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.
Where did you prove this?because I’ve already proven that the people at that time were capable of understanding the concept of billions of years.
Obviously there are other Hebrew translators that disagree with you. You’re quoting Hebrew scholars, I’m quoting Hebrew scholars, neither one of us are Hebrew scholars so it’s a moot point. Let me ask you this, what is the Hebrew word for a dome that isn’t solid? Did they even have such a word yet? Honestly I’m surprised the word dome even existed back then as they were probably a pretty uncommon shape back then and finding such an object that was not solid would’ve been even more unlikely.You gave an explanation? Where? What was it? Can you please be specific (not vague) about it? Spell it out, please.
"expanse" is an incorrect translation of Heb. "Rakia" which the LXX renders "firmament" (as in KJV and LV) which is a solid dome, ceiling, or tent. It is translated "expanse" (and affirmed in many commentaries) only to accommodate modern science and modern cosmology. These two commentaries are more accurate IMO (taken from Bible Hub):
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers:
(6) A firmament.—This is the Latin translation of the Greek word used by the translators of the Septuagint Version. Undoubtedly it means something solid; and such was the idea of the Greeks, and probably also of the Hebrews. As such it appears in the poetry of the Bible, where it is described as a mighty vault of molten glass (Job 37:18), upheld by the mountains as pillars (Job 26:11; 2Samuel 22:8), and having doors and lattices through which the Deity pours forth abundance (Genesis 7:11; Psalm 78:23). Even in this “Hymn of Creation” we have poetry, but not expressed in vivid metaphors, but in sober and thoughtful language. Here, therefore, the word rendered “firmament” means an expanse. If, as geologists tell us, the earth at this stage was an incandescent mass, this expanse would be the ring of equilibrium, where the heat supplied from below was exactly equal to that given off by radiation into the cold ether above. And gradually this would sink lower and lower, until finally it reached the surface of the earth; and at this point the work of the second day would be complete.
Ellicott clearly states that rakia is solid, but concedes to modern geological theory.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges:
6–8. The Firmament of the Heaven
6. Let there be … waters] The work of the “second day” is the creation of the so-called “firmament” of heaven. The Hebrews had no conception of an infinite ethereal space. The vault of heaven was to them a solid arched, or vaulted, structure, resting upon the pillars of the earth (Job 26:11). On the top of this dome were the reservoirs of “the waters above the heaven,” which supplied the rain and the dew. Beneath the earth were other reservoirs of waters, which were the sources of the seas, lakes, rivers and springs. After the creation of light the next creative act was, according to the Hebrew cosmogony, the division of the primaeval watery abyss, by means of a solid partition which is here denoted by the word rendered “firmament.” The waters are above it and below it.
a firmament] This word reproduces the Lat. firmamentum; LXX στερέωμα. The Hebrew râqîa denotes (see Heb. Lex.) “extended surface, (solid) expanse” (as if beaten out; cf. Job 37:18). For the verb raq‘a=beat, or spread, out, cf. Exodus 39:3, Numbers 17:4, Jeremiah 10:4, Ezekiel 1:22, “and over the head of the living creatures there was the likeness of a firmament … stretched forth over their heads above.” Compare Job 37:18, “canst thou with him spread out (tarqi‘a) the sky which is strong as a molten mirror?” See Psalm 19:1; Psalm 150:1, Daniel 12:3, where “firmament” = sky.
From Dr Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, by kind permission of Messrs T. & T. Clark:
For the solidity of the heaven according to this conception, cf. Amos 9:6, “it is he that buildeth his chambers in the heaven, and hath founded his vault upon the earth.” The fall of rain was regarded as the act of God in opening the sluices of heaven, cf. Genesis 7:11, 2 Kings 7:2; 2 Kings 7:19, Psalm 78:23; Psalm 148:4, “ye waters that be above the heavens.”
This Cambridge commentary is more accurate IMO.
So then, to answer your question: Gen. 1:7 says that God placed the sun, moon, and stars IN THE FIRMAMENT, which means they truly believed what their naked eyes saw, and concluded that they existed in the dome above the Earth. "Heavens" means the dome above the Earth, since the firmament is called "heaven."
Again, God accommodates to man such things, as He doesn't think it important to correct men about science, technology, and other things that are understood my natural observation and reasoning. God in the Bible is concerned with morality, idolatry, how people treat each other, and other moral and ethical matters. IOW, theology.
No I’m not trying to push anything into scripture, I’m offering an explanation that doesn’t contradict scripture, there’s a difference. What you’re doing is directly contradicting scripture.In order for a supernova to occur, you have to first have stars (and many of them), since you have to have stars that are old enough to collapse and explode, so you have to have a stable universe for these things to happen. You speculate on God accelerating the speed of light, as if that was a viable theory, but again you are trying to accommodate modern science and push it into the scripture, which is bad hermeneutics. Incidentally, the supernova of 10BLY away was observed recently in telescopes.
“They blessed Rebekah and said to her, “May you, our sister, Become thousands of ten thousands, And may your descendants possess The gate of those who hate them.””Where did you prove this?
Because I'd like to go back and look at it if I could?
Did they understand all the concepts that took us several millennia to figure out up to this point as well?
And "thousands of ten thousands" was an astronomical number to them back then, etc.“They blessed Rebekah and said to her, “May you, our sister, Become thousands of ten thousands, And may your descendants possess The gate of those who hate them.””
Genesis 24:60 NASB1995
They used multiplication to convey large numbers.
lol so you think 6 days was a better way to convey 4 billion years? Hundreds of thousands of hundreds of thousands of years or years as numerous as the sands wouldn’t have been a better way to convey such a message that the Israelites could’ve understood?And "thousands of ten thousands" was an astronomical number to them back then, etc.
It would be like telling one of us today, may your descendants become "infinite beyond infinity" back then, etc.
I guarantee you Rebekah could not calculate the number with what she knew or understood about mathematics back then, etc.
And that very few people could back then, etc.
What you just quoted proves absolutely nothing, etc.
And I suppose you also think that they all also had a full grasp on all the other scientific or factual concepts or ideas that took us several millennia to acquire back then?
God Bless.
I think dividing it into 7 "ages" was very, very, very wise, etc.lol so you think 6 days was a better way to convey 4 billion years? Hundreds of thousands of hundreds of thousands of years or years as numerous as the sands wouldn’t have been a better way to convey such a message that the Israelites could’ve understood?
We cannot measure the speed of light is not something I'm selling....its a fact. It is scientifically possible that direct light is instant.There are some assumptions in this article that are speculative and may not be true. Note this phrase: "if the speed of light varies with direction," yet there is no evidence on which to base this "if" assumption. The relativity formula does assume the speed of light is a constant, because all practical measurements show it to be so. The "single direction" speed of light theory is not a difficult hypothesis to refute. In a U of constantly moving objects, it is not the speed of light that varies, but the relative wavelength which varies. Therefore, it is ludicrous to claim the speed of light may not be constant, and then extrapolate that conjecture into a "scientific" explanation of how 10BLY of observation becomes 6k year old light. NOT BUYING WHAT YOU'RE SELLING.
Its not off topic....the speed of light and distance stars are away is a key talking point in refuting Creation 6000 years agoBut I'm dropping it for now, as it is way, way "off topic" in this thread, and I'm hoping to get back to that here.
I can post your article in Physical and Life Sciences if you like? And then link it here if you like?Its not off topic....the speed of light and distance stars are away is a key talking point in refuting Creation 6000 years ago
I also think using the word "days" was also probably one of the best ways of describing it to them back then, etc.I think dividing it into 7 "ages" was very, very, very wise, etc.
We'll see that in time, etc.
God Bless.
Its ok with me if you do.I can post your article in Physical and Life Sciences if you like? And then link it here if you like?
But other than that, I myself am done talking about it for now, because it's totally ridiculous, etc.
See post #1,159 for just one reference about that.
God Bless.
Ludicrous answer. "Dome" is a modern English equivalent for the Heb. "rakia" which means "firmament." Calling it "expanse" or "atmosphere" is an accommodation to modern science, since we know now centuries after Galileo. It could be called "ceiling" or anything else that was believed by the ancients. The point of Gen. 1 is that the only true God created everything. To turn it into a science textbook is both ignorant and false.Obviously there are other Hebrew translators that disagree with you. You’re quoting Hebrew scholars, I’m quoting Hebrew scholars, neither one of us are Hebrew scholars so it’s a moot point. Let me ask you this, what is the Hebrew word for a dome that isn’t solid? Did they even have such a word yet? Honestly I’m surprised the word dome even existed back then as they were probably a pretty uncommon shape back then and finding such an object that was not solid would’ve been even more unlikely.
Wrong. I'm merely saying that modern science doesn't fit into the ancient Biblical paradigm. It's not a contradiction.No I’m not trying to push anything into scripture, I’m offering an explanation that doesn’t contradict scripture, there’s a difference. What you’re doing is directly contradicting scripture.
Ludicrous answer. What you're selling is that the speed of light has drastically changed (or else is orders of magnitude different) when it travels in a single direction. This is your claim, that it can explain the apparent 10BLY distance that's only 6k yrs old. Your conjecture is so ludicrous that I'm thinking this conversation is just about done.We cannot measure the speed of light is not something I'm selling....its a fact. It is scientifically possible that direct light is instant.
"We just cannot measure the speed of light in one direction because relativity prevents us from maintaining synchronised clocks. The result is that the speed of light c is really the average speed over a round-trip journey, and that we cannot be certain that the speed is the same in both directions."
The One-Way Speed of Light | Spaceaustralia
When Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity, he assumed that light travelled at the same speed between two points no matter which direction it was moving in. But is that really the case, and would the Universe look any different if it were not?spaceaustralia.com
I'm not going to do it if your not interested, but I could probably pose it there, and they could probably do a lot better job of meting it out then you or I could probably, etc?Its ok with me if you do.
Again, your answer is a straw man. I already explained that God is not in the business of correcting man's lack of understanding on matters of science and technology. So your assumptions are incorrect. I never said nor implied that "6 days" represents billions of years. This is your fundamental problem, that you are so fixated on reading modern science into the scripture that you presume meanings into what I wrote. Your answer does not address accommodation. It makes me wonder if you even tried to understand what I wrote. I'm getting the idea that it's a waste of time trying to communicate with you, so I'm just about done with this conversation.You can call it accommodation if you want to but the fact that Exodus 20:1 specifically says that it was spoken by God absolutely means that what He said was dictated by Him. I completely disagree with your idea of accommodation because I’ve already proven that the people at that time were capable of understanding the concept of billions of years. So your explanation of why He had to accommodate them is incorrect. If God wanted to convey billions of years He could’ve done it numerous ways. The term 6 days does not in any way indicate or represent billions of years.
I'm saying we are unable to measure the speed of light in a single direction - we can only measure 2 way speed of light (reflective light).Ludicrous answer. What you're selling is that the speed of light has drastically changed (or else is orders of magnitude different) when it travels in a single direction. This is your claim, that it can explain the apparent 10BLY distance that's only 6k yrs old. Your conjecture is so ludicrous that I'm thinking this conversation is just about done.
I apologize for calling you "extremely ignorant", ok. Regardless of how I was feeling at the time, that was uncalled for, and I'm sorry, ok.I'm saying we are unable to measure the speed of light in a single direction - we can only measure 2 way speed of light (reflective light).
...and I'm called the extremely ignorant one - smh.
No problem. I appreciate your apology. I’m sure you are here like me to share and try to get more information and understanding With the goal of getting closer to God. I’m not YEC but I do read the Bible literally unless I see clear intent not to such as a metaphorical statement and of course dreams, visions, and parables.I apologize for calling you "extremely ignorant", ok. Regardless of how I was feeling at the time, that was uncalled for, and I'm sorry, ok.
Later when I get back home, I'll grab the article you linked, and ask some honest questions on the Physical and Life Sciences forum, and see if I can get some straightforward answers, ok. And then I'll either link it here or let you know how it is going on here, or both, ok.
And again, "sorry", ok.
God Bless.
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?