[geocentrism] Re: Moon phases
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 10:20:07 -0500
Interesting hermeneutics, Philip.
in Latin: orior : I rise, become visible, appear
sol : sun
etiam or quoque would be used for also
oritur sol ..... the sun rises ..
in Hebrew zarach means :
to rise, come forth, break out, arise, rise up, shine
to come out, appear
Neither the original Hebrew nor the Vulgate text contain the word 'also'.
Pax Christi,
Robert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Philip
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 12:32 AM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon phases
>
>
> A more serious talk on the language of the Bible, specific to the
> sun.. In my jest to Gary, I discovered something...that might be
> important..
> I noticed that the modernist s have changed Ecclesiastes 1verses
> 4 and 5... Look at what the 21st century KJV said. (now I am not
> being denominationally argumentive here, the modern Catholic
> Bible has done worse)
>
> 4One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh; but
> the earth abideth for ever.
> 5The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to
> his place where he arose.
>
> That word "also" .. See how if applied to verse 5, in the same
> manner as verse 4, then they can say that the bible is speaking
> with the meaning given to "riseth" as when a generation dies and
> another comes, "into being" .. This is a subtle way to attack the
> geocentric claim.
>
> Because the 1899 DR bible says,
>
> 4One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but
> the earth standeth for ever. 5The sun riseth, and goeth down, and
> returneth to his place: and there rising again
>
> There is no "also "
>
> Now take a look at the KJV This is the 1611 version, 1987
> print, not the modern 1975 translation called the New KJV. , and
> quite distinct from the 21st century KJV.
>
> 4One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but
> the earth abideth for ever. 5The sun also ariseth, and the sun
> goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
>
> There is that added word... also Perchance a heliocentrist
> influence in 1611
>
> Just for fun lets see what the 1987,new KJV translation said.
> This was commissioned by Thomas Nelson, publishers said to be
> from the original??? Greek Hebrew and Arabic texts.. Funny how
> these seem to be available, when they were not available to the
> 17th century, when they relied heavily on St. Jeromes Vulgate.
>
> 4One generation passes away, and another generation comes; But
> the earth abides forever. 5The sun also rises, and the sun goes
> down, And hastens to the place where it arose...
>
> So thats 3 to 1 against geocentrism in the use of the word
> riseth... it being merely also as a generation cometh and goeth.etc.
>
> I have no Latin.. perhaps someone can tell us if riseth is here,
> and if "also" is there as well, Here is Jeromes words..
> 4generatio praeterit et generatio advenit terra vero in aeternum stat
>
> 5oritur sol et occidit et ad locum suum revertitur ibique renascens
>
>
>
> Philip.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gary Shelton
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 12:20 PM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon phases
>
>
> Philip,
>
> You were quick to jump on this like a BA-er would, and it is
> plausible...sounding. But, you are comparing apples to
> oranges, don't you
> think?
>
> That the sun does rise is a proper geocentric term taken literally.
>
> That the moon is "new" each month is also a proper geocentric term taken
> literally.
>
> I make this statement due to the sense of the use of the word
> "new". Here
> in the states it is a common thing to say one has a "new" car.
> Now that car
> may be a 1992 clunker, but if it's something that person just purchased,
> then it is still called "new". It is understood that the car
> is not really
> "new" by the parties involved.
>
> Likewise, you seem to only be allowing Jack one definition for the word
> "new" here. The moon is new each month. That doesn't mean God
> created it
> brand spanking "new" at that time. It is not a
> phenomenological language
> issue at all; it is the simple fact that "new" has more than
> one dictionary
> denotation.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gary
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 4:37 PM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon phases
>
>
> > Dear Gary,
> > Does the Bible not mention 'new Moon' somewhere?
> > Jack
> >
> > Now who said the Bible has to be taken literally, and not in the
> vernacular, i e The sun "rises?" in the east,, is only an
> expression of
> what is seen...
> >
> > What we call a "new" moon is not new at all, is it.. ? So
> must we look
> literally for an old moon?
> >
> > There is a new moon in the bible Jack then you might have
> just made a big
> argument against us re the written word of God, not being
> literal, but uses
> our figures of speech....
> >
> > 1 Kings 20-5
> > 4 kings 4-23
> > psalm 80
> > Ezechial 46
> >
> > Philip.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.4.0 - Release Date: 2/22/05
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.4.0 - Release Date: 2/22/05
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
