Why Faith VS. Science, and not Faith AND Science?

[~candice~]

But I will concede your are mostly right, your sources dont say there is uncertainty

i just corrrected your statement until you can post something from a legitimate source saying that my hebrew sources and the Hebrews putting out the definitions, were wrong..

As for saying the one didnt even address the right word, i dont know what youre reaing but it wasnt my source.,..

so wheres yours?

my bet is you have none but youll post anything else in your usual way, totally avoiding the fact and trying to disguise the fact, that you have no source but your own wishful hopeful opinion... which means squat to me

This has proved to be one of the most frustrating threads I have participated in here at Worthy. Your quote above is only half a sentence and the remaining portion of the sentence is required for completeness and honest discussion. Gator has just shown exactly what you asked him to show. Your own hebrew sources clearly highlight the ambiguity here. And yet you still will not concede that there is ambiguity here. Instead, you have resorted to emotion driven retorts like what you said above. Can you please debate the topic, and not the person. My time here is done.

Edited July 30, 2009 by ~andy~

[WolfBitn]

But I will concede your are mostly right, your sources dont say there is uncertainty

i just corrrected your statement until you can post something from a legitimate source saying that my hebrew sources and the Hebrews putting out the definitions, were wrong..

As for saying the one didnt even address the right word, i dont know what youre reaing but it wasnt my source.,..

so wheres yours?

my bet is you have none but youll post anything else in your usual way, totally avoiding the fact and trying to disguise the fact, that you have no source but your own wishful hopeful opinion... which means squat to me

This has proved to be one of the most frustrating threads I have participated in here at Worthy. Your quote above is only half a sentence and the remaining portion of the sentence is required for completeness and honest discussion. Gator has just shown exactly what you asked him to show. Your own hebrew sources clearly highlight the ambiguity here. And yet you still will not concede that there is ambiguity here. Instead, you have resorted to emotion driven retorts like what you said above. Can you please debate the topic, and not the person. My time here is done.

I debated the topic... Andy heres what to do

You nor gator accept the fact that these sources FROM HEBREW sites state exactly what i said they do... thats fine... what you COULD do if it were available to you, would be to post a reputable link like i posted over a half dozen stating my case... YOU or gator post a link saying this IS controvercial and that scholars ARE NOT in agreement... youve BOTH stated it but you have no source but your own opinion... ive even SHOWN you how the word is uised and others have chipped in as well stating the same. Its FINE you dont accept my sources, but now give me one of your own stating your case and youll have something... if you cant do that much then i understand your frustration lol

[~candice~]

You still don't get it. We used your sources to disprove the argument put forth by you that there is but one translation for hayak in Gen 1:2, and that is 'became'. Your own sources give a variety of meanings, including 'was'. We used your sources to disprove your theory and we don't need to provide any more evidence to assert our position, which is that there is at least some ambiguity here.

[WolfBitn]

You still don't get it. We used your sources to disprove the argument put forth by you that there is but one translation for hayak in Gen 1:2, and that is 'became'. Your own sources give a variety of meanings, including 'was'. We used your sources to disprove your theory and we don't need to provide any more evidence to assert our position, which is that there is at least some ambiguity here.

Andy im afraid its you that dont get it lol

My sources even show how 'was' is used just as ive stated... your opinion of my sources dont mean a thing when it comes down to it... what they say DOES...

Now

Can you find ANY source making AN OUTRIGHT CLAIM... stating that this words translation (Hayah) is controversial? THAT is your claim... back it up please with your own source

I am going to submit right now that such a claim from ANY legitimate source will not be found

If youre right youll find it stated in EVERY legitimate hebrew site GIVING this definition

[~candice~]

You still don't get it. We used your sources to disprove the argument put forth by you that there is but one translation for hayak in Gen 1:2, and that is 'became'. Your own sources give a variety of meanings, including 'was'. We used your sources to disprove your theory and we don't need to provide any more evidence to assert our position, which is that there is at least some ambiguity here.

Andy im afraid its you that dont get it lol

My sources even show how 'was' is used just as ive stated... your opinion of my sources dont mean a thing when it comes down to it... what they say DOES...

Now

Can you find ANY source making AN OUTRIGHT CLAIM... stating that this words translation (Hayah) is controversial? THAT is your claim... back it up please with your own source

I am going to submit right now that such a claim from ANY legitimate source will not be found

If youre right youll find it stated in EVERY legitimate hebrew site GIVING this definition

http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/earthsage.htm

The article takes your position, that is, that the translation of 'hayah' in Gen 1:2 should be 'became', however it does go to great lengths to discuss the fact that there has been much discussion and controversy about the translation.

I quote directly

Some scholars propose that Genesis 1:2 can or should be translated "Now the earth became without form, and void . . ." as opposed to the common rendering "The earth was without form, and void . . ." Others dismiss this idea entirely. They assume the original Hebrew word hayah must be translated "was" and then assume the earth was originally created in this disorderly way.

However, as can be seen from many Bible helps, both translations of the term are possible.

Edited July 30, 2009 by ~andy~

[WolfBitn]

Excellent source andy thank you

Now lets look at this. According to this source yes there are some people that disagree, but these are people insisting that 'WAS' is strictly used without variation. Let me go on to show the rest of what this article says...

Some scholars propose that Genesis 1:2 can or should be translated "Now the earth became without form, and void . . ." as opposed to the common rendering "The earth was without form, and void . . ." Others dismiss this idea entirely. They assume the original Hebrew word hayah must be translated "was" and then assume the earth was originally created in this disorderly way.

Only the context of the chapter and book can determine which one is correct. Gleason Archer, professor of biblical languages, comments:

"It should be noted in this connection that the verb was in Genesis 1:2 may quite possibly be rendered 'became' and be construed to mean: 'And the earth became formless and void.' Only a cosmic catastrophe could account for the introduction of chaotic confusion into the original perfection of God's creation. This interpretation certainly seems to be exegetically tenable . . ." (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 1974, p. 184).

In a footnote Archer adds, "Properly speaking, this verb hayah never has the meaning of static being like the copular verb 'to be.' Its basic notion is that of becoming or emerging as such and such, or of coming into being . . .

...So also in Gen[esis] 4:20: 'Jabal became the father of tent dwellers.' Therefore there can be no grammatical objection raised to translating Gen[esis] 1:2: 'And the earth became a wasteness and desolation'" (ibid.).

...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.

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 originthat it was invented simply as a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with geologyis 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).

This is what i was saying Andy... when studying the grammer and word usage most scholars agree that the earth WAS laid waste and void the more they know about the language and the more studued they are into it.

There ARE those who disagree but they have no basis for disagreement as this source shows. Word usage is very important... like eve WAS the mother of all living... this is furture tense, and was is used the same way elsewhere

Here are some examples

Gen 4:14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, [that] every one that findeth me shall slay me.

Gen 9:26 And he said, Blessed [be] the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Gen 10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

Gen 11:3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

Gen 13:3 And he went on his journeys from the south even to Bethel, unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Bethel and Hai;

Gen 13:8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we [be] brethren.

Gen 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I [am] thy shield, [and] thy exceeding great reward.

Gen 24:60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou [art] our sister, be thou [the mother] of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them.

^^^EVERY ONE of those bolded words are from the Hebrew 'herah'

I think this may help andy. Honestly the more one knows about 'hayah' the more it becomes certain that it has a natural intoning of a furture tence as 'it became' or 'came to pass' or 'was made void'

Its not Hebrew scholars i might add, who have a problem with this word... only a few and they arent hebrew... at least none ive ever seen or read about. Like this article you posted shows, the more one studies it the more convinced they are that this is the proper translation and the Hebrews are actually right about this

God bless you little sistah

[WolfBitn]

Excellent source andy thank you

Now lets look at this. According to this source yes there are some people that disagree, but these are people insisting that 'WAS' is strictly used without variation. Let me go on to show the rest of what this article says...

which is ALL ANYONE IS SAYING. No one is saying that the "was" could not be "became", we are saying that it is not a STONE COLD HARD FACT like you have put forth.

The ignorance of this statement is painful lol

There ARE those who disagree but they have no basis for disagreement as this source shows. Word usage is very important... like eve WAS the mother of all living... this is furture tense, and was is used the same way elsewhere

You arrogance knows no bounds does it.

trust me, you outdo it with ignorant statements

Here are examples of "hayah" not being future tense... (absolutely hillarious... im amazed you dont see how this is used EXACTLY how i told you gator lolol... )

Ge 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was(hayah) light. (God created te earth and there was a waste and a void)

Ge 3:1 Now the serpent was(hayah) more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (JUST LIKE SAYING the world was MADE voided of life and wasted)

Ge 27:1 And it came to pass, that when Isaac was(hayah) old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Esau his eldest son, and said unto him, My son: and he said unto him, Behold, here am I. (And it came to pass when the world was wasted)

Ex 11:6 And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was(hayah) none like it, nor shall be like it any more. (YOU REALLY DONT see the future tense here? incredable lol... you appear to love to argue just to argue)

Nu 31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was(hayah) a plague among the congregation of the LORD. (there WAS a waste and a void among the life on earth)

There is nothing in the grammatical structure of Gen 1:2 that requires the "was" to be future tense, the only reason it "has to be" is so that it will fit with your view of things.

yup uh huh... you know better than Hebrew scholars ...ok i believe you

i do thank you for the laugh first thing in the morning lolol,

God bless ya dude have a good day lol...

[nebula]

Hitchey!

You've associated the wrong names with the quotes.

... why would God need to create light if "God is light"? (Just think about it.)

It seems to me that the phrase God is light is a metaphor. If God radiated light maybe we could spot Him with a telescope.

That was me who said that.

As for my reply to your rebuttal: God can hold the universe in the palm of His hand, so you can't pin-point Him like that.

It does not say that God created light, just that he said "let there be light"

Pretty much amounts to the same thing doesn't it? Otherwise might not scripture proclaim God saying, "Let there be more light."

Not my quote.

OK, so why did the Lord need to say, "Let there be light"? Where did the darkness come from?

Darkness is present in the absence of light. RunningGator has a point there. Perhaps the biblical presumption was that God could see in the dark and didn't need light (of course if nothing existed then there was nothing to see). He created light for us, not for himself (He was God. He didn't need light. Unless, of course, you think God needed light?).

Again, that was me.

In the Bible, God is described as having light emanating from Him, so much that it is blinding. So, how could there be darkness where God is?

[WolfBitn]

Venus DOES in fact have a vapor of water surrounding its atmosphere....

No, no, no, no, no. Venus has a very thick atmosphere with a cloud cover of sulfer dioxide and sulferic acid, that IS its atmosphere and it is not "vapor of water". Venus is also the hottest planet in the solar system which has something to do with it as well. In order to suspend that much water vapor in air you need to raise the temperature of the atmosphere significantly, here are some basics.

"There is an upper limit to the amount of water vapor that can be present in a given mass of air. That is, there is a limit to the capacity of air to "hold" water vapor. When that limit is reached, we say that the air is saturated with water vapor.

One way to represent the maximum amount of water vapor that can be "mixed with" a given amount of air--that is, the maximum capacity of air to "hold" water vapor--is the saturation mixing ratio. We usually express saturation mixing ratio as the number of grams of water vapor that would have to be "mixed with" each kilogram of air to saturate the air.

The maximum capacity of air to hold water vapor depends on the temperature of the air. Warmer air is capable of holding more water vapor than cooler air is."

http://funnel.sfsu.edu/courses/metr3...moist_sum.html

This is not to say that warm air always has more water vapor, only that it has a higher capacity to retain water vapor than colder air. At 30 degrees C the maximum humidity ratio of water to air is 0.027125 (kilograms of water/kilograms of air). You simply can't get enough water into the atmosphere without raising the temperature past plausible limits. Simple math.

You must have missed what i said... there is VERY LITTLE water on venus and NONE on the planet itself... the water that DOES exist remains in the atmosphere and this is verified by HUNDREDS of papers form universities, observatiries, and other scientific research...

The point being that a CANOPY surrounding the atmosphere is NOT far fetched as you postulate with no source

Yes of course other things exist in that canopy but ALL the water on the planet is also found there

[artsylady]

The point being that a CANOPY surrounding the atmosphere is NOT far fetched as you postulate with no source

If it had not been mentioned in Genesis, it would be a reasonable theory to explore.