RV_Wizard

The language of their captors, for one. The Bible doesn't say what language he spoke to them in. Your "facts" comes from copies of copies of copies interpreted into English in the 1970's, NOT from the original Hebrew. In fact, you've been corrected by people who actually DO speak the language and you blew them off because their interpretations didn't fit what you've chosen to believe. From your own posts, the only (per)versions that slightly conform to your claims came out after the NIV in the 1970's. Beginning in 1904 and continuing every other year until the 1950s, new members of Congress were given a copy of the Jefferson Bible. Until the practice first stopped, copies were provided by the Government Printing Office. A private organization, the Libertarian Press, revived the practice in 1997. source The official "bible" of the US government is false doctrine.

You DO realize that Moses wrote in the Old testament, not the new, right? You DO realize that Genesis, Exodus, and the rest of the Pentateuch are part of the Old Testament, not the new, right? You DO realize that none of the discussions of the modern (per)versions of the book of Genesis have anything to do with the New Testament, right? Moses wasn't an apostle of Jesus. He lived before Jesus ever came to live among us as a man. While all the modern (per)versions of the Bible also distort the New Testament, that wasn't the point of our discussion.

Actual research. Moses was educated in Egypt, not Hebrew. He learned Hebrew later. Linguistic evidence suggests Hebrew became distinct from Canaanite around the 10th Century BC, however, whereas Moses is thought to have lived in the 13th, 14th, or 15th Centuries BC. So, he may have spoken Canaanite. In any case, the best guess is that his native language was Egyptian, but given his legendary status, it’s quite difficult to say with any historical certainty. source The copies of the Pentateuch we have were preserved in Hebrew, but of course those tasked with preserving and copying the original writings would have been versed in several languages. Regardless, the words of God were preserved by God and remained unquestioned until the 1970's when the NIV and other (per)versions were printed. Incidentally, Thomas Jefferson had his own (per)version, in which he took out the virgin birth and everything else he didn't believe. The Jeffersonian version is NOT the preserved word of God.

I proved that to be a lie. I provided evidence of the early church teachings, and even gave you the time frame of when some members of the church began to stray from the six day creation. You can only point to Augustine, the proponent of many of the heresies of the church of Rome, but he was only one of a very few people who refused to believe in the Scriptures as written when it came to creation. Even in the Catholic church, it wasn't until 1909 when Pope Pius XII approved a position allowing for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1 that the church officially wavered on teaching the creation week. Your claim that belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 came from 19th century Seventh Day Adventists has no basis whatever in truth. Every time you repeat it, you are knowingly telling a lie.

Please return to the atheist website you are using for your misinformation and remind them that the apostles didn't write a word of the Old Testament. The New Testament was written mostly to the Gentiles, so it was written in the most common language; Greek. The old Testament, written to the Jews, was recorded in Hebrew. Moses, being educated in Egypt, more likely wrote in Egyptian or Canaanite, which was translated into Hebrew. It is also entirely possible that the originals were recorded in the language of Ur. Regardless, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they were translated into Hebrew by men inspired by God. Incidentally, the 10 Commandments, carved by God, were said to be in Hebrew. They were the target audience.

Maturity and maturation are not synonyms. Maturity is the adult state AFTER things have grown and developed. Created mature means that not only were all the animals of reproductive age at creation, not only were the trees bearing fruit and the plants fully developed, that the earth was in the perfect mature state to support survival, complete with all the resources man would need. God didn't have to let the earth simmer for a few billion years to get ready.

We have preserved copies. Please learns something about history. Which is why King James gathered 40 of the top Hebrew experts in the world to translate over 400 years ago. They used the copies preserved in Antioch, Syria because those were the most perfectly preserved copies. They arranged the writings into verses and books to make it easier to read, but they were very careful to preserve the original text. I already demonstrated that conclusively. You can't get a copyright on ANYTHING without making significant changes. Plus, there are many verses and words just left out. Do you know the difference between "His only begotten son," and "one and only son," or "unique son?" Satan could be called a "unique son" as well. In fact, some heresies teach that Satan and Christ were brothers. Why do you think all false teachers have their place in the lake of fire? God takes His word very seriously. The fact that whales are mentioned by name as coming before any land dwelling animals; proof that they didn't "evolve." Great creatures could be perverted to mean dinosaurs. I've already proved that you don't understand the context of the reference. It shows that Jesus, the prophets, the disciples, and most of the key figures in the Bible referenced the book of Genesis for validation and emphasis; a concept you have yet to understand.

All distractions aside, does anyone have any Biblically compatible reasons why we should not conclude that the creation of a mature universe is a solid established fact?

THERE IS NO ORIGINAL HEBREW!! We have copies of copies. The original scrolls were preserved by meticulous copies, NOT by being hermetically sealed in mayonnaise jars. The most accurate of theses came out of Antioch, Syria. The CORRUPTED copies from Alexandria, Egypt are what all modern revisions are based on. Those revisions have copyrights, which they COULD NOT HAVE without changing the original text. The NIV, the second most popular English version of the Bible, was released in 1978. The KJV came out in 1611. Would you say that 400 years of copies of copies would lead to greater or lesser accuracy? KJV: Genesis 1:21 “And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” NIV: Genesis 1:21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. The KJV mentions whales by name, stating that whales existed before any land animals. The NIV does not mention whales, making it more compatible with the godless theory of evolution. That's just one example. There are many, many more. Your reference material is flawed and corrupted. The heresy you profess was made up by men in the 17th century. Your "original Hebrew" dates all the way back to the 1970's. That, my friend, is reality. Deny it all you want. How important was Genesis to the rest of the Bible? Did anyone else quote from it? Here is a total for you: Quotes: 302 Allusions: 493 Possible allusions: 138 Total: 933 You base your heresy on two quotes you don't understand. What about the other 931 references to Genesis?

Did anyone ever point out to you that Greek and Hebrew are different languages? Moses wrote in Hebrew. He was educated in Egypt. Either demonstrate that Moses was educated in the Greek language or admit that this is just another smokescreen from someone who attempts to discredit the Bible with every post.

I have explained it. You can't comprehend it. Gap theory originated in the 1700's and the ONLY Bible translations that make allowance for your distortions were written toward the end of the 20th century. The Bible is NOT copyrighted. ALL the newer versions are. You cannot have a new copyright without making significant changes to the previous material. Thus, ALL modern revisions are corrupted. Try finding these verses in the NIV: Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44 and 9:46, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, John 5:3–4, Acts 8:37. There are more, also. How can you pretend that your newer, corrupted versions are accurate when they completely omit verses?

You said nothing that can be observed can be formless. I proved you wrong. Now you are distorting what you said. Do I need to quote your post back to you? Point made.

Please present your proof that Moses knew the definition of the more modern word, “sphere.” If you spent half the time reading the Bible as you do trying to find ways to discredit it, you could identify as a Biblical scholar.

So, one cannot see clouds, smoke, steam, water, milk, soda or any other formless liquid that takes the shape of its container. One cannot observe a fire. Or, perhaps, you’re just plain wrong.

At some point in your life you will stop lying about believing in the Bible as written being a modern revision. I may not be around to see it, but it will be a good thing.

The word is "incorruptible." Your 17th century heresy supported with 20th century re-translations of the Bible has no validity whatsoever.

No, I re-stated what your post said. Genesis was written in ancient Hebrew, about 550 BC. Your post referenced the 14th century. What ancient Greeks knew or thought they knew has no relevance to the language Moses used. Much like when you accuse the Bible of being wrong because fractions did not exist when Solomon was alive.

Nobody cares about your tofu waffles, your inability to understand using a Biblical reference, or your inability to comprehend the existence of homonyms. The contention that there existed a previous world before the sun, moon, stars, light, heat, life of any form or even dry land is contradicted both by Scripture and by science. You make the same posts regardless of the subject matter of the thread. You don't convince anyone.

Science is used by unbelievers to justify their disbelief. That doesn't make science bad, but what people do with it is bad. Many use claims of science to discredit the Bible. They don't understand that an omnipotent God could create another world exactly like this one, complete with skyscrapers and electric cars that don't work in cold weather, simply by telling it to exist. Nothing in science can account for that. No study of the natural world can prove or disprove the supernatural. Science can't move a mountain by telling it to move, but God can. Ultimately, you have to choose whether your God is the Creator or the creation.

One day you will realize that you are criticizing an English translation with an English translation, and then you'll see why people see your posts as comedy. Your ruin/reconstruction theory is a good example of eisegesis. You (and others here) distort the text to fit your beliefs rather than adjusting your beliefs to conform with the Scriptures.

From your link: Also from late 14c. in the general sense of "a globe; object of spherical form, a ball," and in the geometric sense of "solid figure with all points equidistant from the center." So in your world the 14th century came before 550BC? That explains a lot.

From your quote: From late 14c. in reference to any of the supposed concentric, transparent, hollow, crystalline globes of the cosmos believed to revolve around the earth and contain the planets and the fixed stars; the supposed harmonious sound they made rubbing against one another was the music of the spheres. That IS what I said.

They didn't have pages back then. They had scrolls. The Bible is the word of God, whether written on scrolls, carved into stone tablets or made into leather bound books. And that was 2,000 years ago. 4+2=6. Genesis `1:1 is a summary statement. The description of how it came about begins with verse 2. The answer to that would be the same one God used in response to Job. God created the world the way He did because He chose to do so. He told us how He did it. No. He formed the world over a period of six days. Other people claim it got destroyed and had to be restored. God described a meticulous process to Job. The six day creation is the precedent for the six day work week. Exactly. That's how you know that verse one is a summary, and not a specific act of creation. As are mine. We may view those words differently, but at least I haven't seen you distort them like some do. The world is full of them. That's why we each need to study God's word, so we are not deceived by the opinions of others.

If your opinion cannot withstand scrutiny, perhaps you should re-think it. One day ALL of our actions will be questioned. Are your positions Biblical or non-Biblical? Do they support or contradict Scripture? I say prove it. If it's real you can prove it. If it's flawed you can IMPROVE it. I was raised to believe in an old earth. I have NEVER found support for it in the Bible without distorting the text text or taking verses out of context. The older I get, the more I believe in the inerrant nature of the Bible as written.

And yet, that IS the sum total of your posts here. God said He created everything in six days, you say He did not. Paul pointed out that sin and death came to the world because Adam disobeyed God. You say there was an entire existence long before Adam. You pretend there was a universe before the first day. The Bible teaches the universe was created on day four. You seem to think that quoting Scripture changes the Scripture instead of impacting the quote. You have been shown wrong dozens of times and you post the same, oft refuted things. This thread was about the condition of the world at its creation. You use it to promote your favorite heresy. ALL threads to you are for promoting your favorite heresy.