Adam, Eve, and Evolution

[tonychanyt]

It's a YouTube video, nor a research article. And this is the internet, not a PhD research project

Sure. As for myself, I prefer to be more careful and scholarly when I interact with others about the Bible.

 

[Job 33:6]

Can you display the text from the link and bold the relevant keywords to your point? This is a basic scholarship.

[The Firmament and the Water Above Part I: The Meaning of raqiaʿ in Gen 1:6-8 -- By: Paul H. Seely | Galaxie Software

 

[tonychanyt]

[The Firmament and the Water Above Part I: The Meaning of raqiaʿ in Gen 1:6-8 -- By: Paul H. Seely | Galaxie Software

Can you display the text from the link and bold the relevant keywords to your point? That's what I do for others who read my posts. It is a standard in high-school scholarship. If you practice this, I guarantee you: it will improve your analytical thinking

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure. As for myself, I prefer to be more careful and scholarly when I interact with others about the Bible.

Ya -- like this doosey you hit me with?

Is Apostle Paul living in you?

 

[Diamond72]

It's a YouTube video, not a research article.

When I talk to my doctor they want creditable research. They are not interested in opinions. They are very careful not to take things out of context. They want to know for sure what is going to work.

I did construction for 20 or 30 years and people want results. You have to be able to do above and beyond what you say you are going to do. Usually it is best to go the second mile so there is no doubt.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Define Creation.

Creation, in its total sense: Everything that exists, seen and unseen, which God has made. See Genesis 1:1 and the first Article of the Creed.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." - Genesis 1:1
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen." - Nicene Creed

In the context of the testimony of Creation, the observable and material universe.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Job 33:6]

Can you display the text from the link and bold the relevant keywords to your point? That's what I do for others who read my posts. It is a standard in high-school scholarship. If you practice this, I guarantee you: it will improve your analytical thinking

Sure. I'll take some time to quote the article for you.

 

[Job 33:6]

Can you display the text from the link and bold the relevant keywords to your point? That's what I do for others who read my posts. It is a standard in high-school scholarship. If you practice this, I guarantee you: it will improve your analytical thinking

The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227-40
Copyright © 1991 by Westminster Theological Seminary, cited with permission.
WTJ 53 (1991) 227-240

THE FIRMAMENT AND THE WATER ABOVE
Part I: The Meaning of raqiac

in Gen 1:6-8

PAUL H. SEELY

STANDARD Hebrew lexica and a number of modern biblical scholars
have defined the raqiac

(fyqr, "firmament") of Gen 1:6-8 as a solid dome

over the earth.1

Conservative scholars from Calvin on down to the present, however, have defined it as an atmospheric expanse.2 Some conservatives
have taken special pains to reject the concept of a solid dome on the basis that the Bible also refers to the heavens as a tent or curtain and that references to windows and pillars of heaven are obviously poetic.3

The word raqiac, hey say, simply means "expanse." They say the understanding of raqiac as a solid firmament rests on the Vulgate's translation, firmamentum; and that translation rests in turn on the LXX's translation stere, which simply reflected the Greek view of the heavens at the time the translators did their work.4

The raqiac
defined as an atmospheric expanse is the historical view according to modern conservatives; and the modern view of the raqiac
as a solid dome is simply the result of forcing biblical poetic language into agreement with a concept found in the Babylonian epic
Enuma Elish.5
The historical evidence, however, which we will set forth in concrete
detail, shows that the raqiac was originally conceived of as being solid and
not a merely atmospheric expanse. The grammatical evidence from the
OT, which we shall examine later, reflects and confirms this conception of solidity.

The question, however, arises in the modern mind, schooled as it is in the
almost infinite nature of sky and space: Did scientifically naive peoples
really believe in a solid sky, or were they just employing a mythological or
poetic concept? Or were they, perhaps, just using phenomenal language
with no attending belief that the sky actually was a solid object? That is,
were they referring to the mere appearance of the sky as a solid dome but
able to distinguish between that appearance and the reality?
The answer to these questions, as we shall see more clearly below, is that
scientifically naive peoples employed their concept of a solid sky in their
mythology, but that they nevertheless thought of the solid sky as an integral
part of their physical universe.

Among primitive African peoples various stories reflect their belief in a
solid sky. The Ngombe say that when the two creatures who hold the sky
up with poles get tired, "the sky will fall down." The Nyimang say that
long ago the sky was so close to earth that the women could not stir their
porridge properly with their long stirrers; so one day "one woman got
angry and lifting the stirrer pierced the sky with the upper end."7
The Dogon tell of an ancient ancestor who came down from heaven
"standing on a square piece of heaven. . . . A thick piece? Yes, as thick as
a house. It was ten cubits high with stairs on each side facing the four
cardinal points."8
On the other side of the world, among American Indians, the sky was
also conceived of as a solid dome.

Still another element reflecting the solidity of the sky is the idea of a
window or hole in the sky. This idea is so widespread that one observer

concluded it was "a general human trait."12 The Seneca, for example, told
of a woman who fell through a hole in the sky bringing some soil of the sky
with her which she had clenched in her hands while trying "to hold on to
the edge of the hole" before she fell.13 The Navaho in their story of creation
not only mention a hole in the sky but specifically describe the solidity of
the sky:

In Siberia the Yakuts say the outer edge of the earth touches the rim of
a hemi-spherical sky and that "a certain hero rode out once to the place
where earth and sky touched."17 In some districts the Buriats "conceive the
sky to be shaped like a great overturned cauldron, rising and falling in
constant motion. In rising, an opening forms between the sky and the edge
of the earth. A hero who happened at such a time to place his arrow
between the edge of the earth and the rim of the sky was enabled thus to
penetrate outside the world."18
Other stories could be cited, but it is sufficiently clear that scientifically
naive peoples around the world from the Pacific Islands to North America,
from Siberia to Africa, have perceived the sky as a solid inverted bowl
touching the earth at the horizon.

Nor is this common conception of a firmament merely myth, metaphor, or phenomenal language. It is an in-
tegral part of their scientific view of the universe.

Since scientifically naive peoples naturally conceive of the sky as solid, it
is no surprise that the records we have from the ancient East echo the same
viewpoint. Thus one observer of ancient Japan reports that the sky was
thought of as "an actual place, not more ethereal than the earth. ..but
a high plane situated above Japan and communicating with Japan by a
bridge or ladder. . . . An arrow shot from earth could reach heaven and
make a hole in it."21
Joseph Needham tells us the Chinese had three cosmological views, but
the most ancient one perceived the earth as an upside down bowl with the
heavens over it as another upside down bowl, the sky having simply a
greater diameter than the earth. The sun and moon were attached to the
vault of heaven, which rotated from left to right carrying the heavenly
bodies with it.22

In India the earliest cosmology is found in the Rig Veda, a document
from the middle of the second millennium BC. It contains a number of

passages which show that Indians of that time believed in a solid firma-
ment. In one creation hymn an unnamed god is mentioned "by whom the

dome of the sky was propped up" (10.121.5; cf. 1.154.1 and 2.12.2). An-
other hymn asks, "What was the wood. . . from which they carved the sky

and the earth?" (10.81.4). Another says, "Firm is the sky and firm is the
earth" (10.173.4). Several hymns mention people who "climb up to the
sky" (8.14.14; 2.12.12; 1.85.7). Several hymns mention the separation of
heaven and earth. One says Varona "pushed away the dome of the sky"
(7.86.1; cf. 10.82.1).25

The Sumerologist Samuel Noah Kramer described the cosmology of the
Sumerians, the founders of the first civilization, in similar terms. The earth,
they thought, was a flat disc; heaven, a hollow sphere enclosed at top and
bottom by a solid surface in the shape of a vault.28



Im about half way through, ill quote more material of value here shortly.

 

[tonychanyt]

The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227-40
Copyright © 1991 by Westminster Theological Seminary, cited with permission.
WTJ 53 (1991) 227-240

THE FIRMAMENT AND THE WATER ABOVE
Part I: The Meaning of raqiac

in Gen 1:6-8

This is how to do referencing in a scholarly manner. It is standard scholarship practice:

1. Give the name of the source.
2. Provide the link of the source. It is the URL address
3. Indent the quoted text.
4. Bold the relevant keywords that are important to the point that you are making.
5. Be concise and to the point.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is how to do referencing in a scholarly manner. It is standard scholarship practice:

1. Give the name of the source.
2. Provide the link of the source. It is the URL address
3. Indent the quoted text.
4. Bold the relevant keywords that are important to the point that you are making.
5. Be concise and to the point.

This is an internet forum. Either you're interested in reading and playing along internet style, or you're not.

People don't sit around writing research papers on an internet forum lol. Now I've been quoting the article. I already have you a link to it, and the title and author and journal are all listed right at the top of the quotes.

Everything I've quoted thus far is relevant, that's why I've quoted it.

Now are you interested in reading my quoted material or not? This is an internet forum, it is not a substitute for a dissertation program at a Bible University.

 

[tonychanyt]

This is an internet forum. Either you're interested in reading and playing along internet style, or you're not.

This is what I do for others who read my posts. It is a standard high-school scholarship. If you practice this, I guarantee you: it will improve your analytical thinking. In any case, no one here on the internet or outside is required to do it.

 

[Job 33:6]

This is what I do for others who read my posts. It is a standard high-school scholarship. If you practice this, I guarantee you: it will improve your analytical thinking. In any case, no one here on the internet or outside is required to do it.

Ok. I'll pass then. Good luck with your academic interactions on an internet forum. If you're interested in having a casual conversation about scientific concordism in hermeneutics, feel free to let me know. Otherwise, best of luck in your studies.

 

[Job 33:6]

The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227-40
Copyright © 1991 by Westminster Theological Seminary, cited with permission.
WTJ 53 (1991) 227-240

THE FIRMAMENT AND THE WATER ABOVE
Part I: The Meaning of raqiac

in Gen 1:6-8

PAUL H. SEELY

STANDARD Hebrew lexica and a number of modern biblical scholars
have defined the raqiac

(fyqr, "firmament") of Gen 1:6-8 as a solid dome

over the earth.1

Conservative scholars from Calvin on down to the present, however, have defined it as an atmospheric expanse.2 Some conservatives
have taken special pains to reject the concept of a solid dome on the basis that the Bible also refers to the heavens as a tent or curtain and that references to windows and pillars of heaven are obviously poetic.3

The word raqiac, hey say, simply means "expanse." They say the understanding of raqiac as a solid firmament rests on the Vulgate's translation, firmamentum; and that translation rests in turn on the LXX's translation stere, which simply reflected the Greek view of the heavens at the time the translators did their work.4

The raqiac
defined as an atmospheric expanse is the historical view according to modern conservatives; and the modern view of the raqiac
as a solid dome is simply the result of forcing biblical poetic language into agreement with a concept found in the Babylonian epic
Enuma Elish.5
The historical evidence, however, which we will set forth in concrete
detail, shows that the raqiac was originally conceived of as being solid and
not a merely atmospheric expanse. The grammatical evidence from the
OT, which we shall examine later, reflects and confirms this conception of solidity.

The question, however, arises in the modern mind, schooled as it is in the
almost infinite nature of sky and space: Did scientifically naive peoples
really believe in a solid sky, or were they just employing a mythological or
poetic concept? Or were they, perhaps, just using phenomenal language
with no attending belief that the sky actually was a solid object? That is,
were they referring to the mere appearance of the sky as a solid dome but
able to distinguish between that appearance and the reality?
The answer to these questions, as we shall see more clearly below, is that
scientifically naive peoples employed their concept of a solid sky in their
mythology, but that they nevertheless thought of the solid sky as an integral
part of their physical universe.

Among primitive African peoples various stories reflect their belief in a
solid sky. The Ngombe say that when the two creatures who hold the sky
up with poles get tired, "the sky will fall down." The Nyimang say that
long ago the sky was so close to earth that the women could not stir their
porridge properly with their long stirrers; so one day "one woman got
angry and lifting the stirrer pierced the sky with the upper end."7
The Dogon tell of an ancient ancestor who came down from heaven
"standing on a square piece of heaven. . . . A thick piece? Yes, as thick as
a house. It was ten cubits high with stairs on each side facing the four
cardinal points."8
On the other side of the world, among American Indians, the sky was
also conceived of as a solid dome.

Still another element reflecting the solidity of the sky is the idea of a
window or hole in the sky. This idea is so widespread that one observer

concluded it was "a general human trait."12 The Seneca, for example, told
of a woman who fell through a hole in the sky bringing some soil of the sky
with her which she had clenched in her hands while trying "to hold on to
the edge of the hole" before she fell.13 The Navaho in their story of creation
not only mention a hole in the sky but specifically describe the solidity of
the sky:

In Siberia the Yakuts say the outer edge of the earth touches the rim of
a hemi-spherical sky and that "a certain hero rode out once to the place
where earth and sky touched."17 In some districts the Buriats "conceive the
sky to be shaped like a great overturned cauldron, rising and falling in
constant motion. In rising, an opening forms between the sky and the edge
of the earth. A hero who happened at such a time to place his arrow
between the edge of the earth and the rim of the sky was enabled thus to
penetrate outside the world."18
Other stories could be cited, but it is sufficiently clear that scientifically
naive peoples around the world from the Pacific Islands to North America,
from Siberia to Africa, have perceived the sky as a solid inverted bowl
touching the earth at the horizon.

Nor is this common conception of a firmament merely myth, metaphor, or phenomenal language. It is an in-
tegral part of their scientific view of the universe.

Since scientifically naive peoples naturally conceive of the sky as solid, it
is no surprise that the records we have from the ancient East echo the same
viewpoint. Thus one observer of ancient Japan reports that the sky was
thought of as "an actual place, not more ethereal than the earth. ..but
a high plane situated above Japan and communicating with Japan by a
bridge or ladder. . . . An arrow shot from earth could reach heaven and
make a hole in it."21
Joseph Needham tells us the Chinese had three cosmological views, but
the most ancient one perceived the earth as an upside down bowl with the
heavens over it as another upside down bowl, the sky having simply a
greater diameter than the earth. The sun and moon were attached to the
vault of heaven, which rotated from left to right carrying the heavenly
bodies with it.22

In India the earliest cosmology is found in the Rig Veda, a document
from the middle of the second millennium BC. It contains a number of

passages which show that Indians of that time believed in a solid firma-
ment. In one creation hymn an unnamed god is mentioned "by whom the

dome of the sky was propped up" (10.121.5; cf. 1.154.1 and 2.12.2). An-
other hymn asks, "What was the wood. . . from which they carved the sky

and the earth?" (10.81.4). Another says, "Firm is the sky and firm is the
earth" (10.173.4). Several hymns mention people who "climb up to the
sky" (8.14.14; 2.12.12; 1.85.7). Several hymns mention the separation of
heaven and earth. One says Varona "pushed away the dome of the sky"
(7.86.1; cf. 10.82.1).25

The Sumerologist Samuel Noah Kramer described the cosmology of the
Sumerians, the founders of the first civilization, in similar terms. The earth,
they thought, was a flat disc; heaven, a hollow sphere enclosed at top and
bottom by a solid surface in the shape of a vault.28



Im about half way through, ill quote more material of value here shortly.

Just wanted to finish my quoting of the above article by Paul Seely, Titled:
THE FIRMAMENT AND THE WATER ABOVE
The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227-40

In Babylonian thought the solidity of the firmament is most clearly seen
in Tablet IV of Enuma Elish, particularly in lines 137-38 where Marduk,
having killed Tiamat, "split her in half like a shellfish, and from one half
made and covered the heavens." Or, as Heidel translated the passage, with
half of Tiamat Marduk "formed the sky as a roof."35 The solidity of the sky
is also seen in Tablet V:9-11 where Marduk "opened gates on both sides"
so that the sun could pass through morning and evening; and then "In her
belly he placed the zenith" (i.e., the Pole star).36

Only by taking Genesis l out of its historical context could one say that
raqiac

means merely "an atmospheric expanse" or, as the more sophisti-
cated conservatives say, "just phenomenal language."

Jews speculated as to what material the firmament was made of: clay or
copper or iron (3 Apoc. Bar. 3.7). They differentiated between the firmament
and the empty space or air between it and the earth (Gen. Rab. 4.3.a; 2 Apoc.
Bar. 21.4). They tried to figure out how thick it was by employing biblical
interpretation (Gen. Rab. 4.5.2). Most tellingly they even tried to calculate
scientifically the thickness of the firmament (Pesab. 49a).

Christians speculated as to whether it was made of earth, air, fire, or
water (the basic elements of Greek science). Origen called the firmament
"without doubt firm and solid" (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose,

commenting on Gen 1:6, said, "the specific solidity of this exterior firma-
ment is meant" (Hexameron, FC 42.60). Augustine said the word firmament

was used "to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that
it constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the
waters below" (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61).


Greeks from Anaximenes to Aristotle set forth as scientific fact that the
firmament was made of a crystalline substance to which "the stars are fixed
like nails."44 This idea was passed on for centuries via Ptolemy's Almagest.
The barbarians meanwhile worried about the sky falling on them if they
did not keep their promises!45


Does any statement or phrase appear in the OT which clearly states or
implies that the raqiac is not solid? Does anything in Genesis 1 state or imply the raqiac was not (or was) solid? The fact that it was named "heaven(s)"in Gen 1:8 and birds fly in the heaven(s) (Deut 4: 17) seems to imply the
raqiac was not solid. But the word samayim (heaven

---

This phrase upon the face (surface) or in front of the raqiac is important in that it implies the raqiac was neither space nor atmosphere. For birds do not fly upon the surface or in front of space or air, but rather in space or air. This
distinction is illustrated in the case of fish, which no one would say swim
upon the surface or in front of the water (Gen 7: 18) but rather in the water (cr.
Exod 7: 18, 21).

Gen 1:17 also testifies that the raqiac is not air or atmosphere for it says
that God placed the stars (and probably the sun and moon) "in the raqiac
or the heavens." But the stars are not located in the air or atmosphere. So
we know the raqiac (in which 1:17 locates them) cannot be air or atmo-
sphere.

We see then that Gen 1:17 and 1:20 testify that the raqiac is not air or atmosphere. The verbal cognate of raqiac, as well as the use of the verb hWf ("made"), in 1:7 imply the raqiac was solid. More important, the purpose and function of the raqiac imply its solidity, for it functions as a horizontal dam (cf. 7:11; 8:2; Ps 148:4), holding back a mighty heavenly ocean.

Inasmuch as the throne mentioned was apparently sitting on this firma-
ment (cf. Exod 24:10) and the firmament looked like crystal or ice,


End Quote

There is much more to the article, it is 17 pages long.

But the point is that, when we read about Adam and Eve, we shouldnt be thinking in a modern 21st century biological evolution context, we should be thinking in an atrahasis context.

When we read about noahs flood and the fountains of the deep, we shouldnt be thinking from a geology of the 21st century context, we should be thinking in a mesopotamian apkallu and book of enoch 2nd temple period context.

Scientific concordism, the idea of trying to make an ancient near east text align with modern 21st century science only results in the confusion of the original meaning of scripture. And this is the way most Bible scholars are leaning these days, as far as I can tell.

 

[Jipsah]

No, he has more money than I have, and more hair too

Hair is over-rated.

 

[Jipsah]

Gonna have to go by faith or by what man says

I think that's the unofficial motto of the Flerfies, who believe the earth is flat as a matter of rejecting what man says and going by faith. Of course, in so doing they embrace a ridiculous view of the universe which has nothing to do with either Faith or Science.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So do I

The Hebrew word for "day" is the same right through the Old Testament. It is the word that is used to describe the six days of creation. It makes sense that the seventh day is the Sabbath, the day of rest. It is a 24 hour day that goes from one evening to another. It seems illogical that the first six days of creation is different from the seventh in the same narrative passage. We know that the Sabbath day is not millions of years, therefore if it is not millions of years, then neither are the preceding six days.

To deny that God created the universe and the world in six 24 hour days is to:

Deny that God is all powerful, as the Bible says He is.
Say that God is a liar, because He said that He created the world in six days.
Say that Jesus is lying when He said that the world was created in six days, having used the Greek word for 24 hour days.

Therefore I cannot see that anyone who denies that God is all powerful, and that He and Jesus are liars, can have Jesus as their Saviour. If they cannot believe what Jesus says is true, how can they trust Him with their eternal salvation?

 

[tonychanyt]

The Hebrew word for "day" is the same right through the Old Testament.

Of course, it is the same. It is a word. And therefore, it must mean 24 hours?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Of course, it is the same. It is a word. And therefore, it must mean 24 hours?

Yes. The meaning of the Hebrew word "yom" is a 24 hour day.

 

[tonychanyt]

Yes. The meaning of the Hebrew word "yom" is a 24 hour day.

Are you saying that in the Bible "yom" always means 24 hours with no exception?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Are you saying that in the Bible "yom" always means 24 hours with no exception?

Yes. Why not? What is the logic behind every single example of "yom" right throughout the Old Testament means a 24 hour day, and the word meaning something else in Genesis 1-3? Doesn't make sense. What's the point of changing the meaning of a Hebrew word, just to support a unproven theory dreamed up out of Darwin's head?