Genesis 1 Again

[Jazer]

What part of the earth is stretched out above the waters?

The only thing I can think of is the earth’s “Atmosphere”, and perhaps any land that is above sea level.

The reference is considered to be talking about springs of water that come up out of the earth. Now with the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift it is believed that the land of the earth may actually sit on water. So David 3000 years ago could be talking about what is very modern science today.

 

[steve_bakr]

The reference is considered to be talking about springs of water that come up out of the earth. Now with the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift it is believed that the land of the earth may actually sit on water. So David 3000 years ago could be talking about what is very modern science today.

Not exactly, Jazer. The world view at the time of Genesis was that the Earth stood on columns above the waters. The waters also resided above the heavens. In times such as the flood, the waters came from both above and below. A careful reading of Genesis bears this out. Some Psalms also rederence this world view. BTW, the abyss--the place of the dead--was located at the center of the earth.

The truth of the Bible is spiritual and not scientific truth, and it is pointless to try and make it so.

Peace

"The heavens declare the glory of the Lord" (Psalms 19:2a)

 

[Jazer]

The truth of the Bible is spiritual and not scientific truth, and it is pointless to try and make it so.

Science gives us a way to test the Bible to see that the Bible is true. But science is not always up to the job. For example the Bible talks about a bottomless pit. If you go by Newton theory of gravity then the bottom would be the center of the earth. But if you go by Einsteins theory, then indeed there is no bottom.

 

[steve_bakr]

Science gives us a way to test the Bible to see that the Bible is true. But science is not always up to the job. For example the Bible talks about a bottomless pit. If you go by Newton theory of gravity then the bottom would be the center of the earth. But if you go by Einsteins theory, then indeed there is no bottom.

The "pit" is synonymous with the abyss--the abode of the dead--which the ancients believed was at the center of the earth. Comparing the Bible with science is like comparing apples to oranges.

Peace

"The heavens declare the glory of the Lord" (Psalms 19:2a)

 

[SkyWriting]

Both will be discussed in the same biology books, perhaps even in the same chapter. That doesn't make them the same theory.

So people say. The theory of evolution is the theory of change. Are you suggesting that there is some point where things don't change or something? Others seem confused as well.

http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/spring05/scalo/lectures/309L-2DOrigin-of-Life.pdf

Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life

A third theory of life’s origin is known as chemical evolution.

 

[Nostromo]

It's good to see that you're wrestling with the important problems.

 

[sandwiches]

I'm saying we know the creation events occurred as described in Genesis 1 but we do not know all the scientific details. We can only form theories about those details, and admittedly we do NOT know which theory, IF ANY is correct.

You completely evaded the point. I am not arguing the veracity of Genesis. I simply pointing out that by your own admission, including the post above, people do not know which interpretation of the Bible is correct. It's the strangest thing it's like you keep saying "You're wrong but everything you said is completely correct."

 

[RickG]

The reference is considered to be talking about springs of water that come up out of the earth. Now with the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift it is believed that the land of the earth may actually sit on water. So David 3000 years ago could be talking about what is very modern science today.

1. The theory of continental drift is a failed theory because it had no mechanism upon which the continents could move. Alfred Wegener did propose some mechanisms but he had no data or evidence to show the movement mechanism.

2. The continental drift theory was replaced by the Plate Tectonic Theory because there was physical data and observations to support the theory.

3. The plate tectonic theory does not support in the least that they sit on water, nor has it ever. In fact no geophysical theory or even hypothesis supports any such nonsense.

 

[RickG]

So people say. The theory of evolution is the theory of change. Are you suggesting that there is some point where things don't change or something? Others seem confused as well.

http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/spring05/scalo/lectures/309L-2DOrigin-of-Life.pdf

Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life

A third theory of life’s origin is known as chemical evolution.

I understand what you are saying and I admit that I agree with what you are saying. The part I disagree with is that in the greater sense of evolution, we are talking about biological evolution; how life changes over time, not chemical evolution which had to occur to the point were life first appeared, abiogenesis.

 

[SkyWriting]

You completely evaded the point. I am not arguing the veracity of Genesis. I simply pointing out that by your own admission, including the post above, people do not know which interpretation of the Bible is correct. It's the strangest thing it's like you keep saying "You're wrong but everything you said is completely correct."

Are you saying SOME people, ALL people, TWO people, or YOU KNOW OF people who are unsure of something someone once said?

That's hardly a point worth acknowledging as you've phrased it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Let's review. Scientists have several theories on how the moon was formed because they admittedly do NOT know which theory, IF ANY is correct. You then compared that to the differing interpretations Christians have of Genesis. So, now you're saying that your comparison wasn't accurate, then?

There is no such thing as "an accurate" comparison unless the two things being compared are identical.

 

[Jazer]

The plate tectonic theory does not support in the least that they sit on water, nor has it ever. In fact no geophysical theory or even hypothesis supports any such nonsense.

Perhaps you would like to read this artical to see how water is involved in plate tectonics:

(PhysOrg.com) -- New Zealand is the site of one of the world’s youngest subduction zones, where the Pacific Plate of Earth’s crust dives beneath the Australian Plate. Now, a University of Utah study shows how water deep underground helps the subduction zone mature and paves the way for it to generate powerful earthquakes.

Shaking the Earth: How Water Helps Tectonic Plates Slide in New Zealand

 

[Jazer]

The "pit" is synonymous with the abyss

I had a dream where I was falling in a bottomless pit when I was a child in grade school. That is why later when I heard about the bottomless pit in the Bible I was interested to learn something about it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not exactly, Jazer. The world view at the time of Genesis was that the Earth stood on columns above the waters.

OK so the surface of the earth is held up by geologic columns above what we call the water table. If they had used the word "Table" you'd be happier.
Seismic Evidence for Subduction-Transported
Water in the Lower Mantle .pdf

The waters also resided above the heavens.

There was more water vapor in the sky.

In times such as the flood, the waters came from both above and below.

Vapor condenses and water also came from below.

A careful reading of Genesis bears this out. Some Psalms also rederence this world view. BTW, the abyss--the place of the dead--was located at the center of the earth.

The dead are indeed joined with the earth. It may not so much be that they are at the center of the earth as much as the earth is their center of existence. Those who are saved, are joined with God in a spiritual place. Not at all in dirt.

The truth of the Bible is spiritual and not scientific truth, and it is pointless to try and make it so.

You just did explain it quite well. Those were very fine points.


Romans 1:20 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.

 

[SkyWriting]

Perhaps you would like to read this artical to see how water is involved in plate tectonics:

(PhysOrg.com) -- New Zealand is the site of one of the world’s youngest subduction zones, where the Pacific Plate of Earth’s crust dives beneath the Australian Plate. Now, a University of Utah study shows how water deep underground helps the subduction zone mature and paves the way for it to generate powerful earthquakes.

Shaking the Earth: How Water Helps Tectonic Plates Slide in New Zealand

Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth | LiveScience

 

[SkyWriting]

I understand what you are saying and I admit that I agree with what you are saying. The part I disagree with is that in the greater sense of evolution, we are talking about biological evolution; how life changes over time, not chemical evolution which had to occur to the point were life first appeared, abiogenesis.

They are TAUGHT TOGETHER as one unified set of theories.
Creationists are not to blame for that.

 

[Jazer]

Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth | LiveScience

"Water covers 70 percent of Earth's surface and one of its many functions is to act like a lubricant for the movement of continental plates." Ok, I am glad we got that straightened out.

 

[Doveaman]

You completely evaded the point. I am not arguing the veracity of Genesis. I simply pointing out that by your own admission, including the post above, people do not know which interpretation of the Bible is correct.

If you are referring to my theory, that’s like saying “people don't know which interpretation of God's eyeballs is correct, therefore people don't know who God is”.

We may not know the hidden details of Genesis 1, but we do know of the details that are revealed, and they are quite self explanatory.

My theory is about what is not revealed, which may or may not be correct. You are taking my theory more seriously than I am.

It's the strangest thing it's like you keep saying "You're wrong but everything you said is completely correct."

Again, you are being dishonest by accusing me of this. I never said my theory is completely correct, or even correct. That's why I call it a theory, one of many possible explanations.

In addition, I am more in agreement with YEC theory than I am with Big Bang theory.

 

[Doveaman]

Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth | LiveScience

Noah's flood confirmed.

"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month — on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth...For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth." (Gen 7:11).

To think that scientists are only now discovering those springs of the great deep.

 

[sandwiches]

If you are referring to my theory, that’s like saying “people don't know which interpretation of God's eyeballs is correct, therefore people don't know who God is”.

No. I don't know what you're making up there. I never said anything of the sort.

We may not know the hidden details of Genesis 1, but we do know of the details that are revealed, and they are quite self explanatory.

Really? So, you know which interpretation of Genesis is the correct one?

My theory is about what is not revealed, which may or may not be correct. You are taking my theory more seriously than I am.
Again, you are being dishonest by accusing me of this. I never said my theory is completely correct, or even correct. That's why I call it a theory, one of many possible explanations.

The point remains that either:
a) Christians do agree on what the correct interpretation of Genesis is and your comparison about the theories of the formation was FLAWED.
b) Christians do NOT agree on what the correct interpretation of Genesis is and your comparison about the theories of the formation was ACCURATE.

In addition, I am more in agreement with YEC theory than I am with Big Bang theory.

So again, which interpretation of Genesis is correct?