How an atheist evolutionist Professor evolved to theistic evolution, then creationist.

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Professor Gary E. Parker explains in his testimony how he went from teaching evolution as a college professor, to creationist, and some of the evidence involved in his converting to a creationist.

From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony
BY GARY PARKER, ED.D. |
FRIDAY, JULY 01, 1977
Share Email Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Moderator: "Dr. Parker, I understand that when you started teaching college biology you were an enthusiastic evolutionist."

Yes, indeed. The idea of evolution was very satisfying to me. It gave me a feeling of being one with the huge, evolving universe continually progressing toward grander things. Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged.

As a religion, evolution answered my questions about God, sin, and salvation. God was unnecessary, or at least did no more than make the particles and processes from which all else mechanistically followed. "Sin" was only the result of animal instincts that had outlived their usefulness, and salvation involved only personal adjustment, enlightened self-interest, and perhaps one day the benefits of genetic engineering.

With no God to answer to, no God with a purpose for mankind, I saw our destiny in our own hands. Tied in with the idea of inevitable evolutionary progress, this was a truly thrilling idea and the part of evolution I liked best.

"Did your faith in evolution affect your classroom teaching?"

It surely did. In my early years of teaching at both the high school and college levels, I worked hard to convince my students that evolution was true. I even had students crying in class. I thought I was teaching objective science, not religion, but I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution. In fact, a discussion with high school teachers in a graduate class I was assisting included just that goal: encouraging students to adapt their religious beliefs to the concept of evolution!

"I thought you weren't supposed to teach religion in the public school system."

Well, maybe you can't teach the Christian religion, but there is no trouble at all in teaching the evolutionary religion. I've done it myself, and I've watched the effects that accepting evolution has on a person's thought and life. Of course, I once thought that effect was good, "liberating the mind from the shackles of revealed religion" and making a person's own opinions supreme.

"Since you found evolution such a satisfying religion and enjoyed teaching it to others, what made you change your mind?"

I've often marvelled that God could change anyone as content as I was, especially with so many religious leaders (including two members of the Bible department where I once taught!) actually supporting evolution over creation. But through a Bible study group my wife and I joined at first for purely social reasons, God slowly convinced me to lean not on my own opinions or those of other human authorities, but in all my ways to acknowledge Him and to let Him direct my paths. It is a blessed experience that gives me an absolute reference point and a truly mindstretching eternal perspective.

"Did your conversion to Christianity then make you a creationist?"

No, at least not at first. Like so many before and since, I simply combined my new-found Christian religion with the "facts" of science and became a theistic evolutionist and then a progressive creationist. I thought the Bible told me who created, and that evolution told me how.

But then I began to find scientific problems with the evolutionary part, and theological problems with the theistic part. I still have a good many friends who believe in theistic evolution or progressive creation, but I finally had to give it up.

"What theological problems did you find with theistic evolution?"

Perhaps the key point centered around the phrase, "very good." At the end of each creation period (except the second) God said that His creation was good. At the end of the sixth period He said that all His works of creation were very good.

Now all the theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists I know, including myself at one time, try to fit "geologic time" and the fossil record into the creation periods. But regardless of how old they are, the fossils show the same things that we have on earth today -- famine, disease, disaster, extinction, floods, earthquakes, etc. So if fossils represent stages in God's creative activity, why should Christians oppose disease and famine or help preserve an endangered species? If the fossils were formed during the creation week, then all these things would be very good.

When I first believed in evolution, I had sort of a romantic idea about evolution as unending progress. But in the closing paragraphs of the Origin of Species, Darwin explained that evolution, the "production of higher animals," was caused by "the war of nature, from famine and death." Does "the war of nature, from famine and death" sound like the means God would have used to create a world all very good?

In Genesis 3, Romans 8 and many other passages, we learn that such negative features were not part of the world that God created, but entered only after Adam’s sin. By ignoring this point, either intentionally or unintentionally, theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists come into conflict with the whole pattern of Scripture: the great themes of Creation, the Fall, and Redemption -- how God made the world perfect and beautiful; how man's sin brought a curse upon the world; and how Christ came to save us from our sins and to restore all things.

"With the Scriptures so plain throughout, are there still many Christians who believe in theistic evolution or progressive creation?"

Yes, there are. Of course, I can't speak for all of them, but I can tell you the problems I had to overcome before I could give up theistic evolution myself. First, I really hate to argue or take sides. When I was a theistic evolutionist I didn't have to argue with anybody. I just chimed in smiling at the end of an argument with something like, "Well, the important thing is to remember that God did it."

Then there is the matter of intellectual pride. Creationists are often looked down upon as ignorant throw-backs to the nineteenth century or worse, and I began to think of all the academic honors I had, and to tell you the truth, I didn't want to face that academic ridicule.

Finally, I, like many Christians, was honestly confused about the Biblical issues. As I told you, I first became a creationist while teaching at a Christian college. Believe it or not, I got into big trouble with the Bible Department. As soon as I started teaching creation instead of evolution, the Bible Department people challenged me to a debate. The Bible Department defended evolution, and two other scientists and I defended creation!

That debate pointed out how religious evolution really is, and the willingness of leaders to speak out in favor of evolution makes it harder for the average Christian to take a strong stand on creation. To tell you the truth, I don't think I would have had the courage, especially as a professor of biology, to give up evolution or theistic evolution without finding out that the bulk of scientific data actually argues against evolution.

"In that sense, then, it was really the scientific data that completed your conversion from evolution, through theistic evolution and progressive creation to Biblical, scientific creationism?"

Yes, it was. At first I was embarrassed to be both a creationist and a science professor, and I wasn't really sure what to do with the so-called "mountains of evidence" for evolution. A colleague in biology, Allen Davis, introduced me to Morris' and Whitcomb's famous book, The Genesis Flood. At first I reacted strongly against the book, using all the evolutionist arguments I knew so well. But at that crucial time, the Lord provided me with a splendid Science Faculty Fellowship award from the N.S.F., so I resolved to pursue doctoral studies in biology, while also adding a cognate in geology to check out some of the creationist arguments first hand. To my surprise, and eventually to my delight, just about every course I took was full of more and more problems in evolution, and more and more support for the basic points of Biblical creationism outlined in The Genesis Flood and Morris' later book, Scientific Creationism.

"Can you give us some examples?"

Yes indeed. One of the tensest moments for me came when we started discussing uranium-lead and other radiometric methods for estimating the age of the earth. I just knew all the creationists' arguments would be shot down and crumbled, but just the opposite happened.

In one graduate class, the professor told us we didn't have to memorize the dates of the geologic systems since they were far too uncertain and conflicting. Then in geophysics we went over all of the assumptions that go into radiometric dating. Afterwards, the professor said something like this, "If a fundamentalist ever got hold of this stuff, he would make havoc out of the radiometric dating system. So, keep the faith." That's what he told us, "keep the faith." If it was a matter of keeping faith, I now had another faith I preferred to keep.

"Are there other examples like that?"

Lots of them. One concerns the word paraconformity. In The Genesis Flood, I had heard that paraconformity was a word used by evolutionary geologists for fossil systems out of order, but with no evidence of erosion or overthrusting. My heart really started pounding when paraconformities and other unconformities came up in geology class. What did the professor say? Essentially the same thing as Morris and Whitcomb. He presented paraconformities as a real mystery and something very difficult to explain in evolutionary or uniformitarian terms. We even had a field trip to study paraconformities that emphasized the point.

So again, instead of challenging my creationist ideas, all the geology I was learning in graduate school was supporting it. I even discussed a creationist interpretation of paraconformities with the professor, and I finally found myself discussing further evidence of creation with fellow graduate students and others.

"What do you mean by ‘evidence of creation?’"

All of us can recognize objects that man has created, whether paintings, sculptures, or just a Coke bottle. Because the pattern of relationships in those objects is contrary to relationships that time, chance, and natural physical processes would produce, we know an outside creative agent was involved. I began to see the same thing in a study of living things, especially in the area of my major interest, molecular biology.

All living things depend upon a working relationship between inheritable nucleic acid molecules, like DNA, and proteins, the chief structural and functional molecules. To make proteins, living creatures use a sequence of DNA bases to line up a sequence of amino acid Rgroups. But the normal reactions between DNA and proteins are the "wrong" ones, and act with time and chance to disrupt living systems. Just as phosphorus, glass, and copper will work together in a television set only if properly arranged by human engineers, so DNA and protein will work in productive harmony only if properly ordered by an outside creative agent.

I presented the biochemical details of this DNA-protein argument to a group of graduate students and professors, including my professor of molecular biology. At the end of the talk, my professor offered no criticism of the biology or biochemistry I had presented. She just said that she didn't believe it because she didn't believe there was anything out there to create life. But if your faith permits belief in a Creator you can see the evidence of creation in the things that have been made (as Paul implies in Rom. 1:18-20).

"Has creationism influenced your work as a scientist and as a teacher?"

Yes, in many positive ways. Science is based on the assumption of an understandable orderliness in the operation of nature, and the Scriptures guarantee both that order and man's ability to understand it, infusing science with enthusiastic hope and richer meaning. Furthermore, creationists are able to recognize both spontaneous and created (i.e., internally and externally determined) patterns of order, and this opened my eyes to a far greater range of theories and models to deal with the data from such diverse fields as physiology, systematics, and ecology.

Creationism has certainly made the classroom a much more exciting place, both for me and my students. So much of biology touches on key ethical issues, such as genetic engineering, the ecological crisis, reproduction and development, and now I have so much more to offer than just my own opinions and the severely limited perspectives of other human authorities. And, of course, on the basic matter of origins, my students and I have the freedom to discuss both evolution and creation, a freedom tragically denied to most young people in our schools today.

Creationists have to pay the price of academic ridicule and occasional personal attacks, but these are nothing compared to the riches of knowledge and wisdom that are ours through Christ! I only wish that more scientists, science teachers, and science students could share the joy and challenge of looking at God's world through God's eyes.

* Dr. Gary E. Parker did his doctoral work in biology and geology. He is the author of five widely used programmed instruction books in biology.

From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony
 
Last edited:

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi @chad kincham

Creationists have to pay the price of academic ridicule and occasional personal attacks, but these are nothing compared to the riches of knowledge and wisdom that are ours through Christ! I only wish that more scientists, science teachers, and science students could share the joy and challenge of looking at God's world through God's eyes.

What a wonderful testimony. I have long believed in the Scriptural model of creation and the time limitations thereby imposed. Yes, it opens one up to a lot of ridicule on the earth, but oh the riches of knowledge and understanding that come to the child of God in knowing the truth.

God bless,
Ted
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
Professor Gary E. Parker explains in his testimony how he went from teaching evolution as a college professor, to creationist, and some of the evidence involved in his converting to a creationist.


From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony

BY GARY PARKER, ED.D. |

FRIDAY, JULY 01, 1977

Share Email Facebook Twitter Pinterest

One of the primary characteristics of the big young earth creationist organizations is their zeal to deceive and brainwash people who have the misfortune of being at the very low end of the education spectrum. Gary E. Parker is a typical example of the employees of such organizations.

Gary claimed to have been an evolutionist, but he never took any college classes in evolutionary biology. In fact, his education history suggests that he deliberately avoided getting an education in the theory of evolution. When it became time for him to earn a Ph.D., in biology, he avoided doing that by entering an Ed.D. Program in biology/geology (a program designed to prepare men and women for a position in a high school teaching biology) at Ball State University, a second-rate school. By doing this, he avoided studying along the side of students who believed in the theory of evolution while at the same time he avoided having any teachers who were scientists. Had he instead, entered a Ph.D. program in evolutionary biology at an Ivy League university, he would have learned first hand that the evidence in support of the theory of evolution is massive, solid, and irrefutable. He also would have learned that the supposed evidence in support of young earth creationism is, for the most part, conjured up nonsense.

Moreover, as evidenced by his testimony, Gary believed in a confused conglomerate of disjointed concepts that are completely foreign to the theory of evolution. In fact, he regularly confused science and religion—two distinctly different concepts that do not at any point overlap.

Essential Meaning of science
1:
knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation

Essential Meaning of religion
1:
the belief in a god or in a group of gods

(Merriam,-Webster online dictionary)
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi @PrincetonGuy

One of the primary characteristics of the big young earth creationist organizations is their zeal to deceive and brainwash people who have the misfortune of being at the very low end of the education spectrum.

I suppose there are some who believe such a statement to be true. After all, from recent political ideology, it has been proven that those on the 'low end of the education spectrum' can be deceived into believing a lot of things. Some of those so deceived even come from where one might expect to find those on the 'higher end of the education spectrum'. But I suppose that where people are on one's perceived idea of the 'education spectrum' does make it easy to just wipe out an entire class of people with some false narrative that they've convinced themselves is the truth of things...

Or, it could be that the basic, literal understanding of the creation model is the truth. After all, He is the God of the impossible.

For me, it boils down to understanding God's purpose in all of this act of His creating. He begins with creating near instantaneously an entire realm of existence that supports a creature of His creating that He calls man, in order to achieve a goal that He has told us of.

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.

All of this 'life' that we are living and realm in which we, the creature of man, exist in was merely created by this God who loves us in order to reach His stated goal. That one day, just as the angels currently do, there will be a subset of man who lives and enjoys an eternal existence with the God that created and sustains them and loves them and provides for them. There will also be a subset of both men and angels...who will not. All of this coming about because God near instantly created a realm in which man can live just as He created a realm in which the angels live. That's just the God I know and understand from all that He has revealed to me through His Scriptures.

If that puts me among those on the 'low end of the education spectrum', then I believe that's where God wants me to be. After all, that was both Satan and Eve's downfall. Their seeking of greater knowledge and power than they were intended to have.

God bless,
Ted
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BPPLEE
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
Hi @PrincetonGuy

Or, it could be that the basic, literal understanding of the creation model is the truth.
No. The creation story in Genesis incorporates the cultural belief of the ancient Semitic peoples that the earth is flat and covered with dome.

Genesis 1:6. 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.
8. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

Genesis 7:11. 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.

Daniel. 4:10. {Theodotion Syr Compare Gk: Aram adds [The visions of my head]} Upon my bed this is what I saw;
there was a tree at the center of the earth,
and its height was great.
11. The tree grew great and strong,
its top reached to heaven,
and it was visible to the ends of the whole earth

Matt. 4: 8. Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor;

(All quotations of Scripture are from the NRSV)
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
Professor Gary E. Parker explains in his testimony how he went from teaching evolution as a college professor, to creationist, and some of the evidence involved in his converting to a creationist.

From Evolution to Creation: A Personal Testimony

BY GARY PARKER, ED.D. |

FRIDAY, JULY 01, 1977

Share Email Facebook Twitter Pinterest


"What theological problems did you find with theistic evolution?"

Perhaps the key point centered around the phrase, "very good." At the end of each creation period (except the second) God said that His creation was good. At the end of the sixth period He said that all His works of creation were very good….

When I first believed in evolution, I had sort of a romantic idea about evolution as unending progress. But in the closing paragraphs of the Origin of Species, Darwin explained that evolution, the "production of higher animals," was caused by "the war of nature, from famine and death." Does "the war of nature, from famine and death" sound like the means God would have used to create a world all very good?
As is all too typical of young earth creationist organizations, Gary quotes Darwin out of context in order to make it appear that Darwin taught something that he did not teach. The quote from Darwin is in the last paragraph of The Origin of Species and reads,

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.​

However, this is only a partial summary of what he had written about in much fuller detail earlier in the book. As for "the war of nature,” Darwin wrote in the third chapter of his book,

It is good thus to try in imagination to give any one species an advantage over another. Probably in no single instance should we know what to do. This ought to convince us of our ignorance on the mutual relations of all organic beings; a conviction as necessary, as it is difficult to acquire. All that we can do is to keep steadily in mind that each organic being is striving to increase in a geometrical ratio; that each, at some period of its life, during some season of the year, during each generation, or at intervals, has to struggle for life and to suffer great destruction. When we reflect on this struggle we may console ourselves with the full belief that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply.​

And please note the last sentence in his book,

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.​
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi @PrincetonGuy

As I said, there are people that believe some things that just aren't true.

No. The creation story in Genesis incorporates the cultural belief of the ancient Semitic peoples that the earth is flat and covered with dome.

Well, that's where you and I have a different understanding of 'who' the author of the Scriptures is. I believe the author was the one who was there and created it all as He has explained. You believe that a group of people made up the creation account based on their cultural preconceptions of how the creation 'may' have come about. That specific point of understanding of the Scriptures is one of the strongest determinants of one's worldview.

Yes, Daniel saw visions and he explained them as visions when he wrote of them. Most all of the prophets of the old covenant received visions. However, that isn't what the creation account is. But, I can understand that someone who doesn't know 'who' wrote the Scriptures, would have doubts as to the veracity of its accounts.

You also don't seem to understand that many of the words in the Genesis account aren't understood now, some 4,500 years later, as they would have been understood then. But the biggest problem, is that you think the author of the Scriptures is the people of Israel.

Genesis 1 Interlinear Bible

Note that in Genesis 1:6 there is no mention of a dome. That word was used by one of the translators who chose 'dome' to translate 'רָקִ֖יעַ' rā·qî·a‘. The word is used 4 times in the old covenant and it is never translated as 'dome'. However, you have found that this understanding that you hold to supports your position and choose to latch on to it.

From bibleref.com
More specifically, God calls for something to be placed between the waters: a space or firmament or vault or sky or heaven (depending on the translation). The Hebrew term is rā'qi'a, which implies something solid and supportive. The word-picture offered here seems to be of raising up the top part of the waters and inserting an open area: what we would usually think of as the "air" above the sea or land.

In meteorological studies the word dome is often used to define high pressure areas or areas with lots of heat. "In short, a heat dome is created when an area of high pressure stays over the same area for days or even weeks, trapping very warm air underneath - rather like a lid on a pot. ... The jet stream is a core of strong winds high above the Earth's surface that helps to develop and steer areas of low pressure around." From rmets.org

In the song 'El Shaddai' there's a line that Michael Card sings that goes: Through the years you made it clear, that the time of Christ was near. Though the people couldn't see, what Messiah ought to be. Though your word proclaimed the plan, they just could not understand.

You see, there's a lot of God's word that even His own people didn't understand. Jesus railed at them that they, in creating their own laws that they believed honored God, were actually rebelling against God's law. John writes to us that the Jewish leaders said these words: “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” The Jews just didn't understand that Jesus was the Son of God.

So, while we should respect the work that Judaism has done in writing down and preserving God's eternal word for all mankind, we should not accept that they necessarily understood all that they wrote. So, the fact that some Jews may believe that the picture of a dome over the earth is the real representation of what God was explaining to them in the creation account, the actual Hebrew doesn't say that. Daniel likely didn't understand a lot of what he wrote concerning the visions that he saw.

But listen, the issue, as I see it is based wholly and completely on our different understandings of 'who' is the author of the Scriptures.

God bless,
Ted
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,216
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi @PrincetonGuy

Genesis 1 Interlinear Bible

Note that in Genesis 1:6 there is no mention of a dome. That word was used by one of the translators who chose 'dome' to translate 'רָקִ֖יעַ' rā·qî·a‘. The word is used 4 times in the old covenant and it is never translated as 'dome'. However, you have found that this understanding that you hold to supports your position and choose to latch on to it.

From bibleref.com
More specifically, God calls for something to be placed between the waters: a space or firmament or vault or sky or heaven (depending on the translation). The Hebrew term is rā'qi'a, which implies something solid and supportive. The word-picture offered here seems to be of raising up the top part of the waters and inserting an open area: what we would usually think of as the "air" above the sea or land.

In meteorological studies the word dome is often used to define high pressure areas or areas with lots of heat. "In short, a heat dome is created when an area of high pressure stays over the same area for days or even weeks, trapping very warm air underneath - rather like a lid on a pot. ... The jet stream is a core of strong winds high above the Earth's surface that helps to develop and steer areas of low pressure around." From rmets.org

,

One reason, among several, that your description of the dome as equated to some kind of atmospheric or meteorological structure, doesn't make sense, is that God placed the stars in the firmament. You're talking about heat pressures and moisture and winds, but none of this makes sense in regards to the following:

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vaulted dome of heaven to separate day from night, and let them be as signs and for appointed times, and for days and years, and they shall be as lights in the vaulted dome of heaven to give light on the earth.” And it was so. And God made two lights, the greater light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night, and the stars. And God placed them in the vaulted dome of heaven to give light on the earth
Genesis 1:14‭-‬17 LEB

How could the firmament be some sort of planetary atmospheric structure if the stars, sun and moon are in it?

Scripture commonly described the dome also as being like a sea of glass like a crystal (Rev 4:6 and Ezekiel 1:22), that God walks on (Job 22:14) that is as hard as a cast metal mirror (Job 37:18). A pavement like sapphire stone (Exodus 24:10). Among other verses that play into the historical position in which the authors of Genesis believed earth was flat with a solid dome over it. The dome had windows or flood gates (Genesis 7:11). There were pillars of the heavens (Job 26:11). Circle of the earth (Isaiah 4:22) etc etc.

Then on top of this, we have other historical societies who also believed this same idea of a flat earth with a dome over it. Aboriginals, Southeast Asians, native Americans, Egyptians, etc. All have records that also suggest very similar and in many cases even identical views as described above.

Then on top of this further, scientifically we don't have any evidence for some kind of pressure bubble holding up oceans over earth, nor a global flood etc.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: PrincetonGuy
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As is all too typical of young earth creationist organizations, Gary quotes Darwin out of context in order to make it appear that Darwin taught something that he did not teach. The quote from Darwin is in the last paragraph of The Origin of Species and reads,

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.​

However, this is only a partial summary of what he had written about in much fuller detail earlier in the book. As for "the war of nature,” Darwin wrote in the third chapter of his book,

It is good thus to try in imagination to give any one species an advantage over another. Probably in no single instance should we know what to do. This ought to convince us of our ignorance on the mutual relations of all organic beings; a conviction as necessary, as it is difficult to acquire. All that we can do is to keep steadily in mind that each organic being is striving to increase in a geometrical ratio; that each, at some period of its life, during some season of the year, during each generation, or at intervals, has to struggle for life and to suffer great destruction. When we reflect on this struggle we may console ourselves with the full belief that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply.​

And please note the last sentence in his book,

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.​

I see no problem with the citation of that portion Darwin, since it pertains to one reason he rejected theistic evolution, which has God using death of countless unfit animals to eventually arrive at animals suited to survive, instead of creating them as He wants them in the first place.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BPPLEE
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

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
hi @Isaiah 41:10

One reason, among several, that your description of the dome as equated to some kind of atmospheric or meteorological structure, doesn't make sense, is that God placed the stars in the firmament. You're talking about heat pressures and moisture and winds, but none of this makes sense in regards to the following:

No. What I'm saying is that the use of the word 'dome' shouldn't necessarily conjure in our mind's eye a solid structure anymore than a 'heat dome' looks like a metal shielded heat lamp suspended over the earth's surface. It's a shape! And that shape applies to the atmosphere as it holds up the clouds as much as that same 'shape' is why we call a heat pocket or an area of high pressure a 'dome'.

But again, I contend that the understanding of all that God has done becomes more clear when we understand the 'why' that God has done it.

God bless,
Ted
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BPPLEE
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,216
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
hi @Isaiah 41:10



No. What I'm saying is that the use of the word 'dome' shouldn't necessarily conjure in our mind's eye a solid structure anymore than a 'heat dome' looks like a metal shielded heat lamp suspended over the earth's surface. It's a shape! And that shape applies to the atmosphere as it holds up the clouds as much as that same 'shape' is why we call a heat pocket or an area of high pressure a 'dome'.

But again, I contend that the understanding of all that God has done becomes more clear when we understand the 'why' that God has done it.

God bless,
Ted

I just added to my prior post. Many verses in scripture describe the dome as being something of a solid structure. I agree that "dome" is a shape. But I would say that scripture is describing a solid structure. And it cannot be an atmospheric dome because the stars are in it, as per Genesis.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: PrincetonGuy
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi @Isaiah 41:10

But I would say that scripture is describing a solid structure.

Ok, and because you would say, makes it a fact? Ignoring the fact that the actual Hebrew word isn't usually translated as 'dome', what evidence gives you the ability to 'say' that Scripture is describing a solid structure over any current use of the word that does not define a solid structure?

As I have 'said', the greatest difference in our understanding is our understanding 'who' the author of the Scriptures is. My understanding is that it is the revelation of the Creator to His created as to what He has done to create a realm in which flesh and blood can live and sustain life. So, whether or not the Hebrew word might refer to a solid dome structure, the person who authored the Scriptures, knows how the creation was made and cannot lie. So, that leaves us with two possibilities, the word may be translated as dome, but not mean any kind of solid structure, but just the 'shape' of a dome above the earth in which the atmosphere does rest. Or it isn't to be translated as 'dome' as a solid structure and those who believe such a thing just don't understand.

For those who don't believe that God authored the Scriptures, then yes, any error is acceptable. Even the one that says that Jesus was born of a virgin.

My understanding. God created this realm of existence in 6 rotations of the planet earth from the moment that it was commanded to exist all alone as the only heavenly body in all of the universe. From that point of beginning, over the next 5 rotations of the earth on its axis, God created the 'dome' of the atmosphere to surround the earth to keep the oxygen surrounding the earth and the searing heat of the sun from burning the earth. He then populated the earth with all the flora and fauna necessary for the earth to maintain a continually existence for thousands of years all operating within the confines of its own ecological system. He then populated the heavens with a myriad of stars and other heavenly bodies so that the special creature for which God made this realm of creation, could look upon them and marvel at the glory and wonder of all that He is. He then set man upon the earth and released him to life the life for which He created them to live.

He did all of that with the express intent and purpose of one day culling from mankind a body of people for whom He knew in the beginning the day would come when He would set everything right and declare, "Today the dwelling of God is with man, and He will be their God and they will be His people." God's purpose was to reach that day, even on the day that He commanded, "Let there be light!"

We live in a created realm. Not created by evolutionary or billions of years of existence, but created in mere moments for the express purpose of supporting mankind and delivering mankind one day back to the God who created it all where we will be His people and He will be our God. Christ is the firstborn of those. We will be his heirs and brothers and sisters. At that time, we will see God do the exact same thing again, only probably quicker. "Behold, I have made all things new! He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children.

In a mere moment, the earth and sky that fled at His presence at the judgment will be made new just as it was during the six days of creation. That is the power of the God who loves us. Protects us. Supplies our every need. May He be forever and ever praised! Amen!

That's the God I serve. We will see in that day the power of our God to create entire realms of existence with just the command of His voice. In mere moments. For those who have an ear, let him hear the word of the Lord.

God bless,
Ted
 
  • Winner
Reactions: coffee4u
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,216
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi @Isaiah 41:10

Ok, and because you would say, makes it a fact? .

what evidence gives you the ability to 'say' that Scripture is describing a solid structure over any current use of the word that does not define a solid structure?

God bless,
Ted

Well, I guess it would be better for me to say, don't take my word for it, but take scriptures. Below are a handful of verses that explain why the dome/firmament was not a gaseous atmospheric structure:

One reason, among several, that your description of the dome as equated to some kind of atmospheric or meteorological structure, doesn't make sense, is that God placed the stars in the firmament.

And God said, “Let there be lights in the vaulted dome of heaven to separate day from night, and let them be as signs and for appointed times, and for days and years, and they shall be as lights in the vaulted dome of heaven to give light on the earth.” And it was so. And God made two lights, the greater light to rule the day and the smaller light to rule the night, and the stars. And God placed them in the vaulted dome of heaven to give light on the earth
Genesis 1:14‭-‬17 LEB

How could the firmament be some sort of earthly atmospheric structure if the stars, sun and moon are in it?

Scripture commonly described the dome also as being like a sea of glass like a crystal (Revelation 4:6 and Ezekiel 1:22), that God walks on (Job 22:14) that is as hard as a cast metal mirror (Job 37:18). A pavement like sapphire stone (Exodus 24:10, Ezekiel 1:26). Sapphire being a blue gemstone by the way. Among other verses that play into the historical position in which the authors of Genesis believed earth was flat with a solid dome over it. The dome had windows or flood gates, windows and gates are solid structures, (Genesis 7:11). There were pillars of the heavens (Job 26:11). Circle of the earth (Isaiah 4:22) etc etc.

And actually, literally every single verse that includes the word "firmament" in the entire old testament fits perfectly into this description and interpretation.

Alternatively, if we think that the firmament equated to a layer of the atmosphere, we would be left in confusion about how the stars could be in it while not incinerating us (Genesis), or how gas could somehow hold up water which has a greater density than any gas (Genesis). Or how the waters of the heavens came in from beyond the stars through windows during Noah's flood (Genesis), or how people could see a human being and throne above the firmament (Ezekiel). Etc. And you gave an analogy of a teapot holding in steam or something like this, but there is no scientific explanation for how gas could hold up a more dense liquid (the heavenly waters) against the weight of gravity. Alternatively, the sky looks blue like sapphire stone, what else is blue but the ocean? The original authors may have simply believed that there literally was an ocean held up by a solid structure, simply because the sky is blue like water.

Then on top of this, we have other historical societies who also believed this same idea of a flat earth with a dome over it. Aboriginals, Southeast Asians, native Americans, Egyptians, Indian, Babylonians etc. All have records that also suggest very similar and in many cases even identical views as described above. They all believed in a flat earth with a dome over it.

Then on top of this further, scientifically we don't have any evidence for some kind of pressure bubble holding up oceans over earth, nor a global flood etc.

So the most literal reading of scripture suggests that the authors of Genesis believed in a flat earth with some kind of solid dome above. The stars were stuck in the dome, sort of like thumb tacks are stuck in a cork board (which is why they all move together as if they're of one solid equidistant unit, remember the authors didn't know they were on a spinning planet, which also plays into why Galileo was later punished). History affirms this, and science synchronizes with this. It is the perfect resolution between scripture, history and science.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: PrincetonGuy
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As is all too typical of young earth creationist organizations, Gary quotes Darwin out of context in order to make it appear that Darwin taught something that he did not teach. The quote from Darwin is in the last paragraph of The Origin of Species and reads,

It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.​

However, this is only a partial summary of what he had written about in much fuller detail earlier in the book. As for "the war of nature,” Darwin wrote in the third chapter of his book,

It is good thus to try in imagination to give any one species an advantage over another. Probably in no single instance should we know what to do. This ought to convince us of our ignorance on the mutual relations of all organic beings; a conviction as necessary, as it is difficult to acquire. All that we can do is to keep steadily in mind that each organic being is striving to increase in a geometrical ratio; that each, at some period of its life, during some season of the year, during each generation, or at intervals, has to struggle for life and to suffer great destruction. When we reflect on this struggle we may console ourselves with the full belief that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply.​

And please note the last sentence in his book,

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.​

I see no problem with the citation of Darwin, since it’s one reason he rejected theistic evolution which has God using death of countless unfit animals in a random process to eventually arrive at animals suited to survive, instead of creating them as He wants them in the first
Hi @PrincetonGuy



I suppose there are some who believe such a statement to be true. After all, from recent political ideology, it has been proven that those on the 'low end of the education spectrum' can be deceived into believing a lot of things. Some of those so deceived even come from where one might expect to find those on the 'higher end of the education spectrum'. But I suppose that where people are on one's perceived idea of the 'education spectrum' does make it easy to just wipe out an entire class of people with some false narrative that they've convinced themselves is the truth of things...

Or, it could be that the basic, literal understanding of the creation model is the truth. After all, He is the God of the impossible.

For me, it boils down to understanding God's purpose in all of this act of His creating. He begins with creating near instantaneously an entire realm of existence that supports a creature of His creating that He calls man, in order to achieve a goal that He has told us of.

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.

All of this 'life' that we are living and realm in which we, the creature of man, exist in was merely created by this God who loves us in order to reach His stated goal. That one day, just as the angels currently do, there will be a subset of man who lives and enjoys an eternal existence with the God that created and sustains them and loves them and provides for them. There will also be a subset of both men and angels...who will not. All of this coming about because God near instantly created a realm in which man can live just as He created a realm in which the angels live. That's just the God I know and understand from all that He has revealed to me through His Scriptures.

If that puts me among those on the 'low end of the education spectrum', then I believe that's where God wants me to be. After all, that was both Satan and Eve's downfall. Their seeking of greater knowledge and power than they were intended to have.

God bless,
Ted
Yeah they really need to beware of YEC, especially those like Stephen Meyer, with that low education PHD in Science philosophy, who runs the CRI, for example.

Or the ten thousand working scientists who are creationists in this country, many who stay below the radar due to the anti- Christian bias.
 
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

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My understanding. God created this realm of existence in 6 rotations of the planet earth from the moment that it was commanded to exist all alone as the only heavenly body in all of the universe. From that point of beginning, over the next 5 rotations of the earth on its axis, God created the 'dome' of the atmosphere to surround the earth to keep the oxygen surrounding the earth and the searing heat of the sun from burning the earth.

I agree in principle to these statements, except I have no clue where the other 5 days of creation are in Genesis or other book in the Bible - recognizing that other scriptures reference creation events - I’ve never heard of 11 days of creation.

Are you using the claim that there are two separate creation accounts in Genesis?

Shalom Aleichem

Maranatha
 
Upvote 0

chad kincham

Well-Known Member
Mar 4, 2009
2,773
1,005
✟62,040.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Had he instead, entered a Ph.D. program in evolutionary biology at an Ivy League university, he would have learned first hand that the evidence in support of the theory of evolution is massive, solid, and irrefutable.

Absolutely wrong - it’s neither massive, solid OR irrefutable in any area, as this book by Luther Sunderland titled Darwin’s Enigma, consisting of interviews of well known evolutionists, illustrates.

He put it online for free, and it’s an excellent expose of how bankrupt evolutionary theory is:

Darwin's Enigma - Chap# 1

EDIT:

Gary Parker, Ed.D.
Creationist biologist
Biography
Biologist Dr Gary Parker was the head of the science department at Clearwater Christian College (CCC) in Florida. For twelve years, he served on the science faculty of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in the San Diego area. He is a popular and gifted speaker.

Dr Parker began his teaching career as a non-Christian and evolutionist. The details of his spiritual and scientific conversion, From Evolution to Creation(available in pamphlet form), include comic incidents. For example, he was a participant in a debate where his science department—defending the Bible—debated the Bible department—which was defending evolution!

En route to his B.A. in Biology/Chemistry, M.S. in Biology/Physiology, and Ed.D. in Biology/Geology from Ball State, Dr. Parker earned several academic awards, including admission to Phi Beta Kappa (the national scholastic honorary), election to the American Society of Zoologists (for his research on tadpoles), and a fifteen-month fellowship award from the National Science Foundation.

He has published five programmed textbooks in biology and six books in creation science (the latter translated into a total of eight languages), has appeared in numerous films and television programs, and has lectured worldwide on creation.

Education
  • B.A. in Biology/Chemistry
  • M.S. in Biology/Physiology
  • Ed.D. in Biology/Geology
Honors/Awards/Associations
  • Phi Beta Kappa (the national scholastic honorary)
  • American Society of Zoologists (for his research on tadpoles)
  • Fellowship award from the National Science Foundation
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Titus Dorn
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟105,960.00
Faith
Baptist
Hi @PrincetonGuy

As I said, there are people that believe some things that just aren't true.



Well, that's where you and I have a different understanding of 'who' the author of the Scriptures is. I believe the author was the one who was there and created it all as He has explained. You believe that a group of people made up the creation account based on their cultural preconceptions of how the creation 'may' have come about. That specific point of understanding of the Scriptures is one of the strongest determinants of one's worldview.

Yes, Daniel saw visions and he explained them as visions when he wrote of them. Most all of the prophets of the old covenant received visions. However, that isn't what the creation account is. But, I can understand that someone who doesn't know 'who' wrote the Scriptures, would have doubts as to the veracity of its accounts.

You also don't seem to understand that many of the words in the Genesis account aren't understood now, some 4,500 years later, as they would have been understood then. But the biggest problem, is that you think the author of the Scriptures is the people of Israel.

Genesis 1 Interlinear Bible

Note that in Genesis 1:6 there is no mention of a dome. That word was used by one of the translators who chose 'dome' to translate 'רָקִ֖יעַ' rā·qî·a‘. The word is used 4 times in the old covenant and it is never translated as 'dome'. However, you have found that this understanding that you hold to supports your position and choose to latch on to it.

From bibleref.com
More specifically, God calls for something to be placed between the waters: a space or firmament or vault or sky or heaven (depending on the translation). The Hebrew term is rā'qi'a, which implies something solid and supportive. The word-picture offered here seems to be of raising up the top part of the waters and inserting an open area: what we would usually think of as the "air" above the sea or land.

In meteorological studies the word dome is often used to define high pressure areas or areas with lots of heat. "In short, a heat dome is created when an area of high pressure stays over the same area for days or even weeks, trapping very warm air underneath - rather like a lid on a pot. ... The jet stream is a core of strong winds high above the Earth's surface that helps to develop and steer areas of low pressure around." From rmets.org

In the song 'El Shaddai' there's a line that Michael Card sings that goes: Through the years you made it clear, that the time of Christ was near. Though the people couldn't see, what Messiah ought to be. Though your word proclaimed the plan, they just could not understand.

You see, there's a lot of God's word that even His own people didn't understand. Jesus railed at them that they, in creating their own laws that they believed honored God, were actually rebelling against God's law. John writes to us that the Jewish leaders said these words: “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” The Jews just didn't understand that Jesus was the Son of God.

So, while we should respect the work that Judaism has done in writing down and preserving God's eternal word for all mankind, we should not accept that they necessarily understood all that they wrote. So, the fact that some Jews may believe that the picture of a dome over the earth is the real representation of what God was explaining to them in the creation account, the actual Hebrew doesn't say that. Daniel likely didn't understand a lot of what he wrote concerning the visions that he saw.

But listen, the issue, as I see it is based wholly and completely on our different understandings of 'who' is the author of the Scriptures.

God bless,
Ted
I do not automatically believe hand-me-down stories about the Bible. I believe the evidence in the Bible itself—and that evidence overwhelmingly indicates that there was a human element in the writing of the Scriptures. The real question is, “Who was that human element, and how extensively did it affect the text of the Bible as we have it today?”

As for the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ translated as “dome,” the Hebrew Masoretic text of Genesis 1:6-8 expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”

1:6 ויאמר אלהים יהי רקיע בתוך המים ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים׃
1:7 ויעשׂ אלהים את־הרקיע ויבדל בין המים אשׁר מתחת לרקיע ובין המים אשׁר מעל לרקיע ויהי־כן׃
1:8 ויקרא אלהים לרקיע שׁמים ויהי־ערב ויהי־בקר יום שׁני׃
1:9 ויאמר אלהים יקוו המים מתחת השׁמים אל־מקום אחד ותראה היבשׁה ויהי־כן׃

The Septuagint also expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”

Gen 1:6 Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Γενηθήτω στερέωμα ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ ἔστω διαχωρίζον ἀνὰ μέσον ὕδατος καὶ ὕδατος. καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως.
Gen 1:7 καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα, καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ θεὸς ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος, ὃ ἦν ὑποκάτω τοῦ στερεώματος, καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ ἐπάνω τοῦ στερεώματος.
Gen 1:8 καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα οὐρανόν. καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν. καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί, ἡμέρα δευτέρα.

The Latin Vulgate also expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”

6. dixit quoque Deus fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum et dividat aquas ab aquis
7. et fecit Deus firmamentum divisitque aquas quae erant sub firmamento ab his quae erant super firmamentum et factum est ita
8. vocavitque Deus firmamentum caelum et factum est vespere et mane dies secundus

The Wycliffe Bible also expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”

6 And God seide, The firmament be maad in the myddis of watris, and departe watrisfro watris.
7And God made the firmament, and departide the watristhat weren vndurthe firmament fro these watris that weren on the firmament; and it was don so.
8 And God clepide the firmament, heuene. And the euentid and morwetid was maad, the secounde dai.

The Wycliffe Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate and hence used the word ‘firmament’. This word comes to us from the Latin word firmamentum which literally express the concept “that which strengthens or supports”. In Genesis 1:6-8, the word expresses the concept of the strong, solid dome that supported the water above the dome.

The NRSV correctly translates the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ as “dome.” The evidence for the correctness of this translation is found in the use of this word in ancient Hebrew literature. Based upon this usage, the Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs published by Oxford University gives us the following meaning of it in Gen. 1:6, 7, and 8, “the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it.” (p. 956)

Moreover, John Skinner, in his commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis writes,

6-8 Second Work: The Firmament.—The second fiat calls into existence a firmament, whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments. The “firmament” is the dome of heaven, which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a material structure, sometimes compared to an “upper chamber” (Ps. 104:12, Am 9:6) supported by “pillars” (Jb 26:11), and resembling in its surface a “molten mirror” (Jb 37:18). Above this are the heavenly waters, from which the rain descends through “windows” or “doors” (Gn 7:11, 8:2, 2 Ki 7:2, 19) opened and shut by God at His pleasure (Ps 78:23).​

(John Skinner, Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature, Westminster College, Cambridge (in his commentary on Genesis, page 21).)​


This interpretation is also defended in the commentaries on the Hebrew text of Genesis by,

Franz Delitzsch, 820 pages, 1888
John Skinner, 552 pages, 1930
Gerhard von Rad, 440 pages, 1972
Ephraim A. Speiser, 378 pages, 1963 (A Jewish commentary)

The KJV correctly translates the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ (râqı̂ya‛) as “firmament”, but most modern readers of the KJV are unaware of the meaning of the word and do not realize that it expresses the concept of the strong, solid dome that supported the water above the dome. By the way, the KJV came down to us through the Bishop’s Bible (as stated in the original preface of the KJV),

Gen 1:6. And God said: let there be a firmament betwene the waters, and let it make a diuision betwene waters and waters. (Bishop’s Bible, 1568)

The Geneva Bible also used the word firmament,

Gen 1:6. Againe God saide, Let there be a firmament in the middes of the waters: and let it separate the waters from the waters. (Geneva Bible, 1587)

Additional translations that translate the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ as “dome”,

CEB God said, “Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters to separate the waters from each other.”

CJB God said, “Let there be a dome in the middle of the water; let it divide the water from the water.”

CEV God said, “I command a dome to separate the water above it from the water below it.”

GNT Then God commanded, “Let there be a dome to divide the water and to keep it in two separate places”—and it was done. So God made a dome, and it separated the water under it from the water above it.

LEB And God said, “Let there be a vaulted dome in the midst of the waters, and let it cause a separation between the waters.”

NRSV And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”

NRSVA And God said, ‘Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.’

NRSVACE And God said, ‘Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.’

NRSVCE And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”

OJB And Elohim said, Let there be a raki’a (expanse, dome, firmament) in the midst of the mayim (waters), and let it divide the mayim from the mayim.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I agree in principle to these statements, except I have no clue where the other 5 days of creation are in Genesis or other book in the Bible - recognizing that other scriptures reference creation events - I’ve never heard of 11 days of creation.

Are you using the claim that there are two separate creation accounts in Genesis?

Shalom Aleichem

Maranatha

Hi @chad kincham

No, not at all. I just clarified the 6 days. In the second mention I give the starting point as the command of God for the earth to exist. From that command, and the day in which it happened, there were 5 more days to total the 6 days of creation.

Like you, by faith, I have no problem with believing and understanding that we serve a God who created this realm of existence for His purpose. We don't live in some naturally built process over millions or billions of years that just by chance happened to work out as it did with all the stars and plants and animals having been worked out over those many, many eons of time through some evolutionary process. The bodies of the universe didn't coalesce from billions upon billions of tons of swirling dust from some big bang event. Not at all! Everything that our eyes see was created by a God of purpose, as the Scriptures declare, in a matter of a few short days.

God, from His throne, commanded that the earth exist. In the black inkiness of empty space, He commanded light and the earth to come forth. I contend that on the day that the earth was created, if one could be standing upon it, or even away from it somewhere in the black emptiness of space, all that would be seen is the earth rotating on its axis. No trees or plants or animals and not a single star or other heavenly body anywhere to be seen in the entire expanse that we today call the universe. Just the earth, suspended all alone spinning in space and covered with water.

From that beginning, on the first day of creation, God then commanded all of the necessary parts that would make the earth livable and the stars and other heavenly bodies to be spread across the expanse of the universe. By the time the earth had completed its 5th rotation, everything was set for the planet earth, of God's creating, to sustain the life of mankind and He then created the first man Adam from the dust of the ground, just as He did all the beasts, but He gave unto man a special place and a special soul to seek a relationship with Him. The man was created in God's image. He was formed to be just like His Son and to think and to reason and to be logical and thoughtful and to know Him. Unlike all of the other creatures of the earth that He had made that merely existed with no thoughts of some spiritual ideology. Whose life cycle was merely programmed by God for them to do and to be and to multiply as similar creatures who also were unable to reason or consider themselves.

But God did all of this for His purpose. He knew that man would sin and that there would need to be a way for that sin to be forgiven. So, after a time, He began working out His plan of salvation that had been prepared since before the command for the earth to exist had ever been called out. He called a man by the name of Abram of Ur and began, through his life, to reveal himself to mankind and to build up a body of people upon the earth who would do His bidding among us.

He spent some 1,500 years working through His people to establish His written testimony of who He was and all that He had done that we might gain the eternal life with Him that had always been His purpose. Once that was done, what the Scriptures refer to as the 'fullness of time', Jesus came to us. He, as God's servant, taught us and explained to us all about his Father and what He desired of us and then fulfilled the law, by paying the penalty that had accrued because of all of our sin. The work of the way of salvation, that God had begun with His call to Abram of Ur, was then complete. It was finished!

Now, according to Peter, God is waiting patiently for decisions and choices to be made among mankind. To believe and understand all that Jesus had done and repent of our sin and turn to God. Or to continue in our ignorance and rebellion towards God. But from the day that God first uttered the command, "Let there be light!", He had already worked out this plan and knew that His plan would ultimately achieve His purpose. That the work of His creating had created also a body of people who would love and honor and cherish Him for 'who' He is. A people who would understand that the very reason that they were able to draw a single breath in this life, to be born from the womb of a woman, was because God created and sustained and provided this realm of existence. Without God, there literally is no life! There is no air to breath or sun to warm our faces. There are no plants or animals to provide food to sustain our bodies from day to day. There is no earth for us to rest our feet upon as we sojourn through this marvelous life that God has created in us.

But the purpose? The purpose comes to full fruition on the day that God stands from His throne and declares, "Now my dwelling is among mankind. They will be my people and I will be their God. I will wipe away every tear and the things of old they will no longer remember. For I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." At that time, those who have trusted in the Lord's work and God's provision for their salvation, and believed Him, will be drawn together upon a new earth surrounded by a new heaven. We will enter into what the Scriptures refer to as God's eternal rest. All because one day, God said, "Let there be light!" And He built this universe in which we exist to live and to love and to know Him. May God be forever and ever praised!!! Amen!

That!! as I understand the Scriptures, is why we are here. The sooner those of us will come to understand and believe that, and begin the journey of striving to be more like God's Son, the more we will enjoy, even today upon the earth, God's richest blessings and love and companionship.

God bless,
Ted
 
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

miamited

Ted
Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I do not automatically believe hand-me-down stories about the Bible. I believe the evidence in the Bible itself—and that evidence overwhelmingly indicates that there was a human element in the writing of the Scriptures. The real question is, “Who was that human element, and how extensively did it affect the text of the Bible as we have it today?”

As for the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ translated as “dome,” the Hebrew Masoretic text of Genesis 1:6-8 expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”

Hi @PrincetonGuy

Yes, and even today there still exists a 'dome' of atmosphere that separates the waters on the earth from the waters above the earth. Amazing isn't it! The works of God are often beyond our simple ability to understand. For some 6,000 years now, there has been a dome to separate the waters that exist in this created realm. May God be forever and ever praised for His wisdom and power.

God bless,
Ted
 
Upvote 0