Firmament and waters above: time to choose

[JAL]

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....

You really don't know much about what I believe. Let me update you a bit. I experience what seems to be a fairly compelling, fairly persuasive God-given testimony that Scripture is inspired and that God wants me to take it literally when possible. The reasons for putting trust in such "experience" are stated on my recent thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t3186227-scripture-or-tradition-neither.html

You don't need to read that thread, however, because it's not the topic at issue here. There are also strong theological and hermeneutical reasons for taking Genesis literally. For example, I have never seen a convincing theodicy devoid of a literal Adam. For starters, it must convincingly deal with how Paul blames the world's misery on Adam in Romans 5. In fact I have never seen a convincing theodicy at all outside my own theory of it.
Secondly, it's a somewhat unconvoncing hermeneutic that would read First Adam (nonliterally) in verses speaking of a literal Second Adam (Romans 5). Third, Adam is present in biblical genealogies. Fourth, Hebrews alludes to Adam's children Abel and Cain. Fifth, Num 12:6-8 gives us reason to take Genesis as literally as possible. Here God says that He spoke to lesser prophets in parables but literally to Moses.

.... (Otherwise) you wouldn't be coming up with all these apologetic, knee-jerk cosmologies of yours.

False dichotomy. It assumes that there only two competing epistemologies, Science and Literalism. I, on the other hand, see at least three possible bases for drawing conclusions. (1) Hermeneutics (2) God's voice - as noted in my thread linked above. (3) Scientific evidence. None of these three sources, as generally experienced, are apodictic. Hence I have to weigh them all. What you describe as a knee-jerk cosmology is better described as an epistemelogical synergy. What would you think of a scientist who only took into consideration one source of data (one branch of science)? All possible datasources must be considered and harmonized - convincingly.

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.

Actually, my literal interpretation of Genesis can harmonize with theistic evolution. Your statement shows how little you know about what I believe. Please don't assume so much. Personally, I don't believe in evolution. However, I don't see any clear evidence that evolution contradicts Genesis.

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.

Frankly you've demonstrated neither. Show your work.

 

[JAL]

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?

You're basing this argument on a false premise. This isn't just lousy reasoning, it's also poor science, which is rather surprising coming from a person who probably claims to be scientific. The error is that a candle does not become objectively "four times" brighter when I approach it. The magnitude of its "solar radiation," as it were, is not fourfold increased. You are confusing subjective brightness with objective luminosity. You have drawn a false scientific conclusion merely in reaction to my critique of gravity-theory, which threatens to impugn your (apparently?) hyper-scientific world view.

 

[gluadys]

Why is it a non-literal reading to identify gravity with God's substance?

Because it is not suggested by the literal sense of the scriptural text which makes no link between the firmament and gravity, much less the substance of God.


It is your personal and idiosyncratic interpretation of the text without any hermeneutical basis.


It happens that it also has no scientific basis, but that fact is irrelevant to whether the interpretation of the text is literal.

I can conceive of nothing inherent in the nature of a mass such that gravity should exist. I cannot explain it without God.

Then I would recommend a course in physics. And why would you want to explain it without God? Science never requires that anything be explained without God.

How does God uphold the universe, in your view?

Through the power of his Word as Paul says in Colossians 1:17

Oh, I forgot, nothing in the Bible has any real meaning in your view. Nothing is literal.

On the contrary, everything in the Bible has real meaning in my view--both what is literal and what is not literal.

It is you who equate "non-literal" with "no real meaning" and project your belief onto me. A common psychological error.

 

[Assyrian]

You're basing this argument on a false premise. This isn't just lousy reasoning, it's also poor science, which is rather surprising coming from a person who probably claims to be scientific. The error is that a candle does not become objectively "four times" brighter when I approach it. The magnitude of its "solar radiation," as it were, is not fourfold increased. You are confusing subjective brightness with objective luminosity. You have drawn a false scientific conclusion merely in reaction to my critique of gravity-theory, which threatens to impugn your (apparently?) hyper-scientific world view.

You will, objectively, have four times the amount of light shining on you if you half the distance to the candle. Just as you will have four times the gravitational force between two objects if they are half the distance.

You realise the actual luminosity of the candle does not change. Good. Presumably then you don't think God miraculously changes the apparent brightness so that four times the amount of light hits your eyes. So why suggest God miraculously changes the gravitational force between the two object as they get closer?

And no I don't feel threatened by you critique.

 

[Mallon]

For example, I have never seen a convincing theodicy devoid of a literal Adam.

TE doesn't require a disbelief in a literal Adam. I, too, believe there was a first man somewhere along the evolutionary line. TE does say that the Earth is not young and not created in 6 literal days, however.

False dichotomy. It assumes that there only two competing epistemologies, Science and Literalism. I, on the other hand, see at least three possible bases for drawing conclusions. (1) Hermeneutics (2) God's voice - as noted in my thread linked above. (3) Scientific evidence. None of these three sources, as generally experienced, are apodictic.

Agreed. But you're telling us that there's a solid, crystal firmament holding our galaxy together. If you're telling us that the firmament is real and tangible, yet we cannot see or touch it even remotely (and, in fact, have enough objective evidence to believe otherwise), do you not think that science trumps your hermeneutic in this case? Put another way, you're telling us that the sky is red when it is clearly blue.

What would you think of a scientist who only took into consideration one source of data (one branch of science)? All possible datasources must be considered and harmonized - convincingly.

I agree. Unfortunately, I don't think your hermeneutic coincides with science in any way.

Frankly you've demonstrated neither. Show your work.

You're advocating a solid crystalline dome that surrounds our galaxy which we cannot presently see or touch, and you're asking me to show my work when I disagree with you? Alright. Here's a picture of our Milky Way galaxy:

Note in particular the lack of a solid crystalline firmament surrounding it.

 

[JAL]

You say that my identifying the firmament with gravity :

is not suggested by the literal sense of the scriptural text which makes no link between the firmament and gravity, much less the substance of God.

Ummmm....wrong. The firmament is depicted as a physical anchor of the stars, what holds them in place. It so happens that God as a physical anchor is the only reasonable explantion of gravity that I have every heard of to date. Gravity cannot be explained otherwise. Thus, taking all the datasources into account (Scripture, Science, and God's voice), I am led to this conclusion by epistemological synergy, as explained earlier.

It happens that it also has no scientific basis, but that fact is irrelevant to whether the interpretation of the text is literal.

This statement reflects the fact that scientifically skilled minds are often philosophically naiive. You have to be philosophically naiive, for example, as Newton pointed out, to believe that gravity is a real force. If it's not a force, then what causes it? The only other explanation, scientifically, is a physical mass, in my view its God's own substance physically manifest, as for instance the Wind that pushed apart the waters of the red sea. You will have difficulty defining the biblical miracles, logically, as something other than God as a physical pushing, pulling, or contorting matter.

You say that I should take a course in physics to learn the cause of gravity. There is no scientifically established "cause" of gravity. Some scientific people are candid enough to admit that they don't know what causes it.

Through the power of his Word as Paul says in Colossians 1:17

And does His Word do the miracle magically, or physically? If God operated magically (He speaks and so it is), there would be no need for Him to approach the regiion involved. That's not how the Bible depicts miracles. He sends His Spirit into the locale to work the miracle. Why bother venture into that region, if it's all done from afar by magic? Therefore He needs the physical proximity to work the miracle, because He does it physically, not magically. One reason He does it physically is that Genesis subsided His creational activity. Hence His task now is to handle (manipulate) existing matter. This requires a field of energy/matter to do the handling, so He can send either a lifeless body of energy/matter OR His own Spirit in a tangible form. He does the latter, according to Scripure.

 

[JAL]

You're advocating a solid crystalline dome that surrounds our galaxy which we cannot presently see or touch, and you're asking me to show my work when I disagree with you? Alright. Here's a picture of our Milky Way galaxy:

Note in particular the lack of a solid crystalline firmament surrounding it.

Thank you!. You just brightened my day with peals of laughter, and I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing WITH you, as you are laughing at your (misuderstanding of) my position.

"And Stephen looked up into heaven, and saw God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God" (Acts 6). The disciples watched Jesus ascend directly into the clouds before their eyes. The famous evangelical theologian Lewis Sperry Chafer argued that angels are physical beings. Why then don't we see them by every day, or by mechanical instruments? Because God hides them from our detection except when He chooses to unveil heaven, as He did for Stephen. I shouldn't have needed to explain that, you should have figured it out. But I'm glad you didn't because you gave me a great laugh. Thank you!

 

[JAL]

You will, objectively, have four times the amount of light shining on you if you half the distance to the candle. Just as you will have four times the gravitational force between two objects if they are half the distance.

False analogy. Deep down you realize these two claims are very different, probably,, but you are pretending they are perfectly parallel. The difference is that when I approach the candle, it doesn't behave differently. It doesn't spew out more light. Naturally I run into more light, but neither of us are behaving differently with respect to intensity of radiation. The gravity claim is very different.

You realise the actual luminosity of the candle does not change. Good. Presumably then you don't think God miraculously changes the apparent brightness so that four times the amount of light hits your eyes. So why suggest God miraculously changes the gravitational force between the two object as they get closer?

I already addressed this. You are trying to create a scientific argument based on a confounding of objective and subjective luminosity. You'll have to do better than that.

And no I don't feel threatened by you critique.

Then impress me by desisting from false analogies and providing some valid ones.

 

[gluadys]

You say that my identifying the firmament with gravity :
Ummmm....wrong.

No. Right. The text makes no mention of gravity. So a literal intepretation cannot allude to gravity. The text most certainly does not represent the firmament as God's substance, but says rather that God created the firmament.

The firmament is depicted as a physical anchor of the stars, what holds them in place. It so happens that God as a physical anchor is the only reasonable explantion of gravity that I have every heard of to date. Gravity cannot be explained otherwise. Thus, taking all the datasources into account (Scripture, Science, and God's voice), I am led to this conclusion by epistemological synergy, as explained earlier.

You are not beginning with the text. All sound interpretation of scripture--whether literal or non-literal--must begin with the text and eludicidate the text that is there without additions.

You are beginning with the notion of gravity--which is not in the text. And you are imposing your beliefs about gravity onto the text. Hence, whatever the merits of your interpretation, it is not a literal interpretation, nor is it based on sound hermeneutics--not even a sound non-literal hermeneutic.

This statement reflects the fact that scientifically skilled minds are often philosophically naiive. You have to be philosophically naiive, for example, as Newton pointed out, to believe that gravity is a real force. If it's not a force, then what causes it?

I believe Einstein covered that. And that you admitted earlier that you don't grasp Einstein's explanation. So some more study of Einstein's work would be in order.

You say that I should take a course in physics to learn the cause of gravity. There is no scientifically established "cause" of gravity. Some scientific people are candid enough to admit that they don't know what causes it.

I think what you are trying to say is that there is no theory of gravity that explains how it works, and how it correlates with other fundamental forces. In particular there is no theory of quantum gravity that would enable physicists to develop a grand unified theory of everything.

That is true. We can see gravity in operation, we can measure its operations and describe them mathematically, but to date, we haven't figured out how it does what it does.

And does His Word do the miracle magically, or physically?

Neither. It is a spiritual power.

Therefore He needs the physical proximity to work the miracle, because He does it physically, not magically.

I doubt that God needs anything, but since he is omnipresent, the point is moot. He is always equally close to any and every physical point.

I appreciate what you are saying about God working "physically" not "magically". I would agree that God works through natural physical processes to accomplish his will, and that this, rather than direct supernatural events, is his preferred modus operandi.

 

[JAL]

No. Right. The text makes no mention of gravity. So a literal intepretation cannot allude to gravity. The text most certainly does not represent the firmament as God's substance, but says rather that God created the firmament.

But I'm not saying the text alludes to gravity. Gluadys, you often weary me. You have a tendency to go round and round with me in circles making false representatoins of my position to support your posiiton. I've seen this pattern before, so I'm to ignore some of your comments. For the moment I'll humor your comment as follows. I never said that "Gensis is a treatment of gravity." It's not a discussion of science. It's a simplistic treatment of cosmogony written with a theological agenda. In fact I'm ashamed of fellow literalists who claim that it is a scientific treatment. Actually it's very misleading scientifically but accomplishes its purpose theologically. But this is not to say that it contradicts science. It doesn't. I have digressed. My claim is not Gensis is "a treatise on gravity" (there is no Hebrew word for "gravity" so you should desist from this silly objection). But it clearly depicts a material body of mass as the anchor for the stars. It so turns out that this is the only scientific explanation (a body of mass pushing on all particles) I can come up with for gravity. Hence I'm inclined to identify these realities as one and the same. Again, I will not go round and round in circles with you on this point, Gluady's. So come up with another argument, if you want to show me as non-literal. I've said my peace on this particular argument.

 

[JAL]

(God) is always equally close to any and every physical point.

Ummm...No. Not in every sense you please, in my opinion. You are imposing upon the text an apriori metaphysics unsuggested by the text, contrary to the literal reading. If God were - in all possible senses - plenally proximate to every particle, there could be no literal outpouring of the Spirit. (Oh, I forgot, for you, nothing in the Bible is literal). What descended on Pentecost "upon their 120 heads" was 120 tongues of Fire, that is, 120 bodies of Physical Mass. Any other reading is pure philosophy that has nothing to do with the text, and is beset with logical difficulties of its own.

 

[Mallon]

The famous evangelical theologian Lewis Sperry Chafer argued that angels are physical beings. Why then don't we see them by every day, or by mechanical instruments? Because God hides them from our detection except when He chooses to unveil heaven, as He did for Stephen. I shouldn't have needed to explain that, you should have figured it out. But I'm glad you didn't because you gave me a great laugh. Thank you!

So you truly believe that there is a solid, physical firmament surrounding the galaxy, but we cannot see it or touch it because God has not revealed it to us. It's there, like a brick wall, but we can pass through it as though it doesn't even exist because God hasn't hit the "on" switch. I suppose you believe the same to be true of sheol, as well.
I'm sorry that I couldn't figure this one out on my own, as I should have. Your cosmology didn't come across as being obvious from my reading of the Bible.

 

[JAL]

So you truly believe that there is a solid, physical firmament surrounding the galaxy, but we cannot see it or touch it because God has not revealed it to us. It's there, like a brick wall, but we can pass through it as though it doesn't even exist because God hasn't hit the "on" switch. I suppose you believe the same to be true of sheol, as well.
I'm sorry that I couldn't figure this one out on my own, as I should have. Your cosmology didn't come across as being obvious from my reading of the Bible.

Apology accepted.

 

[Mallon]

Apology accepted.

Apologetic excepted.

 

[JAL]

So you truly believe that there is a solid, physical firmament surrounding the galaxy, but we cannot see it or touch it because God has not revealed it to us. It's there, like a brick wall, but we can pass through it as though it doesn't even exist because God hasn't hit the "on" switch. I suppose you believe the same to be true of sheol, as well.

I keep thinking I don't need to clarify these issues, that it should be implicit. I just reread this post and realized you are still misunderstanding me.

It's not a question of God hitting the "ON" switch. As I implied earlier, I don't believe that God is presently operating by magic.

Rather there is sufficient space between particles for Him to facilitate permeations and diffusions, precisely as Jesus walked through a wall. Hence we could descend into the core of the earth without colliding with hell even though it is, in my opinion, somewhere down there. And the heavenly city is "up there."

 

[Assyrian]

False analogy. Deep down you realize these two claims are very different, probably,, but you are pretending they are perfectly parallel. The difference is that when I approach the candle, it doesn't behave differently. It doesn't spew out more light. Naturally I run into more light, but neither of us are behaving differently with respect to intensity of radiation. The gravity claim is very different.

I already addressed this. You are trying to create a scientific argument based on a confounding of objective and subjective luminosity. You'll have to do better than that.
Then impress me by desisting from false analogies and providing some valid ones.

I am not sure what you mean by 'subjective luminosity' I googled it and got a lot of sites on yoga Sutras, but the amount of light hitting a surface at different distances can be 'objectively' measured. It is what is called an inverse square relationship. If you half the distance the amount of light doubles.

The reason I mentioned it, and the reason it is a good analogy, is that you described another inverse square relationship. The force of gravity increases as two objects get closer. In fact the force doubles when you half the distance.

However you described the relationship as 'odd' because the particles can't see how close they are together. You suggest instead God monitors how close the particles are together and adjusts the force between them.

Yet we have another inverse square relationship with the amount of light reaching us from a candle which you don't consider odd and don't suggest God adjusts the amount of light. It is inconsistent to say the least. Why suggest gravity increasing with proximity is the direct result of God adjusting the forces, when gravity behave like other inverse square laws such as the intensity of light at a distance which we lave looked at, or the attraction between charged particles? It is all very God of the gaps.

 

[JAL]

I am not sure what you mean by subjective luminosity.

I googled it and got a lot of sites on yoga Sutras, but the amount of light hitting a surface at different distances can be 'objectively' measured.

Yes, but the dissemination of light is not at issue here. The behavior of the light remains the same. The gravity claim is very different. Perhaps I can clarify the difference as follows. My complaint with physics is not only its inability to explain gravity but a whole gamut of so-called "forces." Magnetism, electromagnetism, and nuclear forces. Indeed there are two separate categories of each, because there is both magnetic repulsion and magnetic attraction, for instance. The result is probably a half-dozen unexplained "forces" all of which vary as the proximity between the particles changes. And I would explain all of them the same way, by divine Substance.

We've been speaking of gravitational "attraction". Let's consider now nuclear repulsions. When an electron approaches a relatively stable electron, it destabilizes, becoming, as they say, "excited." This is a change in behavior. When I approach a candle, there is no change in the candles behavior with respect to light radiation. True, MY experience changes, but the candle's behavior does not.

Look, I'm not going round and round in circles with you on this. It seems to be a false analogy. I realize I may be missing something here, but I'm weary of discussing it. If you want to continue clarifying your case, I may look at what you have to say, but I probably won't respond, because we seem to be going in circles.

Even if the candle's behavior did change, which would make it a valid analogy/parallel, what would that really prove? This would simply be one more unexplained "force".

 

[gluadys]

But I'm not saying the text alludes to gravity.

Good. But then you put gravity at the centre of your understanding of the firmament and call your understanding "literal". If the text does not allude to gravity, then this understanding cannot be called "literal". Not by any definition of "literal" that I know.

Gluadys, you often weary me. You have a tendency to go round and round with me in circles making false representatoins of my position to support your posiiton.

If we are going round and round, then it is because we are talking past each other instead of to each other. This is often the case when people have different agendas in making their point. Also when they are using different definitions of terms.

I would suggest that perhaps your understanding of "literal" is different from mine.

By "literal" I understand an interpretation of the text that is grounded in physical reality as it is understood by the author.

This is why I agree with you that the firmament of Genesis 1 is a solid structure and that creationists who equate it with outer space are misrepresenting the literal meaning of "firmament" as the author intended to portray it.

I also agree with you that the waters above the firmament were literally waters and that the sun, moon and stars were fastened to or embedded in the solid firmament.

No literal interpretation of Genesis 1 could affirm anything else.

Would you agree with this understanding of "literal" as applied to Genesis 1?

If so, how can you represent your thesis as a literal understanding of the text?

I never said that "Gensis is a treatment of gravity." It's not a discussion of science. It's a simplistic treatment of cosmogony written with a theological agenda. In fact I'm ashamed of fellow literalists who claim that it is a scientific treatment. Actually it's very misleading scientifically but accomplishes its purpose theologically.

I agree entirely. The literal understanding of Genesis 1 outlined above is not at all scientific. It is scientifically misleading but does accomplish its purpose theologically. That it does not accord with what we know of the cosmos via science indicates that the literal understanding of the text is not the correct way to understand this text. It must be understood as non-scientific, non-historical, non-literal.

Yet, having acknowledged this you still call yourself a literalist and present a thesis which you call "literal". Just what do you mean by "literal" then?

But this is not to say that it contradicts science. It doesn't. I have digressed. My claim is not Gensis is "a treatise on gravity" (there is no Hebrew word for "gravity" so you should desist from this silly objection). But it clearly depicts a material body of mass as the anchor for the stars.

But it does contradict science. And your thesis also contradicts science. As far as we can tell scientifically, there is no such material body which anchors the stars. Neither the firmament of Genesis, nor the firmament of your thesis.

However, my point is not really whether your thesis is true or not. My point is that even if you are right in your thesis, it is still not an interpretation of the Genesis 1 text which meets the definition of "literal".

So come up with another argument, if you want to show me as non-literal. I've said my peace on this particular argument.

I have presented my argument. I hope you now understand it. If you wish me to understand you, please explain what you mean by "literal" and show how your thesis meets the definition of a literal understanding of the Genesis firmament. I cannot see how the author could have intended such a representation of his words if Hebrew did not even have a word for gravity.

 

[JAL]

Gluady's, I just looked briefly at your post #58 and I am seeing the signs of your misrepresenting what I said. I made it clear that I do not see Genesis as scientifically inaccurate, only as scientifically misleading (to a person who is not sufficiently under the Spirit's light to interpret it apodictically).

Given your history of misrepresenting my views, I'm not sure how much further I will debate these issues with you.

 

[JAL]

You say that my metaphysics "does contradict science. And your thesis also contradicts science. As far as we can tell scientifically, there is no such material body which anchors the stars. Neither the firmament of Genesis, nor the firmament of your thesis."

Depends what you mean by science. Does it contradict generally accepted views of gravity? Yes. Obviously. But does it contradict the scientific evidence? Not in my opinion. Why not? Take for instance an inanimate falling object. Frankly the object doesn't give a hoot whether the force pushing it down is some magical power called "gravity" or the physical hand of God. And the scientists who put this falling-property to use don't much care either, as long as the figures they come up with are consistent, for purposes of applied science.

You haven't demonstrated that my metaphysics is incompatible with obvserved data about gravity. On the contrary, I object to your world view because you scientists haven't explained gravity.