Arrant nonsense.
Yet all we have is your (unsupported) claim that the original Hebrew made this differentiation.
So where are the original words?
And, so far, you have nothing to back up yours.
Problems with the biblical Genesis story (split)
- Thread starter Arioch
- Start date
I've shown you the meanings of the words.
The word used for 'made' says nothing of creation .
jan.
@Jan --
Answer the damned question. What is a "great light that governs the day" if not the sun? Do you know of any other "great lights" in our daylight sky? No, then by necessity the sun must have been created on the fourth day.
Besides, there isn't a single soul alive who can accurately translate the original text, what with it having no vowels or punctuation(I was wrong in my earlier post, it did have spacing, but no line breaks) and the fact that it's a language that's deader than latin is. So either you're wrong and our translations are accurate or you're right and nobody can read the bloody thing and we should just bin it all together.
Answer the damned question. What is a "great light that governs the day" if not the sun? Do you know of any other "great lights" in our daylight sky? No, then by necessity the sun must have been created on the fourth day.
Besides, there isn't a single soul alive who can accurately translate the original text, what with it having no vowels or punctuation(I was wrong in my earlier post, it did have spacing, but no line breaks) and the fact that it's a language that's deader than latin is. So either you're wrong and our translations are accurate or you're right and nobody can read the bloody thing and we should just bin it all together.
God made two lights one earlier one on the forth day , he just identified them and the purpose of them ,
You and I we know I don't have to googel.
God made two lights on the fourth day (one to light the day, and one to light the night = Sun and Moon).
If the light that came into being on the first day was the Sun what is the second light (the one for the day that was created on the fourth day)?
I think you do, since according to your interpretation we have two Suns.
Please show where they are.
It's quite simple.
You gave the words alone, and their meaning.
You didn't quote the original Hebrew and show that these were the words actually used.
Which was what I asked for:
What you've done is as useful and relevant as me giving the Russian words for "donkey" and "ass" and showing that they mean different things.
Plus, with regard to your contention, we also have this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/did-god-create-or-make
In other words: you fail. Again.
Dywyddyr,
I don't have the original Hebrew text, but it seems to be common knowledge that these are the words that were used, and I don't see any objection to it.
I've shown the two different meanings of the words used from the Hebrew text. Here, look again at the word ''as-ah'' (make), check out the meaning, and then tell me again how you conclude that the sun and moon were created (ex-nihilo) on the fourth day.
jan.
I don't have the original Hebrew text, but it seems to be common knowledge that these are the words that were used, and I don't see any objection to it.
I've shown the two different meanings of the words used from the Hebrew text. Here, look again at the word ''as-ah'' (make), check out the meaning, and then tell me again how you conclude that the sun and moon were created (ex-nihilo) on the fourth day.
jan.
So you're just whistling in the dark.
Oh well done!!!
You've just completely ignored the last part of my post that rendered your entire argument null and void. As if I'd never posted it.
Are you getting any treatment for that selective blindness?
Because it shows that your argument is wrong?
Okay.
With respect to the article you post. I am studying a little Hebrew , I am finding that many word in Hebrew interchange its meaning, so I would not put my life to defend the only one meaning of a particular word. Therefore for me create or made might be interchangeable , the whole is what is it message
I don't see where he created any sources of light on the fourth day, not
from what is written, and what is meant by the particular word that describes His action.
jan.
if the bible is to be taken literally, I would conclude (a) that the hebrew people believed that many gods got together and cerated the heavens and the earth (b) that the moses story was copied from the Epic of Gilgamesh (c) that they did not know for sure if the Red Sea went all the way down to Somaila (tigris/euphrates/kush intersection) (d) that they were always getting their asses kicked by superior forces, so they hated most of their neighbors and despised their religious rituals (e) that they had no idea who the authors of their scriptures were and kept losing and recreating them (f) that besides flunking geography, they were sometimes way off the mark in their historical accuracy (e.g. confusing the succesion of persian kings) (g) they appear to be ignorant of the technological advances of many of their neighbors (h) by the time of Alexander they had just about given up on Hebrew altogether as their national language, then abandoning the scriptures written in Greek (Apocrypha) (i) the story of the teacher-magician Jesus rises in Greek, mostly as a counter attack to the pre-Christian sect that wrote the Gnostic gospel (k) they fabricated hel and Satan from the Zoroastrian story (Persians no doubt introduced to them via Greeks) (l) paul was writing letters to congregations about local issues, not cosmic issues addressed to you and me (m) the Revelation author ade some kind of mushroom or perhaps was having the flu
Still sticking to your particular misinterpretation?
The one that has already been shown to be incorrect:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...create-or-make
And a rebuttal of this requires something more than "it's irrelevant".
From the King James Bible:
Bible said:
Which lights in the firmament of the heaven do you think divide the day from the night, Jan?
And which lights influence the seasons, the days and the years?
When God said "Let there be lights in the firmament..." was this not an act of creation?
What was God saying, then? Was he really saying "I notice that there are lights in the firmament of heaven"? Or something like that?
This doesn't mesh well with your advice that we ought to read Genesis literally.
Which lights in the firmament of the heaven give light upon the earth?
What were these two lights that God made? Please tell me, Jan.
You seem to be unable to answer this simple question. You keep avoiding it. Why?
These two lights divide the light from the darkness - presumably on earth, no? What could these mysterious lights be, Jan? Any ideas?