euroclydon

As his translation into Aramaic of Gen.1.2, Onkelos has the following: w’aretsah hawath tsadh’ya. In this passage, the verb is compounded with the Aramaic verb which appears here as a passive participle of a verb which itself means "to cut" or "to lay waste". We have here, therefore, a rendering "and the earth was laid waste", an interpret- ation of the original Hebrew of Gen. 1.2 which leaves little room for doubt that Onkelos understood this to mean that something had occurr- ed between verse 1 and verse 2 to reduce the earth to this desolated condition, It reflects Ginsberg's Jewish legend. http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html

Uh, oh. The disjunctive establishes the theory. Furthermore, in the Massoretic Text in which the Jewish scholars tried to incorporate enough "indicators" to guide the reader as to correct punctuation there is one small mark which is technically known as Rebhia which is classified as a "disjunctive accent" in- tended to notify the reader that he should pause before proceeding to the next verse. In short, this mark indicates a "break" in the text. Such a mark appears at the end of Genesis 1.1. This mark has been noted by several scholars including Luther. It is one indication among others, that the initial waw ( ) which introduces verse 2 should be rendered "but" rather than "and", a dis-junctive rather than a con-junctive. http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/chap1.html

How did that happen? All I meant by "established" was that your statement to me elaborated on what you were talking about. You tried to explain to me "the Modern Gap theory" as opposed to the survey I referenced in history. You said that they were arguing a different form. You "established" what you were talking about. Why was the survey erratic?

In summary, I am elaborating two things: 1. You, not I, established a different form of argument for GAP theory. I am elaborating that I am only interested in the gap itself - the time, and not what went on before. If we base our argument on questionable speculations regarding what went on before, it deflects from the argument as to whether the gap of time itself exists. 2. By claiming that Arthur Custance’s survey was erratic, without proof or explanation, he demonstrates that he has run out of arguable material, and is resorting to pseudo reasoning.

I went and did some reading on polystrate fossils. The word polystrate is not a standard geological term. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html PART 2 Bristle-cone Pines "Tree Rings" and Ice Cores This is not something that I have studied either. I can not comment. Day Age Theory and Gap Theory I don't know what that other stuff is. I will concentrate on the verse. Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them made = to do or make, not bara or create.

PART 1 I like the way people throw the word "debunked" around. It's like seeing those vids on YouTube that say "The TRUTH about this..." and "The TRUTH about that..." In most cases, they might have some good ideas, and partial truth, but they've got quite a bold statement about what they've accomplished. Radiometric Dating I haven't studied the Radiometric Dating angle. Nothing that I say about it would be valid. Geologic Column Insufficient sample size. Invalid. Speed of Light "Light Years" From Genesis 1:3 onward, the primary word used is "asaw", which has a wide variety of applications (to do, make, or APPOINT) and not "bara" (create). Is that conclusive? NO. Is it possible? YES. Local vs Global "World Wide" Flood Here is an article. "Facts & Fictions Regarding Noah's Flood" http://www.orange-street-church.org/text/noah-flood.htm Firstly, The idea that the flood of Noah's day was "global" is NOT Logically Conclusive, since the "face of the whole earth" (Genesis 8:9) is also used of a localized plague (Exo 10:5, 14-15). Second, since the Text specifies "ha Adam" (Gen 6:1-2), the targets of the Nephilim were the decedents of Eth ha Adam of Genesis 2:10-14, 18-19, and NOT the Sixth Day creation. This might limit the geography even further. Third, eretz, rendered "earth", is also rendered "land" "country" "ground". One would be hard-pressed, therefore, to PROVE that the flood was "global". Birds are animals. (Question #5 below) Therefore, this is actually a generalization of the 5th question, giving the illusion of a meaty, 5-point argument, when there are actually only 4 points. Where would our "schoolmaster" of the flood of the end times be? How would people know that they can overcome the waters of peoples, nations, and tongues, instead of rupturing out? To live in. Please elaborate why this is a problem. Uh, oh! Genesis 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. God sent a flood to destroy the earth. He hasn't since. But nature does, welcome to it. You mean, the birds could have gone "someplace else"? (Question 1 above) You already asked that! A bird in the hand is worth two on the mountain. (I thought everybody knew that.) What you are asking Noah to do, essentially, is to go scroounging around looking for animals and doves (e.g. for sacrifice, "seven clean", 7:2) instead of having some on hand. This is efficient in what manner? I missed that part.

I am only interested in the existence of the so-called gap. What went on before is a different subject. "Actually it hasn't, not in the form that it takes today. The modern Gap Theory is NOT the debate that was taking place centuries ago." Care to elaborate? (You did below). erratic: deviating from the usual or proper course in conduct or opinion; eccentric; queer: erratic behavior. Unless the person you are quoting can explain why the survey was erratic, this is a cheap non-sequitur. It's like saying, "He's wrong 'cause he's a dum-dum". Please, Lord, give him a better argument. Amen. Like you said, it depends "on who you talk to". Yes, in the Greek New Testament the word "foundation" is katabole = overlthrow. It is when the elect were chosen. "before the katabole of the world." Eph 1:4. Cp Jer 1:5.

I have no problems with the cross myself. I understand that the pagans can parallel symbols. But anybody who does a brief search can learn the pagan history of the cross. The hexagram is another example, the so-called "Star of David". Learn its history. So, there may have been a good idea behind them avoiding a cross symbol, but they're not just making things up.

Like the disciples at the first, John didn't understand that there were two Advents. The Lord's answer to John was essentially the same thing he tried to teach in Luke 4:17-21 with regards to what was being fulfilled when He quoted Isaiah 61;1-2. He omitted "the day of vengeance of our God". It was not time. John didn't merely ask if Jesus was "the awaited saviour", but if He was "he that should come". He That should come = He Who cometh, or the corning One. The "coming one" is used of Christ in His Second Advent in the book of Daniel. Matt 11:5 The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. Luke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised Basically, His answer is, "This is what's happening now, what you're looking for is later."

Do you believe Paul is wrong in what he wrote to Timothy? In 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, Paul is addressing wives, specifically. Hence "their husbands". Same with 1 Timothy 2:11-15, hence "child bearing". Genesis 3:16 "...and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

The article is wrong with regards to its origin. "Some scholars argue against translating hayah "became" instead of "was" in Genesis 1:2 because THEY ASSUME this interpretation came about only recently, after scientists determined the earth to be very old. Thus they consider this explanation a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with modern geology. The explanation that there existed an indefinite period between the initial beautiful creation described in Genesis 1:1 and the earth becoming waste and void in verse 2 has been called, sometimes disparagingly, "the gap theory." The idea was attributed to Thomas Chalmers in the 19th century and to Cyrus Scofield in the 20th. THE INTERPRETATION THAT THE EARTH "BECAME" WASTE AND VOID HAS BEEN DISCUSSED FOR CLOSE TO 2,000 YEARS, as pointed out by the late Arthur Custance in his book Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning of Genesis 1:2 The earliest known recorded controversy on this point can be attributed to Jewish sages at the beginning of the second century. The Hebrew scholars who wrote the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament, rendered Genesis 1:2 with an Aramaic expression Dr. Custance translates as "and the earth was laid waste" (1988, p. 15). The original language evidently led them to understand that something had occurred which had "laid waste" the earth, and they interpreted this as a destruction. The early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254), in his commentary De Principiis, explains regarding Genesis 1:2 that the original earth had been "cast downwards" (Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1917, p. 342). In the Middle Ages the Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor (1097-1141) wrote about Genesis 1:2 , "Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters thus far, if we add only this, 'how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering . . . of it was taken in hand?' ( De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, Book 1, part 1, chapter 6). Other medieval scholars, such as Dionysius Peavius and Pererius, also considered that there was an interval of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. According to The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, the Dutch scholar Simon Episcopius (1583-1643) taught that the earth had originally been created before the six days of creation described in Genesis (1952, Vol. 3, p. 302). This was roughly 200 years before geology embraced an ancient origin for the earth. These numerous examples show us that the idea of an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 has a long history. Any claim that it is of only recent origin—that it was invented simply as a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with geology—is groundless. Perhaps the best treatment on both sides of this question is given by Dr. Custance in his book. He states: "To me, this issue is important, and after studying the problem for some thirty years and after reading everything I could lay my hands on pro and con and after accumulating in my own library some 300 commentaries on Genesis, the earliest being dated 1670, I am persuaded that there is, on the basis of the evidence, far more reason to translate Gen 1:2 as 'But the earth had become a ruin and a desolation, etc.' than there is for any of the conventional translations in our modern versions" (p. 7)." "Without Form and Void" http://www.custance.org/Library/WFANDV/index.html#TableofContent Arthur C. Custance: An expert on the most ancient Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek versions of the bible, he was a Canadian anthropologist, scientist and author specializing on science and Christianity.

When the Lord addressed the seven churches in Revelation chapters 2 & 3, He was very careful to point out both good and bad in each (or most), and he didn't paint with a wide swathe. Emulate Christ. There is plenty of JW doctrine to criticize. NEVERTHELESS, they have prevented the easter bunny from going hippity-hoppity into the Sanctuary. They celebrate the Christian Passover, with their own nuances. A lot of "main stream" churches celebrate easter, and a few even roll eggs on Sanctuary grounds. Now those guys have guts! I, for one, would not want to be the person putting the Asherah to His nose (metaphorically speaking).