Did you read Genesis One?

shernren · Feb 8, 2006

Yes, and you're getting this from the same passage which calls "Satan" a man with a tomb to be thrown out of and sons and grandsons to be killed for his sins. If Isaiah 14 really describes Satan literally, that's not the Satan I was taught about in church and orthodox theology.

shernren · Feb 8, 2006

The sun and moon obviously were not placed in the same firmament of heaven that the birds flew in. Sheeeez!

Not true ... read the passage carefully. The birds flew on the face of the firmament, not in the firmament. If the firmament is outer space, then the atmosphere is so thin compared to it that it might as well be called the "face" of the firmament that faces earth. In which case the birds are flying on the face of the firmament, i.e. in the atmosphere that separates space from earth, and the sun and moon are in the firmament, i.e. space.

Which makes a little scientific sense, actually, besides that layer of ice wrapping up the observable universe ....

shernren · Feb 8, 2006

double post

gluadys · Feb 8, 2006

shernren said:
Yes, and you're getting this from the same passage which calls "Satan" a man with a tomb to be thrown out of and sons and grandsons to be killed for his sins. If Isaiah 14 really describes Satan literally, that's not the Satan I was taught about in church and orthodox theology.

Besides, in vs. 3-4, Isaiah says quite plainly that this will be a taunt the returned exiles will take up against the fallen king of Babylon. It is one of a series of oracles against the nations that goes through to the end of chapter 19.

Where do people get the idea that the king of Babylon is Satan?

OldWiseGuy · Feb 8, 2006

gluadys said:
Sure he was. You have any idea how few people had the privilege of studying under Gamaliel as Paul did? And he was a darling of the Sanhedrin too. They gave him charge of execution of Stephen and other martyrs in Jerusalem and authority to go to Damascus.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

This sounds like the old cliche of the 2nd law of thermodynamics being wrenched out of context. If it isn't, you will have to clarify.

Evolution is science and is validated scientifically, not theologically. The bible says nothing about evolution. Why should it when none of the writers knew anything more about it than they knew of the real nature of the planets?

It is your choice whether you choose to interpret the bible in such a way that it contradicts the reality which God created. Personally, I don't find that a good option.

And to account for the physical traces of said life.

And a lot of hands-on experience. I suggest you read Morton's biography. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/auth.htm

So? Who said otherwise?

All of our differences focus on a single point of contention. Was Adam (if he indeed existed at all) a product of evolution, or of special creation by God? Or, is the bible the literal, and literary, word of God?

I believe it to be.

oldwiseguy

OldWiseGuy · Feb 8, 2006

shernren said:
Not true ... read the passage carefully. The birds flew on the face of the firmament, not in the firmament. If the firmament is outer space, then the atmosphere is so thin compared to it that it might as well be called the "face" of the firmament that faces earth. In which case the birds are flying on the face of the firmament, i.e. in the atmosphere that separates space from earth, and the sun and moon are in the firmament, i.e. space.

Which makes a little scientific sense, actually, besides that layer of ice wrapping up the observable universe ....

Huh?

OldWiseGuy · Feb 8, 2006

shernren said:
Not true ... read the passage carefully. The birds flew on the face of the firmament, not in the firmament. If the firmament is outer space, then the atmosphere is so thin compared to it that it might as well be called the "face" of the firmament that faces earth. In which case the birds are flying on the face of the firmament, i.e. in the atmosphere that separates space from earth, and the sun and moon are in the firmament, i.e. space.

Which makes a little scientific sense, actually, besides that layer of ice wrapping up the observable universe ....

Huh?

OldWiseGuy · Feb 8, 2006

shernren said:
Yes, and you're getting this from the same passage which calls "Satan" a man with a tomb to be thrown out of and sons and grandsons to be killed for his sins. If Isaiah 14 really describes Satan literally, that's not the Satan I was taught about in church and orthodox theology.

Satan is referred to in the OT mostly metaphorically. He is revealed more literally in the NT.

OldWiseGuy · Feb 8, 2006

gluadys said:
Besides, in vs. 3-4, Isaiah says quite plainly that this will be a taunt the returned exiles will take up against the fallen king of Babylon. It is one of a series of oracles against the nations that goes through to the end of chapter 19.

Where do people get the idea that the king of Babylon is Satan?

The king of 'Babylon' is Satan. People get that idea from the bible.

artybloke · Feb 9, 2006

People get that idea from the bible.

People get a lot of ideas "from the Bible" that were not put there originally. Including this one.

FreezBee · Feb 9, 2006

oldwiseguy said:
Isaiah 14:13
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

Let's back up a step:

Isaiah 14:12
How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

The second line here is "Helel ben Shahar" in Hebrew, which was translated "Lucipheros" ("Lightbringer") in Greek and copied into Latin as "Lucifer". The original meaning is "Shining son/child of Dawn", most likely referring to Venus, whom the Babylonians identified with the goddess Ishtar - that's what Isaiah is referring to.

The link to Satan may be taken from

Job 38:7
while the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

This verse employs the parallellism common to Semitic poetry, that is "morning stars" = "sons of God".

In Job, Satan in one of the sons of God, and apparently the most prominent of them.

We are here simply talking, not about any metaphysical being, but pure mythology, that happened to be projected upon the king of Babylon.

oldwiseguy said:
God also calls the earth his footstool. Not that he places his feet upon it, but that he sits above it, viewing it closely as the favorite object of his attention. Any other position would not place God above the earth, a position of dominance and authority.

What does it mean that God is above the earth? Is that the same to e.g. Australians as to e.g. Europeans?

- FreezBee

gluadys · Feb 9, 2006

FreezBee said:
[We are here simply talking, not about any metaphysical being, but pure mythology, that happened to be projected upon the king of Babylon.

I don't know that we should speak of pure mythology here. Extravagant titles such as "Morning Star" and "Son of the Dawn" were commonly used of royalty. The point is the contrast between the king of Babylon's formerly exalted and powerful position and his abasement when Babylon was conquered.

That the stars were the heavenly host, the sons of God, is a commonplace of ancient cosmology. And in pagan nations, kings were often identified with the chief deity of the nation.

shernren · Feb 9, 2006

Huh?

I was referring to the assertion that there are three heavens: one for the birds (i.e. the atmosphere), one for the luminaries (i.e. space) and one "for God". Well, I don't know if you have other biblical evidence for it, but look at this passage:

Gen1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." (NIV)

[NIV translates the "firmament" of the KJVs as "expanse".] Note that the birds are not flying "above the earth in the expanse of the sky", they are flying across the expanse. The Hebrew word literally means flying "on the face of" the expanse.

So there we go. The expanse is outer space and the face of the expanse is the atmosphere. The birds fly across the face of the expanse i.e. across the atmosphere while the sun and stars are set in the expanse i.e. in outer space. No mention of multiple heavens here. Now to go look for that layer of ice ....

Satan is referred to in the OT mostly metaphorically. He is revealed more literally in the NT.

Now, you don't interpret the passage as if you believe that. From what you posted earlier:

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

Lucifer is ascending from the earth, of the second heaven,which was created along with the rest of the material universe, into the third heaven of Gods throne, to which he still had access.

Is Lucifer "metaphorically" ascending from a "metaphorical" earth of the "metaphorical" second heaven into the "metaphorical" third heaven of a "metaphorical" (ooh. I'd better watch my step here) God's throne to which he still had "metaphorical" access?

You can't have it both ways. If it's a metaphorical / allegorical description of Satan you can't draw details out of it as if Isaiah was writing Satan's biography.

shernren · Feb 9, 2006

Huh?

I was referring to the assertion that there are three heavens: one for the birds (i.e. the atmosphere), one for the luminaries (i.e. space) and one "for God". Well, I don't know if you have other biblical evidence for it, but look at this passage:

Gen1:20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." (NIV)

[NIV translates the "firmament" of the KJVs as "expanse".] Note that the birds are not flying "above the earth in the expanse of the sky", they are flying across the expanse. The Hebrew word literally means flying "on the face of" the expanse.

So there we go. The expanse is outer space and the face of the expanse is the atmosphere. The birds fly across the face of the expanse i.e. across the atmosphere while the sun and stars are set in the expanse i.e. in outer space. No mention of multiple heavens here. Now to go look for that layer of ice ....

Satan is referred to in the OT mostly metaphorically. He is revealed more literally in the NT.

Now, you don't interpret the passage as if you believe that. From what you posted earlier:

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

Lucifer is ascending from the earth, of the second heaven,which was created along with the rest of the material universe, into the third heaven of Gods throne, to which he still had access.

Is Lucifer "metaphorically" ascending from a "metaphorical" earth of the "metaphorical" second heaven into the "metaphorical" third heaven of a "metaphorical" (ooh. I'd better watch my step here) God's throne to which he still had "metaphorical" access?

You can't have it both ways. If it's a metaphorical / allegorical description of Satan you can't draw details out of it as if Isaiah was writing Satan's biography.

gluadys · Feb 9, 2006

shernren said:
[NIV translates the "firmament" of the KJVs as "expanse".] Note that the birds are not flying "above the earth in the expanse of the sky", they are flying across the expanse. The Hebrew word literally means flying "on the face of" the expanse.

So there we go. The expanse is outer space and the face of the expanse is the atmosphere. The birds fly across the face of the expanse i.e. across the atmosphere while the sun and stars are set in the expanse i.e. in outer space. No mention of multiple heavens here. Now to go look for that layer of ice ....

The NRSV translates the KJV "firmament" as "dome" and that is even more accurate than "expanse" for it says what it is an expanse of.

You are entirely right except for the reference to outer space. Outer space is a modern concept. Biblically the sun, moon and stars are indeed set in the firmament/expanse/dome/heaven, which over-arches and encloses the sub-lunar atmosphere. But that expanse was not thought of as empty space, but as a substance which filled space.

Here is the universe as it was thought to be for most of the history of the church -- over 1500 years.

This is what Greek philosophers like Aristotle and Ptolemy worked out and the Church accepted as a correct model of the universe all through the Middle Ages and into early modern times.

The earth is in the centre of course, represented by the four elements of earth, water, air and fire. And in circles around it are set the Moon, Venus, Mercury, Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn--all the planets that can be seen without the use of the telescope which had not yet been invented.

Beside the word and symbol of Saturn is the Latin word "coelu" meaning "heavens" and the circles are numbered 1-7. The ring beyond Saturn contains the constellations of the zodiac and is labelled "octavium firmamentu" or "eighth firmament" and beyond that there is a ninth and tenth heaven, with the tenth labelled "Primum mobile" or "First Mover". And outside the whole construction is the "Coelum Empirium Habitaculum Dei et Omnium Electorum" The Empyrian Heaven, the Habitation of God and All the Elect.

Now, in this vision of the cosmos those circles do not represent divisions of outer space. They represent immense hollow spheres made of the purest translucent crystal, one set inside the other from the Primum Mobile down to the Moon. According to the thinking of the time "Nature abhors a vaccum" and so every cranny of space in the universe is filled with something material until you get to God's heaven.

The Primum Mobile is so called, because it is the source of motion. Because we understand planets to orbit the sun, it is easy to think our ancestors thought of planets orbiting the earth in the same way. But they didn't. They did not think planets or the sun and moon moved at all. They only seemed to move because the hollow crystal spheres in which they were embedded revolved around the earth. And all the inner spheres took their motion from the Primum Mobile. And as they move, they vibrate and they make music. That is what the phrase "music of the spheres" refers to--the music made as these crystal spheres revolve.

Interestingly, this model, used by the church for over 1500 years, is still more modern than the biblical one, which sees at most three (not nine or ten) heavens, and is more compatible with a flat than a spherical earth. Some early Christians considered this to be a pagan model of the cosmos and opposed its acceptance by the Church. Whether they were right or not, neither the earlier biblical model, nor this model, had any place for outer space in it.

To the biblical writers and to theologians and scientists right up to 400 years ago, a firmament which took the form of a solid dome above the atmosphere was not a metaphor. It was what they believed literally existed.

Outer space is a thoroughly modern, post-Copernican idea, and cannot be read even metaphorically into the text of the bible.

OldWiseGuy · Feb 9, 2006

FreezBee said:
Let's back up a step:

Isaiah 14:12
How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

The second line here is "Helel ben Shahar" in Hebrew, which was translated "Lucipheros" ("Lightbringer") in Greek and copied into Latin as "Lucifer". The original meaning is "Shining son/child of Dawn", most likely referring to Venus, whom the Babylonians identified with the goddess Ishtar - that's what Isaiah is referring to.

The link to Satan may be taken from

Job 38:7
while the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

This verse employs the parallellism common to Semitic poetry, that is "morning stars" = "sons of God".

In Job, Satan in one of the sons of God, and apparently the most prominent of them.

We are here simply talking, not about any metaphysical being, but pure mythology, that happened to be projected upon the king of Babylon.

What does it mean that God is above the earth? Is that the same to e.g. Australians as to e.g. Europeans?

- FreezBee

One of the greatest mysteries of the bible is that WE are the metaphor. The rebellion of Lucifer is the reality that has been repeated in type from the beginning.

OldWiseGuy · Feb 9, 2006

FreezBee said:
Let's back up a step:

What does it mean that God is above the earth? Is that the same to e.g. Australians as to e.g. Europeans?

- FreezBee

The Aussies, being the good Israelites that they are, refer to Australia as 'down under', knowing where God's throne is.

oldwiseguy

tjnesbitt · Feb 10, 2006

The heaven where God lives and where all of the departed saints go is the same heaven that Paul called the third heaven, or paradise.

It was created at the same time that the earth was created in Genesis 1:1. Therefore unifying the observed natural state of the universe being about 14 billion years old and the fact that the earth is about 4 ½ billion years old. Science and the bible are both correct!

The big misunderstanding is the fact that the word "beginning" in Genesis 1:1 has nothing to do with the start of the universe! Instead, the "beginning" mentioned here speaks about the beginning of a new "age" or aion. The age of "heaven" and "earth" that we are now living in.

I also conclude that heaven and earth are similar places since they are always mentioned with similar things in them. Having been made at the same time and going to be renovated at the same time. Heaven, the "third" heaven where God lives, is a planet in the northern part of the universe.

gluadys · Feb 10, 2006

tjnesbitt said:
Heaven, the "third" heaven where God lives, is a planet in the northern part of the universe.

I am surprised to learn

1. that heaven is a planet, and
2. that the universe has a north

Dannager · Feb 11, 2006

tjnesbitt said:
Heaven, the "third" heaven where God lives, is a planet in the northern part of the universe.

Man, what? Northern part of the universe? Which way is north in space? You do know that north is defined by the earth's poles, right? And that the poles point in different directions depending on the current orientation of the earth?

Did you read Genesis One?

you are not reading this.

you are not reading this.

you are not reading this.

Legend

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Legend

you are not reading this.

you are not reading this.

Legend

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Active Member

Legend

Back in Town

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency