Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What part of the earth is stretched out above the waters?
The only thing I can think of is the earths Atmosphere, and perhaps any land that is above sea level.
Jazer said:The reference is considered to be talking about springs of water that come up out of the earth. Now with the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift it is believed that the land of the earth may actually sit on water. So David 3000 years ago could be talking about what is very modern science today.
Science gives us a way to test the Bible to see that the Bible is true. But science is not always up to the job. For example the Bible talks about a bottomless pit. If you go by Newton theory of gravity then the bottom would be the center of the earth. But if you go by Einsteins theory, then indeed there is no bottom.The truth of the Bible is spiritual and not scientific truth, and it is pointless to try and make it so.
Jazer said:Science gives us a way to test the Bible to see that the Bible is true. But science is not always up to the job. For example the Bible talks about a bottomless pit. If you go by Newton theory of gravity then the bottom would be the center of the earth. But if you go by Einsteins theory, then indeed there is no bottom.
Both will be discussed in the same biology books, perhaps even in the same chapter. That doesn't make them the same theory.
I'm saying we know the creation events occurred as described in Genesis 1 but we do not know all the scientific details. We can only form theories about those details, and admittedly we do NOT know which theory, IF ANY is correct.
The reference is considered to be talking about springs of water that come up out of the earth. Now with the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift it is believed that the land of the earth may actually sit on water. So David 3000 years ago could be talking about what is very modern science today.
So people say. The theory of evolution is the theory of change. Are you suggesting that there is some point where things don't change or something? Others seem confused as well.
http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/spring05/scalo/lectures/309L-2DOrigin-of-Life.pdf
Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life
A third theory of lifes origin is known as chemical evolution.
You completely evaded the point. I am not arguing the veracity of Genesis. I simply pointing out that by your own admission, including the post above, people do not know which interpretation of the Bible is correct. It's the strangest thing it's like you keep saying "You're wrong but everything you said is completely correct."
Let's review. Scientists have several theories on how the moon was formed because they admittedly do NOT know which theory, IF ANY is correct. You then compared that to the differing interpretations Christians have of Genesis. So, now you're saying that your comparison wasn't accurate, then?
Perhaps you would like to read this artical to see how water is involved in plate tectonics:The plate tectonic theory does not support in the least that they sit on water, nor has it ever. In fact no geophysical theory or even hypothesis supports any such nonsense.
I had a dream where I was falling in a bottomless pit when I was a child in grade school. That is why later when I heard about the bottomless pit in the Bible I was interested to learn something about it.The "pit" is synonymous with the abyss
Not exactly, Jazer. The world view at the time of Genesis was that the Earth stood on columns above the waters.
There was more water vapor in the sky.The waters also resided above the heavens.
Vapor condenses and water also came from below.In times such as the flood, the waters came from both above and below.
The dead are indeed joined with the earth. It may not so much be that they are at the center of the earth as much as the earth is their center of existence. Those who are saved, are joined with God in a spiritual place. Not at all in dirt.A careful reading of Genesis bears this out. Some Psalms also rederence this world view. BTW, the abyss--the place of the dead--was located at the center of the earth.
You just did explain it quite well. Those were very fine points.The truth of the Bible is spiritual and not scientific truth, and it is pointless to try and make it so.
Perhaps you would like to read this artical to see how water is involved in plate tectonics:
(PhysOrg.com) -- New Zealand is the site of one of the worlds youngest subduction zones, where the Pacific Plate of Earths crust dives beneath the Australian Plate. Now, a University of Utah study shows how water deep underground helps the subduction zone mature and paves the way for it to generate powerful earthquakes.
Shaking the Earth: How Water Helps Tectonic Plates Slide in New Zealand
I understand what you are saying and I admit that I agree with what you are saying. The part I disagree with is that in the greater sense of evolution, we are talking about biological evolution; how life changes over time, not chemical evolution which had to occur to the point were life first appeared, abiogenesis.
If you are referring to my theory, that’s like saying “people don't know which interpretation of God's eyeballs is correct, therefore people don't know who God is”.You completely evaded the point. I am not arguing the veracity of Genesis. I simply pointing out that by your own admission, including the post above, people do not know which interpretation of the Bible is correct.
Again, you are being dishonest by accusing me of this. I never said my theory is completely correct, or even correct. That's why I call it a theory, one of many possible explanations.It's the strangest thing it's like you keep saying "You're wrong but everything you said is completely correct."
Noah's flood confirmed.
No. I don't know what you're making up there. I never said anything of the sort.If you are referring to my theory, thats like saying people don't know which interpretation of God's eyeballs is correct, therefore people don't know who God is.
Really? So, you know which interpretation of Genesis is the correct one?We may not know the hidden details of Genesis 1, but we do know of the details that are revealed, and they are quite self explanatory.
The point remains that either:My theory is about what is not revealed, which may or may not be correct. You are taking my theory more seriously than I am.
Again, you are being dishonest by accusing me of this. I never said my theory is completely correct, or even correct. That's why I call it a theory, one of many possible explanations.
So again, which interpretation of Genesis is correct?In addition, I am more in agreement with YEC theory than I am with Big Bang theory.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?