Creation: Six Days or not?

[KEPLER]

Well this all boils down to is ed a vapor/mist/fog or a rain.

Before we begin I must comment that I have been through many violent Texas rain storms. I have seen rain come down like cats and dogs [A Texas phrase] I have seen rain fly sideways in a sprited storm. With the possible exception of that tornado I was once in I have NEVER seen rain fall upward. Although I did see a dog fly in that twister so I guess maybe it was raining upward. To be honest I was so scared I don't really remember.

Now let's look at Gen 2:6

But there went up.....a mist ....from..... the earth,.... and watered.... the whole face... of the ground.

Cleary ed goes up not down and ed comes from the earth. Fog moisture that forms from the earth and comes from the earth's surface. I come from south Texas where we have very very thick fog. I have driven many times in fog so thick that infact you have to use you windshield wipers on your car. The fog gets everything it touches wet. Of course fog requires a high relative humity much like you see in green houses. In fact I have seen fog form in a greenhouse the plants literally driped with water. I have seen fog rising from the earth and from the water both.


And as I said before I have NEVER seen it rain upwards even though I have seen a dog fly. So ed is a mist or a vapor and not rain.


If the earth had a vapor barrier aroud the whole earth it would be much like a green house with very high humidity. Scientist tell us that if the earth surface was totally smooth the whole surface of the arth would be covered with about 300 feet of water. The earths surface has deep canyons and trenches and the water is displaced so that only 2/3 of the surface is water. We have coal with huge fern fossils in Antartica so obviously at one time there was a large amount of vegitation in Antartical so the climate must have been drastically different. A vapor barrier with greenhouse effect would infact create a envioment that would allow vegetation all over the world.

3AM -


OK, good. A good reply; thanks.

In my defense, I never actually said "‘ed was rain". I simply said that the argument that Hebrew has other words for rain isn’t a valid argument. I was also safeguarding against the horrible, horrible NIV translation of "‘ed" into “streams”. Ugh. In fact, I said this:

Verse 6 describes what we know as evaporation (mist rose up to form clouds) and condensation (watered the face of the ground).

I intended this as the underlying premise for the overall argument.

I admit however, that with dinner looming (I do the cooking ‘round here) I rushed and got careless with my post; I wasn’t as clear as I should have been, so the fact that you took what I said to mean that “‘ed means rain” is entirely understandable, and entirely my fault.

There was a whole other part of the discussion I should have added, but in my haste, I forgot. But your reply is a perfect segue. So…

Indeed, ‘ed is rising water vapor. The question is, what does that vapor do, or, perhaps the better question is, what is that vapor for?


ANSWER: The vapor is for making clouds, which then provide rain. As I said above: evaporation and condensation. The fact that verse 5 clearly states that there were no plants BECAUSE there was yet no rain establishes that natural laws are already in operation. So the fact that evaporation and condensation are already in operation during the time of creation is therefore no surprise.

Further, I would say that if ‘ed were to be understood as something peculiar to the ante-diluvian environment (i.e., either the content or the product of a "vapor canopy"), then after the flood we likely would not ever see it again. But we do see it after the flood, in the book of Job (the only other occurrence of the word in the entire OT). In Job we find:

27For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:

28Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly.

*Short excursus on OT chronology -- There are some real bible wackos out there who try to contend that the book of Job takes place before the flood, and that therefore there is no ‘ed after the flood. They overlook one simple point: the flood destroyed all civilization, except for Noah and his family. When we read later in Genesis, we see that Abrham had two nephews, Uz and Huz (Gen 22). Well, Job is described as being an Uzite, and his “friend” Elihu was a Buzite….so, Job was a descended relative of Abraham, who lived after the flood, therefore, Job lived….you got it! Puts that stinkin’ argument to shame.

So, God causes little itty bitty drops of water to rise (there is no indication in the text as to how far they rise before forming the mist...could be 1mm, could be more), and then they form a mist resulting in rain. (The phrase which the KJV renders as “according to the vapour thereof” seems to be what we call in Greek and Latin an “ablative of means”, which suggests that the droplets of water fall to the earth as rain by means of having become a mist.)

Job makes it crystal clear that ‘ed produces rain. Since there are no other occurrences of ‘ed in the OT, there is no other Biblical justification for understanding/interpreting Genesis 2:6 in any other way than: mist rose up and became rain.

Following this, some might argue that shaqah (rendered in Gen 2:6 as watered) doesn’t mean “rain.” They are half-right. As discussed earlier, there are other words for rain which relate merely to water drops falling from the sky. But that’s not exactly what Gen 2:6 is conveying. Gen 2:6 is saying that God is the AGENT behind the activity. God is CAUSING the mist to rise, and thus, when the mist condenses, it is God who is "watering" the earth (with rain!). God, in this image, is the Divine “Green Thumb” who is watering his garden. Another such image is in the 104th Psalm:

He waters (shaqah) the mountains from his upper chambers;
the earth is satisfied by the fruit of his work.

To deny that this image is speaking of rain would defy reason. Therefore, in Gen2:6, the is no implicit directive not to understand “watered” as “rain”; rather, the implication is that there is a causal agent (God) who is doing the watering. There is also a sense in shaqah of nutrition, or refreshment. But in the context of rain, this sense is in no way diminished.

Now, this is where the Scripture most assuredly is protecting creation from those of a rationalist bent. God did NOT just wind up the world, set it in motion, and walk away. No! God’s presence is still manifest in the world; He is still the active force holding natural laws in place. No Deists allowed!

And just so, as God is the causal agent behind something as ordinary as rain, He is also (verse 7) the causal agent behind the existence of humankind.

 

[KEPLER]

Not if there's more oxygen in the air.

Oh, by the way, since you're Lutheran...

Did you know that Luther staunchly believed in a young earth creation? He called those that teach otherwise, "vulgar" (at the least). I'm really starting to like this quote. The Eastern Orthodox position is also traditionally young earth.

"...as several heretics and other vulgar persons allege, that God created everything in the beginning, and then let nature take its own independent course, so that all things now spring into being of their own power; thereby they put God on a level with a shoemaker or a tailor. This not only contradicts scripture, but it runs counter to experience".

-Luther's Works, Vol. 22, p. 28.

Hey Breetai,

Umm, actually there's a better Luther quote somewhere if you want to show he believed in six days. In the statement you quoted, he's actually condemning people like Michael Servetus, who was rather Epicurean in his views, which, in the case of Creation, meant that he belived somewhat like a deist: God set it up and walked away, letting the world take its course. And yes, I agree with Luther on this.

I do not, however, agree with Luther on the 6 days, or, for that matter, in geocentrism. When he was good, he was very, very good, but when he was bad...well, he was pretty much just like most other early sixteenth century folk.



Kepler

 

[ThreeAM]

3AM -


OK, good. A good reply; thanks.

In my defense, I never actually said "‘ed was rain". I simply said that the argument that Hebrew has other words for rain isn’t a valid argument. I was also safeguarding against the horrible, horrible NIV translation of "‘ed" into “streams”. Ugh. In fact, I said this:

I intended this as the underlying premise for the overall argument.

I admit however, that with dinner looming (I do the cooking ‘round here) I rushed and got careless with my post; I wasn’t as clear as I should have been, so the fact that you took what I said to mean that “‘ed means rain” is entirely understandable, and entirely my fault.

There was a whole other part of the discussion I should have added, but in my haste, I forgot. But your reply is a perfect segue. So…

Indeed, ‘ed is rising water vapor. The question is, what does that vapor do, or, perhaps the better question is, what is that vapor for?


ANSWER: The vapor is for making clouds, which then provide rain. As I said above: evaporation and condensation. The fact that verse 5 clearly states that there were no plants BECAUSE there was yet no rain establishes that natural laws are already in operation. So the fact that evaporation and condensation are already in operation during the time of creation is therefore no surprise.

Further, I would say that if ‘ed were to be understood as something peculiar to the ante-diluvian environment (i.e., either the content or the product of a "vapor canopy"), then after the flood we likely would not ever see it again. But we do see it after the flood, in the book of Job (the only other occurrence of the word in the entire OT). In Job we find:



*Short excursus on OT chronology -- There are some real bible wackos out there who try to contend that the book of Job takes place before the flood, and that therefore there is no ‘ed after the flood. They overlook one simple point: the flood destroyed all civilization, except for Noah and his family. When we read later in Genesis, we see that Abrham had two nephews, Uz and Huz (Gen 22). Well, Job is described as being an Uzite, and his “friend” Elihu was a Buzite….so, Job was a descended relative of Abraham, who lived after the flood, therefore, Job lived….you got it! Puts that stinkin’ argument to shame.

So, God causes little itty bitty drops of water to rise (there is no indication in the text as to how far they rise before forming the mist...could be 1mm, could be more), and then they form a mist resulting in rain. (The phrase which the KJV renders as “according to the vapour thereof” seems to be what we call in Greek and Latin an “ablative of means”, which suggests that the droplets of water fall to the earth as rain by means of having become a mist.)

Job makes it crystal clear that ‘ed produces rain. Since there are no other occurrences of ‘ed in the OT, there is no other Biblical justification for understanding/interpreting Genesis 2:6 in any other way than: mist rose up and became rain.

Following this, some might argue that shaqah (rendered in Gen 2:6 as watered) doesn’t mean “rain.” They are half-right. As discussed earlier, there are other words for rain which relate merely to water drops falling from the sky. But that’s not exactly what Gen 2:6 is conveying. Gen 2:6 is saying that God is the AGENT behind the activity. God is CAUSING the mist to rise, and thus, when the mist condenses, it is God who is "watering" the earth (with rain!). God, in this image, is the Divine “Green Thumb” who is watering his garden. Another such image is in the 104th Psalm:

To deny that this image is speaking of rain would defy reason. Therefore, in Gen2:6, the is no implicit directive not to understand “watered” as “rain”; rather, the implication is that there is a causal agent (God) who is doing the watering. There is also a sense in shaqah of nutrition, or refreshment. But in the context of rain, this sense is in no way diminished.

Now, this is where the Scripture most assuredly is protecting creation from those of a rationalist bent. God did NOT just wind up the world, set it in motion, and walk away. No! God’s presence is still manifest in the world; He is still the active force holding natural laws in place. No Deists allowed!

And just so, as God is the causal agent behind something as ordinary as rain, He is also (verse 7) the causal agent behind the existence of humankind.

Well ed could rise and make rain but if the relative Humidity was high the mist/ed/fog would be enough to make water enough to water plants. I can tell you from personal experience that dense fog can prouce a lot of moisture ...condensation. Like a rain forest conditions. Just think about how frost forms and the moisture that causes it and how thick it is when the humidity is high. If we had a green house envionment there would be plenty of moisture for plants. And you must agree Gen 2:5-6 say ZERO about rain coming down on the earth. In Job it mentions about rain coming down presumably from a clouds/mist but its not mentioned in Genesis.


27For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:

.

 

[KEPLER]

Well ed could rise and make rain but if the relative Humidity was high the mist/ed/fog would be enough to make water enough to water plants. I can tell you from personal experience thay dense for can prouce a lot of moisture ...condensation. Just think about how frost forms and the moisture that causes it and how this it is when the humidity is high. If we had a green house envionment there would be plenty of moisture for plants. And you must agree Gen 2:5-6say ZERO about rain coming down on the earth. In Job it mentions about rain coming down presumably from a clouds/mist but its not mentioned in Genesis.


27For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:

.

I'm not arguing about possible effects of humidity (and since I live in North Carolina, I'm well aware of the effects of humidity! Hmmm, where's the "sweaty" smiley when you need it?).

As you said yourself, the 'ed came up. But the 'ed is directly linked to the watering. So if the 'ed came up and is above the ground, then the watering has to come down. And again, we are explicitly told that this phenomenon is rain, since verse 5 said the absence of rain and a man to cultivate the earth was the problem. How can we reasonably presume that God would answer the latter problem (absence of a man) so directly in verse 7, but answered the former in some unasked for way in verse 6? That makes absolutely no sense....

"If we had a greenhouse environment"....IF...IF...IF!!! You cannot presume the very thing you are trying to prove. That's called petitio principii, begging the question, tautology, circular reasoning....

Cheers,

Kepler

 

[ThreeAM]

I'm not arguing about possible effects of humidity (and since I live in North Carolina, I'm well aware of the effects of humidity! Hmmm, where's the "sweaty" smiley when you need it?).

As you said yourself, the 'ed came up. But the 'ed is directly linked to the watering. So if the 'ed came up and is above the ground, then the watering has to come down. And again, we are explicitly told that this phenomenon is rain, since verse 5 said the absence of rain and a man to cultivate the earth was the problem. How can we reasonably presume that God would answer the latter problem (absence of a man) so directly in verse 7, but answered the former in some unasked for way in verse 6? That makes absolutely no sense....

"If we had a greenhouse environment"....IF...IF...IF!!! You cannot presume the very thing you are trying to prove. That's called petitio principii, begging the question, tautology, circular reasoning....

Cheers,

Kepler

OK Jane you ignorant...... ....OK may be we had better not digress I like it better when we are being nice.

Actually I already proved water above and below the atmosphere. The water above the sky would of course be the vapor barrier I speak of. Notice God said ABOVE the firmament not in the firmament. Today we have water below the atmosphere and water[clouds] in the atmosphere but we donot have water above the atmosphere. So I'll keep on pushing the greenhouse effect because of the water above the atmosphere. Besides where do you think all that H2O came from in Noah's day? If all that water that in Noah's day fell in the form of rain was already on the earth befor it evaporated why wasn't the earth already flooded?


Gen 1:6-8
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.




1) heaven, heavens, sky
a) visible heavens, sky
2) ... the sky, atmosphere, etc

 

[KEPLER]

OK Jane you ignorant...... ....OK may be we had better not digress I like it better when we are being nice.

Heh!

Actually I already proved water above and below the atmosphere. The water above the sky would of course be the vapor barrier I speak of. Notice God said ABOVE the firmament not in the firmament. Today we have water below the atmosphere and water[clouds] in the atmosphere but we donot have water above the atmosphere. So I'll keep on pushing the greenhouse effect because of the water above the atmosphere. Besides where do you think all that H2O came from in Noah's day?

Actually, this is quite funny. Lots of the aforementioned wacko Bible teachers (I'm NOT lumping you in with them...you can lump yourself) suggest that the waters of the flood came up from subterraenean deposits, and then drained back to them afterwards....And at this point...I'm the one who is playing fundamentalist!! Becasue I simply (naively? stupidly?) think it was a straight up miracle. The water for Noah's flood was a spontaneous ex nihilo creation. Period.

So the YECers are the ones dreaming up naturalistic extra-biblical ideas for where the water may have come from, and I'm just sticking with the text. Seems like role-reversal, except that I'm the only whose been sticking to the text this entire time. (Kepler pats himself on the back...)

Gen 1:6-8
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

1) heaven, heavens, sky
a) visible heavens, sky
2) ... the sky, atmosphere, etc

I simply disagree with equating firmament with atmosphere. The bible knowingly presents "firmament" as a semi-permeable yet solid thing to which the stars are attached. So, in ante-diluvuan times, the rain came from beyond the stars??? I am forced to conclude that God was simply accomodating his language to the level of Moses' comprehension.

God also refers to the moon (the "lesser light" of day 4) as a light. Are we to take from this that the moon generates its own luminosity, as Genesis says it does? Or can we presume that God thought describing it as a light was sufficient for Moses; that Moses probably wouldn't have understaood the concept of "reflected light".

Kepler

 

[ThreeAM]

Heh!


Actually, this is quite funny. Lots of the aforementioned wacko Bible teachers (I'm NOT lumping you in with them...you can lump yourself) suggest that the waters of the flood came up from subterraenean deposits, and then drained back to them afterwards....And at this point...I'm the one who is playing fundamentalist!! Becasue I simply (naively? stupidly?) think it was a straight up miracle. The water for Noah's flood was a spontaneous ex nihilo creation. Period.

So the YECers are the ones dreaming up naturalistic extra-biblical ideas for where the water may have come from, and I'm just sticking with the text. Seems like role-reversal, except that I'm the only whose been sticking to the text this entire time. (Kepler pats himself on the back...)


I simply disagree with equating firmament with atmosphere. The bible knowingly presents "firmament" as a semi-permeable yet solid thing to which the stars are attached. So, in ante-diluvuan times, the rain came from beyond the stars??? I am forced to conclude that God was simply accomodating his language to the level of Moses' comprehension.

God also refers to the moon (the "lesser light" of day 4) as a light. Are we to take from this that the moon generates its own luminosity, as Genesis says it does? Or can we presume that God thought describing it as a light was sufficient for Moses; that Moses probably wouldn't have understaood the concept of "reflected light".

Kepler

1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
a) expanse (flat as base, support)
b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above) 1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above


The Jews tought of the firmament as the area between the earth and the stars.

Dan 12:3And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

 

[ThreeAM]

Also how do you explain the coal deposits in Antartica ? How the the huge fern fossil; found there come into exsistance and where is that water above the atmoshere today. If you get above 41,000 feet bthe is virtualy NO water vapor but there is still atmosphere.

 

[KEPLER]

1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
a) expanse (flat as base, support)
b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above) 1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

The Jews tought of the firmament as the area between the earth and the stars.

Dan 12:3And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

A reading, from the First Book of Moses, called Genesis:

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

The stars, the sun, and the moon are "set in" the firmament.

K

 

[ThreeAM]

A reading, from the First Book of Moses, called Genesis:


The stars, the sun, and the moon are "set in" the firmament.

K

And the word firmament has at least two different implied meanings just as many othe words do. For example heaven can mean atmospeher or the place that God resides. As I said the Jews thought the firmament was the area between the earth and the stars. They also thought the firmanet was the atmosphere.


1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
a) expanse (flat as base, support) b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)


I doubt the Jews really knew the extent of the atmosphere and the beginig of space. Writters of scripture use the language of their day. They just knew that up in the sky was water surounding the earth.



Gen1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

So birds are capable of space travel. I thought they need air to fly in and to breath?

 

[KEPLER]

And the word firmament has at least two different implied meanings just as many othe words do. For example heaven can mean atmospeher or the place that God resides. As I said the Jews thought the firmament was the area between the earth and the stars. They also thought the firmanet was the atmosphere.

1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
a) expanse (flat as base, support) b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)

I don't disagree; but one of the definitions (if taken literally) defies what we know about the world around us. But since the world around us is also God's revelation about himself (Rom 1), these cannot conflict. The only way to resolve the apparent conflict is to reevaluate how we understand the language of Genesis. If the firmament is (while true) also figurative, then the problem is solved. No contradictions, and no devaluation of Scripture.

I doubt the Jews really knew the extent of the atmosphere and the beginig of space. Writters of scripture use the language of their day. They just knew that up in the sky was water surounding the earth.

There is no evidence to suggest they knew ANYTHING about space.

Gen1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

So birds are capable of space travel. I thought they need air to fly in and to breath?

Not a problem, in the way I read Genesis.

Cheers,

Kepler

 

[Catechumen]

There should be another option on the poll, namely "other" or "I don't know."

 

[ThreeAM]

I don't disagree; but one of the definitions (if taken literally) defies what we know about the world around us. But since the world around us is also God's revelation about himself (Rom 1), these cannot conflict. The only way to resolve the apparent conflict is to reevaluate how we understand the language of Genesis. If the firmament is (while true) also figurative, then the problem is solved. No contradictions, and no devaluation of Scripture.

But there is no conflict in the way I view things.

There is no evidence to suggest they knew ANYTHING about space.

EXACTLY

Not a problem, in the way I read Genesis.

Cheers,

Kepler

Noproblem with the way I view it either.


Top of the day to you.

ThreeAM By the way you are lossing the poll. See you and thanks for the civil exchange.

 

[Breetai]

Hey Breetai,

Umm, actually there's a better Luther quote somewhere if you want to show he believed in six days. In the statement you quoted, he's actually condemning people like Michael Servetus, who was rather Epicurean in his views, which, in the case of Creation, meant that he belived somewhat like a deist: God set it up and walked away, letting the world take its course. And yes, I agree with Luther on this.

I do not, however, agree with Luther on the 6 days, or, for that matter, in geocentrism. When he was good, he was very, very good, but when he was bad...well, he was pretty much just like most other early sixteenth century folk.



Kepler

Funny, I see a literal six days all over that quote. I do have the other one your talking about too, but I'm having fun with this one.

 

[Scholar in training]

Funny, I see a literal six days all over that quote. I do have the other one your talking about too, but I'm having fun with this one.

No, Kepler was right in saying that it doesn't touch on theistic evolution. Any TEs who propose that God is not intimately involved with and in his creation are wrong.

 

[Breetai]

By the way you are lossing the poll. See you and thanks for the civil exchange.

Why would he, or you, care about that?

 

[ThreeAM]

Why would he, or you, care about that?

Why would you care if we care?






OK it was a JOKE already.

 

[Breetai]

Why would you care if we care?






OK it was a JOKE already.

 

[KEPLER]

But there is no conflict in the way I view things.

EXACTLY

Noproblem with the way I view it either.

Ermmm,... regardless of whether or not the waters "above" the firmament are still there, or they dispersed in Noah's flood...there is no record in Scripture of God ever taking this "firmament" away....the stars, sun and moon are still set in it...which means, of course, that they are all (every last one of them, according to a "literal" reading of Scripture) equidistant from the earth.

Top of the day to you.

ThreeAM By the way you are lossing the poll. See you and thanks for the civil exchange.

Seems to me (in very recent memory) that some guy from Texas lost a popluar election, but still won the race....

Cheers,

Eric

PS...BTW, up until you posted that about losing the poll, I had not voted. Neither one of the choices is satisfactory to me. But when you said that, well, I just had to look, now didn't I? Since you presumed to think I had voted "no", I obliged you. I actually do think God created the world in 6 days. But I also think that I am compelled by the text of Genesis 1 & 2, to say those days are not chronoligical days, but typological days.

The other reason I did not like the choices is that all YECers seem to think that if someone doesn't believe in Young Earth Creationism, that they must necessarily believe in evolution. Our friend Lynn73 (among many others) makes this very illogical leap. But I am neither a Young Earth Creationist, nor a theisic evolutionist. I am also not technically an Old-Earth Creationist.

 

[Breetai]

The other reason I did not like the choices is that all YECers seem to think that if someone doesn't believe in Young Earth Creationism, that they must necessarily believe in evolution. Our friend Lynn73 (among many others) makes this very illogical leap. But I am nether a Young Earth Creationist, nor a theisic evolutionist. I am also not technically an Old-Earth Creationist.

Sorry about that Kep. I'm completely guilty. I should've known better too!