Evolution, True or False!
Greetings Craan,
There is an ongoing forum conversation about this here:
Evolution is a Scientific Fact
Maybe you would like to jump in there instead of starting a new thread?
GAHello Mr. Anderson,
Does the theory of evolution make sense to you?
This was the question I posed on HubPages and they removed the question since it was receiving heaps of answers. HubPages highly suggested I pose this particular evolution question in the forums. This question is not the same as your Scientific Fact Evolution Forum.
My evolution question rests on a person’s personal opinion! Christians will finally be free to voice their opinions as well instead of being shut out.I don't see much difference in the discussion of the two questions, but yes, it does make sense to me.
GAI haven't studied evolution much to be honest. I find the particular topic dry, for me personally. I think a lot of people are "fans of evolution" only because they think it contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, and they can easily find their argument with those that "do" believe in a "particular" literal interpretation of Genesis.
Let the earth bring forth grass...Let the waters bring forth... always sounded like abiogenesis to me.
I simply said in my previous comment that “Evolution is not an opinion, but a theory scientifically proven.” I’d like to add something to what has been said so far. “Evolution.” Everyone talks about “evolution,” while we do not know enough both about the subject , and on the meaning of the word "evolution." Hence the issue of trivialization of the entire argument while this is not an issue to be trivialized. Darwin himself had to fight against a "creationism" which was based on an exegesis of the Bible at least corny, . What is the meaning of the word "evolution?” Let's start from here, because it could go a long way , so long that someone will lose himself.
In addition, Darwin declared himself a "theist", not a "deist", pondering deeply upon the impossibility that our world derives from random processes [According to Kant, the “deist” believes in a God, while the “theist” in a “living God.”] . Darwin only affirmed the TRANSFORMATION of species (metamorphosis), which depart from a prototype and the persistence of PROTOTYPES during the “development” (=”evolution”) of the organisms (See chap. “Laws of variation”, “Variation under domestication” and “Variation under nature”).
But I recognize the complex nature of the subject matter itself, and I consider whether it would be possible to simply say: “it would always be better to study rather than oversimplify and over-generalize.”
Goodbye, see you soon!
It makes perfect sense to me. Is there something you don't understand about it? Plenty of intelligent people around here to help.
I believe God created the world and everything in it within six days, approximately seven thousand years ago including the first man Adam. The theory of evolution makes no sense to me!
That's interesting. Are you saying you don't understand the theory because you believe differently? I have lots of beliefs but it doesn't stop me from understanding scientific theories. I mean how do you form the opinion that something is false if you don't understand it? How can you argue that something is incorrect if you have no idea of what it is?
For instance, the theory of evolution doesn't address the creation of life. So the two ideas (creationism vs. evolution) aren't necessarily at odds. I think possibly you object to the theories surrounding abiogenesis, which is a completely different thing.Evolution was taught to me in HS at the time I was confused and questioned it. I can't understand how scientists formed the theory that Humans descended from Apes, when monkeys have 24 chromosomes and people 23. This makes no sense to me! And the theory of Dinosaurs sounds like a joke. The scientists have made up this one and conjured certain fossils and bones to come up with this amazing story. It sounds ridiculous, pardon the pun.
It sounds like you were very confused indeed. To my knowledge, there is no evolutionary theory that states that humans descended from apes. Certainly THE theory of evolution doesn't.
Your idea about scientists creating fossils, I'm going to have to disagree. Why would they do that? In addition, how does the existence of dinosaurs directly contradict the idea of a creator God?
Just for the record, not all humans have 23 sets of chromosomes.In humans, each cell normally contains 23 PAIRS of chromosomes, for a total of 46. Twenty-two of these pairs, called autosomes, look the same in both male and female. The 23rd pair, the sex chromosomes, differ between male and female. Females have two copies of the X chromosome, while males have one X and one Y chromosome.
Apes have 24 pairs.
What makes apes so genetically close to human beings, despite the difference in the number of chromosomes, is the 9th and 14th chromosomes of an ape, if combined, and viewed on a chromatic scale, look like a palindrome of the human 12th chromosome. If the ape chromosomes, 9 and 14 are joined and turned over, the result would look just like the 12th human chromosome.
I believe in both God, and evolutionExactly---they are decidedly NOT mutually exclusive.
Creation and evolution are incompatible. You cannot be a true believer in God and creation and be moonlighting with evolution. Charles Darwin and many others like him are inveterate atheists. All those who claim to believe in creation and evolution at the same time are deceiving themselves. You cannot wholeheartedly serve two masters at the same time.
So, beware Avis Langmeade and Deborah Sexton!!! God is watching
Yes, he is, and rewarding me daily, if you only knew how much
When you say God is "rewarding" you, you are, in essence, saying that you earned the blessings you are getting from God. You are being too self righteous. We receive blessings from God because God is gracious, not because we deserve or earn the blessings. It doesn't mean we are righteous or good. The bible says the sun shines on the good and bad.
"Masters"? But understanding how species evolve over time is no more "master" than understanding how fire works, or why the moon doesn't sail off into space.
________________________________________
Creation and evolution are not separated, God made everything, including evolution.
After man disobeyed, and was kicked out of the garden, how do you know what new form man took..mankind had to evolve both mentally, physically, and spiritually..because they were debasedI serve only God. The New Testament is speaking of Mammon (money)
Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
You're trying to use it, incorrectly, to prove your point.
When you say man can't serve two masters, remember that when you say you worship God, but give all your praise to Yahshua (Jesus)You claim to serve only God. To serve God is to do His will and follow his teachings. The bible teaches creation, not evolution. The bible does not teach that man came to be as a result of evolution. The bible teaches that God created man is His own image and likeness. If you believe the bible account, how can you, at the same time, believe in evolution that man came to be as result of some mutation. Common, don't be shy. Say where your loyalty lies.
Evolution is from the devil. Satan has, from the beginning, been accusing God of lying. Remember that God, after creating Adam and Eve, he warned them not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. After God deliberately left the alone, Satan came to them and asked what God told them about the forbidden fruit. Adam and Eve told Satan that God had forbidden them from eating that fruit and that if they ate that fruit, they would surely die. What did Satan to say to them in reply? To put it plainly, Satan told them that God was a liar. Satan has been God' consistent chief accuser ever since. Evolution is one of Satan's machinations to deceive man just as he deceived Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. For some people to claim that they believe in both creation and evolution serves Satan's interest. Just what Satan wants. So, my fair lady, make up your mind. You either belong to God or you belong to Satan's camp. There is no middle ground.
Is that so !?
I also think it is idolatry to worship anyone but God, and it's what the scriptures teach, but many believe it's okay to worship others______________________
That's ridiculous, it's clearly seen in plant life, and in fossil life too, although I know there are certain religions who think/teach that fossils are fake
Oh, brotherWhat the bible teaches has eternal validity. The bible teaches that everything is a creation of God.The bible teaches creation only. There is no where in the bible evolution is taught. Beware. The God you claim to serve, according to the Holy Scriptures, is a jealous God. Do not try to rob Him of the glory that belongs only to Him by attributing anything that exists at any time to some mutation.
It doesn't teach how to make a television, either, but somehow we've figured it out. Just as we figured out how species evolve...
Just some thoughts, because I agree the bible has eternal validity also.... There are verses that speak of the earth bringing forth the grass, and the waters bringing forth this and that, in Genesis 1. I think it was Phoenix that said it first in this thread, but its an interesting thought... That it sounds a lot like abiogenesis. I am simply exploring thoughts and ideas here, not defending anything particular necessarily in this post.
If there is evolution, in even a larger sense (big if there....) then the DESIGN of it is still best explained to me, by a God that could insert that design into HIS creation. It would all still be his.
The ancient Hebrews wrote down for us from their point of view and worldview, and revelation from God. They understood things and wrote things down in a way they understood life to be.
I don't know what your personal beliefs are beyond being a believer in creation, but from what I recall, there isn't any command from God or Jesus even about having to believe in a particular interpretation of the Genesis account in order to obtain eternal life, or any such thing. Jesus speaks of the narrow road, and that few are on it, and about what IS most important. He doesn't include a strict interpretation on the beginning, and probably for a reason. We humans, inject that added on rule sometimes to ourselves, and feel like its a life and death issue. Some churches do that, but its perhaps not the best thing.
If you have great reasons for believing in God as creator, then you will likely also believe that our reality and facts will absolutely line up with him, without contortion. I know these are not likely welcome thoughts to come your way based on some of your posts, but I wanted to share them nonetheless.
______________________________
That's correct, I do,The bible tells us not to judge others, but you're judging me, so how can you judge when your bible says not to? Rapture isn't in the bible, but you believe in it don't you?
By the way, we don't have the same bibleAll bibles are the same. The problem is not with the bible you are reading. The problem is that you are not heeding the bible you are reading. Advising you to respect biblical teachings instead of twisting it to serve your sympathy for evolution does not amount to "judging" you. It is true that rapture is not mentioned in the bible. That's why I do not believe in it. God included in the bible all we need to know. Those who add or subtract from what the bible teaches will, according to Holy Scriptures, pay for it.
You can point to the verses describing how to build a tractor in order that we are able to feed the masses of people now living? How to make nails in order to house that huge number of people? How to make a pot bellied stove to keep warm in the northern climes? The procedures to make penicillin to keep us alive and serving Him?
Outside of moral and ethical teachings (and even most of those are now useless as mankind has outgrown the often barbaric teachings of the bible), we are "taught" very little of what we need to know today just to stay alive as a species.You are missing the whole point. God made man. He endowed man with intellect. He wants man to use the intellect to make things like tractors, nails, penicillin, etc. God did not create man to depend on for the fish he needs. God endowed man with intellect to be able design tools for fishing. Can't you get that?
God made man with an intellect, an intellect designed and constructed to learn. To learn about God, to learn about God's creation, to learn about the world around us. And to learn about how animals evolve and change. We were not created with a brain in order to stagnate and never use it; we have a brain to use and that most definitely includes learning.
You're now backing off of saying the bible teaches everything we need to know; what's so hard about understanding that because it doesn't teach biology doesn't mean we should not learn it?
There you do again. I said that God included in the bible all man needs to now about Himself and His plan for mankind. I did not say that God created and endowed with intellect in order to "stagnate". God blessed man with intellect to be able to think, design, construct, etc. The bible bears witness that God said that man's knowledge would increase. He also warned that people like you would arrogate to themselves the advances made in knowledge to themselves instead of giving the glory to God who created man and blessed him with the intellect. My fiend, learn to be a grateful child. You will do well by knowing this African adage - The thanklessness of a child to his parents is worse than the bite of a snake.
A copy/paste of your comment: "God included in the bible all we need to know.". Nowhere in there do I see anything about only knowledge about Himself or His plan - can you highlight it for me?
But now I'm really confused; do you consider evolution as something somehow about God or His plan? Do you think the eternal God evolved and thus we don't need to know about it? How do you get from not needing to know about God to should not learn about evolution but learning about bacteria is necessary?
Also from your post: "Those who add or subtract from what the bible teaches will, according to Holy Scriptures, pay for it.". Same question, then - how is it fine to add to what the bible teaches about disease and bacteria but not evolution? Why won't we "pay for" learning one but not the other?
You are confused because you choose to be. When I said that God included in the Bible all that man needs to know, I said so in reply to Deborah Sexton who said that she and many people believe in "rapture" even thought rapture was never mentioned in the bible. I told her that I, for one, do not believe in rapture because it is not in the bile. I reminded her and the likes of her of the warning in the bible against adding or subtracting from what the bible teaches. Can you get it now? Please understand that God has nothing to do with evolution teaching. There is nowhere I said that the bible teaches evolution. The bible teaches, without equivocation, creation.
Yes, I know the bible teaches creation, of all plants and animals in a single day.
But then the question becomes of how did the millions of other species come about since that time? There were originally no mammals, nor dinosaurs, indeed no species still living today, yet all came into being after creation. How did it happen. What caused it? What was the mechanism used as God's work was finished millions of years prior to their appearance on earth?
But we should not be studying evolution to see how God's work proceeded after His direct intervention. Why? Why can't we learn what His creatures did, how they lived and changed both themselves and the world they lived in? Has God really decreed that learning is forbidden and we will be punished for it as you claim?
Where did you learn that "there were originally no mammals, nor dinosaurs"? Certainly not from the bible. There are no living things in this world today that were not there at creation. Can you point to any animal or plant that exists today that was not there since creation? Some living things, plants and animals have undergone some changes to make them cope with harsh conditions and environments but the changes do not make them to become a new living thing.
One more thing. God does not forbid anyone from studying anything including evolution because He knows that ultimately, evolution theory will collapse like the house of cards. God encourages us to explore.
Take for example the biblical teaching that God hung the earth on nothing. In other words, the earth is in space. The bible mentioned this thousands of years ago. Many so called scientist disagreed until not too long ago. The bible also taught many thousands of years ago that the earth is round. Many scientist, for a log time, disagreed. When the ultimate truth has not been reached by science, science is always at odds with what the bible but in the final analysis, they always conclude and agree with what the bible has been teaching all along. History bears wtiness to this.There were no cows a billion years ago, no dogs or cats and no people. That's four - how many more would you like?
Yes, I know God "hung" the earth in nothing. And what was it hung from, and by what? To hang something does indicate both a hanging mechanism and something to hang from. It's much like saying that man "hung" the space station in nothing, isn't it? A statement that is totally false to fact even though it seems to make some sense on the surface as long as the truth is not investigated.
Yes, I know the bible taught the earth was round...round as in a circle. Not a sphere. Which does not mean it is a flat, 2 dimensional circle as the bible says; it is, and always has been, a sphere or a reasonable facsimile of one, anyway; the earth is an oblate spheroid, neither a true sphere OR circle).
History, and truth, bear witness to the bible being false to fact in a great deal of what it says, doesn't it?_________________________
Again with that? That was the translation
There are many words for everything, in all languages, yes there is another word that means circle, ball and the word is dur, but it is spherical..Chug and dur..circle, ball, and sphericalYes, we've been over it, and you claimed (as I understood your words) that the same word was used for each. Now (again, if I understand you) there are two different words (chug and dur) with two different meanings, one of which is circle and one of which is ball (sphere).
But either way I'm having real trouble accepting that a people that advanced did not understand the difference between a circle and a ball, OR that a god inspired writing did not use the proper term for a ball instead of a circle. If it takes 3 words (or 300) the description would have been correct and it is not.
But as an excuse for refusing to understand or accept the concept of evolution, that animals change through time, it is irrelevant and a complete failure either way.____________________________________
Again chuwg, and dur are interchangeable
How do you know that God didn't lay it all out before he made it?
Maybe he measured it as scriptures say he did, you have to read more than one book or chapter
The scripture I gave shows they knew that the Earth was suspended in space, and that the Universe expands.
I understand everything, you said that the ancient Hebrews and I don't/didn't understand,
I went to school to get my masters in the science of nursing It takes 6 years
I think my husband, and I are as educated, and as smart as you are, that's my opinion anyway
I have my:
RN-Registered Nurse
DNP-Doctor Of Nursing Practice
MSN-Masters Of Science In Nursing
Undergraduate: Biology
Studied Theology
Hebrew Language
Modern Greek
and earned my Smicha, aka Semikhah, and I am a Jewish Rebbe (Rabbi)
Ordained and Licensed minister
My husband Joel has his:
MSc-Master of Science
MBA-Master of Business Administration
MCL-Master of Civil Law
and earned his Smicha, and is a Jewish Rebbe (Rabbi)
Ordained and Licensed minister
We display our credentials on our website
Before God created animals and man, there were no animals or man. All the plants and animals that exist today are descendants of the plants and animals God created.
Yes. the bible said that the earth was round. There is no exact word for spherical in the language that the bible was originally written in. Do not read too much into "circle' or sphere". Both words mean roughly round.
I can see that you have blindly decide to reject God and the bible in spite of the overwhelming evidence that God exists and that the biblical teachings are unassailable.At least we can agree on this; that before there were animals and plants there were no animals or plants. We can also agree that all existing life is a descendant of the first life on the planet.
The only disagreement, then, is how that first life became what we see today; you insist that the first life millions and millions of years ago was just as it is today, without change and contrary to massive evidence it did, while most people understand that species have changed over time and became what we now see. Whether by the plan of a god using natural forces at work in the universe that He created or not is irrelevant; life changed over time and became what it was not.
I think they are incompatible depending on how you define what evolution is. It all hinges on that. So depending on what you mean by that, I could agree or disagree.
Humans are not directly descended from modern apes; modern apes and humans had a common ancestor from which they branched from millions of years ago. If you google images of the Human Evolution tree, it may become clearer for you. I wish you luck on your findings.
I have long since disregarded the theory of evolution, for it fail to answer simple questions in a simple manner abd usually leaves one wondering instead of knowing.
Even when you seek out the experts in that field, you are merely forced to take a side and defend it, despite of the glaring loopholes.
I have come to the understanding that the theory materialise out of a misunderstanding of the reality of life/existence.
Life is and always will be singular, and what we see in the variation of species is the result of the apparent division of life itself.
This division will manifest itself as infinite differences, because life is infinite. But while being different, they all must still reflect that which is their source and origin, life. Thus they all will be similar.
So in the end I see, that each specie is exactly what they are and the differences among themselves and others are designed specifically for it's own survival, in and among it's particular locality. Inter breeding did provide for other variation but it will be limited, and will threaten the survival of the original, so therefore the tendency to revert is high.
This is true for both plants and animals so when they are dislocated from their original state, they are more prone to die.Evolution Does not make sense to me as I don't believe we came from apes which came from something crawling out of the ocean.
I believe in God and I am a Christian, descending, from the very first Christians, I am a Catholic. This disclosure will bring out the ire of most nonbelievers and I am always amazed to see how fast these folks are to jump up in arms to denounce anyone that admits that they are a believer, especially a Catholic, when they know little to nothing about the faith we hold. Our religion is steeped in tradition and our Mass is a re-enactment of he Last Supper. Catholics are able to attend Mass daily in virtually any city here in the U S., any day but Good Friday. The main feast days are Christmas and Easter. These are universal holidays revered and celebrated by ALL Christians of whatever denomination. It amuses me to hear the nonbelievers hue and cry over the word Christmas and the fact that it related to a religion - Christianity! It should be called something else, BULL!!! It is the celebration of the birth of Jesus the Christ, our Lord and Savior!
If this offends you, sleep all the day, go to work as this is just another day for you. The same goes for Easter, the day Jesus arose from the dead. Believe it or not, your choice.Your church supports the modern theory evolution of the species while making a complex and nuanced argument that it results from your Creator's intentional design.
Your church accepts and teaches evolutionary biology in its schools; your Pope recently endorsed evolutionary biology. NOTHING precludes being a Christian and Catholic and accepting science---including evolutionary biology. Ask your parish priest about this sometime.
If what one means by evolution is that we observe small changes over time, then I don't disagree with that because we have evidence for that all around us. I don't think it means all that it is cracked up to be by some, with added on human belief and philosophy applied, while still calling it science.
It has caused us to have to be very critical in our thinking and reasoning, to discern when even very intelligent, world renowned scientists "leave" the science they are discussing and enter instead into their philosophy applied to the science many of us all agree on. Its a very clever move, and we see it in writings of famous people. Its all about the science, until it isn't, is my point. I have to stick with the science, and other revelation that comes to us, as there is much more.Yes it gives some times, but not in all the ways. I really experienced it. The power of evolution can definitely impact on us...
Evolution is not an "opinion". It is scientifically proved.
Evolution: the scientific theory that living things evolve and change over long periods of time from what they were.
As we see hundreds if not thousands of examples all around us, the answer is a "yes" for me.There is nothing scientific about evolution. To conclude that "living things evolve and change over long periods of time from what they were' before searching for materials from all the corners of the globe to support that bogus conclusion does make it scientific. People like you mistake adaption for mutation. Some living things undergo some superficial changes to be able to survive certain conditions or environment. That does not make them fundamentally different from their ancestors.
Can you define "species" for purposes of discussion? What makes a "species", what differences from another animal group makes them different species?
Animals or plants then do not mutate? You have to know better than that - we see mutations all the time.
________________________
Genes mutate very, very easily, and mutation brings change.
But there is another reason we might evolve, and that is due to natural selection, the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment survive and produce more offspringI can see now that you are totally ignorant of genetic mutation. When genes mutate, the result is always bad, not good. The result is always inferior to the original one. The result does not survive.
_____________________________
Mutation is of the genes, and it happens easily all the time. Genes can, and are constantly damaged
Mutation is simply the changing of the structure of a gene, producing an alternative form which may be transmitted to all future generations This can be caused by the alteration of a single DNA, adding to, taking away from, and/or rearranging larger sections of genes or chromosomes. This can greatly change the course of many things.
Cancer cells damage/mutate people's genes
Adaption isn't always "little changes"
What's wrong with humans being created, and changing for the good of mankind? of ascending, and evolving?
The Hebrew word, Tov and Ra, and translated as good, and evil, really means functional, and dysfunctional Tov-Functional, it did what it was meant to do, Ra-dysfunctional, it didn't do what it was meant to do
Nowadays scientists accept that life was came from heaven. the name of first creature is Adam..!
The general ignorance of mankind concerning evolution and "the meaning of life" is a necessary safeguard to protect the simian from itself. We can see the evil that has already happened since the Industrial Revolution and the splitting of the atom. A comprehensive understanding of the "why" and "how" of evolution could lead to the annihilation of all life on Earth. We are still living in the "Dark Ages", and it is important that we do so until we can learn the basics: loving each other, respect for the environment, and the total destruction of Capitalism and materialistic societies etc..
Of course evolution is real, but it does not negate the notion of intelligent design. On the contrary, evolution helps the simple minded who look to men for answers rather than God,to understand that there is truly a divine purpose at work in the universe. The genius of Charles Darwin is not to be found in his postulate of Natural Selection, but in the fact that he is one of the first to give hope to the blind by providing "empirical" data to those unable to discern through the spirit, or divine essence.The main problem I see with this question is that it does not spark a discussion unless people go off topic, as it is a yes or no question.
It is not even really about personal opinion, it's more about understanding of the theory and does not take into account if you agree or not.
A rephrasing that does not change the core of the question at all would be: "Do you comprehend the meaning of the evolution theory?"
To that question I say: Yes, I do understand the theory of evolution and it does make sense.
Do I agree with it? Well, that's a topic for another discussionEvolution says we evolved from the apes. If so why are there still apes?
I believe in one God, not a big bang theory or any great leas of something crawling out of the ocean evolving into an ape and then humans. I do admit some people act like apes, but are still relatively human. What other things made such a great leap as we are supposed to have made? Are they birds 4 legged animals reptiles, what? I really want to know as I cannot buy the basic concept.You can't buy it because you haven't the faintest what the basic concept is. Study the subject just a little, and you will find that man did not evolve from apes, and that man is an ape (along with gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and a couple of other species). This is simple, basic biological taxonomy, not evolution.
Come on' Wilderness, be nice. Just because you you have a different belief doesn't mean you can categorically dismiss someone else's beliefs.
You do have a solid base of what is, as is attested by the knowledge of today's science, but how, far will your confidence carry you when the "unprovable" is seriously considered as a viable choice to consider?
GABut, GA, I never even mentioned his beliefs. Just his lack of knowledge of a subject HE brought up in discussion.
As far as the "unprovable" being a viable choice; it's generally better to acknowledge our own ignorance than to gather in the "unprovable" and accept it as factual. Keep trying, keep working towards learning whatever it is we wish to know, but not just quit because we "believe" we have and answer but don't know for sure.
It is good to see that you have finally come full circle and admitted the truth. Yes, the average man is certainly an intelligent breed of ape, and of course I use the word "intelligent" here in a relative sense, as no ape has the intellectual capability of those men who have evolved into "human beings". Obviously, my perseverance and instruction have not been in vain. Thank You!
Fascinating post. Man is an ape, and no ape has the intelligence of a man.
I trust you DO see the fallacy of such a statement?
Based on your comment, I trust that it may impossible for you to understand an evolutionary process that has yet to be clearly defined, but yet, can be clearly seen. To give you an example: Nelson Mandela was a man / human being. Ronald Reagan was a man / ape. To provide a further clue: The superior man / human being, is thinking on a higher plane; more removed from the carnal, and materialistic desires that drive the simian mind.You really need to put a trifling bit (that's all it takes) of that much touted intelligence into learning before speaking. For the evolutionary process is quite well understood by any taking a couple of hours to learn about it.
Biologically Mandela was the same as Reagan (or you or I), something elementary biology tells us. Mentally, about the same. Spiritually - that will depend on what you think the word means and what you find to be good. As no two people will agree on right wrong, we cannot compare two people spiritually even if we know what is inside their minds. Besides, much of what you propose as a wonderful thing is unethical and no moral person would agree. Forced racism for Indians in their schooling, for instance.Reagan had the mentality of a man / ape which is centered around materialism and the satisfaction of carnal desires. Mandela displayed a man / human being mentality which was centered around selflessness. The superior evolution of Mandela over Reagan is clearly obvious. The man/ ape significantly outnumbers the man / human being here in the so-called modern age. Why else would traditions such as "Happy Hour" and "Football" be so popular in the United States when children are being blown up in Palestine with U.S. tax dollars?
You have no idea what the inner desires of either one was. Nor do you have any idea what the capabilities (superiority) of either one was, except that both were very good at controlling others through speech.
You don't even have any real concept of what is superior in man - thinking it is whatever matches with your twisted sense of morality rather than survival is foolish, and doubly so in a discussion of how evolution works.You take a relativist position concerning my understanding of Mandela and Reagan, but then you resort to an emotional idealism to dismiss my comments and question my authority. According to you, I "have no idea" about two very public men, yet you claim to know all about me.
The reason many of you do not understand evolution is that you , like many scientists, have attempted to reach explanations based solely on a physical explanation or analysis. That in itself is indicative of a primitive man/ape mentality.
This seems simple "side taking" to me. You have your set of beliefs which you think are superior, like we all have beliefs, and you make assertions that include within them your "vote", or taking of a side. Then state it as fact, or "your side wins," etc. To me, this is another example of assuming the worst about the person or side that you don't agree with, and assuming of the best about the other. Perhaps, assuming too much.
All without making the case. People can disagree with you, even 100% disagree. Does that make them right, and Nelson Mandela, the man/ape in that scenario, over man/human being? Good grief. Harsh you are, thankfully not my judge, as man it doesn't take much! Kind of mean and unfair, if you ask me! Which likely, you therefore won't, lol.What do you know about Reagan and Mandela? I have studied them both. I have read and listened to their speeches, and understand their views on various matters. I don't need to make a case when the information is freely available to anyone who knows how to read and understand. Apparently you are not used to someone who speaks the truth.
But you don't speak truth. You speak only your opinion, basing it on a myth and an outdated set of morals that has caused this country endless grief.
Reagan and Mandela were both human. Neither was an "ape" in the common vernacular. Your claims that Reagan was just that - a subhuman ape - is absolute nonsense.Some found "Bedtime for Bonzo" confusing. Could be a simple mistake.
You may have something there - it starred Ronald Reagan, the man/ape. Great trauma from a tender age, carried to adulthood.
It is you Mr. wilderness who stated that men are apes. Are you disagreeing with yourself?
Nope, but one of us is trying to use the term in two different ways. One as a biological taxonomy reference and one a derogatory term indicating sub-human.
Or are you trying to say Reagan should be classified as an ape but not Mandela? Because of which physical characteristics I would ask?
No, I expect people to speak the truth. I do know how to read, thanks. I know a bit about both, though perhaps not as studied as some, and I can admit that.
I think that when calling one an man/ape, and one a man/human being, you do need to make the case. Its just put downs, especially considering how you have shown your views on things to be, and disapproval of America since 1492.. I do think a lot of what you say black and white, about non black and white things. It is harsh, and not that harsh is bad, but it ought to be reserved for when it is needed. I do think that you would have to assume the best about one, and the worst about the other. Neither are perfect. But man/ape? Not everyone maybe has seen what I have seen and learned in a short time. I guess I could just stop asking you to be fair. Its looking like I will just get put down for it, and find that even what I do say gets turned around.
Its a lot of time needing to be dedicated to people responding to all that junk, before you can even get around to talking about what you clearly want to be talking about anyway. It would save us all a lot of time. If its just fun for you, then I want no part for sure.
________________________________
Saying we are apes, is not scientific and is an opinion, not fact
Man is a primate not an ape. Primates are all of these below
The lemurs, bushbabies, tarsiers, marmosets, monkeys, apes, and humans. They are distinguished by having hands, hand-like feet, and forward-facing eyes, and are typically agile tree-dwellers.
As you can see, both apes and man are primates, but apes are not human, and humans are not apes
When did you discover that apes and humans are the same thing? Wow, what a discovery!!Biologically, humans are classified in the family of Hominidae, or "great ape". The family includes orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans.
Also in the order of primates, the family of Hylobatidae (lesser ape) includes four genera and sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon, and the siamang, all native to Asia. The lesser apes are highly arboreal, have lighter bodies and smaller social groups than the great apes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
From encyclopedia Brittanica:
"Hominidae, in zoology, one of the two living families of the ape superfamily Hominoidea, the other being the Hylobatidae (gibbons). Hominidae includes the great apes—that is, the orangutans (genus Pongo), gorillas (Gorilla), and chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan)—as well as human beings (Homo)."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top … /Hominidae"When did you discover that apes and humans are the same thing? Wow, what a discovery!!"
I'm semi-guessing here, but think it was Biology 101, Eastern Oregon University, in 1970.
What makes you think man isn't classified as an ape?Apes, and humans are primates, but humans are not apes, any more than apes are human, and if you don't know that, don't ever say you believe in science again
It has not been proven we came from Apes
Apes are the gorilla, chimpanzees, orangutan, and gibbons.
Again we could have evolved from lemurs, bushbabies, tarsiers, marmosets, monkeys, or the apes. All of these are primates, but it is probably something different entirely, I mean, there is the case of the missing link
The theory is that humans and all living primates evolved from a common ancestor, not ape in particular
This also has the telltale sign that we came from the people created directly by God
I'm not sure how you think evolution is a case against God...sounds just the opposite to meHave you considered writing encyclopedias yourself? Or teaching biology at the post graduate level?
It's great you know so much more than anyone else, but even then you CAN always learn more. You might begin by reading the links I gave you.
We evolved from a different kind of ape that no longer exists today.
___________________________________________
From a common Primate
Dictionary for Primate
a mammal of an order that includes the lemurs, bushbabies, tarsiers, marmosets, monkeys, apes, and humans. They are distinguished by having hands, hand-like feet, and forward-facing eyes, and are typically agile tree-dwellers.
Lets look at the literal six day creation concept.
According to Gen 1:1-2, before day one the earth was a ball of water in a sunless space. Ok, let's make our first correction. It would have been a ball of ice.
Day one, light/darkness, day/night created. No sun was created until day four. Earth still a frozen ball of ice.
Day two, separated water on land from water in the sky......it was all still ice. There was no sun.
Day three, land and water separated. The water was still ice, big piles of ice. There was still no sun.
Also on third day, plants were created although there was no sun and all the water was in the form of
ice.
Day four, The sun is created, the piles of ice begin to melt, the plants recover from the shock of being planted in frozen ground and in an unbelievably cold temperature.
Day five, Twenty-four hours earlier, all the water on earth was ice. The sun had been created and the ice began to melt. How long would it have taken for all that ice to melt and make oceans? Well, on day five, twenty-four hours after it was completely frozen, the seas were filled with fish and all other kinds of living things.
Day six, Forty-eight hours after the beginning of global flooding from melting ice, man and land dwelling animals were created.
This is a literal accounting of the Genesis 1 creation story. I will predict that the answer to the above impossibilities will be that God performed some kind of miracle to resolve the conflict and this will be called science. This is not science. It is simply making stuff up as you go along. The literal interpretation you desire will not allow you to make up resolutions to the conflicts which are not explicitly stated in Genesis chapter one.
A literal interpretation of Genesis One yields a ball of ice, light without a sun, plants on frozen ground with no sun, sea life swimming in ice, humans and land animals existing in world wide flooding due to melting ice. Creationists say that Genesis chapter one agrees with science. Where is the science here?*******************************************************************
The first thing that God created after he created Earth was light. So it wouldn’t have had time to freeze
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Why Earth wasn't one big ball of ice 4 billion years ago when Sun's radiation was weaker
University of Copenhagen
Summary:
Scientists have solved one of the great mysteries of our geological past: Why Earth's surface was not one big lump of ice four billion years ago when the Sun's radiation was much weaker than today. Scientists have presumed that Earth's atmosphere back then consisted of 30 percent CO2 trapping heat like a greenhouse. However, new research shows that the reason for Earth not going into a deep freeze at the time was quite different.
The paradoxical question that arose for scientists in this connection was why Earth's surface at its fragile beginning was not covered by ice, seeing that the Sun's rays were much fainter than they are today. Science found one probable answer in 1993, which was proffered by the American atmospheric scientist, Jim Kasting. He performed theoretical calculations that showed that 30% of Earth's atmosphere four billion years ago consisted of CO2. This in turn entailed that the large amount of greenhouse gases layered themselves as a protective greenhouse around the planet, thereby preventing the oceans from freezing over.
Mystery solved
Now, however, Professor Minik Rosing, from the Natural History Museum of Denmark, and Christian Bjerrum, from the Department of Geography and Geology at University of Copenhagen, together with American colleagues from Stanford University in California have discovered the reason for "the missing ice age" back then, thereby solving the Sun paradox, which has haunted scientific circles for more than 40 years.
Professor Minik Rosing explains: "What prevented an ice age back then was not high CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, but the fact that the cloud layer was much thinner than it is today. In addition to this, Earth's surface was covered by water. This meant that the Sun's rays could warm the oceans unobstructed, which in turn could layer the heat, thereby preventing Earth's watery surface from freezing into ice. The reason for the lack of clouds back in Earth's childhood can be explained by the process by which clouds form. This process requires chemical substances that are produced by algae and plants, which did not exist at the time. These chemical processes would have been able to form a dense layer of clouds, which in turn would have reflected the Sun's rays, throwing them back into the cosmos and thereby preventing the warming of Earth's oceans. Scientists have formerly used the relationship between the radiation from the Sun and Earth's surface temperature to calculate that Earth ought to have been in a deep freeze during three billion of its four and a half billion years of existence. Sagan and Mullen brought attention to the paradox between these theoretical calculations and geological reality by the fact that the oceans had not frozen. This paradox of having a faint Sun and ice-free oceans has now been solved.
CO2 history illluminated
Minik Rosing and his team have by analyzing samples of 3.8-billion-year-old mountain rock from the world's oldest bedrock, Isua, in western Greenland, solved the "paradox."
But more importantly, the analyses also provided a finding for a highly important issue in today's climate research -- and climate debate, not least: whether the atmosphere's CO2 concentration throughout Earth's history has fluctuated strongly or been fairly stable over the course of billions of years.
"The analyses of the CO2-content in the atmosphere, which can be deduced from the age-old Isua rock, show that the atmosphere at the time contained a maximum of one part per thousand of this greenhouse gas. This was three to four times more than the atmosphere's CO2-content today. However, not anywhere in the range of the of the 30 percent share in early Earth history, which has hitherto been the theoretical calculation. Hence we may conclude that the atmosphere's CO2-content has not changed substantially through the billions of years of Earth's geological history. However, today the graph is turning upward. Not least due to the emissions from fossil fuels used by humans. Therefore it is vital to determine the geological and atmospheric premises for the prehistoric past in order to understand the present, not to mention the future, in what pertains to the design of climate models and calculations," underscores Minik Rosing.
Professor Rosing's scientific research has made its mark internationally on several earlier occasions, including research on the point in time when the first fragile life appeared and the impact of life's presence on the formation of Earth's landmass.There are competing (or perhaps additional) theories as well. Radiation from radioactive minerals was much higher, heating the earth naturally and from within. When formed, the earth was one giant ball of lava; heat from lava much closer to the surface was much higher. There are also other "greenhouse gases" than CO2, which may have been present. Massive tidal effects from a moon far closer than today would have heated the earth. It is even possible (though apparently unlikely) that a larger solar wind "hid" the suns output and falsely made it appear to be lower than it actually was (if I understand that one).
Wilderness, My post dealt with the earth floating in space, covered with water, prior to the creation of anything else. This is what Genesis 1 describes. There would have been no minerals, greenhouse gases, moon etc. The earth was floating in a sunless space covered with water......ICE.
Of course there were minerals; they are an integral part of earth and buried throughout the entire planet - minerals are nothing but "dirt". There were also gases; without an atmosphere any liquid water would immediately evaporate (unless it was all frozen solid). And the moon was here before any life, or at least any life we know of (as the collision with the planet that formed the moon melted the entire surface of the planet). The formation of the moon had a MAJOR impact on what the earth was, it's size, rotation and other factors.
Genesis doesn't match reality very well, as you point out, but my post concerned ONLY the heat from the early sun vs water/ice. Not the creation myth.I'll concede the minerals, but not enough heat to melt ice. Otherwise there would be no ice on earth today. In addition, any lava, gases or minerals were covered by water. If you read my post I was presenting a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. In Genesis 1:1-3, the earth was alone in space. There was no moon, no sun, no solar wind, no radiation from the sun. Just the earth covered with water in an unimaginably cold space. The water covering earth at that point would have been frozen.
wilderness, sorry, I'm still defending my original post. If you aren't arguing against that, I apologize for misunderstanding.
I read it, but wasn't responding to it.
But I wonder - the "ice moon" of Saturn, Enceledus, is heated by tidal effects; enough to make water/steam geysers through the outer layer of ice. Plus, consider that the planet really was nothing but lava until the surface cooled enough to solidify; at the point, and for a long time thereafter, the surface would have been quite hot.
Even without a sun, the earth/moon system might have been able to have liquid water. Not that there was no sun (there definitely was), but it's an interesting "what if".I understand what you are saying now. Those are very different conditions from what Genesis One present. While I do not believe in the Genesis creation story, I am simply presenting what the conditions would have been if it happened as written in Genesis. Those conditions were a solid earth covered with water. No sun, no moon. Nothing whatsoever had been created except the water covered earth. Given those conditions, there would have been only ice.
Now, given the conditions you have described, yes, there would have been the possibility of liquid water if there was already an atmosphere to contain it.There is an additional problem with Genesis: the earth was formed by collisions of smaller particles, lumps, mountains, etc. all orbiting...what? No sun, no orbits, no collisions. No collisions, no earth.
Another additional problem is that there is very little original thought here! You have a problem with Genesis, a book written by man, inspired by God. However, you base all of your so-called knowledge on a science written in a book by man, inspired by man.
Even a majority of Christians don't understand Genesis, I wouldn't expect an atheist to get it either. Your science is meaningless when it comes to explaining creation, and here is why: We exist within a continuum. All of nature , and all of the natural laws exist within the same continuum. The major stumbling block that the arrogant mind of the atheist cannot overcome is the very real possibility that the intelligent force that created this continuum is not subject to the laws of nature, but vice-versa. Furthermore, the abilities and the power of such a superior force would also enable it to perform miraculous feats within the constraints of these natural laws. Consequently, what may appear impossible to the human is elementary to such a supernatural entity. Don't quit your day job.This thinking comes in very handy for those who believe Genesis chapter one. I described several impossibilities in that chapter in my first post here. The believer sees those and simply says that God performed a miracle in order to get around the impossibility. Andy that is called science. That is a very convenient little tool to have.
For example. The earth would have been completely covered with ice in it's original form as described by Genesis 1:1-3. Then God planted all vegetation in that frozen environment a couple of days before he created the sun. That is the order which Genesis one describes. It would clearly have been impossible for anything to grow there. But all the believer has to do is to say God performed a miracle so that the plants survived until the sun was created which warmed the environment and melted all the ice within twenty-four hours. And that is called science. You just get to make this stuff up whenever you have a problem with your creation model.Yes, I have a problem with Genesis, a book written by man and inspired by ignorance. When the ignorance could not be dispelled with knowledge, answers were made up out of pure imagination and for thousands of years now have kept much of mankind in that same state of ignorance that the writers were.
What you say is perfectly true - there could be another universe with an entity of far superior intelligence and abilities that created this one.
It is possible.
It is also highly unlikely; did such a creature exist it would seem that thousands of years of search and effort would have produced at least some evidence of that, but it hasn't. All we have to offer are foolish logical fallacies like "We live in a continuum and therefore cannot imagine a god, but we know it is there because we cannot imagine it" and more ignorance, feeling that ignorance is evidence of a great ET of the sky.I cannot speak for your lack of knowledge, or what circumstances have led to your blind acceptance of an interpretation of creation that is so filled with "reason" that you cannot see the forest for the sycamore trees . But it is only the arrogance of man which proclaims that the mere passage of time, a selfish desire, and the search for a greater truth should guarantee an answer to the greatest mystery of all.
With the passage of 100 thousand years, does anyone truly believe that the Black Angus, or the swine, will realize the ultimate purpose of their captivity, the concept of supermarkets, or livestock commodities? It is not necessary for me to imagine a God when the ignorance of the common man leaves nothing to the imagination. The fact that man has polluted the Earth, and still wallows in his own excrement, is a clear indication that such a brute could have never sustained himself without the love and guidance of an almighty God.Ditto. I cannot speak for your ignorance, or for your insistence that your imagination produces truth.
Does anyone truly believe that there IS an "ultimate purpose" for a Black Angus? It is only by imagining a god with a plan that can produce such an outlandish belief - certainly reason can find no "ultimate purpose" for anything at all. But of course that imagination becomes quite apparent when the statement becomes that man cannot survive without a god, it just doesn't indicate any reason, any truth, any reality - just imagination.
Imagination is a wonderful thing, and can be the beginnings of knowledge and truth, but MUST be accompanied by reason and fact - not left alone as a declaration that it IS truth with no support at all. Perhaps you should find evidence of the truth of your myth instead of a barrage of statements that it is true - that way you can have something to back your statements beyond just your own imagination.
Your comment:"Does anyone truly believe that there IS an "ultimate purpose" for a Black Angus?" cannot merely be understood as an ignorant statement, since there are many ignorant men who go to and fro across the Earth with great humility and good intentions. But your comment betrays something much deeper than that. The fact that you have posed such a question is quite remarkable.
As it is understood that man is an omnivore, it is also understood that the ultimate purpose of the Black Angus, as far as the farmer and the general populace is concerned, is to be fattened for the slaughter, and then to provide meat for the table. This is the indisputable purpose that the condition of man has assigned to the Black Angus. For the Black Angus standing out in the field, chewing the sweet grass, and licking the salt block, his ultimate purpose in this lifetime has been determined by those who have contained him, for better or for worse.
You also commented: "Imagination is a wonderful thing, and can be the beginnings of knowledge and truth, but MUST be accompanied by reason and fact ...". It is clear from such statements that you do not understand what imagination is.
Contrary to the primitive concepts you espouse in your teachings, imagination can only be hindered by "reason" and "fact". There can be no room for imagination if we confine ourselves within these restrictive parameters. It has been documented that men who have had no good reason to believe that they should go to the left instead of the right, or no facts on which to base their feelings, have followed their intuition which they have imagined to be true, and in doing so have averted a great tragedy, or experienced a great awakening. Here we can see that faith is inextricably bound to intuition, and imagination.
However, it is not imagination that has delivered me to my superior understanding of Evolution, or Creation, but my own true experience. I have not seen, nor experienced the wonders that Emmanuel Swedenborg claimed in his work: "Heaven and Hell", but I have experienced enough to know that he cannot be so easily be dismissed.Why? It is certainly no more remarkable than a supposedly intelligent man proclaiming that there is an ultimate purpose for a cow.
Ah. Yes, the angus has a purpose...for the farmer that owns it, whether that purpose is food, milk, reproduction or mechanical labor. But that's hardly an "ultimate purpose" for a species or even an individual. You imply a godly purpose but are now backing down to one given by man. Perhaps because there is no god to give a purpose?
Oh, I understand exactly what it is. I'm just not sure that you do - anyone that thinks imaginary things are real doesn't understand what imagination is.
True, imagination is greatly hindered by reason and fact. But I didn't say it wasn't; only that reason and fact were required to find truth. Imagination is great for proposing questions but there it ends as it cannot give conclusions known to be true. Only reason and fact can do that, which is why it is used to continue the process of finding truth after imagination asks the question.
Nor is intuition imagination; intuition is based on a lifetime of both imagination AND facts as well as reason. Sometimes facts win out and the truth is found (as in your trail walker) and sometimes imagination does (as in the trail walkers you conveniently forget to mention but that took the wrong path based on their imagination).
But you have not seen creation and have closed your eyes to evolution. You have no understanding of either, let alone a "superior" understanding. Only imagination, and an imagination that cares not for reality or truth - only for satisfying an ego that thinks it knows all.
I think that people who don't believe in God, are ruled by the left brain, and therefore can't see God. I also believe it is because they aren't suppose to. Remember everyone isn't suppose to come to God
I don't know about the "supposed to", but yes, left brained people depend more on reason and fact than imagination. If it is a requirement to imagine a god in order to believe in one they will fail most of the time, just as many (most?) right brained people have difficulty distinguishing imagination and belief from reality and knowledge.
Because they thought the earth was flat.
Because they thought the sun revolved around the earth.
Because they no knowledge of what the earth, planets or stars were.
Because they thought the universe ended just above their head.
Because they had no idea of much of anything outside of "this plant is good to eat". They were stone age barbarians, and while that doesn't mean "stupid" by any means, it DOES mean "ignorant". Knowledge was limited to their immediate vicinity and survival needs, often remaining unchanged for thousands of years. While individuals may have been as knowledgeable as modern people (just about different things), as a group or species they were quite ignorant in comparison.I have explained all this is not true, and it has already been debated in another thread you are commenting to
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/127286? … ost2687051
Not even modern science and astronomy has the answers to all things
The future people will look back and think we were ignorant too.
Edit
From Creation World View
Man, even pagan man, has always been able to reason that the earth was a sphere! The Hebrews knew it because God told them six times in the Old Testament that the earth was a sphere. (Gen. 1:2, Job 22:14, Job 26:10, Job 38:14, Prov. 8:27 and Is. 40:22) These verses were sufficient to convince Old Testament believers.
Ancient pagans were also able to reason that the earth was a sphere. Too many people seem to think that ancient man was illiterate, ignorant or stupid. I would remind everyone; however, that ancient man was able to do works of engineering that we have not been able to duplicate in modern times.
The idea that there was a time when Europeans believed universally in a “Flat Earth” is pure revisionist history. True, there were some ancient cultures and certain early Greek philosophers (all evolutionists) that promoted the concept of belief in a flat earth, however, these ideas were being disproven by the time of the Classical Greek and Hellenistic Periods. The works of Pythagoras of Samos (c. 570 - c. 495 BC), his followers and the works of Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC) had started to persuade the world that teaching about a flat earth was scientifically wrong. The distortion of history that many people in the last 2,000 years believed in a flat earth may be traced directly to the teachings of atheistic/agnostic anti-God, anti-Bible and anti-Christian authors.You are absolutely right - the people of the distant future will look back on us and find that we are extremely ignorant (at least I hope we continue to learn!). Just as we look on our ancestors and recognize that our knowledge base is far greater.
Ignorant is a relative term, useful ONLY in comparing two things; in this case modern man and ancient stone age barbarians. The term is derogatory only when the ignorance is intentional, which theirs wasn't. They just hadn't had the necessary centuries and prior knowledge to build on that we do.You still might read what I wrote here
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/127286? … ost2687051I did, and I think you're really stretching your interpretations. In addition:
"Like the Midrash and the Talmud, the Targum does not think of a globe of the spherical earth, around which the sun revolves in 24 hours, but of a flat disk of the earth, above which the sun completes its semicircle in an average of 12 hours. (The Distribution of Land and Sea on the Earth's Surface According to Hebrew Sources, Solomon Gandz, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 22 (1953), pp. 23-53, published by American Academy for Jewish Research."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#cite_note-7You're going to Wikipedia to tell me what we believed? You do realize anyone can write a Wikipedia page, I have one myself
How is posting scripture that says the earth was a circle, trying to stretch things I know what the Hebrew word means, because I speak it..modern, and ancient
Anyone who doesn't believe in God, isn't suppose to
Have you read Jewish Literature? If not, you should read it before making false statements about what we believeUhh...you do know that a circle is two dimensional? Flat? That it is NOT a sphere such as the earth is?
The WIKI article only says the same thing you do - that the ancient Hebrews thought the earth was a two dimensional, flat circle instead of the sphere it is.That's is correct, but it is the modern idea of a circle. The Biblical Hebrew word for “circle” is chuwg, and can also mean “round” or “sphere.”
It was translated circle. That's the problem with translationsRashi commentary to Isaiah 22:18 explicitly refers to a sphere ("ball"), quoting the Talmud sages. But in general, it should be borne in mind that the Tanakh (Jewish Bible) doesn't intend to be a scientific treatise. It uses poetic language, and leaves research and inquiry to others; concentrating instead on matters related to awareness of God. The Bible uses a man's-eye-view of the world around him; just like we speak of "sunrise" and "sunset" even though it's the earth that is revolving on its axis. But even in ancient times, those who wished to spend time observing the earth, sun and moon, could show the spherical shape of the earth from its shadow on the moon in lunar eclipses. The Sanhedrin (Sages) who proclaimed the New Moon each month were well-versed in these matters.
You truly are a master of fiction! You claim that I know nothing at all, yet now you claim to know the future. Since you don't believe in God, then perhaps you are using a Crystal Ball, or perhaps even your imagination to make such a proclamation. You say our knowledge base is greater, and that may be true, but I see that it hasn't helped some of the respondents here.You have clearly indicated that you are still impressed with shiny objects, and so-called technological advancements that have done little to improve the human condition, other than corrupt the soul of man, and satiate his carnal desires
You have gone on to say that: "Ignorant is a relative term useful ONLY in comparing two things; in this case modern man and ancient stone age barbarians. The term is derogatory only when the ignorance is intentional, which theirs wasn't. "
Based on your own definition it can be understood that your ignorance of God, and the real world, is not intentional, and so for me to state that my understanding of Evolution and God is superior to that of an ignorant atheist, should not be considered derogatory in the least; according to you.It is not derogatory. It is, instead, recognized by all as merely belief with no known connection to reality; you are accusing me of ignorance of something not known to exist. Or do you not understand the difference between belief and knowledge? Are you making the claim that all of your made up perceptions are, in fact, real without need of proof or even evidence and expecting everyone else to not only agree with you (in defiance of proven fact) but know your beliefs without being told of them?
But I know from my experiences that God exists, it's not belief.
My BELIEF in God, is that he will answer my prayers, not that he existsUh huh. What tests did you do to verify your information? How did you check it for veracity? How many times did you repeat the experience that provided that knowledge? Who else has done the same thing with the same results showing a god?
I don't think you KNOW anything at all, although you firmly believe it to be true. But that's not unusual - there is almost always a breakdown in communication between believers and non-believers over this point. Believers find that subjective, unrepeatable and untested experiences produce knowledge while non-believers have much more stringent requirements before something is considered true. And typically both sides are so entrenched with their requirements that they never understand why they aren't being believed or understood.
Read my post, that's explained, and as I said, a LIGHT bulbs put off light
I'll try one more time. BEFORE day one. BEFORE the sun was created. BEFORE the light was created, the earth would have been a ball of ice. A belief in six, twenty-four hour days of creation, would mean all the ice melted in the first four days of creation so that oceans could support life and plants could grow in the ground. All of this without the sun, but only an unidentified light after day one.
I don't believe it was six days, but if it was six days, six thousand years, or more
God created everything, what makes you think God could not have melted the ice? That's quite a ridiculous argument. Do you think you have found a reason we should give up the idea of God? You haven'tThere, you used it. God, the genie in a bottle. Every time a creationist has something they can't explain, they can pop the cork on the genie bottle and out comes God with another miracle. No science required. No research. The only study is of the Bible.
One more time, the light would have melted it. Or God..anyone who creates a Universe, can melt ice
To Cam8510, from what I am understanding, you were trying to go after a literal interpretation of Genesis, 6 - 24 hour days. Yet you are not presenting such a literal interpretation when you state that in the first two verses the earth had to be frozen. So you are creating a fictional scenario, non literal scenario of those verses or account, in order to attack its literal account. So you made a case that didn't need to be defended in the first place, because you never made the case, as I see it. If I have misunderstood anything, please let me know.
Per my previous reply to this, I am not bound to a literal interpretation of Genesis one. I don't believe in a literal interpretation of it. Therefore, I can make logical conclusions and add those to my understanding of the text. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis one can not add to it. They must accept it as written, no matter how illogical it may be.
I understand you don't believe in, and therefore aren't bound to a literal interpretation of Genesis one. I am not completely decided on that either, in terms of 6, 24 hour days. I am speaking in regards to how you are framing your argument or debate, rather.
If you are trying to make the point that it can't be a literal interpretation of creation, and are using the text to do so, and then make the argument about the ice that you do, then that doesn't work is all I am saying. You are inserting your logical conclusions without making a case of where you got your frozen world. I just see you inserting a frozen world before it would have been created on day one, then critiquing the verses that don't say that and say the opposite actually. Water, is in the first verses. Does that make sense? So I am asking you to do the same thing you are asking others to do, to critique it while keeping to the literal interpretation of it to do so, if that is what you are wanting to do. You are critiquing a non literal interpretation of it, as I see.Read Genesis 1:1-3. This tells us that BEFORE day one of creation, the earth existed and was covered with water. There was no sun. It would have been extremely cold. I am speaking about the earth BEFORE anything else was created. That is my case for a completely frozen earth. Don't forget that there was no sun until day four.
I read verses 1-5 as day one.
"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was [a]formless and void, and darkness was over the [b]surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was [c]moving over the [d]surface of the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day."
Do you miss the word, waters? I am speaking IF we are trying to go after a literal interpretation of it.
You are making a case for something that isn't there, because I don't see where you get things were made before day one, when the earth was created. Verse five, sums up the first day. The other days sum up the same way, after things are described. I don't see how someone even needs to defend a frozen earth. You need to make the case first.
Deborah, The first thing that Genesis says God created was light. Not the sun. No heat is mentioned. It is reading into the text what is not there to assume that enough heat to melt all the ice was also present. A literal interpretation does not allow reading into the text.
Deborah, you need to think about your next comment. You quoted Genesis 1:1-3 which was PRIOR TO THE CREATION OF THE SUN and then proceeded to explain "Why Earth wasn't one big ball of ice 4 billion years ago when Sun's radiation was weaker." There was no sun. According to Genesis, the earth was covered with water, alone in space. With the sun, space can be as cold as minus 450 degrees fahrenheit. Just think what it would have been without the sun. Yes, the earth would have been a ball of ice. Case closed Your whole Copenhagen article is meaningless because it assumes the existence of a sun. Mystery NOT solved. There was no sun until Genesis 1:14, day four of creation: "And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."
I'll make it even more simple for you. Earth + Water - Sun = Ice.Even as small as it is, a light bulb gives off heat
Since we don't know what the source of that light actually was, you can in no way debunk it.
Why didn't you finish reading my comment?I am way behind and catching up here. As for looking at a playing out of a possible literal interpretation in order to critique it and find problems with it, AND not wanting to read into any text, here is what comes to mind. (Forgive if this has been addressed, and I just haven't seen it yet lol.)
Could you be possibly reading "ice" into the text when it isn't supposed to be there? If we are letting the text drive this, we have to let the text do that. Here are the verses she shared again,
"Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
Since it doesn't say in what "form" the water was, (as you have concluded that it was ice), we have to assume it was in "water" form, as it says so. Even in verse two it doesn't say the darkness was upon the face of the "deep ice." Just deep. Then in the same verse, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. WATERS.....
So when you said the first correction to be made was that it was a ball of ice, aren't you injecting a form of water that isn't in the text, and also inject a naturalistic, materialistic process that isn't being described in the text? Its in that first correction, I think we need to discuss more. Perhaps it has been since.
I am a believer in an older earth, currently, and believe it is a lot more likely billions of years old than thousands... Still, I liked what you two are doing with running with the literal versions of 24 hour days and having this discussions. That said, I can't find any justifiable reason to think God made it ice instead of water, which it would have had to be for your idea to go through. Does that make any sense what I am asking, and suggesting?_______________________________
That's what I've been saying. After God created the heavens and earth, God created light
So there was no ice. Light creates heat, there was also very few clouds, there was co2 which Science says may be the cause of NO ice.. the other hubber keeps saying there wasWell from what I have read, we have come to the same conclusion in a literal reading of the text, for different reasons. I am showing how what he was saying about what you were doing, was I think what he was doing. You have been trying to explaining from a different point of view, and he seems to still take issue with that. Either way, its support for your view that it didn't need to be ice.
I am using scripture, logic, and science
Those things are what I am using also. Those things, facts, and reason (or what is most reasonable) are my favorite things to use in discussions.
Only those who believe the text are bound to using only the text. I do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis one. I am free to make logical conclusions and add those to my understanding of it. One logical conclusion is that a ball of water in a sunless space would actually be ice. The seas were populated with life on day five, one day after the creation of the sun. Even the sun could not have melted all that ice in one day. And plant life on day three before the creation of the sun? Have you heard of photosynthesis? When did you last read Genesis one with any attempt at understanding the order In which things were created?
Gee, we've gone over that already, many times, We've decided to agree to disagree..(never actually spoken)..remember?
Some of us don't see the ice, sorryYou ignore the ice. There is no way that liquid water could have existed prior to day one of creation.
Which verse are you getting that liquid water existed prior to day one of creation though? I can't find a verse that suggests that liquid water could have existed prior to day one of creation. Here is verse one and two mentioning waters....
"1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters."
No one is ignoring ice that I can see, it is just being insertedGenesis 1:1-2 are before day one. When light was created on day one (verse three) the earth itself already existed. This Is when it would have been extremely cold and frozen. Remember, there was no sun.
Edited.
I see..... it seems you are reading into the text perhaps? It doesn't mention time, that I can see. Are you looking beyond the basic words, to something I am not? You still need to make the case, if the waters are in verse two like they are, that it had time to freeze, do you not? How much time does it take oceans deep of water to freeze, and then how do you know that THAT span of time passed between verse 2 and day 4 of creation? This is giving you the benefit of the doubt, that the light previous, and the earths core heat which would be inherent in its creation, weren't doing any heating of their own. Do you see the problem? It seems too much is being relied upon, that simply isn't there, and it is what IS there, that you are wanting to critique.
I have seen people critique the creation account, and fairly so at times. Part of the argument though is that everything was supposedly created in 6, 24 hour days. The way you are personally interpreting for yourself, would allow for the creation account to be actually very much in line with an ancient universe. So either interpretation, I see having problems, if you are critiquing it in the way it seems.
It doesn't state when the water was created...so that argument is not valid
and in Genesis we are dealing with God, not a limited human
When God created something, it functioned as it should, that's what the Hebrew word "Tov" means, FUNCTIONAL, He created water functional, so it was liquid, not ice
He said let there be..and it was ...good (functions as it should)
He created light
Genesis 1:4
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Genesis 1:10
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
It was all good...Sure it states when the water was created. It was made before day one of creation. Earth was in space with nothing else except the water covering it. There was no source of heat. No sun until day four. Read Genesis 1:1-3 in context with the rest of the chapter. I swear, some of you seem to have not read these verses in a long time. You just talk a lot about them.
How can something, anything, be made before day one of creation though? This is what you would prove happened, according to the text, and then I can see it maybe needing to be defended. The text would need to have words in it that says something very different than what it says. Thus, why I am asking you. Perhaps you heard this argument from someone else, and trusted they were making a good argument? This can happen a lot, because I have seen very smart, even brilliant people make very poor arguments, and even write books, articles, and do public debates. People trust those that they agree with very often. Not assuming this about you, but wondering what explains such confidence in your position? (It has happened to me, then I needed to raise the bar, lol.)
Here are the comments on verse two from the commentary by Jamieson-Fausset-Brown (below). Other works which agree with this interpretation are Barnes Notes and the Notes of John Schofield. There are many more who agree. The bottom line is that the situation in verses one and two were separate from the creative acts of verses three and following. So prior to day one of creation, the earth existed as a solid mass covered with water. In this condition there is no way the earth could have been anything but a ball of ice.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary
"the earth was without form and void—or in "confusion and emptiness," as the words are rendered in Isa 34:11. This globe, at some undescribed period, having been convulsed and broken up, was a dark and watery waste for ages perhaps, till out of this chaotic state, the present fabric of the world was made to arise."Thanks Cam. So we have a commentary which is someone's interpretation that agrees with you and uses the word of prophet Isaiah to explain too. It could be. I am not surprised one could find commentary to agree, as we see commentators on all both sides of many coins. Lets go with that though for a moment, that that interpretation is true (still a reading it in, or assumption, for some purpose not listed in the actual text.) I am still not seeing the connection to it having to be ice, especially when the commentary you quote, also says it a "dark and watery waste." I saw waste come up also actually, when I looked it up in the Hebrew. The water part read as that. This defends my points also though. Assuming the view is true, it sounds like its not just water as we know it, first, and second, overcoming the light that was there also according to the text (non sunlight, light), and the earths core, etc.
It still seems set up for the text to fail, without fully making a case. (If just using the text, the target, is what is being used.) I hope you understood my point, that you can't insert a materialist or naturalist view into an event that is anything BUT materialistic, but driven by a mind at the very least. (Or creator God.) If you take out the creator parts of the text, to make the case, and have to do so much dissecting that isn't obviously inherent in the text over what is clearly there, then it gets a little weak.
We can't just make such assumptions, that it was ice. We need much more information that isn't there, when a God is there, according to the text, AND a lot of water. Just my view and thoughts. I could be wrong, but don't see how yet. I do find this stuff interesting though!I'm getting a little tired of explaining why really cold temperatures produce ice. The commentary along with others simply show that verses 1-2 are understood by many to have been before day one. Whether it was before or part of day one is actually irrelevant. I am saying that regardless of what genesis one says about liquid water, science demands that it would have been ice prior to day four and the creation of the sun.
No one is disputing that really cold temperatures produce ice though. I am sorry you don't want to discuss the points in more depth, that would help you to make your case.
Sorry about my brevity and lack of ability to really communicate the last few days here. I don't have my laptop and have been typing everything on my phone. I have a laptop here so will try to make a little more sense.
Many who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis one also say that it is in total agreement with science. Everything I have said in this forum has been an attempt to show that Genesis one is not at all consistent with science.
In Genesis one we have a period before the creation of the sun when plants and animals were living on dry land. This clearly is not consistent with science. Plants live by the process of photosynthesis which is impossible without the sun. Also, plants and animals need relatively warm temperatures in order to exist. The sun was created in verse 14 on day four, after the creation of plant and animal life. The water during this time, according to the scientific laws of nature, would have been ice.
Scientifically speaking, the creation story of Genesis is impossible because it requires special interventions by God in order for these things to have occurred. Theologically speaking, Genesis can be explained by the existence of God who performs the acts of creation. According to theology, God could also suspend the laws of nature so that plants and animals could survive without the sun and so that water would not freeze in extremely cold temperatures.
So, my point is that while Genesis and science cannot reconciled, Genesis can be explained theologically. That is how it should be presented. Believers in Genesis one would do well to stop attempting to reconcile Genesis one with science and hone their theological argument. After all, if God exists, there would be no problem with the Genesis story.Hi Cam, no problem, and I understand. Texting or typing on my phone drives me batty, lol. I actually am one that believes that Genesis is written from the point of view in which the writers understood things to be. You bring up a fair point that theologically, the ideas expressed in genesis would make sense. Scientifically there are some conflicts, sure.
From our point of view in time right now, yes, the things as you expressed would not be possible. Take away the sun, and everything is done for. I am not in possession of the knowledge of how long it would take deep oceans to completely freeze after being completely fluid, or water. Is three days enough, perhaps so? Marianas trench? How long for that to completely freeze? I don't know. This is perhaps besides the point at this point, but may be a point worth considering to some, for a moment or two, lol.
I am also of the understanding though, that our origins, the big bang requires special intervention for sure. The science we are talking about that measures observable, repeatable, testable things, can't begin to give an answer to what caused the big bang. I am pretty confident that something timeless spaceless, and something of unfathomable power, (at least, and perhaps personal or of a mind of some kind), is necessary for such a thing, whatever it is.
So while many disagree with theological explanations for things as explanations of what we see, ironically I think it is the theological that would and could explain our origins. Perhaps not a satisfying idea to many, especially atheists or materialists of all stripes, but it would be an explanation. How a said, possible personal being would reveal itself/himself, etc, would be in such ways as I am speaking of. Deduction, logic, facts, science, etc, and knowledge, etc.
Genesis is a a history of a people and how they understood through their lens, what was going on.
To be a theist, I don't think one needs to look at Genesis as a scientific text book. In fact, the way you look at verses one and two lend to the idea of what would explain in how many theists think the universe is much older, billions of years even. As for God through leaders and prophets in the OT, or Jesus and the apostles in the NT, none of them asks us to believe in a early genesis as a scientific text, in order to gain favor of God, that I have ever read about. It asks other things, but not that.
So what you share there, you and I are not so far apart actually, as some of my discussion with you lent itself to be. Thank you for your clarification there, it helps to know where you are coming from and I appreciate it.oceansnsunsets, Thank you for taking time to understand what I have been so poorly attempting to state. The following is my original post to this forum. These things which I describe are what would most certainly have happened if the laws of nature were in place at the time. If we are reading the text as those who believe in science and natural laws, it would have been impossible for the things recorded in Genesis one to have actually occurred. That is why many reject these verses.
Christians who believe these verses describe what actually happened in history, can not claim that they are consistent with natural laws and science. But the fact is, many do claim that Genesis one is supported by science even though these verses require divine intervention in order to have happened.
So, here is my original post with a few added clarifications in parentheses. These things which I describe are what would most certainly have happened if the laws of nature were in place at the time of the original creation of Genesis one.
"Lets look at the literal six day creation concept.
According to Gen 1:1-2, before day one [or on day one if you prefer] the earth was a ball of water in a sunless space. Ok, let's make our first correction. It would have been a ball of ice [or quickly becoming a ball of ice until the sun is created on day four, verse 14].
Day one, light/darkness, day/night created. No sun was created until day four. Earth still a frozen ball of ice.
Day two, separated water on land from water in the sky......it was all still ice. There was no sun.
Day three, land and water separated. The water was still ice, big piles of ice. There was still no sun [to melt the ice].
Also on third day, plants were created although there was no sun and all the water was in the form of
ice.
Day four, The sun is created, the piles of ice begin to melt, the plants recover from the shock of being planted in frozen ground and in an unbelievably cold temperature.
Day five, Twenty-four hours earlier, all the water on earth was ice. The sun had been created and the ice began to melt. How long would it have taken for all that ice to melt and make oceans? Well, on day five, twenty-four hours after it was completely frozen, the seas were filled with fish and all other kinds of living things.
Day six, Forty-eight hours after the beginning of global flooding from melting ice, man and land dwelling animals were created.
This is a literal accounting of the Genesis 1 creation story if the laws of nature were active. I will predict that the answer to the above impossibilities will be that God performed some kind of miracle to resolve the conflict and this will be called science. This is not science. It is simply making stuff up as you go along. The literal interpretation you desire will not allow you to make up resolutions to the conflicts which are not explicitly stated in Genesis chapter one.
A literal interpretation of Genesis One [assuming natural laws were in effect] yields a ball of ice, light without a sun, plants on frozen ground with no sun, sea life swimming in ice, humans and land animals existing in world wide flooding due to melting ice. Creationists say that Genesis chapter one agrees with science. Where is the science here?"Cam, the following quote from you jumped out at me. "But the fact is, many do claim that Genesis one is supported by science even though these verses require divine intervention in order to have happened."
I think divine intervention is absolutely necessary for the big bang to have happened. That, or an equivalent to a divine. Something timeless, spaceless, immaterial, with unfathomable power, and a will/mind, that is personal...that kind of thing could cause a big bang, and all that has happened since.
I won't be arguing that sea creatures can swim in ice, or plants can be planted in ice, or people can live in flooding, etc. Your own interpretation has to work 100% for you, in your own mind. It seems it does. Ok.
No one can point in any same bible, to where you need to believe the things you say there, the reasons you give for rejecting the verses. Its not required to be a theist. If you do find people that believe plants can be planted in ice, then ask them maybe? Not saying I am done talking about this with you. The problem is bigger for the atheist, in my opinion, than for the theist when going even further back to the big bang. (Not assuming you are an atheist, speaking in general there.)oceansnsunsets, Again, thank you for being willing to understand my comments here. Regarding my own position on these matters, I remain uncommitted to any conclusions. I was raised in a conservative Christian home and was firmly convinced of the truth of Genesis and the whole Bible. I went to a Christian College and received a B.A. in Biblical Education, and spent ten years in the ministry. Over the years I had many questions in my mind that I tried to ignore. Finally, I allowed myself to ask the questions and seek answers. That is where I am today, still seeking.
At one point I referred to Genesis 1:1-2 as being before day one of creation. This is an interesting belief called the "Gap Theory." Those who hold to that theory believe that at some undetermined time in the distant past, God created the Earth. Lucifer, who had creative abilities, rebelled against God and populated the Earth with dinosaurs. Lucifer was cast out of heaven and the Earth's surface was destroyed in the process, killing all life. We see the evidence of that period in the fossil record. I don't believe or disbelieve this idea, but I do find it interesting. According to this theory, Genesis 1:2 might read as follows: "And the earth ALREADY EXISTED without form, and void; and darkness was ALREADY upon the face of the deep." The implication here is that the earth already existed when God began the six days of creation. Google "Gap Theory" to find more information.
I do find it helpful to divide the two perspectives on the study of origins into the theological and the scientific. The reason I presented them in conflict here in this forum is because that is what both sides typically do. Each tries to prove the other wrong. My goal is to show that they really have to be handled separately from one another because of a fundamental difference....the existence or nonexistence of God. That basic element changes how one approaches the subject of origins. If one accepts the existence of God, Genesis one makes perfect sense. If one is an atheist, Genesis one is a complete absurdity. So the debate should be taken back to that primary level. It really is pointless to argue the validity of one approach to origins over the other. The existence or non existence of a deity is primary and in the end it is a matter of faith. No living person has seen God. We either believe or we don't. Our view of origins will be formed by whether we do or do not believe in God.
Biblical creationism cannot be considered scientific anymore than atheistic evolution can be considered theological. Can you imagine an atheistic evolutionist claiming that his beliefs were consistent with the Bible? But creationists often do the same kind of thing by insisting their view is consistent with atheistic science. Why try to cram a square peg into a round hole?
Creationists should concentrate on explaining their beliefs in theological terms, not scientific terms. This is where their viewpoint makes sense.
__________________________
Actually, I posted a scientific article that disagrees with you about the ice, and you never responded..about cloud density, and Co2, plus the Greenhouse effect, and the Core of the Earth was hot........etc
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126751? … ost2688306
Evolution theory is based only on conjecture. Contrary to the claim being bandied around by evolutionists,there is nothing scientific about it at all. Everything about evolution is based on pure assumptions. Evolutionists make their own conclusions before looking for "facts" to support their already made bogus conclusions.
You are then prepared to show that mutations do not occur? That characteristics and attributes of the parent are not passed to the offspring? That a species never changes over geological time periods?
The "science" that shows these things would be interesting to see.Time to learn some basic biology "rentacarmanila".
You are clearly not only misinformed, but equally uninformed.The bible is the only true source of knowledge that is valid at all times.
Right. Like women come from the rib of a man. Absolute knowledge, it is.
The Hebrew bible doesn't say that, only the English one does
My advise to you is that you should be disputing the the biblical account of creation. The bible says "it is fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living Father" So, stop disputing the indisputables
Let me correct the first sentence of my last reply. I meant to say that you shouldn't be disputing the biblical account of creation
I'm not disputing anything. I am discussing the topics
You have made your comments, and I have made mine. Please stop giving advice to me, and don't tell me what to do,
Thank you
I bow to your superior (much superior) knowledge of spiritual writings.
_____________________
It was simply the truth, the Hebrew scriptures do not say "rib", (only the English one's do) so can't you go without getting sarcastic with me? and grow up a little On all the other threads, according to you, you are the only one who knows how to think, and make choices, but when someone knows a little something more than you, well.....Deborah, would you mind sharing what the verse about the rib actually says, in your understanding and from your own study?
I'm sorry - no sarcasm intended at all. Your knowledge of scripture is simply out of my league, that's all. A simple statement of fact, and a sincere compliment.
I've enjoyed our interaction but dang, you've got to learn to be a little less sensitive!If wanting to be SHOWN respect, is being sensitive, I never want to stop
It doesn't matter what someone feels toward others here, but we should show respect, It's the adult human way, and we never really know who we are speaking to
Thank you for the compliment
כב וַיִּבֶן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר-לָקַח מִן-הָאָדָם, לְאִשָּׁה; וַיְבִאֶהָ, אֶל-הָאָדָם. 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.
כג וַיֹּאמֶר, הָאָדָם, זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי, וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי; לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה, כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקְחָה-זֹּאת. 23 And the man said: 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htmI am speaking of the Hebrew bible not the online ones
On the internet, they take the English scriptures, turn it into Hebrew, and call it the Hebrew scriptures.
The Hebrew scriptures are written only in Hebrew consonants, there are no vowels used, so what you posted isn't real
Don't try to use Hebrew as though it were EnglishOh I thought you recommended the Jewish Publication Society's translations earlier.
You'll also note I never said online version, and I also said I heard it was good, but I had never read it
Read it here
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126751? … ost2688724I thought she was suggesting looking it up online, when she said, "If you don't find it under JPS look up "The Jewish Publication Society", Hebrew bible in English."
So you weren't the only one.So the person could purchase one...and I think it would be good to purchase a Jewish bible from a Jewish website
Luckily, I won't need to now, just to find out the answer that was "side" all along. I have always thought that when it said it said side, it was just part of the reading of the same text that included the word rib. It makes sense in the most simplest reading to me also, for the side is where the skin is that covers the rib cage.
It was/is when I joined/join in the thread.
GA
- Deborah Sextonposted 9 years ago
0My Mac Thesaurus
circle
noun
1 a circle of gold stars on a background of azure blue | the lamp spread a circle of light
2 light: ring, round, band, hoop, circlet; halo, disc, wreath; technical annulus.
3 circles: sphere, world, milieu, arena, domain; society.
4 wheel, move round, move round in circles, revolve, rotate, whirl, spiral, gyrate.
So your one definition doesn't prove anything
The Hebrew language lacked a specific term for sphere as well as terminology for infinite space. The word Chug (Chuwg), in context with other words in Isaiah cannot be used to prove that the Bible teaches a flat earth.
You would have to learn Hebrew to understand what they meant.I'm too ignorant to know how to print Hebrew here, but googling "translate sphere to hebrew" gives a result. I can't read it, but there does seem to be a hebrew word for sphere.
Hard to believe that a people, any society then, didn't understand the difference between a sphere and a circle. Although they look the same viewed head on, the appearance is much different when turned even a few degrees.Circle is the translation used. A lot of things changed when the Hebrew text was translated to Greek, and even more when translated from Greek to English.
Hebrew words are tangible, and Greek words are abstract, and that's where the problems began
I took this from my website
On a frequent basis we attach a meaning of a word from the Bible based on our own language and culture to a word that is not the meaning of the Hebrew word behind the translation. This is often a result of using our modern western thinking process for interpreting the Biblical text. For proper interpretation of the Bible it is essential that we take our definitions for words from an Ancient Hebraic perspective. Our modern western minds often work with words that are purely abstract or mental while the Hebrew’s vocabulary was filled with words that painted pictures of concrete concepts. By reading the Biblical text with a proper Hebrew vocabulary the text comes to life revealing the authors intended meaning.
Every word in the Ancient Hebrew language was related to an image of action, something that could be sensed (as observed by the five senses – seen, heard, smelled, touched or felt) and in motion
Greek words were, and are abstract, meaning that the words can mean several things..Take the word Bless-Ancient Hebrew Word Meanings Bless ~ barak
In order to interpret this word correctly we must find its original concrete meaning. In Genesis 24:11 we read, “And he made the camels “kneel down” outside the city.” The phrase “kneel down” is the Hebrew verb ברך (B.R.K), the very same word translated as “bless.” The concrete meaning of ברך is to kneel down. The extended meaning of this word is to do or give something of value to another. God “blesses” us by providing for our needs and we in turn “bless” God by giving him of ourselves as his servants.No, that was a different "pictograph" or whatever it's called. Sphere was not circle.
You're reading someones website that does not truly understand Hebrew
You have to look at the verbs and nouns around a Hebrew word to understand it
Now you understand Hebrew more than a Jewish person?
I don't believe you.
I'll believe in God, it's your choice not to, but it is not your duty to lead others away from GodNo, just the box that a google search pops up.
I don't know what being Jewish has to do with knowing Hebrew - you could say the same thing about Christians as their bible was mostly written in Hebrew. But vanishingly few can understand Hebrew and of those that do, even fewer have taken the lifetime necessary to even try and understand the culture then.
But mostly I just can't believe that a whole people, knowledgeable for the time, didn't understand that a circle isn't a sphere. Geometry wasn't unknown then, after all, and other cultures even earlier had a firm grasp on 3-D objects.The Christian's bible is not written in Hebrew. The Hebrew text was copied and changed
What's that got to do with it? If the original was Hebrew then that's where one should go for understanding. Depending on a dozen or hundred "translators", all with their own axe to grind, is a sure way to misunderstand what was actually written/said.
The meaning of the Hebrew words being changed, has a lot to do with it
I use the Hebrew version (written in Hebrew) of the Hebrew bible
The Hebrew Bible has not changed since it was canonized in 450 BCE
You're thinking once again of the English bibleThere is no scholarly consensus as to when the Hebrew Bible canon was fixed: some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty,[4] while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen … ible_canonI don't choose to get my information from Wikipedia, but from Jewish Literature, history, and tradition
Wikipedia is incorrect
It first started being put together around 200BC and canonized in 450 BCE by the Men of The Great Assembly
But you think the subject of evolution is dry, even though there is tons of proofThere is a difference between finding a subject dry and claiming it is wrong.
Well I know what the real Hebrew scriptures say, and it isn't rib
So you disagree with JPS' translations and Wikipedia's article on canonization. Your claim is they are wrong and you are right. I think it is rib or side, but since in context it says bone of my bones, I think it's rib. I think Genesis contains allegory, so I am not inclined to believe it's literal, but I think it's a fairly accurate translation, so I am going to go with JPS's translation.
The Jewish Publication Society (JPS), originally known as the Jewish Publication Society of America, is the oldest nonprofit, nondenominational publisher of Jewish works in English. Founded in Philadelphia in 1888, by reform Rabbi Joseph Krauskopf among others..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Publication_Society
And HaShem G-d caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof.
22
And the rib, which HaShem G-d had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man
http://www.breslov.com/bible/Genesis2.htm#2Yes, if they are saying rib, I disagree, and yes I disagree with Wikipedia if it doesn’t say the scriptures were put together in 200-250 BCE, and canonized by the Men of The Great Assembly in 450 BCE. I can think on my own, interpret scripture, and read Jewish history, and literature, without help, and I have confidence in what I tell you
And In Context It Says: bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh
Genesis 2:23
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.JPS Tanakh
The Jewish translation of the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible into English - This translation emerged from the collaborative efforts of an interdenominational team of Jewish scholars and rabbis working together over a thirty-year period. These translators based their translation on the Masoretic Hebrew text, and consistently strove for a faithful, idiomatic rendering of the original scriptural languages.
The translation follows the Hebrew or Masoretic text scrupulously, taking a conservative approach regarding conjectural emendations:
And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And the rib, which HaShem G-d had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.
Can you provide a link to "any" source - on the entire internet - that supports your claim that they did not get the translation correct? I would really be sincerely interested to look at it.And then what? If she would provide you with 100 sources it would not necessarily validate or negate anything. This is why in such matters it is best to cut out the middle man and petition the source of all knowledge. There are at least 100 liars in the world, and there are certainly at least 100 ignorant men who would blindly follow any idea that appealed to their own vanity. This is why I seldom look to men for answers that are better found elsewhere. Furthermore, she is also a "source".
It appears that many on this thread, and in these forums in general, harbor the false notion that an authority is always distant, and somehow removed from the prevailing currents of the common man. But nothing could be further from the truth. I have conversed with numerous men and women of great knowledge, and "authority" via the internet.One source would be fine. She claims that Wilderness, teams of scholars and Rabbis and their translation is wrong, but offers no line of reason, sources, facts or opinion, to support the claim. I read her hub on Judas, in regards to hanging or bursting asunder and it was a very interesting and as far as I know a very unique apologetics. It was convincing. I believe Genesis to contain allegory. Perhaps there is a belief out there (that could be explored) that Adam was at first both sexes-male and female and that "rib or side" hypothetically could be believed to be one or the other, which would be an interpretation of allegory as opposed to error of translation. You and I can disagree on varying degrees of ignorance, but there is a consensus on the etymology and definition of the word ignorance, whether you or I agree or not.
I am also a Jewish Rebbe, and consider myself a bible scholar
If that makes people mad, well, they'll have to deal with it. If saying,
I consider myself a bible scholar, upsets anyone, I know how much I have studied, and researched, and how much revelation I have received from God.______________________________________
No other scholar could reconcile those scriptures about Judas, therefore they claimed it was a contradiction..to me it was so clear. because It was revelation
God sometimes gives to those not in high rank- what are you discussing regarding this RIB issue? I don't get it.
(Entering class late...)____________________________
That it wasn't a RIB but a SIDEI don't think anyone would have disputed "side." Thanks for answering at this point.(as phoenixv had also pointed out.) I'm kind I surprised that's all it was. It does say side in the verses in my translations also, where God closed it up.
That info is very interesting! I've been wondering why Eve couldn't have been made first!
A couple of goofy phrases come to mind....
"If at first you don't succeed, then try, try again.....?" ( I am totally joking around here!)
Then also, "Practice makes perfect?" Ok, I am getting into hot water here! LOL
_________________________________
Many do, and I didn't want to get into a heated debate
I think everyone can be taught, and we should listen and ask questions, and not insult others, though it is hard sometimes, depending on what is being said
If people don't agree, they should explain why, and do it with respect, unless respect can't be shown.
I'm not saying we should agree with anyone, and we can never get upset..we're only human, and we all have feelings, including me
I am not recommending this necessarily, but if you really wanted to know, it is probably best to go back and look where Wilderness first mentioned the rib from Adam to make Eve, in the thread, lol. That is the best way to follow what happened, if you really want to know.
____________________________________
Read this about Adam and Eve
http://www.jasher.com/Insights%20page/Adamsrib.htm
Here's a Wikipedia that agrees with me about when the Hebrew bible (Tanakh) was canonized
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh
We have to understand the meaning of Hebrew, then we have to research, and study, we should use logic, and put everything in context. In context could mean studying 5 books of the bible, and putting it all together
Jewish sages identify four levels of interpretation of the Scriptures, called (pardes), an acronym formed from:
1 P'shat (literal meaning based on historical intent of author)
2 Remez (hint, allusion, analogy, allegory)
3 D'rash (application, exposition)
4 Sod (looking for the mystery, "deep" meaning)
Maybe you could edit the article and add your references.
That's where one should go for understanding? It's not surprising that you state the obvious and don't look any further toward what is even more obvious. I understand that this evil government has done it's job well. You appear to be completely convinced that all knowledge is written in a book by a man. But you have missed the most obvious source of understanding, which is God. I have no urgent need to read a book when I can communicate directly with the source, and so can many others ... just as well as I.
You are angry because God has not spoken to you, or revealed your purpose. I cannot say why this is so, but I do understand that arrogance and pride can be a great stumbling block. It is only when I humbled myself before God that I was elevated to a higher status. Your present course will only lead you further and further into darkness and confusion, until one day you will find yourself at the end of this life. On that day, you will find no comfort in your contempt for me and my kind. But for me, there can never be an end as many will know it, for when this body falls down, I will leap out of my skin, and return to forever. Osiyo!
Hi Deborah, what language was the Old Testament written in? I was of the understanding it was Hebrew also.
The bible was written in ancient Hebrew, and a couple of parts of the Books of Daniel and Ezra were originally written in Aramaic
I went back and looked more closely too at what you said. Gotcha. That is what I thought too. I misunderstood.
Deborah, what is your favorite English translation of those Hebrew scriptures? Which translation do you trust the most to be the closest word for word translation? I hadn't realized you study it to the degree you do, that is cool!
I don't use translations, just sometimes to see what they are teaching.
I've heard the JPS translation is good, but I don't know for sure. I don't use itWow, well kudos to you for your knowledge of the Hebrew language. The closest I get to that is my interlinear translations when I want to look beyond my English translations, say if a dispute arises. Disputes not too different from the ones I see coming up in here. I can look at a verse in English and in Hebrew (though very choppy wording), at the same time, to get a clearer view. When it gets down to the nitty gritty. Although now we can find some translations online, or words translated at least too. None of that is like being able to study the Hebrew like I think I understand you to be doing though. (Unless I'm misunderstanding.)
If you don't find it under JPS look up "The Jewish Publication Society", Hebrew bible in English
Is this your answer to my question about wondering what your thoughts are on the "rib" verse , in your studies and knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures?
I can look it up later when I have more time. Since you said it was wrong, I was genuinely curious what you think that verse does say.__________________________________
I don't wish to discuss it here. I don't want to put my valuables here, and have them trampledDeleted
I think it means rib or side.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0102.htm
You do know that Hebrews are Jewish, and Jewish people are Hebrew (Unless they became Jewish, but not born to a Jewish mother) Judaism is the religion.
I converted to Judaism, married a Hebrew/Jewish man, and became Jewish through those two acts, and I went through ritual
An atheist can be Jewish.
Wilderness, did you ever share some exact verses that show the idea of circle over sphere in this thread? I am not recalling it, but perhaps you did? I mean I know of what you are speaking and everything in terms of what you are describing, but I am interested in where you read it a flat like a pancake circle, instead of a sphere, that you are holding to this idea they didn't know the difference?
LOL - by now I don't even know who, but someone said a verse somewhere said the earth was a circle, and took it to mean it was a sphere and therefore the ancients knew cosmology. If I understood Deborah Sexton correctly (and not sure I did) she said circle WAS sphere in Hebrew, but then came back later and said there were two different Hebrew words for the terms.
So no, I'm pretty lost here, too. I don't understand Hebrew, and don't really understand Deborah's comments either. I don't know where the idea originated either in this forum or the bible.
But either way, I hold that the people DID know the difference between a circle and a sphere, just didn't know the earth was spherical (if the bible verse was a correct translation in "circle"). They could well have thought the earth was ball shaped, even though they never circumnavigated the globe to find out, and the belief lost over the centuries, but supposedly the bible DOES say it is circular (flat) rather than spherical. And maybe the original Hebrew DOES mean either word and the biblical scripture was "translated" incorrectly (not unlikely, as the bible had to fit in with the "knowledge" of the time, which was flat).Isahiah 40:22
http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/bo … eearth.htmThat was a pretty good article or site Phyllis. I saw Wilderness interested in translations, words and languages and here is an online concordance, that he might find useful. ( He probably knows about it or might already know about it, or use it, I'm not sure)
http://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/40-22.htm
http://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/22-18.htmThanks Phoenix, that is awesome. I have seen that site before, but never spent time there. This is not too different than some of the "paper" tools I have, in bulky book form, lol. You went straight to particular verses also, which is more helpful and particular I think. Its good that Phyliis shared a particular verse, so we can all agree on what is being critiqued.
In my study with my own tools, I find that word circle in Isaiah 40:22, to be one that has been brought up before, but then I saw it be encouraged to look up the English word for circle, on page two of this thread. The Hebrew word given was the same, "chuwg", in Isaiah there, and the Hebrew definition for that is a circle, circuit, or compass.
This is why I say it depends on how one takes the Hebrew definition, and is translating it to us in English. It seems in this case, for this verse, Wilderness would have been right to think it means just what the Hebrew version is saying, a circle. A circuit or a compass could maybe be made to be a little more like sphere if forced, but still seem to be vague in regards to sphere. One could try to lean it toward sphere over circle, or stick to more of a flat one.
Does this make the case that the ancients thought it was flat like a pancake? Not necessarily. Talking about the particulars though helps in creating productive discussion where we all learn though. If there are other verses to look at, we can do that also. This particular one looks like its circle, circuit, or compass. Thanks for your links, which help all people that are on a search for truth of these matters, and shows we don't all have to learn the Hebrew language to be able to speak on it.I wanted to clarify, that Strong's, 2329, "chuwg", is the word I am focusing on because it is what is in the verse being discussed, or offered up. If people want to post a different verse where circle is used also, then we can look at that verse also.
This page has been offered up, http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2329.htm, which is what I was referring to also, and is defined as circle, circuit, or compass.
In a time where not all is presented as totally clear, and what is clarifying what exactly, the particulars matter I think, because accusations can be made or suggestions that don't really make sense, that simply aren't necessary. (Like we need to be able to read or know Hebrew to fully understand, in essence. Though I am sure it helps. If anyone wants to discuss another verse, that results in another use of the Hebrew word circle, I am totally open to using these same great tools.
There was a suggestion before, that the tools we have at our disposal are faulty, like the Masoretic texts etc, were in error or some such thing. I know this isn't true now for a fact, because the person making that claim is using the same things as some of us already were. I am glad it is online too, after all! We need to test everything, and not necessarily believe everything we hear, even if it is said with great authority. Major kudos to those that made what was once the case, available for the common student seeking the same knowledge. Not to diminish the study of those that dedicate their life to such pursuits. To those that have and seem to be so happy to share the gifts that I think God made available for us all, thank you! (Interlinear Translators, those that secured the most ancient copies of the texts like the Masoretic, Concordances like Strong's, and Hebrew and Chaldee dictionaries, etc.)
You would be incorrect about me, and the Hebrew word for sphere
Thanks Phyllis, very interesting how they break it down there, and how if the same Hebrew word was used to suggest one thing, were to be used in other places, it would make the reading of the scripture very awkward indeed.
The way circle is used in Hebrew in that verse, doesn't seem to be anything much more than circle, as we look it up. The tools I have seen used, are also the tools used to get the information to Wilderness throughout. Using our common verses from our bibles, English dictionaries, and concordances and interlinear translations. Sometimes, these things have been suggested to not be enough, that one has to actually learn the Hebrew language to know what it says from the ancient texts. That is a belief that I don't share with the person making that claim. Not when we have the tools we do have. I did go back and look, and this is a good verse to go by, as we can each evaluate it for ourselves with the tools at our disposal and see, then.
Ok, thanks Wilderness. In case I missed it, I wanted to ask. Its possible the Israelites did know it was spherical, and also just spoke of it in different ways as we see. I saw others posted particular verses, and am looking at those. Some do support what you are saying, it seems. It looks like how one interprets the definitions given by the particular Hebrew word sometimes too.
- Deborah Sextonposted 9 years ago0
Proverbs 8:27 (KJV)
27 When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
Compass in Hebrew is: מצפן said Mschugah and means
1. girth, circumference, scope, range, circuit, compass, around
2. frame, round framework, setting, bordure, compass, orbit
3. domain, confines, territory, realm, scope, compass
verb
4. surround, wreathe, encircle, compass, shroudWhich is why both context of surrounding text AND a solid understanding of the culture then are both important in understanding. Which of 25 English words best translates the original Hebrew?
Hey everybody.......all else aside. HAPPY HOLIDAYS my hubber friends.
The phrase "theory of evolution" is a misnomer. Evolution itself is a fact - what's theoretical is the mechanisms of how it works. The most famous theoretical explanation of course is Darwin's theory of Natural Selection. It's place as a bedrock of modern biology shows it's probably correct. Gould and Engel's theory of evolution via punctuated equilibria is also considered sound.
Once I got home and had time to look, my interlinear Hebrew bible translation, from the Masoretic texts, translates Genesis 2:21-22 to be rib also, for whatever that is worth. (Which means a lot to me, I don't know of a better source than the Hebrew Masoretic texts, though there may be, and in which case I would like to know about those.) . From my understanding, the Hebrew and Aramaic words that have been preserved by the Masoretes, are as good of a source I have access to, textually speaking. God has a way of preserving his revelation in its various forms, and for that I am grateful.
- Deborah Sextonposted 9 years ago0
Take this verse for instance. in Genesis 2:21
On a human, flesh covers the ribs.
When God took the female from the side of Adam, it says he closed up the flesh instead.
If it was a rib, he would have said he closed up the flesh. But the flesh he closed had to have been connected for it to say, he closed up the flesh instead..think about this
Genesis 2:21
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs (sides) , and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
God created him both male, and female
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
These verses alludes to the fact, men and women were side by side
He called the male and female Adam..
Genesis 5:2
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
Even today, men have the XY Chromosomes...He is still both male and female, but women are all women with the XX ChromosomesNow you are making an argument for your preference of translations ie It's "thus" and here are some allusions/reasons to why you think it is so. Neither - side or rib - is the only correct translation. No one can say tsela is only side and cannot be rib, neither could anyone say it can only be rib and never side. You may prefer it, but you cannot say one is wrong.
An argument or display of confirmation bias eg Gen 1: 27-28 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and (multiply, <---- Not likely if Adam is a hermaphrodite.) But it illustrates an attempt to reconcile a belief that Adam contained both female and male parts, so somehow we want him to "split somewhere" and one side taken from a whole "sounds better" for those purposes. Such as the past apologetics on the death of Judas. It "sounds" like he was being talked about, when the phrase "reward for iniquity" is used, so let us "assume" it's him , and so now lets just reconcile the differing deaths.____________________________
I didn't say Adam was a hermaphrodite, they have 2 sex organs. Don't put words in my mouth, or I won't reply to anything you say, I hate being misquoted
Adam had a female attached to his side. God removed her, and gave her a separate life I got it from scripture
About the rib
In Hebrew, and in the Hebrew scriptures, it does not say “rib,” it says “side.” It is the same word used in other places where the word “side” is used.
The Hebrew word translated as rib in Genesis 2 is tsela. The only other place in the Bible where the English word rib occurs is in Daniel 7:5, translated from a completely different Hebrew word. The word translated as rib in Daniel, is the Hebrew word ala, not tsela
In Jeremiah 20:10 It says "For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side (tsela)…” Would he have been saying “fear on every rib”?
Daniel 7:5
5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side (tsela), and it had three ribs (alas) in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.
Are you saying you speak, read, and understand Hebrew. And that you know how to look at the verbs, and nouns to figure out what it's saying. Or are you just copying the opinions of others?
Rib is you guess, side is what I know..Deborah said to Phoenix, "I didn't say Adam was a hermaphrodite, they have 2 sex organs. Don't put words in my mouth, or I won't reply to anything you say, I hate being misquoted."
He didn't say that you said Adam was a hermaphorodite. He wasn't attempting to quote you when he used that word.
As for the two being connected in the way you are sharing, thanks for sharing that view. I had never heard it be suggested before!I don't want to debate this.with you, I was talking to the other person, and yes he did. I said Adam was created both male and female, he pointed out that God had told them to multiply, and he stated that it would not be likely if Adam was a hermaphrodite. He WAS debating what I said
If you know how to put it all together, you can see he was saying that in reply to what I said
You might want to read both my comment and his. I understand what people are saying, especially when they are speaking to me
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126751? … ost2689195You never said hermaphrodite. Phoenix didn't ever say you did say it. You said he put words in your mouth and misquoted you. I was simply pointing out that wasn't true.
If you put something together from his words, and maybe have questions, you could always ask him before putting words in his mouth. I am sure he would tell you, where he got that word from (I am only seeking fairness and truth.)Could you drop it, and allow the person I was speaking to, interpret it
I know what I did and didn't say
I never quoted you as saying hermaphrodite. I quoted the Word of God. I then put in parenthesis :hermaphrodite and I put it in parenthesis because I thought it the most accurate of words that conveys male/female. No reason to erroneously claim offense. No need to claim offense where none was given. It's just a word to me and carries no connotation.
In fact, I got the notion from Here: There is an opinion in the Talmud that states that God originally created Adam as a hermaphrodite and then split that one being into two separate bodies. Sincerely,
---> Rabbi Ari Lobel
and in response to you writing quote -"men and women were side by side" and "He is still both male and female" - regarding chromosomes
There has been a long debate over rib/side by more qualified people than you or I, so it interests me, so no need for "stunts" on my or your part.
It is not my "fault" that words have two meanings eg fault, it could mean mistake or it could mean a crack in a rock formation.You prefer it to be side. Either rib or side is correct. To say one is wrong is, well, illogical.
Now your claim that Daniel 7:5 is translated -one side = (tsela), (I bolded above in your post)
5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side (tsela).
A total of eight incomplete copies of the Book of Daniel have been found at Qumran, two in Cave 1, five in Cave 4, and one in Cave 6. None is complete, but between them they preserve text from eleven of Daniel's twelve chapters, and the twelfth is quoted in the Florilegium (a compilation scroll) 4Q174, showing that the book at Qumran did not lack this conclusion. All eight manuscripts were copied between 125 BCE (4QDanc) and about 50 CE (4QDanb), showing that Daniel was being read at Qumran only forty years after its composition. All appear to preserve the 12-chapter Masoretic version rather than the longer Greek text. None reveal any major disagreements against the Masoretic, and the four scrolls that preserve the relevant sections (1QDana, 4QDana, 4QDanb, and 4QDand) all follow the bilingual nature of Daniel where the book opens in Hebrew, switches to Aramaic at 2:4b, then reverts to Hebrew at 8:1.[35]source
The Masoretic Text does not translate Daniel Chapter 7 verse 5 as side equals tsela as you claim. Would you like to change your mind on that?You were replying to me about saying: the first people were made male, and female, and you replied by insinuating I was saying Adam was hermaphrodite. You didn't just quote scripture
I never said you were quoting me, and I never thought I said hermaphrodite, I'm awake, but you were insinuating that if they were male, and female, they were hermaphrodite. Now you're trying to take it back.
I understand what people sayI wanted to discuss the actual relevant things and I see no point in discussing anything further. I discuss scripture, thats what I do. There is a good reason they translated it specifically to rib, correctly in my opinion. But it takes logic and patience and understanding to know why. I dont have the patience. (to relate why I believe so)
Here you go
PhoenixV wrote:
Now you are making an argument for your preference of translations ie It's "thus" and here are some allusions/reasons to why you think it is so. Neither - side or rib - is the only correct translation. No one can say tsela is only side and cannot be rib, neither could anyone say it can only be rib and never side. You may prefer it, but you cannot say one is wrong.
An argument or display of confirmation bias eg Gen 1: 27-28 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and (multiply, <---- Not likely if Adam is a hermaphrodite.) But it illustrates an attempt to reconcile a belief that Adam contained both female and male parts, so somehow we want him to "split somewhere" and one side taken from a whole "sounds better" for those purposes. Such as the past apologetics on the death of Judas. It "sounds" like he was being talked about, when the phrase "reward for iniquity" is used, so let us "assume" it's him , and so now lets just reconcile the differing deaths.
- Deborah Sextonposted 9 years ago0
Adam and Eve (Let him that can hear, hear what is being said)
Genesis 1:27 KJV
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.- They were both Him, and Them
He says He created man, and He created him male and female. Then He refers to the man as them.
God was not speaking of a separate female, because although He had already created humanity as male and female, at that point Eve didn’t yet exist, at least not separately with a different name.
Eve was the first to be separated from her husband Adam, but female had already been created, Eve was separated from Adam later after everyone was created both male, and female attached to each other
He created male and female in the same body, which wasn’t working well for someone in a physical body. God said Adam needed a help meet.
Genesis 2:20
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an *help meet for him.
*In Hebrew, Help meet does not mean someone to wash clothes and cook, it means someone to have marital relations with. This was impossible with them being side by side. All the animals were separate
Genesis 2:21-23
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his sides (ribs), and closed up the flesh instead thereof
22. And the side (rib), which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.I suppose he had to make her so she could survive without being attached to Adam
We all know ribs are mostly only bone with no real amount of flesh, yet in verse 23 when God brings Eve to Adam he doesn't just say she is "bone of my bone" but adds that "she is flesh of my flesh".
Adam seemed to recognize her right away
23. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Hebrew says "She was taken from man")
We have no idea how they multiplied before the separation. Birth through reproduction was a punishment, after they ate from the tree Well that is too bad. I would have rather we just have been real careful with what we say, and be clear on what is being accused, etc. (If anything.)
This is interesting stuff. I guess I am fine with stopping communication, but it didn't need to be that way. If we keep having this level of disconnect over common words and ideas, perhaps it is best. For instance, I don't see any changing of any story. I don't have any need to defend a changing of story.
Still, it is unfortunate. Then, no discussion happens, which isn't a goal of mine.
If you change your mind, or want to discuss in the future, just let me know. I enjoy studying the Hebrew scriptures very much, for whatever it is worth.- Deborah Sextonposted 9 years ago0
I kind of got a laugh out of this, I don't even know how I found it, I've never looked up the word Atheist
I do agree with at least one philosophy included
Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke
http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_ … oke-139982
From the above site
This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think,” says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the New Scientist. “They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.” - Deborah Sextonposted 9 years ago0
Wilderness, and anyone interested. You're not understanding what I am saying, so, this is how Hebrew words work
The Greeks use Biblical words differently than the Hebrew people do.
Hebrew words are always based on and described as something tangible. Something you can understand through the five senses. For instance “In God’s bosom”. is used to express “In God’s loving care”
“The arm of the Lord” is used to represent power and authority to carry out his will. Arm is used to describe, strength, power, and handy work. The Hebrew word Ruach, is Wind, and Wind is used to describe God’s Spirit. Wind is a powerful force. and It can be felt.
When a Hebrew speaks, you can “see” the images, “hear” the sounds, “smell” the aroma, and “feel” the sensation of the words he is speaking. This is a great tool in understanding scripture.
Whereas Greek words are based on intangible, vague, and abstract ideas. Many of the Hebrew words have been translated using abstract words to define Hebrew physical words/meanings, and understanding, consequently, the images and meanings are lost. This type of writing leaves interpretation wide open. By this I mean that you can get many interpretations.
In the Jewish Bible tangible words are always used. Here’s some examples
The tangible word “eat” is used for the word “understand”
To eat” or “To drink” means “to comprehend” or to “come to understand” “To Partake of something. The word “Understand” is an abstract word that you can’t see, hear, smell, or feel.
The word round can’t be comprehended by any one of the five senses, but circle can
You can see a circle but you can’t see round, except by a circle
Misunderstanding this, the word was translated as circleBut of course you can tell the difference between a ball and a circle of paper. One of your senses, touch, is ideally suited for this purpose even if the eyes or nose are not. You can "feel" the difference quite plainly.
Not that that means the word was translated correctly, just that it can't be judged incorrect simply because of this difference in language._____________________________
I thought you could grasp ideas, but you keep repeating yourself, over, and over, the same error
I'm finished talking to you, because I told you, it is the the way the Hebrew text was translated into English. Circle is not the Hebrew interpretation. But I think you understand this, but you're just wanting to harass
How would you like it if I called your family (mine: The Jewish people) stupid? The Hebrews weren't
You can't see round, just a circle, and you can't hold round earth and feel that it is round, it's a little big
GoodbyeYou have a 2D abstract representation. You have a 3D concrete reality.
Can the abstract represent the concrete? or can the concrete represent the abstract?
I would say its a matter of the representations not being able to represent each other with utmost representational accuracy as in the case of the former the representation is flat and in the case of the latter the representation is spherical. Now, if the representation of the former were to have values and shadings to resemble the latter, then yes the former could represent the latter! However, a ring cannot identify a ball.
I hope this will bring back the harmony you all must have had a one time.A ring, or a circle is round, and can represent earth
If you draw you house on paper, it is flat, but it still represents your house..It is a likeness of your house.
Tell someone to draw earth, they will usually draw a circle...a ball is represented by a circle, etc and that's what they'll draw, a circle
All these circles represents earth
https://www.google.com/search?q=drawn+e … mp;bih=879...only if it has realistic shadings. However, a house depicted on a 2D plane is an abstract of the form of the house.
Houses and Balls in this case cannot be equally represented by the abstract, as in the case of the former the reality of the sphere MUST be accounted for. But, in the case of the latter the form of the house is a given and understood by any earthling who resides in that actual type of geometric structure. Earthlings who have only lived in Caves, Huts or Teepees… Not so much.
There is also the bothersome aspect of the line in representing reality in an abstract way. Solid shapes represent realities in a much more accurate way than outlined shapes.
But, of course, these musings are just my own honest logical deductions.
And so it has been revealed, the importance of nuance and cultural significance when seeking to understand certain words and phrases, especially those of a distant time. Yet, you still are unable to accept the wisdom of a higher authority. They say that "Diamonds are a girls best friend", but in your case I must paraphrase:"Semantics is an apologist's best friend!" Once again you have attempted to create a fiction in order to win an argument. Deborah Sexton clearly stated: "The word round can’t be comprehended by any one of the five senses, but circle can." This is an accurate statement. She is obviously referring to the "word" round, not a round rubber ball. She further clarifies her meaning by saying: "You can see a circle but you can’t see round, except by a circle." Read , listen, and learn.
Yes - read, listen, and learn.
None of your senses can "see" a word, only the object referred to. And yes, just as Deborah says you can "see" a ball as a circle, but you can also "feel" the ball as a ball - the senses CAN correctly interpret the word into the actual object.The fact that a person can feel a round ball is elementary,and has nothing to do with what she was suggesting. There is an old Jewish saying that goes: "It s a bigger (blank) that argues with a (blank), and so it is here that I must say goodbye, and leave you to fill in the "blanks"..
- Deborah Sextonposted 9 years ago0
For those wanting to criticize and pretend they know Hebrew
Well, What do you know??!
I found this, and it says everything I have
Chug, Chuwg
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2329.htm
Dur, Dure
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1754.htm
http://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/40-22.htm
2329 [e] ḥūḡ (Chug) (Like the Ch sound in Chanukkah, which is Hanukkah)
http://biblehub.com/text/isaiah/22-18.htm
1754 [e] kad-dūr (a) (Dur)
hatzi ka dur; the term in Hebrew means “half a sphere.” - Deborah Sextonposted 9 years ago0
_______________________________
People have called the ancient Hebrews stupid, yet it is the stupidity of the Hebrew language, that is at fault
I found this
More than one way to express the Hebrew word Dur, (Dure, Dor) aka Circle
By: J.A. Benner
This Hebrew word is used 167 times in the Hebrew Bible and usually translated as "generation". While the Hebrew word דור and the English word "generation" are similar in meaning, it is important to understand the differences in order to have a clearer picture of the authors understanding of the word which may impact how the passage is understood.
A generation is time from one birth to the birth of the next generation. While the word דור has the same meaning, there are differences. In our Greco-Roman culture we see time as a line with a beginning and an end while the Eastern mind sees time as a continuous circle. While we may see a generation as a time line with a beginning and an end, the Hebrews saw a generation as one circle with the next generation as a continuation of the circle. There is no beginning and no end.
The word דור is a child root derived from the parent root דר (meaning generation in Aramaic). In the ancient pictographic script this word is written as daletresh. The dalet is a picture of a tent door and has the meaning of an in and out or back and forth movement. The resh is the head of a man meaning man. When combined these mean "the movement of man", a generation is the movement through the circle of one man while the next generation is the movement of man through the following circle.
In the ancient Hebrew mind the circle is the symbol for "order". Note the possibility of the ancient Semitic word DOR in the word orDER. This circular order can also be seen in the creation/destruction of the world. In our Greco-Roman mind we see the creation as the beginning of a time line and its destruction as the end of that timeline. But remember the ancient Hebrews see time as a circle. Genesis 1:1 says "in a beginning" (bereshiyt means in "a" beginning, not "the" beginning). This world was destroyed at the fall of man (a full circle). The world begins a-new with the new order of things and is destroyed again at the flood, another circle. The world begins a-new and will be destroyed again (as prophesied by the prophets). Were there circles of time prior to Genesis 1:1 and circles of time after the destruction to come?
There are three Hebrew roots (each are adopted roots) that have the meaning of order. Within each of these is the DR parent root meaning "order" or "circle". The theory of evolution is riddled with unanswered questions. But these are at least being dealt with according to the scientific method and logic. The theory of evolution is the best model for origins that has been presented.
- Deborah Sextonposted 9 years ago0
Even with this proof that Chug and Dur means ball, and circle (Both) , you are closing your eyes on purpose
Chug (Hug) means horizon and circle, and is interchangeable with Dur ball. They didn't have an actual ball that children play with, and ball is used to express round
Chug (2329)
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2329.htm
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1754.htm
Hebrews use root words and combine 2 and 3 root words to form another word. English doesn’t do this. So far, no one that has commented seems to be able to learn Hebrew, because none has been able to grasp the Hebrew ideas. Chug does not hint at a flat earth..the idea never came from them. That was a Gentile thought
God's name appears 6,878 times in the Hebrew bible, and his name is important, yet the English bible translates his name simply as God, Lord, and Father. This is the bible which Christians believe in, and trust, and that’s just what they did to his name, a lot of things were changed. But people will believe a lie
Exodus 9:16…”I raised thee up, for to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth”.
Strong's Conc. Hebrew Lexicon
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.c … index=1754
1754 duwr dure from 1752; a circle, ball or pile:--ball, turn, round
http://www.eliyah.com/cgi-bin/strongs.c … x=23292329 chuwg khoog from 2328; a circle:--circle, circuit, compass. But it does not matter if genesis 1:1-2 are before day one or part of day one. The sun still was not created until day four. The freezing temperatures would have lasted from day one to day four. All the creative acts in those verses (3-14) would have been carried out in frigid temperatures.
Genesis one can be debated theologically but not scientifically. Supernatural creation and miracles can not be counted as science which deals only with natural phenomena.
- Deborah Sextonposted 9 years ago0
_________________________
People who are Jewish and speak Hebrew, especially Ancient Hebrew, know without a doubt that the Masoretic Text is incorrect, and greatly flawed. And although those who speak English will read about a Hebrew word, and think they know everything about it, they don't, and they have a long way to go to understand even the simple concepts
This agrees that the Masoretic Text is incorrect, and the original Hebrew scripture is the only correct one
The Orthodox Jewish people, Hasidic..are the original Judaic religion, and they know those Masoretic texts are corrupt, but people want to believe a lie.
https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2 … al-hebrew/
This is why the English bibles, like the KJV is corrupted, because it came from the corrupted Masoretic Texts
Here's the video again
We got our Hebrew bible manuscripts in Israel, written in separate books, written before the Masoretic changes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOfg8R3Ngvs
One thing though, he states that without vowel points it didn't say anything, I disagree, it said things, but it couldn't be spoken without vowel sounds..that's probably what he really meant_____________________________
Sorry, I don't believe in Jesus, there is no proof he even existed, except in the NTWhy should we not discount the OT? Especially when you consider how ANCIENT it must be. Originally, it was passed down generation to generation for who knows how many decades or centuries through song/ the spoken word based on the memories of who knows who... before ever being written down.
How accurate can it be?I think it is pure belief in something, being expressed there. Having a different measurement for what is acceptable. Anyone can simply discount things they don't want to be true or believe in. Yes, we are talking about much more ancient texts/manuscripts being believed in, over the more recent.
In the past on HP, I have run across others that ask me and or others to cease contact with them, when good points are made, (tough to rebut), and they maintain they know more because of their claims (which may or may not be true. Even if true, a good argument has to be a good argument, and hold good premises)
There are hostile witnesses even, not just the NT texts. It also makes complete sense that some need Jesus to not be the Messiah, and better yet to not have existed. Its picking and choosing what can be ALLOWED to come to us historically, while accepting a host of other, more difficult to believe in things. I think it could be said that it is simple rejection through denial in some cases, etc.And Yet God sent us the Key to Happiness only 2,000 + years ago.
Thank You, God.
TWISI and thanks for the freedom of speech we still have within the borders of our united states.I too, am thankful for that same thing!
___________________________
Did I say that? No, I didn't, evolution is real, and it's not a mystery. If you got that from what I said, and you replied to, than somethings wrong, somewhere
There are several Jewish religions, and we believe alike in some things, but not all, just because I post a link to one thing that is true, doesn't means I accept , and support everything.
Name one place I posted a link that is based on those corrupt texts. (I'm not saying this to you Kathryn) Yes, they are in error and corrupt, and anything I have said, I stand by, and I've changed nothing. Anyone who thinks I have, please post a link to it.
This mistake comes from a lack of knowledge, and understanding, but people want to be right, instead of testing the word
To understand Hebrew, you have to know that words are made from combining 2 or 3 root words, and anything containing those root words, are related. You have to understand that the original Hebrew scriptures were written only in consonants, with no vowels (vowels are used in only one place to reveal a certain deep truth about God, and I am the only one who teaches this, because God revealed it to me, and I am a "named" bible scholar )
You have to know the Hebrew idioms that were popular at the time of the writing, and who wrote the text. You need to know their allegory, euphemisms, metaphors, similes, and other parts of speech in the Hebrew language, at the time the text was written.
If you use one of those internet translators, in reality, you are only getting the English answer, and usually they give one meaning to one word, when there could be many, depending on the root words
There is a lot I would like to teach, and share, but it seems it is not wanted. Sometimes, God makes a way, and you reject ituh, that is my (edited) rebuttal to your arguments.
__________________
How can it be a rebuttal to what I said, when I didn't say it.
Point me to the place where I said evolution is a mystery
And I see your meaning in the word "edited"
That is a nonsensical rebuttal, to what you imaginedAre you not attempting to explain that very beginnings of creation / life / evolution as it is described in Genesis... of all places?
Now you are jumping into false interpretations of Jesus.
I mean really?! At Christmastime, even?
Thanks for nothing._______________________
No, not hardly. You would think you could understand something someone says. You haven't understood one thing I've said, so far. I was asked to explain certain things, but that's between me, and the other person, so there's no need for a rebuttal from youNo, an open forum is just that:
Open.
If any one wants to correct me, I am open to correction and I will never butt into a two way (?) conversation again.
Well, I thought we had freedom of speech here in HP Forums!
Don't we?________________________
Oh but you're criticizing me for the questions I answered, asking if I am attempting to explain creation.
It's an open forum for me too
: 
Are you ganging up on me with all the rest??? Can't you think for yourself?
No, I won't let a non Hebrew speaking, and non Jewish person correct my beliefs..sorry
I'll never denounce mine, and my husband's religionYou could have just said, "Closed to Reply" a couple comments ago. and carried on with your lesson.
__________________________
A lesson for so many attacking people? I don't think so
And I don't like your conditions, you want me to shut up and teach
So I can't defend myself?
To you "I am closed to reply in this thread"
I have hubs you can readTeaching appears to be what you're doing. Is it not? I was just encouraging you to carry on with whatever you are attempting to do. In other words I am not prohibiting your freedom of speech in the least.
Good night.
Its simply humorous, to see a person talk against the Masoretic texts, after they posted links to sites on this thread, that are based on those Masoretic texts. It will hard to take such a person seriously when they speak so bold, especially.
This is when you know the discussion or debate is not about actual facts of matters, logic, or reasoning, but about personally held belief about others and their ideas.You are welcome Kathryn!
Have a good night!
- Deborah Sextonposted 9 years ago0
I link to the NT, and quote from it to show certain truths too, but I certainly don’t accept it as from God, and I don’t accept the Masoretic Text either.
I don’t care about the Gentile Messiah, and It doesn’t matter to me in the least if he existed or not. He’s not the Jewish Messiah promised to his people, and he never fulfilled any of the messianic prophecies.
It is truly funny you think I don't want the Gentile messiah to have existed, how could that possibly effect me?
Even your NT says:
Matthew 7:22
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Who teaches "all you have to do is have faith, and no good deed is needed"?, and who teaches you don't have to obey God's commandments, and that his laws have been abolished? These are the ones in Matt. 7:22,23 The depths of Jehovah's wisdom is awe inspiring. When you do research on the human body especially, the intricate details concerning the cells within our bodies that are "like a walled city. . ." If we look at God's beautiful creations, there is no doubt an intelligent creator is responsible. For more information go to the Holy Scriptures and such publications as "Draw Close to Jehovah.
Related Discussions
- 390
Has Darwin's Evolution Theory clouded our judgments
by Julie Grimes 13 years ago
With some recent archaeological discoveries in India, and in South Africa has Darwin's evolution clouded our judgment about the creation of mankind? That's the question I would like to pose to all of you this morning before I scurry off to work.Why I am asking this question is because it is...
- 302
do christians reject theory of evolution?
by pisean282311 14 years ago
was curious about what do Christians think about theory of evolution..in this forum i have found statements rejecting it by few..do everyone rejects it ?
- 42
Why does ID research always attack evolution?
by mathsciguy 13 years ago
I pondered a while trying to decide where to put this topic, but I think this is an appropriate forum for it. I had noticed in researching for myself a little bit about the ID movement that most of the articles and research done by supporters of the theory seems to focus more on discrediting...
- 21
With all the evidence for the theory of evolution, why do some people still beli
by Gaizy 11 years ago
With all the evidence for the theory of evolution, why do some people still believe otherwise.Once you have got your head around the theory of evolution, it's pretty obvious that it's close to how it must work. After all, animal breeders do the same thing when they selectively breed their stock....
- 188
Do christians these days accept evolution?
by Baileybear 13 years ago
Or do they find it too much of a threat to their beliefs?
- 770
Evolutionism the greatest story ever told
by thetruthhurts2009 14 years ago
Rules of this forum, no swearing, no straw men arguments and no FSM nonsense. Most importantly remember, Ridicule is not an argument. Enjoy. If want to continue to believe you come from a rocky soup. You can stop reading and leave now, but if you seek the truth you are most welcome to...