Examining Genesis...

[ToxicReboMan]

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



[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font][/font][/size][/font]So.. uh, how does that help your case?

It doesn't.

Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | Water fountains in the sky

However, this other website does say that H20 does exist in space.

CBC News In Depth: Water water everywhere

If there is enough water the pressure alone would keep it from freezing. Have you ever heard of heavy water?

 

[Dark_Lite]

No one is debating that water is in space. What I am telling you is that there is no liquid water in space because it's either in the form of a gas or frozen. It does not surround everything like the firmament is said to. There are isolated regions where there is water. Just like there are isolated regions where there is everything else.

The second article talks about water on a planet. That water is not in space. It is on a planet, which itself is in space.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

"He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters" Psalms 104:3

"Praise Him, highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens!" Psalms 148:4

 

[Dark_Lite]

"He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters" Psalms 104:3

"Praise Him, highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens!" Psalms 148:4

Alright, so now you've moved on to the Scriptures. I point you to Genesis 1:20 about birds flying in the firmament.

I must depart for now. I will be back later.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Alright, so now you've moved on to the Scriptures. I point you to Genesis 1:20 about birds flying in the firmament.

I must depart for now. I will be back later.

Yes in the firmament of the heavens. Heaven is compromised of 3 parts according to the Bible. 1. One heaven is the air we breathe 2. The second heaven is where the sun moon and stars are located. 3. The third heaven is the throne of God

 

[gluadys]

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?

Hmmm. A lot of conversation in this thread since I last checked it.


What does "trust" mean? Does it mean "know with certainty"? No, if we knew with certainty, we would not need to trust. When you trust someone to keep a promise or entrust valuables to someone, you do not know with certainty that the promise will be kept or the valuables not stolen. To trust means to believe or act knowing that you are taking a risk that your trust is misplaced. That risk may be minimal or it may be considerable, but there is always some level of uncertainty or the word "trust" has lost its meaning.

We do not know, and may never know, with certainty that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Joseph were actual historical people. The same applies to many other characters in the bible such as Moses, Joshua, Deborah, Samuel, Jesus and the apostles. There are very few people in the biblical stories for which we have evidence of their existence. Most are in the New Testament and are important officials: King Herod, Herod Antipas, King Agrippa, Pontius Pilate. A few are in the Old Testament: King Hezekiah of Judah, King Omri of Israel. That is not a complete list, but there are not many more names that can be added to it.


For all the others, we have only the bible as a witness to their existence. So are we justified in trusting that they did exist? That is when we have to make an estimate of probability. Take Joseph, for example. Was he a prince of Egypt? We don't know for certain, but history suggests that this is not such a far-fetched idea as it would appear on the surface. For there was a period in Egyptian history when its Pharoahs were not Egyptian, but a Semitic people known as the Hyksos. It is possible that a fellow-Semite, Joseph, could rise to high rank in a Hyksos administration. The observation in Exodus, that there arose a king "who did not know Joseph" may refer to the kings who reigned after the Egyptians expelled the Hyksos and regained their kingdom.

Now there are a lot of reasons why some people see this scenario as too contrived. It's a long time since I first heard it and archeological research may have contradicted it by now. So one cannot say strictly that this is evidence of the historicity of Joseph. Indeed, that would probably be a bad strategy, for then, if it is falsified, you have, by proxy, falsified the bible.

So one way or another, the only thing you can do is trust--take a risk--that much of the bible is historically reliable.

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.

And keep all the context in mind. As noted, when the bible speaks of the earth being established, it speaks of pillars, water, foundations.

So then, if you agree that the earth actually orbits the sun, you have to understand "pillars" "waters" "foundations" etc. as an allegorical reference to "orbit".

Hence, you have rejected the literal meaning of these texts.

Now, the follow-up question is "Why do you reject the literal meaning of these texts?"

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.

No one knows for a fact that there is no water at the edges of the universe because no one knows for a fact that the universe has edges. The universe may be -- in the words of Einstein -- finite but unbounded.

Possible? All things are possible with God.

True, but not when God is respecting the physical laws of the universe--as is the case with ordinary providence. To do what is not possible given the physical laws of the universe, God would have to suspend those laws.

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

Not liquid water. Liquid water is found, if at all, on the surface of planets, not in outer space.

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

True, but we can infer that it is not a great distance from Genesis 11. The projected tower was to reach to heaven. Clearly the builders considered it close enough to reach in this fashion.

We also know from several ancient near east sources that mountains were thought to be pillars of heaven, holding up the sky. (Again, this indicates that they considered the sky to be solid and in need of support.) There is also a biblical reference to the pillars of heaven (Job 26:11) though it does not specify that the pillars are mountains.

If there is enough water the pressure alone would keep it from freezing.

But if it is out on the edges of an expanding universe the pressure would be continually decreasing as it spread out over a larger circumference. And then it would freeze unless there is a continual source of new water to maintain the pressure.

Have you ever heard of heavy water?

Heavy water has nothing to do with pressure. It is water in which there is a significant concentration of water molecules made with deuterium. Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen which has two neutrons instead of just one, and so weighs more than the usual hydrogen atoms. Hence water that incorporates a lot of deuterium is "heavy water".

Heavy water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Hmmm. A lot of conversation in this thread since I last checked it.


What does "trust" mean? Does it mean "know with certainty"? No, if we knew with certainty, we would not need to trust. When you trust someone to keep a promise or entrust valuables to someone, you do not know with certainty that the promise will be kept or the valuables not stolen. To trust means to believe or act knowing that you are taking a risk that your trust is misplaced. That risk may be minimal or it may be considerable, but there is always some level of uncertainty or the word "trust" has lost its meaning.

We do not know, and may never know, with certainty that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob or Joseph were actual historical people. The same applies to many other characters in the bible such as Moses, Joshua, Deborah, Samuel, Jesus and the apostles. There are very few people in the biblical stories for which we have evidence of their existence. Most are in the New Testament and are important officials: King Herod, Herod Antipas, King Agrippa, Pontius Pilate. A few are in the Old Testament: King Hezekiah of Judah, King Omri of Israel. That is not a complete list, but there are not many more names that can be added to it.


For all the others, we have only the bible as a witness to their existence. So are we justified in trusting that they did exist? That is when we have to make an estimate of probability. Take Joseph, for example. Was he a prince of Egypt? We don't know for certain, but history suggests that this is not such a far-fetched idea as it would appear on the surface. For there was a period in Egyptian history when its Pharoahs were not Egyptian, but a Semitic people known as the Hyksos. It is possible that a fellow-Semite, Joseph, could rise to high rank in a Hyksos administration. The observation in Exodus, that there arose a king "who did not know Joseph" may refer to the kings who reigned after the Egyptians expelled the Hyksos and regained their kingdom.

Now there are a lot of reasons why some people see this scenario as too contrived. It's a long time since I first heard it and archeological research may have contradicted it by now. So one cannot say strictly that this is evidence of the historicity of Joseph. Indeed, that would probably be a bad strategy, for then, if it is falsified, you have, by proxy, falsified the bible.

So one way or another, the only thing you can do is trust--take a risk--that much of the bible is historically reliable.

Very well. This is your perspective. It just doesn't seem consistent for me to pick which parts of the Bible to trust and which parts to doubt. It's like going to a buffet line and picking and choosing what to digest. I believe Adam and Eve were real people. I believe Job was a real person. I believe Moses parted the Red Sea. I believe Daniel was saved from the lion's den etc..

The Bible is full of miracles. Science will never ever back these miracles, because they require faith in God.

And keep all the context in mind. As noted, when the bible speaks of the earth being established, it speaks of pillars, water, foundations.

So then, if you agree that the earth actually orbits the sun, you have to understand "pillars" "waters" "foundations" etc. as an allegorical reference to "orbit".

Hence, you have rejected the literal meaning of these texts.

Now, the follow-up question is "Why do you reject the literal meaning of these texts?"

No, orbit does not need to be forced into the text anywhere. See, you're looking for why "orbit" doesn't fit into the text to possibly discredit related verses and passages and books which give historical accounts. And I'm saying that the text itself does not have to be about "orbit" at all for it to be accurate.

No one knows for a fact that there is no water at the edges of the universe because no one knows for a fact that the universe has edges. The universe may be -- in the words of Einstein -- finite but unbounded.

I believe many astronomers consider the 'edges' of the universe to be where the stars, nebulae, and galaxies cease to be. This is because, they have not seen past the farthest stars to discover the "void or empty space" which is anticipated to be beyond the farthest stars and galaxies.

I don't know whether outer space is finite or infinite. Infinity is just impossible for me to truly wrap my mind around. These are mysteries of God no doubt.

True, but not when God is respecting the physical laws of the universe--as is the case with ordinary providence. To do what is not possible given the physical laws of the universe, God would have to suspend those laws.

I don't believe God is required to respect the physical laws of the universe as we do. If anything the laws of the universe respect God. What about when Jesus was performing his miracles? These miracles go against the "scientific" train of thought. We know that science cannot back up these miracles at all. Faith is what is important to Christ...not 'scientific' evidence.

Not liquid water. Liquid water is found, if at all, on the surface of planets, not in outer space.

Great gas clouds of water could become liquid under certain circumstances. The universe is so vast and complex, that people are still trying to learn the laws of the universe. You simply can't rule that out. We haven't been able to search every nook and cranny. Obviously, not even close. There is so much more out there which I believe remains to be discovered.

True, but we can infer that it is not a great distance from Genesis 11. The projected tower was to reach to heaven. Clearly the builders considered it close enough to reach in this fashion.

We also know from several ancient near east sources that mountains were thought to be pillars of heaven, holding up the sky. (Again, this indicates that they considered the sky to be solid and in need of support.) There is also a biblical reference to the pillars of heaven (Job 26:11) though it does not specify that the pillars are mountains.

Yes, these pillars mentioned in Job do not have to necessarily be ascribed to anything on earth, such as mountains. It could be that there are indeed pillars of heaven. Who is to say? Certainly, there is no reason for a follower of Christ to rule such a thing out.

But if it is out on the edges of an expanding universe the pressure would be continually decreasing as it spread out over a larger circumference. And then it would freeze unless there is a continual source of new water to maintain the pressure.

Remember, there is still so much out there that is undiscovered or not understood. There could be great pressures out there we don't know about.

Heavy water has nothing to do with pressure. It is water in which there is a significant concentration of water molecules made with deuterium. Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen which has two neutrons instead of just one, and so weighs more than the usual hydrogen atoms. Hence water that incorporates a lot of deuterium is "heavy water".

Heavy water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't mean that heavy water does anything to affect pressure. I brought it up to point out that it occurs naturally throughout the universe. There is heavy water in all bodies of water, albeit in small quantities.

Apparently, heavy water (D2O) is drinkable as well. (Which I found interesting.)

 

[gluadys]

Very well. This is your perspective. It just doesn't seem consistent for me to pick which parts of the Bible to trust and which parts to doubt.

Oh, I agree. The problem here is not that we are in disagreement, but that you have been told that an evolutionary creationist has to pick and choose what parts of the bible to believe. That is not the case. We believe all the bible, just like you. We believe some of it is history, just like you, and some of it is not, just like you. We believe some of it is best grasped through a literal reading, just like you, and some of it is only truly understood when one takes into account the figurative meanings, just like you.

The disagreement is more over when to understand a passage one way rather than another.

The Bible is full of miracles. Science will never ever back these miracles, because they require faith in God.

Science will never explain a miracle because, by definition, there is no scientific explanation. But plenty of scientists are people of faith. Science doesn't insist that miracles never happen--only that they don't happen naturally, so they are not something science can describe or predict. Science is in the business of figuring out what does happen naturally and describing that.

For a believer the more important point is to recognize that God is God, and God is present in power in everything natural just as much as in everything beyond nature. For God, there is neither more nor less exertion in sending an ordinary spring rain than in saving Daniel from hungry lions. It is our weakness that we do not see God in the falling rain as clearly as we see God in miracles. The problem is not God's absence, but our blindness.

Everything science is able to tell us about is just as much a work of God as the things it cannot tell us about.

No, orbit does not need to be forced into the text anywhere. See, you're looking for why "orbit" doesn't fit into the text to possibly discredit related verses and passages and books which give historical accounts. And I'm saying that the text itself does not have to be about "orbit" at all for it to be accurate.

I am not trying to discredit anything. I am simply pointing out that when you interpret the text as referring to the earth in orbit, you are saying the text is not to be understood literally, but figuratively. The literal meaning of "pillars" is not "orbit". The literal meaning of "waters" is not "orbit". The literal meaning of "established ... on foundations" is not "moving in an orbit through space". To give any of these words a meaning that refers to the earth's orbit is to use a figurative or allegorical meaning, not a literal meaning.

So again, the follow-up question.

Why do you reject the literal meaning and say we ought to interpret these verses about the earth figuratively?

I believe many astronomers consider the 'edges' of the universe to be where the stars, nebulae, and galaxies cease to be. This is because, they have not seen past the farthest stars to discover the "void or empty space" which is anticipated to be beyond the farthest stars and galaxies.

Not by a long shot. When the Deep Space Telescope focuses on an apparently dark and empty part of the sky, it just finds more and more and more galaxies as far as the eye can see. The real limit of our knowledge is not the edge of the universe per se, but the edge of what we can see, given how far light can have traveled since the beginning of the universe. And that might be a very small corner of the universe.

I don't believe God is required to respect the physical laws of the universe as we do. If anything the laws of the universe respect God.

Of course. But that doesn't mean God goes around breaking the very laws he made the universe to run on every day without a significant reason. A good king abides by his own laws. A wise king makes things happen by establishing and using wise laws whenever possible, not by acting outside the laws.

Even some "miracles" (in a manner of speaking) happen within natural laws. A news story here last month spoke of a baby who wriggled out of her mother's arms and fell from an eighth-story balcony---and lived. Some would say that was a "miracle". But God did not suspend the law of gravity to make it happen. And there are plenty of people, including children, who are dead because God does not suspend the law of gravity every time someone falls from a roof or tree or cliff.

Yes, the laws of the universe respect God, because they derive from God. But God also, most of the time, respects the laws of the universe as well. If he didn't we could not count on any of the regularities of nature like summer and winter, seedtime and harvest, and so on.

Great gas clouds of water could become liquid under certain circumstances. The universe is so vast and complex, that people are still trying to learn the laws of the universe. You simply can't rule that out. We haven't been able to search every nook and cranny. Obviously, not even close. There is so much more out there which I believe remains to be discovered.

You can't rule out invisible pink unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, pixies in the garden or teacups orbiting Saturn either. That is why science doesn't accept theories without positive evidence. "We haven't seen everything yet, so it might exist somewhere" is not a practical basis for doing science.

It is also why scientific conclusions are provisional. Maybe one day the evidence you hope for will turn up. Scientists will deal with that if and when it happens.

Yes, these pillars mentioned in Job do not have to necessarily be ascribed to anything on earth, such as mountains. It could be that there are indeed pillars of heaven. Who is to say? Certainly, there is no reason for a follower of Christ to rule such a thing out.

If you think of heaven as some place in another dimension, maybe. But that would be going well beyond the literal meaning of scripture again. The point of having heaven (the sky) on pillars is to keep it from falling onto the earth.

There is heavy water in all bodies of water, albeit in small quantities.

Apparently, heavy water (D2O) is drinkable as well. (Which I found interesting.)

Since some proportion of all water is heavy water, it had better be drinkable.

 

[Nobody1]

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?

Genesis is both literal and metaphorical, as is the rest of creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

Allegorists generally take Genesis 1-11 allegorically.

I read Genesis as literally as I read the newspaper.

 

[Assyrian]

Even the cartoons? QV

 

[crawfish]

Allegorists generally take Genesis 1-11 allegorically.

I read Genesis as literally as I read the newspaper.

Thank goodness for the op ed section.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank goodness for the op ed section.

LOL ---

 

[ToxicReboMan]

"But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female." Mark 10:6 nasb

Jesus quotes Genesis as if it were literal historical fact. Adam and Eve were created in the beginning and not billions of years later.

 

[ToxicReboMan]

"..from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation." Luke 11:51 nasb

The blood of Abel? Is Jesus taking Genesis as literal historical fact again?

 

[metherion]

Or could it possibly be Jesus was using the holy books of the people and the knowledge they have at the time to explain theological points to them instead of wading thru days, months, years of explaining science that they weren't ready for, had not the tools to test or discover, and which had nothing to do with the points He was trying to make?

Metherion

 

[ToxicReboMan]

"And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all." Luke 17:26-27 nasb

 

[ToxicReboMan]

Or could it possibly be Jesus was using the holy books of the people and the knowledge they have at the time to explain theological points to them instead of wading thru days, months, years of explaining science that they weren't ready for, had not the tools to test or discover, and which had nothing to do with the points He was trying to make?

Metherion

I don't believe Jesus would mislead us just to make a point. And you say his quotes have nothing to do with the point he was trying to make, but you are wrong. Why would he bring them up if they had nothing to do with His teachings?

Who said Jesus was trying to explain science? You said it, not me. He quoted Genesis as literal historical fact to make His point. So in effect, He is explaining Genesis too.

 

[metherion]

I don't believe Jesus would mislead us just to make a point. And you say his quotes have nothing to do with the point he was trying to make, but you are wrong. Why would he bring them up if they had nothing to do with His teachings?

Who said Jesus was trying to explain science? You said it, not me. He quoted Genesis as literal historical fact to make His point. So in effect, He is explaining Genesis too.

But He's not misleading us. He's using tales available to everyone to explain His point. Every Jew old enough to understand the point He was trying to make about marriage knew of the Adam and Eve tale. Note He didn't say "God created them male and female, named the man Adam, and let him name his wife Eve, in the garden of Eden", He said "God created them". MOUNTAIN of difference between the two.

Why would He bring them if if they have nothing to do with His point? They have things to do with His point. They give a point to relate to. A touchstone to relate to to get His point. The OT is part of the Bible, as is the NT. Anyone with access to a full Bible (as opposed to those little books that have only the Gospels or the NT in them) will also have access to these tales.

He's not misleading us any more than Aesop's fables telling us of a race between a rabbit and a hare misleads children. Can hares talk? Can turtles talk? Can they understand the concept of a race? Does that matter to the point of 'slow and steady work will get the job done faster than getting ahead and leaving it alone, sure you'll finish when you need to but not actually accomplishing anything'? No, not really.

The ancients didn't understand a lot about science in a lot of respects. Definitely not a full scale understanding of modern astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, biology, geology, etc. The idea that because Jesus used parts of the Holy Books that HE, being part of the TRUINE GOD, INSPIRED IN THE FIRST PLACE, to get His point across to the very people He'd been inspiring the books to, they must be literally and scientifically true is rather ridiculous. He would know infinitely better than us exactly how they would understand what He gave them. He would know exactly what to say to get them to relate to the lessons He was giving. No?

He did not reference Genesis as literal, historical fact. He used points from Genesis to provide examples of a) teachings on marriage, b) accountability, and c) the state of things upon His return. Nothing about it being literal or historical is necessary for those lessons to reference the Holy Book He'd previous given to the Jews.


Metherion

 

[Assyrian]

"But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female." Mark 10:6 nasb

Jesus quotes Genesis as if it were literal historical fact. Adam and Eve were created in the beginning and not billions of years later.

I think you may be taking this out of context, Jesus is talking about people and human relationships, not how the earth was created. Was Jesus talking about God making mankind? Or making the planet? He does not even mention the earth in the passage, the whole context is God's plan for humans. That seem to be the way Matthew took it, Matt 19:4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female. Jesus was talking about the beginning of God's creation of the human race, not the planet.

Then there is the question of Jesus quoting Genesis as if it were literal historical fact. Actually he quotes Genesis as if the story of man's creation was meant as a lesson about marriage. That sounds more like an allegorical interpretation to me. Look at the next verse from Genesis that is quoted. Mark 10:7 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and they shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What was the one flesh in Genesis? It was Eve being made from Adam rib, 'bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh'. Yet if we take it literally, making Eve from Adam rib is very different a man and wife being joined in sexual union. Yet apparently Eve being one flesh with Adam by being made from his rib is supposed to be seen as a picture of marriage and sex. That is a highly allegorical interpretation of the story of Eve's creation from Adam's rib, yet it is an allegorical interpretation we find in the Genesis account itself, and Jesus himself takes up as does Paul. In fact this allegorical interpretation is probably the most quoted verse from Genesis in the NT.

"..from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation." Luke 11:51 nasb

The blood of Abel? Is Jesus taking Genesis as literal historical fact again?

First century Jews were really going to be held responsible for Cain murdering his brother? Are you sure Jesus is being strictly literal here and not using a bit of hyperbole? In the same passage in Matthew, Jesus also told the scribes and Pharisees they were blind guides who swallowed camels Matt 23:24. Incidentally the way the OT canon was arranged at that time, 2Chronicles which contains the story of Zechariah's martyrdom was at the end of the OT and Genesis was at the beginning, making Abel and Zechariah the equivalent of the A-Z of OT crimes. Jesus was saying the Jews would in the modern phrase 'have the book thrown at them', that they were no different from all the murderous evil they read about in the OT but were rather its ultimate manifestation, the vineyard tenants murdering not just the king's servants but even his son. But he was not speaking literally. To condemn first century Jews for a murder committed long before there were was a nation of Israel would be simply unjust.

"And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all." Luke 17:26-27 nasb

Personally I don't have any problem with the flood being a real event, I just think the idea of a global flood is a misinterpretation of a text written at a time when no one had any concept of the world even being a globe. Certainly nothing Jesus says here suggests the flood was global.

I don't believe Jesus would mislead us just to make a point. And you say his quotes have nothing to do with the point he was trying to make, but you are wrong. Why would he bring them up if they had nothing to do with His teachings?

Have you read the gospels? People misunderstood Jesus all the time. They thought he said they were to practice cannibalism, they thought he said he was going to rebuild the temple in three days. Misunderstanding Jesus goes with being a disciple, we can never assume our misunderstandings must be right because 'Jesus would not mislead us'.

Who said Jesus was trying to explain science? You said it, not me. He quoted Genesis as literal historical fact to make His point. So in effect, He is explaining Genesis too.

And explained it as an allegorical lesson on marriage and a warnings about judgment.