POLL: Which of these elements of the creation story do you believe?

[rakovsky]

I am asking what you think.

It is hard for me to say how much of the Bible is poetry and how much is intended factually/physically.

There are several questions: Does the Bible's direct writer intend for something to be metaphor/poetry or for it to be factual, and if it is meant factually, then is the Bible correct?

Take for example: "It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, And I ordained all their host. (Isaiah 45:12)
My guess is that Isaiah thought that God did not use limbs that actually look like hands to do this, and Isaiah is making poetry. But then again, Genesis says that man is made in God's image and in Genesis God "walks" in the Garden of Eden. So maybe Isaiah meant it factually.

The same way of understanding the verses go with the other stories and ideas like the ends of the earth. When it says in Genesis 1 that there is water over the firm layer of the heavens, my guess is that this is meant factually, and that factually this is incorrect. But maybe I am wrong and there actually is water on top of the heavens. Or maybe I am wrong in a different way, and it was only meant as poetry, like telling a Creation story around the campfire.
http://www.bigmyth.com/myths/english/2_oldtest_full.htm (produced by the International association for intercultural education)

See here where the depiction of the flat earth are given:
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml#earthflat

Psalms 136:6
to him who spread out the earth upon the waters, for his steadfast love endures forever;

Isaiah 44:24
Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb; "I am the Lord, who made all things, who stretched out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth -- Who was with me? --

If the earth were spherical, one would use a verb other than "spread out" to describe its creation (balled up, gathered up, gathered together, anything but spread out). One might say they "spread out" batter to make pancakes but no one would ever say they "spread out" hamburger to make meatballs. The earth in the Bible was "spread out" because it is flat.

 

[rakovsky]

Nice avatar, tickingclocker.

God made everything HIS way and in HIS time, not the way we may conclude He meant it being made within our version of time

It seems like you would not be voting for #2 then.

 

[mmksparbud]

It is hard for me to say how much of the Bible is poetry and how much is intended factually/physically.

There are several questions: Does the Bible's direct writer intend for something to be metaphor/poetry or for it to be factual, and if it is meant factually, then is the Bible correct?

Take for example: "It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, And I ordained all their host. (Isaiah 45:12)
My guess is that Isaiah thought that God did not use limbs that actually look like hands to do this, and Isaiah is making poetry. But then again, Genesis says that man is made in God's image and in Genesis God "walks" in the Garden of Eden. So maybe Isaiah meant it factually.

The same way of understanding the verses go with the other stories and ideas like the ends of the earth. When it says in Genesis 1 that there is water over the firm layer of the heavens, my guess is that this is meant factually, and that factually this is incorrect. But maybe I am wrong and there actually is water on top of the heavens. Or maybe I am wrong in a different way, and it was only meant as poetry, like telling a Creation story around the campfire.
http://www.bigmyth.com/myths/english/2_oldtest_full.htm (produced by the International association for intercultural education)

I prefer to take it literally except where it is obviously prophetic. After that, to check for what the language meant in the original language. Writers take poetic license, some more than others. God stretched out the heavens with His hands is mentioned several times. Why does it have to be hands like ours? We are made in His image---a Barbie doll is made in our image---for that matter, so is a corncob doll. An image is a representation, not a clone. We have no idea of what He actually looks like or what He consists of. Things are described as best can be described with the knowledge of the writers. The bible is the word of God, written by men inspired by God. God gave them the thought, they expressed it in their own words. How do you describe a vast universe outside this planet but to say it was stretched out. The Hebrew language is very complex, words were written that represented an idea. A word can have more than one meaning depending on how it is used, there were no chapters and verses or punctuation. No reason why a story can not be literal, said in a poetic way.
Genesis 1:1
in the summit Elohiym fattened the skies and the land,
Genesis 1:2
and the land had existed in confusion and was unfilled, and darkness was upon the face of the deep sea and the wind of Elohiym was fluttering upon the face of the waters,
http://www.mechanical-translation.org/mt/translation1.html
That is the Mechanical translation of Genesis---sounds very different from
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Genesis 1:6
and Elohiym said, a sheet will exist in the midst of the waters, and he existed, making a separation between waters to waters
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
What did that waters mean--because there was no rain until the flood--a mist watered the earth. Something was different from what it is was during and after the flood.

 

[rakovsky]

Hello, Tree!

"The firmament" is the Hebrew רָקִיעַ which simply means "a spreading out". The same root verb is also used to refer to hammered works of metal. It's simply the idea of the sky spreading out infinitely above us. The "waters above" simply refer to clouds. There is no evidence that the Hebrews believed in anything like a celestial sea.

The idea was that the firmament was hard like metal. The waters above don't refer to clouds, because the stars are "in the firmament", whereas the waters are "above the firmament" in Genesis 1.

The significance of the sun and moon made on day four is to show that God himself is the source of light and does not need the sun and the moon in order to provide it. The sun and moon are simply called "the greater light" and "the lesser light" because the names of the sun and moon could have referred to deities. Genesis is a polemic against that idea. Don't worship the sun and moon as light givers. Worship Elohim.

OK, so are you saying that the days in Genesis 1 are the same time length for humans, eg. a single human wake-sleep cycle, as they are in 2016 AD?

You're really grasping here. None of these passages are part of the creation story. The Revelation passage is apocalyptic literature and so prone to lots of figurative language, impressionistic imagery, and allegory. And the colloquial expression "four corners of the earth" simply means "everywhere". It's a stretch to use these passages to say that the Bible definitively teaches a flat earth.

There are a lot more passages reflecting the ancient idea of the earth's flatness, as when it talks about the earth being "spread out", something that doesn't happen to balls:
http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geocentric.shtml#earthflat

When it says in Genesis 1 that the heavens are "spread out", as you put it, does this express the idea that the heavens are a flat plane? It seems that a flat earth idea would go well with a flat heavens idea.

Ecclesiastes is an example of colloquial, geocentric language. From the vantage point of the earth, the sun appears to rise and set. The point is that the days are filled with weariness. Each day is the same. This is not meant to be a scientific statement about the nature of heavenly bodies. Genre, people.

Scripture that talks about the world never moving refers to the stability of creation.

This is what some mainstream theologians propose about Genesis 1, that it is only allegorical.

A scientific hermeneutic focuses on empirical truth In addition to his theology of nature, Calvin (like Luther) worked with a hermeneutic which allowed for a non-literal (actual ly a ‘literarial’) biblical interpretation, although the main focus was actually to emphasise the plain meaning of the text. ... It had the effect of producing a process of interpretation which focused on the text according to its intended meaning, and this provided an escape not only from allegory but also from crudely literal and often scientifically inaccurate descriptions of the natural phenomena which are recorded in the Bible. The subsequent importance of this cannot be over-estimated. Contemporary ‘creationism’ which relies on literalistic interpretations of creation and the flood can find no support for their hermeneutical approach in John Calvin.

Brian Edgar, CALVIN AND THE NATURAL ORDER: positives and problems for science-faith dialogue
http://www.iscast.org/journal/articles/Edgar_B_2010-07_Calvin_and_the_Natural_Order.pdf

One of the most neglected themes of the Christian Gospel and of the ministry of Christian Formation and Discipleship is the role of the human imagination in faith. Think, for example, of the artistry of Scripture. Throughout Scripture—from the expansive poetry of Genesis 1 to the rapturous songs of worship that fill the Psalter, to the images of the prophets and the parables of Jesus, all the way to the apocalyptic flourishes of Revelation 22—an avalanche of images assaults the heart and mind of the believing community when it reads, hears, or sings the Bible. The imagination is at the heart of Christian discourse and Christian interpretation.

http://www.firstpreschurch.com/index.php/cfd-director-s-blog/62-october-2013

 

[rakovsky]

I prefer to take it literally except where it is obviously prophetic.

Many times like in the waters above the heavens or God using hands to make the heavens it is not obvious whether it is meant as poetry only or as a prophetic vision only. But I think that Genesis 1 was meant basically literally to say that there are actually waters over the heavens.

 

[Papias]

1. A firm layer divided
the waters so that a massive body of liquid water was above the stars.
........

Rakovsky-

What a cool idea for a poll. As I think you already know, Bible scholars have known for a long time that a literal reading of the Bibles supports items 1-5, yet so many Christians today pick and choose what they'll take literally, then turn around and deny evolution so as to be "literal".

Here's what I posted on the other, related, thread:

Yes, the Bibles are clear - a literal reading depicts a flat earth, in dozens of verses.
(Ibid)
Flat Earth-

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), is set on a foundation, like a table (2Sm 22:16, Ps 18:15, 102:25, Pr 8:27-29, Is 48:13), has a length as only a flat plane would (Dan 4:11, Job 11:9, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Job 38:44, Jrm 16:19), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) heaven (Job 28:24) or mountain (Matt 4:8) or which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Geocentrism-

The Bible describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars in water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5 (note “returns”, not perspective), Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

We live in a Planetarium-
The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2, Pr 8:27-29, Ezk 1:26), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Ex 24:10 suggests that it is like sapphire. Joshua 10:12 estimates how far the Sun and Moon are from Earth’s surface. The Sun was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Aijalon, showing that one wasn’t sufficient for both valleys (too close). So some basic trigonometry shows that they are therefore at a roughly similar height as the valleys are from each other – which is around 20 miles. Similarly, the whole Star of Bethlehem story in Mt (where a star designates a single house) makes no sense if stars are millions of miles across, but makes perfect sense if the stars are little lights hanging from a dome above us. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Many Christians today have recognized this. Deciding to actually take their Bible literally, they are honest, and hence ascribe to a flat earth. Here is but one example of many:

That's what a literal reading says. The only consistent positions an honest person could take are to either reject heliocentrism, a spherical earth, evolution, the atmosphere, etc - or to accept them all.

In Christ - Papias

 

[rakovsky]

Papias,
Good Bible quotes by you.

Rakovsky-

What a cool idea for a poll. As I think you already know, Bible scholars have known for a long time that a literal reading of the Bibles supports items 1-5, yet so many Christians today pick and choose what they'll take literally, then turn around and deny evolution so as to be "literal".

Thanks, Papias.
Actually, out of those I listed, it is not clear to me whether the Bible actually supports #2 in a literal reading. The Bible never specifies whether in the first 4 days each "day" would be the normal time for a healthy adult to have about a single sleep-wake cycle. We could be talking in reality about thousands or millions of human years or more.

About half of the people who picked Creationism also picked #2. So many people who support a literal reading of Genesis 1 will pick #2, even though IMO the Bible's literal reading does not even say that!

 

[rakovsky]

Rakovsky-

What a cool idea for a poll.

Another cool poll:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...s-there-one-single-anglican-position.7937857/

 

[OzSpen]

It is hard for me to say how much of the Bible is poetry and how much is intended factually/physically.

There are several questions: Does the Bible's direct writer intend for something to be metaphor/poetry or for it to be factual, and if it is meant factually, then is the Bible correct?

Take for example: "It is I who made the earth, and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands, And I ordained all their host. (Isaiah 45:12)
My guess is that Isaiah thought that God did not use limbs that actually look like hands to do this, and Isaiah is making poetry. But then again, Genesis says that man is made in God's image and in Genesis God "walks" in the Garden of Eden. So maybe Isaiah meant it factually.

It's important to examine other Scriptures to determine what this verse means. Is it possible for God to have physical hands?

We know from John 4:24 (ESV) that 'God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth'.

Since God is spirit, God does not have physical hands and Isaiah is thus using a metaphor to describe the creative work of God.

As for which parts of the Bible are historical, poetry, metaphor, etc, I start with the historical critical method - assuming it is historical - until evidence presents itself that it cannot be taken historically, like the example you gave from Isa 45:12.

This is what we do with reading any document, including the local newspaper. Start with it as a historical narrative and then allow the content to determine if this literally, historically could happen. This helps to prevent imposing on the text with allegorical or postmodern interpretations. Let the text in context speak for itself.

As for the correctness or reliability of the Bible, there are criteria that one can use to determine the historical accuracy of any document. However, to go into some of these will take us off track. I have addressed some of these issues in my articles on:

• Can you trust the Bible? Part 1

Why don't you read,

• Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (IVP 1987);
• Walter C KaiserJr., The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant? (IVP 2001);
• K A Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans 2003)?

Oz

 

[rakovsky]

It's important to examine other Scriptures to determine what this verse means. Is it possible for God to have physical hands?

We know from John 4:24 (ESV) that 'God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth'.

Since God is spirit, God does not have physical hands and Isaiah is thus using a metaphor to describe the creative work of God.

Oz

The Bible never says that spirits can't have hands.
An angel is a spirit too though and can have hands like in the NT.

 

[OzSpen]

The Bible never says that spirits can't have hands.
An angel is a spirit too though and can have hands like in the NT.

I note that you provided no verification of your statements.

We know from John 1:18 (NIV), 'No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known'.

God is not a physical being who can be seen. Don't you understand the language of metaphor?

Please show to me from Scripture that spirits are physical beings who have physical hands. What other hands are there if they are not physical hands? Metaphorical hands? Invisible hands of the invisible God or invisible hands of invisible angels?

What is the essence of God being spirit and not a physical being? When it is stated that God is spirit (John 4:24), 'in this context, spirit characterizes what God is like, in the same way that flesh, location, and corporeality characterize what human beings and there world are like.... "God is spirit" means that God is invisible, divine as opposed to human (cf. 3;6), life-giving and unknowable to human beings unless he chooses to reveal himself (cf. 1:18). As "God is light" and "God is love" (1 Jn. 1:5; 4:8), so "God is spirit" these are elements in the way God presents himself to human beings, in his gracious self-disclosure in his Son' (Carson 1991:225).

So, to suggest that a spirit has physical hands is stretching the imagination when the nature of spirit beings is not to have physical essence.

Oz

Works consulted
Carson, D A 1991. The Gospel according to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

 

[alsughasoughaiuyfygh]

.

 

[rakovsky]

FIRMAMENT
Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon and stars embedded in it.[7] According to The Jewish Encyclopedia: "The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse."

Augustine wrote that too much learning had been expended on the nature of the firmament.[9] "We may understand this name as given to indicate not it is motionless but that it is solid." he wrote.

In 1584, Giordano Bruno proposed a cosmology without firmament: an infinite universe in which the stars are actually suns with their own planetary systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

When ancient man looked up at the sky, what he perceived was akin to what he observed when looking out over the seas—an expanse of crystal-clear blue water. This observation was confirmed of course by the very fact that it rained. For where else did rain come from if not from the waters above the sky?



Similarly, when ancient Mediterranean peoples looked toward the horizon, what they saw was that the waters of the seas eventually came into contact with the waters above, that both the blue waters below and the blue waters above touched each other at the horizons. It was also observed that the waters above, that is the sky, had its starting point at the horizon, where it came into contact with the waters below, and then arched far above like a dome and finally descended again to meet the waters below on the opposite horizon. Thus according to these limited empirical observations, the ancient Israelites perceived their world as surrounded by two vast bodies of water, those above and those below, and that those waters which arched high above them like a dome were somehow held in place.
http://contradictionsinthebible.com/genesis-1-waters-above-firmament/

 

[OzSpen]

Rakovsky-

What a cool idea for a poll. As I think you already know, Bible scholars have known for a long time that a literal reading of the Bibles supports items 1-5, yet so many Christians today pick and choose what they'll take literally, then turn around and deny evolution so as to be "literal".

Here's what I posted on the other, related, thread:

Yes, the Bibles are clear - a literal reading depicts a flat earth, in dozens of verses.
(Ibid)
Flat Earth-

Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), is set on a foundation, like a table (2Sm 22:16, Ps 18:15, 102:25, Pr 8:27-29, Is 48:13), has a length as only a flat plane would (Dan 4:11, Job 11:9, Job 28:24, Job 37:3, Job 38:13, Job 38:44, Jrm 16:19), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) heaven (Job 28:24) or mountain (Matt 4:8) or which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Geocentrism-

The Bible describes the earth as unmovable, set on a foundation of either pillars in water (1 Sam 2:8, 1 Chr 16:30, Job 9:6, 38:4, Psa 24:1-2, 75:s3, 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 136:6). It also tells us that, although the earth does not move, the sun and stars do move about it (Josh 10:12, Psa 19:4-6, 50:1, Ecc 1:5 (note “returns”, not perspective), Hab 3:11). And that the stars could be dropped down onto the earth like fruit falling from a tree (Rev. 6:13). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show geocentrism. And many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

We live in a Planetarium-
The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2, Pr 8:27-29, Ezk 1:26), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Ex 24:10 suggests that it is like sapphire. Joshua 10:12 estimates how far the Sun and Moon are from Earth’s surface. The Sun was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Gibeon, and the Moon was stopped to illuminate the Valley of Aijalon, showing that one wasn’t sufficient for both valleys (too close). So some basic trigonometry shows that they are therefore at a roughly similar height as the valleys are from each other – which is around 20 miles. Similarly, the whole Star of Bethlehem story in Mt (where a star designates a single house) makes no sense if stars are millions of miles across, but makes perfect sense if the stars are little lights hanging from a dome above us. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

Many Christians today have recognized this. Deciding to actually take their Bible literally, they are honest, and hence ascribe to a flat earth. Here is but one example of many:

That's what a literal reading says. The only consistent positions an honest person could take are to either reject heliocentrism, a spherical earth, evolution, the atmosphere, etc - or to accept them all.

In Christ - Papias

The main problem, Papias, is that Scripture refutes that view in Isa 40:22 (NIV), 'He [God] sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in'.

So we here learn about 'the circle of the earth' and not a flat earth.

Oz

 

[rakovsky]

I note that you provided no verification of your statements.

We know from John 1:18 (NIV), 'No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known'.

God is not a physical being who can be seen. Don't you understand the language of metaphor?

Please show to me from Scripture that spirits are physical beings who have physical hands. What other hands are there if they are not physical hands? Metaphorical hands? Invisible hands of the invisible God or invisible hands of invisible angels?

What is the essence of God being spirit and not a physical being? When it is stated that God is spirit (John 4:24), 'in this context, spirit characterizes what God is like, in the same way that flesh, location, and corporeality characterize what human beings and there world are like.... "God is spirit" means that God is invisible, divine as opposed to human (cf. 3;6), life-giving and unknowable to human beings unless he chooses to reveal himself (cf. 1:18). As "God is light" and "God is love" (1 Jn. 1:5; 4:8), so "God is spirit" these are elements in the way God presents himself to human beings, in his gracious self-disclosure in his Son' (Carson 1991:225).

So, to suggest that a spirit has physical hands is stretching the imagination when the nature of spirit beings is not to have physical essence.

Oz

Works consulted
Carson, D A 1991. The Gospel according to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Back in the Torah when God visits Abraham before destroying Sodom, God shows up in the form of three persons who eat with Abraham. I suppose that the angels could have just stuck their heads in their food to eat, but I think that it's far more likely that the Bible writer imagined them as having normal body parts that they ate with.

Anyway, the Bible never specifies that spirits, angels or God do not have hands of any kind, but several times it talks (metaphorically or not) of God's "hands".

 

[rakovsky]

The main problem, Papias, is that Scripture refutes that view in Isa 40:22 (NIV), 'He [God] sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in'.

So we here learn about 'the circle of the earth' and not a flat earth.

Oz

A "circle" is a flat two dimensional object.

A "sphere", on the other hand, is a round three dimensional object.

 

[OzSpen]

Back in the Torah when God visits Abraham before destroying Sodom, God shows up in the form of three persons who eat with Abraham. I suppose that the angels could have just stuck their heads in their food to eat, but I think that it's far more likely that the Bible writer imagined them as having normal body parts that they ate with.

Anyway, the Bible never specifies that spirits, angels or God do not have hands of any kind, but several times it talks (metaphorically or not) of God's "hands".

You did not respond to the specific issues I raised.

Now you give us an example of Abraham. Why don't you provide the exact references to which you refer so that I don't have to go searching through a concordance to find it?

Spirits do not have a physical essence and God does not have a physical essence (John 4:24). Since when were spirit beings physical in nature so that they have physical hands they can use? If spirits/angels have hands, would you please supply us with Bible verses that describe the nature of these hands?

Oz

 

[rakovsky]

Mark Kennedy,

Perhaps since you know about Babylonian mythology and the elementals v. the gods, you might find the following interesting. This reflects what I was saying about Babylonian Creationism, Tiamat and Tehowm:

The Three-Story Universe

From N. F. Gier, God, Reason, and the Evangelicals


In her new translation of the Rig-veda, Wendy O'Flaherty says that the ancient Hindus believed that "the earth was spread upon the cosmic waters" and that these primeval oceans "surrounded heaven and earth, separating the dwelling-place of men and gods...."(19) After the sky fell in on the Celts, the next event they feared was that the seas would come rushing in from all directions.(20) In the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish, the sky is made from the body of Tiamat, the goddess of watery chaos. The victorious god Marduk splits "her like a shellfish into two parts: half of her he set up and ceiled it as sky, pulled down the bar and posted guards. He bade them to allow not her waters to escape."

In Genesis 1:1 we find the linguistic equivalent of Tiamat in the Hebrew word tehom ("the deep"), and the threat of watery chaos is ever present in the Old Testament. Evangelical F. F. Bruce agrees that "tehom is probably cognate with Tiamat," and Clark Pinnock admits that Yahweh also "quite plainly...fought with a sea monster" and that the model of the battle is a Babylonian one.(22) The psalmists describe it in graphic terms: "By thy power thou didst cleave the sea-monster in two, and broke the dragon's heads above the waters; thou didst crush the many-headed Leviathan, and threw him to the sharks for food" (Ps. 74:13-14 NEB; cf. Job 3:8; Isa. 27:1).

The firmament separates the waters from the waters, so that there is water above the heavens (Ps. l48:4) and water below the earth. The Second Commandment makes this clear: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth..."(Deut. 5:8; cf. Ex. 20:4; Is. 51:6). The lower tier of this three-story universe is identified as water in other passages: "God spread out the earth upon the waters" (Ps. 136:6); and "he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers" (Ps. 24:2). If the waters below the earth are simply springs,(23) then one would have a hard time making sense of the prohibition of making images of the mostly microscopic creatures found in such waters. The biblical authors are definitely thinking of the great fishes and monsters of "the deep" itself. The fertility goddesses of the land and the seas were Yahweh's principal rivals.
...
In closing this chapter, something must be said about the process of "demythologizing." This word, made popular by Rudolph Bultmann, has become a dirty word among conservative Christians. It is clear, however, that demythologizing happened with the writing of the Old Testament, and it is occurring at another level within evangelical hermeneutics itself. Recall that James Barr's theory is that fundamentalists take the Bible literally only when it fits the doctrine of inerrancy. They do not hesitate to naturalize biblical events when they must be harmonized with historical or scientific facts. When Dillow claims, and rightly so, that Moses wrote of a sovereign Yahweh completely in charge of a depersonalized nature, he is conceding that the Hebrew writers, as with our example of the Sumerian chronologies, were historicizing myth. But Dillow and other evangelicals are also demythologizers in disguise, for they want us to believe that a heavenly ocean and the flood it caused are facts and not myths. This is demythologizing at its worst and the evangelical rationalists are its champions.

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm

 

[rakovsky]

Spirits do not have a physical essence and God does not have a physical essence (John 4:24). Since when were spirit beings physical in nature so that they have physical hands they can use? If spirits/angels have hands, would you please supply us with Bible verses that describe the nature of these hands?

Revelations 8:4:
And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.

Psalm 91:
They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Rev. 10:
So I took the small scroll from the angel's hand and ate it;

Ezekiel 1:8
Under their wings on their four sides were human hands.

 

[OzSpen]

A "circle" is a flat two dimensional object.

A "sphere", on the other hand, is a round three dimensional object.

Firstly, why don't you provide identification for this graphic with the University of Colorado? I know that clicking on the graphic takes us to the site, but to avoid the charge of plagiarism, I recommend that you identify with the specific website from which you gained this graphic.

Nice try about 'the circle of the earth' in Isa 40:22 (NIV) being flat, but Hebrew scholar, Dr H C Leupold, provides a more exegetical and expositional explanation of the Hebrew text:

this "circle of the earth" means the dome of the heavens. Or to use another approach, as a man might with infinite ease spread out a light veil, so it in days of old cost the Lord no more effort when he for the first time created and "spread out the heavens." Or still a third approach, as a man pitches a tent, with ease and in quick order, this being a common occupation among men, with the same ease the Lord spread out the heavens like a tent to dwell in (Leupold 1971:2.35)

So, 'circle of the earth' means 'dome of the heavens' and not a flat earth as you are proposing.

Oz

Works consulted
Leupold, H C 1971. Exposition of Isaiah (2 vols in 1). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House.