RE: Evolution/creation 2
August 10, 2012 at 9:38 pm
(This post was last modified: August 10, 2012 at 9:44 pm by Drich.)
(August 9, 2012 at 12:50 pm)YahwehIsTheWay Wrote: Our Word says that our Lord created the earth and plants on day 3 and the sun and stars on day 4.What the problem is? Light was created on the first day...
Quote:[*] Godless heathen science says that the sun is older than our earth.The same ones that said pluto was a planet and then a few years ago it wasn't? or was it the ones that said there was going to be a mini Ice age by 2000 because of the 'polution' we were dumping in the atmosphere, and then in 2000 subjected us to global warming till 2005-09 when we had record winters they changed it again to 'global climate change?' Or the ones who claimed there was a hole in the Ozone due to our addiction to Cfc's. then the hole closed before all the bans took effect???
So how did thee 'scientists' they determine the age of the sun, did they cut it open and count the rings? or did they simply stare into it till it "Dawned on them?"

Quote:[*] So why are you trying to reconcile the Word with science when they clearly get such simple things wrong?
We (our scientists) can help if we do not truly explain how the universe works. We only been trying to figure things out for a few hundred years.

(August 9, 2012 at 12:28 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:(August 9, 2012 at 12:18 pm)Drich Wrote: But if God made Adam and Eve and set them to replenish then their task would be to replenish what God created in his own image, which were Adam and Eve! Or am I missing something?
The entire point. What you just described is a complete paradox and defies the definition of replenish.
You cannot replenish something that hasn't been.
God is not part of mankind. Adam and Eve are supposedly the first, if this is the case then when Adam and Eve are created mankind was not replenished. Created? Yes. Born? Yes. Acquired? Maybe. Replenished? No.
Mankind supposedly hadn't existed before, you can't replenish something you've never had.
(Not sure why I'm arguing for catfishs point but I'd wager I'm doing it better than he would have.)
The word in Hebrew is:
מלא male'
1) to fill, be full
a) (Qal)
1) to be full
a) fulness, abundance (participle)
b) to be full, be accomplished, be ended
2) to consecrate, fill the hand
b) (Niphal)
1) to be filled, be armed, be satisfied
2) to be accomplished, be ended
c) (Piel)
1) to fill
2) to satisfy
3) to fulfil, accomplish, complete
4) to confirm
d) (Pual) to be filled
e) (Hithpael) to mass themselves against
Do you need me to explain further or do you see the problem with holding the text to your understanding of the translated word?