Examining Genesis...

There is no specific "method" for determining which parts are literal and which parts are non-literal. But I'm sure you knew that. The determinacy comes through careful studying of both the Bible and the creation described in the Bible. All of the evidence points towards an old Earth and non-literal creation account. God is not the author of lies. Therefore we have two possibilities:

1. The creation account is not literal. Notice I did not say not wrong.

2. The findings of modern science are wrong.

2 would be an acceptable possibility if all of science did not build upon itself and provide endless evidence for an old Earth and an old universe. Therefore, we are left with 1.

My guess is that someone (not necessarily you, but someone) will interpret this answer as "putting the authority of men higher than God." My answer to that is: why would God create something where all the evidence then points to a different reading than a literal genesis. We are back to the whole thing about God not lying.

So, how do you account for the Earth moving in space and all astronomical and meteorological observations showing that we are A) not surrounded by a giant bubble/cloud of water and B) are not the center of the universe?

Thank you for your response. If one can't trust the historical accuracy of the accounts in Genesis, then why should one trust in the historical accuracy of the accounts about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? How can you trust that these accounts are accurate and that Joseph was really a prince of Egypt? Can we trust that the Hebrews were even slaves? How trustworthy is this stuff for you?

A. Keep the context in mind. In context, it says that the earth cannot be moved from its establishment. The earth does not move out of its established orbit.

B. Oh, so whats at the edges of the universe then since you know for a fact there is no water there? Astronomers say they are just starting to see the edges of the universe. It is just too far away to see. Plus, water doesn't emit light so it would be hard to see anyway.

C. I didn't say anything about the earth being in the center of the universe.

Certain historical accounts in the Bible do not make claims that disagree with what is possible given the physical laws of the universe. This alone makes them far more trustworthy as literal historical accounts. Obviously everything in the Bible is true in some shape or form. I want to stress that point as much as possible. Just because something is not literal does not mean it is not true.

Fair enough, although I don't know what the original Greek/Hebrew words directly translates to. But you are applying modern science here with the concept of an orbit around stars. This should be noted that you are indeed applying knowledge and concepts gained from science to a reading of the Bible. Why can you not take it further and apply it to the creation account as well?

We technically don't even know if the universe has boundaries or not. We can assume two general possibilities: There is a physical boundary of some sort to the universe or there is not.

Let's try a physical boundary first. Beyond it, we don't know what there is. We can say with reasonable certainty, though, that it's nothing like what we know. The laws of physics would not be there as they require our physical universe to operate. Matter is physical. Can't have that out there either. Therefore, water won't be outside the universe if the universe has a physical boundary.

If the universe is infinite, then this water would be contained with it. Space is a freezing vacuum. We would be surrounded by a giant sphere of ever-expanding ice. Where do all these extra water molecules come from to keep up with the expanding surface area of this icy sphere?

Again, you should also note that you are in a sense applying modern scientific knowledge to the Bible's account. The Bible, through a plain literal reading, assumes that the firmament was directly above the Earth, not trillions and trillions of lightyears away at the edge of the universe.

Possible? All things are possible with God.

Your problem is you don't understand what is meant by 'universe'. The universe is the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space. That is the accepted definition of the universe.

Apparently, you don't know that liquid water exists in great abundance in outer space.

A. Keep the context in mind. In context, it says that the earth cannot be moved from its establishment. The earth does not move out of its established orbit.

All things that are logically possible. God can't create an married bachelor. And while it is logically possible for him to have created the world this way, the evidence does not agree.



I'm aware of what "universe" means. I'm telling you why there can't be a giant sphere of frozen water in it, or outside of it.



Not in the form of a giant icy sphere that somehow is continuously expanding to fit the entirety of the universe into it.

But the Bible doesn't say that, so it's not a literal interpretation.
In fact, the Bible tells us what the earth is established on. It sits on pillars (Job 9:6, Pslam 75:3). Other verses tell us that the earth is established on water (Psalm 24:2, 136:6).
So to say that the Bible is referring to the earth's orbit is a very non-literal interpretation to make. In which case, you have to ask yourself, where do you take the Bible literally, and where do you not? Like I said, the very same question you think evolutionary creationists can't answer applies to you as well.

Anyway, if you're going to continue to insist that you interpret the Bible literally, whereby the firmament (in which Gen 1:20 tells us the birds fly) means outer-space and the pillars of the earth refer to our planet's orbit, then I just don't see a point continuing here because you don't seem honestly interested in truly examining your hermeneutic. It seems you'd rather give evolutionary creationists a hard time about the speck in their eye rather than acknowledge the log in yours.

You made that up not me.

You are saying there is a firmament of water that encapsulates the universe. I am drawing from it those implications and using it to show you why it's not possible. If it's outside the physical universe as we know it, we can't possibly describe it as of being water because water is matter which exists only inside the physical universe. If it's inside the physical universe (which it must be, being water), then it's a giant, hallow sphere of frozen water that sits on the boundaries of space. Being in space is what causes it to be frozen. Since the universe is expanding, this sphere must be expanding to go with it, or else we'd collide with a giant wall of ice. Since there isn't a conceivable way for this ice sphere to be expanding, I don't see how a firmament can exist at all.

On the other hand, water in liquid form does not exist in space because the temperature and pressure conditions are not suitable.