The Need to interpret the Genesis creation account literally.

[Job 33:6]

Sounds like clouds to me. I've never seen the word "dome" in the Bible before - nice touch.

Amos 9:6 NASB1995
[6] The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The Lord is His name.

You've never seen the word "dome" in the Bible before? What version do you read, the message or the living Bible? Or maybe you just haven't actually been reading your Bible to notice?

This NASB translators are always adding "mans-word" to the Bible, I'm tired of it.

Job 37:18 NIV
[18] can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?

Job 37:18 ESV
[18] Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?

"Clouds" that are "hard" as a mirror of cast bronze.

Right...

And @Ted-01 just so you know as well, the words "dome" or "vault" or "vaulted dome" are used to describe the firmament in all of the most well known Bible translations, including the ESV, NIV, NASB, NRSV, CSB, NET, and more. Even translations that use "expanse" in some passages, still acknowledge the solid sky with use of "dome" in others, such as in the NASB. Platte is factually wrong about such translations not existing.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sounds like clouds to me. I've never seen the word "dome" in the Bible before - nice touch.

Also, the waters above, are above the firmament. And as Genesis plainly states, stars are in the firmament. So no, it's not talking about clouds, unless you think clouds are above the stars at the edge of the universe. Which certainly wouldn't make any sense during Noah's flood if the waters were travelling in from deep space.

Genesis 1:6-8 NIV
[6] And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” [7] So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. [8] God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Genesis 1:14 NRSV
[14] And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,

Genesis 8:2 NASB1995
[2] Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained;

As if clouds are opening and closing to release and restrain waters above the clouds.

Who honestly takes this "literally" ?

Nobody.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So far 35.7% have said "Yes, without doubt.

Why? It s it because it is the Bible?

 

[Platte]

Also, the waters above, are above the firmament. And as Genesis plainly states, stars are in the firmament. So no, it's not talking about clouds, unless you think clouds are above the stars at the edge of the universe. Which certainly wouldn't make any sense during Noah's flood if the waters were travelling in from deep space.

Genesis 1:6-8 NIV
[6] And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” [7] So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. [8] God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Genesis 1:14 NRSV
[14] And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,

Genesis 8:2 NASB1995
[2] Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained;

As if clouds are opening and closing to release and restrain waters above the clouds.

Who honestly takes this "literally" ?

Nobody.

I was talking about the water above being clouds....not the firmament.

Last time I looked both the clouds and the stars were in the sky....not sure what you are getting at.

 

[Job 33:6]

So far 35.7% have said "Yes, without doubt.

Why? It s it because it is the Bible?

Because some people are more worried about american culture and tribalism than they are worried about actually being faithful readers of the Bible.

People would read Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 about flood gates and windows opening and closing in the sky to release and restrain a sky ocean, and they would still say that they believe the Bible "literally" because that's what's culturally accepted in america. Meanwhile, if you ask them directly if they actually believe in windows opening and closing in the sky, they call it poetry.

People might claim to read the Bible "literally", but the reality is that none of us do.

A more meaningful question is, do people interpret the Bible in its ancient Israelite context? Or do people interpret the Bible in a modern 21st century context?

That's really at the heart of the dilemma that the church currently faces.

 

[Job 33:6]

I was talking about the water above being clouds....not the firmament.

Last time I looked both the clouds and the stars were in the sky....not sure what you are getting at.

According to the Bible, the waters above are above the firmament, and the stars are set in the firmament.

Genesis 1:7, 15 NRSV
[7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
Genesis 1:14 NRSV
[14] And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
[15] and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.

So if you think the waters above are clouds, then if you took the Bible at its word, you would recognize that the waters above the dome are above the stars.

It doesn't say "let there be lights above the dome" like it does with the waters above. The lights are "in" the dome.

Alternatively, you could just admit that you don't take the Bible literally.

And if the clouds are above the dome, then what is the dome?

Genesis 7:11 NRSV
[11] In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

Genesis 8:2 NRSV
[2] the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,

The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The Lord is His name.
Amos‬ ‭9:6‬ ‭NASB

and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.
Exodus 24:10

Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.’
Job 22:14

The Bible is not ambiguous here. The sky in the old testament is solid. And anyone who reads the Bible can see this plainly described. We aren't blind. We have eyeballs.

And either you take it "literally" and believe in a solid sky, or you don't take it literally and argue that it's talking about simply what the sky looks like through metaphor.

 

[Platte]

Because some people are more worried about american culture and tribalism than they are worried about actually being faithful readers of the Bible.

People would read Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 about flood gates and windows opening and closing in the sky to release and restrain a sky ocean, and they would still say that they believe the Bible "literally" because that's what's culturally accepted in america. Meanwhile, if you ask them directly if they actually believe in windows opening and closing in the sky, they call it poetry.

People might claim to read the Bible "literally", but the reality is that none of us do.

A more meaningful question is, do people interpret the Bible in its ancient Israelite context? Or do people interpret the Bible in a modern 21st century context?

That's really at the heart of the dilemma that the church currently faces.

From the example I see of Jesus referring to the Old Testament its obvious to me he took it literally. For example He says Jonah was in the belly of a fish 3 days and that God spoke to Moses from a burning bush. He refers to these as literal events. He also gives strict reference to believing what Moses wrote.

I don't see any issue with what the Bible tells us - or as you say a literal reading. When God says He created the world in 6 days then thats what He did. You don't have to agree but to try to convice others not to take the Bible literally...do that at your own risk.

 

[Platte]

According to the Bible, the waters above are above the firmament, and the stars are set in the firmament.

Genesis 1:7, 15 NRSV
[7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
Genesis 1:14 NRSV
[14] And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
[15] and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so.

So if you think the waters above are clouds, then if you took the Bible at its word, you would recognize that the waters above the dome are above the stars.

It doesn't say "let there be lights above the dome" like it does with the waters above. The lights are "in" the dome.

Alternatively, you could just admit that you don't take the Bible literally.

Sky is a funny thing...If I have a big cloud in the sky above a lake.....you would see sky between the clouds and the lake.

The clouds would be above that sky and the lake would below that sky. Oh and if you see above the cloud - you would see that there was sky above the cloud too. So the cloud would be above the sky and below it...weird but yeah thats what you'd see.

Are you intentionally trying to trip yourself up? This is pretty simple. Using the only translation that I can find using the word dome might be complicating things for you. Try KJV version.

 

[Job 33:6]

Even something as simple as saying "the waters above are actually clouds" is not taking the Bible "literally". The ancient Israelites, they had a separate word for clouds and they used it elsewhere in the Old Testament.

It's not talking about clouds, when it says "waters above", It's talking about actual water, not in a gas form but in liquid form as an ocean in the sky. Hence why the sky is blue.

If people can't accept this, then they're not actually taking Genesis "literally".

Genesis 1:6-7, 9-10 NRSV
[6] And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” [7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
[9] And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. [10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

The dome was formed in the midst of the waters, in the middle of them. The waters below the dome were gathered to form the seas. And the waters above the dome remained above the dome as a sea in the sky. Until Noah's flood. Genesis 7:11 and 8:2.

 

[Platte]

Even something as simple as saying "the waters above are actually clouds" is not taking the Bible "literally". The ancient Israelites, they had a separate word for clouds and they used it elsewhere in the Old Testament.

It's not talking about clouds, when it says "waters above", It's talking about actual water, not in a gas form but in liquid form as an ocean in the sky. Hence why the sky is blue.

If people can't accept this, then they're not actually taking Genesis "literally".

Genesis 1:6-7, 9-10 NRSV
[6] And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” [7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
[9] And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. [10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

The dome was formed in the midst of the waters, in the middle of them. The waters below the dome were gathered to form the seas. And the waters above the dome remained above the dome as a sea in the sky. Until Noah's flood. Genesis 7:11 and 8:2.

You do realize that the water in clouds are in their liquid form

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Because some people are more worried about american culture and tribalism than they are worried about actually being faithful readers of the Bible.

People would read Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 about flood gates and windows opening and closing in the sky to release and restrain a sky ocean, and they would still say that they believe the Bible "literally" because that's what's culturally accepted in america. Meanwhile, if you ask them directly if they actually believe in windows opening and closing in the sky, they call it poetry.

People might claim to read the Bible "literally", but the reality is that none of us do.

A more meaningful question is, do people interpret the Bible in its ancient Israelite context? Or do people interpret the Bible in a modern 21st century context?

That's really at the heart of the dilemma that the church currently faces.

I am interested but that looks like a 5 hour video. Can you summarize?

 

[Job 33:6]

I am interested but that looks like a 5 hour video. Can you summarize?

Sure.

The beginning relates to the ancient near east perspective of creation, which is described in ex materia terms that have nothing to do with the age of the earth.

The video covers ancient isrealites cosmology and interpretation of the Bible in context.

The video shows the relationship of Genesis with an Egyptian contextual background, as is expected given Moses' captivity in Egypt.

The video also covers Babylonian contextual background, which is also to be expected, particularly in books like Daniel.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

The video covers the ancient near east contextual background of the imago dei, and how it is related to a divine status, and isn't about anatomy.

The video also covers some content of the unseen realm:

Etc.

The video, overall is about hermeneutics and how to read the Bible in its original context.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Sure.

The beginning relates to the ancient near east perspective of creation, which is described in ex materia terms that have nothing to do with the age of the earth.

The video covers ancient isrealites cosmology and interpretation of the Bible in context.

The video shows the relationship of Genesis with an Egyptian contextual background, as is expected given Moses' captivity in Egypt.

The video also covers Babylonian contextual background, which is also to be expected, particularly in books like Daniel.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

The video covers the ancient near east contextual background of the imago dei, and how it is related to a divine status, and isn't about anatomy.

The video also covers some content of the unseen realm:

Etc.

The video, overall is about hermeneutics and how to read the Bible in its original context.

Thanks. I have recently taken a deeper interest in Hermeneutics. I am about to start Paul Ricoeur Time and Narrative Volume 3.

I do intend to watch your videos. Thank you.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I also think God would will a consistency or correlation between science discoveries and truth of history.

Except for the fact that every miracle in the Bible is directly contradictory to what science tells us. I feel like people who reject the literal creation account don’t actually realize how science can be very wrong about the age of the world. I hear people say that science has proven that the earth is billions of years old but they actually haven’t. Go on YouTube and watch some Kent Hovind debate videos on the age of the earth, only don’t listen to Ken, listen to the scientists and professors he’s debating and their answers to his questions. You’ll find out really quick that their answers are a lot different than what the majority of people actually believe about what scientists can actually prove.

 

[BNR32FAN]

There is a big difference between modern fundamentalist literal and literary literal. Not the same things at all. Fundamentalist literalism is a new thing since about 1800. Creationism in particular is a new thing. But even fundamentalism has evolved (devolved) since the days of ‘The Five Fumdamentals’.

Lots of Catholics have swallowed fundamentalist creationism whole. But we were not always so.

There’s no truth to this claim at all. YEC was believed by many Christians long before the 19th century. Here’s a video with evidence to support that. Skip to 19:30 to hear him talk about that particular subject.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Thats a good result. Half of Americans have a balanced, non-extremist view and another 20% are at least Christians, even though with a wrong Bible view and probably also anti-scientific.

However, that would make 70% of Americans to be Christians, which is strange, regarding the crime rate, moral corruption and other problems. There is always some disconnect between the acceptance of Scriptures and a transformed life.

Why are YEC believers considered to be extremists?

 

[BNR32FAN]

This is what I find so puzzling. Why? Why, for some people, is a literal interpretation required for faith.

I think it comes down to a pessimistic assessment of human effort, a rejection of rationalism. Is is out of fear? Pejorative view of humanity (humanism)? Philosophical rejection and distrust of anything modern?

How many old earth creationists do you know that believe that Lot’s wife was instantly turned into a pillar of salt or that a donkey actually talked? It’s been my experience that most OEC believers struggle with believing many of the miracles recorded in the Bible.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And many of them do so because they did not even read the text properly, they just heard that they must believe it literally.

When you ask them about the flat earth, you can almost see the surprise on their faces, realizing that Genesis 1 is not just about days, but also about the firmament, primeval waters etc.

Except for the fact that I’ve already shown you numerous times that the Hebrew word translated to “firmament” in the KJV is also translated as “expanse” in more recent translations because the word is included in the definition given in Strong’s Concordance. So you’re presenting these verses as evidence that a literal interpretation supports a flat earth even tho they actually don’t and you already know this. We just had this exact conversation last week.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Sounds like clouds to me. I've never seen the word "dome" in the Bible before - nice touch.

Yes it’s an intentional misrepresentation of the facts because anyone who has ever done any kind of research on the word knows that it’s also translated as expanse. But many OEC believers intentionally ignore this fact in order to falsely accuse their opponents of being ignorant of what Genesis 1 is teaching when the truth is neither side is ignorant, just one side isn’t being honest.

 

[Job 33:6]

Why are YEC believers considered to be extremists?

And many of them do so because they did not even read the text properly, they just heard that they must believe it literally.

When you ask them about the flat earth, you can almost see the surprise on their faces, realizing that Genesis 1 is not just about days, but also about the firmament, primeval waters etc.

Have you guys seen Ben Stanhope's review of the creation museum?