nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 16:
Line 16: + + + + + + + +
→Waw: new section
Some would argue that the vast emptiness is defined by the distance between two points of matter. Without these two points such a measurement cannot be made. To put it another way, the Universe only exists where there are things in it. One could argue that if you removed all the Matter from the universe you have no Universe.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:13, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Some would argue that the vast emptiness is defined by the distance between two points of matter. Without these two points such a measurement cannot be made. To put it another way, the Universe only exists where there are things in it. One could argue that if you removed all the Matter from the universe you have no Universe.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:13, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
: Assuming that the concept that the universe can only be defined by the matter within it is true, it still doesn't follow that the sun, moon, and stars comprised that matter. God may have, for example, created a universe containing hydrogen atoms, or water, or dust, or something, and added the sun, moon, and stars later. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
: Assuming that the concept that the universe can only be defined by the matter within it is true, it still doesn't follow that the sun, moon, and stars comprised that matter. God may have, for example, created a universe containing hydrogen atoms, or water, or dust, or something, and added the sun, moon, and stars later. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
== Waw ==
I just reversed a recent edit that added the words that I've bolded:
:"Gap theorists claim that the verse can be translate to say that the Earth ''became'' formless and empty. However, '''others maintain''' the [[Hebrew]] letter ''waw'' used as a conjunction does not allow this translation in this context."
Although this is accurate, I believe that it is misleading in giving the impression that it's just a matter of two opposing opinions. Rather, the ones who maintain that ''waw'' cannot be used to mean ''became'' are basing their arguments on the Hebrew language (see also the second reference I've just added), and I've seen no evidence that those who hold to the gap theory can make the directly-opposing claim about the word. If ''Hebrew scholars'' or equivalent can be quoted who argue that ''waw'' can be translated this way, then the wording above can probably be reinstated.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:24, 6 July 2008 (EDT)