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.
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.With such a clear representation of the scientific method you must be a scienctist!
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?
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?
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,
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).
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.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
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.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.
Planes at least use the fact that the earth is round in planning routes iirc.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.
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?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?"
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
...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?
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?
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, 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
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.
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.
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?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'.
Did you read my reply?
Your point??"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
It obvious we are not going to agree.
(you even argue a dream should be taken literally. )
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.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.
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.
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.
Sure it is. "raqiya" literally means "beaten metal".It's as explicit as can be. To call it a solid barrier between heaven and earth is not a literal translation.
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.
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....
miamited said: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
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.
I disagree. Let's see your verses.But translation has "earth", and in many of the verses, it is clear that it is talking about more than just the land.
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?