Is Genesis history?

[PrincetonGuy]

I watched the entire video.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Christians only please. Started here as last thread was bombarded by non Christians.

Fascinating documentary about the history of the earth from the pages of Genesis.

Before watching this video, i was of the strong belief of an 'old' earth.

After watching this video i am not so sure now. Definitely needs more thought now. Hope you enjoy watching it, as i did.

I watched the entire video, and as a former scientist and a conservative evangelical pastor and teacher, I was very embarrassed. I was embarrassed as a former scientist because the so-called scientists in the video co-mingled religion and the supernatural with science—and no real scientist would do such a foolish thing. I was embarrassed as a pastor and a teacher because the video makes a mockery of the Bible: “the Bible”…“the biblical paradigm”…“the Genesis paradigm”…, etc. all of the time referring not to the Book of Genesis as it was given to us by God, but referring to an extremely outdated and highly incorrect interpretation of Genesis.

The Hebrew text of the first 11 chapters of Genesis has been the subject of intense research on the part of hundreds of Old Testament scholars and the findings of this research have been summarized in Claus Westermann’s 648-page commentary on the Hebrew text of the first 11 chapters of Genesis. More to the point—these findings expressly contradict the interpretation of Genesis presented in the video. Indeed, the whole young earth creationist movement is based upon pseudoscience and an extremely outdated and highly incorrect interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Lost4words]

I watched the entire video, and as a former scientist and a conservative evangelical pastor and teacher, I was very embarrassed. I was embarrassed as a former scientist because the so-called scientists in the video co-mingled religion and the supernatural with science—and no real scientist would do such a foolish thing. I was embarrassed as a pastor and a teacher because the video makes a mockery of the Bible: “the Bible”…“the biblical paradigm”…“the Genesis paradigm”…, etc. all of the time referring not to the Book of Genesis as it was given to us by God, but referring to an extremely outdated and highly incorrect interpretation of Genesis.

The Hebrew text of the first 11 chapters of Genesis has been the subject of intense research on the part of hundreds of Old Testament scholars and the findings of this research have been summarized in Claus Westermann’s 648-page commentary on the Hebrew text of the first 11 chapters of Genesis. More to the point—these findings expressly contradict the interpretation of Genesis presented in the video. Indeed, the whole young earth creationist movement is based upon pseudoscience and an extremely outdated and highly incorrect interpretation of Genesis.

I used to think like that too but, after looking into it in more detail my views are changing.

Still early days but the evidence for a young earth is very compelling indeed.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I used to think like that too but, after looking into it in more detail my views are changing.

Still early days but the evidence for a young earth is very compelling indeed.

In the video, reference is made to the “cat kind,” a concept that is entirely foreign to both science and the Bible. Indeed, it is a fictitious concept concocted out of thin air for the purpose of deceiving the public.

In his booklet, The Genesis Flood, Fact or Fiction?, Tas Walker agrees with John Woodmorappe’s teaching that the word “kind” in Genesis (Hebrew, מִין) refers to what we now call a genus, as in “the cat kind, the horse kind, and the cow kind.” But, of course, this is nothing but young earth creationist mumbo jumbo because, for example, the “cat kind” is not a genus, but a family (Felidae) comprised of 14 genera. Furthermore, Woodmorappe and Walker claim that all modern animals in the cat kind “descended” from one “parent kind.” But—what do they mean by the word, “descended”? They mean a biological process known by everyone else as “evolution”!

About 10.8 million years ago, the cat family began to split off into 8 Lineages consisting of 2 subfamilies, 14 genera, and 41 species. (Kitchener et al. 2017. (A revised taxonomy of the Felidae). The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN / SSC Cat Specialist Group.) The relationship of these groups to each other and the relative time of their splitting off has been learned and very well documented by comparing DNA sequences of all 41 species of cats. The actual time of the splitting off is learned from fossil records which young earth creationist believe to be radically misinterpreted.

Leopards (Panthera pardus) and ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) are phenotypically similar to each other, but genotypically dissimilar to each other. This is called convergent evolution and is due to the two genetically very different species having adapted to similar environments. Leopards belong to the Panthera Lineage that includes the leopards and six other species, but ocelots belong to the Leopardus lineage that includes the ocelots and seven other species. Both of these lineages descended (evolved) from the same Felid ancestor rather than one of them from the other. Therefore, it would have been absolutely necessary for one pair of cats (cats are ‘unclean animals—Leviticus 11)) from both lineages to have been aboard the ark. Moreover, as has been proven from DNA sequences, all seven of the species in the Panthera Lineage descended (evolved) independently from each other, and therefore, it would have been absolutely necessary for a pair of cats from all seven of the species in the Panthera Lineage to have been aboard the ark. Furthermore, the same would have been true of the other seven lineages and all of their species—for a total of not just 2, but 82 cats!

All 41 species of cats are carnivores, and none of them hibernate. All 40 species of cats spray their very caustic urine all over everything that they wish to claim as their own. A male lion in captivity requires 8 pounds of food per day—that is 2,920 pounds of food that a male lion on board the ark would have needed to eat during its stay on board the ark—and its mate would have required 2,190 pounds of food. The total food requirement for the 82 cats would have been approximately 90,000 pounds of meat—90,000 pounds of meat that would have to have been fed to the cats by Noah and his family. And we are still talking about just the cats! And we have not yet gotten to their excrement!

We have today several hundred thousands of genetically discreet populations of animals that would necessarily have been aboard the ark 4,368 years ago, and during that time, thousands of genetically discreet populations of animals have become extinct, but would necessarily have been aboard the ark. DNA sequences do not lie, but Tas Walker makes a habit of it!

The purpose of the research was not to prove the theory of evolution or disprove the Bible; the purpose of the research was to get accurate data that will assist biologists in the protection of the biodiversity of the cat family and the other populations of wild animals—the very purpose of the ark!

 

[Lost4words]

In the video, reference is made to the “cat kind,” a concept that is entirely foreign to both science and the Bible. Indeed, it is a fictitious concept concocted out of thin air for the purpose of deceiving the public.

In his booklet, The Genesis Flood, Fact or Fiction?, Tas Walker agrees with John Woodmorappe’s teaching that the word “kind” in Genesis (Hebrew, מִין) refers to what we now call a genus, as in “the cat kind, the horse kind, and the cow kind.” But, of course, this is nothing but young earth creationist mumbo jumbo because, for example, the “cat kind” is not a genus, but a family (Felidae) comprised of 14 genera. Furthermore, Woodmorappe and Walker claim that all modern animals in the cat kind “descended” from one “parent kind.” But—what do they mean by the word, “descended”? They mean a biological process known by everyone else as “evolution”!

About 10.8 million years ago, the cat family began to split off into 8 Lineages consisting of 2 subfamilies, 14 genera, and 41 species. (Kitchener et al. 2017. (A revised taxonomy of the Felidae). The final report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN / SSC Cat Specialist Group.) The relationship of these groups to each other and the relative time of their splitting off has been learned and very well documented by comparing DNA sequences of all 41 species of cats. The actual time of the splitting off is learned from fossil records which young earth creationist believe to be radically misinterpreted.

Leopards (Panthera pardus) and ocelots (Leopardus pardalis) are phenotypically similar to each other, but genotypically dissimilar to each other. This is called convergent evolution and is due to the two genetically very different species having adapted to similar environments. Leopards belong to the Panthera Lineage that includes the leopards and six other species, but ocelots belong to the Leopardus lineage that includes the ocelots and seven other species. Both of these lineages descended (evolved) from the same Felid ancestor rather than one of them from the other. Therefore, it would have been absolutely necessary for one pair of cats (cats are ‘unclean animals—Leviticus 11)) from both lineages to have been aboard the ark. Moreover, as has been proven from DNA sequences, all seven of the species in the Panthera Lineage descended (evolved) independently from each other, and therefore, it would have been absolutely necessary for a pair of cats from all seven of the species in the Panthera Lineage to have been aboard the ark. Furthermore, the same would have been true of the other seven lineages and all of their species—for a total of not just 2, but 82 cats!

All 41 species of cats are carnivores, and none of them hibernate. All 40 species of cats spray their very caustic urine all over everything that they wish to claim as their own. A male lion in captivity requires 8 pounds of food per day—that is 2,920 pounds of food that a male lion on board the ark would have needed to eat during its stay on board the ark—and its mate would have required 2,190 pounds of food. The total food requirement for the 82 cats would have been approximately 90,000 pounds of meat—90,000 pounds of meat that would have to have been fed to the cats by Noah and his family. And we are still talking about just the cats! And we have not yet gotten to their excrement!

We have today several hundred thousands of genetically discreet populations of animals that would necessarily have been aboard the ark 4,368 years ago, and during that time, thousands of genetically discreet populations of animals have become extinct, but would necessarily have been aboard the ark. DNA sequences do not lie, but Tas Walker makes a habit of it!

The purpose of the research was not to prove the theory of evolution or disprove the Bible; the purpose of the research was to get accurate data that will assist biologists in the protection of the biodiversity of the cat family and the other populations of wild animals—the very purpose of the ark!

I believe in God.

Can you explain how Jesus turned water into wine?

How did Jesus turn the 5 loaves and 3 fish into a sufficient amount to feed the 5,000?

God works in mysterious ways and if He wanted all those animal on the Ark, then that indeed happened. God had a plan. He knew what He was doing.

 

[Job 33:6]

60-70

First and foremost, st thomas is a beautiful island and i happened to have appreciated my times at coral world.

now that this is out of the way ill continue.

61:00 already covered degraded organics in fossils

Is Genesis history?

63:00 already covered the topic of transitional forms.

Is Genesis history?

64:00 whats really funny about this is that as much as i loved my sea world experience, there is no reason that i would expect anyone who feeds dolphins for a living to know anything about geology or paleontology. Anyway.

68:00 i am pleased to learn that a sea cucumber (also known as donkey dung) is also an echinoderm. interesting! But irrelevant.

final thought on this segment, it was kind of the biologist to note just how few genetic changes separate the starfish from the cucumber from the urchin. Thereby pointing out on a genetic basis, how vast morphological changes can unfold via so few mutations.

thats about it for this 10 minute segment. moving on. No real technical arguments were otherwise made, just more open claims.

 

[Job 33:6]

60-70

corst and foremost, st thomas is a beautiful island and i happened to have appreciated my times at sea world.

now that this is out of the way ill continue.

61:00 already covered degraded organics in fossils

Is Genesis history?

63:00 already covered the topic of transitional forms.

Is Genesis history?

64:00 whats really funny about this is that as much as i loved my sea world experience, there is no reason that i would expect anyone who feeds dolphins for a living to know anything about geology or paleontology. Anyway.

68:00 i am pleased to learn that a sea cucumber (also known as donkey dung) is also an echinoderm. interesting! But irrelevant.

final thought on this segment, it was kind of the biologist to note just how few genetic changes separate the starfish from the cucumber from the urchin. Thereby pointing out on a genetic basis, how vast morphological changes can unfold via so few mutations.

thats about it for this 10 minute segment. moving on. No real technical arguments were otherwise made, just more open claims.

This is actually hilarious too at 70:00 the host of the video is wearing a hat that says "coki beach". But anyone who has actually gone to this beach knows that it's packed with locals who are hanging out smoking weed (not just a little weed but the whole beach smells of it) and listening to rap and reggae in thongs and bikinis. LOL which is what a lot of secular people go to the Caribbean for (to relax with scandalous dressed women with Bob marley playing in the background), But it is not what I would expect a young earth creationist fundamentalist to be wearing a hat of.

He could have picked a hat from a dozen other beaches there on St Thomas or dozens of others at st John or at Croix etc. but he picks coki Beach(of all the dozens of beaches), which I find hilarious because he's probably never actually spent time there despite being just a quarter mile away or so in this film haha. This older gentlemen is the last person who would actually spend any time smoking with the locals at coki. I wonder if there was some kind of advertisement agreement to draw business to coral world. This is the only reason I would expect the host to be wearing that hat.


Just a funny observation!

Alright, back to the subject matter!

 

[Job 33:6]

70 minutes to 80 minutes:

I would just defer to Princeton guy above:
Is Genesis history?

The issues with the YEC definitions of "kinds" are numerous. Even further we have ancient Egyptians that owned small house cats even thousands of years ago arguably before the hypothetical flood occured, which draws further questions of how we went from some broad and obscure cat "kind" to the vast variations we see of dozens of species of cats from panthers to tigers to house cats, within a single generation after the hypothetical flood.

The issues with YEC "kinds" are excessive and have been discussed ad nauseam on this forum.

This is really just another case of YECs hitting the DVD "fast forward button" on reality. Have problems with the speed of light? Just hit the fast forward button of your imagination and speed it up! Have problems with how slow tectonic plates and continents are moving? Just hit the fast forward button of your imagination and they'll move at several km per hour! Having trouble figuring out those pesky radiometric ages? Just baselessly suggest that the isotopes decayed at hyper fast rates and hit the fast forward button! Have problems with figuring out how dozens of genetically independent genera of cats could have evolved in a single generation? Just hit the fast forward button on biological descent with modification!

YECs throw all physics and chemistry right out the window. Can't figure out how a flood can make a certain rock formation? Just take typical old earth geology, ignore physics and chemistry, hit the fast forward button on reality and you're good to go!

Just a classic case of YECs just ignoring physical reality.

Moving on.

 

[Job 33:6]

1 hour and 20- 1 hour and 30.

The problem with this argument that everything just "sped up" during the creation event, This idea that plants just grew super fast and that continents moved super fast and the speed of light moves super fast and speciation occurred super fast, the problem is that these events are the same events that have unfolded within strata, allegedly deposited by this hypothetical flood in a post-day 6 world of Noah.

There are the hypothetical literal 6 days of creation themselves, and then there are hypothetical things that unfolded during the days of Noah, but a lot of the "what strata is pre-flood" and "what strata is post-flood" is continually confused and intermingled with one another by YECs. And their confusion is justified, because the moment we begin unravelling their beliefs to try to rationalize ideas, we are soon met with innumerable logical obstacles and contradictions. Example below:

Here is fossil grove (see image above), And someone could argue that maybe these plants grew super fast, and that's how a forest managed to come about in 6 days. But the problem is that this Forest rest in between the very layers that are suggested to have been deposited by a hypothetical flood. More specifically, this particular forest which is one of many happens to be in carboniferous strata, Which is below strata of the Permian but above strata of the devonian, and was simply uncovered by quarry activities.

And so it could not possibly have been anything but in-situ growth of an entire forest, mid-flood.

YECs have countered with this strange idea that thesw forests rested atop floating islands of vegetation and that this just happened to settle out in a particular area. But this response is irrational in that these forests are rooted in prehistoric soils (paleosols) with a, b, c and o soil horizons, and in some cases even happen to have things like animal trackways going through these soils along grade just as we would see around a tree outside in our own neighborhoods. And of course soil is more dense than water and doesn't float. Oftentimes these forests and their formations span dozens of kilometers, and consist of soil and gravel and silt and clay, So the idea that this massive chunk of land was just floating and just settled out somewhere, it's pretty wild when you think about how many physical laws we would have to ignore to make this happen. Where did this massive chunk of land come from? YECs never give evidence for where they from, or they could float. And the idea that there was enough force in this flood to lift this mass of soil and to hurl it hundreds of kilometers somewhere else. All the while life is just on it living and growing and walking around.

Alternatively some YECs argue that these forests must be "pre-flood" forests of the original 6 days of creation. But this doesn't make sense given that they rest within and make up carboniferous strata, well deep into the geologic column and we'll into the paleozoic.

So YECs can't agree and neither YEC position makes sense.

But it gets worse.

Old Earth Geology Part 3 (Green River Formation)

See the above link.

There are over 5 million varves in the green river formation that span several kilometers in length.

A young earth creationist could say that maybe things were just faster in the past. But when we actually think about it and look at the numbers, it just doesn't add up.

The flood was considered to have occurred over the span of a year, many YECs suggesting that the flood subsided in roughly 6 months of time.

So 5,000,000 varves divided by 6 months is 833,333 varves per month. That's about 27,777 varves per day, 1,332 varves per hour or 22 varves per minute. Every varve is a couplet, one dense layer of sediment and one less dense, so that's 44 individual layers deposited over tens of kilometers in distance per minute.

Meaning that if we were to try to envision this idea of fast-forwarding time, we might see waves of water carrying sediment traveling at dozens of kilometers per second back and forth (east and west?) millions of times, right in the middle of this hypothetical global flood.

This is so radically irrational. Waves moving at dozens of kilometers per second back and forth?

But the madness doesn't stop there.

To make matters worse, there are fossil footprints between varves of the green river formation (such as bird foot tracks). So not only do we have waves traveling at dozens of kilometers per second carrying sediment at dozens of kilometers per second in fast forward, but you also had animals walking around and living in this environment. How could it be? Did these animals also move at the mocha 10 speeds to walk among these hypersonic waves? Animals also traveling in fast forward, hit the fast forward button. Animals building nests, laying eggs and digging complex burrow networks, entire forests growing within and in between the same layers that YECs are saying we're instantaneously laid down by a hypothetical flood.

YECs keep trying to hit that fast forward button on reality, but it logically creates an excessive number of issues with everything from starlight speeds, to speciation speeds and continental motion and isotope decay speeds and varve formation speeds and fossil grover in situ forest growth speeds (mid layer within layers deposited by this hypothetical flood), and much much much more.

The issues are truly countless.

So not only would God have had to have sped up the growth of plants and the speeds at which water would move and soil would move and light would move in ways that would all defy physics, But God would also have to speed up the motion and activity of animals on Earth to be able to do things like walk fast (like speed of light fast) and make nests and lay eggs and feed (feeding traces of many grazing animals are also observed in the fossil record). Life itself would have had to have also been sped up millions of times faster than what we currently observe today in order for the fossil record to make rational sense in a young Earth view.

In my opinion this is crazy. And the much more simple and reasonable conclusion is to just accept that the Earth is millions of years old Rather than believing that everything simply unfolded millions of times faster than is observed today. Especially when these features post date the original creation story and are observed to have unfolded within layers that were allegedly deposited in the time of Noah (which therefore wouldn't be subject to God's creative expediting of time anyway).

But wait, there is more.

So take your fossil grove and then put your eocene varves above it, and this still only accounts for a very small fraction of an overall much more vast quantity of events and strata of dozens of other layers of rocks above and below these two formations. Even by just looking at just these two formations and ignoring the other 99% of layers and formations above and below them, we see these extreme logical issues with the young Earth position even when just trying to account for a mere fraction of the much greater succession of rock above and below these two formations.

Which is to say that the YEC position can't even logically account for the smallest amount, the smallest percentage and fraction of earth history, let alone all of it.

Whereas if we had millions of years to work with, it would be quite easy to explain the Green River formation as a lacustrine varve deposit and the fossil grove site simply as a prehistoric forest that had plenty of time to grow as an independent ecosystem during the carboniferous period.

 

[Job 33:6]

I watched the entire video, and as a former scientist and a conservative evangelical pastor and teacher, I was very embarrassed. I was embarrassed as a former scientist because the so-called scientists in the video co-mingled religion and the supernatural with science—and no real scientist would do such a foolish thing. I was embarrassed as a pastor and a teacher because the video makes a mockery of the Bible: “the Bible”…“the biblical paradigm”…“the Genesis paradigm”…, etc. all of the time referring not to the Book of Genesis as it was given to us by God, but referring to an extremely outdated and highly incorrect interpretation of Genesis.

The Hebrew text of the first 11 chapters of Genesis has been the subject of intense research on the part of hundreds of Old Testament scholars and the findings of this research have been summarized in Claus Westermann’s 648-page commentary on the Hebrew text of the first 11 chapters of Genesis. More to the point—these findings expressly contradict the interpretation of Genesis presented in the video. Indeed, the whole young earth creationist movement is based upon pseudoscience and an extremely outdated and highly incorrect interpretation of Genesis.

I'd actually be curious to read the words of this Old testament scholar.

Can this document be read online anywhere for free?

And are there any key ideas from this document that stuck out to you in relation to this topic?

 

[coffee4u]

Christians only please. Started here as last thread was bombarded by non Christians.

Fascinating documentary about the history of the earth from the pages of Genesis.

Before watching this video, i was of the strong belief of an 'old' earth.

After watching this video i am not so sure now. Definitely needs more thought now. Hope you enjoy watching it, as i did.

I believe the earth is relatively young, in the thousands of years. I received some very good teaching many years ago as a confused new Christian trying to mash evolution into the bible and was shown how it all hangs together and is woven throughout scripture. I became a young earth creationist and have never changed, only just got more sure.

That channel is very good, I sub to it.

 

[Job 33:6]

Final 15 minutes of the video:

The last piece of the video doesn't really make any technical arguments.

The one speaker criticized science as something that is always changing, and yet James Hutton published his "theory of the earth" on an old/millions of years old earth back in the 1700s. And the only change we've seen in the past 300 years has been more and more acceptance from geologists of that.

So I'm not really sure where they were going with that comment.

I understand their concerns with protecting and conserving the moral foundation of scripture. But how they feel about a topic doesn't determine what is true. And I do think this topic is important for discussion in debates on things like morality. But from a scientific perspective Their feelings just arent a substitute for a technical argument.

And I guess that about wraps up the video. I actually enjoyed watching the video too, despite what I would consider an excessive quantity of scientific errors in it.

Thanks for sharing.

And one last additional comment I think I missed on the last segment. Neanderthal DNA suggests that Neanderthals were not human. They were their own independent and genetically separate population of hominids, they simply were not human.

View attachment 301527

The one speaker at the zoo made some sort of comment about their heads being shaped similarly to humans, but DNA tells a much more precise story just as it tells us that chimpanzees are genetically separate and isolated and different from humans just the same.

 

[Job 33:6]

Final 15 minutes of the video:

The last piece of the video doesn't really make any technical arguments.

The one speaker criticized science as something that is always changing, and yet James Hutton published his "theory of the earth" on an old/millions of years old earth back in the 1700s. And the only change we've seen in the past 300 years has been more and more acceptance from geologists of that.

So I'm not really sure where they were going with that comment.

I understand their concerns with protecting and conserving the moral foundation of scripture. But how they feel about a topic doesn't determine what is true. Their feelings are not a substitute for a technical argument.

And I guess that about wraps up the video. I actually enjoyed watching the video too, despite what I would consider an excessive quantity of scientific errors in it.

Thanks for sharing.

And one last additional comment I think I missed on the last segment. Neanderthal DNA suggests that Neanderthals were not human. They were their own independent and genetically separate population of hominids, they simply were not human.

The one speaker at the zoo made some sort of comment about their heads being shaped similarly to humans, but DMA tells a much more precise story just as it tells us that chimpanzees are genetically separate and isolated and different from humans just the same.

DEFINE_ME - link for article on sequenced neanderthal genome.

The quantity of genetic differences between neanderthal and human DNA are significantly greater than anything observed between any two human beings. They were simply their own separate population with their own separate genes.

 

[AV1611VET]

In his booklet, The Genesis Flood, Fact or Fiction?, Tas Walker agrees with John Woodmorappe’s teaching that the word “kind” in Genesis (Hebrew, מִין) refers to what we now call a genus, as in “the cat kind, the horse kind, and the cow kind.”

Okay ... so it goes species/kind/family ... what's the problem?

I'll admit that "cat kind" is a misleading term, but your conclusion, that this is "creationist mumbo jumbo," is unsubstantial.

 

[AV1611VET]

The issues with the YEC definitions of "kinds" are numerous.

I'm not a YEC, but I can't disagree enough with your statement.

Kind = Genus = Kind

What's the deal?

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem with this argument that everything just "sped up" during the creation event,

What problem?

Noah sent out a dove, and it came back empty-handed (so to speak).

ONE WEEK LATER, he sends it out again, and it has an olive leaf in its mouth.

What, in your opinion, happened in those seven days?

How you answer that will show which side of the issue you are on.

 

[Taodeching]

Christians only please. Started here as last thread was bombarded by non Christians.

Fascinating documentary about the history of the earth from the pages of Genesis.

Before watching this video, I was of the strong belief of an 'old' earth.

After watching this video, I am not so sure now. Definitely needs more thought now. Hope you enjoy watching it, as I did.

No. It was not written as history, but as a Theological lesson. The mistake that many evangelicals make is thinking everything is absolutely historical and not understanding the culture, context, or why a passage was written. My 2 cents.

Wanted to add a video entitled: Who Wrote the Bible? Episode 1: The Torah / Pentateuch

 

[Taodeching]

After looking at the video about the vast discrepancies regarding evolution that @Bible Highlighter linked to, i wonder if we can truly believe what the vast majority of science teaches about an old earth?

Given the misinformation described in my ongoing posts on the video in the OP, I can assure you that it isn't us (the scientists) who are lying to you.

Exactly. The problem is any yahoo can post anything on the internet and get a huge following but experts have to point out the errors but gullible people refuse to believe truth and believe frankly the morons posting this or that with no evidence because after all "the experts are liars" and the uneducated are truth tellers.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I'd actually be curious to read the words of this Old testament scholar.

Can this document be read online anywhere for free?

And are there any key ideas from this document that stuck out to you in relation to this topic?

Claus Westermann’s commentary on Genesis 1 – 11 is published by Fortress Press and is one of three volumes on Genesis (chapters 1-11; 12-36; 37-50) by Westermann in the “Continental Commentary” series. It is much more thorough than any other commentary on Genesis 1-11 in either German or English. It is not available to be read on line. The publisher’s price for a hardcover copy is $55.00.

Among other outstanding features, Westermann extensively documents the fact that the redactors of Genesis were greatly influenced by the cultural beliefs of other ancient peoples of Mesopotamia. Most notable is the belief that the world is flat and covered with a dome. This belief was tenaciously held by the Hebrew people from ancient times up until centuries after the New Testament documents were written. For centuries, Christians shared this belief, but overtime the word ‘firmament’ in Genesis 1:6, etc. lost its original meaning except for in academic literature. Compare:

6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (KJV)

6. And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” (NRSV)

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: (NAB)

 

[Job 33:6]

Claus Westermann’s commentary on Genesis 1 – 11 is published by Fortress Press and is one of three volumes on Genesis (chapters 1-11; 12-36; 37-50) by Westermann in the “Continental Commentary” series. It is much more thorough than any other commentary on Genesis 1-11 in either German or English. It is not available to be read on line. The publisher’s price for a hardcover copy is $55.00.

Among other outstanding features, Westermann extensively documents the fact that the redactors of Genesis were greatly influenced by the cultural beliefs of other ancient peoples of Mesopotamia. Most notable is the belief that the world is flat and covered with a dome. This belief was tenaciously held by the Hebrew people from ancient times up until centuries after the New Testament documents were written. For centuries, Christians shared this belief, but overtime the word ‘firmament’ in Genesis 1:6, etc. lost its original meaning except for in academic literature. Compare:

6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (KJV)

6. And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” (NRSV)

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: (NAB)

Augustine (354-430) considered that too much learning had been expended on the nature of the firmament.[10] "We may understand this name as given to indicate not it is motionless but that it is solid", he wrote.[10] Saint Basil (330-379) argued for a fluid firmament.[10] According to Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) the firmament had a "solid nature" and stood above a "region of fire, wherein all vapor must be consumed".[11]

The Copernican Revolution of the 16th century led to reconsideration of these matters. In 1554 John Calvin proposed interpreting the "firmament" as clouds.[12] "He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere", wrote Calvin.[12] "As it became a theologian, [Moses] had to respect us rather than the stars", Calvin wrote. Such a doctrine of accommodation allowed Christians to accept the findings of science without rejecting the authority of scripture.[12][13]

Firmament - Wikipedia

------------

Second, Calvin held that inscripturation is necessary to avoid the errors inherent in oral transmission:[5]

For if we reflect how prone the human mind is to lapse into forgetfulness of God, how readily inclined to every kind of error, how bent every now and then on devising new and fictitious religions, it will be easy to understand how necessary it was to make such a depository of doctrine as would secure it from either perishing by the neglect, vanishing away amid the errors, or being corrupted by the presumptuous audacity of men.[6]


------------


This sounds awful familiar!

My question for Biblical scholars is, given the above, where would Jesus be in this spectrum between God's word reflecting ideas of a particular time (and maybe believing in a literal solid dome), versus the position of Jesus being fully omniscient, understanding the Word for all time, and believing that the firmament in actuality being clouds?