I read it literally now

[ptomwebster]

...

How do either of your responses to me relate to that?

Obviously they don't.

 

[Calminian]

Strong's H7549 is:

1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
a) expanse (flat as base, support)
b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

Strong's is pretty clear on this issue.

I don't know of any scholars who say we should avoid a literal reading. If anything we should strive to understand it better because by comparing it in it's ancient context and cosmology to the surrounding beliefs of the ANE world we will gain a much deeper understanding of the message. Does that approach sound bad to you?

You've raised some other good points which I will have to get back to you on.

There a saying in some circles, "if it's in strongs, it's probably wrong." It's definitely not the standard bearer of lexicons.

What both you and lamoureux are avoiding is Genesis 1:8. "And God called the firmament heaven." If you were really honestly reading the text and wanted to know what the firmament was, you'd come to the conclusion it was that thing that God called heaven. But you're not doing that. You're reading the works of Lamoureux Seely and putting on a bit of a pretense.

Raqia is defined in scripture in the very beginning. Just as the gathered waters were called the sea and the dry land was called earth, so the expanse was called heaven. Clouds were seen moving through the air by the ancient biblical writers and they described these as moving through the heavens, not a solid mass as you're implying.

If you come to the conclusion that the literal bible teaches the raqia is a solid mass, then you'd also have to come to the conclusion that heaven is a solid mass, since firmament=heaven. I don't think you want to go there.

You also need to understand that words evolve. It's possible the hebrews used the word in different ways hundreds of years later. This happens with words all the time. But it is error to then go back and force modern evolved meanings back into the word used in the book of Genesis.

Just let the text speak and let it define its own terms. If you do that, you'll see God is wiser than the "scholars" you're trusting.

 

[Philis]

What both you and lamoureux are avoiding is Genesis 1:8. "And God called the firmament heaven."

I've never read Lamoureux before I clicked the link you gave.

If you were really honestly reading the text and wanted to know what the firmament was, you'd come to the conclusion it was that thing that God called heaven. But you're not doing that.

Don't make this about honesty. We are both honestly seeking the truth here, resorting to these kind of personal insults is totally unnecessary.

You've been respectful so far, please don't turn into the jerk that some other posters here quickly become when others don't see things their way.

You're reading the works of Lamoureux Seely and putting on a bit of a pretense.

Seely yes, I have read most of his paper (it's long lol). Lamoureux is new to me.

As I said in my last post, you've made some good points that I'll have to get back to you on, I have some reading up to do.

 

[Assyrian]

gluadys

Isa 45:18 say: For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Look at the Hebrew word "vain," here and the Hebrew words "was without form." The word "vain" and "form" is tôhû . God did not create the world tôhû, it became (not was) tôhû.

You can believe anything you want about creation but you will not understand the end if you don't understand the beginning.

Ho does your interpretation of Isaiah 45:18 fit Isaiah's use of tohu in the very next verse?

Isaiah 45:19 I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness; I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, 'Seek me in vain.' I the LORD speak the truth; I declare what is right.

Is God saying we should always use formal set prayers seeking God?
I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, 'Seek me without form.' That doesn't sound right.

Or could it refer to the wilderness where God met with the Israelites Deut 32:10 "He found him in a desert land, and in the howling waste of the wilderness; he encircled him, he cared for him, he kept him as the apple of his eye. No, that doesn't make sense either because God did tell the Israelites to seek him when they were in the wilderness.

Sound like the best way to interpret tohu here is 'in vain'. Neither God's creation, nor seeking God are done in vain.

 

[Assyrian]

And in 1611, the "re-" prefix in English sometimes carried the notion of emphasis rather than repetition so the sense is really "fill completely" . This, apparently, was the reason the KJV translators used it. As far as I know the only place we still use that in modern English is in the phrase "refried beans" which are not fried twice, just thoroughly fried.

You also have words like resentment, research, repose, reverence, repute, relieve, relinquish, renown, repent, resplendent...

from link and link

 

[Reginaren]

Heyy so nice thoughts really very nice thoughts buddy. But it may or may not be like this, you cannot show any proof of it. But your imagination is very good. I like it really.

 

[Assyrian]

Strong's H7549 is:

1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
a) expanse (flat as base, support)
b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

Strong's is pretty clear on this issue.

What BlueLetterBible are using there is an abbreviated version of the the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon (BDB), it is the numbering system that is from Strong's. BDB is a much better lexicon than Strong's. As Calminian quoted "if it's in strongs, it's probably wrong." Fortunately your reference isn't the Strong's definition.

I really don't like that version of BDB. It is very common on websites and as a free download, (I have it with e-sword). It is fine with raqiya, but it takes liberties with other definitions to fit the editor's theology. You can check out the full version of BDB here. Blue letter Bible's Gesenius Lexicon on the same page is also very good.

 

[toLiJC]

Hi

the universe was organized/developed approximately 5-6 millennia ago - as it is written in Genesis 1-2 and Luke 3:23-38, the "darkness" is the negative side of the divine(-ity), and it has been existed in the universe even (from) before the beginning of this eternity, as it is written:

Genesis 1:1-2 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep(ie upon the underside of the universe). And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters(ie upon the uncaused essence)."

the "darkness" is (as it were) the source/womb of the evil spirits, such as: "satan/devil", "beast/666", "death", "hell", "devils/evil spirits", etc. - they originate thereof, the "darkness" always reigns during the first 5-6 millennia at the beginning of each eternity - the eternity is a long period/cycle with a beginning and end, so that always after the end follows a new/next beginning

Blessings

 

[gluadys]

Obviously they don't.

Well, that's clear then.

 

[gluadys]

No, I think Ted is onto something here. The idea of 13 billion years to allow something to develop does not fit what's revealed about Christ the creator in the N.T. In His miracles He created things instantly—wine, fish, bread, etc. He healed instantly, and thus gave us a picture of the methods of the Creator.

The death and struggle prior to sin, doesn't fit biblically, theologically or even with common sense. TE doesn't fit with biblical theology on any level. It's forced. It's awkward.

I think you are cherry picking, Calminian.
You are simply not mentioning patterns of God's activity that don't fit with instantaneous miracles.

For example: Christ was conceived in Mary's womb miraculously, instantaneously. But then there was nine months of gestation and thirty years of growing up before he began his ministry. Why the long delay?

Why, for that matter, wait thousands of years from the first promise of a Messiah to his birth? And thousands since--and still waiting--for his return?

Why did Adam and Eve not physically die on the very day they ate the forbidden fruit in spite of the strongly worded warning that they would?

Why wait several generations after the fall of the Tower of Babylon before calling Abraham to leave his people?

In Matthew 12:15-21, the evangelist tells us that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 42: 1-3. That is a description of patience and persistence.

Why should the history of creation not reflect that aspect of God's character? Is it not just as quintessentially divine as instantaneous action?

I am not seeing any less power, majesty or glory in a 13.7 billion year process than in an instantaneous or near instantaneous process. If anything, the reverse.

 

[Papias]

Philis wrote:
Strong's H7549 is:

1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
a) expanse (flat as base, support)
b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

Strong's is pretty clear on this issue.

Yep. Cal and I discussed this recently (Hi Cal - remember?). There is plenty of scripture to support the "hard dome" idea, and that's no doubt part of why it is supported by Biblical scholars. From that earlier discussion:

It's clear for a number of reasons, both the word itself and other verses in the Bible, as well as traditional Christian interpretation, that it is a solid dome. Heck, in Job it even explicitly says it is hard.

The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal flattened by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4UDTGXGRW-g/TqwK54nHnCI/AAAAAAAAAVM/P-0RSoxNQdE/s1600/firmament.jpg

​

from :
http://www.christianforums.com/t7645452-22/#post60625295

In His name-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

Philis wrote:
Strong's H7549 is:



Yep. Cal and I discussed this recently (Hi Cal - remember?). There is plenty of scripture to support the "hard dome" idea, and that's no doubt part of why it is supported by Biblical scholars. From that earlier discussion:

It's clear for a number of reasons, both the word itself and other verses in the Bible, as well as traditional Christian interpretation, that it is a solid dome. Heck, in Job it even explicitly says it is hard.

The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal flattened by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4UDTGXGRW-g/TqwK54nHnCI/AAAAAAAAAVM/P-0RSoxNQdE/s1600/firmament.jpg

​

from :
http://www.christianforums.com/t7645452-22/#post60625295

In His name-

Papias

The firmament are clouds (waters above) and the upper limits of the atmosphere, yea, it's described as a dome. The only thing that the YEC is interpreting differently then their TE counterparts is that God is cause, the direct cause of the creation of the world and life on earth. If you interpret the Scriptures as being derived from Near Eastern Literature you are reducing it to a pagan mythology.

It sounds like a compromise with worldly rationalizations coming from a persistent and willful unbelief. I keep trying to tell you Papias, your being used.

 

[Calminian]

...
Don't make this about honesty. We are both honestly seeking the truth here, resorting to these kind of personal insults is totally unnecessary.

Okay, I'm going to try to be as behaved as possible in this response. I have no doubt you are sincere about your beliefs. I'm just not buying the "Oh gee, I opened the bible and started reading and color me red! It says there's a solid dome up there! Gee can someone explain that to me? I'm just a little undecided seeker looking for guidance."

That parts getting a little old. Look I know that seems extremely harsh, but I'm showing you respect by being honest. I mean are you really new to this debate like you're leading on?

Really I don't mind dogmatic opposition to my views, in fact, I respect it more. If you have a firm view, state your peace. That's what these forums are for. That's all I'm going to say on that. If I have it wrong, set me straight. I promise to be civil, even as you attempt to rip my arguments to pieces.

Seely yes, I have read most of his paper (it's long lol). Lamoureux is new to me.

What both Seely and Lamoureux do is force an ancient cosmology onto the scriptures, assuming a priori that this was the cosmology of the writers. This would be like assuming that all modern writers are big bang cosmologists. This goes against exegesis just as much as reading modern cosmology into the Bible. We should allow the writers to define their own terms.

This is why the word raqia is so appetizing to them. There is some etymology that suggest it was used of sold surfaces thousands of years after the Genesis account. The problem is, raqia = heaven according to the Gen. chapter 1 writer. (Keep in mind the book of Genesis is a compilation of several books compiled by Moses.) So that's how it should be defined in Genesis 1. There really should be no confusion about the term.

You see the bible writers divided the world into 3 categories. Land, sea and the heavens (everything up above).

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them​

Mind you they could have used ancient cosmological models like heaven, planet earth (a flat disc composed of the sea and land) and the underworld. But they didn't. They kept a very neutral framework, which when you think about it made perfect sense. You have the land where we walk, you have the sea where the land ends, and you have everything up above. There nothing false about this, nor is there any attempt to comment on the structure of the universe. It's quite astute if you ask me.

Now I'm with you, I don't like it when we read modern cosmological understandings into the minds of the bible authors either. I think we can use modern discoveries to better understand scripture. But we should not assume these discoveries were in the minds of the writers.

But it's just as erroneous to assume they were injecting a particular ancient cosmology in their writings. in fact, their writings make it clear they were not. They actually did a masterful job in avoiding ancient cosmologies. To me, that's a sign of inspiration.

 

[Philis]

The firmament are clouds (waters above) and the upper limits of the atmosphere, yea, it's described as a dome.

The firmament and the waters above are two different things. Which one is the clouds? Why didn't any early church fathers interpret it that way? (at least as far as I've read they didn't)

If you interpret the Scriptures as being derived from Near Eastern Literature you are reducing it to a pagan mythology.

From the JPS commentary on Genesis page 3:

The mystery of divine creativity is, of course, ultimately unknowable. The Genesis narrative does not seek to make intelligible what is beyond human ken. To draw upon human language to explain that which is outside any model of human experience is inevitably to confront the inescapable limitations of any attempt to give verbal expression to this subject. For this reason alone, the narrative in its external form must reflect the time and place of its composition. Thus it directs us to take account of the characteristic modes of literary expression current in ancient Israel. It forces us to realize that a literalistic approach to the text must inevitably confuse idiom with idea, symbol with reality. The result would be to obscure the enduring meaning of that text.

You seem to be very familiar with one particular brand of theology, but it seems that you've disregarded the majority of what scholars say on this subject at the expense of your own understanding of the views of others.

If anything, the creation account is an apologetic to pagan myths. To ignore the parallels between the creation account and the texts of surrounding cultures means that you will "obsure the enduring meaning of that text".

It sounds like a compromise with worldly rationalizations coming from a persistent and willful unbelief. I keep trying to tell you Papias, your being used.

Used by who exactly? The sources I keep giving are Christian/Jewish sources that have no stake in the creation/evolution debate. They are scholars of the bible. You also have sources that may contradict what I refer to, and that is fine, it's part of the discussion of theology. It has nothing to do with trying to smugle in Darwinian philosophy. You keep going back to that meme of yours and I just don't see why.

 

[Philis]

Okay, I'm going to try to be as behaved as possible in this response. I have no doubt you are sincere about your beliefs. I'm just not buying the "Oh gee, I opened the bible and started reading and color me red! It says there's a solid dome up there! Gee can someone explain that to me? I'm just a little undecided seeker looking for guidance."

That parts getting a little old. Look I know that seems extremely harsh, but I'm showing you respect by being honest. I mean are you really new to this debate like you're leading on?

I got the solid dome part from the Dictionary of the New Testament Pentateuch (Intervarsity Press). For me to read it literally as the ANE audience would have, I would of course have to read up on their views and the meaning of some of the words.

Really I don't mind dogmatic opposition to my views, in fact, I respect it more. If you have a firm view, state your peace. That's what these forums are for. That's all I'm going to say on that. If I have it wrong, set me straight. I promise to be civil, even as you attempt to rip my arguments to pieces.

Despite how it seems my goals here are for me to learn more, I know I won't change anyone's mind. By pushing the issue and challenges your statements you respond with new information from a different perspective that I will have to consider and read up on. I'm doing this for me, not for you (sorry lol).

But it's just as erroneous to assume they were injecting a particular ancient cosmology in there writings. in fact, their writings make it clear they were not.

I'm reading up more on some commentaries on this and I'll have a more thorough response to all the points you've been making. It may take me a bit of time but I'm not ignoring your points.

 

[Calminian]

Philis wrote:
Strong's H7549 is:



Yep. Cal and I discussed this recently (Hi Cal - remember?). There is plenty of scripture to support the "hard dome" idea, and that's no doubt part of why it is supported by Biblical scholars. From that earlier discussion:...

Thought I did a pretty good job in thoroughly refuting all those ostensible proof texts. I'm surprised you cited them again.

You know it's interesting, solid dome advocates often cite the windows of heaven as not being clouds but holes in the sky to force align them with ancient cosmologies. Yet scripture uses very similar metaphors for clouds. Here hebrew parallelism interchanges doors and clouds.

Psa. 78:23 Yet He had commanded the clouds above, And opened the doors of heaven,

I'm shocked solid domers really think the ancients didn't think clouds were the source of rain. I mean, it's a pretty obvious visual inference don't you think?

 

[mark kennedy]

Okay, I'm going to try to be as behaved as possible in this response. I have no doubt you are sincere about your beliefs. I'm just not buying the "Oh gee, I opened the bible and started reading and color me red! It says there's a solid dome up there! Gee can someone explain that to me? I'm just a little undecided seeker looking for guidance."

Exactly, she plays a bait and switch, it's an old ruse with the same outcome as the others. I think she gets a kick of out sucking Creationists in then dumping the old theistic evolutionist rhetoric on them. Not the first one to play that one.

 

[Philis]

Exactly, she plays a bait and switch, it's an old ruse with the same outcome as the others. I think she gets a kick of out sucking Creationists in then dumping the old theistic evolutionist rhetoric on them. Not the first one to play that one.

How is quoting early church fathers and Jewish theologians "dumping theistic evolutionist rhetoric" on you?

You've even agreed on a lot of my views of looking at it through the eyes of the original audience and taking their culture and cosmology into context. How is doing that "theistic evolutionist rhetoric"?

 

[mark kennedy]

The firmament and the waters above are two different things. Which one is the clouds? Why didn't any early church fathers interpret it that way? (at least as far as I've read they didn't)

They didn't need to, it wasn't an issue until the rise of Gnosticism and I've already been over this with you.

From the JPS commentary on Genesis page 3:

Thanks but I'm not interested in buying the book.

The mystery of divine creativity is, of course, ultimately unknowable. The Genesis narrative does not seek to make intelligible what is beyond human ken. To draw upon human language to explain that which is outside any model of human experience is inevitably to confront the inescapable limitations of any attempt to give verbal expression to this subject. For this reason alone, the narrative in its external form must reflect the time and place of its composition. Thus it directs us to take account of the characteristic modes of literary expression current in ancient Israel. It forces us to realize that a literalistic approach to the text must inevitably confuse idiom with idea, symbol with reality. The result would be to obscure the enduring meaning of that text.

I read that and think, yea ok, so what? I'm very familiar with the literary style of the narrative and it was written to be an oral lesson. The Levites had to teach this to people who were largely illiterate. The language is pretty conversational and there is very little in the way of linguistic challenges, doctrinally it argues nothing God as creator is a given. What's the admonition here, confusing idea with idiom? Nonsense, there is nothing relevant in this excerpt.

You seem to be very familiar with one particular brand of theology, but it seems that you've disregarded the majority of what scholars say on this subject at the expense of your own understanding of the views of others.

The majority of what scholars? I read Wesley, Calvin, Henry and draw from a broad range of dictionaries, lexicons and relevant source material. Clearly, you are begging the question of proof on your hands and knees. With one random quote that says nothing you think you can cast aspersions on a theology you know nothing about, namely mine. I am highly eclectic in my theology and I'm right at home in whatever systematic organization of doctrines I find myself it, as long as it's not directly contradicting a fundamental doctrine like God as Creator.

If anything, the creation account is an apologetic to pagan myths. To ignore the parallels between the creation account and the texts of surrounding cultures means that you will "obsure the enduring meaning of that text".

I've read the mythologies of ancient Iraq, Egypt and many of the other recollections including the coniform tablets that are supposed to have influenced the writing of the Pentateuch. I'm well aware of the cultures that surrounded Israel and not one of them have a confirmed history and they are unanimously written in the dead languages of a dead culture. I much prefer the oracles of the living God told to us through the witness of living member of the only faith that survived the ravages of time.

Used by who exactly? The sources I keep giving are Christian/Jewish sources that have no stake in the creation/evolution debate. They are scholars of the bible. You also have sources that may contradict what I refer to, and that is fine, it's part of the discussion of theology. It has nothing to do with trying to smugle in Darwinian philosophy. You keep going back to that meme of yours and I just don't see why.

Used by atheists who are adept at taking their philosophy and putting it in theological terminology. It's been called so many things over the last hundred and fifty years but it all falls under the general category of Liberal Theology for me. Darwinism is nothing but a transcendent principle of God being absent, there is nothing else to it. The overt hostility to a primary doctrinal concept as fundamental as Creationism can only be derived from an atheistic materialist world view.

Sure, Christians defend this Darwinian view of the origins of life back to the Big Bang but they do so at the expense of their own convictions. There was nothing in that quote that remotely challenges any of my doctrinal or theological premises. What is more you have a lot of nerve to sound off about my theology when the theistic evolutionists on here, yourself included, for all intents and purposes have none.

You can criticize my theology when you actually have one of your own you would like to compare it to.

 

[miamited]

Hi Ted,

So you dismiss TE because of the apparent lack of purpose or teleology in evolution? This seems to miss that the Bible says that without God creation does appear to have no purpose (cf. Ecclesiastes)

Friend, without God there is no creation.


I'm not really sure why God creating over millions or billions of years is contradictory to God having purpose, could you further elaborate?

I thought I did make it clear. God created every star, every planet and every other physical form in the universe for the purpose of supporting our planet. He spoke the earth in to existence for the express purpose of creating a place where flesh could live.

When He spoke the very first, 'Let there be...' God had in mind the finished product of this entire realm of existence and all that was needed to make it work perfectly and that it was being created in order that a creature of flesh which He would create could live and breath. He did all of that within the time it took for the first created piece of this universe, the earth, to rotate 6 times upon its axis. That's just who the God is that I serve. In roughly the time of 144 hours God turned a vast utterly empty expanse that we call space with not a single molecule or atom into a beautiful and perfectly choreographed mechanism of stars and planets and asteroids. Upon the singular planet which He called, and we now call, the earth, He created all that was necessary that a life form of flesh, called man, could live and breath for all eternity.


God needn't do anything at all but he did, God is all powerful, I don't think that God taking time to do something means he is any less powerful, instead it speaks to his patience, even in my walk with God one of the things I get reminded of on a constant basis is his patience.

Well, that would be a significant difference between the God that we each serve. Patience for what? Patience to allow stars to form and solidify? God created this realm so that man could have life. His patience, as Peter explained, is that He waits now to allow man to come to his senses and understand and acknowledge who He is. He did not wait patiently for all the bodies of the universe to form. He created all of that near instantly, perfectly formed and operating, so that man has a place to live. I can ceertainly understand how you might not find that any difference of significance in understanding God, but I'm not in agreement.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted