Does The Bible Examine Dark Matter?

[pianodwarf]

Also. I guess everyone must be stupid. Since people use the term moonlight to describe the light from the moon. Poor fools don't even realize its not really a light source!

That's simply due to convention, nothing more.  We also talk about the sun rising and setting, even though we know that's not actually what it does; that, too, is simply due to convention.  For that matter -- in English, at least -- we still talk about things like "dialing a phone number" even though phone calls are no longer placed by dialing.

So why making the exception for the Bible?

I'm not "making an exception", per se.  I'm pointing out that the fact that it uses such conventions and makes scientific errors is a demonstration that it was not divinely inspired.  If it were, it would not contain the fundamental errors that it does.

[Seppuku]

1c1) to give light, shine (of sun, moon, and stars)

The Hebrew definition itself suggests that the moon gives light rather than reflects it. From this we can safely say that when the bible talks about the moon. This helps put the moon and the bible into context, I think this more strongly suggests that the bible is suggesting that the moon gives light.

Matthew 24:29 actually says, "the moon shall not give her light".

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

The moon does no such 'giving'. This also correlates with how its defined in Hebrew and how the 'sun' and 'stars' are also described as giving light.

Which was my point. So why should we make the Bible the exception. The Hebrews used a lot of imagery and poetry.

But you were suggesting that the bible suggests that the moon reflects light rather than emits it. It's interesting that you go from suggesting how the bible suggests the moon reflects light and that in this respect the bible is accurate that when shown that this isn't accurate it's not about the literal interpretation of the bible, but it is a part of their imagery and poetry. If it was just poetry and not anything literal, then you would have stated it instead of having us follow you around on the literal interpretation of the bible, where it is the innerrant word of God and is therefore factual and not a piece of literature. In fact, it's quite common for people here when shown wrong about their assumptions of the bible for them to fall back and say, "but it's a metaphor", even if it wasn't what they were claiming to begin with.

If it was a part of their imagery and poetry, the Hebrew definition would not suggest the moon 'gives' light either nor would it group the moon with the sun and stars in that respect. The definition of 'moonlight' does even say the moon gives light, because if it did, as a definition it'd be innaccurate. It's definition is simple, "the light of the moon", which is actually pretty non-specific. Given it's 14th Century, I suspect it's possible that when the term was first coined it was viewed that the moon did give light, but as we know the moon doesn't give light, it takes on a different meaning (as language evolves like that) to suit what we know to be true.

[SwayzesGhost]

The Hebrew definition itself suggests that the moon gives light rather than reflects it. From this we can safely say that when the bible talks about the moon. This helps put the moon and the bible into context, I think this more strongly suggests that the bible is suggesting that the moon gives light.


Matthew 24:29 actually says, "the moon shall not give her light".

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

The moon does no such 'giving'. This also correlates with how its defined in Hebrew and how the 'sun' and 'stars' are also described as giving light.

Yes the moon is giving light.  If Someone gives me 10 dollars then  I  give you though those 10 dollars would you claim I didn't give you 10 dollars and that the other guy did? 

In  fact you intentionally ignored these  definitions “to be or become light” and “to be illuminated or become lighted up.” These definitions fit the idea that moon is reflecting the light from the sun. as provided in the definitions

At first, it appears that the Bible has committed a huge scientific fail. However, before the skeptic can credibly present this challenge, he must first consider one thing - The Hebrew words or ("light") and ma'or ("lights"), both used to describe the moon and the "light" it gives to the earth, do not absolutely define their source of light. The Hebrew word or (Strong's 0215), which is translated "light" in verse 15, can mean both “to be or become light” and “to be illuminated or become lighted up.” Interestingly, the same word is also used in Proverbs 29:13, which states the the Lord gives light to the eyes of both the oppressor and the poor man.[5] In short, or does not guarantee that the one who possesses the light is the one who actually produces the light. Likewise, the Hebrew word ma'or (Strong's 3974), used to identify the sun and moon, does not absolutely define their source of light. The word literally means "place of light,"[6] and is used in the Old Testament to identify the celestial bodies, the lights of the Tabernacle, and metaphorically of a face or eyes that "shine."[7] Interestingly enough, ma'or is most commonly used to describe the lights of the Tabernacle - lights which are clearly not self-producing lights![8] In summary, neither or or ma'or necessarily describe self-producing lights, but rather simply identify the presence of light, both of which perfectly describe the moon's light-giving ability.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Bible does not err in calling the moon a "luminary" since the Hebrew words or and ma'or do not directly identify the source of light, but only proclaim that light is present. From a practical perspective, no two words could better describe the role of the moon in God's creative purpose. In matters such as these, one should always be careful to examine the language behind any given word so as not to falsely assume that an error is present.

http://fortherecordapologetics.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-it-okay-for-bible-to-classify-moon.html

But you were suggesting that the bible suggests that the moon reflects light rather than emits it. It's interesting that you go from suggesting how the bible suggests the moon reflects light and that in this respect the bible is accurate that when shown that this isn't accurate it's not about the literal interpretation of the bible, but it is a part of their imagery and poetry. If it was just poetry and not anything literal, then you would have stated it instead of having us follow you around on the literal interpretation of the bible, where it is the innerrant word of God and is therefore factual and not a piece of literature. In fact, it's quite common for people here when shown wrong about their assumptions of the bible for them to fall back and say, "but it's a metaphor", even if it wasn't what they were claiming to begin with.

If it was a part of their imagery and poetry, the Hebrew definition would not suggest the moon 'gives' light either nor would it group the moon with the sun and stars in that respect. The definition of 'moonlight' does even say the moon gives light, because if it did, as a definition it'd be innaccurate. It's definition is simple, "the light of the moon", which is actually pretty non-specific. Given it's 14th Century, I suspect it's possible that when the term was first coined it was viewed that the moon did give light, but as we know the moon doesn't give light, it takes on a different meaning (as language evolves like that) to suit what we know to be true.

My mention of imagery and poetry was a little off topic and didn't specifically  have to do with the topic at hand.

[SwayzesGhost]

The narrative of the fourth creation day states:

    Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,”’ and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. (Gen. 1:14-19)

Young-Earth View

Young-earth creationists claim God created the Sun, Moon, and stars in an instant.
Old-Earth View

Old-earth creationists -contend the Sun, Moon, and stars were created “in the beginning” as part of the “heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). On the fourth day, God caused the atmosphere to clear so these heavenly bodies became visible for the first time from the surface of the Earth to mark signs, seasons, days and years.



Exegetical Support

While English translations can make it sound as though God created the Sun, Moon and stars that instant, the Hebrew text indicates otherwise. First, the text states God “made” (????h) the lights, not that He “created” (b?r?’) them. Asah expresses the idea of producing something from pre-existing material, not the idea of bringing something into existence that did not exist before (b?r?’).60 Also, the verb asah does not specify when God created the heavenly bodies, only that he completed the action. Second, the Hebrew “Let there be...” does not imply the creation of the heavenly bodies in the sense of their coming into existence.61 “Let there be” is completed with the purpose clause “to separate.” Thus, the narrative focuses on the function of the lights rather than their origin.62 Third, the Hebrew “and it was so” denotes a completed action–that the sun and moon had performed the functions God commanded, serving as signs for years, seasons and days. This could not be accomplished in a 24-hour period. All of these things argue against an instantaneous creation of the Sun, Moon and stars.

It is also important to remember that the Hebrew phrase “the heavens and the earth” (hashamayim we ha ‘erets) in Genesis 1:1 encompasses everything in the physical universe. As previously discussed, this interpretation is supported by the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,63 Vine64 and Grudem.65 Bruce Waltke also confirms that hashamayim we ha ‘erets refers to the totality of the physical universe, all matter and energy and whatever else it contains.66 Thus, the Hebrew text clearly states the Sun, Moon and stars were created “in the beginning” and not on the fourth day.

For these reasons, many Bible scholars believe Genesis 1:16 is more accurately interpreted as meaning God had made the heavenly bodies prior to the fourth day. Gleason Archer states: “The Hebrew verb wayya`as’ in verse 16 should better be rendered ‘Now [God] had made the two great luminaries...”67 Wayne Grudem states: “[had made] can be taken as perfects indicating what God had done before... This view would imply that God had made the sun, moon, and stars earlier... or allowed them to be seen from the earth on Day 4.”68 Harris, Archer, and Waltke state: “Verse 16 should not be understood as indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the fourth creative day; rather it informs us that the sun, moon, and stars were created on Day 1.”69 And, James Montgomery Boice states: “It is not said that these [sun, moon, and stars] were created on the fourth day; they were created in the initial creative work of God referred to in Genesis 1:1.”70


http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/six_days_of_creation.html

[Zankuu]

I could probably metaphorically twist the literal Babylonian creation myth so it would look as if it fit with our current scientific understanding of the universe.

[SwayzesGhost]

I could probably metaphorically twist the literal Babylonian creation myth so it would look as if it fit with our current scientific understanding of the universe.

 
Claiming that the bible is making a scientific inaccuracy when the text doesn't support it, is twisting.  The difference is I'm not twisting anything. I didn't twist  'heavens and earth" or day 1 of creation. In order for you to support that the moon and sun were created on day 4, it requires you to ignore  day 1. Twisting.

Claiming that  the bible says the moon is a light source is twisting. When it doesn't even define the source of the light.  When in fact the definition can support that that the moon  is reflecting light.

[Graybeard]

Claiming that the bible is making a scientific inaccuracy when the text doesn't support it, is twisting.  The difference is I'm not twisting anything. I didn't twist  'heavens and earth" or day 1 of creation. In order for you to support that the moon and sun were created on day 4, it requires you to ignore  day 1. Twisting.

Claiming that  the bible says the moon is a light source is twisting. When it doesn't even define the source of the light.  When in fact the definition can support that that the moon  is reflecting light.

OK, was the Earth created in 7 of our Earth days?

Please do not twist the definition of "days".

[Seppuku]

Yes the moon is giving light.  If Someone gives me 10 dollars then  I  give you though those 10 dollars would you claim I didn't give you 10 dollars and that the other guy did? 

In  fact you intentionally ignored these  definitions “to be or become light” and “to be illuminated or become lighted up.” These definitions fit the idea that moon is reflecting the light from the sun. as provided in the definitions

I chose the definition that was most relevant, namely, the one that actually talks about 'light' in context of the moon. A single word has multiple definitions for different contexts. The context I chose? The moon, sun and stars. The same definition the bible uses in the quote I chose from the bible. So yes, the other definitions are irrelevant. Imagine if I was using the word 'smart' and put it in the context of somebody's appearance, one of its alternative definitions like one referring to a person's intelligence, it would be irrelevant. A word may be used differently in different contexts.

The advantage here is that you can see the context the bible uses the word 'light'. Matthew 24 does this for us. In this quote it actually says, "the moon will not give her light". So according to the bible, the moon 'gives' light.

As for the action of 'giving'. Your analogy doesn't fit, in your analogy ownership is passed, but no object can possess 'ownership' of light - or at least in that way, instead it reflects it. It'd be more like me throwing a ball at the wall and you catching it. The wall hasn't given you the ball, the wall has not possessed ownership of the ball, it has just reflected it to you. I'm the 'actor' here, not the wall.

[SwayzesGhost]

Claiming that the bible is making a scientific inaccuracy when the text doesn't support it, is twisting.  The difference is I'm not twisting anything. I didn't twist  'heavens and earth" or day 1 of creation. In order for you to support that the moon and sun were created on day 4, it requires you to ignore  day 1. Twisting.

Claiming that  the bible says the moon is a light source is twisting. When it doesn't even define the source of the light.  When in fact the definition can support that that the moon  is reflecting light.

OK, was the Earth created in 7 of our Earth days?

Please do not twist the definition of "days".

I believe in long creation days

The Hebrew word for day is "yom" It can man a 12 hr period. 24 hrs, or a undisclosed period of time.

Genesis  indicates long periods of creation.

[SwayzesGhost]

The advantage here is that you can see the context the bible uses the word 'light'. Matthew 24 does this for us. In this quote it actually says, "the moon will not give her light". So according to the bible, th
e moon 'gives' light.

'Give'  is irrelevant to the light being reflected or a source. Either way the moon is still giving light. You are arguing semantics in this regard.


Bottom line. The only thing established is the presence of light. Not that the moon is a source of light.

[Seppuku]

The advantage here is that you can see the context the bible uses the word 'light'. Matthew 24 does this for us. In this quote it actually says, "the moon will not give her light". So according to the bible, th
e moon 'gives' light.

'Give'  is irrelevant to the light being reflected or a source. Either way the moon is still giving light. You are arguing semantics in this regard.


Bottom line. The only thing established is the presence of light. Not that the moon is a source of light.

Your saying 'source' is a poor choice of words, but the Hebrew definition and the word of God with 'give'? I'm just arguing semantics.

It's a question of what words actually mean. The moon is doing no such giving, it is the sun and the stars. The bible groups the moon with the light givers too (as does the Hebrew definition you offered). You might say 'giving' if you're being figurative. But how do we go from arguing a literal interpretation of the bible to a figurative/metaphorical one? It's the word of God, why the ambiguity?

[SwayzesGhost]

Your saying 'source' is a poor choice of words, but the Hebrew definition and the word of God with 'give'? I'm just arguing semantics.

It's a question of what words actually mean. The moon is doing no such giving, it is the sun and the stars. The bible groups the moon with the light givers too (as does the Hebrew definition you offered). You might say 'giving' if you're being figurative. But how do we go from arguing a literal interpretation of the bible to a figurative/metaphorical one? It's the word of God, why the ambiguity?

A literal interpretation is not a absence of figure of speech, imagery,etc. The bible mentions 4 corners but no one with  elementary reading skills would honestly assume that this is implying the earth is a flat square. Though I have seen atheists use this as argument that the earth is flat. Its clear that 4 corners is a idiom  for the directions on a compass.  Even from a literal perspective ''give' still does not imply the moon is a source of light.  A mailman can give you mail but he certainly doesn't own, nor is the source of the mail. 

[Seppuku]

Again that's a problem with the analogy you choose to use. The moon's giving is the same as a wall's giving. When I throw a ball at a wall it bounces and you catch it, is the wall giving you the ball or is it reflecting it?

Figures of speech and imagery make the bible ambiguous, this enters the realm of what we tend to call the magic decoder ring. How does one tell what's a metaphor and what's meant to be taken at literal face value? My reading into the word 'give' and the definition offered 'gives light' in a very literal face value. The moon gives light, therefore the moon gives light. Yes, it could be different, but all you're showing me is that it's ambiguous. The word of God shouldn't be ambiguous because it makes it easy for people to misread it, which would probably explain why there's ~38,000  sects of Christianity, each with their own version of the message of God. How can we determine truthful statements from figurative ones?

It doesn't matter when the document is a piece of literature (because it's not factual) or can be cross referenced with another document. Unfortunately, that really doesn't apply to the bible.

[edit]

Bear in mind also you were previously saying the bible suggests that the moon reflects light and doesn't suggest anything about being the source of light (and you corrected yourself on your own wording) as to disprove the idea that the bible suggests the moon emits light. The bible doesn't explicitly say either, but if you were to look at it literally, it suggests it's a source of light but if you look at it figuratively, it can mean anything. So, it's not as if we started talking about figurative language or the bible passages in that context.

[SwayzesGhost]

Again that's a problem with the analogy you choose to use. The moon's giving is the same as a wall's giving. When I throw a ball at a wall it bounces and you catch it, is the wall giving you the ball or is it reflecting it

Figures of speech and imagery make the bible ambiguous, this enters the realm of what we tend to call the magic decoder ring. How does one tell what's a metaphor and what's meant to be taken at literal face value? My reading into the word 'give' and the definition offered 'gives light' in a very literal face value. The moon gives light, therefore the moon gives light. Yes, it could be different, but all you're showing me is that it's ambiguous. The word of God shouldn't be ambiguous because it makes it easy for people to misread it, which would probably explain why there's ~38,000  sects of Christianity, each with their own version of the message of God. How can we determine truthful statements from figurative ones?

?

If the moon bit is ambiguous why worry about? It seems nothing is given or taken away. No light source is established.  Also non living things can't actually give something. Can we say the sun is giving us light? Its not actually giving it to us. So it seems rather pointless to dismiss that the moon is giving light via reflection.

Bear in mind also you were previously saying the bible suggests that the moon reflects light and doesn't suggest anything about being the source of light (and you corrected yourself on your own wording) as to disprove the idea that the bible suggests the moon emits light. The bible doesn't explicitly say either, but if you were to look at it literally, it suggests it's a source of light but if you look at it figuratively, it can mean anything. So, it's not as if we started talking about figurative language or the bible passages in that context.

Wait. I don't remember setting out to prove the moon reflects light. I think pretty early on,  even before you got here, I said that the passages establish no claims for either or.

I implied there might be hints,  that it does reflect light, but nothing I would make a claim on as they would be ambiguous.



Also, I think we might have hit a dead end to this particularly subject on the moon.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Or just accept that the passage is ambiguous

[Seppuku]

Swayze

Wait. I don't remember setting out to prove the moon reflects light. I think pretty early on,  even before you got here, I said that the passages establish no claims for either or.

Okay, I'll accept that it's possible this was your intention, you did correct yourself on your poor choices of words after all, I'm not sure if there was anything really before your misuse of words when talking about the bible and moonlight.

If the moon bit is ambiguous why worry about? It seems nothing is given or taken away. No light source is established.  Also non living things can't actually give something. Can we say the sun is giving us light? Its not actually giving it to us. So it seems rather pointless to dismiss that the moon is giving light via reflection.

The main point is that the bible is not infallible. The issue of ambiguity actually extends beyond this passage where one group of people might take it at face value and then the other may take it at a pure metaphorical level - this applies pretty much throughout the bible. A different example would be talking to a Creationist and a non-Creationist. The Creationist will take the story of genesis and say, "yep, this stuff really happened, the bible is 100% accurate here, God literally made the world in 6 days an it happened exactly as the bible tells it, word for word because it is the infallible word of God". Then on the other hand (and this was an argument a preacher friend gave to me) the story is allegorical, if somebody takes the literal reading of it, they miss the point, it's an allegory of God's greatness, it's the grand opening to a great story and tells you how great and powerful this God is. There's also the claim that the days aren't like our 24 hour days but represent the steps God took in creating the universe and there's other explanations out there.

It's interesting because on both accounts nobody will suggest the bible is wrong (obviously they wouldn't as their faith requires the bible to be truthful), where the failure is for the two examples is different of course, the first suggest science is wrong and all the evidence behind it and may as well stick their fingers in their eyes and scream 'lalalala' because in essence, that's all they're doing, whilst the second person accepts that what science is saying is realistic in that sense but suggests that what's wrong is how people read the bible.

Coming back to the moon example, I think it's important because it'd be quite plausible for the bible to claim that literally speaking, yes, the moon does give light, given at the time people might not realise the moon reflects light. Yes, God would know. It's only one example and probably a lesser one in the grand scheme of things[1], but we often do run into the problem of "how does one read the bible?"[2] And there's so, so, so, so many ways of doing it that it's simply ridiculous. Many of these readings are able to back them selves up with piles of biblical quotes as evidence. I would hope that the 'word of God' wouldn't be so difficult to get right, to me that just weakens the message. I think it's much more realistic to suggest that the bible was written by man after long periods of having the stories as part of an oral culture and are subject to human errors and biased to the standards and expectations of the culture and people of the time. But I think that would be an incredibly difficult stance for a Christian to take, but I guess I'd commend anybody who does.

1.	If you stick around we might end up discussing more of these kinds of examples, even some more significant ones
2.	Hence we use the phrase 'magic decoder ring'.

[stuffin]

@SG

When the bible was written they said it was "giving light," and that makes sense (for back then).

Today, with the knowledge that wasn't available back then, we say reflecting.

The whole point is; when they wrote the bible they had no clue that natural laws were causing things to happen. And today, xians re-interpret words to fit into the laws of nature. In reality, the bible was not written with the laws of nature in mind. The bible was written from basic observations and anything that couldn't be explained was attributed to god.

You can debate what a words means or what a word can potentially mean, but if you apply the word based on what was known at the time, they do not fit into today’s scientific understandings. But go right ahead and pretend the bible was written by god and he included dark matter in it.

[Azdgari]

Meanwhile, the entire Earth was flooded up to the highest mountain-tops in human history, recent enough to be within reach of oral tradition.  This killed all but 2 (or 7) of each species on Earth, which were all carried on a big boat for a couple of months.

I'm sure SG has a good explanation for how that's perfectly scientifically accurate.

[SwayzesGhost]

Meanwhile, the entire Earth was flooded up to the highest mountain-tops in human history, recent enough to be within reach of oral tradition.  This killed all but 2 (or 7) of each species on Earth, which were all carried on a big boat for a couple of months.

I'm sure SG has a good explanation for how that's perfectly scientifically accurate.

The flood was local, not global.

[pianodwarf]

Meanwhile, the entire Earth was flooded up to the highest mountain-tops in human history, recent enough to be within reach of oral tradition.  This killed all but 2 (or 7) of each species on Earth, which were all carried on a big boat for a couple of months.

I'm sure SG has a good explanation for how that's perfectly scientifically accurate.

The flood was local, not global.

That's not what the bible says.

[SwayzesGhost]

Meanwhile, the entire Earth was flooded up to the highest mountain-tops in human history, recent enough to be within reach of oral tradition.  This killed all but 2 (or 7) of each species on Earth, which were all carried on a big boat for a couple of months.

I'm sure SG has a good explanation for how that's perfectly scientifically accurate.

The flood was local, not global.

That's not what the bible says.

What does it say?

[pianodwarf]

Meanwhile, the entire Earth was flooded up to the highest mountain-tops in human history, recent enough to be within reach of oral tradition.  This killed all but 2 (or 7) of each species on Earth, which were all carried on a big boat for a couple of months.

I'm sure SG has a good explanation for how that's perfectly scientifically accurate.

The flood was local, not global.

That's not what the bible says.

What does it say?

*sigh*  You're really going to make me do this?  Fine.

7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 
7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 
7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 
7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

{King James Version}

This is clearly a description of a global event, not a local one.

[SwayzesGhost]

*sigh*  You're really going to make me do this?  Fine.

7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 
7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 
7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 
7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

{King James Version}

This is clearly a description of a global event, not a local one.

The KJV is not a appropriate study tool for the bible. It uses archaic  language so the meaning of words can be skewed.



www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kjvo.htm



The bible usually refers to local geography and not the entire planet.

"whole earth" and "all earth"  The hebrew word "kol' means all. "erets" used in place of earth can have multiple meanings "earth," "land," "country," or "ground."


A great example

 Now the whole [kol] earth [erets] used the same language and the same words. (Genesis 11:1)


A verse from the tower of babel story. .  In this the people lived unified under one language and geographic region.  So whole earth  is actually referencing a localized area and people.


It can also refer to a lands inhabitants


"The whole [kol] earth [erets] is at rest and is quiet; They break forth into shouts of joy. (Isaiah 14:7)  The earth is not really shouting. But the people.


"All the earth will worship Thee, And will sing praises to Thee; They will sing praises to Thy name..(Psalm 66:4)


He is the LORD our God; His judgments are in all [kol] the earth [erets]. (1 Chronicles 16:14)


In most instances the use of Kol erets is always referring to a more localized geography and not a global scale.




Here a good place to start  on  a local flood interpretation

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2002/PSCF9-02Hill.pdf

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html#n06


Draw your own conclusions.

[pianodwarf]

The KJV is not a appropriate study tool for the bible. It uses archaic  language so the meaning of words can be skewed.

I used it because it's the version used by Skeptics Annotated Bible, but I'm not aware of any version of the bible that uses language that can be "skewed" any other way.  You are, in fact, the first believer I've heard who argues that the flood described in Genesis is a small local flood.  Every other believer I've ever met always tries to argue that the evidence shows it was global.

"whole earth" and "all earth"  The hebrew word "kol' means all. "erets" used in place of earth can have multiple meanings "earth," "land," "country," or "ground."

Whatever.  Genesis 7 states, with excruciatingly painful clarity, that the water went so high as to cover mountains.  Since water seeks its own level, the only way that could happen would be if the entire planet was covered with water.  It also says that all plants, animals, and people everywhere were killed except for the ones aboard the ark.  Everyone, everywhere, not just in a small area in the Middle East.

Draw your own conclusions.

Oh, I have.

[MadBunny]

*sigh*  You're really going to make me do this?  Fine.

7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 
7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 
7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 
7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

{King James Version}

This is clearly a description of a global event, not a local one.

The KJV is not a appropriate study tool for the bible. It uses archaic  language so the meaning of words can be skewed.

[Graybeard]

OK, was the Earth created in 7 of our Earth days?

Please do not twist the definition of "days".

I believe in long creation days

The Hebrew word for day is "yom" It can man a 12 hr period. 24 hrs, or a undisclosed period of time.

Genesis  indicates long periods of creation.

The KJV is not a appropriate study tool for the bible. It uses archaic  language so the meaning of words can be skewed.

Draw your own conclusions.

I have done - it's all to do with skewing words...

Genesis does nothing of the sort, and you know it. This is apologist nonsense. The 7 days are as bogus as the story of creation itself, and if that is wrong, there was no "fall" and there was no point in Jesus.

Exo 20:8  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

In all these verse, day is translated as 'yom" So, how many ages did the Sabbath last?

The Bronze Age shepherds were quite happy with the Word "years" to express a long time, as in

Gen 1:14  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Strong's Hebrew Dict.
Year: shâneh  shânâh (shaw-neh', shaw-naw') (The first form being in plural only, the second form being feminine); from H8138; a year (as a revolution of time): -  + whole age, X long, + old, year (X -ly).

All this pales into insignificance though, when we realise that it was not until the late 18th century that we began to think of the age of the Earth. (see James Hutton^Wiki) He was famously denounced as an atheist for this advance in science and also for proposing evolution 100 years before Darwin.

Now, prior to that time, no one would have said that 6 days creation was wrong. No one would have said that "Genesis  indicates long periods of creation."

But every time science makes a move, up out of the woodwork crawl all manner of apologists, desperate to find something their god might have done.

I now await any person who can twist a Bible verse to show that God knew about the Dark Matter he is said to have created.

[Emily]

SwayzesGhost, what bible do you use just to make sure your bible doesn't contain the same, or similar words, as the KJV (regarding the flood, or anything else you wish to talk about)?

[stuffin]

The KJV is not a appropriate study tool for the bible. It uses archaic  language so the meaning of words can be skewed.

I used it because it's the version used by Skeptics Annotated Bible, but I'm not aware of any version of the bible that uses language that can be "skewed" any other way.  You are, in fact, the first believer I've heard who argues that the flood described in Genesis is a small local flood.  Every other believer I've ever met always tries to argue that the evidence shows it was global.

"whole earth" and "all earth"  The hebrew word "kol' means all. "erets" used in place of earth can have multiple meanings "earth," "land," "country," or "ground."

Whatever.  Genesis 7 states, with excruciatingly painful clarity, that the water went so high as to cover mountains.  Since water seeks its own level, the only way that could happen would be if the entire planet was covered with water.  It also says that all plants, animals, and people everywhere were killed except for the ones aboard the ark.  Everyone, everywhere, not just in a small area in the Middle East.

Draw your own conclusions.

Oh, I have.

So not only are the apologists allowed to rearrange the meanings of the translated words, but they can switch bibles to help them. This is one of the problems with the bible, you can change the words and the book (bible) itself to get just about any result you want.
 
Also,

and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth:

I interpret as the water was so high the birds couldn't fly and they died too.


Here is a post from another xian; he translates the meaning of a word most would understand as local to mean global;

The Bible does not teach cosmology so it should be no surprise that science has learned more than the Bible teaches.  It has very little to say on the matter but what it does say is accurate.  It says God is sitting above the "circle of the earth".  Many scholars say the word translated "circle" can mean sphere.  That is why some translations translate it as "globe".  It also says God is "hanging the earth upon nothing."  These are both accurate statements.

whereas you do just the opposite (to prove your point) and translate a global concept to mean a local event.

We would like you (or any xian) to outline where in the bible we need to interpret a global event versus a local event. Clarity on this would be helpful in future discussions.

[SwayzesGhost]

I used it because it's the version used by Skeptics Annotated Bible, but I'm not aware of any version of the bible that uses language that can be "skewed" any other way.  You are, in fact, the first believer I've heard who argues that the flood described in Genesis is a small local flood.  Every other believer I've ever met always tries to argue that the evidence shows it was global.

there are at least 827 words and phrases in the days of King James that have changed their meaning or are no longer used in our modern, everyday English language,


Did you know that in the King James Version of the Bible the word 'advertise' means 'tell,' 'allege' means 'prove,' and 'conversation' means 'behavior'? That 'communicate' means 'share,' 'take through' means 'be anxious,' and 'prevent' means 'precede'? That 'meat' is a general term for 'food,' and 'anon' and 'by and by' translate Greek words which mean 'immediately'?

    These words -- and many like them -- made perfect sense to readers when the KJV was published in 1611. But today, after nearly four centuries of changes in English, few readers know what such words mean. And most readers miss the riches of the all-time favorite King James Bible"

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kjvo.htm

Skewed

Whatever.  Genesis 7 states, with excruciatingly painful clarity, that the water went so high as to cover mountains.  Since water seeks its own level, the only way that could happen would be if the entire planet was covered with water.  It also says that all plants, animals, and people everywhere were killed except for the ones aboard the ark.  Everyone, everywhere, not just in a small area in the Middle East.

Again "all" is not solely defined as being universal by the Hebrew definition. It can can easily refer to all  indigenous animals ,planet life, and people.

You are falling into the same trap as YEC.  Ignoring word usage, etymology, and culture of the time. Instead applying your own definitions to words that had different meaning and mind set




At that time there were devout Jews from every nation living in Jerusalem.Acts 2:5


So if we follow your logic this passage would imply Jews came from North and South America and other places.  But this is not the case the passage is clearly speaking of the known world at the time.


Gen. 41:46:And the famine was over all the face of the earth.?

And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was sore in all the earth.



So did all the countries of the world really go to  Egypt for food?  Did China come over as well? No the passage once again is speaking on a localized level, or the known world at the time.



There are dozens of verses like this. If the bible wanted to be more clear on a global flood the word tebel' would have been used.  This word is much more specific and does not relegate itself to local geography

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/tebel-2.html




The Hebrew word for mountain is 'har'.

Definition- hill, mountain, hill country, mount

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/har.html


Generally speaking the Mesopotamian word for mountains is 'sadu' and is derive from the word 'mound'.  Its likely that the reference of mountains is referring to hilly terrain.




When he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. (Proverbs 8:29)


Clearly refutes a global flood



By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host. He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses. (Psalm 33:6-7)
...For I have placed the sand as a boundary for the sea, An eternal decree, so it cannot cross over it. Though the waves toss, yet they cannot prevail; Though they roar, yet they cannot cross over it. (Jeremiah 5:22)
"Or who enclosed the sea with doors, When, bursting forth, it went out from the womb...And I placed boundaries on it, And I set a bolt and doors, And I said, 'Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall your proud waves stop'? (Job 38:8-11)



Refutes global




Peter 3:5–6

5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,

6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water



Even Joshepus does not correct the narrative accounts of a local flood. He obviously had no issue with this.  He doesn't correct the matter that it was in fact global. Obviously it was no secret and at the time that people thought it was a local event.

"Now all the writers of barbarian [Greek] histories make mention of this flood and of this ark: among whom is Berosus the Chaldean... Hieronymous the Egyptian.... Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them, where he speaks thus: 'There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses, the legislator of the Jews wrote'."8

Also, Its absolutely ridiculous  to assume that every animal on the planet was brought aboard. Even by their standards. Again the flood is localized. Thus only indigenous animals, and livestock were brought on board in the known world at the time.

[Zankuu]

Swayze, how old was Noah during the construction of his boat? I thought he was 600 years old. Am I wrong?