I was a Creationist...now I don't know what I believe.

[Mallon]

Have you taken any?

Clearly, you have no idea who you're talking to.

 

[AV1611VET]

Paul mentions 3 heavens.

No, Paul doesn't mention three heavens --- he mentions a third heaven --- there's a difference.

Not literally it isn't.

Yes, literally it is.

And what happened to the waters above the firmament?

This isn't the thread for this, but I have a feeling you know. If I'm wrong (about you knowing), q.v. the Water Canopy Theory.

If you are interpreting the biblical cosmos literally, the firmament is a solid dome supporting the waters above.

Did I not just go into detail about what the firmaments are? Did I even mention any of them being a "solid dome"?

So your whole description of the heavens is a figurative one in which you take the literal firmament to be a symbol for a containment field.

Okay --- I'm sorry, Gluadys --- but I'm done wasting my time with this. If you have any new questions (meaning something I've addressed less than 10 times in the past two and a half years), feel free to ask.

 

[AV1611VET]

Clearly, you have no idea who you're talking to.

Yes, I do --- I know my breakfast when I see it.

 

[Mallon]

Yes, I do --- I know my breakfast when I see it.

Apparently you don't read the Bible literally when it speaks of love and compassion.

 

[gluadys]

Do I now?

Have you taken any? (I suspect you have.)

A good many. It was my college major. I have also taught literature in both English and French.

And if you have, and you can't tell when someone is allegorizing a literal passage, then I think I'll respectfully pass on your suggestion.

I can tell. And I can also tell when they are literalizing an allegory or historicizing a myth.

Can you explain what Hebrew Poetry is,

I am not an expert on Hebrew poetry, but in general it is the same as any poetry; sometimes narrative, sometimes lyrical, using a structure and rhythm not used in everyday speech for heightened effect--often more intensely emotional than mundane conversation--and often relying more completely on imagery and unique turns of phrase.

and why it doesn't rhyme?

Most ancient poetry doesn't rhyme, including Old-to-Middle English poetry. Consider the plays of Shakespeare. The rhythm is there: iambic pentameter, but very little rhyming. Older English depended on initial alliteration which is why we have inherited so many stock alliterative phrases like "tit for tat" and "one and only". Note the alliteration in the opening lines of Piers Plowman:

In a somer sesun, whon softe was the sonne,
I schop me into a shroud, as I a scheep were;

In each line each accented syllable begins with the same sound.

When rhyme first began to be used, the conservative types considered it a silly affectation, only good for jingles.




The characteristic form of Hebrew verse is the doublet in which the antiphon echoes the first line. A longer form also frequently seen is the chiasmus, some of which can be quite complicated.

Or give me one simple example of Contrasting Hebrew Poetry, and one simple example of Complimentary Hebrew Poetry? (I won't ask for a complex example.) If not, then please don't act like you know what I'm talking about.

Sure.

Contrastive

A wise child makes a glad father/but a foolish child is a mother's grief.


Complimentary

The heavens are telling the glory of God/and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.

 

[WorshipBassist]

I'm confused....still.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sure.

Contrastive

A wise child makes a glad father/but a foolish child is a mother's grief.


Complimentary

The heavens are telling the glory of God/and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.

Well --- sing a song of sixpence --- it appears I may have underestimated you somewhat.

 

[Mallon]

I'm confused....still.

What are you confused about, specifically?

 

[gluadys]

No, Paul doesn't mention three heavens --- he mentions a third heaven --- there's a difference.

Ok. "third heaven" implies "at least three". Perhaps Paul thought there were more.

Yes, literally it is.

So what do you think "literally" means? In my book when you give a word something other than its empirical sense, that is not literal.

"containment field" is not the literal sense of "firmament". "atmosphere" is not the literal sense of "firmament". "Outer space" is not the literal sense of "firmament."

This isn't the thread for this, but I have a feeling you know. If I'm wrong (about you knowing), q.v. the Water Canopy Theory.

The water canopy theory is not a literal interpretation of the biblical text either and it is contradicted by scripture.

Did I even mention any of them being a "solid dome"?

No, you didn't. And since that is the literal meaning of "firmament" you should have.

Any other interpretation of "firmament" is not the literal meaning.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm confused....still.

Just duck for a few posts, it'll all be over shortly ---

 

[WorshipBassist]

Just duck for a few posts, it'll all be over shortly ---

Good idea!

 

[sonic purity]

Not exactly a topic that you can learn from a thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

"containment field" is not the literal sense of "firmament". "atmosphere" is not the literal sense of "firmament". "Outer space" is not the literal sense of "firmament."

Here's a quote from the Net:

The vault or expanse of the heavens; the sky.

You should know that one doesn't build his theology on one word alone, but on two major premises: 1) the context of the passage, 2) comparing Scripture with Scripture and rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

I'm not interested in what the Hebrews thought, nor am I interested in the Hebrew word used --- I'm a KJVO, and when one constructs a definition for a word, one must use the whole Bible, and not just parts of it, or it will result in error doctrine.

The water canopy theory is not a literal interpretation of the biblical text either and it is contradicted by scripture.

Like I said, this isn't the place to discuss the Water Canopy Theory, or we're going to be here all night.

Any other interpretation of "firmament" is not the literal meaning.

Like I said, a firmament is a containment field --- anything else would eventually lead to error doctrine.

 

[gluadys]

Here's a quote from the Net:You should know that one doesn't build his theology on one word alone, but on two major premises: 1) the context of the passage, 2) comparing Scripture with Scripture and rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

Exactly. In fact, it is by comparing scripture with scripture that we learn the nature of the firmament.

I'm not interested in what the Hebrews thought, nor am I interested in the Hebrew word used --- I'm a KJVO, and when one constructs a definition for a word, one must use the whole Bible, and not just parts of it, or it will result in error doctrine.

KJV translators knew the literal meaning of "firmament" was not "containment field" and had nothing to do with "outer space". As far as they were concerned there was no such thing as outer space or containment fields.

Like I said, a firmament is a containment field --- anything else would eventually lead to error doctrine.

LOL. It's your way or no way, eh? That still doesn't answer the question.

What is your definition of the "literal" meaning of a text?


I get the impression it is "whatever AV1611VET says it is." Welcome to the school of Humpty Dumpty hermeneutics.

 

[theFijian]

I'm not interested in what the Hebrews thought, nor am I interested in the Hebrew word used --- I'm a KJVO

Ah I see, I understand your definition of faith now...it's like this

Through the KJV translators we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God

Nice and unorthodox!

 

[Assyrian]

[pong]

[/pong]

 

[WorshipBassist]

I'm going to have to ask one of the ministers in my church about this.



I think I'm turning atheist.

 

[Assyrian]

I am really sorry if our squabbling here has made it more difficult for you.

 

[WorshipBassist]

I am really sorry if our squabbling here has made it more difficult for you.

It's not difficult but people keep derailing the thread...

 

[Mallon]

It's not difficult but people keep derailing the thread...

I think you would be better off asking your questions in the Theistic Evolution and Creationism subforums. The people in each of those two camps are of (more or less) like-mind, so you're less likely to get as much bickering there. And be sure to ask specific questions. "Are science and faith compatible?" is a good question, but it would require an entire book to answer in detail.