Re: Day Three
- What is the ancient Hebrew word for "superheated plasma"? Wouldn't that be waters? If not, what Hebrew words would they use?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "VictorM" <godsriddle@...> wrote:
> Earth, at the end of day two, was a water-world. Earth's waters
> were located in two realms: an ice ring (something firm) above the
> atmosphere (see Proverbs 8:27 28) and a global ocean below. The
> atmosphere formed and spread out on day two.
> Day three naturally divides up into two parts, each beginning with the
> statement: Elohim continues to say (imperfect verbs). The first section
> of this day deals with surface waters only.
> Verse nine: and Elohim continued to say, let the waters under the
> atmospheric sky continue to gather together into one place and the dry
> land continue to appear and it is becoming so.
> Where did the surface waters go when they continued to gather into one
> 1. Perhaps they continued to be gathered into an ice ring around the
> planet. If that were the case, there would be no surface waters left.
> The text states they were gathered into one place.
> 2. Perhaps they were gathered into surface oceans with the dry land in
> the form of continents. However, the word for waters is plural while
> the earth-word is singular. Perhaps the waters gathered into many lakes
> within a single world-wide continent. That also does not fit the text!
> He continues to command the waters to come together into one (achad)
> 3. The other possibility is that the surface waters seeped underground,
> into one place, an underground place called the tehom in Hebrew. This
> is supported by other passages.
> Genesis 49:25 mentions the tehom (the deep that lies under).
> Deuteronomy 8:7 "a land of brooks of water, of fountains and tehom
> flowing forth in valleys and hills." Proverbs 8:27-28 speaks of
> God's wisdom exemplified in creation, "when He made rigid the
> skies above, when He strengthened the springs of the tehom." This
> seems to refer to ice above, formed on day two, and the underground
> seas gathered into one place on day three. During Noah's flood, the
> springs of the great tehom (the underground, primordial seas) were rent
> and the water gushed out onto the surface, producing vast amounts of
> sedimentary rocks. It did not rain during the garden phase, because
> there were no surface oceans in that part of earth history. Water came
> up out of the ground to water the earth and rivers divided and flowed
> around the land. (Genesis 2).
> If the surface sea was warm and acidic, it would gradually seep
> underground, opening up cracks that would grow into great caverns into
> which the waters (plural) would gather into one place so that the dry
> land would appear.
> Is there evidence for primordial underground waters? One example is the
> Burgess Shale fossil bed. Millions of underwater creatures were buried
> in an avalanche of fine mud preserving their soft body parts as well as
> their burrows in the sea floor. Perhaps the Burgess fossil bed
> preserves the floor of a subterranean sea, teeming with life, that was
> snuffed out when the springs of the great deep collapsed (Noah's
> flood). Subterranean lakes under rock domes, complete with floating
> oil, are evidence of sulfur eating bacteria that lived in a
> subterranean water-world. Mars also evidently had a Noachian age when
> water gushed out through fissures and flooded the surface.
> The modern continents were clearly once together. The reason it did not
> rain during the garden phase is that surface oceans did not exist in
> that era. Our continents, which are geologically different from the
> ocean floors, only fit together on a much smaller globe without major
> seas. A global expansion seam runs through every ocean with the
> youngest crust next to the volcanic seam and the oldest next to the
> continents. The modern seafloor is basaltic, dense and fine grained,
> which prevents water from seeping into the earth, as rain does on the
> land. The theory of subduction is visibly denied by the layered
> sediments in the alleged subduction zones.
> Verse ten, and Elohim continued to name the dry land "earth"
> and completed calling the gathering of waters "seas." The
> continual calling of the dry land suggests continuing geologic activity.
> The completed naming of the gathered-together waters suggests a more
> static condition.
> Verse eleven, begins the second part of day three. Elohim continues to
> command the ground to continue to sprout vegetation and trees that were
> (in unbroken continuity) to produce seeds and actively continue to
> bring forth fruit, whose seed is in itself and after its kind, and it
> was so.
> Verse twelve repeats the commands of verse eleven to emphasize that
> God's continuing commands produced results emanating from the
> inanimate ground. The ground continued to sprout vegetation yielding
> (in unbroken continuity) seeds and trees (actively and in unbroken
> continuity) bearing fruit after its kind. God continued to see that it
> was good.
> Verse 13, the evening and the morning were day three.
> The activities of the first phase refer to vast geological events as
> water seeped underground and were gathered into one place. During the
> second phase, trees grew up out of the ground and continued, in unbroken
> continuity, to bring forth fruit. The Hebrew text does not support
> one-time commands or short duration days, as in the traditional
> Catholic exegesis. Yet both phases of this day added up to a single
> evening and morning, day three.
> Was day three a 24-hour day? Hours had not yet been invented when Moses
> wrote Genesis. The notion that time exists, is measurable or is linear
> did not become a mind set until 3,000 years after Moses. Ancient people
> looked back on the first generations, wishing that they had lived in
> that golden age. Jacob was following the accepted way of thinking of
> his era when he said that his days and years were shorter and worse
> than the days and years of his fathers (Genesis 47:9). The Greek poet
> Hesiod explained the continuing degeneration of life through the gold,
> silver, heroic, bronze and iron generations. He moaned that he was part
> of the iron generation that never stopped laboring by day and dying by
> night. He expected that this degeneration would continue until children
> would be born with gray temples. The notion that the duration of life
> continued to decrease as everything degenerates was part of the world
> view of all ancient people. The Bible mentions the vast antiquity of
> the Earth and the eon ages of the earliest people. This is not a
> contradiction when we accept their world view, that days and years are
> both deteriorating. Earth is both old and young.
> The next day, day four, is the most important for us today as it
> confirms a literal creation account, since we observe its events
> happening long ago with telescopes. The picture of a subterranean river
> is from wikipedia and is in the public domain.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> -----Original Message-----illness
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Gerry M.
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:37 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [creat] Day Three ...Victor proves Christianity is a mental
> On 3/14/2013 5:01 PM, Dave Oldridge wrote:
> > I get a strong impression that this person, whoever he/she is has
> > been, at some point in life, probably quite young, hurt very deeply by
> > someone claiming to be Christian. But the Christianity she attacks is
> > barely a caricature. It IS, of course, possible that he/she is a rabid
> > fundy Christian trying to pose as an atheist, as you suggest, but, as
> > with all loud fundamentalists, it becomes very difficult to
> > distinguish a good parody from an extreme example of the real thing.
> I think it very likely that she has been hurt by a caricature of a
> nominal Christian, a product of nominal christendom.Oh, I don't know about that. Latter-day creationists frequently indulge in
> She/he is NOT a fundamentalist Christian. No fundamentalist (i.e. one who
> sincerely believes in the fundamentals of the faith) would blaspheme the
> way this person does.
apologetics that imply blasphemous (at least by traditional standards)
doctrines and do it in the name of fundamentalism. Judy/Katherine/? has
simply switched one form of fundamentalist Christianity for a similar form
of fundamentalist atheism. He/she now has a different set of fundamentals,
but they are preached just as insistently and dogmatically.