Light years?

[tryptophan]

even though this is off topic. " Pangea " theory is the a great example of how "appearances" can be decieving. The biggest problem with these theory is the excessive erosion rates of the continents. Of course this isn't as bad of a problem if you believe the continents broke apart a few thousands years ago but geologists want to believe in happens millions of years ago. But how do you keep the coastline from erosion in the mean time. Because of this there a few geologists not happy about this idea. USA spends about 1/2 billions dollars a year trying to keep our coastline from erosion. These is a very serious problem for a country like Japan that can't afford to lost ground.
You must be a true believers then. I'm not. Even some scientist are beginning to question this theory.

The west coast is eroding so much because of the type of continental shelf it has. The east coast does erode but it is a different type with sand. How is erosion a problem for the Pangea theory?

By the way, would you say there are any theories scientists don't have a problem with?

 

[gluadys]

It always amazes me that some feel they know exactly what kind of trail a miracle of God will leave. This is the flaw in thinking of the OEC movement. It’s not a flaw in their scientific knowledge it’s a problem with their understanding of miracles.

You miss the point. One doesn't need to know what kind of evidence a miracle would leave to know that there is no evidence for the miracle. The lack of evidence does not establish that no miracle occurred. It does, however, mean that those who posit that a miracle occurred do so solely on the ground of faith (or credulity), not on the basis of evidence.

If there is evidence that a miracle occurred, surely those who believe in its occurrence would bring it forward in order to convince the sceptics. The fact they do not indicates there is no evidence to bring forward.

So one is back to affirming the occurrence of a miracle as a matter of faith not as a matter of observed evidence leading to that conclusion.

While scripture tells us the heavens were stretched out it gives us no details about how it was done. The mechanisms God used aren't given, whether he used physical laws to any degree or simply bypassed them all. Yet OECs seem to always claim they know exactly what kind of trail supernatural acts will leave. In essence you’re are right now saying God cannot stretch out the heavens without leaving a photon trail. That’s a pretty lofty claim.

Well, yes, scripture does indicate how the heavens were stretched out, for they clearly say they were stretched out like a tent. So if you have ever pitched a tent, you know the mechanism in principle, if not in detail.

Of course, the presumption of the biblical writers here is that the heavens are made of a tent-like material which could be unrolled and stretched out over poles (or pillars) above a floor-like surface. It has nothing to do with light years, since they had no concept of outer space, the speed of light or light-years. To apply such a text to these modern concepts is to indulge in anachronistic interpretation never intended by the writers.

Which proves nothing considering the change (according to the Bible) was a Supernatural thus outside the realm of scientific investigation.

And lets remember that it proves nothing either way. One either believes the evidence as given because that is what we see, or one denies the evidence as given because of an unfalsifiable assertion that a miracle occurred which renders the evidence irrelevant. The question is: why should we take the latter course unless it is necessary? What would make it necessary?

Faith per se requires believing in spite of lack of evidence for the belief. But as far as I am aware it does not require denying evidence that does exist. So faith per se does not render it necessary to believe a miracle occurred to render the evidence of light years irrelevant. So what does?

As far as I can see, the only necessity for denying this evidence is the self-imposed necessity of believing in the correctness of a particular interpretation of scripture. Since all interpretations are those of fallible human minds (and therefore no more reliable at best than scientific interpretations of observable reality) I see no reason to exalt any interpretation of scripture above any interpretation of nature. Rather let each be put to the test of scrutiny and be willing to declare what does not stand up to that scrutiny false.

This is another recurring argument from OEC sources. The fact that we come up with natural explanations that logically work does not prove something supernatural did not happen. For instance one could examine the wine Christ created and come up with a very possible scenario for how it might have been produced naturally. What does this prove? As you probably know many have come up with possible non supernatural explanations for the empty tomb—”The Passover Plot” for instance. What do they prove?

They do prove that a natural scenario is possible. They don't prove that the suggested natural scenario happened. They don't prove that no supernatural event happened. They do prove that a supernatural event was unnecessary, since the result was possible without one.

So one is still left with the fact that an assertion that a miracle happened is not supported by any evidence. Belief in the miracle (and for that matter scepticism of a miracle) rest on faith, not evidence.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Yes, but that isn't science...

[bunch of stuff deleted]

To repeat myself: Yes, but that isn't science.

May I introduce you to the Church of Last Tuesdayism?
The creator created the universe last Tuesday as a whole complete with false memories.

I don't think anybody here is suggesting God couldn't have done whatever miracle, in whatever way, leaving or not whatever evidence he wanted to.

We are simply pointing out that that isn't what looks like has happened.

I would further suggest that the stretching out of heavens was at least as likely to refer to the inflation after the big bang as your version.

Oh, and I am an OEC only by the very loosest of definitions. I typically refer to myself as a TE.

 

[Liberty Wing]

It is an interpretation of the scientific evidence. Evolutionists believe that the red shift of star's spectra (i.e. lines are compressed towards the red end of the spectrum) means or indicates that the stars or other heavenly bodies are moving away from Earth at high speeds. The creationary model uses a similar assertion that has Biblical evidence (i.e. and He stretched forth the heavens), but they claim that God stretched out the heavens during the Creation Week. The use of the term, "stretched", implies that it happened in the past and that the same process is not going on now, other wise it may read, "And God stretches out the heavens".

This is simply a different interpretation of the red shift evidence based on different assertions. The CMB is explained clearly in Dr Humphreys' theory outlined in his book. God also made stars in a varity of sizes, colour and so on...

 

[gluadys]

This is simply a different interpretation of the red shift evidence based on different assertions. The CMB is explained clearly in Dr Humphreys' theory outlined in his book. God also made stars in a varity of sizes, colour and so on...

It is an interpretation that takes serious liberties with the biblical text by wresting it from its intended meaning through anachronistic insertion of modern scientific concepts into a time when no one on earth was cognizant of them.

How creationists can uphold such incredible distortion of the "plain" meaning of the text and yet challenge TEs on their non-literal interpretations strikes me as the ultimate in hypocrisy.

At least with a non-literal interpretation, I don't have to tear the text to shreds to make it conform to modern science. Instead I can respect both the text and its author by entering into the author's world view and abstract his meaning from that---including the important theological messages that remain intact as his science becomes outdated.

Sorry, but the sheer stupidity of this kind of pseudo-hermeneutics just ticks me off royally.

 

[bainecaileag86]

I believe the universe was created with the appearance of age. On day six, Adam was a fully functional adult man. God is powerful enough to give us starlight over the distances of lightyears so that we could have them for signs and seasons etc. The book called Starlight and Time by Humphreys (previously mentioned) lays out the reasons. No matter what evidence you look at, it all comes down to faith sooner or later. How big is your God?

 

[duordi]

It is an interpretation that takes serious liberties with the biblical text by wresting it from its intended meaning through anachronistic insertion of modern scientific concepts into a time when no one on earth was cognizant of them.

How creationists can uphold such incredible distortion of the "plain" meaning of the text and yet challenge TEs on their non-literal interpretations strikes me as the ultimate in hypocrisy.

At least with a non-literal interpretation, I don't have to tear the text to shreds to make it conform to modern science. Instead I can respect both the text and its author by entering into the author's world view and abstract his meaning from that---including the important theological messages that remain intact as his science becomes outdated.

Sorry, but the sheer stupidity of this kind of pseudo-hermeneutics just ticks me off royally.

Do you believe the Jesus was born of a virgin?

Duane

 

[Liberty Wing]

How creationists can uphold such incredible distortion of the "plain" meaning of the text and yet challenge TEs on their non-literal interpretations strikes me as the ultimate in hypocrisy.

God stretched out the heavens implies that the heavens expanded. But how and when? This is the question that creationists seek to answer. They never doubt that God stretched the heavens outward. In a similar way, this applys to all other theories, i.e. they seek to answer how, not whether or not it happened...

With reference to Genesis, creationists may seek to examine how God could have made the universe (while still being in the same order as described) with the assistence of any revelant Biblical verses; but they never, ever, question the fact that God created just as described at face value reading of Genesis. This is what TEs do, they willingly ignore the intended meaning of Genesis (in doing so, ignoring Exodus 20:11) and hence, cannot be compared to what creationists do (as TEs question the face value in light of so-called science, i.e. evolutionism).

At least with a non-literal interpretation, I don't have to tear the text to shreds to make it conform to modern science. Instead I can respect both the text and its author by entering into the author's world view and abstract his meaning from that---including the important theological messages that remain intact as his science becomes outdated.

WHAT!?!? :o :o :o That is exactly what you are doing [making the Bible conform to the pseudo-science of evolutionism]! You are taking man's ideas of the origin of life, the origin of the universe, the origin of rock and fossil formations and try to mix it into the Bible! You are basically putting the so-called scientific theory of evolutionism and throwing it into the Bible and trying to change the Bible to fit your view! Where in Genesis does it give any indication of one day (evening passed and morning came - the nth day) being the equalivalent of billions of years? Go out camping, you observe evening pass and then morning comes. How long until the two? A day - not billions of years. This whole idea of 1 day being billions of years is a foreign concept to the Bible and one that comes from man made gelogical ages!

For one, if you knew anything about the Hebrew language, you would realise the fallacy of your view when trying to equate 1 day with billions of years. The Hebrew word for day, yom, can mean either an ordinary day or an indefinite period of time - nothing else. It should be made clear that the word for day in Genesis can NEVER mean a long period in the definite sense. It can mean something longer than a day, but only in the indefinite sense (e.g. in the time of Judges, in the day of the Lord). Exodus 20:11 tells us that God created the universe in six days and rested on one as a pattern for man. This is teh reason God took as long as six days to create everything. He set the seven day pattern for us, which we still use today. God did not say He worked for six million years and rested for one millions years, telling us to do the same! It makes even LESS sense to suggest He worked for six indifinite periods of time.

The word "day", when first used in Genesis, cannot be symbolic. A word cannot be used symbolically the first time it is used. It can only be used symbolically when it first has a defined literal meaning. It is given this defined literal meaning in Genesis chapter 1, the first time it is used. Also, the words used for the "evening" and "morning" can only mean exactly that [Ken Ham, The Lie Evolution, p158-159].

In Genesis 1:14-19, concerning the fourth day of creation, the word "day" is used five times in relation to days, nights, seasons, and years. If the word "day" here doesn't mean an ordinary day, it makes absolutely no sense of the way it is used in these passages.

You've already destroyed the message of the Gospel the moment that you either deny Adam's existence or compromise with evolution:

[font=Arial, Helvetica][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. ... It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus'life and death is predicted on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None. [/font][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/font] [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]... Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.”[/font][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica] [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]That quote was from G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30, Sept. 20, 1979. Even atheists can see and understand the inconsistency with believing evolution and throwing it into the Bible. You've basically taken out the foundations of the Christian structure that you claim to believe, to which the Christian structure will surely collapse or be very unstable.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica] [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]If even atheists can see this contradiction, why can't you Christian's? [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica] [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]You have been blinded by the lie of evolutionism and the thinking that it is science and has somehow been proven true, and I pray that the Voice of Truth (i.e. Holy Spirit) will come and reveal the truth to you; but first you must be willing to let go of humanistic theories and trust God...[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica] [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]It is my conviction that TE is just simply atheistic evolution + God. As harsh as this may sound, but what ever changes the atheists make to the theory of evolution, TE also changes accordingly -- I find it sad that Christians put their faith in the words of fallible men who weren't there and who do NOT know everything, as opposed to trusting in God's Word. I find that very sad indeed. [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica] [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]I challange TEs to find any verse in Scripture that supports your view. For example, Exodus 20:11 clearly supports a literal day reading of Genesis, as does the evidence put forward above. I am very confident that you will be unable to come forward with ANY, even just ONE piece of Biblical evidence that impiles that God created via the sadisticly brutal processes of evolutionism (which goes directly against the charateristics that we generally attribute to God - love and mercy).[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica] [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]It is an interpretation that takes serious liberties with the biblical text by wresting it from its intended meaning through anachronistic insertion of modern scientific concepts into a time when no one on earth was cognizant of them.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica] [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]And the TE doesn't do that? What creationists do, is use specific verses and try to use them to create solutions to unaswered questions or problems in the creationist model. For example, the verse that says "He stretched forth the heavens" -> that God expanded the heavens at some time, and we then go on and try to find out how God did that - but we never compromise the words and their face value or intended meaning, in this case, that God stretched the heavens outwards. If a theory is thought up that contradicts the correct reading of a verse, it is scrapped. Creationists work straight from the Bible's authorative statements.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica] [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]A few examples of this in action:[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica] [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Carl Linnaeus strongly believed that the animals and plants were made according to their kinds, just as the Bible says repeatedly in Genesis 1. For example, Genesis 1:12, 21, 25. He based his science and animal classifications on the what the Bible said at a face value -- this is exactly what creationists do.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica] [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]George Washington Carver used Genesis 1:29, "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearin seed, which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat", to guide his science. The principle that always guided his work was that he "believed that God made the beautiful world of plants and animals for man's delight and use, and that it was man's duty to discover as many of those uses as possible for the benefit of mankind." Carver's ideas on alternative crops (based on Biblical verses) proved successful. In fact, you'll be amazed at the uses of a simple peanut:[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]* Ink.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]* Peanut spread.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]* Peanut oil.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]* Ice cream.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]* Soap.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]* Sausages.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]* Cosmetics.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]* Dyes.[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica][Ann Lamont, 21 Great Scientists who believed the Bible, p 56, 224, 225].[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica] [/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica]As you can see, what these scientists did was take the Bible at face value and apply it to science and see what results you get -- this is exactly what the creationists do. It is the TEs that do NOT take the Bible at face value and who compromise with the humanistic world view who do what you accuse the creationists of doing. Creationists work only solely from the Bible - even if all the scientific evidence pointed away from the Bible, creationists would still try and find Biblical verses and make new and improved theories to counter the enemy's teachings (without compromising the Truth of the Gospel).[/font]

 

[gluadys]

How creationists can uphold such incredible distortion of the "plain" meaning of the text and yet challenge TEs on their non-literal interpretations strikes me as the ultimate in hypocrisy.

God stretched out the heavens implies that the heavens expanded. But how and when?

How? Like opening up a tent and stretching it out. When? When the heavens were created. The image has absolutely nothing to do with the big bang or the expansion of the universe or the speed of light.

This is what TEs do, they willingly ignore the intended meaning of Genesis (in doing so, ignoring Exodus 20:11) and hence, cannot be compared to what creationists do (as TEs question the face value in light of so-called science, i.e. evolutionism).

Not true. When I seek to interpret scripture the absolutely number one thing I look for is the author's intended meaning. I do NOT question the face value of the text. I do weigh whether or not that face value is to be taken literally or figuratively.

WHAT!?!? :o :o :o That is exactly what you are doing [making the Bible conform to the pseudo-science of evolutionism]! You are taking man's ideas of the origin of life, the origin of the universe, the origin of rock and fossil formations and try to mix it into the Bible! You are basically putting the so-called scientific theory of evolutionism and throwing it into the Bible and trying to change the Bible to fit your view!

No, I do not throw evolution into the bible. I do not claim that the bible teaches evolution. I claim the bible is compatible with evolution and that a Christian does not need to turn their back on scripture to accept evolution. But I recognize that evolution is a scientific theory and I do not expect it to be spoken of in an ancient religious text.

Where in Genesis does it give any indication of one day (evening passed and morning came - the nth day) being the equalivalent of billions of years?

As far as I know, it does not. This is an OEC teaching, not a TE teaching. Some TEs may agree with OECs on this, but I do not. I agree the intended meaning of 'yom' in Genesis 1 is an ordinary 24-hour day.

You've already destroyed the message of the Gospel the moment that you either deny Adam's existence or compromise with evolution:

I don't deny Adam either, nor do I consider accepting the evidence for evolution to be a compromise.

Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to Christianity? None.

That is a stupid, stupid, stupid statement. It only shows that the writer does not even understand the theology of original sin. If Adam did not sin, and I do sin, do I not still need a redeemer?

As harsh as this may sound, but what ever changes the atheists make to the theory of evolution, TE also changes accordingly

Atheists do not change the theory of evolution. Only evidence changes the theory.

-- I find it sad that Christians put their faith in the words of fallible men who weren't there and who do NOT know everything, as opposed to trusting in God's Word.

I have no trouble trusting God's Word. It is the words of fallible humans who weren't there who think they have full understanding of God's Word that I have a problem with. Usually when people say "God's Word" they really mean so-and-so's utterly fallible interpretation of a biblical text.

via the sadisticly brutal processes of evolutionism

A clear indication that you have never really looked at the evolutionary process.

What creationists do, is use specific verses and try to use them to create solutions to unaswered questions or problems in the creationist model. For example, the verse that says "He stretched forth the heavens" -> that God expanded the heavens at some time, and we then go on and try to find out how God did that -

How far do you have to look when the text plainly says "like a tent"? That is the way they thought of the sky then. As a huge tent spread out above the earth.

Carl Linnaeus strongly believed that the animals and plants were made according to their kinds, just as the Bible says repeatedly in Genesis 1. For example, Genesis 1:12, 21, 25. He based his science and animal classifications on the what the Bible said at a face value -- this is exactly what creationists do.

No, he based his plant and animal classifications on their morphological characteristics so that (unlike the bible) he correctly identified a bat as a mammal, not a bird. He also thereby discovered the nested hierarchy, one of the indicators of common ancestry and evolution--though he himself did not realize the significance of this.

Creationists work only solely from the Bible - even if all the scientific evidence pointed away from the Bible, creationists would still try and find Biblical verses and make new and improved theories to counter the enemy's teachings (without compromising the Truth of the Gospel).[/size][/font][/font]

If creationists really worked solely from the bible they would not try to force modern science into it. If it really doesn't matter that all the scientific evidence points away from the bible, what is the point of changing the intended meaning of biblical verses to make them refer to modern science?

 

[duordi]

By definition "curved space" which has been proven by science sounds a lot like something which is unrolled.

Maybe the tent thing is intended to be a literal descripition.

Just a thought.

Duane

 

[gluadys]

By definition "curved space" which has been proven by science sounds a lot like something which is unrolled.

Maybe the tent thing is intended to be a literal descripition.

Just a thought.

Duane

It is intended to be a description of the firmament. It is not intended to be a description of space. The author did not know there was any such thing as space, so he had no intention of describing it.

You are still trying to shoe-horn modern science into an ancient text. That is not a legitimate hermeneutical tactic. It is a wresting of the text away from its intended meaning.

 

[duordi]

It is intended to be a description of the firmament. It is not intended to be a description of space. The author did not know there was any such thing as space, so he had no intention of describing it.

The idea that the Bible can not contain any more information then the original author had is wrong.

You are still trying to shoe-horn modern science into an ancient text. That is not a legitimate hermeneutical tactic. It is a wresting of the text away from its intended meaning.

Only from your opinion of the "intended meaning".

I find it somewhat hypercritical for you to accuse of shoe-horning while you take the liberty of reordering verse sequences to fit your preferences.

Besides, even though I think the Earth, rock and water are undated, I still would say that the young Earth opnion is not a stretch.

Pun intended.

Duane

 

[gluadys]

The idea that the Bible can not contain any more information then the original author had is wrong.

I disagree. Since the author is the source of information, the information must be known or believed by the author.

I find it somewhat hypercritical for you to accuse of shoe-horning while you take the liberty of reordering verse sequences to fit your preferences.

Where have I done this?

 

[duordi]

I just started thinking about this...

How do we, as Creationists, take light years?

Mind you, I'm not a 'literalist', I believe that the 7 days were days according to how God saw days, and I don't really get stressed about whether or not it was literal (please don't bother getting upset about my opinion on this - I get enough grief from AIG followers!), so in my opinion, those first couple of days could have been eons.

Anyway, if we are to believe that the world is only 6000 or so years old, where does light years come into it? Cos that talks about BILLIONS of years!

Thanks!

Sasch

I am a young creation and old Earth for just that reason.

If you notice in Geneses 1:1 and 1:2

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.



The Earth exists before the first day as indicated by verse 2 which starts with an existing Earth.

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

But the creation week does not start unit the following verses.
So the age of the Earth and the rest of the (space) heavens pre-date the creation week.

It is not wrong to believe the Bible if it says something happened even if it would take a miracle. To say the text says something it does not say, would put us in disagreement with God, and His physical universe.

Duane

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

The idea that the Bible can not contain any more information then the original author had is wrong.

I disagree. Since the author is the source of information, the information must be known or believed by the author.

Despite my earlier comment I do think that trying to equate unfolding the firmament with an expansion of the universe to be a stretch

OTOH I would not rule out God moving an author's will to provide more meaning to a passage the author intended or understood at the time.

On a related note, I think that stories can have multiple meanings, they may have both symbolic and literal meanings, e.g. I don't discount the possibility that the Song of Solomon is both a love song about mortal love and a commentary about the relationship between God and his worshippers.

I think the pre-Reformation Church pushed this to an extreme, with four layers of meaning to just about everything.

So, moderation in all things

 

[gluadys]

The idea that the Bible can not contain any more information then the original author had is wrong.
Despite my earlier comment I do think that trying to equate unfolding the firmament with an expansion of the universe to be a stretch

OTOH I would not rule out God moving an author's will to provide more meaning to a passage the author intended or understood at the time.

On a related note, I think that stories can have multiple meanings, they may have both symbolic and literal meanings, e.g. I don't discount the possibility that the Song of Solomon is both a love song about mortal love and a commentary about the relationship between God and his worshippers.

I think the pre-Reformation Church pushed this to an extreme, with four layers of meaning to just about everything.

So, moderation in all things

I would agree on multiple figurative meanings. Especially in poetic passages a reader may well draw meaning from a text that the author did not consciously intend. Poetry, after all, is intended to be evocative.

But that is different than attempting to make an ancient text refer literally to facts of which the author was unaware. If the author is comparing the heavens to a tent, the poetic meanings should take their cue from that image. Furthermore they should be understood as figurative meanings.

When literalists apply a passage like this to the inflationary period of the expansion of the universe as set out in big bang theory as "proof" the bible was way ahead of its time scientifically, they are, in effect, saying that the literal meaning of the passage is and always was in accord with today's science.

Not only do I think that is anachronistic interpretation, I would add, why would God inspire the author to refer to our particular science? What if one could show the "stretching out" of the heavens did point to the inflation of the universe? And what if a century or so from now we discover that there was no inflation and the cosmological problems it was introduced to solve can be explained better another way? Tieing the scriptures to the scientific truths of one era, means that it will eventually be tied to outdated science. So why would God countenance that?

No, the author may have believed the heavens were literally like a big tent. In that he was wrong. But he was not wrong poetically. We can still appreciate the truth he was pointing to. Let's leave it at that and not make pseudo-equations to today's scientific fact, which, after all, may be tomorrow's scientific error.

 

[horuhe00]

Ok so God created Adam and Eve and from those two, everyone came out of... if you keep reading Genesis, it gets to a point where it says that Cain went to another land (land of Nod) and found his wife. And who named this land of Nod? Was it Nod who named it the land of Nod? Where did Cain's wife come from? Was she his sister? If Cain had been close to Adam and Eve and now he left that land to go to this other land, then why didn't he meet his sister before? Does that mean that Incest is not only possible, but were all incestuous progeny? So why the criticism in today's society of incest?

Either we read Genesis literaly and accept incest as something God is in favor of, or we read Genesis not so literaly.

Genesis4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch...

(notice "land of Nod" not "Land of Nod")

 

[gluadys]

(notice "land of Nod" not "Land of Nod")

Picky point. Ancient Hebrew did not have lower case letters. So the original was the Hebrew equivalent of "LNDFND" Ancient Hebrew also used no vowels or spaces between words or sentences. No punctuation either. All such niceties are new-fangled notions introduced by later generations.

So it is a translator's choice whether or not to capitalize "land".

 

[horuhe00]

Ok, so there's no difference between Land and land. But no one has answered my previous post.

 

[duordi]

I would agree on multiple figurative meanings. Especially in poetic passages a reader may well draw meaning from a text that the author did not consciously intend. Poetry, after all, is intended to be evocative.

But that is different than attempting to make an ancient text refer literally to facts of which the author was unaware. If the author is comparing the heavens to a tent, the poetic meanings should take their cue from that image. Furthermore they should be understood as figurative meanings.

When literalists apply a passage like this to the inflationary period of the expansion of the universe as set out in big bang theory as "proof" the bible was way ahead of its time scientifically, they are, in effect, saying that the literal meaning of the passage is and always was in accord with today's science.

Not only do I think that is anachronistic interpretation, I would add, why would God inspire the author to refer to our particular science? What if one could show the "stretching out" of the heavens did point to the inflation of the universe? And what if a century or so from now we discover that there was no inflation and the cosmological problems it was introduced to solve can be explained better another way? Tieing the scriptures to the scientific truths of one era, means that it will eventually be tied to outdated science. So why would God countenance that?

No, the author may have believed the heavens were literally like a big tent. In that he was wrong. But he was not wrong poetically. We can still appreciate the truth he was pointing to. Let's leave it at that and not make pseudo-equations to today's scientific fact, which, after all, may be tomorrow's scientific error.

Have you ever thought of making a list of all the things God can't do.

My biggest problem with this idea is that there are no verses saying God will not place meaning beyond what the author intends.

There are many indications that the Bible can say several things about different time periods with the same passage.

There is only one truly correct interpretation.

But that correct interpretation can be as complicated as the true author, which I take to be God and not the guy holding the pen.


Duane