Just now read the thread. I don't follow party of post #9, where the word for Heavens is considered plural sometimes and singular other times. In the Hebrew they are identical. Where does this come from?
Just now read the thread. I don't follow party of post #9, where the word for Heavens is considered plural sometimes and singular other times. In the Hebrew they are identical. Where does this come from?
And the Hebrew doesn't look all the same:
Genesis 1:
v8 שָׁמָיִם
vהַשָּׁמַיִם 9
v14 בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם
Looks like three different forms or formations to me.
And the Hebrew doesn't look all the same:
Genesis 1:
v8 שָׁמָיִם
vהַשָּׁמַיִם 9
v14 בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם
Looks like three different forms or formations to me.
v8 is "Heavens"
v9 is "the Heavens"
v14 is "the firmament of the Heavens"
"Heavens", שָׁמָיִם, is a Hebrew word that is always in the plural, like the word for water. There is no separate singular for it.
I don't know where the translators got their ideas from.
Except some translations do not pluralise the first one.
So why the different forms?
They aren't "different forms". Hebrew works differently than English. letters are added to a word to add to it's meaning, while in English separate words are required. For example, the article "the" does not exist as a separate word in Hebrew. One letter is added to the beginning of a word to indicate the article.
A more extreme example is this English phrase "I got dressed". In Hebrew that is one word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripe
Neither do I. But perhaps they know something you don't.
They may, or they may not. One thing I do know from my own work in translation, is that it is not enough to get the meaning across in the translation- it has to be readable. So some of the details of the English are likely there to make the English more readable, not because they reflect the meaning of the original better. I would be very careful in trying to deduce something from the fine details of a translation.
Except some translations do not pluralise the first one.
So why the different forms?
Neither do I. But perhaps they know something you don't.
The Scriptures were not translated (( Word for Word )). It may take many chapters to translate one word!! – What’s the problem with that??? - They got it right, and everyone else can’t even follow it. - They have to translate it for themselves, like all the other foolish things they do wrong!!
Paul – 072012
---Gal. 4:16.
---"Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth"???
Now that the most popular moon theory has gone bust in the popular science world I wonder if y'all have added the info that busted it into our bag of tidbits? (Certain parts of following article made bold by me)
Science News February 19, 2013
By Elizabeth Howell and SPACE.com
Apollo Moon Rocks Challenge Lunar Water Theory
Water on the moon was there as the moon formed, not delivered later by solar wind and comets.
The discovery of "significant amounts" of water in moon rock samples collected by NASA's Apollo astronauts is challenging a longstanding theory about how the moon formed, scientists say.
Since the Apollo era, scientists have thought the moon came to be after a Mars-size object smashed into Earth early in the planet's history, generating a ring of debris that slowly coalesced over millions of years.
That process, scientists have said, should have flung away the water-forming element hydrogen into space.
But a new study suggests the accepted scenario is not possible given the amount of water found in moon rocks collected from the lunar surface in the early 1970s during the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 missions. By "water," the researchers don't mean liquid water, but hydroxyl, a chemical that includes the hydrogen and oxygen ingredients of water.
Those water-forming elements would have been on the moon all along, the scientist said.
"I still think the impact scenario is the best formation scenario for the moon, but we need to reconcile the theory of hydrogen," study leader Hejiu Hui, an engineering researcher at the University of Notre Dame, told SPACE.com.
The results were published in Nature Geoscienceon Sunday (Feb. 17).
I think the saying was supposed to go "But not a drop to drink"
And Stripe! The whole point being what if water had literally surrounded the earth in satellites of water loaded rocks of debris?
The article - which you did read didn't you? Said
Quote:
Hui's research flies in the face of past analyses of Apollo rocks that found they were very dry, except for a small bit of water attributed to the rock containers leaking when they were returned to Earth.
Now Stripe it could be the rocks released their water when they came to Earth - if the above description is accurate, right?
I always try to remind those who love science - truly love it - that the true beauty of it is seeing how God did things, yes?
Weren't you amazed by things in nature found by us?
I was amazed to find humans may have thought the Sun was circling the Earth - because it looked that way.
But when we found that was not true we called it geocentrism and laughed at it.
Only to find out later that though the Earth is moving like one part of a clockworks of wheels within wheels - yet it is (so far) the only part to benefit from the entire solar system that may serve it.
Imagine - all of this (the Solar System) for the life on Earth.
But not just that is amazing! No.
Look at the Complexity and Delicacy of how this whole thing is put together and works.
Change one planet's orbit - and it might destroy the whole system, right?
Linear Mode
