Firmament and waters above: time to choose

[Mallon]

Please point to the place where I said they did.

Admittedly, you didn't. I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I apologize.

The statement was in relationship to the sedimentation that has occured since the original eruption in 1980, again a magnitude of two in comparison to other basins with similar similar vegitation and runoff. Nothing in that indicates the volcano caused the varves. Therefore, the rest of your response here is irrelevant.

Not so fast. It's worth pointing out that the 'sediment' being deposited in those St. Helens lakes is not natural-born sediment seen in surrounding lakes. Unsurprisingly, it is unlithified volcanic ash, which is prone to high erosion given its unconsolidated nature and the locally steep basin slopes. Not at all comparable to the sandstone/siltstone sediments typical of fossil bearing deposits.
Furthermore, according to the uncited paper you quote (Anderson et al., 1985), the varves deposited in the St. Helens basin, while volcanic in origin, remain highly seasonal in deposition and therefore do not support your assertion that they were deposited "catastrophically". They are deposited seasonally like every other varve deposit we know of. Floods do not deposit varves.

You can't -- or more appropriately, won't. There are scientists who do, as I explained. Because you dont' believe it doesn't make the hypothesis plausible.

That is correct. I won't accept the catastrophic interpretation because it does not explain all the data. I have not spent the last 4 years of my life studying geology in university only to accept every untested claim that surfaces. Your catastrophist hypothesis is not plausible because it does not explain the presence of sequenced in situ lycopods and terrestrial trace fossils (e.g. footprints). If you know of any research or researchers that specifically address these issues, then please present them here. Otherwise, consider your claims refuted.

But as an historic record, its value is highly questionable.

I admit, the fossil and rock records are not complete accounts of the history of the earth. And no professional will tell you that they are. But we make the best we can of them, teasing the answers from the ground as they surface. If your catastrophic interpretation of the earth is correct, then you have nothing to fear -- the answers will approach your interpretation as time goes on. But to date, the earth continues to appear older and older, growing farther and farther from a catastrophist POV.

But just because you decline to explore alternatively valid scientific explanations for origins and geology doesn't mean the science is bad. It just means you won't explore it.

I'm a little offended by your comment that I am not open to exploring alternative options. The fact is that I have explored these alternative options and have found them lacking for the reasons explained above. I have a degree in geology (concentration in vertebrate palaeontology and palaeoecology), so I feel that I have the appropriate background against which to assess such claims. I am unaware of your background, and am unwilling to hazard a guess, but I hope that you too would keep an open mind and consider such long-standing "alternative" views as those put forth in Hutton's Theory of the Earth or Lyell's Principles of Geology. These uniformitarian views have long withstood the test of time for the very same reasons as those other, unrelated scientific theories which you wholeheartedly accept -- they explain all the data.

 

[jereth]

Hi Assyrian,

Before I respond to you, I'll briefly give you some personal context. As you've no doubt gathered, I grew up a YECist. As a child I remember no adult being able to satisfactorily answer my question: "what happened on Day 2 of creation week?" The standard answer from parents adn schoolteachers was "God created the atmosphere, separating the clouds from the seas". But I guess I never really bought it -- it just didn't sound right. My little child-brain read the text and imagined a literal sea of water up in space.

At high school I saw an artwork of creation week. The Day 2 depiction looked exactly like a hamburger -- with a beef pattie (the firmament) separating 2 pieces of bread (the waters above and below). That really confused me.

Many years later, while at university, what finally caused me to give up on YECism was an in depth study of Day 2 and the "firmament". I finally saw how Day 2, as literally described, bore absolutely no resemblance to physical reality as we know it.

The problem is heavens and the firmament seem to have a range of meanings, the simplest being the expanse of atmosphere between us and the clouds.

There are 2 main problems with this interpretation.
1. The word firmament (raqia) itself implies a firm, beaten out surface. Here are occurences of the verb form of raqia:

And they hammered out gold leaf, and he cut it into threads to work into the blue and purple and the scarlet yarns. Exodus 39:3

As for the censers of these men who have sinned at the cost of their lives, let them be made into hammered plates as a covering for the altar... So Eleazar the priest took the bronze censers, which those who were burned had offered, and they were hammered out as a covering for the altar. Numbers 16:38, 39

I beat them fine as the dust of the earth; I crushed them and stamped them down like the mire of the streets. 2 Samuel 22:43

An idol! A craftsman casts it, and a goldsmith overlays it with gold and casts for it silver chains. Isaiah 40:19

Beaten silver is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz. Jeremiah 10:9

Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast-metal mirror? Job 37:18

…to him who by understanding made the heavens… to him who spread out the earth above the waters… Psalm 136:6
I am the Lord who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself. Isaiah 44:24

The one other time we have a description of a raqia is in Ezekiel, where it is definitely described as a solid (transparent) ceiling-like structure. So then, why would the author of Genesis 1 choose such a word to describe the atmosphere? Isn't it utterly misleading?

2. On Day 2 God calls the raqia "heaven". Then, on Day 4 God places sun, moon and stars in the raqia of heaven. Throughout the Old Testament the sun, moon and stars are called "host of heaven" (see also Daniel 12:3 -- the stars are in the raqia). The Hebrew language has a word for "above", yet he consciously chose "in". Again, why such a misleading choice?

Indeed, creationist cosmologist R Humphreys argues the same thing -- "in" literally means "in", and therefore (in his opinion) the raqia is intergalactic space and the "waters above" are at the edge of the universe.

A question I have is did people in the ANE have a coherent cosmology, or was the dome shaped model constructed later from statements in their poetry and myths?

It seems to me that the ANE had a basic assumption about the cosmos -- that heaven is separated from earth by a firmament, in which the stars are embedded. And it is not such a silly assumption either. In the absence of astronomical instruments, the sun, moon and stars really do look like they are pasted onto a flat surface high above us. To the naked eye, there is absolutely no parallax, and thus every visible heavenly object (sun, moon, planets, stars) appears to be at the precise same distance from earth.

Incredibly, even modern telescopic astronomy continues to describe the heavens as a celestial sphere, with each object being located by 2 coordinates (ascension and declination).

Now, there is a big differnece of course between a "basic assumption" and a "coherent cosmology". The basic assumption comes from the simple appearance of things, and can easily be challenged. A coherent cosmology comes from directed study, and can't be easily challenged.

 

[shernren]

Please point to the place where I said they did. The statement was in relationship to the sedimentation that has occured since the original eruption in 1980, again a magnitude of two in comparison to other basins with similar similar vegitation and runoff. Nothing in that indicates the volcano caused the varves. Therefore, the rest of your response here is irrelevant.

Now, this statement:

That is the very question at the heart of the rather heated debate over the implications of Mt. St. Helens' eruption, and the subsequent buildup of sedimentation in a blast-zone lake in the vicinity of the volcano. Already, the sedimentation materials are on an order of two magnitudes greater than those found in basins with similar vegetation and runoff.

was made in response to this:

We know that varves are not deposited in a matter of minutes, hours, or days.

Mallon was pointing out that there is no way to explain the deposition of varves within a short time-frame catastrophic geology. The problem is not the amount of material deposited but the regular cyclicity shown. If you were not saying that the volcano caused varves, or that this shows that volcanoes are able to cause varves, you have effectively said nothing yet towards the problem of how the Flood could have deposited varves.

You can't -- or more appropriately, won't. There are scientists who do, as I explained. Because you dont' believe it doesn't make the hypothesis plausible.

Your explanation was:

Similarly, debate continues over the same deposits of multiple layers of forests in ongoing cataclysmic flood events resulting from the kind of natural dam failure you acknowledged as plausible in the creation of the Grand canyon. In fact, there are discussions among some creation scientists that the forests were actually deposited in such sequenced layers by the Flood itself, tidal forces and their ebb and flow alternately depositiing debris, then sediment, then debris, then sediment, etc. until we arrive at the evidence visible today.

to which Mallon responded with:

Except you can't explain these sequenced forests in such a way. Take the lycopod forests in Joggins, NS, for example. These 'trees' are rooted in the ground, with their rootlets still intact. They are in situ. Not only that, but the area shows signs of immature paleosols occuring at the levels of the different paleoforest floors. These kinds of features cannot be deposited in the midst of a flood. Nor can the sequenced layers of terrestrial animal footprints found there. Only a gradualistic framework explains ALL the data.

Do you think that your model adequately explains the evidence set forward in Mallon's post? In other words, the burden of proof is that the rapid deposition must:

i) deposit the multiple layered forests in such a way that each forest appears rooted in the relevant soil layers;
ii) exhibit paleosol formation (I'm not sure myself what Mallon meant with that )
iii) deposit terrestrial animal footprints in layers.

The hypothesis isn't implausible because of personal disbelief. It's implausible because it doesn't explain evidence. If you think the hypothesis you have set forward explains this evidence, you are at perfect liberty to show us how.

What you have shown is that I disagree with your viewpoint. That doesn't make me "misled," it just makes me in disagreement with you,. My agreement is not necessary to your viewpoint because you will continue to espouse it no matter what I say. But just because you decline to explore alternatively valid scientific explanations for origins and geology doesn't mean the science is bad. It just means you won't explore it.

Well, the alternatives have been explored, and shown to be invalid. You are at perfect liberty to prove that it is not so.

 

[jereth]

Hmm.
Is it not somewhat alarming that only 4-5 creationists have an opinion about what happened on Day 2 of creation week?

More alarming still that at least one creationist voted "don't know or don't care".

If 6 literal days / literal Genesis is so important, why such lack of certainty / lack of conviction on this issue?

What happened on Day 2?

 

[Mallon]

ii) exhibit paleosol formation (I'm not sure myself what Mallon meant with that )

Paleosols are simply fossil soil horizons. Admittedly, they are weakly developed in Joggins (due to the high rate of local subsidence), but they are there nonetheless. In fact, paleosols are found throughout the fossil record. I have yet to see a creationist explanation as to how a global flood can deposit sequenced fossil soil horizons. But I'm sure the researchers at AiG and CRS are hard at work, carrying out detailed scientific analyses of the problem.

 

[DamonWV]

Its hard to figure out exactly what is meant. And any time someone states their view you get attacked, so I just say there was something, something happended, and then something was over

 

[JAL]

I take it all literally. Therefore, at issue is not vapor but literal water. This is an essay I wrote elsewhere.

[FONT=&quot]Originally our entire galaxy was a huge body of water as raw material. [/FONT]The New Inter national Version of 2Pet 3:5 reads, “Long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.” Other versions could be cited as well.http://www.christianforums.com/#_edn1 Albert Barnes commented on this verse that Genesis depicts the earth as formed from sheer fluid “called ‘waters’.”[ii] Adam Clarke remarked, “Now, these heavens and earth which God made in the beginning, and which he says were at first formless and empty, and which he calls the deep, are in the very next verse called waters…[The] earth was made out of some fluid substance.”[iii] John Calvin assented, “The world no doubt had its origin from waters.”[iv] Keil & Delitzsch elaborated,

“And darkness was upon the face of the deep.”[Hebrew] תּהום, from הוּם, to roar, to rage, denotes the raging waters, the roaring waves (Psa 42:7) or flood (Ex 15:5; Deut 8:7); and hence the depths of the sea (Job 28:14; Job 38:16)…The chaotic mass in which the earth and the firmament were still undistinguished, unformed, and as it were unborn, was a heaving deep, an abyss of waters ([FONT=&quot]ἄβυσσος[/FONT],LXX).[v]


God planned to create the world in six one-day stages. Logically the sun, moon, and stars would not be placed within this water-cosmos until a sufficiently large expanse was cleared of water. Paul Seely so interpreted Genesis in a masterful two-part article entitled: “The Firmament and the Water Above.”[vi] He argues that the Hebrew text is so unambiguous that Jews and Christians unanimously read Genesis, until the Renaissance, essentially as follows. (1) From this galaxy of water God designated a small pocket of water to serve as the raw material to form the earth. (2) He then encased that water pocket (earth) with a solid block of substance called firmament. (3) He expanded the firmament to remove excess galactic waters away from the water pocket (earth) in all directions. (4) He molded the pocket to form dry land. (5) He placed the sun and visible stars in this firmament.[vii] (6) The other side of the firmament away from us still serves as a roof/ceiling that undergirds the excess galactic water. During Noah’s flood the “windows of heaven [the firmament] were opened” to release some of this water upon the earth and then were closed afterwards, according to scholars such as Paul Seely, John Wesley, Adam Clarke, Joseph Dillow, J.C. Whitcomb Jr., and H.M. Morris.[viii] In harmony with modern astronomy, however, these scholars equate the firmament with empty space rather than solid material. In other words they reject the literal reading of Genesis unanimous among Jewish and Christian scholars for millennia until the Renaissance.

The present writer takes this solid Firmament to be God’s own substance, manifest tangibly, and deployed to hold our galaxy together by functioning as the Gravity, Magnetism, and Nuclear Force (precisely as He does for the rest of the universe).

This crystal Firmament is the same substance that constitutes parts of the heavenly architecture. For instance in Ezekiel’s vision Christ’s throne-platform was a solid subsection of crystal Firmament that descended to earth born on cherubim, “And above the firmament that was over [the cherubim’s] heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone” (Eze 1:26). Convinced that Ezekiel saw the very same solid firmament of Genesis, Paul Seely elaborated, “The throne mentioned was apparently sitting on this firmament (cf. Exod 24:10) and the firmament looked like crystal or ice…Even conservatives admit the firmament in Ezekiel 1 is solid.”[ix] Scholars may question whether Ezekiel’s vision is to be taken literally but agree that he saw solid substance. However, Ex 24:10 narrates that Israel’s seventy elders on Mt Sinai literally “saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in [its crystal] clearness.” Here many commentators recognize Ezekiel’s heavenly crystal appearing in Exodus.[x] Paul Seely argued that the Hebrew terminology used in both Genesis and Ezekiel demands the ancient classic consensus that “there is a sea on both sides of the solid firmament…[which] serves as a [crystal] roof to the universe and under which firmament are the sun, moon, and stars.”[xi] He finds evidence at Psalm 148:4, “Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.”[xii]


FOOTNOTES:

http://www.christianforums.com/#_ednref1 The Authorized Version of 2Pet 3:5 reads “by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water” but the margin notes that the Greek word for “standing” literally means “consisting” or “subsisting.” Darby’s English Version favors “subsisting,” the Douay Rheims “consisting,” the Weymouth NT “arising,” the Spanish New International Version “arising,” and Dios Habla Hoy (a Spanish popular version) “arising.” Robertson’s Word Pictures, as well as John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible, as well as the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge deemed “consisting” acceptable. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary allows either “consisted of water” or “formed out of water.” The World English Bible reads “formed out of water and amid water.” Vincent’s Word Studies finds at 2Pet 3:5 a possible reference to “the original liquid condition of the earth.” Family NT Notes states, “consisting out of water and by water. The reference is to the chaotic watery mass out of which the earth was formed (Ge 1:2).”

[ii] Albert Barnes Notes on 2Pet 3:5, E-Sword free software.

[iii] Adam Clarke’s Commentary on 2Pet 3:5, E-Sword le Software.

[iv] Calvin’s Commentaries on 2Pet 3:5, Galaxie Software.

[v] Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament on Gen 1:2 (E-Sword Software).

[vi] Paul H. Seely, “The Firmament and the Water Above Part I: The Meaning of raqiaà in Gen 1:6-8,” Westminster Theological Journal, Vol 53:2 (1991), pp. 227-241;Paul H. Seely, “The Firmament and the Water Above Part II: The Meaning of ‘The Water above the Firmament’ in Gen 1:6-8,” Westminster Theological Journal, Vol 54:1 (1992), pp. 31-46.

[vii] Paul H. Seely, “The Firmament and the Water Above Part II: The Meaning of ‘The Water above the Firmament’ in Gen 1:6-8,” Westminster Theological Journal, Vol 54:1 (1992), pp. 40-42.

[viii] John Wesley’s Notes on Gen 7:11; Adam Clarke’s Commentary on 2Pet 3:5; Paul H. Seely, “The Firmament and the Water Above Part II: The Meaning of ‘The Water above the Firmament’ in Gen 1:6-8,” Westminster Theological Journal, Vol 54:1 (1992), p. 42. Seely cites Dillow, Whitcomb, and Morris as advocates of flooding by superfirmamental water (J. Dillow, The Waters Above: Earth’s Pre-Flood Canopy (Chicago: Moody, 1981); J. C. Whitcomb, Jr., and H. M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961) 399, 404–5.

[ix] Paul H Seely, “The Firmament and the Water Above Part I: The Meaning of raqia in Gen 1:6-8,” Westminster Theological Journal, Vol 53:2 (1991), p. 239, Galaxie Software, italics mine.

[x] For instance see Grant and Coates in the Online Bible Anthology of Commentaries; Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary; the Matthew Henry Commentary; Albert Barnes’ Notes; Adam Clarke’s Commentary.

[xi] Paul H. Seely, “The Firmament and the Water Above Part II: The Meaning of ‘The Water above the Firmament’ in Gen 1:6-8,” Westminster Theological Journal, Vol 54:1 (1992), Galaxie Software, pp. 40, 45.

[xii] Ibid., pp. 44-45.

 

[KerrMetric]

[FONT=&quot]Originally our entire galaxy was a huge body of water as raw material.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]I hope that was a joke.
[/FONT]

 

[JAL]

[/font]

[/b][/SIZE][FONT=&quot]I hope that was a joke.
[/FONT]

Ummmm......No. I am serious.

 

[gluadys]

Originally our entire galaxy was a huge body of water as raw material.

Why stop at our entire galaxy? What about the billions of other galaxies in the universe?

In harmony with modern astronomy, however, these scholars equate the firmament with empty space rather than solid material. In other words they reject the literal reading of Genesis unanimous among Jewish and Christian scholars for millennia until the Renaissance.

Good critique. However we should note that it was only for about one and a half millennia that Jews and Christians used the interpretation you outlined. These scholars not only reject the reading of Genesis prior to the Renaissance. They also conflate the medieval reading of Genesis with the ancient reading of Genesis as if they were the same.

But the medieval reading accepted the Greek concept of a spherical earth which is not found in scripture. The ancient reading also took literally that neither the earth nor the firmament was a sphere. That reading was used from the time the scriptures were written until both Jews and Christians adopted the Ptolemaic concept of a universe composed of spheres within spheres.

 

[gluadys]

[/FONT][/SIZE][/B][FONT=&quot]I hope that was a joke.
[/FONT]

Joke or not, it is an intriguing example of how so-called literalists cherry pick what they will interpret literally and what they will not.

He rebukes modern creationists for not accepting the literalness of a solid firmament. Yet he does not rebuke them or Calvin for using the non-literal interpretation of a spherical universe rather than a three-story universe as the bible does.

Then, ironically, he himself proposes a highly non-literal interpretation that identifies the firmament with gravity, etc. A completely anachronistic reading adopted solely to make the biblical passage apparently agree with today's science.

It certainly should be a joke.

 

[JAL]

Why stop at our entire galaxy? What about the billions of other galaxies in the universe?

Probably because the heavenly city is mostly for men and angels, its probably a globe encircling the earth. It probably has a huge ocean in it as part of the beautiful scenery - just for men and angels. I don't see the need to extend it to fill the whole universe.

However we should note that it was only for about one and a half millennia that Jews and Christians used the interpretation you outlined.

That's a pretty long time. Makes a strong impression on me, anyway.

 

[JAL]

Joke or not, it is an intriguing example of how so-called literalists cherry pick what they will interpret literally and what they will not.

He rebukes modern creationists for not accepting the literalness of a solid firmament. Yet he does not rebuke them or Calvin for using the non-literal interpretation of a spherical universe rather than a three-story universe as the bible does.

Then, ironically, he himself proposes a highly non-literal interpretation that identifies the firmament with gravity, etc. A completely anachronistic reading adopted solely to make the biblical passage apparently agree with today's science.

It certainly should be a joke.

Why is it a non-literal reading to identify gravity with God's substance? I've discussed this with you before Gluadys. When Newton came up with his theory of gravity, he admitted it was nonsense. He said that anyone who believed it literally is pretty much a fool. Basically he said that it is illogical to suggest that two people on opposite sides of a football field are exerting a pull on each other without a rope stretched between them to trasmit the pull. So at times he speculated that it was the hand of God doing the pushing and pulling. Einstein's theory of gravity is more complicated, and I admit I don't fully understand it, but I supsect he formed it, like Newton, to explain the fact of gravity (the observed data). This doesn't change my conviction that the observed data is odd. I can conceive of nothing inherent in the nature of a mass such that gravity should exist. I cannot explain it without God.

One of things that intrigues me, speaking from Newton's theory, which is pretty accurate, is that the force of gravity increases as the distance between two particles closes. This is rather odd, because the particles don't have eyes to see that the other particle has come closer. The Bible says that God upholds the universe. An intelligent Being who sees the two particles approaching would naturally increase the pull if doing so sustains His desired equilibrium, thereby producing the type of universe He intended. How does God uphold the universe, in your view? Oh, I forgot, nothing in the Bible has any real meaning in your view. Nothing is literal.

 

[steen]

I take it all literally. Therefore, at issue is not vapor but literal water.

Irrelevant. The vapor pressure is the weight of the water in the atmosphere above the point of measurement, regardless of whether it is there as vapor, water , ice or whatnot. So that doesn't change the vapor pressure.

This is an essay I wrote elsewhere.

So?

Originally our entire galaxy was a huge body of water as raw material.

No, it wasn't.

As for the rest of your claims and references, there is not one thing even remotely scientific about it, and as such it is irrelevant as evidence.

 

[steen]

This doesn't change my conviction that the observed data is odd. I can conceive of nothing inherent in the nature of a mass such that gravity should exist. I cannot explain it without God. ..

And I think it pretty much settles it right there.

One of things that intrigues me, speaking from Newton's theory, which is pretty accurate, is that the force of gravity increases as the distance between two particles closes. This is rather odd, because the particles don't have eyes to see that the other particle has come closer.

And they also don't have ears, so they sure can't hear each other. And their sense of smell is....

This MUST be an example of Poe's law. Anything else is much to scary to contemplate.

 

[JAL]

As for the rest of your claims and references, there is not one thing even remotely scientific about it, and as such it is irrelevant as evidence.

So? Since when was this thread limited to a discussion of evidence? Have you forgotten which thread this was? Go back and read the Opening Post. I'm curious about something, since you seem to be one of those people for whom truth is limited to scientific evidence. What do you say about the miracles of Scripture? They are not true until we find the scientific evidence for them?

But if we found a scientific explanation, it wouldn't be a miracle, right? Honestly I'm confused about this approach. I'm a bit slow, I won't deny that. Enlighten me please.

 

[JAL]

Honestly Steen, I don't really understand your beef with me. Maybe you thought I was debating with you. I don't even know what you posted. I was only responding to the Opening Post. However, feel free to continue critiquing my claims. I'm sure I'll learn something. Cheers.

 

[JAL]

And I think it pretty much settles it right there.

And they also don't have ears, so they sure can't hear each other. And their sense of smell is....

This MUST be an example of Poe's law. Anything else is much to scary to contemplate.

And yet nothing you've written has convinced me that my conclusions contradict science. Enlighten me.

 

[Mallon]

I'm curious about something, since you seem to be one of those people for whom truth is limited to scientific evidence.

I think it's worth pointing out that you're the only one in this thread who believes that unless the Bible is scientifically accurate it cannot speak truth. If you didn't believe this, you wouldn't be coming up with all these apologetic, knee-jerk cosmologies of yours.
TEs, on the other hand, believe that we can learn truth about God regardless of whether the early chapters of the Bible are accurate depictions of the cosmos or not.
Most TEs here also believe in miracles, but it's fairly obvious at this point that much of what you say about the early make-up of the galaxy is non-biblical and non-scientific.

 

[Assyrian]

One of things that intrigues me, speaking from Newton's theory, which is pretty accurate, is that the force of gravity increases as the distance between two particles closes. This is rather odd, because the particles don't have eyes to see that the other particle has come closer. The Bible says that God upholds the universe. An intelligent Being who sees the two particles approaching would naturally increase the pull if doing so sustains His desired equilibrium, thereby producing the type of universe He intended. How does God uphold the universe, in your view? Oh, I forgot, nothing in the Bible has any real meaning in your view. Nothing is literal.

Did you know a candle gets four times brighter if I half my distance to it? I have eyes, but I am not doing anything to the candle to make it brighter. Do you think God turns up the brightness of the candle as I get closer? What if I have a partner who stays at the original distance? The candle stays the same to him. Does God get the candle to burn brighter in my direction only? Could we photograph this effect? Do candles burn down more quickly when people are close to them?