TEs, what is the current view of the water above the expanse in Genesis?

[Proselyte]

Ah, well in that case, the Bible is wrong. We know that there is no water in the expanse above the sky we call space. Space is a vaccuum; not the blue water the early Hebrews thought it was (see shernren's post for more).

The Bible is wrong? How do you know physical laws of today have remained constant since creation? How do you know things are as they always have been? It's still shocking to hear a Christian say the Bible is wrong. It's in the top 3 reasons why Atheists who I speak with remain Atheists. They look at Christians who don't even believe their own Bible and say "why should I?" It gives us all a bad rap.

I've heard this before. "God was OBVIOUSLY being metaphorical when He told us that the earth had four corners. God was OBVIOUSLY speaking literally when He told us the world was created in six days."
"God was OBVIOUSLY being metaphorical when He told us the sun circled the earth. God was OBVIOUSLY being literal when told us about the global Flood."
"God was OBVIOUSLY being metaphorical when He told us that the stars could sing. God was OBVIOUSLY being literal when He told us about the "firmament" in the sky."
What is the "big difference" you're referring to, Proselyte? What makes it so easy for you to distinguish between what the Hebrews meant literally and how they understood the world metaphorically?

I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Whatever borderline issues remain a mystery but it doesn't invalidate them. We just don't understand them. How could we understand the mind of God?

I take it you accept the resurrection. Is that the only thing you accept? You don't seem to accept the Bible as truth. Are there any other aspects of Christianity you and I might share the support of besides the resurrection? I'd really like to know.

 

[Poke]

The "water above" was the ocean at the feet of God. In the picture of the cosmos held by the ancient Hebrews, the Earth was literally the dry land. Beyond the land there was the ocean. Arching over both was a so-called firmament, a dome which enclosed space for the Sun, Moon, stars, etc. and the birds below them. Above the firmament was another ocean, and above that was the throne of God. Water was an image of chaos, and it the creation account shows God forming order out of chaos indicating that He is greater than the chaos.

So, the "TE" position is that the Bible is ignorant?

 

[chaoschristian]

I take it you accept the resurrection. Is that the only thing you accept? You don't seem to accept the Bible as truth. Are there any other aspects of Christianity you and I might share the support of besides the resurrection? I'd really like to know.

Have you been reading Mark Kennedy's posts? This all sounds strangely familiar.

There is a difference between believing in the divine authoritative truth of scripture and demanding that that truth must equate to literal indicative science and history.

We are a part of the ongoing Creation process that God continues to sustain. We are swept up in the great outflow of God's creative current. God also created man to be stewards of His Creation on Earth. As stewards, as members of Creation, we ourselves are creative, and our creativity is sustained by that same river of creative outflow that sustains Creation itself.

If we are to be stewards, if we are to be a part of God's Creative process, then why propose that either Creation itself (and by implication, God) is deceptive in what it tells us about itself, or that it is ultimately unknowable or that God commands that we are to remain purposefully ignorant of Creation through the authority of scripture?

Why would God purposefully hamper and cripple our stewardship? Why would he create us to be a part of Creation and then retard us?

A good servant knows well his master's house, observes and inquires into its workings, so that he might be the best servant he can. Such observations and inquiries do not by any means challenge the authority of the master.

 

[chaoschristian]

So, the "TE" position is that the Bible is ignorant?

The general TE position is that the stories of scripture were written by men centuries ago who were indeed truly ignorant of the scientific perspectives we take for granted today. Yet the truth of scripture still shines through the medium of the ancient Hebrew cosmology in which it is encapsulated.

Ignorant in this case is simply a lack of knowledge, and does not reflect the perjurative connotation that you seemingly ascribe to it.

 

[theFijian]

There is a difference between believing in the divine authoritative truth of scripture and demanding that that truth must equate to literal indicative science and history.

This is at the heart of the Creationist fallacy. They interpret the BIble through the lens of a post-enlightenment modernist. They are forcing their own interpretive framework on the text. The assumption is that since it is natural for them to read it as literal history then the ancient Hebrews (nomadic bronze-age shepherds from a pre-scientific era) must have done so as well, it's a form of cultural arrogance. Creationism is a influenced by the enlightenment and scientism as much as any supposed loyalty to scripture.

 

[Proselyte]

Have you been reading Mark Kennedy's posts? This all sounds strangely familiar.

There is a difference between believing in the divine authoritative truth of scripture and demanding that that truth must equate to literal indicative science and history.

We are a part of the ongoing Creation process that God continues to sustain. We are swept up in the great outflow of God's creative current. God also created man to be stewards of His Creation on Earth. As stewards, as members of Creation, we ourselves are creative, and our creativity is sustained by that same river of creative outflow that sustains Creation itself.

If we are to be stewards, if we are to be a part of God's Creative process, then why propose that either Creation itself (and by implication, God) is deceptive in what it tells us about itself, or that it is ultimately unknowable or that God commands that we are to remain purposefully ignorant of Creation through the authority of scripture?

Why would God purposefully hamper and cripple our stewardship? Why would he create us to be a part of Creation and then retard us?

A good servant knows well his master's house, observes and inquires into its workings, so that he might be the best servant he can. Such observations and inquiries do not by any means challenge the authority of the master.

I have never heard of him.

I think I would rather be an atheist than believe the Bible was flawed. Why believe anything then? There is no proof outside the Bible that Jesus was resurrected. If the Bible is in error about so much, why couldn't the resurrection be in error as well? Why would that be an exception?

 

[Mallon]

The Bible is wrong? How do you know physical laws of today have remained constant since creation? How do you know things are as they always have been?

Because the Bible tells us that things are now as they have been since the beginning. Read Ecclesiates 1. In fact, I would argue that to believe otherwise is non-biblical. Come to think of it, Ecclesiates 1 is probably some of the best biblical support there is for modern uniformitarianism!

They look at Christians who don't even believe their own Bible and say "why should I?" It gives us all a bad rap.

I'm not going to play the blame game, but from those atheists I've spoken with (in the CvE forum, for example), they seem to be more put off by those Christians who feel the need to deny reality in order to come to faith in Christ. They don't want to have to turn off their brains before taking up the cross of Christ, and there's no biblical reason why they should. If you don't believe me, just ask them!

I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

Which of the two passages quoted in my signature is the "inerrant" one? They can't both be right as they refer to the same disaster.

We just don't understand them. How could we understand the mind of God?

I don't think we fully can understand the mind of God. But we're encouraged to try anyways by studying His creation. Romans 1:20 says:
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

You don't seem to accept the Bible as truth.

I don't accept YOUR LITERAL interpretation of the Bible as truth. The Bible was written so that we might come to know God, come to love our neighbours, and come to faith is Christ. THAT is why the Bible was written, and it is on those issues of human faith and relationships that the Bible is inerrant.

Are there any other aspects of Christianity you and I might share the support of besides the resurrection? I'd really like to know.

How about a common faith in Christ as our Saviour? Is that not enough to rally around? That's certainly all I need.

 

[Poke]

The general TE position is that the stories of scripture were written by men centuries ago who were indeed truly ignorant of the scientific perspectives we take for granted today. Yet the truth of scripture still shines through the medium of the ancient Hebrew cosmology in which it is encapsulated.

What truth is encapsilated in the belief that the eath is flat, with a dome of water over it. And, the stars are tiny things, under that dome?

How is truth shining through if the Bible's view of the world is based on false pagan myth? What is this truth? If the truth is shining through, how come the only people who see it are those who come to the Bible already knowing "better"?

 

[gluadys]

So, the "TE" position is that the Bible is ignorant?

For what reason would God reveal to the biblical writers scientific discoveries that would not be made until centuries in the future? How would that help them communicate with their contemporaries?


And, if God were to communicate to OT writers, the science of the future--why the science of our time in particular? Why not the science Newton's time? or the science of the next millennium?

Do you see the problem? For a 21st century reader, while the science of Newton's time is more familiar than that of the Ancient Near East, it is still outdated, and giving it scriptural sanction would make the bible outdated in science just as much as the ANE cosmology. And the science of the next millennium would be incomprehensible to us and read like science fiction.

To me, it makes sense therefore, that the bible not be treated as a science book at all. The writers used the cosmology they were familiar with, not to make scientific points, but to make theological points that are valid no matter how the scientific concept of the cosmos changes.

 

[Proselyte]

Because the Bible tells us that things are now as they have been since the beginning. Read Ecclesiates 1. In fact, I would argue that to believe otherwise is non-biblical. Come to think of it, Ecclesiates 1 is probably some of the best biblical support there is for modern uniformitarianism!

I'm not going to play the blame game, but from those atheists I've spoken with (in the CvE forum, for example), they seem to be more put off by those Christians who feel the need to deny reality in order to come to faith in Christ. They don't want to have to turn off their brains before taking up the cross of Christ, and there's no biblical reason why they should. If you don't believe me, just ask them!

Which of the two passages quoted in my signature is the "inerrant" one? They can't both be right as they refer to the same disaster.

I don't think we fully can understand the mind of God. But we're encouraged to try anyways by studying His creation. Romans 1:20 says:
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

I don't accept YOUR LITERAL interpretation of the Bible as truth. The Bible was written so that we might come to know God, come to love our neighbours, and come to faith is Christ. THAT is why the Bible was written, and it is on those issues of human faith and relationships that the Bible is inerrant.

How about a common faith in Christ as our Saviour? Is that not enough to rally around? That's certainly all I need.

Why accept Christ then? How can we be certain he was in fact resurrected if the Bible is as flawed as you say? How can it be trusted?

 

[Mallon]

Why accept Christ then? How can we be certain he was in fact resurrected if the Bible is as flawed as you say? How can it be trusted?

You asked this very question in your "Christians needing evidence? Origins, Noah's Ark etc." thread where myself and other TEs answered it for you.

 

[Proselyte]

Yep you're right. Things are beginning to be clear for me.

 

[chaoschristian]

I have never heard of him.

He used to post here quite frequently (was a Mod too) until recently. Please keep him in your prayers if you will, for he and his Guard unit were deployed to Iraq.

I think I would rather be an atheist than believe the Bible was flawed. Why believe anything then? There is no proof outside the Bible that Jesus was resurrected. If the Bible is in error about so much, why couldn't the resurrection be in error as well? Why would that be an exception?

Flaw and error.

Please be honest and aware enough to know that it is only you, in course of this dialogue, who is injecting those terms and imposing those meanings onto scripture.

Scripture is neither flawed nor in error in terms of its divinely inspired authority.

That it is also not literal indicative scientific and historical fact in no way lessens its truth or undermines its authority.

Let's look at your resurrection example:

I, too, take it on faith that Christ is the Risen Saviour, Lord and King.

Currently we say that it is a 'miracle' that he arose from death after three days in stone tomb. We say this because, currently, our science provides us no means by which to explain this event and certainly no means by which to replicate it.

Now, what if tomorrow we turn on the news and discover that a research institute has in fact figured out how to resurrect the dead, and they demonstrate to the satisfaction of all the natural processes that allows them to bring a man who was dead for three days back to life.

Suddenly, the miracle isn't a miracle anymore. Its a known quantity.

Does this event in anyway lessen Christ's divinity? Is now Jesus not God? Is he not the Saviour? Is there no hope? Is there no basis for faith?

If all of everything is God's Creation, then where is the dividing line between natural and divine?

Does it really exist?

Isn't all of everything really both natural and divine simultaneously?

Jesus was a wholly and fully natural man, and simultaneously wholly and fully divine.

That we understand to a certain extant, in this hypothetical example, the natural processes behind the resurrection, does that in any way diminish the divine?

If the divine can only exist where ignorance persists, then what does that say about the nature of the divine and the nature of God himself?

 

[chaoschristian]

What truth is encapsilated in the belief that the eath is flat, with a dome of water over it. And, the stars are tiny things, under that dome?

How is truth shining through if the Bible's view of the world is based on false pagan myth? What is this truth? If the truth is shining through, how come the only people who see it are those who come to the Bible already knowing "better"?

I'm sorry, but to me this seems to be a case of missing the forest for the trees.

The truth of the Creation account in Genesis is that God is Creator, the Light-Speaker, the Chaos-Binder, the Life-Breather, Supremely Authoritative and without rival or equal.

This is the truth that gets conveyed.

Rewrite Genesis so that it reflects our current understanding of physics and biology and one thousand years from now Christians will still know that God is Creator even if they snicker over the fact that we made no mention of Quantum Gravity.

I seem to remember someone saying somewhere in scripture about new wine in old wine skins. I think the point was that while the cultural elements that convey truth from one society to the next will certainly change (and in some cases, need to be changed) the truth that is being conveyed always stays fresh and pure.

Are we to drink of the wine or eat the wine skins?

 

[steen]

I ask this question because of some recent threads I have read. It was asked, why do TEs accept some things on faith (Resurrection for example) but need evidence for other things (Creation/Evolution) for example.

Weren't you already told that We have Faith in the Bible and in God and we have Evidence for Science, and that the two complemet each other but doesn't substitute for each other. hence, your question makes no sense as also neight does your claim here.

As far as I know, there is no scientific evidence regarding the waters above the expanse. If there is no evidence contrary to what the Bible speaks of, then wouldn't you accept a body of water above the expanse as the Bible speaks of?

In the Bible, sure no problem. In a scientific discussion, absolutely not. Because in science, you would need to provide evidence for your claim.

Why would you theorize that the Bible is not literally speaking of a body of water, due to some loose interpretation of Hebrew water symbolism? Yet you accept the resurrection as an actual resurrection.

The Bible is speaking literally to your Faith. But it is not a Science textbook.

A convincing argument has not been made so far to rule the body of water as anything but what is said in the Bible.

Because it is nowhere to be found outside of the Bible.

 

[steen]

I just find it interesting what some of the views are here. It seems the only miraculous thing some people accept is the resurrection. The rest of the Bible is explained away in "scientific" terms. If Jesus was resurrected, and we know God can do ALL things, why is the rest so hard to accept?

False. The Bible is not explained away by science. Rather, the scientific claims that creationists make, based on the Bible as a science textbook are nowhere to be evidenced, while there is other evidence FOR the established science. It is not about scientifically disproving the Bible, but rather that there is no scienctific evidence for creationist claims about science.

 

[IisJustMe]

I seem to remember someone saying somewhere in scripture about new wine in old wine skins.

Someone??? It is JESUS!

I think the point was that while the cultural elements that convey truth from one society to the next will certainly change

The point Jesus was making was precisely opposite what you stated. Jesus was saying cultural elements have no validity in conveying God's truth. The Law was the "old wineskin" and the new covenant was not meant to be delivered within the framework of the Law. Both were given by God. Man had nothing to do with it, unlike the efforts of TE and OEC to make the Bible fit science instead of trusting that the Bible and science are compatible if God is allowed to be God.

The New Covenant is, in fact, the revelation of Christ who had been prophecied throughout the Old Testament. Jesus' point was that people had been trying to understand God within the framework of the Law, when the Law was meant for man, not to justify but condemn, and cause them to seek Him Who was promised, even (as for example, Abram) you didn't know His name, or how He would deliver you.

 

[steen]

So, the "TE" position is that the Bible is ignorant?

No, not the Bible, as it doesn't speak to science. rather, the attempt at using the Bible as a Science textbook is an "ignorant" use of the bible.

 

[steen]

Why accept Christ then? How can we be certain he was in fact resurrected if the Bible is as flawed as you say? How can it be trusted?

The Bible is not trying to tell us about HOW things happened. It is telling us WHY things happened. That's what matters. And the Bible most certainly can be trusted to tell us why.

 

[Proselyte]

I think it's pretty arrogrant to say the Bible is fallible and we're just absorbing its general message. It worked well throughout the ages and now we are adapting it to meet our comfortable world views, in the face of record breaking moral backsliding.

No one has proven the Bible is in error, so view things as you like, and I will do the same.