Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
According to the trial procedure I linked you to, where the person has to be warned there will be a capital punishment moments before? Yes, I would advocate it.
I assume you understand why many people have a problem with that, and why they consider it disproportionate, inhumane and barbaric.
I can understand it. But one has to realize the punishments in the Bible are to serve as deterrents, not that most of these punishments actually occurred in practice.
Warp wrote:
Dare I also assume that in reality, deep inside, you find this problematic as well, from a moral perspective?
No, I don't.
I find that what people consider moral or humane today to be morally bankrupt or near sighted.
Warp wrote:
Some of the laws given in the Bible are in drastic contradiction with your own sense of morality.
I don't trust my own sense of morality. Proverbs 16:2 "All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes".
Warp wrote:
Now, be completely and absolutely honest: Would you personally think that the punishment is not disproportionate if the Bible didn't have this law?
I can say that of any punishment. Why punish anyone?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Didn't you read what I wrote? I said that having capital punishment for something like breaking the sabbath seems inhumane and out of proportion regardless of who enacts it and how it's enacted. "It's done very rarely" is just a cop-out from the actual question.
If a close friend or family member of yours clearly and unambiguously breaks the Sabbath, would you advocate capital punishment for this person? Would you say it's morally acceptable?
(Some Christians resort to the cop-out that the law in question was only given to the Hebrews and it does not apply to gentiles. That doesn't really change anything. Just assume that your friend is Jewish. Would you advocate capital punishment?)
And note that I'm asking your personal opinion, not the opinion of a religious institution or dogma.
According to the trial procedure I linked you to, where the person has to be warned there will be a capital punishment moments before? Yes, I would advocate it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
Case in point, read through the Bible and see how many people it mentions were tried and killed for one of these "crimes". There was a case in Numbers (which took place shortly after the law was given, and served as a deterrent). Other than that case, I can't recall anyone being killed for these "crimes" in the Bible.
Where in those 3 last chapters do you see a single reference to a court executing someone for any of the things Warp listed?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
pirate_sephiroth wrote:
In the end it's nothing but revenge. Except more hypocrytical.
Yes, collecting wood on the Sabbath hurts the witnesses at such a deep level that they need to take revenge on him with his life. :rolleyes:
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
It might help to also realize the depths of proof required before killing someone within the community you described.
I think the objection is to the idea of capital punishment for such "crimes" as homosexuality, adultery or breaking the sabbath. It doesn't really matter who judges and enacts this capital punishment or how. The very idea of capital punishment at all, much less from such "crimes" as breaking the sabbath, seem inhumane and completely out of proportion. And this even if you are an advocate of capital punishment for capital crimes (ie. murder).
While that's the core issue, another problem is the method of execution. In many cases the method of execution is specifically stated as stoning. This is a rather barbaric and inhumane method of execution where the person can suffer unimaginable torment.
Have you actually read what I linked you to? The burden of proof is so high, that the odds of someone actually being killed for one of these crimes is miniscule.
Case in point, read through the Bible and see how many people it mentions were tried and killed for one of these "crimes". There was a case in Numbers (which took place shortly after the law was given, and served as a deterrent). Other than that case, I can't recall anyone being killed for these "crimes" in the Bible.
moozooh wrote:
I've checked those articles, and it appears that nowadays they specifically ensure the convict is drugged sufficiently to not feel said torment. This kinda defeats the purpose of such barbaric practices, but certainly lets you feel better about crushing somebody with a large rock.
The purpose is to remove the person from living, his life no longer has purpose, and we don't need the person committing these crimes again.
Nowhere does the Bible state one has to feel pain when being executed. Being executed is bad enough as is.
Edit: You might also want to read this: http://www.jlaw.com/Briefs/capital2.html
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
Now, if such a decision was cast in e.g. a haredi community, of their own member, and I heard about it. Would I object? Probably not. If I were a member of said community and saw it happen and knew it was true (and not a false accusation)?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
Nach wrote:
If you read this carefully, you see this section does not apply to ordinary people. When judges themselves have a dispute, or are dealing with a case which is too difficult for them, they are to go to the supreme court in the place appointed. Then after the supreme court's ruling, if one of the judges is unfaithful to that ruling, he is eliminated.
Though it does say "If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment", I find no evidence in the passage suggesting that the words are limited to judges that are set over people.
See Deut 16:18 - "Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, tribe by tribe; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment."
Later in the books of Judges and Samuel, you consistently read about the judges sitting by the gates of the city. Hence, "gates" in the Bible is taken to mean the location of the judges within a city.
As to the current case, as you point out, it says "in judgment" which is only a reference to judges. Then it says: "even matters of controversy within thy gates", meaning arguments within a particular courthouse regarding a ruling amongst the judges.
Be careful though not to confuse "by your gates", and "within your gates". The former being a reference to judges or place of judgment, and the latter the people who live there. Unfortunately most translations don't notice the distinction and use it properly.
Bisqwit wrote:
It is not like people themselves cannot judge their own actions according to present law. Can you elaborate?
Yes they can, but why do you think you're supposed to have judges at the gates of each city? They're the ones who are supposed to judge cases.
Also here, the phrase "you shall destroy the evil from among all of Israel" is used. This phrase and the phrase "you should destroy the evil from among yourselves" is also found in a few cases.
Among you:
13:6 - In reference to a prophet who tries to lead people away from G-d.
17:7 - The idol worshiper.
19:19 - The false witness.
21:21 - The young adult who listens to no authority.
22:21 - The adulteress.
22:24 - The adulterer and adulteress.
All of Israel:
17:12 - Our case.
22:22 - The adulterer and adulteress.
The former is more confined to a particular location. The latter which can be a more widespread problem, a type of disease which spreads through the nation.
Now while two people who are not judges can have an argument and go to the supreme court for a ruling, their rejection of the supreme court's ruling won't be known by anyone. Whereas if a judge rejects that ruling, the problem will spread to his future rulings, and other courthouses will also feel free to reject the supreme court's rulings. Therefore our section here seems to be referring to judges who insubordinate, not common people.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
LEV 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
So does this. But how does this work, if one of the parties did not consent to the adultery, e.g. if the wife was raped? The verse says "adulteress". Should a raped person be called an adulterer or an adulteress? I doubt they should.
How does it work in regards to rape? Read Deut. 22:22-27.
Bisqwit wrote:
tl/dr: If you have controversy and you take it up to the court (who are to be vowen to God), you are to honor their decisions and do according to them. Failure to do so is a conscious act of lawlessness, punishable by death. Lawlessness, in general, tends to decrease peace, so I would argue that even this verse is pro-peace. If they are however not serving God, or aren't in a place appointed by God for resolving your dispute, then all bets are off, I guess…
If you read this carefully, you see this section does not apply to ordinary people. When judges themselves have a dispute, or are dealing with a case which is too difficult for them, they are to go to the supreme court in the place appointed. Then after the supreme court's ruling, if one of the judges is unfaithful to that ruling, he is eliminated.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
And may you not get in trouble with the authorities with your human sacrifices!
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
In Psalms 30:1 there is a mention of the dedication of the temple, though Mechon-Mamre translates it as "of the house"
The term in Hebrew for the temple is always "House", "Holy house", and "House of G-d". You can only differentiate which house we're talking about based on context.
Bisqwit wrote:
It is also attributed to David, which means that temporally it is a different event alltogether.
Of course it's attributed to David, he's the one who started it.
In Chronicles I chapter 17, David is outraged that G-d does not have a house to represent him here.
After he is told he can't built it himself, he buys the land it will be built on, and in chapter 22 he commands his son to build it. In chapter 28, he gives his son blueprints and supplies to build the house.
In Chronicles II chapter 3, David's son builds the house according to his father's wishes. The text constantly and consistently points out that Solomon is acting in David's stead.
A similar but less detailed account is also found in Kings.
If you read the verses closely, you see that the "Temple of Solomon" has David's name written all over it. The songs they sang at the dedication and later were also composed by David as stated in the text.
Being that David is the primary author of Psalms, he started the groundwork for building the temple, planned the whole thing, begged his son to complete it, and would have built the whole thing himself if the Prophet didn't tell him not to, the most likely thing that is David's house that is being dedicated is the temple.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
Then again, the Bible does not include the word "hanukkah" (or any variation in spelling thereof) anywhere, so it still does require some extracurricular study.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
Nowadays I'm fond of (some) Hebrew songs. I particularly like the one that goes "Baruch Haba B'Shem Adonai".
That's a song? Isn't it Psalm 118?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
nfq wrote:
Nach wrote:
As I said above, don't confuse the creation of an item as it actually existing anywhere.
I don't see how a thing could not exist anywhere if it has been created.
I don't know if you're familiar with programming terminology. But it can be compared to creating a class, and instantiating an object of that class.
nfq wrote:
Genesis 1 explains the creation of the universe, and Genesis 2 might be talking about the creation of the garden of Eden.
Except it's not.
1-2:3 talks about the creating of the world. The rest of "chapter 2" talks specifics about the world we know. 2:4 specifically says the world is now instantiated, in a day no less. It goes on to speak about how out of Eden came a body of water which split into four bodies of water surrounding well known areas of today.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Kuwaga wrote:
That's very interesting indeed! I didn't know that. I guess it pays off immensly to study Hebrew, if you are interested in the Bible (no big surprise there). I have come across a few passages (don't remember which) that I highly suspect to be slight mistranslations, and it also annoys me that lots of the symbolism and double/hidden meanings get lost in translation.
Some passages are filled with so many meanings at once, it's quite scary.
Mistranslations are common, but there are other issues too. For example, there's an ancient chapter system used and found in very old editions and the dead sea scrolls and so on. Basically, any place where significant space is skipped is the indication of a new chapter.
But when they translated it to Latin, they paid no attention to the spacing, and had it as a running text. Later on, Archbishop Langton felt there needed to be chapters and made up his own. It's amazing how he consistently screwed up where the chapter breaks are supposed to be by a couple of verses throughout. Some even speculate he chose some of his chapters for political reasons. Comparing Langton's chapters to more authoritative ones also show how it distorts the text, and yet they only publish chapters according to Langton these days.
Kuwaga wrote:
That reminds me, I have read somewhere that the word that Jesus uses when he refers to himself as the "son of God" could also be translated to something akin to "servant of God". Is that correct? Probably not.
The word בן in Hebrew most commonly means son, but it can also mean follower or disciple. Son as an idea is also figurative to an extent. See Exodus 4:22 for example:
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh: Thus saith the LORD: Israel is My son, My first-born.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
nfq wrote:
Nach wrote:
Actually, it specifically says there were no plants on earth till man was.
What about Genesis 1 then, where god specifically says he created plants on the third day: "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day." -- Genesis 1:12-13
And as you know, man wasn't created until day 6. In Genesis 2 (after the 7th day) God forms man from the dust, but I guess forming is different from creating.
As I said above, don't confuse the creation of an item as it actually existing anywhere.
The word used at the beginning of 1:13 is commonly translated as "brought forth". But there are other meanings (click effect on the right to see more translations). Since the beginning of chapter 2 says there were no trees yet sprouting on earth, obviously one of the other meanings are more accurate.
It seems to be saying that the earth became capable of producing vegetation at that point.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
nfq wrote:
[But it could be a problem for Christians because the Bible says that plants were created on day 3, and the sun was created on day 4, so if the days are long periods of time, how could the plants survive for thousands or millions of years until the sun is created?
Actually, it specifically says there were no plants on earth till man was.
See beginning of chapter 2:
No shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground;
but there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed.
Don't confuse the creation of an item as it actually existing anywhere.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Well said, thanks!
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Tub wrote:
Nach wrote:
Maybe these improvements are in places that I don't use.
Exactly. You don't use them because you didn't know them from KDE3, so you learned to live without them. Go look for them, give them a chance, there's good stuff in there.
If you'd been a longtime KDE4 user, switching to KDE3 would likely yield a similar reaction from you. "Feature X is gone, KDE3 sucks!".
Perhaps, except I use so little of a desktop as is, I don't really care about most of the apps they improved.
Tub wrote:
Nach wrote:
But you can't have them directly in the sense I described.
Is this about the device notifier? Defaulting to one icon per device doesn't scale well, so KDE4 opted to have one icon. How often do you eject devices that you need this?
Several times daily. It's seems odd, but due to some of the weird things I work with, I generally juggle half a dozen removable devices a day.
Tub wrote:
You can add the device notifier to your desktop, it'll then give you the full list.
Which defeats part of the point. I want to see what's currently going on without minimizing everything.
Tub wrote:
If you add it to the panel, I think it defaults to one icon for all. I'm not sure whether you can add the full notifier to a panel of sufficient size, but if that really does irk you, it's a simple thing to patch.
KDE 4 team already rejected a patch.
Tub wrote:
Nach wrote:
It is KDE's team fault for removing/changing what once existed throughout, without having any way to use a method which many people prefer.
It's not like they just removed stuff because they liked removing stuff. KDE4 was rebuild from ground up, and some things that didn't work well or weren't perceived as high-priority features simply weren't reimplemented. The rebuilt was needed for several reasons, and it enabled several features you will never see in KDE3. A GUI that isn't rendered entirely in software, for example.
I understand why it wasn't there from the get go. Some things they're downright against though.
I had to fight them for 6 months to fix behind the scenes bugs in some networking apps, and apply the patches I sent them. Their reasons for refusal at first was that no one internally knew what the existing code did.
I'm currently fighting them on accepting syntax highlighting improvements for existing languages in KATE, and added syntax highlighting scripts I wrote for languages they don't currently cover. I don't understand what the holdup on this is.
I spoke to Aaron Seigo regarding getting in some old features in KDE 3, which I'd happily write all the code for. He told me that I don't have a clue about usability and how GUIs should be designed, and I should stay far away from these things. And basically made it seem like he'll block anything I'd try to contribute.
I did bother him initially about brining the tree view back to the control panel, and he told me that such a thing should never see the light of day, and he would love if this optional feature can be killed. But buckled due to pressure from lots of people complaining.
It seems to me the only thing they understand is repeated pestering.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
CoolKirby wrote:
Warp wrote:
Are there any other non-obvious tricks that I should be aware of (and that I just cannot find in Windows itself)?
You can make the File/Edit/View/etc. menus visible by pressing Alt in any program that has them hidden (Microsoft Paint, Microsoft Word, Firefox, etc.).
Thanks, that will come in handy.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Tub wrote:
Nach wrote:
Tub wrote:
Reads less like a researched article but more like a subjective soapbox.
Indeed.
To clarify, there's nothing wrong with just, I just object to labeling it an "article". Despite the current state of journalism in countries everywhere, "article" still has connotations to something researched, factual. I'd classify yours somewhere between "rant" and "random blog post".
Well, it contained many personal opinions clearly labeled as such. I don't think anything I said was untrue though.
Tub wrote:
It's not well-researched, it has a very limited, subjective POV (GUIs must be made to suit YOUR personal use case / preferences), it doesn't offer anything constructive except bitching both about the direction of current mainstream GUIs as well as about every other alternative (gnome sucks, trinity has an awful name, bla bla), and you focus on perceived regressions without even acknowledging any improvements that went along with it.
The point of the article is that most interfaces seem to be moving towards something designed for small screens, or a touch interface, or are just "different", without even providing an option for a common interface that people may prefer.
I've seen lots of improvements in look, but functionality wise, I haven't really noticed anything new being offered by the new UIs in normal desktop settings.
Tub wrote:
FYI, you can have applets in your KDE4 panels
But you can't have them directly in the sense I described.
Tub wrote:
and okteta has configurable line sizes, defaulting to 16 bytes on my install. On 4.7.x at least.
I have not seen okteta, what I did see was a new KHexEdit for KDE 4 which was completely busted. Perhaps as you suggest, they replaced it with a new app.
Tub wrote:
but IMHO by now the improvements outweigh the regressions - as long as you accept that it's different and make the effort to adjust to it.
Maybe they do outweigh the regressions overall, but as I described in the article, I only use a couple of windowsy programs. What I found that as late as KDE 4.6, there were regressions in every single application I use other than KolourPaint, as well as the overall interface. Absolutely nothing new that I liked seemed to be added anywhere, I could care less about raindrops on my screen, or spinning cubes, or windows that explode when you close them. Maybe these improvements are in places that I don't use.
Tub wrote:
Trying to make KDE4 look and behave like KDE3 won't work, but that's not KDE4s fault, it's the fault of the ranting guy with the shoehorn.
It is KDE's team fault for removing/changing what once existed throughout, without having any way to use a method which many people prefer.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Tub wrote:
Reads less like a researched article but more like a subjective soapbox.
Indeed.
Tub wrote:
Beginning an article about UIs with Windows 3 is somewhat laughable
Mostly done to contrast it with the upcoming version of Windows.
Tub wrote:
And btw, Trinity is not exclusively a religious concept.
Noun, trinity (plural trinities)
* A group or set of three people or things; triad; trio; trine.
* The state of being three; threeness.
Not sure what's wrong with that name for a project that maintains version 3 of KDE.
If some religious zealot really must assign a christian connotation to that word, he'll surely also refuse to use an UI based on heathen "magic" creatures, right?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Speaking of changing menu contents, one of the most braindead ideas ever to surface this earth was when Microsoft decided to implement changing menus in Windows ME (IIRC). No longer were the contents of menus fixed (thus you being able to select what you want from "muscle memory"), but the contents of menus could change seemingly at random. What was the second entry the last time you selected it might be the first entry the next time. I really can't understand what were they thinking. I think it tells how braindead idea this was that they subsequently quietly dropped this enormous misfeature from subsequent versions of Windows. (OTOH I haven't really checked if it can be turned on somewhere eg. in Windows XP.)
You actually had that in previous versions of Windows if you turned it on with TweakUI. And when they made it the new default, you could turn it off with TweakUI.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
pirate_sephiroth wrote:
Nach wrote:
Indeed, that's also further there: "And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years;"
yeah, that's pretty nice as well... EXCEPT that was said on the 3rd day. Days were been counted before day and night could be defined.
That's exactly what the text says if you read it closely.
To make it clearer: "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to [visually] divide the day from the night"
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
