t talk about it to outsiders) where BELIMAH could mean ‘ineffable’ ‘unspeakable’ or even ‘Tabu’ or ‘Secret’
3. He controls the [Formless] Waters [i.e. of Creation] in clouds so thick that they cannot break loose from them'
The idea of ‘Water
y Chaos’ that must be brought into control by a creator god is reflected in many Levantine creation hymns – the TOHU and the BEMINAH are not ‘nothing’ but ‘a jumbled heap of ‘potential somethings’ i.e. ORDO ab CHAO (‘Order’ to be brought from ‘Disorder’) - like the static on your TV screen when you select a station that is not broadcasting that has not yet ‘adhered’ to an intelligent signal.
In Job chapter 26 the image here is of the l. Watery Chaos Floodwaters being controlled by the god ELOAH, 2. the vast Eternal Wasteland of Creation is ‘hemmed in ‘ by ELOAH alone, and 3. the Clouds of this Watery Chaos are ‘constricted so tight’ by ELOAH that they do not burst beyond their limits.
This is the kind of Watery Creation language used in the Cannanite Creation Cuneiform tablets where YAM the god of the Sea hems in the Chaotic Waters of creation from drowning the world, and sits on top of it as King (later the Yahwists stole these texts and adapted them to YHWH – as in ‘YHWH sits as King upon the Flood Waters’ in e.g. Psalm 29 etc. )
But this is NOT science – and a clear non modern cosmology of Job is borne out by the poetical verses which follow which show that the heavens are supported by ‘pillars’ which ‘tremble and shudder at the Rebuke of ELOAH…’
In other words, anyone who is trying to prove 'scientific knowledge' from paleoHebrew poetry is bound to come a cropper sooner or later, so it would be best for any intelligent person to move on to other matters, don't you agree?
As I mentioned, The Poem of Job (beginning with chapter 3) has a number of ‘pagan’ (Babylonian, Akkadian & Egyptian) ‘Wisdom’ Literature type sources from whence it drew its subject matter and style of utterance (see the Babylonian Dialogue of Tabu-Utul-Ba’al or the earlier the Egyptian ‘Complaints of Khakheperre-sonb’ or the famous ‘Dialogue of a Man Weary with his Life’ ) etc.
The problem here for moderns reading the garbled text of Job in some random English ‘translation’ of whatever source material it ‘translates’ is .. exactly how DOES one translate ancient paleoHebew POETRY accurately – since it uses language both obscure and un-pointed (using almost no vowels) - so we cannot always be sure of the exact meanings.
Later Masoretic vowels added to the confused consonantal text c. 960 AD were basically intelligent guesses, and no more.
They were as flummoxed by the arcane foregin poetry in front of them as we are to-day. Their consonantal text was not the same as the Hebrew consonantal text in front of the Alexandrian Greek Speaking Jews in the 1st century BCE who produced the Greek versions of the Hebrew scriptures, especially the LXX Septuaginta.
To add insult to injury, the mishmash of hand-copied textual MSS of the poetical sections of ‘Job’ over the millennia (especially by comparing all the differing Hebrew underlaying Hebrew consonantal textual Vorlagen to the LXX, the later Masoretic MT version, the Syriac, the Chaldeean and other tattered Dead Sea Scroll Aramaic Targum-like copies !) show a gross ‘fluidity of text types in antiquity’ (Emmanuel Tov) which bears abundant witness to the fact that the copyists were each in their own way trying to make sense of the messy and confusing paleoHeb consonants that were staring in front of them
Scholars have known for centuries that Job is full of broken literary fragments - (despite numerous emendations in an attempt to make sense of them) are woefully full of interrupted speeches, many ‘hapax legomena’ (obscure Heb. terms that only occur once in a given text or in Hebrew writings as a whole - and whose original meaning is now lost) grammatical & textual lacunae, contradictory assignations of the names of Job’s daughters, confusion as to who actually is speaking at times in some of the ‘speeches’ (Job and his speaker-friends (Elihu, Bildad etal.) sometimes are mislabeled in the text, and also contain a number of smaller and larger textual insertions (e.g. chapter 28, which is in a later Hebrew accent by another writer which ‘interferes’ with the logic of chapter 27 and chapter 29, etc.)
So you really picked doozie of a messy text to quote to support ‘modern science’ from in Job 26:7—
And your own faulty translation of : ‘tela [ha]eretz al-Belimah’ (which you render as ‘he suspends the Earth upon Nothing’ - has little if any textual grammatical basis to translate it as such - NOTHING it is based on the wild guesses of the Septuagintal Greek LXX in c. BCE 100 who tried to find a parallel term in Greek for the Hebrew BELIMAH they surely could not make sense out of.
The weird Hebrew term ‘Belimah’ is Hapax - it is a term occurs nowhere else in Job or in any ancient Heb. Literature –although in the much later Aramaic Sefer Yetzirah (2nd century to 9th century AD) the author (whoever he was) makes Belimah a god like entity – in fact Sefer Yetzirah (i.e. the Kabalistic ‘Book of Formations’) understood belimah as something real and ‘positive’ by pairing it up in his commentary with the words of Psalms 104:5 (a ‘creation psalm’)
"He who built up the earth upon its solid Foundations, that it should not ever be moved forever." The Sefer Yetzirah holds that ‘the 10 Sefirot was in fact The Belimah’ etc.
At any rate, according to this later Rabinnical poetical ‘pairing of the earth stands on something. This something, (i.e. solid palpable foundations) is called belimah. It is NOT ‘no-thing’ as you have mis-understood it to be – and has nothing whatsoever to do with modern cosmology.
When facing HAPAX LEGOMENA in ancient poetry, scholars wishing to understand what a rare Hebrew poetical word means, often find it helpful to examine the parallel line before or after it - Hebrew (like Sumerian, Akkadian, Babyloinian, Ugaritic etc.) poetry makes abundant use of ‘Double Poetic Parallelism’ (with the 2nd line emphasizing or even explaining in other words the meaning of the 1st line)
Here is a quick and famous example of ‘poetical parallelism’ where the 2nd line repeats the general gist of the 1st line: (e.g. Psalm 8:4 – ‘What is MAN that you are MINDFUL OF HIM? What is the SON OF MAN that you should CARE FOR HIM? – where MAN = SON of MAN and BE MINDFUL = CARE FOR etc.)
Your rare and weird cosmological mis-quote in Job 26:8 that you are trying (for whatever reason) to foist upon educated and thinking ATS members as ‘inspired by the god of the Jews’ as somehow mysteriously foreshadowing modern cosmological ‘space’ views has absolutely NO bearing on modern cosmological science - which you should be able to see from reading around the mangled text itself –
The textual core of Job is NOT science, but a messy hotchpotch of ancient un-pointed (unvowelled) paleo-Hebrew poetical fragments (written with an Elamite ‘pagan’ paleo-accent) reflecting the pre-Scientific world view held in the 7th century BCE by Israelitish priests borrowed from their more-sophisticated neighboring kingdoms who conquered them and into whose lands their priests were exiled (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon etc.).
Unfortuntately, nobody today seems to know what ‘upon Belimah’ DOES mean – all we can see is that BELIMAH stands in parallelism to TOHU (=watery chaos)
It could just be a weird poetical substantive grammatical form of the verb ‘Balah’ with –the suffix MAH added for some odd reason (some think MAH is a rare poetical singular of Mayim, ‘water’- who knows) –
This poetical fragment of Job’s speech at the opening of Job chapter 26 does seem to make use of some of the same kind of ‘weird cosomological watery chaos language’ found in the Babylonian vocabulary stuffed version of the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a), and goes a whole step further a view verses later to speak about PILLARS and THE TWISTING SERPENT - ancient Canaanite and ‘pagan’ images not even mentioned in Genesis Myth #1 e.g. (e.g. ‘Lotan’, the Canaanite Serpent-Dragon Monster slain by the god YAM (‘sea’) later called by the Rebbes LEVIATHAN by adding different vowel points to L-O-T-N)
Examination of the poetical parallelism can be instructive: below are (3) poetical paleoHeb poetical phrases that are in the consonantal proto-Masoretic Text which surround your quote
l. ‘n-tah tz-phon al-t-hu , 2. t-lah ertz al b-li-m-h (?), 3. velo n-beqa’ ‘an-v (?) tech-tem
NB: the Old Chaldean, the Hebrew Consontantal Textual Underlay (‘Vorlage’)to the Greek LXX Septuaginta and Symmachus’ Vorlage etc. do not match each other letter for letter, but you used the MT so here it is according to their own 10th century AD text(s)
These odd phrases could be roughly ‘translated’ into ‘modern English’ in various ways, depending on where you put the vowels (and even depending on what consonants are denoted) as follows
l. ‘He stretches out Tzaphon (‘The North’ where the gods dwell) upon the Chaos’ (Heb. ‘Tohu’)
Tohu comes from ‘tahah’ meaning ‘to flail the arms about in chaotic confusion’; related to the Aramaic ‘Tehom(ah), ‘watery Chaos’ expressed in the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews as both TOHU wa BOHU (‘chaotic’ and ‘devoid of purpose’ and also later as TEHOM (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) ioften translated into English as e..g. ‘The (watery) Deep’) or ‘the Waters’ (of Creation).
The intensive form of TOHU is TEHOMOTH (cf; Tehomah in Aramaic) and suggests the Babylonian chaos Monster-goddess ‘TIAMAT’ whom the Babylonian clan god Marduk splits in two pieces to divide salt water from fresh water at the creation (waters above v. waters below)
2. ‘He drapes the Earth over the Belimah’ (‘Hemmed in Waste’ ?)
Nobody actually knows what BELIMAH means –the Rebbes don’t even know if it is supposed to be ONE word or TWO words. Technically it is not even a recogniseable word in Hebrew at all.
We note that the Old Chaldean Heb. text version of Job 26:7 simply has as an underlay ‘qAl-Mayim (‘upon the Waters’) ignoring the inclitic ‘Beli’ which literally means ‘without’ (i.e. without ‘additional support’ etc. )
Some modern Rabinnic scholars see the Heb. as a substantive (BELIMAH) from the verb B-L-M ( ‘to hem in’ or ‘bridle’, ‘control’) as in the bridling of a Donkey (as in Bala’am’s Ass) ;
See Psalms 32:9 (“be not like the horse whose mouth must be bridled (BALAM) by a bit and with a rein’) – Rabbinic literature e.g. as some expressions in the Sefer Yetzirot which use phrases like ‘Bridle (BALAM) your mouth about this subject’ (i.e. don’t talk about it to outsiders) where BELIMAH could mean ‘ineffable’ ‘unspeakable’ or even ‘Tabu’ or ‘Secret’
3. He controls the [Formless] Waters [i.e. of Creation] in clouds so thick that they cannot break loose from them'
The idea of ‘Water
y Chaos’ that must be brought into control by a creator god is reflected in many Levantine creation hymns – the TOHU and the BEMINAH are not ‘nothing’ but ‘a jumbled heap of ‘potential somethings’ i.e. ORDO ab CHAO (‘Order’ to be brought from ‘Disorder’) - like the static on your TV screen when you select a station that is not broadcasting that has not yet ‘adhered’ to an intelligent signal.
In Job chapter 26 the image here is of the l. Watery Chaos Floodwaters being controlled by the god ELOAH, 2. the vast Eternal Wasteland of Creation is ‘hemmed in ‘ by ELOAH alone, and 3. the Clouds of this Watery Chaos are ‘constricted so tight’ by ELOAH that they do not burst beyond their limits.
This is the kind of Watery Creation language used in the Cannanite Creation Cuneiform tablets where YAM the god of the Sea hems in the Chaotic Waters of creation from drowning the world, and sits on top of it as King (later the Yahwists stole these texts and adapted them to YHWH – as in ‘YHWH sits as King upon the Flood Waters’ in e.g. Psalm 29 etc. )
But this is NOT science – and a clear non modern cosmology of Job is borne out by the poetical verses which follow which show that the heavens are supported by ‘pillars’ which ‘tremble and shudder at the Rebuke of ELOAH…’
In other words, anyone who is trying to prove 'scientific knowledge' from paleoHebrew poetry is bound to come a cropper sooner or later, so it would be best for any intelligent person to move on to other matters, don't you agree?
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
23 He brings princes to naught
and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.
24 No sooner are they planted,
no sooner are they sown,
no sooner do they take root in the ground,
than he blows on them and they wither,
and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff.
25 “To whom will you compare me?
Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.
26 Lift your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one,
and calls them each by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing. Isaiah 40:22-26
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. John 16:13
100prophecies.org...
www.theomatics.com...
www.wordworx.co.nz...
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
23 He brings princes to naught
and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.
24 No sooner are they planted,
no sooner are they sown,
no sooner do they take root in the ground,
than he blows on them and they wither,
and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff.
25 “To whom will you compare me?
Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.
26 Lift your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one,
and calls them each by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing. Isaiah 40:22-26
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. John 16:13
100prophecies.org...
www.theomatics.com...
www.wordworx.co.nz...
reply to post by Faith2011
I don't think you fully grasp the definition of "objective evidence"
All you do is preach, and preach more...and more...and more...and more. No rationality, no logic, just pure BLIND faith...
I don't think you fully grasp the definition of "objective evidence"
All you do is preach, and preach more...and more...and more...and more. No rationality, no logic, just pure BLIND faith...
Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
For once, I actually agree with Madness, shocking isn't it.
Using hellfire dogma to justify a position on creation is just about the worst possible thing a christian can do.
2nd time I agree with BJ...some of the people should read up on the recent creationist threads. If you see me agreeing with BJ, you can't possibly be right
reply to post by Sigismundus
Where do I start, where do I begin to unravel the tangled web?
Too much data dump and too much to cover on one post or two. Don't want to attract the MODS attention so I'll just cover a few points.
First off – thanks for revealing your sources but I'm sorry to say this, I think you've been misled.
From what I see – who ever did the translation if it's as you say the source of Job's utterances or the writings of Moses, they did a very poor job of it. IF it's a copy of Job 26 then it's a very bad copy. Reminds me of how the Apocryphal books were put together.
Note what The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Vol. 1, p. 166) states:
Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Bible Dictionary (1936, p. 56) comments:
As one authority summed up the case against the Apocryphal writings:
Either way I'm glad that it's is not an accepted version. Now I'm not surprised at all why you have a muddied view of the Holy Scriptures.
But for clarity's sake let's do a comparison.
You said:
Now lets compare it with the real deal - here's how modern Bible says it:
So which of the two versions is the most accurate? Which one is an immitation? I can tell you which one but since you're biased towards your translation then it doesn't matter. (I can provide more versions here but the 'jest' is the same with regards to your version)
To show you why the version I quoted above is the real deal - the most accurate translation of the ancient MSS I can explain each verse without any difficulty. But it will make the post longer so let's get to the point of the matter.
V7 says: “He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing;”
Your comment on this is:
Yet scholars disagree with you. A quick google as you've suggested will confirm this.
Here's from Strongsnumbers:
Original Word: בְּלִי־מָה
Transliteration: belimah
Phonetic Spelling: (bel-ee-mah')
Short Definition: nothing
Word Origin
from beli and mah
Definition
nothingness
NASB Word Usage
nothing (1).
strongsnumbers.com...
Strong's H1099 - bĕliymah בְּלִימָה
Transliteration
bĕliymah
Pronunciation
bel·ē·mah' (Key)
Part of Speech
masculine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From בְּלִי (H1097) and מָה (H4100)
TWOT Reference
246f
Outline of Biblical Usage 1) nothingness
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 1 AV — nothing 1 Gesenius's Lexicon (Help)
Word / Phrase / Strong's Search
Where do I start, where do I begin to unravel the tangled web?
Too much data dump and too much to cover on one post or two. Don't want to attract the MODS attention so I'll just cover a few points.
First off – thanks for revealing your sources but I'm sorry to say this, I think you've been misled.
From what I see – who ever did the translation if it's as you say the source of Job's utterances or the writings of Moses, they did a very poor job of it. IF it's a copy of Job 26 then it's a very bad copy. Reminds me of how the Apocryphal books were put together.
Note what The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Vol. 1, p. 166) states:
“Many of them are trivial, some are highly theatrical, some are disgusting, even loathsome.” (Edited by G. A. Buttrick, 1962)
Funk and Wagnalls New Standard Bible Dictionary (1936, p. 56) comments:
“They have been the fruitful source of sacred legends and ecclesiastical traditions. It is to these books that we must look for the origin of some of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church.”
As one authority summed up the case against the Apocryphal writings:
“They have not had the sanction of the Jewish and the early Christian Church; . . . are wholly wanting in the prophetic spirit. . . ; not only do not claim inspiration but bewail the want of it; are characterized in many passages by an air of romance and mythology alien to the simple grandeur of the Bible; contradict themselves and some well-known facts of secular history; teach doctrines not contained in the Bible. . . ; and appear never to have been quoted as an authority by the Lord or his apostles.”—Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, Abbott, pp. 50, 51.
Either way I'm glad that it's is not an accepted version. Now I'm not surprised at all why you have a muddied view of the Holy Scriptures.
But for clarity's sake let's do a comparison.
You said:
Here is the larger CONTEXT of your quote e.g. in thee Elamite paleoHebrew Poetical section of Job 26 4-13 , which in modern American English could be brought into something like:
“To whom do you think you are speaking?
Where is all that Wind coming out of your Mouth coming from ?
Can’t you see how the Giants (haRefayim) are still twisting & turning in anguish
under the Flood-Waters along with their Cohorts ? –
Or that She’ol is stark naked before the faces of ELOAH,
that to him (or her !) even Abba Do’qon (‘the father of Destruction’) has no clothes on ? –
Behold, how ELOAH has stretched out the North over a Starry-Desolation,
yea, he (she) lays down the Earth there upon the Waters with no additional support !
Yea, no matter how thick the Waters are pressed into the clouds
yet they are not torn by the sheer weight of them !
Lo, he holds back the face of his throne
and see how he spreads out his cloud covering it –
Yea he has set eternal boundaries for the Waters,
which will remain forever until Night and Day cease to exist !
Now lets compare it with the real deal - here's how modern Bible says it:
“4 To whom have you told words, And whose breath has come forth from you? 5 Those impotent in death keep trembling Beneath the waters and those residing in them. 6 She′ol is naked in front of him, And [the place of] destruction has no covering. 7 He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing; 8 Wrapping up the waters in his clouds, So that the cloud mass is not split under them; 9 Enclosing the face of the throne, Spreading out over it his cloud. 10 He has described a circle upon the face of the waters, To where light ends in darkness. 11 The very pillars of heaven shake, And they are amazed because of his rebuke. 12 By his power he has stirred up the sea, And by his understanding he has broken the stormer to pieces. 13 By his wind he has polished up heaven itself, His hand has pierced the gliding serpent. 14 Look! These are the fringes of his ways, And what a whisper of a matter has been heard of him! But of his mighty thunder who can show an understanding?” (Job 26:4-14)
So which of the two versions is the most accurate? Which one is an immitation? I can tell you which one but since you're biased towards your translation then it doesn't matter. (I can provide more versions here but the 'jest' is the same with regards to your version)
To show you why the version I quoted above is the real deal - the most accurate translation of the ancient MSS I can explain each verse without any difficulty. But it will make the post longer so let's get to the point of the matter.
V7 says: “He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing;”
Your comment on this is:
So you really picked doozie of a messy text to quote to support ‘modern science’ from in Job 26:7—
And your own faulty translation of : ‘tela [ha]eretz al-Belimah’ (which you render as ‘he suspends the Earth upon Nothing’ - has little if any textual grammatical basis to translate it as such - NOTHING it is based on the wild guesses of the Septuagintal Greek LXX in c. BCE 100 who tried to find a parallel term in Greek for the Hebrew BELIMAH they surely could not make sense out of.
Yet scholars disagree with you. A quick google as you've suggested will confirm this.
Here's from Strongsnumbers:
Original Word: בְּלִי־מָה
Transliteration: belimah
Phonetic Spelling: (bel-ee-mah')
Short Definition: nothing
Word Origin
from beli and mah
Definition
nothingness
NASB Word Usage
nothing (1).
strongsnumbers.com...
Strong's H1099 - bĕliymah בְּלִימָה
Transliteration
bĕliymah
Pronunciation
bel·ē·mah' (Key)
Part of Speech
masculine noun
Root Word (Etymology)
From בְּלִי (H1097) and מָה (H4100)
TWOT Reference
246f
Outline of Biblical Usage 1) nothingness
Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 1 AV — nothing 1 Gesenius's Lexicon (Help)
Word / Phrase / Strong's Search
Originally posted by Faith2011
reply to post by MrXYZ
Only those who have a humble spirit can receive God's Truth!
And more preaching
reply to post by daskakik
Fact is this process is nothing new – been used for a while now in gene splicing where the idea is to trick the bacteria into thinking they are producing something they need, when really they are producing something you need. The switches are called “regulatory genes.”
Anyhow bottom line is a “live” source is needed for the process to be successful. But if they are able to “create” a new life from non-life – then that would be something to talk about. Imagine Jurassic Park part – the reanimation.
Like what I said already, if you've been paying close attention to what sigismundus had posted (so far), then you probably already noticed that much of what it covered are superficial “stuff”, pointing to what seems to be inconsistencies, like writing styles, spelling and prose. Latest evidence was quotes from non-canonical books such as the apocryphal books and other manuscripts. But it’s not surprising to use these as proofs to discredit the Bible. They’ve been used so many times over and over again by many Bible critics – happily but sadly for them none has succeeded.
Although it’s true that men wrote the Bible – 44 men to be exact – what they wrote according to them was not really theirs. As penmen of the Bible the writers admitted that they were guided by God thus what they produced was not really theirs but God’s – The Word of God. As writers they were given the freedom to write things according to their abilities and styles. Some used existing manuscripts; some wrote what told them to write. They also wrote things based on their experienced or by word of mouth (oral traditions). They were also very honest and candid writers as they revealed their own sins, mistakes and weaknesses, providing valuable lessons for us. One important fact to note - even though the writings were done for a period 16 centuries from 1513 B.C.E down to 98 C.E the Bible’s contents are 100% consistent and accurate. I would also like to ask that it’s free from demonism, superstitious belief and false worship. Moreover they are consistent with facts be it historical or scientific. From Genesis to Revelation the message is the same – the vindication and sanctification of God’s name and restoration of God’s Kingdom! Any inconsistencies can be resolve by its contents, a fact many opponents of the Bible tend to ignore.
So if you really want to know the Bible then study its contents - the message contained therein will prove whether the Bible is Inspired of God or not.
But if you accept that what sigismundus posted are facts does this mean then that you reject the historical facts that I posted in my last reply to sigismundos?
That is: (re posting here for your convenience)
Quoting from “Against Apion” Jewish historian Flavius Josephus of the first century C.E said:
If so, what's your reason?
As for the Dead Sea Scrolls – note what historians and authorities on the subject had concluded.
The book A General Introduction to the Bible, explains the results of the study they conducted on the Dead Sea Scrolls:
Professor Millar Burrows, who worked with the scrolls for years, analyzing their contents, came to a similar conclusion:
In short both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures came down to us fully INTACT after all the years and struggles! Any idea how was this possible if there's was no divine backing?
So what say you daskakik – which evidence will you place your credibility on? Sigismundus or the Bible’s own words along with scholars/authorities quoted above?
Think about this too, if the claim of opponents of the Bible is that the sources were from pagan nations - then the messages contained therein should not contradict the pagan teachings or writings. Agree?
Yet take for example – the Ten Commandments – the very first command says:
Do any extant pagan writings agree with the commandments above? Can you show me one that even resembles it?
So far there's no evidence that these commands came from anyone else other than God Himself. Yet that is what sigismundus is trying to portray with no back up other than what was claimed by the author of his books.
So if you're credibility rest on sigismundus' statement then here's an advice from the apostle Paul:
“Never may that happen! But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, even as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged.”” (Romans 3:4)
By these statements – Paul was saying that God's words are truthful and reliable but man's words needs to be verified – even mine.
So far none of the facts that I posted had been proven to be false – thus they not only “fit” the facts but they “fit” what we see in nature because they are the Reality!
ty
edmc
I was wrong. I just read "synthesized" in the story and figured the DNA was from scratch. I know that they used parts to cheat a bit. Still they managed to mold life and soon they may create life but it really doesn't matter. If they ever get a bunch of separate chemicals throw them together and form life you will just argue that the without the life known as humans it would have never happened.
Fact is this process is nothing new – been used for a while now in gene splicing where the idea is to trick the bacteria into thinking they are producing something they need, when really they are producing something you need. The switches are called “regulatory genes.”
Anyhow bottom line is a “live” source is needed for the process to be successful. But if they are able to “create” a new life from non-life – then that would be something to talk about. Imagine Jurassic Park part – the reanimation.
I'm still not convinced especially after all the info sigismundus is posting which shows how inconsistent the bible is and how certain translations may be incorrect.
Like what I said already, if you've been paying close attention to what sigismundus had posted (so far), then you probably already noticed that much of what it covered are superficial “stuff”, pointing to what seems to be inconsistencies, like writing styles, spelling and prose. Latest evidence was quotes from non-canonical books such as the apocryphal books and other manuscripts. But it’s not surprising to use these as proofs to discredit the Bible. They’ve been used so many times over and over again by many Bible critics – happily but sadly for them none has succeeded.
Although it’s true that men wrote the Bible – 44 men to be exact – what they wrote according to them was not really theirs. As penmen of the Bible the writers admitted that they were guided by God thus what they produced was not really theirs but God’s – The Word of God. As writers they were given the freedom to write things according to their abilities and styles. Some used existing manuscripts; some wrote what told them to write. They also wrote things based on their experienced or by word of mouth (oral traditions). They were also very honest and candid writers as they revealed their own sins, mistakes and weaknesses, providing valuable lessons for us. One important fact to note - even though the writings were done for a period 16 centuries from 1513 B.C.E down to 98 C.E the Bible’s contents are 100% consistent and accurate. I would also like to ask that it’s free from demonism, superstitious belief and false worship. Moreover they are consistent with facts be it historical or scientific. From Genesis to Revelation the message is the same – the vindication and sanctification of God’s name and restoration of God’s Kingdom! Any inconsistencies can be resolve by its contents, a fact many opponents of the Bible tend to ignore.
So if you really want to know the Bible then study its contents - the message contained therein will prove whether the Bible is Inspired of God or not.
But if you accept that what sigismundus posted are facts does this mean then that you reject the historical facts that I posted in my last reply to sigismundos?
That is: (re posting here for your convenience)
Quoting from “Against Apion” Jewish historian Flavius Josephus of the first century C.E said:
“We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty* and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver. . . . From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.”.
If so, what's your reason?
As for the Dead Sea Scrolls – note what historians and authorities on the subject had concluded.
The book A General Introduction to the Bible, explains the results of the study they conducted on the Dead Sea Scrolls:
“Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only seventeen letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The remaining three letters comprise the word ‘light,’ which is added in verse 11, and does not affect the meaning greatly. . . . Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission—and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage.”
Professor Millar Burrows, who worked with the scrolls for years, analyzing their contents, came to a similar conclusion:
“Many of the differences between the . . . Isaiah scroll and the Masoretic text can be explained as mistakes in copying. Apart from these, there is a remarkable agreement, on the whole, with the text found in the medieval manuscripts. Such agreement in a manuscript so much older gives reassuring testimony to the general accuracy of the traditional text.”
In short both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures came down to us fully INTACT after all the years and struggles! Any idea how was this possible if there's was no divine backing?
So what say you daskakik – which evidence will you place your credibility on? Sigismundus or the Bible’s own words along with scholars/authorities quoted above?
Think about this too, if the claim of opponents of the Bible is that the sources were from pagan nations - then the messages contained therein should not contradict the pagan teachings or writings. Agree?
Yet take for example – the Ten Commandments – the very first command says:
“20 And God proceeded to speak all these words, saying: 2 “I am Jehovah your God, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slaves. 3 You must not have any other gods against my face. 4 “You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or that is on the earth underneath or that is in the waters under the earth. 5 You must not bow down to them nor be induced to serve them, because I Jehovah your God am a God exacting exclusive devotion, bringing punishment for the error of fathers upon sons, upon the third generation and upon the fourth generation, in the case of those who hate me; 6 but exercising loving-kindness toward the thousandth generation in the case of those who love me and keep my commandments.” (Exodus 20:1-6)
Do any extant pagan writings agree with the commandments above? Can you show me one that even resembles it?
So far there's no evidence that these commands came from anyone else other than God Himself. Yet that is what sigismundus is trying to portray with no back up other than what was claimed by the author of his books.
So if you're credibility rest on sigismundus' statement then here's an advice from the apostle Paul:
“Never may that happen! But let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, even as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged.”” (Romans 3:4)
By these statements – Paul was saying that God's words are truthful and reliable but man's words needs to be verified – even mine.
I see you taking a handful of correlations that fit to say the bible is factual and overlooking many more which prove the opposite.
So far none of the facts that I posted had been proven to be false – thus they not only “fit” the facts but they “fit” what we see in nature because they are the Reality!
ty
edmc
Hi edmc -
I take it you cannot read Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic from what you claim in your inane postings
You show absolutely NO knowledge of the actual messy 'fluid;' textual situation of the Hebrew Scriptures prior to AD 90 in your answers - just a bunch of ignorant citing from random links you don't understand.
For example, if you think even for a moment that the 'Masoretic' text family alone is the 'inviolate word' of the post Exilic clan god of the Judaeans, then take a VERY close look at the OTHER OLDER Heb. texts e.g. the Samaritan Pentateuch (Sam Pent) for a start.
Then, like Origen, take a very close comparative look at the Hebrew textual Vorlagen (texutal consonantal underlay) to the LXX found in cave 4 of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Once you have read through these texts, you will soon find major textual differences if you count letter for letter - upwards of 15% (not counting the little changes in the hand-copied texts over the centuries.)
Jews did NOT start counting 'middle letters' on their 'holy scriptures' until after the canon was established (i.e. after AD 160) and they decided on a firm list of books and a firm textual 'tradition'; especially before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, there was no firm list of books (canon) established that all jews regarded as 'defiling the hands' and no single, firm version of those books upon which to base any single, holy 'text' version on.
The Nash Papyrus and the DSS fragments and other text copies which were penned prior to AD 70 (like the so-called Chester Beatty Papyri from Alexandria) show that the 'actual consonantal text of the Hebrew scriptures was far from settled' prior to cc. AD 100 - all of that 'gradual settling of the various Heb text families' came after the Rabinnic Councils at Javneh (AD 90-100) which still left books like Song of Songs, the Scroll of the prophet Hezekiel and Proverbs and Esther 'undecided' as to canonicity among the surviving Rabbis who without a temple any more (destoyed by Rome in AD 70) had to codify a book for Jews to use as a source for belief etc..)
Then, once you have compared all the consonants in those versions of the Hebew textual versions listed above, begin to compare VERY carefully what you read there with all the Targumim and then tackle the Syriac Bible.
After doing all of this yourself (and not relying on non-scholarly apoligists or their silly links) IF you cannot see that e.g. the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah is DIFFERENT in the Dead Sea scroll consonantal Vorlagen by up to 19% (counting every single letter) which is a full 13 chapters shorter than the Masoretic Text THEN clearly you have no critical faculties and should not be discussing things that are beyond your ken on public discussion boards - it would mean that you are unable to see that 4 does NOT equal 17.
Also how come you are unaware that the proto-Masoretic consonantal (proto-MT) text of the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah c. 250 BCE (`1Q-IS-a') that was found in Cavee 1 at Qumran of the Dead Sea Scrolls was found RIGHT BESIDE another different version of the same book ('1Q-IS-b' from about 300 BCE) which is actually quite different textually speaking if you count letter by letter by approx 14% from the version you read in your 'bible' ??
Your own protestant MT text is based on a single MS from Leningrad from c. 960 AD - whereas the Dead Sea Scroll versions are AT LEAST 1000 years older andd show 'a surprisingly fluid textual soup (to quote Emmanuel Tov). They DO NOT MATCH - anyone who knows these texts intimately and claims that they do is a LIAR.
For example, there were TWO copies of Isaiah in Cave One at Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls lying SIDE BY SIDE - only ONE of which matches your own 'old testament' version very closely (even then it is 8% different counting every single letter). The other version does NOT.
So stop with all the silly links you've attached in your last - go and look at the primary evidence for yourself - you might be shocked (as many priests and rabbis were !) as to what you might find if you look at the primary evidence for yourself as I had to over the years.
As for the messy textual history of the book of Job (much of which is a non-unity and many words and phrases contained in its fragmentary passages are virtually untranslatable) ; Anyonee who can read Hebrew and is in any way familiar with the actual texts themselves can see all the Variations in the copies of Job - and if there should arise such a person who can read the text and STILL claims that the Book of Job is NOT a textual mess is a LIAR whose claims fly in the face of verifiable facts in the matter.
Here is a typical quote reflecting modern scholarship on this sticky textual issue of Job:
(see e.g. Dr. Jakob Mortensen - from the article in the 'Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament')
"It is quite impossible to point out a preferential reading in the Book of Job because of the fundamental and structural dissonance of the text. This destabilized, ambiguous, paradoxical, ironical and dissonance-producing text is the hermeneutical starting point. Qua dissonance-producing text this feature is used as foundation for the interpretative task...'
Mortensen sums up the basic textual facts of the matter of Job rather nicely.
Here's another link which should open your eyes to the truth of the matter of the textual transmission mess of the Book of Job -
books.google.com... MwXIwY_NNabo&hl=en&ei=yZW4TebtNpP6swOBnqmDCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
And here is a here's a quick Wiki link (since you seem to like them so much !) which unfortunately only skims the surface of the fluidity of textual transmissiion of the book of Job issue:
en.wikipedia.org...
Also here is a link to the Anchor Bible Series Commentary which you can purchase ref: the mangled Text versions of Job in all those contradictory hand written copies (about which you apparently know No-Thing, your favourite word !)
search.barnesandnoble.com...
As for any understanding of BELIMAH - it is a HAPAX LEGOMENON - obscrure word/words which occurs no where else in Hebrew and might not even be a single word at all - it might be made up of (2) arcane words -
In fact, BELIMAH might turn out not even to be Hebrew at all - (though it could actually derive as a substantive or intensive form of the Heb. BALAM - 'to rein in the powers of confusion', 'to put control on Chaos' etc.) using a Heb root-verb which parallels other similar root-verbs in the verses all around Job 26:7-9 haviing to do with 'controlling', 'reining in', 'wrapping around', and 'limiting/ setting limits 'etc.)
As I said earlier, however, the word BELIMA is NOT from the Heb. BeLi (from Balah - 'to waste away, be without purpose, thin out to nothing') - not the least of which, because, obviously, the word Be-LI has no Heb Letter 'MEM' in it - so don't go there. NOBODY knows for sure what this word means yet - PERIOD.
So enough of you ignorant preaching - we'll tackle your other ignorant assumptions shortly when I'm back in town next week !
I take it you cannot read Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic from what you claim in your inane postings
You show absolutely NO knowledge of the actual messy 'fluid;' textual situation of the Hebrew Scriptures prior to AD 90 in your answers - just a bunch of ignorant citing from random links you don't understand.
For example, if you think even for a moment that the 'Masoretic' text family alone is the 'inviolate word' of the post Exilic clan god of the Judaeans, then take a VERY close look at the OTHER OLDER Heb. texts e.g. the Samaritan Pentateuch (Sam Pent) for a start.
Then, like Origen, take a very close comparative look at the Hebrew textual Vorlagen (texutal consonantal underlay) to the LXX found in cave 4 of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Once you have read through these texts, you will soon find major textual differences if you count letter for letter - upwards of 15% (not counting the little changes in the hand-copied texts over the centuries.)
Jews did NOT start counting 'middle letters' on their 'holy scriptures' until after the canon was established (i.e. after AD 160) and they decided on a firm list of books and a firm textual 'tradition'; especially before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, there was no firm list of books (canon) established that all jews regarded as 'defiling the hands' and no single, firm version of those books upon which to base any single, holy 'text' version on.
The Nash Papyrus and the DSS fragments and other text copies which were penned prior to AD 70 (like the so-called Chester Beatty Papyri from Alexandria) show that the 'actual consonantal text of the Hebrew scriptures was far from settled' prior to cc. AD 100 - all of that 'gradual settling of the various Heb text families' came after the Rabinnic Councils at Javneh (AD 90-100) which still left books like Song of Songs, the Scroll of the prophet Hezekiel and Proverbs and Esther 'undecided' as to canonicity among the surviving Rabbis who without a temple any more (destoyed by Rome in AD 70) had to codify a book for Jews to use as a source for belief etc..)
Then, once you have compared all the consonants in those versions of the Hebew textual versions listed above, begin to compare VERY carefully what you read there with all the Targumim and then tackle the Syriac Bible.
After doing all of this yourself (and not relying on non-scholarly apoligists or their silly links) IF you cannot see that e.g. the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah is DIFFERENT in the Dead Sea scroll consonantal Vorlagen by up to 19% (counting every single letter) which is a full 13 chapters shorter than the Masoretic Text THEN clearly you have no critical faculties and should not be discussing things that are beyond your ken on public discussion boards - it would mean that you are unable to see that 4 does NOT equal 17.
Also how come you are unaware that the proto-Masoretic consonantal (proto-MT) text of the Scroll of the Book of the Prophet Isaiah c. 250 BCE (`1Q-IS-a') that was found in Cavee 1 at Qumran of the Dead Sea Scrolls was found RIGHT BESIDE another different version of the same book ('1Q-IS-b' from about 300 BCE) which is actually quite different textually speaking if you count letter by letter by approx 14% from the version you read in your 'bible' ??
Your own protestant MT text is based on a single MS from Leningrad from c. 960 AD - whereas the Dead Sea Scroll versions are AT LEAST 1000 years older andd show 'a surprisingly fluid textual soup (to quote Emmanuel Tov). They DO NOT MATCH - anyone who knows these texts intimately and claims that they do is a LIAR.
For example, there were TWO copies of Isaiah in Cave One at Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls lying SIDE BY SIDE - only ONE of which matches your own 'old testament' version very closely (even then it is 8% different counting every single letter). The other version does NOT.
So stop with all the silly links you've attached in your last - go and look at the primary evidence for yourself - you might be shocked (as many priests and rabbis were !) as to what you might find if you look at the primary evidence for yourself as I had to over the years.
As for the messy textual history of the book of Job (much of which is a non-unity and many words and phrases contained in its fragmentary passages are virtually untranslatable) ; Anyonee who can read Hebrew and is in any way familiar with the actual texts themselves can see all the Variations in the copies of Job - and if there should arise such a person who can read the text and STILL claims that the Book of Job is NOT a textual mess is a LIAR whose claims fly in the face of verifiable facts in the matter.
Here is a typical quote reflecting modern scholarship on this sticky textual issue of Job:
(see e.g. Dr. Jakob Mortensen - from the article in the 'Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament')
"It is quite impossible to point out a preferential reading in the Book of Job because of the fundamental and structural dissonance of the text. This destabilized, ambiguous, paradoxical, ironical and dissonance-producing text is the hermeneutical starting point. Qua dissonance-producing text this feature is used as foundation for the interpretative task...'
Mortensen sums up the basic textual facts of the matter of Job rather nicely.
Here's another link which should open your eyes to the truth of the matter of the textual transmission mess of the Book of Job -
books.google.com... MwXIwY_NNabo&hl=en&ei=yZW4TebtNpP6swOBnqmDCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
And here is a here's a quick Wiki link (since you seem to like them so much !) which unfortunately only skims the surface of the fluidity of textual transmissiion of the book of Job issue:
en.wikipedia.org...
Also here is a link to the Anchor Bible Series Commentary which you can purchase ref: the mangled Text versions of Job in all those contradictory hand written copies (about which you apparently know No-Thing, your favourite word !)
search.barnesandnoble.com...
As for any understanding of BELIMAH - it is a HAPAX LEGOMENON - obscrure word/words which occurs no where else in Hebrew and might not even be a single word at all - it might be made up of (2) arcane words -
In fact, BELIMAH might turn out not even to be Hebrew at all - (though it could actually derive as a substantive or intensive form of the Heb. BALAM - 'to rein in the powers of confusion', 'to put control on Chaos' etc.) using a Heb root-verb which parallels other similar root-verbs in the verses all around Job 26:7-9 haviing to do with 'controlling', 'reining in', 'wrapping around', and 'limiting/ setting limits 'etc.)
As I said earlier, however, the word BELIMA is NOT from the Heb. BeLi (from Balah - 'to waste away, be without purpose, thin out to nothing') - not the least of which, because, obviously, the word Be-LI has no Heb Letter 'MEM' in it - so don't go there. NOBODY knows for sure what this word means yet - PERIOD.
So enough of you ignorant preaching - we'll tackle your other ignorant assumptions shortly when I'm back in town next week !
reply to post by edmc^2
I'm guessing that the reason for the OP was to convince people like me. No point preaching to the choir. One problem is that some of the "facts" that you present are not what I would consider facts. Also, you have no idea what the writers of the texts you quote are really talking about but you act as if you do, for example the stretching of the heavens like a fine guaze was probably referring to clouds, which makes sense since this is something that people see all the time and they in fact look like gauze. The problem is that then it isn't knowledge that had to be given by a higher being, so you then make the leap to dark matter because then it helps your argument.
You also have not answered how the "beginning" in your myth makes it true while other myths with a beginning are wrong.
A while ago I got into it with someone about the true meaning of the 14 Amendment to the Constitution of the US. This is a text written 143 years ago in english and people still can't agree on what it is really saying. It is no surprise that disagreements would exist when it comes to texts 2000 years old and in different languages. This is why I don't take your or sigismundus version as gospel but this is all I need to see to know that if god exists and this was his plan then he doesn't seem omni anything.
I'm guessing that the reason for the OP was to convince people like me. No point preaching to the choir. One problem is that some of the "facts" that you present are not what I would consider facts. Also, you have no idea what the writers of the texts you quote are really talking about but you act as if you do, for example the stretching of the heavens like a fine guaze was probably referring to clouds, which makes sense since this is something that people see all the time and they in fact look like gauze. The problem is that then it isn't knowledge that had to be given by a higher being, so you then make the leap to dark matter because then it helps your argument.
You also have not answered how the "beginning" in your myth makes it true while other myths with a beginning are wrong.
A while ago I got into it with someone about the true meaning of the 14 Amendment to the Constitution of the US. This is a text written 143 years ago in english and people still can't agree on what it is really saying. It is no surprise that disagreements would exist when it comes to texts 2000 years old and in different languages. This is why I don't take your or sigismundus version as gospel but this is all I need to see to know that if god exists and this was his plan then he doesn't seem omni anything.
edit on 27-4-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)
reply to post by daskakik
u said:
Of course I do, really, but let’s analyze the texts in contention and see what the writer meant:
Here’s the text:
“There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell,” (Isaiah 40:22)
On this text we see two established facts:
1) The earth is round or in a shape of a circle or a globe.
2) That the heavens are stretched like“fine gauze”.
But you say that item 2:
The obvious answer is no - because if you look at clouds they resemble or look more like puff of smoke or fluffy cotton balls or just a plane cotton. Besides they are formed not “stretched”.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ec0797238824.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d141c39280d3.jpg[/atsimg]
Now let’s look at the universe again.
Look again at the image below. Is the universe expanding or “stretching”? But stretching like what?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ab34365fa63a.jpg[/atsimg]
Q: If scientists had already confirmed that the universe is expanding, is it a stretch of imagination then if I say that the Universe is “stretching”?
Here’s a closer look at the “stretching” / expanding Universe. Does it resemble a stretched “fine gauze”?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/18aa6057e918.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/084610c9e1fc.jpg[/atsimg]
Note this quote from Scientific American Journal:
Does this article seem strange to you that the writer used the terminology / expression “woven into the fabric of space itself” to define scientific matters? As if the universe is a fabric?
www.scientificamerican.com...
How about the writer of the Bible? Rather than use a course fabric terminology, the writer used “fine gauze” fabric terminology to describe the starry heavens. Does it agree with what scientists had observed? I say, most definitely.
Think about this too, on a clear night if you look at the heavens the thousands of stars do, indeed, form a lacy web stretched over the black velvet background of space. In fact even the enormous galaxy known as the Via Lactea, or Milky Way, in which our solar system is located, has a filmy gauzelike appearance from earth’s viewpoint.
Below is a view of “Via Lactea” from earth:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8bdf9e589eab.jpg[/atsimg]
A closer look:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/eae88c18a3bf.jpg[/atsimg]
Q: Do you think the prophet Isaiah was referring to something like this as “stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze”? Or was he referring to clouds? Which one makes more sense?
Now is it coincidence, a wild guess, a borrowed idea that the Bible writer wrote it this way? That is, “One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze?
I say no – because the prophet Isaiah was stating the observable facts and the facts given to him.
Here’s a SKY Survey of our Milky Galaxy:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/54e9d5171bda.jpg[/atsimg]
Here’s a closer look of our galaxy - 360 view of just our Milky Way Galaxy which is a part of a local group of about 50 galaxies in a local group of clusters in the Virgo Supercluster.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f0c61dd11090.jpg[/atsimg]
So without a doubt the Bible writer knew what he wrote when he saw the Heavens - the starry filled heavens. It’s only now that we’re confirming this to be so in “finer” detail - a truly remarkable achievement in our time.
Genesis 1:1 is not a myth – as proven by scientific facts, that the “heavens” the universe and the earth had a beginning.
And as already explained the material world came into existence by converting energy into matter. But the source of that energy – science has no answer (because it can’t admit it). Genesis 1:1 simply states that God was that source of that energy as he is the Creator.
Again, the source of “dynamic energy”:
“Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? . . . Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.”—Isa. 40:26.
The source of that “dynamic energy” is ALWAYS EXISTING – Jehovah God (YHWH)! Our minds can’t fathom it but it’s not a valid reason to ignore it because there are things that we readily accept even though they are beyond our imagination.
As a side note, notice this statement by a scientist 56 years ago:
Professor John R. Brobeck of the University of Pennsylvania stated:
What about now in our 21st Century is this more emphatic? The evidence is unmistakable.
In fact there was a thread created here talking about impossible things but I was not able to find it. It was an interview of Dr. Michio Kaku. He said if my memory is correct that there are things that we believe are impossible but we are getting closer and closer in achieving them.
Anyway here’s a quote from one of his books:
But as for “other myths with a beginning” can you please show me an example of it? This way we can do a comparison?
next u said:
Of course, there’s no surprise there – in fact if you give someone a simple owner’s manual on how to take care of or operate a machine. People will interpret it in different ways. It’s the same thing with the Bible.
But who’s to say which interpretation is correct?
On an owner’s manual – who’s the best and most qualified person to explain it? Is it the person who created the machine or the secretary who typed in the manual? It’s the person who created the machine. Correct?
What about the “14 Amendment to the Constitution of the US”? It’s the people who put it there. Correct?
But since we don’t’ have access to the people responsible for it, so how do we know which interpretation is the correct one?
The easy answer is in the intention – if the result is GOOD and brings TRUE benefit to ALL persons (using it) then it’s the correct interpretation. On the other hand if the result is chaos, confusion, misery, violation of the stated rules and even injury / death to any person (using it) then obviously the interpretation is wrong. Do you agree? You can apply this principle to any discipline – including the Bible.
The advantage that we have though with the Bible is that it's Author – is Living! We can always approach him any time through prayer. This is also the REASON why the Bible – the Word Of God is INFALLIBLE, because the Owner, the Creator, the Author is Living. Whatever is written in there especially with regards to the future will be fulfilled. It will come true. He has furnished a guaranty past, present and future.
Another important thing remember also is that the Bible interprets itself. That is, we can understand the meaning of a text by looking at other text (in the Bible) to arrive at the correct meaning. In other words it originates with God.
Notice:
“For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20-21)
SO makes sense?
This is just one of the many reasons why my faith and my confidence on Jehovah God (YHWH), his son Jesus Christ and his word the Bible are well founded for again it confirms the fact that Creation is the Reality!
Now I’m glad that you’re in the choir (so to speak) but I wish that you have the same faith that I have if not more than I have on the Creator and his word. For it will open up to you more possibilities and realities.
Next post I’ll show some fantastic inventions / creations – see if you can identify the true creator.
Ty,
edmc2
u said:
Also, you have no idea what the writers of the texts you quote are really talking about but you act as if you do, for example the stretching of the heavens like a fine guaze was probably referring to clouds, which makes sense since this is something that people see all the time and they in fact look like gauze. The problem is that then it isn't knowledge that had to be given by a higher being, so you then make the leap to dark matter because then it helps your argument.
Of course I do, really, but let’s analyze the texts in contention and see what the writer meant:
Here’s the text:
“There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell,” (Isaiah 40:22)
On this text we see two established facts:
1) The earth is round or in a shape of a circle or a globe.
2) That the heavens are stretched like“fine gauze”.
But you say that item 2:
“was probably referring to clouds, which makes sense since this is something that people see all the time and they in fact look like gauze”
The obvious answer is no - because if you look at clouds they resemble or look more like puff of smoke or fluffy cotton balls or just a plane cotton. Besides they are formed not “stretched”.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ec0797238824.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d141c39280d3.jpg[/atsimg]
Now let’s look at the universe again.
Look again at the image below. Is the universe expanding or “stretching”? But stretching like what?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ab34365fa63a.jpg[/atsimg]
Q: If scientists had already confirmed that the universe is expanding, is it a stretch of imagination then if I say that the Universe is “stretching”?
Here’s a closer look at the “stretching” / expanding Universe. Does it resemble a stretched “fine gauze”?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/18aa6057e918.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/084610c9e1fc.jpg[/atsimg]
Note this quote from Scientific American Journal:
… From the types of anomalies we see, we can glean a few basic facts about them. Dark matter seems to be a sea of invisible particles that fills space unevenly; dark energy is spread out uniformly and acts as if it is woven into the fabric of space itself. Scientists have yet to repeat Galle’s accomplishment of pointing an instrument at the sky and glimpsing the unseen players definitively, but tantalizing inklings, such as blips in particle detectors, continue to accumulate.
Does this article seem strange to you that the writer used the terminology / expression “woven into the fabric of space itself” to define scientific matters? As if the universe is a fabric?
www.scientificamerican.com...
How about the writer of the Bible? Rather than use a course fabric terminology, the writer used “fine gauze” fabric terminology to describe the starry heavens. Does it agree with what scientists had observed? I say, most definitely.
Think about this too, on a clear night if you look at the heavens the thousands of stars do, indeed, form a lacy web stretched over the black velvet background of space. In fact even the enormous galaxy known as the Via Lactea, or Milky Way, in which our solar system is located, has a filmy gauzelike appearance from earth’s viewpoint.
Below is a view of “Via Lactea” from earth:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8bdf9e589eab.jpg[/atsimg]
A closer look:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/eae88c18a3bf.jpg[/atsimg]
Q: Do you think the prophet Isaiah was referring to something like this as “stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze”? Or was he referring to clouds? Which one makes more sense?
Now is it coincidence, a wild guess, a borrowed idea that the Bible writer wrote it this way? That is, “One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze?
I say no – because the prophet Isaiah was stating the observable facts and the facts given to him.
Here’s a SKY Survey of our Milky Galaxy:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/54e9d5171bda.jpg[/atsimg]
Here’s a closer look of our galaxy - 360 view of just our Milky Way Galaxy which is a part of a local group of about 50 galaxies in a local group of clusters in the Virgo Supercluster.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f0c61dd11090.jpg[/atsimg]
So without a doubt the Bible writer knew what he wrote when he saw the Heavens - the starry filled heavens. It’s only now that we’re confirming this to be so in “finer” detail - a truly remarkable achievement in our time.
You also have not answered how the "beginning" in your myth makes it true while other myths with a beginning are wrong.
Genesis 1:1 is not a myth – as proven by scientific facts, that the “heavens” the universe and the earth had a beginning.
And as already explained the material world came into existence by converting energy into matter. But the source of that energy – science has no answer (because it can’t admit it). Genesis 1:1 simply states that God was that source of that energy as he is the Creator.
Again, the source of “dynamic energy”:
“Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? . . . Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.”—Isa. 40:26.
The source of that “dynamic energy” is ALWAYS EXISTING – Jehovah God (YHWH)! Our minds can’t fathom it but it’s not a valid reason to ignore it because there are things that we readily accept even though they are beyond our imagination.
As a side note, notice this statement by a scientist 56 years ago:
Professor John R. Brobeck of the University of Pennsylvania stated:
“A scientist is no longer able to say honestly something is impossible. He can only say it is improbable. But he may be able to say something is impossible to explain in terms of our present knowledge. Science cannot say that all properties of matter and all forms of energy are now known. . . . [For a miracle] one thing that needs to be added is a source of energy unknown to us in our biological and physiological sciences. In our Scriptures this source of energy is identified as the power of God.” (Time, July 4, 1955)
What about now in our 21st Century is this more emphatic? The evidence is unmistakable.
In fact there was a thread created here talking about impossible things but I was not able to find it. It was an interview of Dr. Michio Kaku. He said if my memory is correct that there are things that we believe are impossible but we are getting closer and closer in achieving them.
Anyway here’s a quote from one of his books:
"the God of Miracles is, in some sense, beyond what we know as science. This is not to say that miracles cannot happen, only that they are outside what is commonly called science." [p. 331] Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension - Dr. Michio Kaku
But as for “other myths with a beginning” can you please show me an example of it? This way we can do a comparison?
next u said:
A while ago I got into it with someone about the true meaning of the 14 Amendment to the Constitution of the US. This is a text written 143 years ago in english and people still can't agree on what it is really saying. It is no surprise that disagreements would exist when it comes to texts 2000 years old and in different languages. This is why I don't take your or sigismundus version as gospel but this is all I need to see to know that if god exists and this was his plan then he doesn't seem omni anything.
Of course, there’s no surprise there – in fact if you give someone a simple owner’s manual on how to take care of or operate a machine. People will interpret it in different ways. It’s the same thing with the Bible.
But who’s to say which interpretation is correct?
On an owner’s manual – who’s the best and most qualified person to explain it? Is it the person who created the machine or the secretary who typed in the manual? It’s the person who created the machine. Correct?
What about the “14 Amendment to the Constitution of the US”? It’s the people who put it there. Correct?
But since we don’t’ have access to the people responsible for it, so how do we know which interpretation is the correct one?
The easy answer is in the intention – if the result is GOOD and brings TRUE benefit to ALL persons (using it) then it’s the correct interpretation. On the other hand if the result is chaos, confusion, misery, violation of the stated rules and even injury / death to any person (using it) then obviously the interpretation is wrong. Do you agree? You can apply this principle to any discipline – including the Bible.
The advantage that we have though with the Bible is that it's Author – is Living! We can always approach him any time through prayer. This is also the REASON why the Bible – the Word Of God is INFALLIBLE, because the Owner, the Creator, the Author is Living. Whatever is written in there especially with regards to the future will be fulfilled. It will come true. He has furnished a guaranty past, present and future.
Another important thing remember also is that the Bible interprets itself. That is, we can understand the meaning of a text by looking at other text (in the Bible) to arrive at the correct meaning. In other words it originates with God.
Notice:
“For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20-21)
SO makes sense?
This is just one of the many reasons why my faith and my confidence on Jehovah God (YHWH), his son Jesus Christ and his word the Bible are well founded for again it confirms the fact that Creation is the Reality!
Now I’m glad that you’re in the choir (so to speak) but I wish that you have the same faith that I have if not more than I have on the Creator and his word. For it will open up to you more possibilities and realities.
Next post I’ll show some fantastic inventions / creations – see if you can identify the true creator.
Ty,
edmc2
edit on 28-4-2011 by edmc^2 because: puff of smoke added
reply to post by edmc^2
...this line again? For one thing, the Hebrew word is for a disc...and that's sort of something that is relatively easy to figure out for people who lived back then. If I go up on a mountain and I can see the whole way round...I'd conclude that the Earth is a circle.
...and the line also refers to something that the deity supposedly 'stretches'...as a curtain. As in...the deity draws the heavens like they're a fixture with relation to the Earth.
....but this is all a post-hoc rationalization. Nobody made these claims about what the Bible is supposedly saying until science had long confirmed the notions. None of these claims were made prior to scientific discoveries.
...this line again? For one thing, the Hebrew word is for a disc...and that's sort of something that is relatively easy to figure out for people who lived back then. If I go up on a mountain and I can see the whole way round...I'd conclude that the Earth is a circle.
...and the line also refers to something that the deity supposedly 'stretches'...as a curtain. As in...the deity draws the heavens like they're a fixture with relation to the Earth.
....but this is all a post-hoc rationalization. Nobody made these claims about what the Bible is supposedly saying until science had long confirmed the notions. None of these claims were made prior to scientific discoveries.
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Like what I said before and will repeat it again.
The Bible is not a science textbook but when touches science or deals with true scientific facts it is accurate down to detail.
Take a look at water cycle:
“All the winter torrents are going forth to the sea, yet the sea itself is not full. To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth.” (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
“27 For he draws up the drops of water; They filter as rain for his mist, 28 So that the clouds trickle, They drip upon mankind abundantly. 29 Indeed, who can understand the cloud layers,. . .” (Job 36:27-29)
The Bible writer understood it already millenniums of years ago how the water cycle works - yet these phenomena was recently understood.
Notice:
Again accuracy down to minute detail. There's more but I'll save it for later.
ty,
edmc2
Like what I said before and will repeat it again.
The Bible is not a science textbook but when touches science or deals with true scientific facts it is accurate down to detail.
Take a look at water cycle:
“All the winter torrents are going forth to the sea, yet the sea itself is not full. To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth.” (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
“27 For he draws up the drops of water; They filter as rain for his mist, 28 So that the clouds trickle, They drip upon mankind abundantly. 29 Indeed, who can understand the cloud layers,. . .” (Job 36:27-29)
The Bible writer understood it already millenniums of years ago how the water cycle works - yet these phenomena was recently understood.
Notice:
“The water cycle consists of four distinct stages: storage, evaporation, precipitation, and runoff. Water may be stored temporarily in the ground; in oceans, lakes, and rivers; and in ice caps and glaciers. It evaporates from the earth’s surface, condenses in clouds, falls back to the earth as precipitation (rain or snow), and eventually either runs into the seas or reevaporates into the atmosphere. Almost all the water on the earth has passed through the water cycle countless times.”—Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2005.
Again accuracy down to minute detail. There's more but I'll save it for later.
ty,
edmc2
Okay, okay... Bible..here's the deal...you are God. Did you hear me? You are God! And so am I and everybody else. That's the big secret. Creation.
You did it and you don't even remember. Tres Cool Amigos.
Originally posted by HUMBLEONE
Okay, okay... Bible..here's the deal...you are God. Did you hear me? You are God! And so am I and everybody else. That's the big secret. Creation. You did it and you don't even remember. Tres Cool Amigos.
That made me laugh HUMBLEONE
Three cheers for u Tres Cool Amigos.
hephep horray!
hephep horray!
hephep horray!
edmc
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Like what I said before and will repeat it again.
The Bible is not a science textbook but when touches science or deals with true scientific facts it is accurate down to detail.
Take a look at water cycle:
“All the winter torrents are going forth to the sea, yet the sea itself is not full. To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth.” (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
“27 For he draws up the drops of water; They filter as rain for his mist, 28 So that the clouds trickle, They drip upon mankind abundantly. 29 Indeed, who can understand the cloud layers,. . .” (Job 36:27-29)
The Bible writer understood it already millenniums of years ago how the water cycle works - yet these phenomena was recently understood.
Notice:
“The water cycle consists of four distinct stages: storage, evaporation, precipitation, and runoff. Water may be stored temporarily in the ground; in oceans, lakes, and rivers; and in ice caps and glaciers. It evaporates from the earth’s surface, condenses in clouds, falls back to the earth as precipitation (rain or snow), and eventually either runs into the seas or reevaporates into the atmosphere. Almost all the water on the earth has passed through the water cycle countless times.”—Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2005.
Again accuracy down to minute detail. There's more but I'll save it for later.
ty,
edmc2
Wow,so we have only known about the water cycle since 2005?
I have three questions.
1) Who or what is God?
2) How old is the universe and the Earth?
3) Are we the only intelligent beings in the universe made in God's likeness?
reply to post by edmc^2
So basically you're claiming god is condensation and evaporation.
“All the winter torrents are going forth to the sea, yet the sea itself is not full. To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth.” (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
“27 For he draws up the drops of water; They filter as rain for his mist, 28 So that the clouds trickle, They drip upon mankind abundantly. 29 Indeed, who can understand the cloud layers,. . .” (Job 36:27-29)
So basically you're claiming god is condensation and evaporation.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1)
Ivan Panin carefully examined the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 and discovered an incredible phenomenon of multiples of 7 that could not be explained by chance. Genesis 1:1 was composed of seven Hebrew words containing a total of 28 letters. Throughout the Bible the number seven appears repeatedly as a symbol of divine perfection - the 7 days of creation, God rested on the 7th day, the 7 churches, the 7 seals, the 7 trumpets, etc. In total, Panin discovered 30 separate codes involving the number 7 in this first verse of the Bible.
A Partial Listing of the Phenomenal Features of Sevens Found in Genesis 1 1 The number of Hebrew words = 7
2 The number of letters equals 28 (7x4 = 28)
3 The first 3 Hebrew words translated "In the beginning God created" have14 letters (7x2 = 14)
4 The last four Hebrew words "the heavens and the earth" have 14 letters (7x2 = 14)
5 The fourth and fifth words have 7 letters
6 The sixth and seventh words have 7 letters
7 The three key words: God, heaven and earth have 14 letters (7x2 = 14)
8 The number of letters in the four remaining words is also 14 (7x2 = 14)
9 The shortest word in the verse is the middle word with 7 letters
10 The Hebrew numeric value of the first, middle and last letters is 133 (7x19 = 133)
11 The Hebrew numeric value of first and last letters of all seven words is 1393 (7x199 = 1393)
When professors on the mathematics faculty at Harvard University were presented with this biblical phenomenon they naturally attempted to disprove its significance as a proof of divine authorship. However, after valiant efforts these professors were unable to duplicate this incredible mathematical phenomenon. The Harvard scientists used the English language and artificially assigned numeric values to the English alphabet. They had a potential vocabulary of over 400,000 available English words to choose from to construct a sentence about any topic they chose. Compare this to the limitations of word choices in the biblical Hebrew language which has only forty-five hundred available word choices that the writers of the Old Testament could use. Despite their advanced mathematical abilities and access to computers the mathematicians were unable to come close to incorporating 30 mathematical multiples of 7 as found in the Hebrew words of Genesis 1:1.
www.biblebelievers.org.au...
new topics
-
One More Night at the Pig and Blanket (Time 2024)
Short Stories: 1 minutes ago -
Expert Says Parents Should Ask Babies Permission to Change Nappies.
General Chit Chat: 1 hours ago -
Hard evidence of a Royal plot on the US....if only i had proof.
ATS Skunk Works: 2 hours ago -
Do you name your cars ?
General Chit Chat: 3 hours ago -
Jim Biden Was in Business with Qatari Officials
US Political Madness: 5 hours ago -
I may have had a talk with Pope Francis about his plans for our nation
The Gray Area: 5 hours ago -
Sleep paralysis and the implantation of some weird Matrix-esque demon creature...
The Gray Area: 6 hours ago -
Say his name
US Political Madness: 7 hours ago -
There is no such thing as moonlight.
General Chit Chat: 8 hours ago -
5 probed after 18-year old girl dies as a result of having the COVID jab
Diseases and Pandemics: 9 hours ago
top topics
-
5 probed after 18-year old girl dies as a result of having the COVID jab
Diseases and Pandemics: 9 hours ago, 17 flags -
Say his name
US Political Madness: 7 hours ago, 16 flags -
Jim Biden Was in Business with Qatari Officials
US Political Madness: 5 hours ago, 12 flags -
Official denial
Diseases and Pandemics: 12 hours ago, 10 flags -
Sleep paralysis and the implantation of some weird Matrix-esque demon creature...
The Gray Area: 6 hours ago, 7 flags -
Hamas and Other Islamist Terrorist Groups Announce Support of US Campus Anti-Israel Protests
Education and Media: 13 hours ago, 7 flags -
MEGA - Let's Make Europe Great Again
Other Current Events: 12 hours ago, 7 flags -
Expert Says Parents Should Ask Babies Permission to Change Nappies.
General Chit Chat: 1 hours ago, 6 flags -
I may have had a talk with Pope Francis about his plans for our nation
The Gray Area: 5 hours ago, 6 flags -
Psychotronic Operation Rwanda Who Wants To Be A Refugee?
ATS Skunk Works: 13 hours ago, 6 flags
active topics
-
One More Night at the Pig and Blanket (Time 2024)
Short Stories • 1 • : argentus -
Expert Says Parents Should Ask Babies Permission to Change Nappies.
General Chit Chat • 20 • : DBCowboy -
Jim Biden Was in Business with Qatari Officials
US Political Madness • 44 • : xuenchen -
Hamas and Other Islamist Terrorist Groups Announce Support of US Campus Anti-Israel Protests
Education and Media • 17 • : cherokeetroy -
Hard evidence of a Royal plot on the US....if only i had proof.
ATS Skunk Works • 9 • : Oldcarpy2 -
60 minutes: “UAP”
Aliens and UFOs • 61 • : Therealbeverage -
A Personal Cigar UFO/UAP Video footage I have held onto and will release it here and now.
Aliens and UFOs • 13 • : Therealbeverage -
BIDEN Admin Begins Planning For January 2025 Transition to a New President - Today is 4.26.2024.
2024 Elections • 32 • : Therealbeverage -
MEGA - Let's Make Europe Great Again
Other Current Events • 43 • : RustEShackelFord -
4/27/24 New Jersey Earthquake
Fragile Earth • 8 • : Therealbeverage