Examining Genesis...

[gluadys]

Well, you choose not to trust Scripture when it clearly says that the earth was created out of water and by water. There is so much water in space. Remember water was separated to create the expansion of the universe. Is space unlimited? Who knows (hard to fathom), but according to the Bible at the "edges" of the universe you will hit water. How do scientist know that the universe isn't an expansion amidst great waters?

This is a good example of a person who thinks he is reading Genesis literally when, in fact, he is interpreting it allegorically.

Was water separated to create the expansion of the universe?

The question would not even occur to anyone prior to the discoveries of Hubble on the red-shifting of the galaxies. Nor is that idea evident at all from any reading of the scriptural text standing alone.

The literal reading of Genesis 1:6-8 is that God placed a physical barrier (the firmament) between waters above it and waters below it.

In the paragraph above, the physical barrier becomes an allegory for space (in which "above" and "below" become irrelevant) and a static separation between the above and below becomes an allegory for the expansion of the universe.

In a following sentence what the bible consistently represents as the edges (or ends) of the earth become an allegory for the edges (sic) of the universe.

What is psychologically interesting about the concordist view of scripture is that this whole allegorical package is then presented as the "literal" meaning of the text when it is anything but.

On that passage it is clear that no human can move earth. If earth is to be moved by someone, it would be done by God alone who established it. That is the message of that little text.

The key word being "if". But since the one who established it and made it firm and secure is God, it makes no sense to assume that God is constantly causing it to move. He could, if he wished to, but one does not ordinarily take steps to secure the immobility of an object that one wishes to move.

So is the text true? Or does the earth move?

 

[ToxicReboMan]

First, I think what you mean by "literal" is really "historical" i.e. actual events which have particular space-time coordinates in our universe.

(One should separate the meaning of "literal" from "historical". There is a literal meaning to everything said or written, but not necessarily a reference to history. Most prose fiction, for example, can be read literally i.e. the common sense meaning of the text is the intended meaning--there is no intention that the story be an allegory. But there is no intention that it be history either.)

But one cannot divide scripture up in such a way that you can say: everything up to here is not history and everything after here is history. Non-history intrudes into history in the bible from Genesis to Revelation---all the way through.

And there are huge gray areas where it could be (at least in part) history, probably is (in part) history, but not verified by evidence as history.

Consider even such an important figure as Moses, for example. It is pretty hard to imagine the history of Israel without him. And I, for one, don't doubt that Moses existed. But we have no evidence apart from the biblical stories that there ever was such a person, and a fair bit of evidence that suggests the stories are not entirely historical. Probably we are on firm ground in holding that Moses was probably an actual historical person, but also on firm ground holding that most of the stories about him are in part or in whole legendary.

You are right, I agree, that 'historical' would be the more appropriate word for me to use instead of 'literal.'

As far as Moses....Although I happen to disagree with some of your statements, I will respect your views on this. If my faith in the historical accuracy of the Bible turns out to be unfounded, then I will shake your hand and admit you were wiser than I. Of course I believe it won't be until the King of kings returns that everything will be set straight.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Maybe there's no direct answer to your question. As gluadys and I have pointed out, you mischaracterized evolutionary creationism from the outset, so it's difficult to address your question in any meaningful way. It's like asking, "Have you stopped beating you wife?" Regardless, I took a good crack at it.
Now how about you? Where do you draw the line between interpreting Genesis literally and allegorically? Do you subscribe to a literal firmament with literal floodgates? Was Day 7 a literal day? Was the snake a literal snake? Did God literally create birds from water as it says in Genesis 1, or did He literally create them from dirt as it says in Genesis 2? Perhaps you could help shed some light on these issues and set us all straight.

Surely there are answers to my simple question. One example would be: "I don't know." TEs were not even mentioned in the questions. Quit getting all hung up over how I did or didn't characterize TEs. By doing so, you're ignoring the questions themselves.


Literal firmament. Literal day. Literal serpent. Earth created from water. Birds then created from the earth (this doesn't conflict with Gen 1 at all).

 

[ToxicReboMan]

So is the text true? Or does the earth move?

Text is true. Earth cannot be moved out of it's establishment.

 

[Dark_Lite]

So how do you account for the Earth moving through space?

 

[Mallon]

Surely there are answers to my simple question. One example would be: "I don't know." TEs were not even mentioned in the questions. Quit getting all hung up over how I did or didn't characterize TEs. By doing so, you're ignoring the questions themselves.

I'm sorry. I just thought you might first like to know what evolutionary creationists actually believe, as opposed to what you think we believe. Learning not to equate literalism with historicism is a lesson you'll first have to learn before you can understand where evolutionary creationists are coming from.

Literal firmament.

As gluadys just pointed out, a literal firmament is "a physical barrier between waters above it and waters below it." Job 37:18 describes it as " hard as a mirror of cast bronze" (even the literal meaning of the word "firmament" refers to hammered-out metal). You're certain that you believe the firmament is literally as the Bible describes it?

Literal day.

So you believe God is still at work creating? If so, then I'm with you.

Literal serpent.

So you don't think the serpent was Satan?

Earth created from water. Birds then created from the earth (this doesn't conflict with Gen 1 at all).

That's not a literal interpretation at all!

 

[ToxicReboMan]

So how do you account for the Earth moving through space?

I'm tired of answering first. You answer my question first then I will answer you.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

I'm sorry. I just thought you might first like to know what evolutionary creationists actually believe, as opposed to what you think we believe. Learning not to equate literalism with historicism is a lesson you'll first have to learn before you can understand where evolutionary creationists are coming from.

As gluadys just pointed out, a literal firmament is "a physical barrier between waters above it and waters below it." Job 37:18 describes it as " hard as a mirror of cast bronze" (even the literal meaning of the word "firmament" refers to hammered-out metal). You're certain that you believe the firmament is literally as the Bible describes it?

So you believe God is still at work creating? If so, then I'm with you.

So you don't think the serpent was Satan?

That's not a literal interpretation at all!

Same thing I said to DarkLite goes to you as well. It's your turn.

 

[Dark_Lite]

There is no specific "method" for determining which parts are literal and which parts are non-literal. But I'm sure you knew that. The determinacy comes through careful studying of both the Bible and the creation described in the Bible. All of the evidence points towards an old Earth and non-literal creation account. God is not the author of lies. Therefore we have two possibilities:

1. The creation account is not literal. Notice I did not say not wrong.

2. The findings of modern science are wrong.

2 would be an acceptable possibility if all of science did not build upon itself and provide endless evidence for an old Earth and an old universe. Therefore, we are left with 1.

My guess is that someone (not necessarily you, but someone) will interpret this answer as "putting the authority of men higher than God." My answer to that is: why would God create something where all the evidence then points to a different reading than a literal genesis. We are back to the whole thing about God not lying.

So, how do you account for the Earth moving in space and all astronomical and meteorological observations showing that we are A) not surrounded by a giant bubble/cloud of water and B) are not the center of the universe?

 

[mark kennedy]

TEs argue that not all of Genesis is meant to be taken literally. How does one know which parts of Genesis to take literally and which parts to take figuratively? Where in Genesis does the metaphorical passages end and the literal passages begin?

It doesn't end, the Bible is regarded by Theistic Evolutionists as mythology. I can't say for sure how they feel about the New Testament because they rarely talk about it. I think you are simply asking a question they would rather not answer, 'do you take the Gospel literally'? Don't take my word for it, ask them about the healing of leapers or the parting of the Red Sea. The best you can expect is a simple, 'yea, I believe it so what'. At least that's what I mostly get.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

There is no specific "method" for determining which parts are literal and which parts are non-literal. But I'm sure you knew that. The determinacy comes through careful studying of both the Bible and the creation described in the Bible. All of the evidence points towards an old Earth and non-literal creation account. God is not the author of lies. Therefore we have two possibilities:

1. The creation account is not literal. Notice I did not say not wrong.

2. The findings of modern science are wrong.

2 would be an acceptable possibility if all of science did not build upon itself and provide endless evidence for an old Earth and an old universe. Therefore, we are left with 1.

My guess is that someone (not necessarily you, but someone) will interpret this answer as "putting the authority of men higher than God." My answer to that is: why would God create something where all the evidence then points to a different reading than a literal genesis. We are back to the whole thing about God not lying.

So, how do you account for the Earth moving in space and all astronomical and meteorological observations showing that we are A) not surrounded by a giant bubble/cloud of water and B) are not the center of the universe?

Thank you for your response. If one can't trust the historical accuracy of the accounts in Genesis, then why should one trust in the historical accuracy of the accounts about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? How can you trust that these accounts are accurate and that Joseph was really a prince of Egypt? Can we trust that the Hebrews were even slaves? How trustworthy is this stuff for you?

A. Keep the context in mind. In context, it says that the earth cannot be moved from its establishment. The earth does not move out of its established orbit.


B. Oh, so whats at the edges of the universe then since you know for a fact there is no water there? Astronomers say they are just starting to see the edges of the universe. It is just too far away to see. Plus, water doesn't emit light so it would be hard to see anyway.


C. I didn't say anything about the earth being in the center of the universe.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Thank you for your response. If one can't trust the historical accuracy of the accounts in Genesis, then why should one trust in the historical accuracy of the accounts about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? How can you trust that these accounts are accurate and that Joseph was really a prince of Egypt? Can we trust that the Hebrews were even slaves? How trustworthy is this stuff for you?

Certain historical accounts in the Bible do not make claims that disagree with what is possible given the physical laws of the universe. This alone makes them far more trustworthy as literal historical accounts. Obviously everything in the Bible is true in some shape or form. I want to stress that point as much as possible. Just because something is not literal does not mean it is not true.

A. Keep the context in mind. In context, it says that the earth cannot be moved from its establishment. The earth does not move out of its established orbit.

Fair enough, although I don't know what the original Greek/Hebrew words directly translates to. But you are applying modern science here with the concept of an orbit around stars. This should be noted that you are indeed applying knowledge and concepts gained from science to a reading of the Bible. Why can you not take it further and apply it to the creation account as well?

B. Oh, so whats at the edges of the universe then since you know for a fact there is no water there? Astronomers say they are just starting to see the edges of the universe. It is just too far away to see. Plus, water doesn't emit light so it would be hard to see anyway.

We technically don't even know if the universe has boundaries or not. We can assume two general possibilities: There is a physical boundary of some sort to the universe or there is not.

Let's try a physical boundary first. Beyond it, we don't know what there is. We can say with reasonable certainty, though, that it's nothing like what we know. The laws of physics would not be there as they require our physical universe to operate. Matter is physical. Can't have that out there either. Therefore, water won't be outside the universe if the universe has a physical boundary.

If the universe is infinite, then this water would be contained with it. Space is a freezing vacuum. We would be surrounded by a giant sphere of ever-expanding ice. Where do all these extra water molecules come from to keep up with the expanding surface area of this icy sphere?

Again, you should also note that you are in a sense applying modern scientific knowledge to the Bible's account. The Bible, through a plain literal reading, assumes that the firmament was directly above the Earth, not trillions and trillions of lightyears away at the edge of the universe.

C. I didn't say anything about the earth being in the center of the universe.

Ok.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Certain historical accounts in the Bible do not make claims that disagree with what is possible given the physical laws of the universe. This alone makes them far more trustworthy as literal historical accounts. Obviously everything in the Bible is true in some shape or form. I want to stress that point as much as possible. Just because something is not literal does not mean it is not true.

Possible? All things are possible with God.

Fair enough, although I don't know what the original Greek/Hebrew words directly translates to. But you are applying modern science here with the concept of an orbit around stars. This should be noted that you are indeed applying knowledge and concepts gained from science to a reading of the Bible. Why can you not take it further and apply it to the creation account as well?

Sure. Adam and Eve were created from the dust of the earth. Holy Scripture has proclaimed this truth long before science proclaimed it.

We technically don't even know if the universe has boundaries or not. We can assume two general possibilities: There is a physical boundary of some sort to the universe or there is not.

Let's try a physical boundary first. Beyond it, we don't know what there is. We can say with reasonable certainty, though, that it's nothing like what we know. The laws of physics would not be there as they require our physical universe to operate. Matter is physical. Can't have that out there either. Therefore, water won't be outside the universe if the universe has a physical boundary.

Your problem is you don't understand what is meant by 'universe'. The universe is the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space. That is the accepted definition of the universe.

If the universe is infinite, then this water would be contained with it. Space is a freezing vacuum. We would be surrounded by a giant sphere of ever-expanding ice. Where do all these extra water molecules come from to keep up with the expanding surface area of this icy sphere?

Apparently, you don't know that liquid water exists in great abundance in outer space.

Again, you should also note that you are in a sense applying modern scientific knowledge to the Bible's account. The Bible, through a plain literal reading, assumes that the firmament was directly above the Earth, not trillions and trillions of lightyears away at the edge of the universe.

The Bible doesn't give any measurements by cubit on the distance of the firmament either way.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Possible? All things are possible with God.

All things that are logically possible. God can't create an married bachelor. And while it is logically possible for him to have created the world this way, the evidence does not agree.

Your problem is you don't understand what is meant by 'universe'. The universe is the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space. That is the accepted definition of the universe.

I'm aware of what "universe" means. I'm telling you why there can't be a giant sphere of frozen water in it, or outside of it.

Apparently, you don't know that liquid water exists in great abundance in outer space.

Not in the form of a giant icy sphere that somehow is continuously expanding to fit the entirety of the universe into it.

 

[Mallon]

A. Keep the context in mind. In context, it says that the earth cannot be moved from its establishment. The earth does not move out of its established orbit.

But the Bible doesn't say that, so it's not a literal interpretation.
In fact, the Bible tells us what the earth is established on. It sits on pillars (Job 9:6, Pslam 75:3). Other verses tell us that the earth is established on water (Psalm 24:2, 136:6).
So to say that the Bible is referring to the earth's orbit is a very non-literal interpretation to make. In which case, you have to ask yourself, where do you take the Bible literally, and where do you not? Like I said, the very same question you think evolutionary creationists can't answer applies to you as well.

Anyway, if you're going to continue to insist that you interpret the Bible literally, whereby the firmament (in which Gen 1:20 tells us the birds fly) means outer-space and the pillars of the earth refer to our planet's orbit, then I just don't see a point continuing here because you don't seem honestly interested in truly examining your hermeneutic. It seems you'd rather give evolutionary creationists a hard time about the speck in their eye rather than acknowledge the log in yours.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

All things that are logically possible. God can't create an married bachelor. And while it is logically possible for him to have created the world this way, the evidence does not agree.



I'm aware of what "universe" means. I'm telling you why there can't be a giant sphere of frozen water in it, or outside of it.



Not in the form of a giant icy sphere that somehow is continuously expanding to fit the entirety of the universe into it.

You made that up not me.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

But the Bible doesn't say that, so it's not a literal interpretation.
In fact, the Bible tells us what the earth is established on. It sits on pillars (Job 9:6, Pslam 75:3). Other verses tell us that the earth is established on water (Psalm 24:2, 136:6).
So to say that the Bible is referring to the earth's orbit is a very non-literal interpretation to make. In which case, you have to ask yourself, where do you take the Bible literally, and where do you not? Like I said, the very same question you think evolutionary creationists can't answer applies to you as well.

Anyway, if you're going to continue to insist that you interpret the Bible literally, whereby the firmament (in which Gen 1:20 tells us the birds fly) means outer-space and the pillars of the earth refer to our planet's orbit, then I just don't see a point continuing here because you don't seem honestly interested in truly examining your hermeneutic. It seems you'd rather give evolutionary creationists a hard time about the speck in their eye rather than acknowledge the log in yours.

Wow, so now I have a log in my eye? If I'm not careful I may fall into a ditch.

 

[Dark_Lite]

You made that up not me.

You are saying there is a firmament of water that encapsulates the universe. I am drawing from it those implications and using it to show you why it's not possible. If it's outside the physical universe as we know it, we can't possibly describe it as of being water because water is matter which exists only inside the physical universe. If it's inside the physical universe (which it must be, being water), then it's a giant, hallow sphere of frozen water that sits on the boundaries of space. Being in space is what causes it to be frozen. Since the universe is expanding, this sphere must be expanding to go with it, or else we'd collide with a giant wall of ice. Since there isn't a conceivable way for this ice sphere to be expanding, I don't see how a firmament can exist at all.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

You are saying there is a firmament of water that encapsulates the universe. I am drawing from it those implications and using it to show you why it's not possible. If it's outside the physical universe as we know it, we can't possibly describe it as of being water because water is matter which exists only inside the physical universe. If it's inside the physical universe (which it must be, being water), then it's a giant, hallow sphere of frozen water that sits on the boundaries of space. Being in space is what causes it to be frozen. Since the universe is expanding, this sphere must be expanding to go with it, or else we'd collide with a giant wall of ice. Since there isn't a conceivable way for this ice sphere to be expanding, I don't see how a firmament can exist at all.

Of course it would be within the physical universe. It wouldn't be apart of some imaginary unphysical universe. Physical universe is redundant.

And you keep insisting that this water would have to be some type of icy sphere. But that is not the case.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/milkyway_water_010412.html

 

[Dark_Lite]

That article specifically says the temperature of those water molecules are -441 degrees Fahrenheit. It even specifically mentions the following about liquid water:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]On the other hand, water in liquid form does not exist in space because the temperature and pressure conditions are not suitable.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]

[/FONT]So.. uh, how does that help your case?

Of course there is water in space. What I am telling you is that it's not a "firmament." Nor is it liquid. It's either gaseous or frozen.