Discussion thread for Stripe and Genuineoriginal's 1 on 1

[Stripe]

Yes.Interesting discussion. Are there Scriptural aspects for favoring one theory over the other? Anybody?

The discussion over the firmaments in the thread is probably the difference between canopy theory and hydroplate.

 

[Letsargue]

The discussion over the firmaments in the thread is probably the difference between canopy theory and hydroplate.

How can there be an argument about the firmaments mentioned in the creation?? The firmaments aren’t a part / “PART” of any creation. The firmaments were just a void, or empty place between creations. God “created” and placed in it the voids, or emptiness, or firmaments. God made a void, or division in the waters, - the same waters; - a shadow of the Gospel and there being many accounts of the same Gospel, the rivers / waters of Life that flowed out of His belly. The firmament can be seen as the belly of the Creation. --- If the “Word of God” / Jesus / the Bread of Life created all things, then it stands to reason that God formed a BELLY to feed, or WOMB to plant His SEED, and the Creation was born. – John 17:5 KJV – “AND (( NOW )), O FATHER, GLORIFY THOU ME WITH THINE OWN SELF WITH THE GLORY WHICH ( I HAD WITH THEE BEFORE THE WORLD WAS )”. ------//-- The Firmament was a belly, or womb of the creation and WE ARE CREATED!! ---- If the so called Christians spent more time READING GOD, and less time trying to “BE GOD”, they might just learn who God “IS”, and how He does things!!

Paul – 052612

 

[Letsargue]

I don't think it could have been a significant source of water for the flood. It does explain a few pre-flood features, though.

Have any of you ever considered that God made arrangements ahead of TIME for THERE TO BE WATER, when there was no water????? - As in >> --- Proverbs 8:28-29 KJV - When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29- WHEN HE GAVE TO THE SEA HIS DECREE, that the waters should NOT PASS HIS COMMANDMENT: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: (((( Then I was by him, as one (( brought up )) with him ))))”. = equals = ( BAPTISM ) – The Earth was BAPTIZED / THE FLOOD OF NOAH!! -- The Father and the Son, both were baptized, --- That is the Glory the Son had with the Father before the world was!! – John 17:5 KJV – God’s Glory and the Son’s Glory ”IS” ETERNAL LIFE THROUGH THE RESURRECTION!! = GOD’S GLORY!!

That’s all right, you all can deny that now, but you will know it later!!

Paul – 052612

 

[Letsargue]

I would like to know where the ONE ON ONE author and finisher of this “Looked forward to discussion”, is keeping himself? – Is this an “Investigation, and Explanation”, -- an “EXPLANATION” of the “CORE” IDEAS?? – What is being called, “THE CORE IDEAS”? - I thought I was among the ones, or many who were “INVITED to air their views”. – Am I supposed to sit here and air my views to just myself, and watch the "Author" come and go and not even defend or correct a single word?

I’m still in this discussion, if only by myself. - This is a very Good / Godly topic. - to, “SHUN”?

Paul – 052712

 

[Letsargue]

The discussion over the firmaments in the thread is probably the difference between canopy theory and hydroplate.

In the opening statement, I think it’s stated that “ANYONE” can “AIR THEIR (( VIEWS ))”. – One doesn’t have to go to the Host’s argument, -- or to say his “investigation”, - to defeat this hopeless attempt to argue a point concerning God and His doings. - Start with, “Anyone is welcome to “AIR THEIR (( VIEWS )). The word “View” carries with it the idea that someone has SEEN the event and is willing to argue about what he “SAW”. – Though no one has seen the Flood to argue the Point, we can say that we SEE the Truth in what God has said about anything, if we SEE the Truth. - In the Truth of God’s Word I see nothing that the Host has given that is of anything but something that is NOT, --- or is dead, in the darkness and cannot be defended by anything of the Truth that anyone can “VIEW”, or SEE and understand to be anything but false teaching about a –“very simple doctrine” of God’s Word. I have never seen such a futile attempt to defend a doctrine in all my days on earth, and with God. Maybe I’m out of place, but I’m still in this argument, AIRING MY VIEW, with NO OPPOSITION.

Paul – 052712

 

[Letsargue]

Would it be fair to say that this “INVESTIGATION” is ~~~~, “IS” ~~~~~~~~~~, UUHHHHH, ~~~ started, or “IS” it ~~~~~~ ????????

Paul – 052812

 

[Letsargue]

Stripe! -- Can we end this struggle with a little GRACE?

Paul -- 052812

 

[Letsargue]

Is this the END of what Knight set up, and looked forward to?? - Is it the way of some of this people to just leave and forget this?

I'm still here!!

Paul -- 060312

 

[chair]

Just now read the thread. I don't follow party of post #9, where the word for Heavens is considered plural sometimes and singular other times. In the Hebrew they are identical. Where does this come from?

 

[Stripe]

Just now read the thread. I don't follow party of post #9, where the word for Heavens is considered plural sometimes and singular other times. In the Hebrew they are identical. Where does this come from?

The translation.

 

[Stripe]

And the Hebrew doesn't look all the same:
Genesis 1:
v8 שָׁמָיִם
vהַשָּׁמַיִם 9
v14 בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם
Looks like three different forms or formations to me. :idunno:

 

[chair]

And the Hebrew doesn't look all the same:
Genesis 1:
v8 שָׁמָיִם
vהַשָּׁמַיִם 9
v14 בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם
Looks like three different forms or formations to me. :idunno:

v8 is "Heavens"
v9 is "the Heavens"
v14 is "the firmament of the Heavens"

"Heavens", שָׁמָיִם, is a Hebrew word that is always in the plural, like the word for water. There is no separate singular for it.

I don't know where the translators got their ideas from.

 

[Stripe]

v8 is "Heavens" v9 is "the Heavens" v14 is "the firmament of the Heavens" "Heavens"

Yeah, we know.

Except some translations do not pluralise the first one.

שָׁמָיִם, is a Hebrew word that is always in the plural, like the word for water. There is no separate singular for it.

So why the different forms?

I don't know where the translators got their ideas from.

Neither do I. But perhaps they know something you don't.

 

[chair]

Yeah, we know.

Except some translations do not pluralise the first one.


So why the different forms?

They aren't "different forms". Hebrew works differently than English. letters are added to a word to add to it's meaning, while in English separate words are required. For example, the article "the" does not exist as a separate word in Hebrew. One letter is added to the beginning of a word to indicate the article.

A more extreme example is this English phrase "I got dressed". In Hebrew that is one word.

Neither do I. But perhaps they know something you don't.

They may, or they may not. One thing I do know from my own work in translation, is that it is not enough to get the meaning across in the translation- it has to be readable. So some of the details of the English are likely there to make the English more readable, not because they reflect the meaning of the original better. I would be very careful in trying to deduce something from the fine details of a translation.

 

[Stripe]

I would be very careful in trying to deduce something from the fine details of a translation.

Well, luckily, I wasn't pinning too much on this very minor point.

 

[Letsargue]

v8 is "Heavens"
v9 is "the Heavens"
v14 is "the firmament of the Heavens"

"Heavens", שָׁמָיִם, is a Hebrew word that is always in the plural, like the word for water. There is no separate singular for it.

I don't know where the translators got their ideas from.

They read (( ALL )) the rest of the Word, and those are what agrees with all the rest of the Word!!!! -- What else?? --- Try it sometimes!!

Paul -- 072012

 

[Letsargue]

Yeah, we know.

Except some translations do not pluralise the first one.


So why the different forms?

Neither do I. But perhaps they know something you don't.

The Scriptures were not translated (( Word for Word )). It may take many chapters to translate one word!! – What’s the problem with that??? - They got it right, and everyone else can’t even follow it. - They have to translate it for themselves, like all the other foolish things they do wrong!!

Paul – 072012

 

[rainee]

I just found this place!
Very interesting!!

Now that the most popular moon theory has gone bust in the popular science world I wonder if y'all have added the info that busted it into our bag of tidbits? (Certain parts of following article made bold by me)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=apollo-moon-rocks-challenge

Science News February 19, 2013
By Elizabeth Howell and SPACE.com
Apollo Moon Rocks Challenge Lunar Water Theory

Water on the moon was there as the moon formed, not delivered later by solar wind and comets.

The discovery of "significant amounts" of water in moon rock samples collected by NASA's Apollo astronauts is challenging a longstanding theory about how the moon formed, scientists say.

Since the Apollo era, scientists have thought the moon came to be after a Mars-size object smashed into Earth early in the planet's history, generating a ring of debris that slowly coalesced over millions of years.

That process, scientists have said, should have flung away the water-forming element hydrogen into space.

But a new study suggests the accepted scenario is not possible given the amount of water found in moon rocks collected from the lunar surface in the early 1970s during the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 missions. By "water," the researchers don't mean liquid water, but hydroxyl, a chemical that includes the hydrogen and oxygen ingredients of water.

Those water-forming elements would have been on the moon all along, the scientist said.

"I still think the impact scenario is the best formation scenario for the moon, but we need to reconcile the theory of hydrogen," study leader Hejiu Hui, an engineering researcher at the University of Notre Dame, told SPACE.com.
The results were published in Nature Geoscienceon Sunday (Feb. 17).

Go read rest of article
for more

But what do you think?

Water water everywhere...
Hmmm.

 

[Stripe]

Water water everywhere...

But never to be used as evidence for anything. :chuckle:

 

[rainee]

But never to be used as evidence for anything. :chuckle:

I think the saying was supposed to go "But not a drop to drink" :mmph:

And Stripe! The whole point being what if water had literally surrounded the earth in satellites of water loaded rocks of debris?

The article - which you did read didn't you? Said

Hui's research flies in the face of past analyses of Apollo rocks that found they were very dry, except for a small bit of water attributed to the rock containers leaking when they were returned to Earth.

Now Stripe it could be the rocks released their water when they came to Earth - if the above description is accurate, right?

I always try to remind those who love science - truly love it - that the true beauty of it is seeing how God did things, yes?
Weren't you amazed by things in nature found by us?

I was amazed to find humans may have thought the Sun was circling the Earth - because it looked that way.
But when we found that was not true we called it geocentrism and laughed at it.

Only to find out later that though the Earth is moving like one part of a clockworks of wheels within wheels - yet it is (so far) the only part to benefit from the entire solar system that may serve it.

Imagine - all of this (the Solar System) for the life on Earth.
But not just that is amazing! No.

Look at the Complexity and Delicacy of how this whole thing is put together and works.
Change one planet's orbit - and it might destroy the whole system, right?

So there ya go.

Water laden rocks. (bowing)