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

Newsmax Rises On Wave Of Resentment Toward Media — Especially Fox News

What No One Is Saying About The Lockdowns

CBC Journalist Brags About Ratting Out Worshippers at Church

Dr Mark McDonald talks about his patients and how fear is effecting our country. from The Front;ine Doctor's Summit

Episode 1203 Scott Adams: Biden's Foot, Data Anomalies, Opening Schools, Who Took the Utah Monolith?

“Pandemic is Over” – Former Pfizer Chief Science Officer Says “Second Wave” Faked On False-Positive COVID Tests

Johns Hopkins study explodes COVID death hoax; it’s re-labeling on a grand scale

A compilation of twenty alleged election 'facts' that don't pass the smell test

Arizona witness: Truck loads of ballots kept coming in for 10 days after elections officials thought they were done counting votes

Watch a Dominion Representative at Gwinnett County Election Central, responsible for tabulating ballots and certifying results, download data to a USB from the Election Management Server, plug it into a laptop, manipulate the data, then palm the USB.

Don’t Want to Eat Cows? Try “Ethical Cannibalism” Instead

Saudi Journalist In Message To Iran Following Normalization Agreements With Israel: Iran, Not Israel, Is The Enemy Of The Arabs, Destabilizes The Region

Down balloT ... proves --- DemocraTs cheaTed

Catch and Cook your own food (Trout Catch Clean Cook) - Ep 4

LIVE: Arizona State Legislature Holds Public Hearing on 2020 Election

I bought a voting machine....then I hacked it.

Episode 1201 Scott Adams: Watch Me Monetize My Dumbest Critics While Discussing Election Allegations

Trump Reportedly Planning To Announce 2024 Run During Biden’s Inauguration…

Candace Owens Challenges Facebook ‘Fact-Checker’ and Wins: ‘They Lied for Democrats’

“I’m Going to Use 125% of My Energy to Do It” – President Trump Vows to Reveal Massive Voter Fraud and Overturn Results in 2020 Election (VIDEO)

New: FBI requests files of people voting ‘in multiple states’

Update: Data Analyst Says Election Findings Could ‘Easily’ Overturn Results in Three States

Trump Says He’s ‘Ashamed’ to Have Endorsed Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp

BREAKING UPDATE: Judge Timothy Batten Issues Order to Freeze All Dominion Machines in Georgia!

Trump on Election Fraud: The DOJ and FBI Are ‘Missing in Action’

Situation Update - Nov. 27th - DoD vs. CIA firefight in Frankfurt as covert war against the deep state RAGES across the globe

The Second Amendment Does Not Grant Us The Right To Bear Arms

SCOTUS: Democrat Gov. Cuomo’s Coronavirus Restrictions on Houses of Worship Violate First Amendment Rights

Supreme Court Says New York Can't Limit Attendance In Houses of Worship Due To COVID

Kyle Rittenhouse FINALLY Released on $2 Million Cash Bond

Music Legends Van Morrison and Eric Clapton Team for Anti-Lockdown Anthem ‘Stand and Deliver’

Suit asks Supreme Court to take custody of all election materials for investigation

Conservatives Have Lots of Reasons to Be Thankful This Thanksgiving

The Tide May Be Turning [My Headline]

Texas, Louisiana Can Halt Medicaid Funding To Planned Parenthood, Appeals Court Rules

8 U.S. House Races Still Have Not Been Called. Republicans Lead All 8 Races.

And Now Some Happy News From The National Zoo

Trump supporter who gave $2.5m to fight election fraud wants money back

LIVE UPDATES: Trump insists Wisconsin, Pennsylvania election fights far from over

Pennsylvania high court rejects lawsuit challenging election

Supreme Court declines case of Louisiana pastor Tony Spell, who defied coronavirus orders

Suspected double-murderer who sparked Amber Alert is on bail for reckless homicide and 2 gun cases

Another Video Surface Where Dominion's CEO Eric Coomer Allegedly Explain To Elections Officials How To Alter Votes In The Dominion Voting Machines

As PA legislature files election challenge, Sen. Doug Mastriano shows incontrovertible evidence of massive voter fraud

BREAKING REPORT: Pennsylvania Judge Gives Rules That The 2020 Election Was Likely Unconstitutional In Pennsylvania, And That Could Give State Legislators Power To Choose Electors

While media exult in Pennsylvania federal appeals court loss for Trump lawyers, a big victory in state court halts certification of presidential vote: Don't Fall For The Psy-Ops!

Joe Biden gains votes in Wisconsin county after Trump-ordered recount

International News

General Information Thread

All They had were axes - hammers - pokers ... Americans are heavily armed wiTh over 400 million firearms - 12 Trillion rounds of ammuniTion --- of privaTe ciTizens.


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: 4827
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

#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)

Ping to the start.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-20   23:50:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)

Acknowledged.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-21   0:13:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Vicomte13 (#0)

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".

To whom was God speaking when He said "Let there be light."?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-10-21   11:20:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: SOSO (#5)

To whom was God speaking when He said "Let there be light."?

Scripture doesn't say.

I could speculate, drawing on the Hebrew, but this is a KJV- Only thread, so I will refrain.

The KJV is the ground to which I have agreed to limit myself, here, in order to have a conversation on ground acceptable to Stone.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-21   11:30:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6)

To whom was God speaking when He said "Let there be light."?

Scripture doesn't say.

Does this not imply that there were other beings around to hear God speak? This then begs a question (or three).

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-10-21   11:32:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Vicomte13 (#0)

In the beinning is translated from the Hebrew word tyvar re'shiyth, pronounced ray-sheeth' for other instances of this Hebrew word, search for 07225 in KJV

It means, the first, in place, time, order or rank (specifically, a firstfruit):--beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.

So, as you can see, in the beginning, means in the beginning, the first thing.

BobCeleste  posted on  2015-10-21   11:41:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: BobCeleste, Vicomte13 (#8)

It means, the first, in place, time, order or rank (specifically, a firstfruit):--beginning, chief(-est), first(-fruits, part, time), principal thing.

So, as you can see, in the beginning, means in the beginning, the first thing.

Here we go again.

We can't even get past the first words of the Old Testament without a fundamental disagreement as to what its means. Have at it, boys, I'm going for the popcorn.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-10-21   12:30:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: BobCeleste (#8)

It is the Hebrew BRASYT. The Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 is fascinating. Read in the original hieroglyphs, it speaks frankly of the division of the godhead into two (Father and Son) before the beginning of the story, with an arm pointing to the cross. Then the next word-sentence, BRA, speaks of how the Gods - the plural Elohiym - Father and Son - make the world together - with the Holy Spirit - the Ruach Elohiym hovering over the dark chaos - then the Gods breathe out order onto the chaos, as light, which is energy. Energy overcomes the entropy.

It's there in the hieroglyphic sentences formed by each word.

But it's not there in the KJV English, and here we're doing KJV Only.

You've studied the Hebrew. So have I. The things we read obviously gave us a different view. I've studied the pictographic hieroglyphs also, and read the words as sentences of words. Nobody else does that, so I haven't "gotten that" from elsewhere.

But Stone isn't going to accept our jabbering about Hebrew from what we learned from others. He's certainly not going to accept my own independent work on the hieroglyphs, because nobody can verify that - there's no authority to cross-reference.

If we go down that road, we will end up in endless bickering. The purpose of THIS thread is to go through the KJV alone, in order, quickly, to point out what it says on key issues that pertain to the various disputes that Stone and I have had about law, economics and social order.

He and I have never clashed on creation, but creation is the beginning of the whole thing, so I included it and direct cites to show my approach: present the cite, in context, and then point out some things that some Christians and anti-Christians say that are not actually in the text.

By doing this, I am showing my bona-fides. I have bound myself to write from the text as it is, and I do.

There is no stretch in my words describing creation, because I'm just quoting the actual TEXT, what it SAYS. I point out the tension that people introduce by ADDING concepts to the text, or taking some away.

Now, as it happens, creation is not a subject in tension between me and Stone, so he can see that I am an honest broker in using Scripture. I'm not adding stuff, or subtracting stuff - I stick to what it SAYS. I'm not shy about saying what those words MEAN (example: "light" = "day"), but this should not be controversial because GOD HIMSELF said just that, right at Genesis 1:5.

I agree with you that the KJV says "In the beginning". In English, "in" is "in", not "at".

At the beginning is not the same thing as in the beginning.

At the start of the first inning is a point of time. In the first inning is a span of time. "In the beginning" is a span of time, not a point of time. If the Scripture said "At the beginning", it would be a point of time. But it does not say "At", it says "In", and "In the beginning" is not a point but a line segment of time.

This shouldn't matter, but if it does, then the KJV clearly speaks of a span of time "in the beginning" and not a single moment of time "at the beginning".

"In January" is not the same thing as "At noon at the start of January". Noon on January first is the only point in time referred to in the second. But 3 PM on January 23rd is still "in January".

The sixth day of creation is still "in the beginning". "The beginning" doesn't end until God rests on the seventh day.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-21   14:31:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: SOSO (#9)

We can't even get past the first words of the Old Testament without a fundamental disagreement as to what its means. Have at it, boys, I'm going for the popcorn.

Yes we can, because we're doing KJV-Alone, and the KJV, at its beginning, says "in the beginning", and nothing else.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-21   14:32:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13, BobCeleste (#11)

We can't even get past the first words of the Old Testament without a fundamental disagreement as to what its means. Have at it, boys, I'm going for the popcorn.

Yes we can, because we're doing KJV-Alone, and the KJV, at its beginning, says "in the beginning", and nothing else.

Tag, Bob, you're it.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-10-21   18:20:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: A K A Stone (#2)

To continue, the order of events is:

Day 1: "Let there be light" (Gen 1:3), "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night." (Gen 1:4)

Day 2: "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." (Gen 1:6) "And god called the firmament Heaven." (Gen 1:8)

Day 3 is particularly important, because two main developments occur: the appearance of dry land (called "Earth" by God), and the creation of the first biological life, in the form of plants.

This is conveyed thus: "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place,, and let the dry land appear" (Gen 1:9) God defines some words: "And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas" (Gen 1:10).

So, there you have it. When you read the word "Earth" in Scripture, when God uses that word, he does not mean the planet Earth. "Earth" is the dry land. The Seas are not part of the Earth. The waters are the Seas, and they are the opposite of the Earth, separated from the Earth. That is what those words mean. They do not mean the planet, because the planet contains the Heaven (skies) AND the Earth (dry land) AND the Seas. "Earth" is what WE call the planet, but God never (ever) uses the word that way in the Bible.

So, when we later read that something happened "throughout the Earth", we must remember that this doesn't mean "everywhere on the planet". It happened "throughout the land", without it being clear where those boundaries lie. Luke tells us later that Augustus Caesar decreed that all the world should be taxed (Luke 2:1), if we read "world" as meaning the planet, we are making the same error. "World" is never defined in Scripture the way that "earth" is. (I could go into the meaning of the Greek word "kosmos", but we're doing KJV-Only, so we just have this word "world".)

If the word "world" in the Bible means what it does to us: the planet Earth, then the Bible contains a lie. Caesar Augustus never proclaimed that the whole planet should be taxed. He proclaimed taxation of the Roman Empire. He didn't proclaim, or attempt to tax, Celtic Britain or Scythian Russia. He never tried to tax Babylon, and he didn't declare that it ought to be taxed. In Luke's case, he never defines the word "world", but we see from that usage that "world" does NOT mean what WE mean by "world", because if it does, then the Bible contains a direct falsehood, and states something that never happened.

In the case of Genesis and the Hebrew Old Testament, God took care of the problems of language for the key words "Day", "Night", "Heaven", "Earth" and "Seas". Those words are specifically defined by God, as written out above. So that is what those words mean, specifically - they do NOT mean what WE mean by them. The Earth in the Bible is the land. It's not the planet. God never revealed in Scripture that we live on a planet. WE are concerned with that, but HE was not concerned to tell us that. It was not important to his story.

To continue with the storyline, "God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth, and it was so."

This is the beginning of living things. Some, who want to avoid the Creation/Evolution debate, have noted that the emergence of life in Genesis is the same as has been revealed by science. But that's not true. The problem is very simple: Earth isn't a planet in Scripture. It - and the plants that flourish upon it - were created BEFORE THE SUN.

The Sun is not created until Day 4. So, the earth flourishes with plantlife, made by God - not in darkness but in light, that doesn't come FROM anywhere. The light exists by God's will.

Then on the fourth day, AFTER God makes all the plants, he makes the sun as the source of the light of day, and the moon and stars as the sources of light for the night.

And once that happens, there is never TRULY night again, for even in the nighttime, there is still light - from the moon, from the stars.

Big Bang theory has everything flashing into existence in an instant - Genesis doesn't discuss this. Evolutionary theory has the stars first, then the planets, and then life in the seas, first. Genesis concerns itself only with the land (Earth) and waters (Sea) and sky (Firmament), of this place. It doesn't speak of the rest of the visible universe, other than to say that it was put up there overhead AFTER the plants were all created.

The Creation of Genesis, as described in the English of the KJV, cannot be squared with scientific theory of the Big Bang and evolution of stars, planets and life. They are in violent conflict on key details.

The Hebrew, both in words and hieroglyphs, can be, but the KJV English cannot be.

This does not concern me, and you've never given me any indication that it concerns you either. I mention it so that I can give an example of a place where there is tension between the KJV text and both scientific AND religious people. What Genesis says does conflict with scientific belief. And the religious have added many things to their Genesis beliefs that are not in Scripture, including some things that are actually contrary to what Scripture actually says.

I have no urge to go smashing other people's traditions. But when traditions that are false stand in the way of something that is necessary and true, then the traditions do need to be smashed.

There is nothing necessary in this Genesis 1 subject for your or me. It does have a political effect, though: what do we teach kids in the schools?

But I will leave that debate to people who are passionate about it. From a moral standpoint, it barely matters.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-21   19:11:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Vicomte13 (#4)

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

Lets study this for a while.

The blue sky is not the waters above. Sky and water are different.

It clearly says water not sky.

Words have meaning. We have to figure out what that water is/was.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-21   20:09:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: Vicomte13 (#6)

I could speculate, drawing on the Hebrew, but this is a KJV- Only thread, so I will refrain.

The KJV is the ground to which I have agreed to limit myself, here, in order to have a conversation on ground acceptable to Stone.

There is nothing wrong with using Hebrew or whatever to shed some light on the subject. Don't refrain yourself.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-21   20:10:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Vicomte13 (#4)

God made everything in seven 24-hour days. No.

It was 6 days.

Remember in Genesis 2 it says

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

So it was 6 days.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-21   20:17:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: SOSO, GarySpFc (#7)

This then begs a question (or three).

John 1 tells us The Logos was there.

"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6

redleghunter  posted on  2015-10-21   20:40:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: redleghunter (#17)

This then begs a question (or three).

John 1 tells us The Logos was there.

On what source?

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-10-21   21:29:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: A K A Stone (#14)

And the word "Sky" does not appear in this Scripture.

The word is Heaven, and firmament.

Heaven is the word specifically given to the firmament, which is the thing that divides the waters below from the waters above.

The firmament of Heaven is where the stars and sun and moon are placed on the fifth day.

When the flood comes, the windows of heaven are opened so that the water can come through.

So yes, the text clearly does say "water".

And what is more, the text tells us that the water under the firmament was concentrated into the Seas. And that the world was flooded by that water, from the windows of heaven and from beneath the earth.

Water is water. That which is above the windows of the sky is what flooded the world.

Let's study it indeed.

Now, if we were looking at the Hebrew, we would see that the word we translate as water has "chaos" as its root. But you're not going to take my word for that. Which is why we're using the KJV. And when we study the KJV, we just end up with water. Water above, water below, water of the seas, water from above being the Flood.

We've got the word "water", and we're going to have to start adding to Scripture in order to try to get some further meaning out of it...and then we're still going to end up with the water coming through the windows of heaven for the flood.

It's water.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-21   23:18:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: A K A Stone (#16)

It was 6 days

No. It says that God finished creation on the 7th day. Then he rested. It says that he finished his work on the 7th day, which means that he worked on that day too. It says 7 days.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-21   23:20:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: A K A Stone (#15)

There is nothing wrong with using Hebrew or whatever to shed some light on the subject. Don't refrain yourself.

Alright then, I will do so, after presenting the KJV first.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-21   23:21:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: SOSO (#18)

John chapter 1.

"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6

redleghunter  posted on  2015-10-22   0:35:46 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: All (#21) (Edited)

Alright then, I will do so, after presenting the KJV first.

On second thought, no. The English has to stand on its own, for reasons that you yourself stated in earlier posts. Did God make the Scripture available to us directly, or are we forever dependent on a few bickering linguists to tell us what God said? If the latter, then we have simply transferred access to God - assuming that Scripture really does give us access to God - from priests to translators. The only reason I agreed to go KJV-Only was specifically to avoid disputes that arise from "going off the text". The Hebrew can't really explain anything if there are disputes over the meanings and nuances of every important word in the Hebrew (and there are).

We are far better off sticking with the text and discussing the English itself. If we're really curious about this, we need to ask "What is water?"

The word "liquid" does not appear in the KJV, because the word was only used in English to refer to sounds until the early 1700s, when it began to refer to fluids. The first known written appearance of "liquid" in English as "fluid" was in 1709. (Source: Online Etymology Dictionary)

"Fluid" as a noun was first recorded in English in the 1660s. 50 years after the KJV, so it isn't used either.

If you cannot use either the words "liquid" or "fluid" to describe liquids and fluids, what word is left in English? Water.

Michael Weisberg of Stanford University has a paper on the point entitled "Water is NOT H2O" (Source: http://www.phil.upenn.edu/~weisberg/papers/waterfinal.pdf)

He is, of course, right. Oxygen was discovered in 1774. Hydrogen in 1766. Amadeo Avogadro (of Avogadro's Number fame) discovered the formula H2O in 1811.

Water is not H2O. Before 1811, "water" meant liquid. Before about 1709 - 100 years after the KJV - "water" was the only generic word for "liquid" or "fluid" in English.

In nature at standard (planet earth) temperature and pressure, there are very, very few things that are liquids. Most things are solids of some sort. Air is a fluid, but it is usually invisible, unless there is smoke or dust suspended in it. There is only one element that is a visible liquid on planet earth at room temperature: mercury, but mercury is not something that was ever found in standing pools of water. It was discovered by accident from the processing of one mineral: cinnabar, which was crushed and heated to make the bright red pigment vermillion. In the process of the heating, liquid mercury appears. And the Greeks called this hyrdrargyrum - water-silver.

The only liquids that an ancient Hebrew would be likely to see would be water, urine, blood, milk, wine, olive oil, sweat and semen. We can probably think of a few more if we work at it. And every one of these liquids has its own name in Scripture. The generic word for "liquid" in English before 1700 was "water".

And of course from a scientist's eye view, AIR is a fluid.

So when we read "water above/water below" doesn't have to mean H2O, because in English in 1611, "water" meant "liquid", including, but not limited to, drinking water and sea water.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-22   9:27:42 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: redleghunter (#22)

John chapter 1.

Sorry, I meant what was John's source of the info.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-10-22   19:20:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: SOSO (#26)

Sorry, I meant what was John's source of the info.

Been some time since your CCD? :)

John walked with Christ and filled with the Holy Spirit.

If you read the first part of the series I posted on the book of Acts, I believe the answer resides there.

"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6

redleghunter  posted on  2015-10-22   20:12:55 ET  Reply   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   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!!!!

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-10-22   21:37:17 ET  Reply   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   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.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

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


#32. To: A K A Stone (#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.

I am using the KJV, and just that, not going outside of it, at your request.

I think that the important words that God said - everything that pertains to our discussion of government and economics - are faithfully recorded in the KJV, which is why I am willing to restrict myself to it.

I'm going in order so that I cannot be accused of taking things "out of context".

I am refraining from going out of the KJV to the Hebrew or the Greek or the Latin or whatever, because of the very charge that you laid on me, that when I go to those foreign languages, I'm just "repeating what somebody else said". That isn't true, but nothing I say will change your mind on that, so to avoid that whole argument I am confining myself to YOUR text, and reading WHAT IT SAYS. I have consulted an etymological dictionary of English to explain why "water" in the KJV English does not simply mean H2O, but liquids and fluids more generally, as that was the word for those things back then. That's not going to the Hebrew or the Latin or anything esoteric. It's simply going to the English and consulting readily available online sources.

What I did with water was to clarify the parameters of that word in 1611. The KJV doesn't say that God separated the H2O from the H2O by the firmament, it says he separated the water/fluid/liquid from the liquid by the firmament.

I pointed out that air is a fluid. Even very attenuated air. We think of space as a vacuum, but it isn't. It is, rather, extremely attenuated air: there are molecules out there, far far apart. It's not empty though, and those molecules are collected by gravity.

So, the KJV's "water" actually does cover a lot of things, if one wishes to see it that way.

That was all I said.

Now you're grousing about my "tone" regarding the King James. I always knew that no matter what I did or said you were not going to be pleased, but I'm just going to ignore the grousing. I'm using the text you demanded, and staying within the lines. I'm reading out the pertinent portions in order, and thereby keeping everything in context. You should be rejoicing at the opportunity to do a walk through the words of God instead of being angry.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-22   22:11:03 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Vicomte13 (#33)

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.

But when it comes right down to it you expect me to take your word for this. And this is no differnt from what others who preach Scripture tells me I must do, i.e. - believe them. Only a very, very, very small group of people have the luxury of becoming knowledgable enough to read AND understand scripture in its original languages.

So in reality the what and the why of it for me, and most people, is what we understand from our personal relationship with God through the faith that He has bestow upon us. And He does grant us free will (many, but not all would argue). Surely scriptures provides a guide to understand His will but as a written lanuage it is insufficient on its own to do this. You may be content to extract from the writtings those things that are meaningful to you - and that's fine. But your interpretation of scriptures is no more or less valid than others who have put the time into learning the original language of the scirptures.

It almost seems that by your philosophy/reasoning really all one needs is the Ten Comandments. By that measure Christ is totally unnessesary for salvation.

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2015-10-22   22:50:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: SOSO (#34)

t almost seems that by your philosophy/reasoning really all one needs is the Ten Comandments. By that measure Christ is totally unnessesary for salvation.

The Ten Commandments are not what one needs. It doesn't matter for your going into Paradise after death whether you keep the Sabbath Day or not, but things that are not in the Ten Commandments, such as love your neighbor, and the Golden Rule, DO matter greatly.

The Ten Commandments don't refer to heaven and hell. They are part of the Mosaic covenant. Do these things, and the rest, and you Hebrews here at Sinai will get a farm in Egypt.

The commandments that MATTER are the ones of Jesus - do THOSE, and you get a room in God's City at the end of time. Defy THOSE, and you get thrown into the fire at final judgment. There is overlap with the law given to the Jews, but the purpose is different.

As far as just following God through the faith, that's swell. But if your faith is telling you that it's fine to do what Jesus prohibited, then your faith is false and the spirit that is whispering in your ear is not the Holy Spirit but a demon.

In truth, if you want to get into Heaven, you can set aside the entire Old Testament, and all of the epistles of the New Testament, and just read Revelation and one Gospel and the early part of Acts, looking at what Jesus said to DO and NOT do. And if you DO that, and REFRAIN from that, you are following Jesus, and will be acceptable to him at judgment.

If your faith is true, and the spirit you are following is true, the spirit will be leading you directly towards those things.

But if the spirit of faith that you're following is telling you that it's ok to be a coward, to be sexually immoral, to slay people, to lie, to blow your mind on drugs, to deny God or follow Gods other than Jesus' father and teach others the same, then that spirit is an evil one leading you into a pit.

But if the spirit is teaching you to avoid those things, to love everybody and not be judgmental and to forgive and to be generous and not hoard up wealth, then that is the Holy Spirit leading you, and you don't have to read the Bible.

The Bible is a backstop, a written guide to know if you're going off the rails. And all you REALLY need to know that is one Gospel and the first few chapters of Acts. The actual LAW of the new covenant is in there.

The rest is explanatory material: where we come from, why God set the things as he did, why Jesus was a Jew, but why he calls us not to be Jews but followers of him to the Father directly. All of that.

One can get to all of that just through the Holy Spirit, directly from God. That is true. But the reason that the New Testament was written in the first place, was that lots and lots of people hear spirits and follow them, but they cannot discern between the good ones and the evil ones, and so go astray and lead others astray by the spirit. The written text of Gospel and Revelation provide the "from Jesus' own mouth" rules by which a man may TEST the spirits that are leading him.

That's the truth of it. If you don't want to listen to me say it, then don't.

But if the faith you've been bestowed is telling you that it's ok to go kill people to establish your dominion, then that spirit leading you is not God but Satan, and you would know that by reading the written record God left so that you could test that spirit. If you refuse to use the book to make that test, then you're throwing away the lifeboat God life you so that you would not go astray.

That's the truth of it too, and why the Scripture matters.

The reason we're having all of these fights is that I keep saying what Christ actually SAID, and people, led by their "spirits" keep not wanting to do it, and then accusing ME of being evil or satanic for urging them to stop following demons and get back to doing exactly what Christ said to do.

That's the whole reason for the discussion.

And yes, I say that one CAN rely on the KJV for what Christ said, which is really the LAW that WE are bound to. The Law of Moses is gone, but the Law of Christ is forever. Lawlessness will earn you the pit.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-23   7:29:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Vicomte13 (#35)

and not be judgmental

Is it a sin to judge people?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-23   7:34:39 ET  Reply   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   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: All (#37)

Also you proclaimed Biden would be the nominee. You didn't say maybe. Or he has a good chance. Or you think he will win.

No you proclaimed it like a prophet. A false prophet.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-23   7:43:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: A K A Stone (#36)

Is it a sin to judge people?

It is something God tells us to not do.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." - Jesus, quoted in Matthew 7.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-23   8:33:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Vicomte13 (#39)

It is something God tells us to not do.

John 7:24King James Version (KJV)

24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

So there you have it again. You misrepresent what the Bible actually says. That is why I asked you to document your claims.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-23   9:04:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Vicomte13 (#39)

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged." - Jesus, quoted in Matthew 7.

That means don't be a hypocrite in judgement.

If you live next door to a child molester. Are you going to let him/her babysit your kids? Of course not your're going to judge them.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-23   9:06:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: A K A Stone (#38)

Also you proclaimed Biden would be the nominee. You didn't say maybe. Or he has a good chance. Or you think he will win.

No you proclaimed it like a prophet. A false prophet.

When did political prognostication become prophesy?

I was very confident that Biden would be the nominee, for the reasons I gave. I never said that I had a vision from God concerning it, or claimed supernatural knowledge. THAT would a prophesy. "I think...because" is not prophesy.

I thought the Seahawks would win last night, and said so in the office football pool. I was right. That wasn't a prophesy either. It was a guess.

I'm surprised that you would equate a political prognostication with a prophesy. It's frankly disturbing.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-23   9:22:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: A K A Stone (#40)

So there you have it again. You misrepresent what the Bible actually says. That is why I asked you to document your claims.

You continue to render a stream of unrighteous judgment.

Which is why I am using your selected text and going through it from the beginning, so that you can stop twisting Scripture to your own destruction.

Now I'm going back to Genesis 1 and will be moving forward from there.

You take Scripture out of context and play around with it to get the result you want. You are only deceiving yourself.

To maintain proper context I am going through it front to back. I will continue to do so, and ignore the personal attacks.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-23   9:35:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#40)

The King James bible is a great work of English literature. What is incorrect is that many American Protestants think it is the only accurate bible. It is a great bible and a great work of English scholarship. I think Anglo-Saxon people should use it as their bible for ethnic pride reasons but many American Protestants treat the King James as the Muslims do the Arabic language Koran - no other language or translation will do kind of thing and that is wrong.

Pericles  posted on  2015-10-23   9:42:47 ET  Reply   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.

"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6

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


#48. To: Vicomte13 (#43)

I will continue to do so, and ignore the personal attacks.

It isn't a personal attack when you claim God said not to judge. When he actually said to judge righteously.

I don't disagree with everything you are saying. I'm just commenting when I disagree.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-23   22:33:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#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   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: A K A Stone (#48)

It isn't a personal attack when you claim God said not to judge. When he actually said to judge righteously.

But he did not "actually" say to judge righteously. I gave you the full quote. He said 'Don't judge, or you will be judged, and you will be judged using the standard by which you judged.' You didn't address what Jesus said there. You just skipped ahead to some other part of the Bible where he warned to judge righteously.

Those things all go together. You're going to be judged by the standards by which you judged. We all are. If we are hypocrites who hold others to a harsh standard, we've bought that standard for ourselves. So we'd better judge righteously. But what is the nature of that judgment? What is righteous and good? There is none good but God - Jesus said that too. And God said "Vengeance is mine alone."

So, what is this "just judging" that a man dares to do?

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-23   22:51:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Vicomte13 (#50)

God said judge righteous judgement.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-23   22:57:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Vicomte13 (#49)

Don't be silly. When the Bible says water it means water.

Vinegar is a liquid and wasn't called water.

Show one place in the Bible where something is called water and it is something else.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-23   22:59:23 ET  Reply   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.

"For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly."---Romans 5:6

redleghunter  posted on  2015-10-24   1:02:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Vicomte13 (#32) (Edited)

I pointed out that air is a fluid. Even very attenuated air. We think of space as a vacuum, but it isn't. It is, rather, extremely attenuated air: there are molecules out there, far far apart. It's not empty though, and those molecules are collected by gravity.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to blur the lines in basic chemistry.

A solid is not a liquid is not a gas. These are three phases of any element or molecule that depend primarily on environment.

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

They had specific words they chose to use. That doesn't mean ancient Hebrews were ignorant of other fluids or that they had compound words or words borrowed from other languages to describe various fluids.

For instance, I don't see the word 'urine' in the KJV or other bibles. Based strictly on scripture as you are reading it, would you seriously suggest that the ancient Hebrews lacked words to distinguish urine from other kinds of water? Of course not. The ancients undoubtedly had many words that didn't make it into print and we can't consider it proven that they lacked those words (and concepts) merely because they aren't found in a particular set of texts. The texts show us what words they did use in scripture, not all the words they knew and used routinely.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-10-24   5:40:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: Vicomte13 (#32) (Edited)

To explore the topic of urine more:

2 Kings 18:27 King James Version (KJV)

27 But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?

So we do have an instance of 'piss' in the KJV (and Geneva bible). Other translations like NIV use the word 'urine'.

However, if this verse did not contain the word signifying urine, I would not assume that therefore the ancient Hebrews lacked a word or phrase for it.

BibleGateway: 'piss' in the KJV

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-10-24   6:35:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: A K A Stone (#52)

Show one place in the Bible where something is called water and it is something else.

Genesis 1: where he separated water from water.

The Crucifixion, where "water" and blood poured out of Jesus' stabbed side. That "water" was lymph.

Show me in the Bible any other generic word for liquid or fluid. There are named fluids: milk, blood, wine, seed, olive oil. And there is "water".

It's like "the birds of the air". That includes bats, and butterflies. Is it "silly" that "birds" means everything that flies? Or that"the fish of the sea" includes molluscs, crustaceans, seals and porpoises?

Modern taxonomy is just that: modern. You can't retroject it to the past. There was no other word for "liquid" in 1611 but "water", and "water" didn't mean just H2O until the chemical formula H2O was discovered, in the 1800s.

The ancients were not scientists. Their observational tools were their eyes. There aren't many things that are water at standard temperature, and most of those things that an agriculturalist were see are given specific names: wine, seed, (olive) oil, blood and milk.

Also, fresh water, salt water, sulfuric acid, Windex and bleach ARE water. They are almost entirely water, with something dissolved into the water.

Likewise there is no distinction between "heaven" and "sky". In Hebrew and Greek this is one word - 'Hashammayim" - the skies (plural) in Hebrew - 'ouranos' in Greek. For that matter, in French today one cannot make any distinction between "sky" and "heaven". It's one word: "ciel" (as in "ceiling").

In Genesis 1, you have a firmament that divides the water above from the water below, and the water below this firmament. What was that "water"? I said that the ancients looked up at the blue sky or the night sky, as dark as Homer's "wine-dark sea", and saw water above - and that the Genesis text encourages this: the flood comes when God 'opens the windows of heaven' to let the water come through.

In the Hebrew, "mayim", the word translated as "water" is a derivate of "mem" symbolized by a flow, and related to chaos. "Tiamat", the dragon who is slain in the Gilgamesh creation epic, is "Queen of Chaos" - the "mem" is at the center of it.

What is the "original state", before God creates energy/light - "or" in Hebrew - which is "light" and also the root of "order"? It is "the abyss", the "waters", the deep surging sea of chaos. God creates energy, which is necessary to overcome entropy, and with light energy, order begins to form out of the chaos. The light is absorbed into the now-ordered matter. Darkness comes. The first day is order.

What is the simplest form of matter, the original element? Hydrogen. Hydro- gen, the generator of, the originator of, what? Of "hydro -", of water. Our science tells us that "in the beginning" there was hydrogen. That the stars forged the heavier elements. But before energy was imparted, everything was black, there was no light. And what is hydrogan at absolute zero, or very, very low temperatures? Same thing as oxygen, or any other gas. At or near absolute zero, hydrogen is LIQUID. It is WATER.

THAT is really what the WATER was at the origin of the Genesis story: the vast blob of unorganized precursors of hydrogen and a few other elements - the 'land" - the "earth" - invisible, dissolved within it. And THEN God created energy, and energy organized the plasmodic but liquid chaos into liquid hydrogen, near absolute zero, and that is the abyssal sea, the dark "water".

And then, on day two, God blasts in more energy - more light - and that unfreezes the liquid hydrogen and other elements, causing them to burst into gas which expands, separating the plasmodic lack of order, the chaos beyond, above and below. Space is the firmament, stretched out through that mass. It too is a fluid, a very attenuated atmosphere, not quite a vacuum, and full of energy particles.

And then on day three in our vicinity the heavier elements clump, and emerge from the water on our planet, which is the scene of action. All by God's will. And then God organizes the plantlife.

On day four, God kindles the stars and they burst into silvery flame above, near and far, and provide light - and an internal source of energy within the system. No longer is it God alone blasting in energy and order entirely from without, he has light sources within also, basting light and energy and heat, and thereby generating order.

And we're up to day five. Particularly in the Hebrew, but also in the Greek and Latin, and even in the English, with some suspension of modern cladistic classifications, we find the quantum physics in the business of divine star-kindling. We find the order of the created universe to be different from the randomly and spontaneously arising universe of the physical evolutionists, but Genesis always pointed the way TO a beginning, and our physics has felt its way back to perceive it, darkly, but nevertheless there. And what is beyond the ordered creation? The primordial chaos still. And beyond that? The third heaven, where God dwells. "Expansion" is the ordering of chaotic potential, but the third Heaven with God in it is always out of eyesight.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-24   10:52:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: TooConservative (#54) (Edited)

'm not sure why you keep trying to blur the lines in basic chemistry.

Because basic chemistry had no existence whatever before the 1700s, and the language of the KJV, and the New Testament and the Old Testament, was the language of people whose words named things as they are seen by the unaided eyes. The telescope was barely invented - by one guy - the microscope would not exist for another 40 years, and scientific knowledge and cladistic naming conventions that we have, since the 1700s, were completely non- existent in any language before 1700. The KJV was published in 1611, and the Bible was written in the first century, and in the two millennia BC. The only things in any language, including Hebrew, Greek, Latin and KJV English, were what could be seen by the unaided eye,. There were no telescopes or microscopes in the ancient world or in the world of the KJV English. The microscope was not invented until about 40 years after the KJV was published, and the very first telescope was invented in 1608. Galileo did not do his famous work until after the KJV was published.

The men who wrote the KJV were operating with an English language that, just like the ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek and ancient Latin, had no scientific tools to enhance eyesight. There was no scientific method yet, Galileo was not yet a thing. There was alchemy, not chemistry. There was no microscopy. There was eyesight. And the language of 1611 was COMPLETELY uninflected by ANY scientific discovery, because none of the science that has formed our thinking had been done yet.

If you're reading modern scientific language, which was only gained thanks to the precision of microscopes and telescopes, into the KJV, you're spinning a yarn for yourself. Water meant liquid. A planet was a moving star. So was a comet. A meteor was a shooting star.

I'm not trying to BLUR the lines in basic chemistry. I am trying to get you to STOP inserting ANY of the terms of basic chemistry into the English language that dates from a century before chemistry EXISTED.

If you insert modern cladistics and scientific terminology into the KJV English, or the Latin, Greek or Hebrew Bible, you are engaging in anachronistic thinking that will make it impossible for you to understand what you are reading.

None of the men who translated the KJV had ever looked through a telescope - there was perhaps one or two in the world at the time. And nobody on earth had ever seen a bacteria, or a sperm, or anything else that cannot be seen by the naked eye, because the microscope wouldn't be invented for decades in the future.

There is no chemistry and no Newtonian physics, and no Galielean astronomical terms in the KJV English. Not one of their terms had been invented yet, and the English contained not one single concept that came out of ANY of the natural sciences to which we are accustomed today, because none of them existed yet, or WOULD exist for decades or a century.

THAT IS WHY YOU CANNOT READ ANY SCIENTIFIC TERMS INTO ANY WORDS OF THE KJV. "Science" did not exist in 1611. There were no English scientific terms. All of the English of the KJV is based on naming that which can be seen by the human eyes, because at that point no man on earth except the inventor of the first crude telescope had every seen anything other than with the naked human eyes,. You MUST understand this, or you will read the KJV scientifically, and insert meanings that words did not have in English until two centuries later. WATER is the ONLY WORD IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE for LIQUID in 1611. There were named liquids, and then there was the word for flowing stuff, and that word was "water". Describe a liquid without the use of the word liquid or fluid. And you are left with the word "water". It MATTERS because anything else you do is injected scientific terminology into the English of 1611, with is completely devoid of any scientific terminology, because science didn't exist yet, in any of the familiar forms, at all. Galileo was only just learning about the possibility of a telescope when the KJV was printed.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-24   11:10:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: Vicomte13 (#57)

Vicomte,. what does God mean by we must do duties to get into Heaven? Which duties?

ebonytwix  posted on  2015-10-24   15:41:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: ebonytwix (#58)

I don't read that he said "duties". I read him saying dozens and dozens of time that men are judged by their DEEDS, by what they DO. So, Jesus laid out a path of followership, and called men to an ideal. And he laid out a plan of forgiveness. But he set some benchmarks, certain crimes that he considered so heinous that they would cause a man to be thrown into the lake of fire. He gave the list twice on the last two pages of the Bible.

As far as believers go, in the letters he dictated to the Churches full of baptized Christians, he admonished them to return to the path, lest he knock down their "lampstand" and "spew them out of his mouth".

That's what God means. Duties? Not sure. Deeds? That what he judges men by.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-10-24   23:32:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: SOSO, Redleghunter (#7)

Does this not imply that there were other beings around to hear God speak? This then begs a question (or three).

The Scripture is very clear. All things were created in the beginning of time by the Logos. The Holy Spirit was there. Likewise, the Father was there. Communicating His will to the Son and Spirit.

"A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is... A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-10-25   17:44:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


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