If the universe is <10,000 old....

[Smidlee]

With such a clear representation of the scientific method you must be a scienctist!

You do know anybody, not just scientist, can use the scientific method, right? Also you don't have to be a scientist to know something about human nature. This is just damage control from a very bad prediction.

 

[Papias]

Smidlee, this is the fourth time you've refused to answer direct questions you've been asked. Would you like to answer the questions repeated again for you in post #212? Would you like me to copy them here again for your convenience?

Papias

 

[Greg1234]

Cal wrote:




It sounds like you are saying that the translation, even if it is the best that could be done, is misleading. If that's the case, than how can a straight english reader be confident of anything they read in their chosen Bible? Or even have confidence they chose the right Bible out of the many out there, many of which have different whole books?

By understanding the theological roots of the bible. Acknowledging foremost that consciousness is not a product of the brain, and through application.

Plus, you position here eliminates any suggestion that Genesis describes a worldwide flood, instead showing that the flood was local. Do you, Cal, agree that the flood was only a local event?

I see nothing in there to suggest to suggest a local flood per Darwinism. Everything points to a catastrophic international event.

That's not what the Biblical scholars, who have studied this their whole lives, say. 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,

Nothing there. It's an expanse.

like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2), that is arched over the surface of the earth.

They're clearly similes.

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).

It's a figure of speech to relate other theological elements. The authors spoke about rain the following-

"He bindeth Up the water in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them." (Job 26:8).

Ezekiel 1:22

That is a vision. And the expanse above their heads is not the sky but something comparable to a halo.

and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice,

It says strong like bronze, not hard. Things can be strong without being solid, even something as abstract as determination.

and can be removed (Rev 6:14).

Rev is recognized as a mystery.

 

[Smidlee]

Smidlee, this is the fourth time you've refused to answer direct questions you've been asked. Would you like to answer the questions repeated again for you in post #212? Would you like me to copy them here again for your convenience?

Papias

Cal pretty much cover it. It obvious we are not going to agree. (you even argue a dream should be taken literally. )You can only be told by what you already know. If someone claim to have found a new Gospel and it mention stuff like "germs" and "virus" then everyone would know it's a fake.
Jesus used common every day life to illustrate spiritual truths. Jesus used what they already know for insight into the unseen spirit world. I sure if Jesus wanted to talk over everyone's head he could have done it.

Even if man knew for a long time that the world was a sphere (there is evidence this is true) it still not practical for every day life back then as it is today. Today we have ships and planes cross the oceans on a daily bases. Still If I'm traveling only in the USA it makes no difference if the earth was flat or round. I would still use a flat map. The Bible doesn't claim the "planet" is flat no more than my maps does which I read very literally.

Since Job 38 mention stuff like "sea with doors" and "stars sang together" common sense tells me not to take it literally. A humble question to ask is in Job 38: 4 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?"

 

[Keachian]

Cal pretty much cover it. It obvious we are not going to agree. (you even argue a dream should be taken literally. )You can only be told by what you already know. If someone claim to have found a new Gospel and it mention stuff like "germs" and "virus" then everyone would know it's a fake.
Jesus used common every day life to illustrate spiritual truths. Jesus used what they already know for insight into the unseen spirit world. I sure if Jesus wanted to talk over everyone's head he could have done it.

Well then it's obvious that Jesus wasn't concerned with the physicality of the world, how it came to be whatever, Jesus also said that he does only what he sees the Father doing, so why don't you think God avoided talking over people's head when it comes to how he created? Because that's the obvious conclusion of YEC God described how he did it in Gen 1, and if reasoned study of the universe comes to a different conclusion God is a liar.

Even if man knew for a long time that the world was a sphere (there is evidence this is true) it still not practical for every day life back then as it is today. Today we have ships and planes cross the oceans on a daily bases. Still If I'm traveling only in the USA it makes no difference if the earth was flat or round. I would still use a flat map. The Bible doesn't claim the "planet" is flat no more than my maps does which I read very literally.

Planes at least use the fact that the earth is round in planning routes iirc.

Since Job 38 mention stuff like "sea with doors" and "stars sang together" common sense tells me not to take it literally. A humble question to ask is in Job 38: 4 "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?"

I didn't exist but neither did you, but we both agree that God has a habit of condescension in regards to his word and communicating scientific truths, preferring instead to talk about theological truths, so why are you adamant that Genesis 1 is any different?

 

[Calminian]

The Genesis story presents us with the earth as God's temple. Thus, the concept of a dome or vault is appropriate, as that was not meant to imply as a description of matter.

John
NZ

The earth is never ever presented as God's temple. The Tabernacle, later replaced by Solomon's temple, was a model, a type, a picture of heaven.

Is. 66:1 Thus says the LORD: “Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you will build Me? And where is the place of My rest?
Lam. 2:1 How the Lord has covered the daughter of Zion With a cloud in His anger! He cast down from heaven to the earth The beauty of Israel, And did not remember His footstool In the day of His anger.
Matt. 5:35 “nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
Acts 7:49 ‘Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me? says the LORD, Or what is the place of My rest?​

 

[Calminian]

...It sounds like you are saying that the translation, even if it is the best that could be done, is misleading. If that's the case, than how can a straight english reader be confident of anything they read in their chosen Bible? Or even have confidence they chose the right Bible out of the many out there, many of which have different whole books?

The idea that the earth means land is explicit in scripture. You don't need any training in hebrew or greek to pick up on this. Explicitly, it is stated as separate from the sea. Over and over and over, this is the case.

Gen. 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas.

It's really a no brainer. The same is true of raqiya. Gen. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven.

I realize some don't understand this, but the bible can't be to blame.

Plus, you position here eliminates any suggestion that Genesis describes a worldwide flood, instead showing that the flood was local. Do you, Cal, agree that the flood was only a local event?

Not at all, for the bible says that the whole land was covered everywhere under the heavens.

Gen. 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.

That langue makes a local flood under one small portion of the sky impossible.

That's not what the Biblical scholars, who have studied this their whole lives, say. 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.

Sorry, the firmament is explicitly called heaven. Heaven is the name of the firmament created in Gen. 1.

Gen. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.

Thus, the dry ground is named earth, the gathered waters are named the seas, and the firmament is named heaven.

It's as explicit as can be. To call it a solid barrier between heaven and earth is not a literal translation.

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.

Papias

This is taken from vague etymological arguments from an obscure passage in Ezekiel. I never understood why some "scholars" do this, when the term is explicitly define in Genesis 1, where it's first mentioned. If you want to know what the raqiya is, just study what heaven is.

And God called the firmament (raqiya) Heaven....

Clouds are said to be in the heavens in the Bible. Even from the naked eye they are obviously not embedded in a soled metal mass.

 

[Keachian]

The earth is never ever presented as God's temple. The Tabernacle, later replaced by Solomon's temple, was a model, a type, a picture of heaven.

1 Kings 8:10-13 has God literally dwelling in Solomon's Temple, so to say it is a model is wrong.

Psalm 108 has God relaxing in his temple; he casually kicks his shoes off and they land on edom and uses moab as his washbasin.

One of the things that Johnnz probably should have corrected is that creation is God's temple not just the earth, heaven is a part of God's creation so the verse you use Isaiah 66:1-2 actually supports the idea that God dwells within his creation.

 

[Keachian]

The idea that the earth means land is explicit in scripture. You don't need any training in hebrew or greek to pick up on this. Explicitly, it is stated as separate from the sea. Over and over and over, this is the case.

So when Genesis 1:1 says God created the shamayim and the erets, it's leaving the sea uncreated? I don't think one can make that claim the hebrew phrase ha'shamayim ve'et ha'erets is used for all of creation, not just the land and the firmament.

 

[Assyrian]

Not at all, for the bible says that the whole land was covered everywhere under the heavens.

Gen. 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.

That langue makes a local flood under one small portion of the sky impossible.

If 'the earth' and 'the whole earth' can mean a limited area, why would you think 'the heavens' and 'the whole heavens' can't work the same way?

Deut 2:25 This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.'
Under the whole heaven just referred to the nations in and around Canaan.

Isaiah 13:5 They come from a distant land, from the end of the heavens, the LORD and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land...
17 Behold, I am stirring up the Medes against them. The whole land is our friend kol h'erets again, the whole earth though it is just referring to Israel. But look where the Medes come from, their home in the Zagros Mountains on the eastern border of Mesopotamia is 'the end of the heavens'.

 

[Greg1234]

If 'the earth' and 'the whole earth' can mean a limited area, why would you think 'the heavens' and 'the whole heavens' can't work the same way?

Deut 2:25 This day I will begin to put the dread and fear of you on the peoples who are under the whole heaven, who shall hear the report of you and shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.'
Under the whole heaven just referred to the nations in and around Canaan.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7642524-6/#post60109669

Isaiah 13:5 They come from a distant land, from the end of the heavens, the LORD and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land...
17 Behold, I am stirring up the Medes against them. The whole land is our friend kol h'erets again, the whole earth though it is just referring to Israel. But look where the Medes come from, their home in the Zagros Mountains on the eastern border of Mesopotamia is 'the end of the heavens'.

"They come from a distant land, from the end of the heavens, the LORD and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land..."

http://www.christianforums.com/t7642524-8/#post60122571

 

[Assyrian]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7642524-6/#post60109669

Did you read my reply?

"They come from a distant land, from the end of the heavens, the LORD and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land..."

http://www.christianforums.com/t7642524-8/#post60122571

Your point??

 

[Papias]

Smidlee wrote:

It obvious we are not going to agree.

So for a 5th time, you are not going to answer the questions in post #212, and instead continue with unsupported assertions?

(you even argue a dream should be taken literally. )

Can you please show me where I said a dream should be taken literally? I said that the dream includes things that people will understand, because they reflect how they see the world. It's becoming increasingly clear that the only time you are going to respond (other than repeating points already refuted) is by misrepresenting what others say.

Papias

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

...It sounds like you are saying that the translation, even if it is the best that could be done, is misleading. If that's the case, than how can a straight english reader be confident of anything they read in their chosen Bible? Or even have confidence they chose the right Bible out of the many out there, many of which have different whole books?

The idea that the earth means land is explicit in scripture. You don't need any training in hebrew or greek to pick up on this. Explicitly, it is stated as separate from the sea. Over and over and over, this is the case.

Gen. 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas.

It's really a no brainer.
​

But translation has "earth", and in many of the verses, it is clear that it is talking about more than just the land. You didn't answer the question of why the "fact" you are claiming that we can go by what the translation says somehow means that we can go by what the translation says.

Not at all, for the bible says that the whole land was covered everywhere under the heavens.

Gen. 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.

That langue makes a local flood under one small portion of the sky impossible.

Cal, I hate to break it to you, but you can't have it both ways. If you are going to say "earth" means "only land local enough to be flat", then you have a local flood.

Originally Posted by Papias

That's not what the Biblical scholars, who have studied this their whole lives, say. 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.

Sorry, the firmament is explicitly called heaven. Heaven is the name of the firmament created in Gen. 1.

Gen. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.


​

It's as explicit as can be. To call it a solid barrier between heaven and earth is not a literal translation.

Sure it is. "raqiya" literally means "beaten metal".


Originally Posted by Papias

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.

Papias
​

This is taken from vague etymological arguments from an obscure passage in Ezekiel. I never understood why some "scholars" do this, when the term is explicitly define in Genesis 1, where it's first mentioned. If you want to know what the raqiya is, just study what heaven is.

So because you don't like the scholar's conclusion, and don't have the background and understanding they have, you pretend your preference carries more weight than their studied conclusion?

More importantly, as shown above, it's not just "one obscure verse", meaning "one verse I wish I could ignore", but plenty of verses that all agree, and not only that, agree with what the word raqiya means in Hebrew.

Most importantly, in addition to understanding of Bible Scholars and the agreement of all these verses, your construction of "the land" doesn't work anyway, because the lands involved are too big to be flat anyway. They including north africa, the middle east, turkey, and the enclosed bodies of water like the easter end of the mediterranean. A "tent" or dome over them still wounldn't work, and they wouldn't be "flat like clay pressed under a seal".

Papias

 

[shernren]

This is taken from vague etymological arguments from an obscure passage in Ezekiel. I never understood why some "scholars" do this, when the term is explicitly define in Genesis 1, where it's first mentioned. If you want to know what the raqiya is, just study what heaven is.

And God called the firmament (raqiya) Heaven....

The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. (Gen 3:20, ESV2011)

I guess that if I want to know what mothers are, I'll have to study Eve. It turns out that mothers are basically women who listen to talking snakes while standing stark naked in front of a divinely forbidden fruit tree.

... no, that's not how it works, is it? The proper name denotes one particular object of a category; the proper name itself cannot define the category. One does not learn everything about dogs by studying one pit bull terrier named Lucky, or everything about countries by studying one crazy country named America. Similarly, one does not learn about firmaments by studying one firmament named Heaven (and remember, an ancient Hebrew might not agree with you about what it is) - one learns about firmaments by actually studying what firmaments are.

 

[Metal Minister]

Then you post: And when someone responds to that with "but we're talking about science which is God's creation, what does it say?"

Listen, the laws by which the creation runs are of God. I'm not convinced that science is. I'm not sure that God is pleased that we try to disprove Him through our study of what He has made. You obviously think that He is and that is a basic tenent that we will just have to disagree on.

Then you wrote: Then someone may respond with something along the lines of "Well, many scholars and christians have understood the creation account differently, there is a deep meaning in these other ways of understanding it and it is still all true, there is truth in its meaning, even if it isn't literal." And without even batting an eye you respond with more monster posts that just basically say "God is powerful and we need to believe Him and I really really really believe it this way."

Listen friend, have you never read the Scriptures? In nearly every one of the writings of the new covenant we are warned of false teachers and those who believe the lie and, as I understand the Scriptures, even among the church it's only going to get worse and not better. Jesus made a very telling comment that I have considered very, very deeply and in much prayer. He said to his disciples, "When the Son of Man returns, will he find faith upon the earth." Now friend, I'm impressed by that, that faithfulness to God is not going to get stronger or there be more and more people who believe, but rather less and less. The Scriptures warn that the end will not come until the great apostasy of the church. Hmmmmm. Jesus seems obviously to me to be saying that he may not find a single person on the earth who is faithful to God when he returns. Does that sound to you like there's going to be some great flood of faithful teachers and pastors among the church as we march closer and closer to the day of Jesus' return? So, yes, while I fully agree that there are those just as you proclaim, they may well also be fulfilling this very issue that Jesus brings up. My prayer is that you not also be swept up in this great tide of apostasy that is coming.

No, I'm standing with God and declaring that He is a God of such great power, wisdom and knowledge that He created everything just as He said and if I be condemned by Him for that, then so be it. If I be condemned by you for that doesn't really matter to me. Friend, listen to this one and singular plea from an old man with many years -- believe God! Don't fall for all those senseless arguments based on the 'basic principles of the world'. Just trust and believe God! It really isn't important to Him that you have great worldly knowledge. What He asks is that we trust and believe and most of all, love Him. Love Him! Don't just know about Him. Love Him. Spend time with Him every day. All that time that you give to studying these other issues, I challenge you to get down on your knees in a quiet place and just pour out your heart to Him and declare your steadfast love, not knowledge, love for Him. Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to love the Lord your God with all your strength. Take that strength that you are giving to studying all the scientific reason you can find and turn it to Him. With all your heart. Empty your heart completely and fill it with love for your Creator. He will give you the answers that you seek. It is His delight, my friend, absolute delight to give knowledge and wisdom and understanding to the heart that is diligently seeking after Him.

God bless you, phil.
In Christ, Ted

Wow Ted, are there any of these you don't hit out of the park? Amen, and again I say amen!

 

[Calminian]

The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. (Gen 3:20, ESV2011)

I guess that if I want to know what mothers are, I'll have to study Eve.

No but if you want to know about the first woman, yes, you look for information about Eve. Eve is not the name of all women, it's the name of a particular woman. Thus to find out about the particular woman, you look for information about Eve.

Likewise, if you want to find out information about the particular expanse (firmament) that was created in Genesis 1, you look for information about the heavens, which was the name given to it.

 

[Calminian]

Cal wrote:

But translation has "earth", and in many of the verses, it is clear that it is talking about more than just the land.

I disagree. Let's see your verses.

 

[shernren]

No but if you want to know about the first woman, yes, you look for information about Eve. Eve is not the name of all women, it's the name of a particular woman. Thus to find out about the particular woman, you look for information about Eve.

Let's see, looking for information about Eve:

I found her!

Likewise, if you want to find out information about the particular expanse (firmament) that was created in Genesis 1, you look for information about the heavens, which was the name given to it.

Actually, we look for information about Heaven - how can we give a plural name to a singular object? Fair enough. I guess that tells me that the expanse was this:

What do you mean, "not that heaven"? You told me to look for information about Heaven! I thought that any old "heaven" would do!

Do you see the problem here? One does not learn what a dog is by reading up about "Chihuahua" the Mexican city, nor does one learn what an expanse is by consulting one particular definition of "heaven" which is possibly wrong and probably irrelevant. One learns about dogs by studying dogs and about expanses by studying expanses, and the very word "expanse" comes from an etymological root related to the casting of solid metal. That at the very least requires an explanation from you, not a logically incoherent handwaving excuse.

 

[shernren]

But translation has "earth", and in many of the verses, it is clear that it is talking about more than just the land.

I disagree. Let's see your verses.

What does the word "land" (eretz) refer to in the Flood accounts? 12 times it is used in Genesis 7, but in a sentence like this:

And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days. (Gen 7:24, ESV2011)​

there simply is no "land" to speak of. According to flood geology, not only was the entire globe covered by water, its sediments were thoroughly mixed and irreversibly transformed, so that whatever one might call "dry land" before the Flood all but ceases to exist and is catastrophically remade. Whatever the Flood could be covering for a hundred and fifty days, it certainly wasn't dry land!

What more when a particular juxtaposition makes it clear that the author sure knew what to call dry land:

And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth (eretz), and all mankind. Everything on the dry land (charabah) in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. (Gen 7:21-22, ESV2011)​