Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning

[Job 33:6]

What, so now it's a strawman if I don't use a translation that you personally agree with? You don't agree with a translation so it just becomes an issue?

NASB also uses the word "dome". Several translations also use "vault" as well. Or vaulted dome.

Anyway. I wish you the best Derf. I know you won't agree with this, but, your response to God's word stems from a heart issue. It's not a position devised by logic or reason. There are deep seated feelings you have that exist outside of scripture, that have pinned down your perspective of scripture. Feelings in your heart, to the extent that simply using the word "dome" bothers you, despite it being God's word. And there is nothing I can do about this but simply suggest that you reconsider.

I leave with the following:
Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning

 

[Derf]

What, so now it's a strawman if I don't use a translation that you personally agree with? You don't agree with a translation so it just becomes an issue?

NASB also uses the word "dome". Several translations also use "vault" as well. Or vaulted dome.

I can see how you had to cherry pick my post to leave out the parts that completely refuted the one you just wrote. I can see how you do that with parts of the Bible, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

 

[Job 33:6]

I can see how you had to cherry pick my post to leave out the parts that completely refuted the one you just wrote. I can see how you do that with parts of the Bible, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

Like I said before, I think your response stems from a heart issue. You take issue with my use of the word "dome" but this is simply taken directly from the Bible. You don't agree with my position and that's fine.

I've provided justification with use of a dozen verses here: Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning

If you disagree, you're welcome to explain what all of the dozen verses mean. I disagree that the dome referred to was just the sky, because obviously the stars are not in the sky (otherwise they would burn up our atmosphere). And while birds fly in the sky, scripture says that they flew in the sky and across the face of the dome and in front of the dome, not inside the dome. So there is a clear distinguishing between sky and dome as two different things, in scripture. So this dome, biblically speaking, is not equivalent to the sky or atmosphere. And Genesis states that waters of the heavens came from beyond the dome in which stars were placed, and personally I think my position (as described in my link) makes a lot more since than your position: that water traveled from beyond the stars, from millions of light-years away to flood the earth. Because scripture says that the waters came from beyond the dome in which stars are placed.

And of course my position aligns with what all societies of that time believed. And lastly, it's not a scientific mess involving water travelling across light-years of space or physical thrones hovering millions of light-years away in space somehow being visible to mankind (Ezekiel reference).

 

[Job 33:6]

Like I said before, I think your response stems from a heart issue. You take issue with my use of the word "dome" but this is simply taken directly from the Bible. You don't agree with my position and that's fine.

I've provided justification with use of a dozen verses here: Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning

If you disagree, you're welcome to explain what all of the dozen verses mean. I disagree that the dome referred to was just the sky, because obviously the stars are not in the sky (otherwise they would burn up our atmosphere). And while birds fly in the sky, scripture says that they flew in the sky and across the face of the dome and in front of the dome, not inside the dome. So there is a clear distinguishing between sky and dome as two different things, in scripture. So this dome, biblically speaking, is not equivalent to the sky or atmosphere. And Genesis states that waters of the heavens came from beyond the dome in which stars were placed, and personally I think my position (as described in my link) makes a lot more since than your position: that water traveled from beyond the stars, from millions of light-years away to flood the earth. Because scripture says that the waters came from beyond the dome in which stars are placed.

And of course my position aligns with what all societies of that time believed. And lastly, it's not a scientific mess involving water travelling across light-years of space or physical thrones hovering millions of light-years away in space somehow being visible to mankind (Ezekiel reference).

Of the firmament, or dome, or solid divine structure, of the sky. Meaning it is a firm structure that is different from the sky. Birds fly across the face of it, not in it, stars are in it, yet God's throne is also visible above it (Ezekiel), and water is held back by its windows/floodgates (Genesis).

I don't think there is any contest here. I think my position makes much more sense than your efforts at alternatives. And my position aligns with historical accounts of contemporary societies, and it aligns with how creation has been viewed in antiquity and my position aligns with science as well. And it's all taken directly from scripture.

Your position on the other hand, in my opinion, doesn't make sense in any of the above ways. It involves figurative readings of Genesis rather than taking it at it's literal words, it contradicts historical accounts of contemporary societies, and scientifically it doesn't make any sense.

Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning

 

[Job 33:6]

Here are some simple questions for you Derf.

How do you propose that people could see God's throne above the dome in which stars had been placed? They didn't have telescopes. Do you think mankind was looking at a throne billions of light-years away? (Ezekiel reference).

How do you propose waters of the flood came from beyond the dome via floodgates Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 or windows of the dome in which stars were placed (Genesis 1:16-17)? Do you think water travelled from billions of light years away from beyond the domes floodgates to arrive here on earth?

And how is it that birds can fly in front of or across the face of the sky? They don't fly in front of or across the face of the sky, they of course fly in the sky. And if the dome is the sky, why does scripture refer to this structure as " of the firmament/dome, of the sky"? Rather than just saying both the dome and sky as one word?

And how is it that Genesis states that the stars, sun and moon are placed in the dome? If the dome is any part of the sky, our planet would be incinerated.

I would say that the obvious answer to all of the above is that the dome is not any particular part of the sky at all. And that people simply didn't know that stars were millions of light-years away.

Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning

There are really only two possibilities here.
1. That my position is correct or;
2. That the authors of Genesis and the verses of Ezekiel, Samuel and job, dont actually mean what they say. And that it's all figurative.

 

[Job 33:6]

Again, you insert your strawman "dome" as if it were taken from the text, but the solid "dome" idea is fairly new. "Firmament" gives the idea of structure, but we use those terms today, like here:
https://www.albany.edu/faculty/rgk/atm101/structur.htm

And this response doesn't make sense for a number of reasons.

1. The stars were placed in the firmament, not above the firmament. Meaning that the firmament is not any sort of atmospheric structure. You're inserting modern science into the bible. If the stars were above or beyond the firmament, scripture would simply have said that, as it did with waters above the firmament, or God's throne above the firmament etc. But it didn't. And thus, the firmament is not equivalent to sections of our atmosphere.

God also placed the stars in the firmament. So obviously it's not equivalent to atmospheric structures, else the stars would incinerate our planet if they were so close.

Genesis 1:17 Hebrew Text Analysis

2. And if the firmament were all of the sky and all of space combined, then verses about people seeing God's throne beyond the firmament, hearing God's voice beyond the firmament, waters held back above the firmament, being held back by floodgates of the firmament, all wouldn't make any sense unless scripture meant something other than what it says. All verses relating to spreading like mirror, spreading like a tent, rolling up like a scroll etc. All don't make any sense if the firmament is millions of light years thick. Floodgates and windows are thin structures, also not millions of light years thick.

"The noun raqia is derived from the verb that means to beat out or stamp out, as in hammering metal into thin plates (Exodus 39:3). " also from biologos but commonly described in biblical commentaries by Christian scholars. Also suggests something thin, not hundreds of millions of light years thick.

Scripture clearly describes it as not the Earth's atmosphere, but within the atmosphere (hence why birds fly across the face of the firmament of the sky (two different hebrew words describing two different concepts, raqia (dome/firmament) and hasamayim/shamayim (heavens/sky)). Yet stars are in the firmament because they didn't know how far stars were away in those times. And all of scripture describes it as a relatively thin structure.

 

[Job 33:6]

I've added a few additional supporting verses and details to my post here:
Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning

In my opinion, it is overwhelmingly obvious that the authors of the OT and Genesis in particular, did not view the firmament as anything but a solid dome-like structure in the sky immediately above their heads. Many verses describe the dome as such. And no verses suggest otherwise.

And not only that but, stars were pinned into it, stuck in it, and it was immediately above their heads (the ancient authors weren't aware of how large stars are or how far away they are).

 

[Derf]

I've added a few additional supporting verses and details to my post here:
Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning

In my opinion, it is overwhelmingly obvious that the authors of the OT and Genesis in particular, did not view the firmament as anything but a solid dome-like structure in the sky immediately above their heads. Many verses describe the dome as such. And no verses suggest otherwise.

And not only that but, stars were pinned into it, stuck in it, and it was immediately above their heads (the ancient authors weren't aware of how large stars are or how far away they are).

I've spent enough time on forums banging my head against that wall for people who actually hold to it--I have no desire to do the same for someone that doesn't.

 

[Job 33:6]

I've spent enough time on forums banging my head against that wall for people who actually hold to it--I have no desire to do the same for someone that doesn't.

All in good fun Derf.

But you have to admit, if stars are placed in the firmament, how can you call the firmament the sky if in Ezekiel people could see a human being above the firmament? And what do you make of all the descriptions of the firmament being like a sea of crystals? How could the lights be placed in the firmament at all if the firmament is equivalent to our atmosphere?

For me, it's easy. It all aligns with what everyone historically believed. That the dome was solid, and that people didn't know what stars were or how far away they were and didn't know about gravity and thus thought the firmament held up the lights.

 

[Derf]

All in good fun Derf.

But you have to admit, if stars are placed in the firmament, how can you call the firmament the sky if in Ezekiel people could see a human being above the firmament? And what do you make of all the descriptions of the firmament being like a sea of crystals? How could the lights be placed in the firmament at all if the firmament is equivalent to our atmosphere?

For me, it's easy. It all aligns with what everyone historically believed. That the dome was solid, and that people didn't know what stars were or how far away they were and didn't know about gravity and thus thought the firmament held up the lights.

Then you would hold to an uninspired text, since it is based on the incorrect understandings of the writers, rather than the understanding of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Job 33:6]

Then you would hold to an uninspired text, since it is based on the incorrect understandings of the writers, rather than the understanding of the Holy Spirit?

If I had to describe what I'm observing, I'd say you're choosing to disagree because of concerns over implications, rather than choosing to disagree based on what the actual text says.

If we were to consider the possibility of an "in between" kind of answer, we might consider the possibility that mankind can be both limited in scientific understand, as well as inspired by God, simultaneously.

Is there a reason that you think this might be impossible? That mankind could be both limited in knowledge and inspired by God at the same time?

The word "incorrect" I think is also somewhat subjective. Paul anticipated visiting Rome with much excitement and enthusiasm, unknowingly traveling to where he would later be executed. Some things he just couldn't see, or didn't know. But did he really make a mistake if his letters continued to inspire the church for the next 2,000 years?

I just dont see why our message bearers need to be scientifically perfect to carry out God's will.

Job of course struggled with many questions about things unknown. But there is no doubt that he was inspired. Samson trusted in Delilah. There were things he did not see.

Most individuals in scripture make mistakes, most prophets, or rather all prophets make mistakes. But they're all still inspired and ultimately carry out God's will.

Adam and Eve made mistakes and they had God right there with them telling them directly to their faces what truth was, and they still had their miscalculations in trusting Satan.

Moses made a mistake of taking credit for striking water from the earth.

OT Prophets were inspired but they were by no means perfect in their actions or thoughts.

 

[Derf]

If I had to describe what I'm observing, I'd say you're choosing to disagree because of concerns over implications, rather than choosing to disagree based on what the actual text says.

If we were to consider the possibility of an "in between" kind of answer, we might consider the possibility that mankind can be both limited in scientific understand, as well as inspired by God, simultaneously.

”Limited” is different from “incorrect”.

Is there a reason that you think this might be impossible? That mankind could be both limited in knowledge and inspired by God at the same time?

”Limited” is different from “incorrect”.

I just dont see why our message bearers need to be scientifically perfect to carry out God's will.

”Scientifically perfect” is an oxymoron, and you know it.

There are definitely people who were wrong in their understanding, but their words aren’t attributed to God.

Adam and Eve made mistakes and they had God right there with them telling them directly to their faces what truth was, and they still had their miscalculations in trusting Satan.

Adam and Eve’s “mistakes” are never attributed to God—they get to own their mistakes. Moses, too. But to say that Adam and Eve can make up their own truth, with Satan’s help, and it counts as God’s message, is the kind of lie Satan would love.

 

[Job 33:6]

”Limited” is different from “incorrect”.

”Limited” is different from “incorrect”.

”Scientifically perfect” is an oxymoron, and you know it.

There are definitely people who were wrong in their understanding, but their words aren’t attributed to God.


Adam and Eve’s “mistakes” are never attributed to God—they get to own their mistakes. Moses, too. But to say that Adam and Eve can make up their own truth, with Satan’s help, and it counts as God’s message, is the kind of lie Satan would love.

Well, I think it's fair to say that Paul was incorrect in thinking that he would have a safe trip through Rome. But that doesn't mean that God was incorrect In sending Paul to Rome, or in predestining Paul to ultimately be executed.

The authors of Genesis, they may have been incorrect as far as thinking that stars were small lights right above them and not knowing that stars were giant balls of fire millions of light-years away. But that doesn't mean that God didn't use the authors exactly in the way that He intended to for His greater purpose. A purpose which is ultimate truth.

It's just not fair to say that because man is broken, that it must somehow logically mean that God is broken. That seems to be what you're trying to say, and I just can't agree with that logic.

In Romans, God prepares vessels which He ultimately destroys. Sometimes mankind and creation and history is messy. But that doesn't mean that it isn't all for God's greater glory. It doesn't mean that it hasn't all been God's intent all along.

And Adam and Eve were at least partly responsible for their mistakes. We can't put all the blame on Satan. Adam and Eve made a choice in the end and God punished them for it (and Satan too). But no matter. The above points still stand.

 

[Derf]

Well, I think it's fair to say that Paul was incorrect in thinking that he would have a safe trip through Rome. But that doesn't mean that God was incorrect In sending Paul to Rome, or in predestining Paul to ultimately be executed.

The authors of Genesis, they may have been incorrect as far as thinking that stars were small lights right above them and not knowing that stars were giant balls of fire millions of light-years away. But that doesn't mean that God didn't use the authors exactly in the way that He intended to for His greater purpose. A purpose which is ultimate truth.

It's just not fair to say that because man is broken, that it must somehow logically mean that God is broken. That seems to be what you're trying to say, and I just can't agree with that logic.

In Romans, God prepares vessels which He ultimately destroys. Sometimes mankind and creation and history is messy. But that doesn't mean that it isn't all for God's greater glory. It doesn't mean that it hasn't all been God's intent all along.

And Adam and Eve were at least partly responsible for their mistakes. We can't put all the blame on Satan. Adam and Eve made a choice in the end and God punished them for it (and Satan too). But no matter. The above points still stand.

The point is not in whether man or God are broken--we know man is and God isn't. But if the Bible reveals the truths of God, and the bible claims to speak for God, then any time the bible is giving narrative about facts, they must be correct (or must have been correct in the original writings), or the narratives aren't trustworthy. Since the narratives tell us about the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, we can't know the truth if the narratives are truthful. And one thing we learn in the New Testament narratives is that Jesus believed in the veracity of the Old Testament narratives. If we throw out the part Jesus quoted in the Old Testament, we have to throw out the part in the New Testament that tells us He quoted the Old Testament as if it were historical and accurate.

 

[Job 33:6]

The point is not in whether man or God are broken--we know man is and God isn't. But if the Bible reveals the truths of God, and the bible claims to speak for God, then any time the bible is giving narrative about facts, they must be correct (or must have been correct in the original writings)

I would also just add the word "scientifically correct" rather than just "correct".

My thought on this is, why can't scripture still be true, without it needing to be scientifically precise?

God created the heavens and the earth. Whether someone thinks it happened in 6 days, or whether it happened over 13 billion years, the truth and agreement still remains.

God made the birds and the fish, and animals that walked the earth, and fruit bearing plants. Whether someone believes in evolution or intelligent design or just straight 6 day creation, we all still accept this truth.

So I would say, can't God's word be truth without needing to be a scientifically precise textbook? Scripture would only be "incorrect", if we had the expectation that it should be scientifically precise. But if we never expected it to be scientifically precise, couldn't scripture still be perfect in non-scientific ways? When did we make scientific truth so important to our interpretation of scripture? When did science become so important to our understanding of God? People have trusted in the Lord for thousands of years without modern science. Why is today any different?

What do you think about this?

 

[Derf]

I would also just add the word "scientifically correct" rather than just "correct".

My thought on this is, why can't scripture still be true, without it needing to be scientifically precise?

God created the heavens and the earth. Whether someone thinks it happened in 6 days, or whether it happened over 13 billion years, the truth and agreement still remains.

God made the birds and the fish, and animals that walked the earth, and fruit bearing plants. Whether someone believes in evolution or intelligent design or just straight 6 day creation, we all still accept this truth.

So I would say, can't God's word be truth without needing to be a scientifically precise textbook? Scripture would only be "incorrect", if we had the expectation that it should be scientifically precise. But if we never expected it to be scientifically precise, couldn't scripture still be perfect in non-scientific ways? When did we make scientific truth so important to our interpretation of scripture? When did science become so important to our understanding of God? People have trusted in the Lord for thousands of years without modern science. Why is today any different?

What do you think about this?

Adding the word "scientifically" is a distraction from the real issue. Can you think of something that is "scientifically correct", but not "correct"? "Correct according to the science of the time" sounds like what you're looking for, but if the omniscient God who created the world and knows what's going on all the time can't inspire His prophets and authors well enough to get things correct in every sense when they are writing His revelation to mankind, nothing in the bible is trustworthy. Nothing!

And God is surely able to correct false impressions His people have, if He desires, or keep them from writing about a subject they don't know enough about, don't you think?

And remember what I said before. Jesus took the books of Moses at face value--that Moses was presenting real history and that it could be used for moral judgments. So did Jesus' apostles. For instance:
[Mat 19:4 KJV] And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,

Vs science:
'And transgender is a term accepted across science and medical groups to mean people whose gender identity doesn’t match ... their “sex assigned at birth.”'


and
[2Pe 2:6 KJV] And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
[2Pe 2:7 KJV] And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:

Vs science:
There's no agreement among archaeologists, scientists and Biblical scholars that Sodom, and its sister town Gomorrah, existed at all - let alone that it came to a sudden and apocalyptic end.

Who's correct? Who's "scientifically correct"? And if you can't give the same answer to both of those questions, which one are you going to believe?

 

[Job 33:6]

Adding the word "scientifically" is a distraction from the real issue. Can you think of something that is "scientifically correct", but not "correct"? "Correct according to the science of the time" sounds like what you're looking for, but if the omniscient God who created the world and knows what's going on all the time can't inspire His prophets and authors well enough to get things correct in every sense when they are writing His revelation to mankind, nothing in the bible is trustworthy. Nothing!

Well, let's go back to Paul. Paul had a plan in Rome, and he ended up executed. In scientific or practical terms, we would expect this to be a bad thing. And yet, it clearly served God's greater purpose and glory. While it may look like Paul made a bad calculation, a mistake or an incorrect judgement, in reality it was for God's greater purpose and was a part of God's ultimate, perfect and correct plan.

Just because we think "oh how could they make such a mistake?" Or "how did they not know this or not see this?" Doesn't mean that it's necessarily a mistake in God's greater plan.

And that's how God's truth can be different from our expectations of what His truth should look like. And that's how something can hold truth without being scientifically or mathematically or practically correct in our personal view of what correctness is.

And I'm not saying that the authors were ever scientifically correct, not then and not now. Rather what I am saying is that our expectation of how God communicates, is incorrect. God doesn't operate the way we think that God should. We think God should write us a scientific text on our origins. Because that's how we teach our children, we sit and read scientific facts to them. But God doesn't teach that way. God has His own way of showing Himself through mediums. Through people, through objects, through Christ, through relationships, through emotions and through many things that science has yet to figure out.

And God is surely able to correct false impressions His people have, if He desires, or keep them from writing about a subject they don't know enough about, don't you think?

God has the ability to vanguish Satan and to eliminate all pain and suffering on earth. But just because I have an expectation for how I think God should rule creation, that doesn't mean that God follows that expectation that I have.

Remember, we don't pray for God to do what we want Him to do. We pray that we might be comforted and receive courage and wisdom in accepting His will.

And remember what I said before. Jesus took the books of Moses at face value--that Moses was presenting real history and that it could be used for moral judgments. So did Jesus' apostles. For instance:
[Mat 19:4 KJV] And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,

Many people have proposed ways in which Adam could scientifically exist, even in an existence created via evolution. So the existence of Adam does not run contrary to science. Rather it comes back down to our expectation of who Adam is.

Vs science:
There's no agreement among archaeologists, scientists and Biblical scholars that Sodom, and its sister town Gomorrah, existed at all - let alone that it came to a sudden and apocalyptic end.

I ask again, when did God's truth become dependent on science?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Many cities of the Bible have been confirmed to exist by modern science. But even if they hadn't, that wouldn't mean that the scripture was wrong. It would just mean that our expectation that scripture should be a scientific text, may be wrong.

Who's correct? Who's "scientifically correct"? And if you can't give the same answer to both of those questions, which one are you going to believe?

God is ultimately correct. Some people are more right than others, I would say. Of course we always believe we are the ones that are right, so I would say that my side of the coin is the right side. As described here: Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning

 

[Derf]

Well, let's go back to Paul. Paul had a plan in Rome, and he ended up executed.

If you could provide quotes or scripture references to this, it would help us talk about the same events, perhaps. From the events I've read about, I don't see why Paul having an expectation of going to Rome, which he accomplished, is in any way contradictory to his being executed there. Those two things are not exclusive.

But just because I have an expectation for how I think God should rule creation, that doesn't mean that God follows that expectation that I have.

We're not talking about God ruling creation. We're talking about God's revelation to us. Do you have an expectation of God telling us the truth in His word, or untruths? If the latter, can you explain why? If the former, which things do you think He told us falsely?

Many cities of the Bible have been confirmed to exist by modern science. But even if they hadn't, that wouldn't mean that the scripture was wrong. It would just mean that our expectation that scripture should be a scientific text, may be wrong.

If those cities never existed, but the bible says they did, the bible is telling us falsehoods. In which case, if you believe any part of the bible, you have to know which parts are false and which are true. But you have no better standard than the bible itself. Science, as you've pointed out, has often not admitted to the existence of peoples and cities at one point in time, then later CHANGED. That's not a slap at science as a discipline, but a slap at science as a standard for absolute truth.

God is ultimately correct. Some people are more right than others, I would say.

If God is ultimately correct (is ultimately correct the same as always correct, or is God incorrect for a time, then later becomes correct?), and science isn't, then why do you hold science up as the standard by which to judge the veracity of the Bible?

 

[Job 33:6]

If you could provide quotes or scripture references to this, it would help us talk about the same events, perhaps. From the events I've read about, I don't see why Paul having an expectation of going to Rome, which he accomplished, is in any way contradictory to his being executed there. Those two things are not exclusive.

We're not talking about God ruling creation. We're talking about God's revelation to us. Do you have an expectation of God telling us the truth in His word, or untruths? If the latter, can you explain why? If the former, which things do you think He told us falsely?


If those cities never existed, but the bible says they did, the bible is telling us falsehoods. In which case, if you believe any part of the bible, you have to know which parts are false and which are true. But you have no better standard than the bible itself. Science, as you've pointed out, has often not admitted to the existence of peoples and cities at one point in time, then later CHANGED. That's not a slap at science as a discipline, but a slap at science as a standard for absolute truth.


If God is ultimately correct (is ultimately correct the same as always correct, or is God incorrect for a time, then later becomes correct?), and science isn't, then why do you hold science up as the standard by which to judge the veracity of the Bible?

I'm just pointing out that there were things that Paul didn't know despite being divinely appointed. As is true with all of mankind, including all prophets and authors of scripture.

And I don't think God has told us anything untrue, but rather, people just don't always translate God's message in ways that we think they should have. God doesn't communicate with us in ways that we always think He should. But what we think doesn't really matter in the end. It's God's will, not ours.

Regarding lost cities, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Lost cities are found all the time in the middle east. I don't doubt the existence of prehistoric destroyed cities.
New Science Suggests Biblical City Of Sodom Was Smote By An Exploding Meteor

And both God and science are correct.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm just pointing out that there were things that Paul didn't know despite being divinely appointed. As is true with all of mankind, including all prophets and authors of scripture.

And I don't think God has told us anything untrue, but rather, people just don't always translate God's message in ways that we think they should have. God doesn't communicate with us in ways that we always think He should. But what we think doesn't really matter in the end. It's God's will, not ours.

Regarding lost cities, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Lost cities are found all the time in the middle east. I don't doubt the existence of prehistoric destroyed cities.
New Science Suggests Biblical City Of Sodom Was Smote By An Exploding Meteor

And both God and science are correct.

I suppose there isn't much more to say.

I'm content where we've gone. I still think my case noted here:
Death: Part of God’s World From the Beginning
Is overwhelmingly convincing, especially when taken along side historical accounts and science.

I can see why you have reservations about this position but I just don't agree with this emotional response, in light of everything noted in my post.

Usually people use evidence to reach conclusions. But I feel as though your response operates in reverse where your conclusions result in rejection of biblical, scientific and historical evidence.