Firmament and waters above: time to choose

How do you understand the upper waters of Genesis 1, Day 2?

  • Vapour canopy

  • Orbiting ice rings

  • Cosmic material

  • Ice wall at edge of universe

  • Clouds

  • MYTHOLOGICAL

  • I have another interpretation (please explain in post)

  • I really don't know, or don't care


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
(Continued) This continues a message started at post# 78 below. Please start there!

Angels are also called “pneuma”, as well as demons.
Do you want me to sit here and show you that all the biblical evidence is for physicality? I won’t tire you on this point. Suffice one example. According to Scripture, chains physically fetter demons in hellish prisons. As early as 200 AD the church father Tertullian took these chains as proof of angelic physicality. Tertullian was 100% materialistic, even though he was one of the main founders of mainstream Trinitarian doctrine. He utterly rejected the notion of an immaterial God, largely due to this problem of Wind/Breath in Scripture. Do you recall that God breathed into Adam his soul? That’s how Charles Hodge read it (Gen 2:7), anyway, and he was an immaterialist.


I’m not even denying the possibility of an immaterial God. That’s not the issue here. The issue here is that His manifest Presence, as recorded in Scripture, is consistently physical, and I can also quote Augustine on this fact.


Now Hebrews tells us that God upholds the universe by the Word. What Word? We’ve already seen it, His Wind/Breath. Many scientists have said that what holds the objects of our universe in a certain relation to each other are various unexplained “forces” (such as gravity, magnetism, and nuclear force). But the Bible says that God upholds the universe. How do we reconcile these facts? One cogent way to do it is to argue that God, as Physical Mass, is the agent of all these forces. Here’s more evidence that His Word is physical. As you recall, His Word is affiliated in Scripture with His speech (His voice). According to Hebrews, the divine voice speaking to the whole nation of Israel from MT Sinai was so sonic that it shook the whole mountain violently (Heb 12).

I have said repeatedly that we should try to reconcile and explain ALL the biblical data (all the evidence). The problem with unqualified immaterialism is that it explains NONE of the evidence. You asked, “Why do we need to explain the biblical data?” I could reply, “Why do we need to explain the data that you call scientific evidence?” The answer is simple. To get a better understanding, in the hopes the information could prove useful. The information could expose weaknesses and contradictions in our thinking that could even have eternal consequences.
John the Baptist and the crowd around him saw the Holy Breath (as a Dove). Moses spoke with God face to face, as did Jacob, Abraham, Isaiah, and many others. I cannot here discuss the passages which SEEM to say that no one can see God’s face. My point is this. If God’s Manifest Presence is physical, it is likely that He wants us all to see Him face to face, as part of spiritual maturity. Jesus rebuked the Jews, “You have never heard God’s voice, nor seen His form, nor does His word dwell in you” (Jn 5:37). A very brief introduction on how I would defend this idea of the need to see God is found on another thread, post #65.


Earlier I asked Gluadys, “how does God do His work? By magic?” She said, “No. He does it spiritually.” But what does that mean? Let’s consider the wind that blew apart the waters of the Red Sea “all that night.” Where did the wind come from? Someone probably has said, “It was ordinary wind that God created magically out of nothing.” So here we have a wind mighty enough to split a sea apart, and the people are standing safely on the shore? They are not getting sucked in by vacuum? Or blown in the opposite direction? Or simply carried off in the wind? Ordinary wind could have handled this delicate situation so deftly? And how come no water overflow drowned the people on the shore? A series of miracles would be needed to make this wind operate with sufficient dexterity as to avoid harming the people. Here we have wind being manipulated to function somewhat like a “force” (like gravity or magnetic repulsion) as to hold the waters apart. This is really not that much different than letting a physical firmament split apart a body of water and then uphold the water, and the stars, in a gravity-like manner. In other words I do not have to insist that God is gravity, I can also hold that it is a physical subsistence analogous to wind that He miraculously controls. This too would be an alternative to the assumption that gravity is just a “natural force” or “freak of nature.”
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Below I provided plenty of biblical evidence for God as Physical Mass. Steen, your resistance to this conclusion exposes a methodological contradiction (so much for the integrity of your precious Scientific Method). Allow me to explain.

When a creationist tries to explain origins in a very non-mechanistic, spiritual, miraculous way, science-minded people like you, Steen, become very hostile, because your belief is that we should FIRST look for a mechanistic solution, a very mechanical one, before seeking a spiritual one. Ok, fine.

But here's where the methodological contradiction comes in. In trying to explain the Biblical miracles, I remained open-minded to, and hence stumbled upon, a somewhat mechanistic solution (God as Physical Mass) . You became hostile to it, and Gluadys entered the fray as well, because you wanted to remain with a very unexplained, "spiritual", mysterious solution. "Why do we need to explain the biblical miracles?" you asked. That's a double standard, if I ever saw one. It's a methodological contradiction. By your own standard, if the mechanistic solution is to be preferred, then you should be celebrating my theory of God as Physical Mass. Instead you prefer to remain "in the dark", with a wholly unexplained "miraculous solution" ???? What gives?

 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Steen, and Gluadys to, the biggest methdological contradiction, however, is to do precisely what you accuse creationists of - you deny evidence. I could show you a thousand examples of God as Physical Mass and you would still reply, "That proves nothing, I don't believe it." Or you would say, that's not evidence, only science is evidence. But of course that's a ridiculous epistemological stance for the Christian.
 
Upvote 0

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟9,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
JAL said:
<rant deleted>
The basic logic underlying my theory of God-as-gravity is God as Physical Mass, and I'm going to show how biased, how philosophically naiive, how narrowminded, and how unscriptural was the premature, cavilier way that you dismissed this theory of God as Physical Mass.
Rather, I am merely pointing out that there is no scriptural foundation for your scenario, despite your claim.
 
Upvote 0

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟9,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
JAL said:
Steen, and Gluadys to, the biggest methdological contradiction, however, is to do precisely what you accuse creationists of - you deny evidence.
Rather, evidence is something that can be verified and reproduced. You have provided nothing such.

I could show you a thousand examples of God as Physical Mass and you would still reply, "That proves nothing, I don't believe it."
Another falsehood.

Or you would say, that's not evidence, only science is evidence.[/quote}nope, another falsehood.

But of course that's a ridiculous epistemological stance for the Christian.
And it also is your fantasy. Not our problem.
 
Upvote 0

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
steen said:
Rather, evidence is something that can be verified and reproduced. You have provided nothing such.
Just like I suspected, the only thing that counts as evidence is what science calls "evidence". Everything in the Bible, as far as drawing conclusions about God (for example as Physical Mass, or His behavior in the natural order, such as during creation), is worthless.

I"m sorry, friend, but for the Christian, that constitutes a denial of evidence. For you to then accuse we creationists of "denying evidence" seems to me the very pinnacle of methodological hypocrisy.
 
Upvote 0

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟9,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
JAL said:
Below I provided plenty of biblical evidence for God as Physical Mass.
What I saw was a lot of conjecture and speculation. That is not evidence.

Steen, your resistance to this conclusion exposes a methodological contradiction
Nope. I m merely objecting to your claim of scriptural evidence when all you provide is personal belief and speculation, esp. when you then claim scriptural evidence.

(so much for the integrity of your precious Scientific Method).
The Scientific Method doesn't apply to supernatural events.

Allow me to explain.

When a creationist tries to explain origins in a very non-mechanistic, spiritual, miraculous way, science-minded people like you, Steen, become very hostile, because your belief is that we should FIRST look for a mechanistic solution, a very mechanical one, before seeking a spiritual one. Ok, fine.
Actually, this is outright false. I have no objection to explaining origin or anything else Biblical in a non-mechanistic, spiritual, miraculous way. That was your first falsehood.

The second is that you claim I insist on looking at science first, which I don't.

What YOU don't get is that when you go way from the non-mechanistic, spiritual, miraculous way of explaining the Bible and begin to claim scientific relevance or accuracy of these events, then I insist on scientific evidence as well.

As long as you stay away from claiming scientific evidence of the Bible, and as long as you stay away from claiming Biblical significance in the Scientific realm. then I have no problem at all.

It is when you claim the supernatural as scientific that I get on your case.

But here's where the methodological contradiction comes in. In trying to explain the Biblical miracles, I remained open-minded to, and hence stumbled upon, a somewhat mechanistic solution (God as Physical Mass) .
Yes, you claimed a physical presence of God, a scientific claim.

You became hostile to it,
That is vastly exaggerated. I challenged the lack of scientific evidence for your scientific claim. When you got all in a huff about it, then things got worse thereafter. The moment you cease making scientific claims about God or spiritual claims about science, then all is well again.

and Gluadys entered the fray as well, because you wanted to remain with a very unexplained, "spiritual", mysterious solution.
Nope. It as because of your misrepresentation of science.

"Why do we need to explain the biblical miracles?" you asked. That's a double standard, if I ever saw one.
Nope. Miracles stand on their own in the Bible. they are based on faith. There is no call for a scientific explanation unless you want to take them out of the spiritual realm and claim a physical, proven activity.

God's word and actions are not about evidence, they are about Faith. We don't need physical evidence of God. In fact, if we seek this, then we are like the Israelites seeking a Golden Calf as physical manifestation of faith. THAT is what I see you doing here, trying to "prove" God. It is not because we reject God or insist on Evidence for God. It is because God is about faith, and when you start talking about evidence, then you are entering science instead, where the Scientific Method applies. God is not about evidence. God is about Faith.

It's a methodological contradiction. By your own standard, if the mechanistic solution is to be preferred, then you should be celebrating my theory of God as Physical Mass.
But then, the "mechanical solution" only applies in science, not in faith. Miracles are miracles because God acts in the realm of our faith. It is not a physical event to be dissected by the Scientific Method.

Instead you prefer to remain "in the dark", with a wholly unexplained "miraculous solution" ???? What gives?
I am not in the dark, and I don't need miracles explained. Miracles are miracles because they show God's grace and wonders. Miracles affirm our faith. Miracles are not science, they don't need physical evidence.
 
Upvote 0

steen

Lie Detector
Jun 13, 2006
1,384
66
South Dakota
✟9,384.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
JAL said:
Just like I suspected, the only thing that counts as evidence is what science calls "evidence". Everything in the Bible, as far as drawing conclusions about God (for example as Physical Mass, or His behavior in the natural order, such as during creation), is worthless.
Yes, it is the cheapening of God to merely another physical entity, devoid of Faith

I"m sorry, friend, but for the Christian, that constitutes a denial of evidence.
Nope. for Christians, it is a matter of faith, not evidence.

For you to then accuse we creationists of "denying evidence" seems to me the very pinnacle of methodological hypocrisy.
Yes, I have no doubt you see it that way. Such concrete thinking is typical of the creationists I have interacted with. The idea that we need evidence for God, that we need a Golden Calf to secure our faith, that is what I see in creationism. The inability to see God as the supernatural existence based on faith rather than evidence, that is what I see in creationism.

And with that outlook, of course, you can't have Faith and Science stand next to each other and complement each other.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
JAL said:
Steen, and Gluadys to, the biggest methdological contradiction, however, is to do precisely what you accuse creationists of - you deny evidence. I could show you a thousand examples of God as Physical Mass and you would still reply, "That proves nothing, I don't believe it." Or you would say, that's not evidence, only science is evidence. But of course that's a ridiculous epistemological stance for the Christian.


I have not been discussing your notion of the physical presence of God. The topic does not interest me.

What I have been discussing is your claim that this is a literal intepretation of the scriptural text.

Even if you are correct on the physicality of God's manifestation, I don't see the basis for claiming it is a literal interpretation of the text.

One can be correct scientifically and/or theologically while not interpreting the text literally. Sometimes one must be. For example, we know the earth turns on its axis and orbits the sun. Nowhere does the scriptural text provide for this.

So any interpretation of scripture that allows for the correctness of this scientific knowledge is necessarily a non-literal interpretation. A literal interpretation would see the earth fixed on literal foundations and literally not moving.
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
JAL said:
Just like I suspected, the only thing that counts as evidence is what science calls "evidence". Everything in the Bible, as far as drawing conclusions about God (for example as Physical Mass, or His behavior in the natural order, such as during creation), is worthless.

I"m sorry, friend, but for the Christian, that constitutes a denial of evidence. For you to then accuse we creationists of "denying evidence" seems to me the very pinnacle of methodological hypocrisy.

The bible does not provide evidence. It provides testimony. Testimony is accepted in a court of law, but evidence always trumps testimony, even there.

Testimony, on the other hand, is the basis of faith. We are called to believe the gospel on the basis of the testimony of the apostles. The apostles never attempted to provide evidence. They did what they were chosen to do: be witnesses and testify to that which was revealed only to them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JAL

Veteran
Supporter
Oct 16, 2004
10,777
928
Visit site
✟343,550.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
gluadys said:
The bible does not provide evidence. It provides testimony. Testimony is accepted in a court of law, but evidence always trumps testimony, even there.
gluadys said:
Testimony, on the other hand, is the basis of faith. We are called to believe the gospel on the basis of the testimony of the apostles. The apostles never attempted to provide evidence. They did what they were chosen to do: be witnesses and testify to that which was revealed only to them.

Gluadys and Steen, my epistemological presuppositions are too far polarized from yours to continue this discussion. I place a premium on Scripture epistemologically speaking, and frankly you don't. You can deny it all you want (and I'm sure you will, but I won't be here to read it), but the reality is that neither of you have much liking for the biblical statements about God because it threatens your hyperscientific world view. Hence you will do everything you can to discredit and discourage any hermeneutical usage of the Bible whatsoever in what theologians refer to as the Doctrine of God. Steen's technique for dismissing the bulk of Scripture is very blatant, "Only science counts as evidence." Gluadys, you are usally more subtle although now you are doing the same. Usually you create a ridiculously extreme dichotomy of Absolute Literalism versus Absolute Science (according to YOUR definition of literalism) and then anyone who falls somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, like I myself, you accuse of hypocrisy,and thus you say, "You're not really taking the bible literally, JAL, which just goes to show that the bible can't be taken literally." And thereby is your subtle strategy of eschewing everythinig in it that theologians of any repute consider valuable for the Doctrine of God.
No, sorry, I am not going round and round in circles, and frankly Gluadys, I don't stoop to your kind of cheap tactics. You may well be correct about other creationists using cheap tactics, but I don't play that game. I've told you a thousand times, it seems, "I don't even consider the Bible 100% literal" and then, when I don't meet your ridiculous standards of ABSOLUTE LITERALISM, you cry "You're just being hypocritical, you are not really literal, hence there is no merit to anything you say." I've had enough. Enjoy your silly game.
 
Upvote 0

rmwilliamsll

avid reader
Mar 19, 2004
6,006
334
✟7,946.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Green
I place a premium on Scripture epistemologically speaking, and frankly you don't. You can deny it all you want (and I'm sure you will, but I won't be here to read it), but the reality is that neither of you have much liking for the biblical statements about God because it threatens your hyperscientific world view.


Is there such a thing as a scientific world view?

if science is defined as using a particular method on a very truncated domain, then science is simply not big enough to be a worldview.

it doesn't include ethics-to do good, politics-to do justice, relationship-to love, art-to see beauty, religion-to see God. These are all important parts of a human beings world view but yet are not within the domain of science.

How about the Bible, can it form a worldview?
define the Bible, what is the canon? that is part of history, not contained within the Bible itself, which does not list the canonical books, nor does it give a rule (the origin of the word canon) to determine such.

Where is Jerusalem? The Bible talks a whole lot about Jerusalem but you can not find it without accessing information that is not in the Bible. So you need a atlas.

What does the word hesed mean?
it isn't defined in Scripture, so you need a Hebrew-your native language dictionary for the OT and a Greek one for the NT. Dictionaries are part of the world not Scripture.

Who is my wife? I learn that from my personal history, not from Scripture. Scripture does not tell me all kinds of things that are essential to the formation of worldviews.

It is obvious that people create worldviews. They use Scripture, they use elements of their culture, they use common sense, they use science etc etc. But neither Scripture by itself nor science with its truncated domain are adequate to form a world view.

premium on Scripture epistemologically speaking

I like epistemology. It is safe to say, given the few examples above that Scripture is not epistemologically complete. It is not all knowledge, it fact it says that much, many books could have been written, but this was written so that you might believe.

What the author of this quote above really means to say is that he values his interpretation of what Scripture says over anyone else's scientific statements. Special revelation trumps general. Furthermore anyone who does not agree with this is in the thall of a worldview that is so different from his as to be incomensurate, hence the discussion must be brought to a halt.

Well there is really nothing to be said about that other than
"goodbye".
 
Upvote 0

jereth

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
560
41
Melbourne, Australia
✟8,426.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
JAL said:
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."

Fantastic!

I disagree with your interpretation, JAL, but I commend you for doing a far better job than any other creationists at explaining Day 2 and the firmament (with the possible exception of Russell Humphreys). All other creationist ideas (vapour canopy, ice rings, etc.) make total mincemeat of Genesis 1.

Back when I was briefly a YECist, i flirted with the idea that the firmament is interplanetary space, the "stars" of day 4 are planets and asteroids, and the "waters above the firmament" are comets (frozen water). Your conceptualisation reminds me of my old theory :D
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.