I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,534
3,324
✟865,564.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There can certainly be more than one meaning, but I stand by my point that Jesus believed in a literal Adam, and a literal Noah for that matter. Christians are not above our Master. Why the hostility to the literal aspect?
I have no issue with the literalness nor am I hostile toward it, I just think it's not an interesting element of the account. When I read Christ's words the literalness of the account has no impact on Christ's meaning so I don't see how his words can be used to validate a literal position (or a non-literal position for that matter). What he validates is a drawn-out truth from those accounts but his words don't actually address the literalness of the account and that part is left unspoken. I'm not sure how you infer unspoken belief from Christ's words regarding his literal position of these accounts and then from this suggest I am conflicting with his belief. Do you care to unpack that? or at least reword it? as it's fairly aggressive language directly toward my reply.
 
Upvote 0

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
10,614
3,941
60
Montgomery
✟154,916.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have no issue with the literalness nor am I hostile toward it, I just think it's not an interesting element of the account. When I read Christ's words the literalness of the account has no impact on Christ's meaning so I don't see how his words can be used to validate a literal position (or a non-literal position for that matter). What he validates is a drawn-out truth from those accounts but his words don't actually address the literalness of the account and that part is left unspoken. I'm not sure how you infer unspoken belief from Christ's words regarding his literal position of these accounts and then from this suggest I am conflicting with his belief. Do you care to unpack that? or at least reword it? as it's fairly aggressive language directly toward my reply.
Luke 17:26 sounds literal to me. So does Peter.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JacksBratt
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,534
3,324
✟865,564.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Luke 17:26 sounds literal to me. So does Peter.
Why does Luke 17:26 demand a literal reading of the flood? The meaning Christ uses doesn't change in a literal or non-literal reading so how can his words be used to support either position? I don't say this to challenge the literal or for that matter a non-literal reading but instead to show that neither is Christ's focus, nor should it be ours. Peter uses the flood account as a baptism metaphor so if we use that as a hermeneutic heuristic it's literalness is simply not the focus.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
10,614
3,941
60
Montgomery
✟154,916.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why does Luke 17:26 demand a literal reading of the flood? The meaning Christ uses doesn't change in a literal or non-literal reading so how can his words be used to support either position? I don't say this to challenge the literal or for that matter a non-literal reading but instead to show that neither is Christ's focus, nor should it be ours. Peter uses the flood account as a baptism metaphor so if we use that as a hermeneutic heuristic it's literalness is simply not the focus.
Isaiah 54:9 God takes it literally
 
Upvote 0

East of Eden

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2021
1,073
342
65
Albuquerque
✟36,726.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Why does Luke 17:26 demand a literal reading of the flood? The meaning Christ uses doesn't change in a literal or non-literal reading so how can his words be used to support either position? I don't say this to challenge the literal or for that matter a non-literal reading but instead to show that neither is Christ's focus, nor should it be ours. Peter uses the flood account as a baptism metaphor so if we use that as a hermeneutic heuristic it's literalness is simply not the focus.

Because as Christians, literally 'little Christ's', we have no business claiming we know more than Jesus did. No offense, but this is the same lie Satan used in Eden, "Did God really say....."? It is most prominently used today with the homosexual agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BPPLEE
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,534
3,324
✟865,564.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Because as Christians, literally 'little Christ's', we have no business claiming we know more than Jesus did. No offense, but this is the same lie Satan used in Eden, "Did God really say....."? It is most prominently used today with the homosexual agenda.
I think you are missing the point. I am not rejecting the account's literalness, I just don't think it's an important question. Non-literal also doesn't mean the account "loses all meaning". The truth is unaffected. You seem to not be able to support this well but instead, just really want it so resort to lower levels like accusations when challenged. Let's keep the accusations out of it and try and think the highest of each other. You might be surprised to hear I highly value scripture

also, I've never heard of the word "Christian" being used as a diminutive for Christ, or "little Christs" as you put it. I'd be interested in a source for that if you had one. from what I understand the suffix adds a meaning of a belonging to, so as Christians we belong to Christ.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,283
6,490
62
✟571,448.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Why does Luke 17:26 demand a literal reading of the flood? The meaning Christ uses doesn't change in a literal or non-literal reading so how can his words be used to support either position? I don't say this to challenge the literal or for that matter a non-literal reading but instead to show that neither is Christ's focus, nor should it be ours. Peter uses the flood account as a baptism metaphor so if we use that as a hermeneutic heuristic it's literalness is simply not the focus.
We take it literal because it is an actual event.
 
Upvote 0

Leaviathan

Junior Member
Feb 19, 2015
186
104
61
Cape Cod
✟31,097.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I've felt the same recently, because of world events and how Christian churches are changing. They're moving away from the Scripture and embracing Social Issues. On top of articles like the ones you posted there appears to be a very thin line. The answer from many is just Trust in God, but the whole point of your thread is that's not enough. After all he's a God not a Fairy tale character, right?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,901
2,279
U.S.A.
✟122,549.00
Faith
Baptist
My thoughts were more directed at Gen 1-2:3 and not the latter bit of Gen 2 with the creation of Adam. But although not my point I can still address the logic you bring up. How Jesus (or Paul, etc...) addresses Adam doesn't demand Adam is literal it just demands the spiritual truth they pull out of it was part of the original intent which is just as true in the case of it being literal or non-literal.

There are two very important and very different issues here: the literalness of a passage and the historical accuracy of the passage.

Our best academic Protestant translation of the Bible, the NRSV, gives us,

Gen.1:6. And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
8. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. (The 2021 Updated Edition of the NRSV reads the same in these three verses as does the 1989 edition)

Our best academic Roman Catholic translation of the Bible, the NABRE, gives us,

Gen.1:6. Then God said, “Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other.” And so it happened:
7. God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it.
8. God called the dome “the sky.” Evening came, and morning followed-the second day.

Paul routinely quoted from the Septuagint as Scripture, and in his letter to the Romans, he quoted from the Old Testament 64 times. 46 of the quotes are from the Septuagint, 4 of the quotes are from the Masoretic text, and 14 of them differ from both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint. Moreover, in his letter to the Romans, Paul quoted from the book of Genesis 9 times—mostly from the Septuagint!

The Septuagint gives us,

Gen. 1:6. Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός γενηθήτω στερέωμα ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ ἔστω διαχωρίζον ἀνὰ μέσον ὕδατος καὶ ὕδατος. καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως.
7. καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα, καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ θεὸς ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος, ὃ ἦν ὑποκάτω τοῦ στερεώματος, καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ ἐπάνω τοῦ στερεώματος.
8. καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα οὐρανόν. καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν. καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί, ἡμέρα δευτέρα.

The Greek word στερέωμα is used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ, and expresses the concept of “the sky as a supporting structure, the firmament.” (BDAG, the italics are theirs). This Greek word is also found in Paul’s writings to express the concept of a “state or condition of firm commitment, firmness, steadfastness” (BDAG, the italics are theirs),

Col. 2.5. εἰ γὰρ καὶ τῇ σαρκὶ ἄπειμι, ἀλλὰ τῷ πνεύματι σὺν ὑμῖν εἰμι, χαίρων καὶ βλέπων ὑμῶν τὴν τάξιν καὶ τὸ στερέωμα τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως ὑμῶν. (NA28)

Col. 2.5. For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, and I rejoice to see your morale and the firmness of your faith in Christ. (NRSV)

The Greek word στερέωμα is also found in a number of other ancient Greek writings where it always expresses the concepts of something solid, strength, firmness or steadfastness.

John Skinner, the late Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature at Westminster College, Cambridge, in his commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis, writes,

6-8 Second Work: The Firmament.—The second fiat calls into existence a firmament, whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments. The “firmament” is the dome of heaven, which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a material structure, sometimes compared to an “upper chamber” (Ps. 104:12, Am 9:6) supported by “pillars” (Jb 26:11), and resembling in its surface a “molten mirror” (Jb 37:18). Above this are the heavenly waters, from which the rain descends through “windows” or “doors” (Gn 7:11, 8:2, 2 Ki 7:2, 19) opened and shut by God at His pleasure (Ps 78:23).​

To say it simply and clearly, Genesis 1:6-8 is entirely literal, but it is not an accurate account of an historic even. In order to maintain a consistent hermeneutic of Genesis 1-11, it is absolutely necessary to understand every word of it as a literal expression. The dome is a literal. solid dome, and the “floodgates of the sky” (Gen. 7:11) are literal, solid structures in the dome “opened and shut by God at His pleasure.”

Jesus, in His humanity, was a first century Jew who, like his neighbors, would have believed that the earth is flat and covered with a dome just like the Bible says in Genesis 1:6-8. He would also have believed that the rest of Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of actual historical events. Therefore, when he quoted in Matthew 19:4-6 from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to support His teaching on marriage and divorce, He was not doing anything unexpected. He was teaching within the context of the culture that He shared with His fellow Jews.

However, it can be argued that the Apostle Paul had a very good education and yet in Romans 5:12-19 he taught the doctrine of original sin and the gift of righteousness though Jesus Christ, naming Adam as a type of Christ. The best explanation for this is that Paul was Jewish to core (“circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee”), and that he therefore rejected as heresy the teaching that the earth is round, and believed Genesis 1:6-8 where it explicitly says “God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.” Because of his very strong Jewish predisposition, Paul believed that Genesis 1-11 is an accurate account of historic events—a belief that is nullified by the fact that the earth is round rather than flat and covered with a solid dome.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,534
3,324
✟865,564.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
6-8 Second Work: The Firmament.—The second fiat calls into existence a firmament, whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments. The “firmament” is the dome of heaven, which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a material structure, sometimes compared to an “upper chamber” (Ps. 104:12, Am 9:6) supported by “pillars” (Jb 26:11), and resembling in its surface a “molten mirror” (Jb 37:18). Above this are the heavenly waters, from which the rain descends through “windows” or “doors” (Gn 7:11, 8:2, 2 Ki 7:2, 19) opened and shut by God at His pleasure (Ps 78:23).
To say it simply and clearly, Genesis 1:6-8 is entirely literal, but it is not an accurate account of an historic even. In order to maintain a consistent hermeneutic of Genesis 1-11, it is absolutely necessary to understand every word of it as a literal expression. The dome is a literal. solid dome, and the “floodgates of the sky” (Gen. 7:11) are literal, solid structures in the dome “opened and shut by God at His pleasure.”
This is conjecture and highly speculative, you might call it biblically themed but it's irresponsible. It's more based on a western obsession to reconcile things that don't makes sense (which by the way was not a value of the ancient world). I value the words as is and don't see any blanks that need to be filled in.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BPPLEE
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,901
2,279
U.S.A.
✟122,549.00
Faith
Baptist
This is conjecture and highly speculative, you might call it biblically themed but it's irresponsible. It's more based on a western obsession to reconcile things that don't makes sense (which by the way was not a value of the ancient world). I value the words as is and don't see any blanks that need to be filled in.
There is nothing speculative about how the Masoretic text and the Septuagint read in Gen. 1:6-8, and there is nothing speculative about the fact that the earth is not flat and covered with a solid dome. Furthermore, my post includes very numerous objective facts for which there is no contest.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,534
3,324
✟865,564.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There is nothing speculative about how the Masoretic text and the Septuagint read in Gen. 1:6-8, and there is nothing speculative about the fact that the earth is not flat and covered with a solid dome. Furthermore, my post includes very numerous objective facts for which there is no contest.
"whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments."

This is not the MT or Septuagint, it is speculative.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,901
2,279
U.S.A.
✟122,549.00
Faith
Baptist
"whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments."

This is not the MT or Septuagint, it is speculative.

It is far from speculative—it is a comment on the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ, as it is used in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, by one of the world’s foremost scholars of ancient Hebrew!

The most comprehensive study in one volume on the creation story in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament is found in the 636-page commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis 1-11 by Clause Westermann. Other important published studies on the creation story in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament are summarized in the following commentaries on the Hebrew text of Genesis (listed by author),

Delitzsch, Franz
Goldingay, John
Hamilton, Victor P. two volumes
Matthews, Kenneth A. two volumes
Skinner, John
Speiser, Ephraim A.
von Rad, Gerhard
Wenham, Gordon John two volumes

Due to their importance, I have all of these volumes here in my study—and they ALL support the comment, posted above, by Professor John Skinner.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,534
3,324
✟865,564.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
it is a comment on the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ
indeed, a speculative comment.

by one of the world’s foremost scholars of ancient Hebrew
that doesn't make the comment less speculative. what is it based on? because the bible certainly doesn't reveal any of that. it's more commentary than a scholarly comment, it may be creative but too much of that is his own imagination.

Due to their importance, I have all of these volumes here in my study—and they ALL support the comment, posted above, by Professor John Skinner.

if you can rhyme off 8 authors in your personal library that affirm that comment then I would say you don't have a library you have an echo chamber, but I would probably reread those books. I read Wenham, where he brings up the same language he doesn't go off into fantasy like Skinner and ultimately calls it figurative. Wenham is quoted saying "Certainly Gen 1 is not concerned with defining the nature of the firmament, but with asserting God‘s power over the waters." what the firmament is, is not important, but power over the waters is important because "the deep" in other creations myths is often some sort of sea monster that is killed and used to created water/land with it's carcass. In the biblical creation account, there is no epic battle with a sea monster, the waters submit by God's spoken word alone and nothing more needs to be said, a possible allusion or matter-of-fact anti-pagan theme embedded in the account in response to the Canaanite creation myths. But this would be in contrast with your quote from Skinner who seems to revel in the language and take it to unrealistic lengths. but I never read Skinner so I don't know the parts you left out, and he may ultimately agree with Wenham.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,901
2,279
U.S.A.
✟122,549.00
Faith
Baptist
"whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments."


This is not the MT or Septuagint, it is speculative.


indeed, a speculative comment.

that doesn't make the comment less speculative. what is it based on? because the bible certainly doesn't reveal any of that. it's more commentary than a scholarly comment, it may be creative but too much of that is his own imagination.

Skinner’s comment is solidly based upon the Bible

Genesis 1:7-9,

7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
8. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9. And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
20. And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky."20.

Skinner,

"whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments."

if you can rhyme off 8 authors in your personal library that affirm that comment then I would say you don't have a library you have an echo chamber, but I would probably reread those books. I read Wenham, where he brings up the same language he doesn't go off into fantasy like Skinner and ultimately calls it figurative. Wenham is quoted saying "Certainly Gen 1 is not concerned with defining the nature of the firmament, but with asserting God‘s power over the waters." what the firmament is, is not important, but power over the waters is important because "the deep" in other creations myths is often some sort of sea monster that is killed and used to created water/land with it's carcass. In the biblical creation account, there is no epic battle with a sea monster, the waters submit by God's spoken word alone and nothing more needs to be said, a possible allusion or matter-of-fact anti-pagan theme embedded in the account in response to the Canaanite creation myths. But this would be in contrast with your quote from Skinner who seems to revel in the language and take it to unrealistic lengths. but I never read Skinner so I don't know the parts you left out, and he may ultimately agree with Wenham.

Wenham does not agree with Skinner on all of his points, but he most certainly agrees with Skinner’s comment referenced above. Moreover, Hamilton agrees with the meaning of the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ, but he writes that the word may be used poetically in the Bible. However, the only use of poetry in the first chapter of Genesis is found in verse 27.
 
Upvote 0

DamianWarS

Follower of Isa Al Masih
Site Supporter
May 15, 2008
9,534
3,324
✟865,564.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Skinner’s comment is solidly based upon the Bible

Genesis 1:7-9,

7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
8. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9. And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.
20. And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky."20.

Skinner,

"whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments."



Wenham does not agree with Skinner on all of his points, but he most certainly agrees with Skinner’s comment referenced above. Moreover, Hamilton agrees with the meaning of the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ, but he writes that the word may be used poetically in the Bible. However, the only use of poetry in the first chapter of Genesis is found in verse 27.
Skinner defines the role and function of the firmament to irresponsible levels. The framework is biblical but he pushes it beyond what the text can support.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,901
2,279
U.S.A.
✟122,549.00
Faith
Baptist
The Firmament (Hebrew: רָקִיעַ)

Gen 1:6. dixit quoque Deus fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum et dividat aquas ab aquis (Jerome’s Latin Vulgte, 405)

Gen 1:6. And God seide, The firmament be maad in the myddis of watris, and departe watris fro watris. (Wycliffe Bible 1382)

Gen 1:6. And God said: let there be a firmament betwene the waters, and let it make a diuision betwene waters and waters. (Bishop’s Bible, 1568)

Gen 1:6. Againe God saide, Let there be a firmament in the middes of the waters: and let it separate the waters from the waters. (Geneva Bible, 1587)

Gen 1:6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters: and let it diuide the waters from the waters. (KJV, 1611)

Gen 1:6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (RV, 1881)

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (ASV, 1901)

Gen. 1:6 And God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” (RSV, 1952)

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

Full Definition of FIRMAMENT
1: the vault or arch of the sky : heavens
2 obsolete : basis
3: the field or sphere of an interest or activity <the international fashion firmament>

Origin of FIRMAMENT

Middle English, from Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin firmamentum, from Latin, support, from firmare

Notice especially definition 1: the vault or arch of the sky. In Modern Hebrew, the word רָקִיעַ expresses the concept of the sky as viewed from the earth, especially at night.
 
Upvote 0