1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Angels and Men in Hugh Ross Context , 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Hugh Ross' take on Day Four, 3) Creation vs. Evolution : Ice Cores with Lava Dust (a k a Tephra Layers), 4 ... on Moses, Church Fathers, Oxygen and Hydrogen (featuring Kent Hovind and Hugh Ross, separate videos)
- Video commented on:
- CROBN : Debate On Evolution - Dr. Kent Hovind at the University of West Florida (CSE)
I am here commenting on first half only. At eight different points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUDFcM_A-88 - I
- More oxygen in pre-flood atmosphere?
Fine with my - recent, formed in debate against Hugh Ross supporters - theory: part of water of flood came when hydrogen separated from oxygen in day two so oxygen could be or support firmament recombined with oxygen to form downpour part of flood. The oxygen in the atmosphere before that was not recombined is what we breath now. That which was recombined is what was more rich in oxygen back then.
U C, Biblical Hebrew had no word for H2 [hydrogen] - other than 4 H2O. [than for water] - II
- Explanation of Neanderthal men ... in suppport of Hovind:
How come all intact Neanderthal babies are only Neanderthal/Sapiens-Sapiens hybrids? Or, Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon hybrids?
Maybe because all babies were not subject to either old age or rickets or whatever else may have caused Neanderthal features.
But seeing the flood is often carbon dated 20.000 - 50.000 years ago (though that is not true date) and Neanderthals often dated older, they are probably pre-flood. - III
- Only definition x in the public heard of species: "interbreeding population" - may have been a useful update at that university, but is sure not the classic definition!
Of course it is convenient if you want to say "speciation" has been observed in flies. Some of them are as unwilling to interbreed as Danes and Chihuahuas.
I had heard a more Classic one: "individuals able to produce fertile offspring together belong to same species."
So, Coyotes & Dogs maybe are same species after all? Kind? - IV
- Repetition of Calvin's slur against the Relics of the True Cross was not exactly well placed, no.
If you want to know about the Cross, check out the book
How the Holy Cross was Found
by Stephan Borgehammar
http://www.amazon.fr/dp/9122014322
We are both from Lund University. His - cautious - conclusion is that the varieties of the story diverged so soon after event the original story must have been from about the time of the event. He refrained from going further until Historians quit antimiraculous bias.
He's Catholic btw. - V
- Hovind refuses to argue the Historical preservation of the Bible in that debate (at first, but as far as I checked, I stopped the video).*
Now, really arguing that would lead to:
- agreeing Hebrews who refuses the building of Tower of Babel preserved the oral tradition correctly
- that oral tradition can be preserved correctly if snippets learnt by heart are short enough (cf length of Genesis ch:s with length of Gospel ch:s, where two Gospellers memorised and two relied on other's memory)
- that Sumerian accounts cannot be the one's God wanted to preserve, because they were not preserved, they were forgotten and only recently discovered.
AND this last point would lead to saying Novatians, Montanists, Donatists were not the Church God wanted to preserve, but the Catholic Church (or Orthodox Church) was. And of course the original Christians cannot have refused to baptise babies, since then there wd continuously have been that refusal in the Church of God. Wh[ich] cont[inues] OT Israel.
Now, again: when was the Hebrew alphabet invented? By Moses or earlier?
If by Moses, then he was dealing with oral tradition, and since he was a man of God we must presume oral tradition is a reliable source, since he treated it as such. If Pagan traditions about creation and flood are not reliable, that is not due to orality of tradition, but to Paganism.
In that case book of Job and book of Henoch possibly [too] were written down by Moses from earlier tradition.
But if the Hebrew alphabet was invented before the flood, Henoch can have used it, and so can the men surrounding Job, or he himself.
If on the other hand the pre-flood writings were cuneiform, Moses can have edited documents not preserved by Hebrew people but in Egyptian or Babylonian archives and identified as not of their but of the Hebrew tradition.
*He might have been set on a limit or he might have been wanting to be paedagogical and keep to one subject or both. - agreeing Hebrews who refuses the building of Tower of Babel preserved the oral tradition correctly
- VI
- "You can't extrapolate from a process observed in the middle"
Argument offered against Hovind's moon argument.
But at same time - hope Hovind points it out in a few seconds - against extrapolations such as Big Bang from supposedly observed expansion of universe.
The evolutionists have a flexible epistemology, all right. I presume he accepts Big Bang. - VII
- Universe had a beginning - Hovind adds less than billions of years old, I am fine with that. I cannot check myself right now.
But his shrinking of the sun has another parallel.
Dom Stanley Jaki observed that Hydrogen is becoming Helium ... if the Universe were eternal (abandoned in favour of Big Bang right now) - where does all the Hydrogen come from? - VIII
- First of all it is a moot point whether Earth is spinning round in space or space (with aether) is spinning around earth.
Second of all, the leap second problem may be due to slowing down or to a problem with cesium clock's.
Today we don't even have a 24 h day ...?
Well, a solar day is the whole of which an hour is by definition 1/24 part.
Something is slightly wrong with cesium clocks.
Maybe the cesium clock problem leading to a day "shorter than 24 h" is the same as the one leading to leap seconds.
Perhaps the conviction of a slowing down comes from the Book of Henoch, though that is not admitted.
It seems from it, that back in his time the year was 364 days. A bit faster than now.
- Video commented on:
- ReasonsToBelieve1 : Did God create the earth before the sun and moon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlGVqUZo83s - captainbryce1
- With all due respect, I don't think you understand how stupid this question is. How was there vegetation before the sun? The bible doesn't say that there was. Light existed "in the beginning", God separated the light from the darkness and called light "day" and darkness "night". This indicates that the sun existed on "day 1" and that the earth was rotating to allow for day and night. Vegetation didn't sprout until "day 3", which means that they would have already had light for photosynthesis.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "This indicates that the sun existed on "day 1" and that the earth was rotating to allow for day and night."
It does not.
Light without any further light source beyond God alone would certainly have sufficed for photosynthesis on day three, even waiting for sun to be created on day four.
Your evidence for a moving earth is ...? - captainbryce1
- The evidence is the fact that God "separated the light from the darkness and called the light "day" and the darkness "night"! This tells us that he was not the source of the light, but the sun was. God did not separate HIMSELF! The way in which light is separated from darkness is by rotation of the earth, with the sun as the source of light. The scripture doesn't make sense by any other interpretation.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- God certainly separated himself from darkness.
- captainbryce1 (answer one)
- Okay, well if you choose to view the passage in an abstract, bizarre way such as this, then that's your prerogative. I choose to interpret it in the way that it makes sense. There is no reason to believe that God separated day from night differently in the past than he does today. The laws of physics don't change, so the method by which we have day and night today is the same as when God separated light from darkness. And that requires a sun and planetary rotation. It's very simple!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- It does not at all require earth to rotate, if it is sun that rotates each day with the heavens from east to west.
"I choose to interpret it in the way that it makes sense."
I chose to interpret it after the way the grammar makes sense.
"The laws of physics don't change"
Nevertheless they allowed for a non-solar light source three first days as much as for sun from day four on.
"so the method by which we have day and night today is the same as when God separated light from darkness."
No. - captainbryce1 (answer two)
- There is no reason to insist that there was no sun in the beginning. Clearly there was. God always creates in the logical order. That means sun first, then earth. Without a sun, there can be no earth. It's simply physics! Scripture says "In the beginning, God created the heavens (which includes the Sun) and the Earth". Nothing was "created" on day 4!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- That would make day four the only day withouth any creation of any thing. Even day two you have a separation of waters that create a firmament between them - that being the atmosphere.
- captainbryce1
- "That would make day four the only day withouth any creation of any thing." Nothing is created on day 2 or day 4. Creating empty space is not an act of "creation". He simply allowed there to be a firmament (which was the direct result of separating the waters). You cannot create "nothing".
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You consider the air of the atmosphere "nothing"? I do not.
Furthermore, part of the "water above the firmament" may well have been the hydrogen that sun and stars presumably burn on (since 7200 years, not since billions, and stars except sun much closer and smaller), with the oxygen part going into the firmament = atmosphere.
Then on day four God created sun and stars from the hydrogen separated in day two. - wesmartin91
- It doesn't say he created the "air of the atmosphere" on day 2, it says he created a space between the waters. And your idea that the water represents the hydrogen of the sun is frankly a stretch of the imagination. 1) Hydrogen is not water! 2) the passage is clearly describing the earth's water cycle, and that's even according to most theologians. So your conclusion makes no sense! Again, scripture doesn't say anything is created on day 4, and it wouldn't make sense even if it did!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Scripture says that God made or created sun and moon, and it says that in the account of day four.
Claiming that the Hebrew perfect does not equal our simple past in this passage is disingenious.
Both hydrogen molecules and water molecules are found way further out than just in atmosphere. Ask astronomers about what spectrography reveals as two most common molecules.
Hydrogen is not water per se, but the distinctive component differentiating water from just oxygen or air. 2*H2 + O2 > 2*H2O. - captainbryce1
- First of all, it doesn't say he created anything on day 4. After describing what God allowed to happen on day 4, the scripture elaborates on what ALREADY happened (in the past). The phrase "God made two great lights" is in the completed Hebrew verb form. It happened in the past, not on day four. It is a recount of creation (in more detail), that goes on to explain WHY he did it. It doesn't not denote an act of creation. It is your semantic argument about hydrogen that is disingenuous.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "The phrase 'God made two great lights' is in the completed Hebrew verb form. It happened in the past, not on day four."
It happened in the past compared to when Moses wrote it, not in the past before day four.
Your mistake is taking his vague description of Hebrew perfect (he does not know Hebrew, neither do I but ma studied it) to make it synonymous with pluperfect. If that were so, why did all transators translate as simple past (the default meaning of the Hebrew tense)? - captainbryce1
- No, you're wrong. It happened in the past BEFORE day four because it is recounting a previous event. Just as Genesis 2:4-5 recounts what happened in Genesis 2:26-31 (in greater detail). It is not denoting a NEW act of creation. We know the great light already existed because God separated it in verse 4. And you may not know Hebrew, but the OT scholar Walter Kaiser DOES, and he says you're wrong! In any case, you're missing the point, the creation of sun and light occurred on day 1, not day 4.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Recounting a previous event" means Hebrew Perfect functions as European languages Pluperfect. It can do so, but that generally requires some kind of marker like (but not limited to) adverb meaning before.
Otherwise the default meaning is simple past. Greek aorist, Latin praeteritus perfectus. English / French simple past. [passé simple = simple past]
If there had been such a marker, early translators might have used pluperfect. They did not agree with Walter Kaiser. The seventy and St Jerome knew Hebrew too. - captainbryce1
- "Otherwise the default meaning is simple past." That's exactly the point I am making to you! The sun, moon and stars WERE made in the past! It does not specify when in the past they were made, only "simple past". Scripture does not say that they were made ON day 4. It says that the light from them is allowed to be seen on day 4. Then in an elaboration the scripture tells us what happened in the "simple past", and relates that to the purpose of these lights which can now be seen on day 4.
[He does not get difference between over all meaning and default meaning/default translation, nor what "simple past" means as opposed to "pluperfect"] - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Otherwise the default meaning is simple past.
"That's exactly the point I am making to you! The sun, moon and stars WERE made in the past"
Sure. 7000 years and some 200 more ago by now and a little less past when Moses wrote. SIMPLE past, which is the default meaning, denotes in chronological sequence usually. The verb form can also refer to PREVIOUS action, but that is not a default meaning, and it was not the sense chosen by translators. Finally getting it or is ur grammar subdued 2 "faith"? - captainbryce1 (again, but with other set of answers)
- With all due respect, I don't think you understand how stupid this question is. How was there vegetation before the sun? The bible doesn't say that there was. Light existed "in the beginning", God separated the light from the darkness and called light "day" and darkness "night". This indicates that the sun existed on "day 1" and that the earth was rotating to allow for day and night. Vegetation didn't sprout until "day 3", which means that they would have already had light for photosynthesis.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "This indicates that the sun existed on "day 1" and that the earth was rotating to allow for day and night."
It does not.
Light without any further light source beyond God alone would certainly have sufficed for photosynthesis on day three, even waiting for sun to be created on day four.
Your evidence for a moving earth is ...? - captainbryce1
- Also, Genesis 1:2 (the spirit of God hovering over the waters) establishes the point of view for the entire creation text. That perspective is from an observer above the surface of the Earth. So when God says "let their be light", he is allowing light to be seen from that perspective. And when it says he is separating the light from the darkness, it means from the perspective of the observer (which is God). That means it must be talking about the Sun, not God being the source of light.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I agree there was light in Heaven before day one.
That does not mean the sun was there from day one. - captainbryce1
- It doesn't mean that it WASN'T either. When the first passage says he created the heavens and the Earth, "the heavens" means everything that exists in space (stars, planets, the sun, the moon, etc). It is not logical to interpret the scripture as God being the source of light for "day". God is the observer in the story. He is seeing the light and separating it from darkness. Verse 16 tells us the purpose of the sun is to govern the "day". That means it must have existed on the first day.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Verse 16 tells us the purpose of the sun is to govern the 'day'. That means it must have existed on the first day."
Does not mean it must have.
"God is the observer in the story. He is seeing the light and separating it from darkness."
He is also creating light, He is not just an observer, remember? - captainbryce1
- If God created the heavens and the earth (in the beginning) then the sun existed in the beginning. If God separated day from night on the first day, then that means the sun existed on the first day (because the Sun governs the day. There is no other interpretation that makes logical sense. There is nothing that implies that he was the source of the light which he separated. Not only does that not make any sense, but the scripture doesn't say that, therefore that's not what happened.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "There is nothing that implies that he was the source of the light which he separated."
The fact He will be the source of light in Heaven? Is that nothing? - captainbryce1
- You're mixing up two different concepts and trying to combine them into one. "Light of heaven" is a metaphor! It is not literal because light represents goodness, as opposed to darkness which represents evil. It's the same when Jesus says he is the "light of the world" [John 8:12]. He wasn't a literal light, but he does show us they way (as light does). But the creation account is describing literal light in terms of sunlight, starlight, moonlight, etc. You're not reading in the proper context.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I mentioned that Jesus Christ WILL BE the light of Heaven. Apocalypse 21:[23] And the city hath no need of the sun, nor of the moon, to shine in it. For the glory of God hath enlightened it, and the Lamb is the lamp thereof.
- captainbryce1
- Yes, and I mentioned that this passage is metaphorical (symbolic) just like most everything else from the book of Revelation. What part about that do you not understand?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Oh, I did not get that you considered the prophecies of Revelation too as metaphors. That was actually not among your quotes.
Well, you might be in for some unpleasant surprises on the battle field near Mount Megiddo (Apocalypse 19) ... - captainbryce1
- Oh, and yes I understand the symbolic, prophetic vision of John called "Revelation" to be exactly what most scholars understand it to be, a symbolic, prophetic vision of John about end times. To interpret the vision literally is ultimately foolish (and again missing the point). The dragon and the beast are not literally dragons or beasts, they are symbolic! Go back to bible study and learn a bit more, then you come back and arrogantly try to tell me what "surprises" I might be in store for.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- That the dragon is the devil does not stop him from being occasionally a dragon - at least an old serpent that literally misled as a serpent in Eden.
That the beast is a human person is another matter, but does not preclude his getting literally defeated along with the false prophet at a literal battle at Harmageddon.
And it is not exclusively about end times. The souls under the altar in Heaven are already there - as are the bodies under Catholic altars on earth. First chapters were back then - captainbryce1
- A serpent and a dragon are two different things! The beast is not literally a beast. So you are picking and choosing when you arbitrarily decide how "literal" you want to take it, and thus missing the point of the story. It was never meant to be "literal", but a symbolic representation of things to come (allegory). In any case, "light" represents "good", and not necessarily visible light. Getting back to Genesis, "day" and "night" means the sun exists. There is no other logical interpretation.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I am not picking and choosing, but accepting tradition.
"Getting back to Genesis, 'day' and 'night' means the sun exists. There is no other logical interpretation."
It means there exists a light that by God's decree shines on half of the earth and not on the other at each moment, and which circles the earth. It does not have to be the sun, only equally strong or more so. - captainbryce1
- Here's what I think about "accepting tradition": (Mark 7:6-9) "6 He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’ 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions. 9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!”
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Traditional acceptance of Bible exegesis is quite another matter.
The Church's tradition of OT exegesis starts in the 40 days when Christ exposed the Scriptures to the Apostles. It has not disappeared since, and needs no supplement from "Jewish theologians" who already rejected Christ when writing their Midrash to make sense. - captainbryce1
- "Traditional acceptance of Bible exegesis is quite another matter." - No, actually it's exactly the same thing. TRADITION! Tradition for the sake of tradition is also known as stupidity. You don't carry on WRONG ideas because of tradition. You exercise critical thinking and common sense. And both of those things would tell you that the Earth is old! And both of those things would tell you that the sun existed "in the beginning" as the bible says. Genesis 1:1 tells us when God "created" the sun.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "You exercise critical thinking and common sense."
Neither of which supports "billions of years". Neither of which necessitates another order of creation than that suggested by the text and accepted by Church Fathers.
"No, actually it's exactly the same thing. TRADITION!"
Rabbinic tradition from Hillel is the same thing as Apostolic-Episcopal Tradition from Jesus those 40 days after Resurrection?
Yea, if you are an atheist ... but not if you are a Christian! - captainbryce1
- Neither of which supports "billions of years". Actually it doesn't (sic), because science proves that the universe is billions of years old. Only by refusing critical thinking and ignoring common sense could someone believe otherwise. And I never said that another order of creation was needed. The order of creation in Genesis does not conflict with science. Only your interpretation of it does (which is why it's wrong). What the Church fathers "accepted" in their ignorance is irrelevant.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "science proves that the universe is billions of years old."
You refuse to apply critical thinking on science. You refuse to pose yourself common sense questions about what science can and cannot prove.
"What the Church fathers 'accepted' in their ignorance is irrelevant. "
Not if it is all the Church Fathers, since then it reflects what Jesus taught his Twelve Disciples between Resurrection and Ascension. If you had faith, you would have asked if "science" could be doctrinal revelation.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl (repeated for origin of other spinoff)
- "This indicates that the sun existed on "day 1" and that the earth was rotating to allow for day and night."
It does not.
Light without any further light source beyond God alone would certainly have sufficed for photosynthesis on day three, even waiting for sun to be created on day four.
Your evidence for a moving earth is ...? - captainbryce1
- The evidence is the fact that God "separated the light from the darkness and called the light "day" and the darkness "night"! This tells us that he was not the source of the light, but the sun was. God did not separate HIMSELF! The way in which light is separated from darkness is by rotation of the earth, with the sun as the source of light. The scripture doesn't make sense by any other interpretation.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- God certainly separated himself from darkness.
- captainbryce1
- There is no reason to insist that there was no sun in the beginning. Clearly there was. God always creates in the logical order. That means sun first, then earth. Without a sun, there can be no earth. It's simply physics! Scripture says "In the beginning, God created the heavens (which includes the Sun) and the Earth". Nothing was "created" on day 4!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- That would make day four the only day withouth any creation of any thing.
Even day two you have a separation of waters that create a firmament between them - that being the atmosphere. - captainbryce1
- "That would make day four the only day withouth any creation of any thing." Nothing is created on day 2 or day 4. Creating empty space is not an act of "creation". He simply allowed there to be a firmament (which was the direct result of separating the waters). You cannot create "nothing".
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
-
You consider the air of the atmosphere "nothing"? I do not.
Furthermore, part of the "water above the firmament" may well have been the hydrogen that sun and stars presumably burn on (since 7200 years, not since billions, and stars except sun much closer and smaller), with the oxygen part going into the firmament = atmosphere.
Then on day four God created sun and stars from the hydrogen separated in day two. - captainbryce1
- There is no evidence whatsoever that the earth was created 7200 years ago (scientific or biblical). The firmament is merely the space between the oceans (waters of earth) and the atmosphere (waters of the heavens). It is not a "creation" event, it is an act of separating waters.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Add up the genealogies, Christ was born year 5199 after Creation.
The firmament is the atmosphere, as Kent Hovind has shown because the birds fly in the firmament. Or even under the firmament in Douai Reims:
Genesis 1: [20] God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.
Atmosphere under firmament, not other way round as you would want. (answered immediately and another time again below) - captainbryce1
- You CAN'T add up the genealogies because they are not complete. The vast majority of biblical scholars acknowledge generation gaps in the bible. More to the point, even if you can count generations all the way back to Adam (which is impossible due to the gaps), that still only takes you back to creation day 6. We don't know exactly how much time passes between creation days, only that it is certainly MUCH longer than 24 hours.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "You CAN'T add up the genealogies because they are not complete."
Oh boy ... what Church fathers told you that?
"The vast majority of biblical scholars acknowledge generation gaps in the bible."
They are not Church Fathers.
"We ...know ... only that it is certainly MUCH longer than 24 hours."
No Church Father agrees. - captainbryce1
- It doesn't matter what "church fathers" agree to, it only matters what the evidence shows. What special authority do they have over anyone else? NONE! They are flawed human beings, like the rest of us, and they were often uneducated compared to modern scholars. In any case, it's up to individuals to interpret that evidence using the Holy Spirit as guidance. Now, go look up "Telescoping of Genealogies" on Google to find out more about genealogical gaps in scripture.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- One Church Father is a human being.
All of them are the voice of the Church, which is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
Genealogical gaps ar not what the Church Fathers tell us, nor what St Luke tells us, nor consistent with the symbolism of 72 ancestors representing all peoples of mankind, since c. 72 were the original nations after Babel.
"they were often uneducated compared to modern scholars"
I refuse to idolise those! - captainbryce1 (parallel answer to above)
- About the firmament, you're still missing my point. Separating the waters to allow a firmament to exist is not an act of "creation". Nothing (matter, energy, space, time, or "life") is being created on creation day 2, or creation day 4. God is only allowing things to be. At best you could say that he MADE the firmament. Making and creating are two different things in Hebrew by they way. In any case, (since we've gotten off topic) the point is, nothing is made on day 4.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You have failed to make that point.
- and again, remember this
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You consider the air of the atmosphere "nothing"? I do not.
Furthermore, part of the "water above the firmament" may well have been the hydrogen that sun and stars presumably burn on (since 7200 years, not since billions, and stars except sun much closer and smaller), with the oxygen part going into the firmament = atmosphere.
Then on day four God created sun and stars from the hydrogen separated in day two. - wesmartin91
- It doesn't say he created the "air of the atmosphere" on day 2, it says he created a space between the waters. And your idea that the water represents the hydrogen of the sun is frankly a stretch of the imagination. 1) Hydrogen is not water! 2) the passage is clearly describing the earth's water cycle, and that's even according to most theologians. So your conclusion makes no sense! Again, scripture doesn't say anything is created on day 4, and it wouldn't make sense even if it did!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Scripture says that God made or created sun and moon, and it says that in the account of day four.
Claiming that the Hebrew perfect does not equal our simple past in this passage is disingenious.
Both hydrogen molecules and water molecules are found way further out than just in atmosphere. Ask astronomers about what spectrography reveals as two most common molecules.
Hydrogen is not water per se, but the distinctive component differentiating water from just oxygen or air. 2*H2 + O2 > 2*H2O. - captainbryce1
- First of all, it doesn't say he created anything on day 4. After describing what God allowed to happen on day 4, the scripture elaborates on what ALREADY happened (in the past). The phrase "God made two great lights" is in the completed Hebrew verb form. It happened in the past, not on day four. It is a recount of creation (in more detail), that goes on to explain WHY he did it. It doesn't not denote an act of creation. It is your semantic argument about hydrogen that is disingenuous.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "It is your semantic argument about hydrogen that is disingenuous."
The Hebrew of Moses, the Greek of LXX, the Latin of Vulgate had no specific word for hydrogen as opposed to water.
But hydrogenium means "water origin", wasserstoff means "water stuff" and väte means "wetness".
If you have ever mixed hydrogen with air and lit it with a match, you know why.
And you get a possible scenario of how "the flood gates of heaven were opened".
No comments:
Post a Comment