Open Bible Study on Genesis Chapter 1

If one is citing what one deems to be the Actual Words of God, what
possible point or need would there be in harmonizing, compromising,
reconciling, sorting or collating Those Words with anything ever said by
anybody else? Shouldn't the Actual Words of God speak for Themselves?

Depends on the context. Peter sees Jesus walking on water and basically asks if he can get out of the boat. Jesus tells him to come out. He doesn't necessarily tell all of us to step out of literal boats in literal storms. He doesn't usually tell us to pull dead bodies out of graves three days after they're buried.

And then there's this...if God is speaking His Actual Words, what do they mean? Do we take them all literally? Because there are many times it seems they shouldn't be.

There's a principle called "accommodation." It's the idea that God accommodates humans according to their understanding, culture, etc. While some would see this as an excuse to compromise any interpretation whatsoever ("that's just God's accommodation, he doesn't mean it for us"), that's exactly with Jesus did in the Incarnation: God himself, revealing himself to humanity--as a Jew, in Jewish culture, speaking Jewish language, eating Jewish food, using Jewish idioms, celebrating Jewish festivals, presumably telling Jewish jokes. Following that, the early Church accommodated the Gospel message to Greek culture--answering the central questions of pagan culture (in contrast to the preaching to Jews: "Jesus is the Messiah who fulfills the prophecies").

FEZZILLA
Advocate

Posts: 637

Open Bible Study on Genesis Chapter 1 Feb 16, 2021 4:58:24 GMT

Quote

Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 16, 2021 4:58:24 GMT

Feb 15, 2021 22:52:39 GMT Mercy for All said:

Feb 15, 2021 22:16:59 GMT FEZZILLA said:

So what is the point? To compromise the account with modern philosophy? If the account is true it will be verified scientifically. Now, instead of all these vague attacks, maybe you should detail your query. That would be better. That or supply a better harmonization. God is the Author of all scientific knowledge. God created the laws of physics during creation week. Therefore, its reasonable to study the account from a scientific point of view regardless of how advanced the science is to us. Not only does Genesis harmonize perfectly with real science, but this one chapter alone can be used to destroy evolution theory. Here you will see all atheistic skepticism satisfactorily answered. And I never had to bow a knee to compromise. I kept it clean and followed the text verse by verse. Nowhere did I display any fear of humans nor a hint of compromise out of any fear of the State. I do not worship humans, I hate the State, so I just kept it clean and free of all human worship and interpreted each verse as it was meant to be understood. I kept my mind on the things of God and never show fear of humans or their weak, flabby and pointless criticism.

I actually explicated "the point" in my "commentary." The point of Genesis 1 was to counter its contemporary creation stories with the truth. Thus, it uses both the language, symbols, and structures of its contemporaries. That's a huge clue, because it doesn't use the language, symbols, and structure of today's explanations.

You can't really know what it means if you don't know what it meant. That's a pretty solid hermeneutic principle.

Your problem is that you worship humans and fear them as one would a deity.

Untrue. Why do you partner with Satan by accusing the brethren?

The worship of the State (i.e., evolution theory) is quite common among those who's faith is weak.

I don't worship the State.

But I'm trying to help you comprehend and even break your fear of the State.

Irrelevant.

Do you really think the early Christians were willing to compromise their beliefs with Roman deities? No, they didn't. And they became martyrs because of their strong faith. They could have saved their lives by denying Christ for Roman gods but they chose death instead of denial. None of the earth Christians believed in evolution and all rejected the theory.

Logical fallacy alert: false equivalence.

The only reason why a modern christian like yourself believes in evolution is out of fear of what the State will think of you. You bow your knee to humans. I do not.

That is...literally laughable.

Therefore I kept my commentary clean and free from all fear of humans. I do not care about what scoffers might think. But I do understand that the account is true and stands the test of time.

Well, you do have a serious problem with trying to harmonize the text and science because you don't have a credible grasp of the science. Your understanding of the Big Bang theory is actually quite ludicrous. You use the words "Big Bang" but you have no idea what the theory actually is. You likely also have no idea about the physical evidence that corroborates the theory.

I actually explicated "the point" in my "commentary." The point of Genesis 1 was to counter its contemporary creation stories with the truth. Thus, it uses both the language, symbols, and structures of its contemporaries. That's a huge clue, because it doesn't use the language, symbols, and structure of today's explanations.

You can't really know what it means if you don't know what it meant. That's a pretty solid hermeneutic principle.

That's the thing. You did not support your commentary with supporting Scripture or a single ancient scholar who would agree with you. That's checkmate. End of discussion right there. You analysis from the lens of the modern philosopher. Well I'd hate to shatter your ego but here in the 21st century philosophy means not true. I reject all modern philosophy as well as a great deal of philosophy in general. Philosophy is for people who seek to prop themselves up as gods among men, who think their fanciful theories somehow have merit.
A Genesis commentary has no philosophy in it. Its theology and you seem to have a hard time grasping that. Moreover, its creationism which you seem to very strongly oppose as you trust fallible and corruptible man over God. Your commentary hardly even scratched the surface. It seems you think its a work of fiction or man's thoughts in competition with the thoughts of other men. That is the atheist way of looking at it. Yet you still have zero ancient scholars who agree with you. I trust ancient exegesis over Democrat analysis any day of the week!

Untrue. Why do you partner with Satan by accusing the brethren?

As of right now, sorry to say, I do not see you as my brother. I see you as an imposter. At least, a very ego-driven younger man who lacks all discipline and fears the scorn of man more than the wrath of God. Psalms 14:1 says all evolutionists are stupid. Do you trust God or do you trust the vain imaginations of corrupt philosophers who serve the demands of corrupt politicians?

I don't worship the State

Yes you worship the State as the gods. Polytheism includes human worship. You fear evolution theory and have no faith in accepting God's word as it is written. You even reject all ancient scholars because they rejected evolution theory. You are submissive to the State and obey everything they tell you to believe. Christians don't worship the State.

Irrelevant.

How is trying to help you understand irrelevant? Oh, I forgot, the State deities told you there is no God and evolution is your lord.

Logical fallacy alert: false equivalence.

This is why I completely abandoned philosophy and every single person on earth who teaches it. Its just an excuse to misuse fallacies which most people do. What I said was no fallacy. Ancient Christians lived in the Biblical times. They had more knowledge of expressions and knew their beliefs very well. While they did not have all the answers (as they will ell you themselves), they did warn us of many heresies. And evolution theory is one of the main heresies they warned us about. 2nd century Theophilus of Antioch goes into great detail exposing the absurdities of evolution theory. But you thought evolution was modern science! Yet you still fear the scorn of atheists. I do feel bad for you. Most likely (and I'm sad to say this), you will not last as a believer another year. I think you were fed a false gospel that excluded God's power and exalted man over God. You will find no ancient Christian support for your views.

Well, you do have a serious problem with trying to harmonize the text and science because you don't have a credible grasp of the science. Your understanding of the Big Bang theory is actually quite ludicrous. You use the words "Big Bang" but you have no idea what the theory actually is. You likely also have no idea about the physical evidence that corroborates the theory.

That's a typical atheist cop-out. Oh, "you don't understand the big bang"--as if we are all dumb and only the gods of the State can think. It must suck to be enslaved to corrupt men. But I'm a free man, and as a free man I do not analysis with the idea that I must harmonize Genesis with an atheist theory in order for the Bible to be true. Genesis supports itself and doesn't agree with the Big Bang at all. Therefore, the Big Bang never happened.

Scientific method is absolutely brutal. It mocks the feeble and fragile minded philosopher and proves his every thought wrong. The Big Bang is categorized as philosophy...not real science. There are no human witnesses to the Big Bang and not one scientist observed it happen in real time. Science requires real evidence...not philosophy. Again, in the 21st century: philosophy means not true.

FEZZILLA
Advocate

Posts: 637

Open Bible Study on Genesis Chapter 1 Feb 16, 2021 5:22:53 GMT

Quote

Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 16, 2021 5:22:53 GMT

Feb 15, 2021 22:53:28 GMT Mercy for All said:

It's also kind of odd that you identity "science" with "the State." Especially if you're American...😂

Well true America is now gone and replaced by communism. But in real America our founders did not want to be worshiped nor was modern science founded upon the worship of science over God. On the contrary, the founders of modern science were all creationists.

1 Timothy 6:20, KJV

"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called"

1 Timothy 6:20, 1535 Coverdale Bible

"O Timothy, kepe that which is committed vnto the, and avoyde vngoostly vayne wordes, and opposicions of science falsly so called,"

1 Timothy 6:20, 1537 Matthew's Bible

"O Timothe saue that whiche is geuen the to kepe, and auoyde vnghostlye vanytyes of voyces and opposicyons of science falslye so called,"

1 Timothy 6:20, 1539 Great Bible,

"O Timothe, saue that which is geuen the to kepe, and avoyde vngostly vanyties of voyces and opposycyons of science falsly so called"

1 Timothy 6:20, 1560 Geneva Bible (the first Bible to come to America),

"O Timotheus, keepe that which is committed vnto thee, and auoide prophane and vaine babblings, and oppositios of science falsely so called,"

1 Timothy 6:20, 1568 Bishop's Bible,

"O Timotheus, saue that which is geuen thee to kepe, auoydyng prophane [and] vayne bablynges, and oppositions of science, falslie so called:"

The Apostle Paul here is referring to the pseudoscience of pagans, who, at this time, taught Darwinian evolution 2000 years before Charles Darwin. Then again, Darwin read pagan literature from the classical period and most people don't know that Darwin plagiarized his entire theory from ancient works that have never become well known in western literature.

Wisdom of Solomon 7:17 -- English

👉 "For he hath given me the true science of these things: so that I know how the world was made/ & the powers of the elements" (1537 Matthew's Bible).

Modern science was strictly a Christian endeavor. They founded and established modern science and made all the great feats of science. Evolutionists have contributed next to nothing. I prefer those creationists who invented so many useful things. Evolutionists just write books on philosophy about how much they hate God ad love evolution theory. But they have contributed almost nothing to science. And you trust these losers with Biblical exegesis??

Last Edit: Feb 16, 2021 5:24:41 GMT by FEZZILLA

FEZZILLA
Advocate

Posts: 637

Open Bible Study on Genesis Chapter 1 Feb 16, 2021 5:31:35 GMT

Quote

Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 16, 2021 5:31:35 GMT

Feb 16, 2021 2:54:01 GMT Mercy for All said:

If one is citing what one deems to be the Actual Words of God, what
possible point or need would there be in harmonizing, compromising,
reconciling, sorting or collating Those Words with anything ever said by
anybody else? Shouldn't the Actual Words of God speak for Themselves?

Depends on the context. Peter sees Jesus walking on water and basically asks if he can get out of the boat. Jesus tells him to come out. He doesn't necessarily tell all of us to step out of literal boats in literal storms. He doesn't usually tell us to pull dead bodies out of graves three days after they're buried.

And then there's this...if God is speaking His Actual Words, what do they mean? Do we take them all literally? Because there are many times it seems they shouldn't be.

There's a principle called "accommodation." It's the idea that God accommodates humans according to their understanding, culture, etc. While some would see this as an excuse to compromise any interpretation whatsoever ("that's just God's accommodation, he doesn't mean it for us"), that's exactly with Jesus did in the Incarnation: God himself, revealing himself to humanity--as a Jew, in Jewish culture, speaking Jewish language, eating Jewish food, using Jewish idioms, celebrating Jewish festivals, presumably telling Jewish jokes. Following that, the early Church accommodated the Gospel message to Greek culture--answering the central questions of pagan culture (in contrast to the preaching to Jews: "Jesus is the Messiah who fulfills the prophecies").

Now I can agree with this

Though keep in mind the early Church also refuted evolution theory right from the start. Before that, the Wisdom of Solomon (a Rabbinic work from the 1st century B.C., found in the Apocrypha, also refuted the Greek Hellenistic belief in evolution theory). Just thought I'd throw that in there. I do agree with your reply.

Last Edit: Feb 16, 2021 5:32:04 GMT by FEZZILLA

FEZZILLA
Advocate

Posts: 637

Open Bible Study on Genesis Chapter 1 Feb 16, 2021 5:56:16 GMT

Quote

Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 16, 2021 5:56:16 GMT

If one is citing what one deems to be the Actual Words of God, what
possible point or need would there be in harmonizing, compromising,
reconciling, sorting or collating Those Words with anything ever said by
anybody else? Shouldn't the Actual Words of God speak for Themselves?

I do agree with the reply MFA gave you. In terms of analyzing Genesis, that was written in Hebrew (some say the first 11 chapters were written before Hebrew). The oldest manuscripts in Hebrew we have come from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thus, Hebrew is not English nor does Hebrew conform to English expressions. Hebrew is its own language and what we read are English translations of that language. One thing I have learned about Hebrew which has helped me a lot is how expressions in Hebrew are not always what they appear to be in the English speaking mind. Simply put, we analyze ancient Hebrew (as well as the Greek LXX) to understand what was the intended meaning. All this, unfortunately, does require experience. Our English translations only tell us so much. Without knowledge of Hebrew expressions used in Genesis and ancient exegesis that helps up break down the meaning, we are left with a ministry from English translations only. Our English Bibles alone cannot solve all the modern puzzles in the Bible.

Also, Genesis 1:25 can only be properly understood from the English speaking mind. Hebrew and Greek are helpful and supportive, but its the Latin that makes the verse easier to understand from the English speaking mind. This is because of words that we English speaking people can understand in Latin. A phrase like "reptile terrae" can transliterate to "reptile earth" or "dinosaur planet" in English. This is because the language of paleontology is Latin. People searched for dinosaurs in all the languages except for the language that shaped paleontology.

Genesis 1:25,

Et fecit Deus bestias terrae juxta species suas, et jumenta, et omne reptile terrae in genere suo. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum,

And there you have it: dinosaurs in Genesis.

But, some people might say, How can this means dinosaurs when the word dinosaur is also a Latin word and not found in Genesis? This is because the word dinosaur wasn't coined until 1841 by Sir Richard Owen. Therefore, since the word was not invented until thousands of years after the composition of Genesis, how can be honestly hold Scripture down to a word that then never existed? Now earlier in this study I broke down the Hebrew and Greek of this same verse and it does agree with the Latin. Its only that the Latin, in this particular verse, tends to open the eyes better of the English speaking mind.

So harmonizing the account in a way English speaking people can better understand it is how we learn what was intended in this account. And the fact that this account does indeed, most beautifully, harmonize with well accepted science, gives us assurance that the account is true and not mythology.

Fiddler Legend Posts: 15,214	Open Bible Study on Genesis Chapter 1 Feb 16, 2021 21:07:41 GMT Quote Select Post Deselect Post Link to Post Member Give Gift Back to Top Post by Fiddler on Feb 16, 2021 21:07:41 GMT Feb 16, 2021 5:56:16 GMT FEZZILLA said: A phrase like "reptile terrae" can transliterate to "reptile earth" or "dinosaur planet" in English.

Mercy for All
Legend

Posts: 9,436

Open Bible Study on Genesis Chapter 1 Feb 16, 2021 21:59:17 GMT

Quote

Post by Mercy for All on Feb 16, 2021 21:59:17 GMT

Feb 16, 2021 5:56:16 GMT FEZZILLA said:

If one is citing what one deems to be the Actual Words of God, what
possible point or need would there be in harmonizing, compromising,
reconciling, sorting or collating Those Words with anything ever said by
anybody else? Shouldn't the Actual Words of God speak for Themselves?

I do agree with the reply MFA gave you. In terms of analyzing Genesis, that was written in Hebrew (some say the first 11 chapters were written before Hebrew). The oldest manuscripts in Hebrew we have come from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thus, Hebrew is not English nor does Hebrew conform to English expressions. Hebrew is its own language and what we read are English translations of that language. One thing I have learned about Hebrew which has helped me a lot is how expressions in Hebrew are not always what they appear to be in the English speaking mind. Simply put, we analyze ancient Hebrew (as well as the Greek LXX) to understand what was the intended meaning. All this, unfortunately, does require experience. Our English translations only tell us so much. Without knowledge of Hebrew expressions used in Genesis and ancient exegesis that helps up break down the meaning, we are left with a ministry from English translations only. Our English Bibles alone cannot solve all the modern puzzles in the Bible.

Also, Genesis 1:25 can only be properly understood from the English speaking mind. Hebrew and Greek are helpful and supportive, but its the Latin that makes the verse easier to understand from the English speaking mind. This is because of words that we English speaking people can understand in Latin. A phrase like "reptile terrae" can transliterate to "reptile earth" or "dinosaur planet" in English. This is because the language of paleontology is Latin. People searched for dinosaurs in all the languages except for the language that shaped paleontology.

Genesis 1:25,

Et fecit Deus bestias terrae juxta species suas, et jumenta, et omne reptile terrae in genere suo. Et vidit Deus quod esset bonum,

And there you have it: dinosaurs in Genesis.

But, some people might say, How can this means dinosaurs when the word dinosaur is also a Latin word and not found in Genesis? This is because the word dinosaur wasn't coined until 1841 by Sir Richard Owen. Therefore, since the word was not invented until thousands of years after the composition of Genesis, how can be honestly hold Scripture down to a word that then never existed? Now earlier in this study I broke down the Hebrew and Greek of this same verse and it does agree with the Latin. Its only that the Latin, in this particular verse, tends to open the eyes better of the English speaking mind.

So harmonizing the account in a way English speaking people can better understand it is how we learn what was intended in this account. And the fact that this account does indeed, most beautifully, harmonize with well accepted science, gives us assurance that the account is true and not mythology.

Why would you translate reptile (Latin) as "dinosaur" instead of..."reptile"?

FEZZILLA
Advocate

Posts: 637

Open Bible Study on Genesis Chapter 1 Feb 17, 2021 0:40:50 GMT

Quote

Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 17, 2021 0:40:50 GMT

Feb 16, 2021 5:56:16 GMT FEZZILLA said:

I do agree with the reply MFA gave you. In terms of analyzing Genesis, that was written in Hebrew (some say the first 11 chapters were written before Hebrew). The oldest manuscripts in Hebrew we have come from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thus, Hebrew is not English nor does Hebrew conform to English expressions. Hebrew is its own language and what we read are English translations of that language. One thing I have learned about Hebrew which has helped me a lot is how expressions in Hebrew are not always what they appear to be in the English speaking mind. Simply put, we analyze ancient Hebrew (as well as the Greek LXX) to understand what was the intended meaning. All this, unfortunately, does require experience. Our English translations only tell us so much. Without knowledge of Hebrew expressions used in Genesis and ancient exegesis that helps up break down the meaning, we are left with a ministry from English translations only. Our English Bibles alone cannot solve all the modern puzzles in the Bible.

Also, Genesis 1:25 can only be properly understood from the English speaking mind. Hebrew and Greek are helpful and supportive, but its the Latin that makes the verse easier to understand from the English speaking mind. This is because of words that we English speaking people can understand in Latin. A phrase like "reptile terrae" can transliterate to "reptile earth" or "dinosaur planet" in English. This is because the language of paleontology is Latin. People searched for dinosaurs in all the languages except for the language that shaped paleontology.

Genesis 1:25,
And there you have it: dinosaurs in Genesis.

But, some people might say, How can this means dinosaurs when the word dinosaur is also a Latin word and not found in Genesis? This is because the word dinosaur wasn't coined until 1841 by Sir Richard Owen. Therefore, since the word was not invented until thousands of years after the composition of Genesis, how can be honestly hold Scripture down to a word that then never existed? Now earlier in this study I broke down the Hebrew and Greek of this same verse and it does agree with the Latin. Its only that the Latin, in this particular verse, tends to open the eyes better of the English speaking mind.

So harmonizing the account in a way English speaking people can better understand it is how we learn what was intended in this account. And the fact that this account does indeed, most beautifully, harmonize with well accepted science, gives us assurance that the account is true and not mythology.

Why would you translate reptile (Latin) as "dinosaur" instead of..."reptile"?

Since Genesis 1:25 clearly refers to dinosaurs then "reptile terrae" also translates or can be translate to "dinosaur planet" or "reptile earth." Fortunately I've had Latin speaking people read my work with great approval. Most creationists accepted my research. Here are a few compliments that were visible on the facebook page before it was shut down.

As I already mentioned before: the word dinosaur was not coined until 1841 by Sir Richard Owen. Yet you think the Latin Vulgate should have a word that was mot even invented until the 19th century? Here again you are arguing just to be argumentative and your criticism has no validity. The term "reptile terrae" most definitely includes dinosaurs.

This pic is from a Latin program. The picture is dinosaur terrae (i.e., dinosaur earth). You can see the little earth in the dinosaur's mouth. I know my Latin well enough where Latin speaking people agree with my analysis. I naturally took on to Latin and immediately understood those things in Latin that often stump people for years--things like how there are multiple words in Latin that mean the same thing but only expressed differently depending on the application in which a word or phrase is used. Its Greek that I think is hard. Greek is harder to learn than Latin. I believe this is because Greek has little in common with English origins whereas Latin shaped the origin of many English words we use today. Dinosaur is one of those Latin words that we English speaking people understand. And a dinosaur is a reptile first. Now if you are a fair minded human being that seeks to understand what was meant by a phrase like reptile terrae" in Latin, then you would have no problem accepting that has well covering dinosaurs. But if its your ego you are out to protect then there is nothing you can learn and you will never be able to change the world with your hollow mindset. You seem to forget that humility is mandatory in the Christian faith. There are no egotistical people in Christianity. Self-pride does not rule a Christians analysis. The reason why I have been so successful in my research is because I have no Institution to defend and do not analyze with my ego. I read to learn. I study to find true answers. i am a free man to investigate matters with no restrictions. Yet I respect the Institutions and professional individuals who have served God over the centuries on up to the present now. I neither seek rebellion against them or to have my hands tied by them. I seek the absolute truth. My friends in the professional field of creationism and theology appreciate the research I have done. I am glad to have been of service to those who needed help in understanding the flat earth hoax. But you can't ever be of service to anyone if all you want to do is compromise the absolute doctrines of the faith with the occult (i.e., evolution theory). Everyone knows if evolution then no God. If we can't trust God's revelation then we don't have a reason to believe. Being a servant of the Lord requires much responsibility as you are held accountable for what you teach others.

Fiddler
Legend

Posts: 15,214

Open Bible Study on Genesis Chapter 1 Feb 17, 2021 15:17:47 GMT

Quote

Post by Fiddler on Feb 17, 2021 15:17:47 GMT

Feb 16, 2021 5:56:16 GMT FEZZILLA said:

I do agree with the reply MFA gave you. In terms of analyzing Genesis, that was written in Hebrew (some say the first 11 chapters were written before Hebrew). The oldest manuscripts in Hebrew we have come from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thus, Hebrew is not English nor does Hebrew conform to English expressions. Hebrew is its own language and what we read are English translations of that language. One thing I have learned about Hebrew which has helped me a lot is how expressions in Hebrew are not always what they appear to be in the English speaking mind. Simply put, we analyze ancient Hebrew (as well as the Greek LXX) to understand what was the intended meaning. All this, unfortunately, does require experience. Our English translations only tell us so much. Without knowledge of Hebrew expressions used in Genesis and ancient exegesis that helps up break down the meaning, we are left with a ministry from English translations only. Our English Bibles alone cannot solve all the modern puzzles in the Bible.

Also, Genesis 1:25 can only be properly understood from the English speaking mind. Hebrew and Greek are helpful and supportive, but its the Latin that makes the verse easier to understand from the English speaking mind. This is because of words that we English speaking people can understand in Latin. A phrase like "reptile terrae" can transliterate to "reptile earth" or "dinosaur planet" in English. This is because the language of paleontology is Latin. People searched for dinosaurs in all the languages except for the language that shaped paleontology.

Genesis 1:25,
And there you have it: dinosaurs in Genesis.

But, some people might say, How can this means dinosaurs when the word dinosaur is also a Latin word and not found in Genesis? This is because the word dinosaur wasn't coined until 1841 by Sir Richard Owen. Therefore, since the word was not invented until thousands of years after the composition of Genesis, how can be honestly hold Scripture down to a word that then never existed? Now earlier in this study I broke down the Hebrew and Greek of this same verse and it does agree with the Latin. Its only that the Latin, in this particular verse, tends to open the eyes better of the English speaking mind.

So harmonizing the account in a way English speaking people can better understand it is how we learn what was intended in this account. And the fact that this account does indeed, most beautifully, harmonize with well accepted science, gives us assurance that the account is true and not mythology.

Why would you translate reptile (Latin) as "dinosaur" instead of..."reptile"?

No one would.

Mercy, you're a very patient man. But I'm curious. Why carry on an extended conversation with someone as clearly delusional as Fizzle?

I'm seriously concerned that he's possibly a danger to himself or those around him.

Mercy for All
Legend

Posts: 9,436

Open Bible Study on Genesis Chapter 1 Feb 17, 2021 22:53:55 GMT via mobile

Quote

Post by Mercy for All on Feb 17, 2021 22:53:55 GMT

Why would you translate reptile (Latin) as "dinosaur" instead of..."reptile"?

Since Genesis 1:25 clearly refers to dinosaurs then "reptile terrae" also translates or can be translate to "dinosaur planet" or "reptile earth." Fortunately I've had Latin speaking people read my work with great approval. Most creationists accepted my research. Here are a few compliments that were visible on the facebook page before it was shut down.

View Attachment View Attachment

As I already mentioned before: the word dinosaur was not coined until 1841 by Sir Richard Owen. Yet you think the Latin Vulgate should have a word that was mot even invented until the 19th century? Here again you are arguing just to be argumentative and your criticism has no validity. The term "reptile terrae" most definitely includes dinosaurs.

View Attachment

This pic is from a Latin program. The picture is dinosaur terrae (i.e., dinosaur earth). You can see the little earth in the dinosaur's mouth. I know my Latin well enough where Latin speaking people agree with my analysis. I naturally took on to Latin and immediately understood those things in Latin that often stump people for years--things like how there are multiple words in Latin that mean the same thing but only expressed differently depending on the application in which a word or phrase is used. Its Greek that I think is hard. Greek is harder to learn than Latin. I believe this is because Greek has little in common with English origins whereas Latin shaped the origin of many English words we use today. Dinosaur is one of those Latin words that we English speaking people understand. And a dinosaur is a reptile first. Now if you are a fair minded human being that seeks to understand what was meant by a phrase like reptile terrae" in Latin, then you would have no problem accepting that has well covering dinosaurs. But if its your ego you are out to protect then there is nothing you can learn and you will never be able to change the world with your hollow mindset. You seem to forget that humility is mandatory in the Christian faith. There are no egotistical people in Christianity. Self-pride does not rule a Christians analysis. The reason why I have been so successful in my research is because I have no Institution to defend and do not analyze with my ego. I read to learn. I study to find true answers. i am a free man to investigate matters with no restrictions. Yet I respect the Institutions and professional individuals who have served God over the centuries on up to the present now. I neither seek rebellion against them or to have my hands tied by them. I seek the absolute truth. My friends in the professional field of creationism and theology appreciate the research I have done. I am glad to have been of service to those who needed help in understanding the flat earth hoax. But you can't ever be of service to anyone if all you want to do is compromise the absolute doctrines of the faith with the occult (i.e., evolution theory). Everyone knows if evolution then no God. If we can't trust God's revelation then we don't have a reason to believe. Being a servant of the Lord requires much responsibility as you are held accountable for what you teach others.

So...dinosaurs are a subset of reptiles and so it’s acceptable to translate what would be reptiles as dinosaurs instead? Why no translate mammals as cheetahs? Or beavers?

Mercy for All
Legend

Posts: 9,436

Open Bible Study on Genesis Chapter 1 Feb 17, 2021 22:56:11 GMT via mobile

Quote

Post by Mercy for All on Feb 17, 2021 22:56:11 GMT

Why would you translate reptile (Latin) as "dinosaur" instead of..."reptile"?

Since Genesis 1:25 clearly refers to dinosaurs then "reptile terrae" also translates or can be translate to "dinosaur planet" or "reptile earth." Fortunately I've had Latin speaking people read my work with great approval. Most creationists accepted my research. Here are a few compliments that were visible on the facebook page before it was shut down.

View Attachment View Attachment

As I already mentioned before: the word dinosaur was not coined until 1841 by Sir Richard Owen. Yet you think the Latin Vulgate should have a word that was mot even invented until the 19th century? Here again you are arguing just to be argumentative and your criticism has no validity. The term "reptile terrae" most definitely includes dinosaurs.

View Attachment

This pic is from a Latin program. The picture is dinosaur terrae (i.e., dinosaur earth). You can see the little earth in the dinosaur's mouth. I know my Latin well enough where Latin speaking people agree with my analysis. I naturally took on to Latin and immediately understood those things in Latin that often stump people for years--things like how there are multiple words in Latin that mean the same thing but only expressed differently depending on the application in which a word or phrase is used. Its Greek that I think is hard. Greek is harder to learn than Latin. I believe this is because Greek has little in common with English origins whereas Latin shaped the origin of many English words we use today. Dinosaur is one of those Latin words that we English speaking people understand. And a dinosaur is a reptile first. Now if you are a fair minded human being that seeks to understand what was meant by a phrase like reptile terrae" in Latin, then you would have no problem accepting that has well covering dinosaurs. But if its your ego you are out to protect then there is nothing you can learn and you will never be able to change the world with your hollow mindset. You seem to forget that humility is mandatory in the Christian faith. There are no egotistical people in Christianity. Self-pride does not rule a Christians analysis. The reason why I have been so successful in my research is because I have no Institution to defend and do not analyze with my ego. I read to learn. I study to find true answers. i am a free man to investigate matters with no restrictions. Yet I respect the Institutions and professional individuals who have served God over the centuries on up to the present now. I neither seek rebellion against them or to have my hands tied by them. I seek the absolute truth. My friends in the professional field of creationism and theology appreciate the research I have done. I am glad to have been of service to those who needed help in understanding the flat earth hoax. But you can't ever be of service to anyone if all you want to do is compromise the absolute doctrines of the faith with the occult (i.e., evolution theory). Everyone knows if evolution then no God. If we can't trust God's revelation then we don't have a reason to believe. Being a servant of the Lord requires much responsibility as you are held accountable for what you teach others.

But you said you are a monk...with which order? Or are you a “lone monk” and thus accountable to nobody?

And who enlisted to to refute flat earth theory?

Last Edit: Feb 17, 2021 22:57:00 GMT by Mercy for All

FEZZILLA
Advocate

Posts: 637

Open Bible Study on Genesis Chapter 1 Feb 18, 2021 0:49:24 GMT

Quote

Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 18, 2021 0:49:24 GMT

Feb 17, 2021 22:53:55 GMT Mercy for All said:

Since Genesis 1:25 clearly refers to dinosaurs then "reptile terrae" also translates or can be translate to "dinosaur planet" or "reptile earth." Fortunately I've had Latin speaking people read my work with great approval. Most creationists accepted my research. Here are a few compliments that were visible on the facebook page before it was shut down.

View Attachment View Attachment

As I already mentioned before: the word dinosaur was not coined until 1841 by Sir Richard Owen. Yet you think the Latin Vulgate should have a word that was mot even invented until the 19th century? Here again you are arguing just to be argumentative and your criticism has no validity. The term "reptile terrae" most definitely includes dinosaurs.

View Attachment

This pic is from a Latin program. The picture is dinosaur terrae (i.e., dinosaur earth). You can see the little earth in the dinosaur's mouth. I know my Latin well enough where Latin speaking people agree with my analysis. I naturally took on to Latin and immediately understood those things in Latin that often stump people for years--things like how there are multiple words in Latin that mean the same thing but only expressed differently depending on the application in which a word or phrase is used. Its Greek that I think is hard. Greek is harder to learn than Latin. I believe this is because Greek has little in common with English origins whereas Latin shaped the origin of many English words we use today. Dinosaur is one of those Latin words that we English speaking people understand. And a dinosaur is a reptile first. Now if you are a fair minded human being that seeks to understand what was meant by a phrase like reptile terrae" in Latin, then you would have no problem accepting that has well covering dinosaurs. But if its your ego you are out to protect then there is nothing you can learn and you will never be able to change the world with your hollow mindset. You seem to forget that humility is mandatory in the Christian faith. There are no egotistical people in Christianity. Self-pride does not rule a Christians analysis. The reason why I have been so successful in my research is because I have no Institution to defend and do not analyze with my ego. I read to learn. I study to find true answers. i am a free man to investigate matters with no restrictions. Yet I respect the Institutions and professional individuals who have served God over the centuries on up to the present now. I neither seek rebellion against them or to have my hands tied by them. I seek the absolute truth. My friends in the professional field of creationism and theology appreciate the research I have done. I am glad to have been of service to those who needed help in understanding the flat earth hoax. But you can't ever be of service to anyone if all you want to do is compromise the absolute doctrines of the faith with the occult (i.e., evolution theory). Everyone knows if evolution then no God. If we can't trust God's revelation then we don't have a reason to believe. Being a servant of the Lord requires much responsibility as you are held accountable for what you teach others.

So...dinosaurs are a subset of reptiles and so it’s acceptable to translate what would be reptiles as dinosaurs instead? Why no translate mammals as cheetahs? Or beavers?

The meaning of dinosaur has reptile right there in it.
www.dictionary.com/browse/dinosaur

So Genesis does cover dinosaurs but you want to reject that because you don't trust what Jesus said about Genesis being literal history. You'd rather trust the State. Yeah, we know how reliable the State is, don't we?

FEZZILLA
Advocate

Posts: 637

Open Bible Study on Genesis Chapter 1 Feb 18, 2021 0:53:45 GMT

Quote

Post by FEZZILLA on Feb 18, 2021 0:53:45 GMT

Feb 17, 2021 22:56:11 GMT Mercy for All said: