[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: The KJV in Order
Source: KJV
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 20, 2015
Author: Vicomte13
Post Date: 2015-10-20 23:50:09 by Vicomte13
Keywords: None
Views: 5674
Comments: 60

A K A Stone, I told you I would stop posting until I could fully answer you, and I meant it.

I'm not going to recriminate. You said plenty that made my blood boil, but I've decided to take it as sincere concern for what I've said, as opposed to simply trying to bait me.

You've said many times that I don't provide Scripture. I have, but to the extent that I have not provided enough. this e-mail will remedy that.

I've agreed to use the KJV, and just that. No Hebrew, no Greek, no outside interpretive Scripture translations. The KJV has no footnotes, sp there will be no wrangling between us over the authority of footnotes that are not there. It's just the text, and you've said you accept this text as authoritative.

I know that the original KJV contained the Apocrypha also, but I'm not going to use the Apocrypha (even though it's part of the full KJV), because that will simply be another opportunity for a pointless fight. God's law is all in the Protestant canon, so I'll leave that issue be also.

So here we are with the KJV text. I'm going to go through it starting with Genesis 1, and note each place where there is something of particular interest that bears, directly or indirectly, on our discussion of economics and law.

I have to do this because of your very aggressive and hostile tone. You've said that I don't quote Scripture, but I did, at length, so I can see that every single point I make has to be specifically backed by a citation right in the text. Now, I've noticed that you don't write that way at all, and neither does anybody else. But because the things that I say do not fit your tradition, you hold me to a much higher standard than you hold yourself or your allies. You can simply positively assert your tradition as though it is a fact - without citing a word of Scripture - as though the fact that it's your tradition ESTABLISHES it as scripture. But if I do not point cite each and every point, I'm a false prophet, twister of scripture, doing Satan's work, and every other damned thing.

Fine then, I shall meet you all the way, and provide a point cite to every single point I make.

But you won't let it go at that either. Once you have Scripture that demonstrates the point, you'll reject my argument anyway, claiming that I am "twisting Scripture" or "taking it out of context".

The only way I can avoid THAT charge is to present ALL of Scripture - every single thing that is important to the topic, in order from the beginning to the end of Scripture, so that nothing is left out. This is the only way to defeat the charge of "taking it out of context" - to provide the FULL context.

I did something close to that before, and you never even acknowledged it. I think that what I am doing is a fool's errand. YOU are not going to accept what the Scripture says, because the full weight of Scripture, fully deployed, is contrary to your tradition.

So what you will do is what you have already done: you will ignore what I've written, and then say that I'm not reading something right, and that I've presented things out of context.

I know that I cannot win from the beginning of this exercise. I know that you will not be persuaded by Scripture itself. I'm going to go through the full dress battle anyway, line by line, because it deserves to be said, and if you will not be persuaded, others will.

From my perspective, once God's laws and examples have been laid end-to-end, the principles are very clear and there isn't much left to debate, because God is clear.

So, that's what I am going to do, the source I'm going to use, how I'm going to use it, why I am doing it just this way - all the while acknowledging that in the end I do not believe I can win in your court, because I think you have prejudged the case. But maybe seeing God's word laid out for you end to end will break open the prison door of your heart.

"And so we sail, in the confident expectation of a miracle." - the Duke of Medina Sidonia

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning..."

Note that the word is "in", and not "AT". "At the beginning..." would mean a single point of time. "At 10 o'clock", or "At the opening bell", but "In the beginning..." refers to an indeterminate span of time.

If you said "At the start of the first inning" of a baseball game, we would think of the first pitch, but if you said "In the first inning", we would recognize that the subject event occurred during a span of at bats by both sides.

This is important, because some traditions assert that the Bible says that God created everything from nothing in an instant, that it's right there in the first sentence. Actually, that is NOT there in the first sentence. The text does not speak of a point of time - AT the beginning - AT the start - but of a span of time - IN the beginning - IN the first inning. Also, the text does not say that God created the whole universe from nothing. That's a traditional addition to the text. The text itself says that God created "the Heaven" and "the Earth".

We discover in Genesis 1:8 that "the Heaven" is specifically the firmament that God made "in the midst of the waters", in other words the sky. And in 1:10, that :the Earth" specifically means "the dry land", and NOT "the planet".

Does it matter? Yes it does. It matters because in the Creationist/Evolutionist debates, many creationists go too far and assert that the Scriptures say things that they do not say. What they say, using the definitions in the text, is that during the beginning God made the sky and the dry land. Then Genesis goes on after that to describe the filling up of the dry land with things, and the waters with sea creatures.

And so we come to the first commandment, given to the lifeless darkness: "Let there be light!" Genesis 1:3. In 1:5 Genesis will define "Light" as "Day", and darkness as "Night".

And that is where we will stop for tonight. Genesis 1:1 does not support the excessively detailed claims that some make. It is a more general summary.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 47.

#3. To: Vicomte13 (#0)

We discover in Genesis 1:8 that "the Heaven" is specifically the firmament that God made "in the midst of the waters", in other words the sky.

Seems to say water in the sky.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-21   0:19:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)

We discover in Genesis 1:8 that "the Heaven" is specifically the firmament that God made "in the midst of the waters", in other words the sky.

Seems to say water in the sky.

Well, yes - that's why the sky is blue.

Genesis 1:1 says God created the Heaven and the Earth.

Genesis 1:2 speaks twice of water. It says that the Earth was "without form and void" - formless and empty. Remember that Genesis 1:10 tells us that God calls the dry land "Earth", but that he doesn't cause the dry land to appear until the third day. In the beginning, before the third day, there was darkness - light had not been created yet. There was no Heaven (the firmament of the sky). There was only water.

Genesis 1:2 twice says that everything was water at first. It says "darkness was upon the face of the deep", "the deep" meaning the deep waters, the surging abyssal sea. And then it says "the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

So, things start with Water.

Then on the first day God commands light into being: "Let there be light!"

On the second day, he creates the sky - the Heaven - by dividing the waters by a "firmament". The waters below are separated from the waters above by the firmament.

The blue sky above is the waters above. Below the firmament is the space of the air, with the water below that (on the second day, the waters below the firmament had not been gathered together into seas, leaving dry land ("Earth") yet).

So the firmament - "the Heaven" as the Gen 1:8 refers to it, divides water above from water below.

The sky is blue - the water above. When the Flood comes in Genesis 7:11, the "fountains of the great deep" - the waters below - were broken up - and "the windows of heaven were opened" - and the water poured through the firmament from above, and surged up through the Earth from below.

Water above, water below - the land between the waters, with the firmament - the sky - "the heaven" - separating the two waters and making the space of air in which man and animals and plants inhabit the dry land.

That's what KJV Genesis says.

In the Hebrew, there is much greater detail and precision - but you resist that knowledge and completely distrust me in conveying it.

So we have what the KJV says, and nothing more.

A few things that the KJV does NOT say:

"Earth" is the planet. No. The KJV says that "Earth" is the dry land.

God made everything out of nothing. No. The KJV never says that.

God made everything in seven 24-hour days. No. The KJV describes God's making of the Land and the firmament of the Heaven, and filling up the land, the seas and the sky with things. It says that God did it in seven "Days", but a day is defined as "light", while the darkness is "night". The Sun and Moon and stars were not placed in the firmament until the fourth day of Genesis (see Gen 1:14), and they are there for signs and seasons. So, one can assert that a solar day and a Biblical "Day", a period of light, are the same things from the Fourth Day onward. For then the Sun is the source of the light that is the Day. But for the First, Second and Third Day, there is nothing to measure the time, and the Bible does not say that those days are 24 hours. Nor did it give the slightest indication that they should be considered 24 hour days.

It is fiction writing, adding to the Bible, and NOT THERE that the first three days were 24-hour days. There is no indication whatever in the KJV (or in the Hebrew) how long those first three periods of Light, those first three days were.

The Biblical account of creation is indeed creation, in seven days, not evolution. But it most certainly is not the description of God creating the universe from nothing in 7 24-hour solar days. The Bible does not say that.

The KJV says what it says, and what it says answers the big question: God made it, but it does not contain the details of length of time, especially for the first three days, and it does not concern itself with life on other planets or any such thing. Nor does it say that there is not life on other planets. It is, in fact, completely silent regarding life anywhere else, and it is completely silent as to the length of the first three days.

And whoever asserts that it isn't needs to provide the specific cite from the KJV that says differently. None exists - they make up those details. They are not biblical.

We start at Genesis 1, and we immediately collide with the Creationist vs. Evolutionist argument. I'm not going to dwell on it. I've cited the Scripture. It says God created the world. It does not say that he created the universe, or the world, "from nothing", and it doesn't say that he did it in seven 24 hour days. It describes the making and filling of the land and sky, and describes seven days - which are periods of light and darkness.

The Hebrew gives us more. "Day" is a word that also means "Order". But you're not going to follow me into Hebrew. With the KJV, we've already said what can be said about early creation. Those who deny creation OR who add details not revealed, are all in error. Now we can move on.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-21   10:58:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#4) (Edited)

Well, yes - that's why the sky is blue.

It's blue because of Rayleigh scattering of light through the atmosphere. This scattering effect is also responsible for the yellow tint of the sun itself (which is actually white). Also, the reddish color of sunrises/sunsets.

The reddening of sunlight is intensified when the sun is near the horizon, because the density of air and particles near the earth's surface through which sunlight must pass is significantly greater than when the sun is high in the sky. The Rayleigh scattering effect is thus increased, removing virtually all blue light from the direct path to the observer. The remaining unscattered light is mostly of a longer wavelength, and therefore appears to be orange.

The color of the sky has very little connection to water vapor. The sky is blue because of its gaseous components, nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%) and argon (1%). Argon was also discovered by Lord Rayleigh. Brilliant fellow in the late nineteenth century, contributed to many scientific fields.

BTW, the color of water is bluer the deeper it is. Water vapor is far too scattered to affect the color of the sky.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-10-22   8:59:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: TooConservative (#23)

The color of the sky has very little connection to water vapor.

And water vapor is only a subset of "water" in the English of 1611.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-22   9:42:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: Vicomte13 (#25)

And water vapor is only a subset of "water" in the English of 1611.

So the King James Bible which you kind of use as a pejorative. The King James is written by men and not really the word of God?

Because that is exactly what your words imply.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-22   20:21:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#28)

So the King James Bible which you kind of use as a pejorative. The King James is written by men and not really the word of God?

Because that is exactly what your words imply.

Oh, AKA, say it ain't so!!!!

SOSO  posted on  2015-10-22   21:37:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: SOSO (#29)

Oh, AKA, say it ain't so!!!!

I can't say it aint so.

That is what my take on what his words say.

Is it an unreasonable intrepretation in your view?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-22   21:43:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#30)

Is it an unreasonable intrepretation in your view?

I have long advocated on LP and now on here that (1) the translation of any lanugage into another is less than 100% accurate just by the very nature of the beast (some words, phrases, etc. simply do not translate well or even at all), and, (2) idoms, the meanings of words, etc. even in the same language, change over time, sometimes radically (e.g. - take the word gay in the English language, it was not too long ago that the word was understood by all to mean happy, joyful).

Just look how the English language has changed in just a few hundred years from Old English (how many native English speaking people today can even read Old English much less understand it?). Imagine how the meaning of words, idioms, etc. in a language can change over 2,000 years. Vicomte13 is very familiar with my position on this. He still maintains that the English translations (all of them) represent for practical purposes a perfect (or nearly so) representation of God's words (and the meaning of same) as first recorded by men thousands of years ago, many of which being in a dead language and the rest in the dialect and/or vocabulary of still existing languages but as they existed 2,000 years or more ago.

SOSO  posted on  2015-10-22   22:00:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: SOSO (#31)

He still maintains that the English translations (all of them) represent for practical purposes a perfect (or nearly so) representation of God's words (

For practical purposes, yes.

If God really inspired Scripture at all - if it's really a holy bible and not just a bunch of old papers - then God has made sure to convey what he wanted to convey through it.

I have done the work, and I know that only about 8% of the whole text is actually the direct words of God. I've counted. And I know that God repeats just about everything over and over, and refers back to it, usually at least three times, which means that the actual original material from God is only about 2.75% of the Bible, which amounts to about 50 pages of text, total, in a 2000 page book. I know that the rest of the Bible is structured around those words, and records the effect they had, how people followed them or didn't,. and how God reminded them of them. So I know that the actual literal words of God in the Bible are not numerous and are straightforward.

And because all law comes from God, I just concentrate on those words as the ones that contain all of the authority the book ever had (or will have), which is why it is theologically irrelevant to me whether or not the "Apocrypha" or the books of the Ethiopian and other extended canons are left in or out: they contain very few words of God, and very, very little that adds anything (in that respect) to what is already in the canon everybody accepts.

And I recognize, from having read the text so often, that the things God says are generally short and rather curt. Paul's letters, and John's, and really get flowery and long, and confusing, but God is quite gruff and direct. Jesus speaks at greater length, but he is usually clear - and challenging.

Genesis 1 et seq are really important for the Creationist argument, but they're pretty trivial when it comes to moral commandments of God. That's why ultimately I don't engage in the theological debate concerning them - they tell a story of creation, but the only parts that really affect our BEHAVIOR are the commands about reproduction and food and dominion. The rest is interesting detail, a story, but a story that doesn't matter for the things on which I focus.

I don't get lost in the weeds of storytelling. I am focused sharply on "What does the Master command?" Our God is a God who says repeatedly in both testaments that he judges men by their deeds, so I think that what's important is reading the Scripture to learn what God wants us to DO or NOT do - as our afterlife with him depends on THAT. What we think happened at the creation of the world is not one of the things on the list that make a man acceptable or unacceptable to God, so I don't sweat it.

Other people do, and I humor them a bit, but I don't think it matters for salvation. God's few direct words in the morass of text do matter, and they're repeated at least three times, almost always, and it is because of the curtness and consistency of meaning in the repetition that I am confident that we are getting what we need out of the text FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES.

When it comes to God, the purpose I am interested in IS the practical one: what are the standards for getting into Paradise and Heaven and having a good afterlife with God. THAT is what matters. Winning some sort of foolish Internet debate with contentious people doesn't really matter to me. I do it because what I have to say, when we get to the morals part, really DOES matter to all of us. When there's a pit, you warn people about the pit.

That's the what and the why of it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-22   22:27:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Vicomte13, SOSO, redleghunter (#33)

Here is what you said

I have done the work, and I know that only about 8% of the whole text is actually the direct words of God. I've counted. And I know that God repeats just about everything over and over, and refers back to it, usually at least three times, which means that the actual original material from God is only about 2.75% of the Bible, which amounts to about 50 pages of text, total, in a 2000 page book. I know that the rest of the Bible is structured around those words, and records the effect they had, how people followed them or didn't,. and how God reminded them of them. So I know that the actual literal words of God in the Bible are not numerous and are straightforward.

You are 100 percent wrong because God said this.

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

It is probably best not to read what you say about the Bible. It contradicts what God says in the Bible. Whbh would be sowing confusion.

I don't want to be confused with what you believe and what the Bible actually says.

Get over yourself. You're not the smartest person in the world.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-23   7:42:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: A K A Stone (#37)

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Did you quote the above to make the point that in addition to the direct Words of God recorded in the Bible, there are Words of God Divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit?

If so I would agree given Luke 24 and Acts 1.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-10-23   18:43:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: redleghunter, A K A Stone (#45)

So, let's continue our trek through Scripture.

We were in Genesis 1, up to Day 3 of creation. Day 3, with the dry land (= "Earth") and collected waters (= "Seas") in place, and the plants created, is the first day that God sees as "good".

With Day 4, God creates the celestial beings. What he says here is interesting for the details it provides. Gen 1:14-15 - And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years; And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.

There are a few overlapping concepts here. First, the "firmament of the Heaven" includes where the stars are. So whatever the "water", or chaos, is above the dome of the firmament, the firmament is not simply the atmosphere. Space is also the "firmament of the heaven", for that is where the stars are embedded.

We should pause here and note that the language of astronomy in ancient Israel and in 1611, was not what it is today. It is similar to the situation of "water". In 1611, the word for fluid or liquid was "water". "Water" meaning H2O specifically, was not the way the language was used. The words "liquid" or "fluid" never appear in the Bible, because they didn't exist with their present meanings in 1611. Today, a beaker of sulfuric acid, a bottle of Windex, a cup of bleach and a tub full of water are four distinct things. In 1611, they were all "water". The word might be modified: "blue water" for Windex, but there was no more generic word for liquid - "water" WAS the generic word. In a similar vein, when we read "cattle", we think "members of the bovine species - oxen, or the archaic 'kine'", but "cattle" in the Scriptures means "domesticated animals that are owned" - chattel animals. Kine are included under the rubric "cattle", but the singular of "cattle" need not have been "cow" or "bull" or "ox". It could also have been "goat" or "sheep", or "horse" or "camel" or any of a number of other animals.

When speaking of celestial bodies, we have to understand that the Bible does not conceive of earth as a planet. "Earth" means dry land. And "planet"? There is no word "planet" in the Scripture. The KJV word for any bright dot in the sky is "star". Seen from Venus, the Earth is a star. Venus and Jupiter and Saturn are stars.

Now, in 2 Kings (at 23:5), there is one single instance where a Hebrew word referring to constellations is rendered as "planets" in KJV English. In this case, a reference to the Hebrew is warranted, simply because the pagan things that ancients worshipped in the sky were the constellations. The word rendered as "planets" here appears only once in the Scripture - here - and "planets" as a translation really does miss the point. The pagans worshipped the sun and moon, and the "mazal" specifically, and celestial objects generally. Astrology derives from ancient pagan worship, and it is focused on positions of "moving stars" - the planets - to the fixed star patters - the constellation. That is the reference there. In Genesis, at the creation, "planets" are unmentioned - they are simply "stars" in the KJV English, as is every other celestial object.

Something else to notice: Genesis 1:16 refers to the sun and the moon, but only as "the greater light" and the "lesser light". Hebrew certainly has words for sun and moon both, so why not here?

The text doesn't answer it, but the tendency throughout history for pagan worship of these great celestial bodies gives a clue. In Genesis, God is making things and naming them, and their names are important. If the sun and moon were given names - Sun and Moon - then they would be named things, entitles. But as written, they are just sources of light, without even names, objects, not subjects. God did not NAME them when he made them, because they function as lights and as clocks, and nothing more. The NAMING of things is important: God wrestles with Jacob in the tent but won't give his name. God specifies the name to be given to many people. He does things in his name. He gives Adam the role of namer, too, of the animals, over which God will give him dominion. But God didn't NAME the sun or the moon when he made them. They have no name - their just the greater or lesser light, there to be used by God for a purpose: to give light, to measure out days and years, and to be used by him to give signs. But all they are is just things, not even NAMED things. Dry land is important enough to get a NAME: "Earth". And the firmament is important enough to get a NAME: "Heaven". But the sun and moon are so obvious and prominent, so visibly important, that PERHAPS God chose NOT to give them names, for the express purpose of leaving them as base things, to be regarded but never respected - they're not NAMES, they're not entities, they're just stuff.

God knew that men would worship those things one day, that they would become idols to many. Perhaps that is why he did not give them names in Genesis, to not give the slightest bit of encouragement to that future error.

God sees that the celestial things are good (Genesis 1:19) and the Fourth Day is done. The fourth day ends differently from the first three, for in them, there was dark and there was light, but that light did not come from the Sun - it wasn't made yet. Only on the fourth day were sun and moon made, for measuring days. So from the fourth day onward, one can reasonably equate a "day" with something like a 24 hour period (maybe not exact). Before that, one cannot.

With the Third Day, we already have what we would call biological "life", with all of the plants, but our concept of "life" is not the same as the Biblical cladistics. In the Bible, there are plants, which "fade" or "wither", and then there are "breathers", "living souls" - which encompasses what we might call most of "Kingdom Animalia". But while we would call a sponge an "animal" because its cells lack cell walls, Biblical cladistics would (probably) not. Living sponges are not in the Bible for us to know for sure, but something that looks like a plant and does not visibly "breathe" would not be called a "nephesh" - a "breather" - a "living soul" in the KJV English.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We'll save the Fifth Day and the beginnings of the animals for tomorrow.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-23   22:27:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Vicomte13 (#46)

Today, a beaker of sulfuric acid, a bottle of Windex, a cup of bleach and a tub full of water are four distinct things. In 1611, they were all "water"

That's silly. I don't believe it.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-23   22:29:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 47.

#49. To: A K A Stone (#47)

That's silly. I don't believe it.

You will look through the Scriptures in vain for any other word for "liquid".

There are named things that are liquid: seas, blood, milk, seed, wine. And then there's "water".

We have the example from other languages too. The Greeks called mercury "silver water".

Why you think that "water" as the word for "liquid" or "fluid" is "silly" is a bit of a mystery. There isn't another word in English, and if you don't have the words "liquid" or "fluid" available, then what word do you use for it?

The word was "water".

H2O as a formula for a specific KIND of water - the kind we drink and the kind that is in the seas - that was discovered in 1811. "Water" has become synonymous with H2O since then, and we've needed words like "fluid" and "liquid" to fill the gap that "water" used to fill.

You're engaging in anachronistic thinking.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-23 22:46:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: A K A Stone (#47)

Today, a beaker of sulfuric acid, a bottle of Windex, a cup of bleach and a tub full of water are four distinct things. In 1611, they were all "water"

That's silly. I don't believe it.

I think the point is according to paleo Hebrew they would all be considered liquid.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-10-24 01:02:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 47.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com