Literal Genesis AND a local flood?

[SBG]

1. "The four different Hebrew verbs used in Genesis 8:1-8 to describe the receding of the flood waters indicate that these waters returned to their original sources. In other words, the waters of the flood are still to be found within the aquifers and troposphere and oceans of planet Earth. Since the total water content of the earth is only 22 percent of what would be needed for a global flood, it appears that the Genesis flood could not have been global."

I just wanted to comment on this. First, what four words are you talking about? And where do you get your definitions for these?

KJV in ().

Genesis 8:1 uses the word shakak. (asswaged)
Genesis 8:3 uses the word chacer and shuwb. (abated and returned)
Genesis 8:5 uses the word chacer. (decreased)
Genesis 8:7 uses the word yabesh. (dried up)
Genesis 8:8 uses the word qalal. (abated)

None of these Hebrew words mean that the water should still be found today. The hebrew word shuwb means they returned *off* the earth. All the other hebrew words mean they decreased(shakak), to be without(chacer), become dry/dried up (yabesh), and be of little account (qala).

2. The "water canopy" that was above the "firmament" which God called "Heaven", was beyond the sun and stars. It would have had to travel through stars and past our sun to flood the earth. And it would have need to do so at many times the speed of light.

[size=-1]shamayim or heaven can mean simply sky in hebrew. Paul talked about three heavens, and this is rightly so. Many have failed to understand this concept, thinking that there are three levels of heaven, which Paul was *not* talking about.

So your idea that the water *must* travel through the stars, is incorrect.
[/size]

Gen 1:14-15 "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: earth: and it was so."

3. Therefore, reason and Godly wisdom forbids the theological interpretations of the Young Earth Creationist movement regarding the Genesis flood.

Dark Matter

I don't really understand this last argument here.

Genesis 1:6-7
"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so."

raqiya` or firmament, extended surface (solid), expanse, was considered by the Hebrews to be solid and supporting 'waters' above. There is not way to say this isn't so, without being there. I cannot prove this either, other than the Word of God.

Genesis 1:14-15
"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so."

A difference is made here and it is called the 'firmament of the heaven.' This transliteration is the expanse of the sky or visible heaven.

 

[Delta One]

Vance,

You must chose the correct context of the word for the given situation. If it was local, why waste hundreds of years building an ark if he simply could have walked a hundred miles to safety? God also would have broken His promise many times, hence, making Him out to be nothing more than a liar -- if He exists...

Your ignorance of the rest of my argument is noted. The meaning of the word is clear.

 

[Delta One]

Hi Dark Matter,

Fine, I'll email him and post his response when I get it.

So what you are saying is that if I go to the AiG website, and find a quote that is not accurate, then you will agree that AiG's arguments are "blown out of the water"?

Sky, sky. Blown out of the sky.

I don't want to waste my time there, so please define your challenge to me.

See if AiG's information was indeed accurate.


No, actually it is much less than that. You are crediting the church far too much. But I understand your point that very few are "literalists". My point is that you have defined "literalist" as "the way that I interpret scripture in my young earth creationsist theology". That, my brother, is not what the word means.

No, the Bible makes it clear that the Great Flood was indeed global. In the New Testament, God's second judgement is also likened to the times of Noah. If the Great Flood, which was God's judgement on sinful mankind, is not taken literally, there is no need nor basis to take God's promise that He will judge the whole world with fire. Taking the Bible literally, is to take it in context. In this case, it is obvious that it was a global flood - not only the language, but the consequences and the reason for it as well as His promise, i.e. never send such a flood upon the earth again so long as it exists. If the flood was only local, then God's promises have been proven wrong many times throughout history and make God out to be a liar and His word nothing more than a lie or a myth.

One must consider the theological consequences for not taking Genesis at face value, i.e. literally.

God Bless.

 

[Vance]

Vance,

You must chose the correct context of the word for the given situation. If it was local, why waste hundreds of years building an ark if he simply could have walked a hundred miles to safety? God also would have broken His promise many times, hence, making Him out to be nothing more than a liar -- if He exists...

Your ignorance of the rest of my argument is noted. The meaning of the word is clear.

First, Noah was told to build an ark. This was a test of obedience. We do what God says, even when we don't think it is necessary.

Second, has there ever been a local flood which entirely wiped out every living thing in that whole "land"?

Third, if there is any particular point you would like me to address, feel free to state it again, I thought I had convered all the important points.

 

[SBG]

First, Noah was told to build an ark. This was a test of obedience. We do what God says, even when we don't think it is necessary.

Usually when God tests us, He doesn't ask us to spend a vast amount of years designing a specific object to specific configurations. God doesn't usually tell us something He is going to do, then doesn't do it.

Second, has there ever been a local flood which entirely wiped out every living thing in that whole "land"?

It all depends on how you define land. As TE's have shown we can define to our liking. So, by a definition I choose, yes a local flood has wiped out every living thing in a whole *land.*

 

[Biliskner]

Second, has there ever been a local flood which entirely wiped out every living thing in that whole "land"?

nope. ie: last Christmas' tsunami. it wiped out some of some land, but never a whole land.

 

[SBG]

I have seen local floods in the U.S. on tv where parts or whole towns are under 8 feet of water.


If it was a localized flood, was it flooded for a whole year? If so, explain how.

 

[Biliskner]

You must chose the correct context of the word for the given situation. If it was local, why waste hundreds of years building an ark if he simply could have walked a hundred miles to safety?

LOL

 

[Remus]

Second, has there ever been a local flood which entirely wiped out every living thing in that whole "land"?

Personally, I’m not concerned about the flood being global or not, but the Bible is abundantly clear that every living creature was killed. So, if you can come up with a model for a local flood that still killed every land creature on the earth, then I’m willing to listen.

 

[Dark Matter]

You must chose the correct context of the word for the given situation. If it was local, why waste hundreds of years building an ark if he simply could have walked a hundred miles to safety?

LOL

The ark was a message of salvation and opportunity of repentance. It gave continual reminder of the need for repentance and the impending judgement of God that was coming. Further, the ark worked to perfect Noah and his family's faith. Having Noah get up and simply move would not have allowed any of this to occur.

Does that make the flood local? No. Neither, however, does your question above make it global.

It is a very dangerous thing you do to interpret scripture utilizing such questions. It will lead down a path of irreconcilable theologies if you applied with integrity to all scripture. One does not discard a theological interpretation simply because one doesn't "think" that there is good reason for God to act a certain way. His ways are above our ways, and if one believes that they have the wisdom of God to be able to second guess all of his thinking, then that one needs to practice some humility in their approach to scripture.

Dark Matter

 

[Dark Matter]

I just wanted to comment on this. First, what four words are you talking about? And where do you get your definitions for these?

KJV in ().

Genesis 8:1 uses the word shakak. (asswaged)
Genesis 8:3 uses the word chacer and shuwb. (abated and returned)
Genesis 8:5 uses the word chacer. (decreased)
Genesis 8:7 uses the word yabesh. (dried up)
Genesis 8:8 uses the word qalal. (abated)

None of these Hebrew words mean that the water should still be found today. The hebrew word shuwb means they returned *off* the earth. All the other hebrew words mean they decreased(shakak), to be without(chacer), become dry/dried up (yabesh), and be of little account (qala).

Dried up...to where? Did God distinguish it from existence? Did he zap the molecules into non-existence? Did it evaporate into our atmosphere? Did it retreat into the aquafers? Did it return to the canopy? Did it go into the oceans? You must answer where the water is. The scripture does not not say that God miraculously intervened to make the water disappear. To the very contrary, it says that God used a wind to blow back the waters (as He did with the red sea and Moses). The words above show that the water returned and abated and therefore did so to their original location, or elsewhere, but still on earth. It is still here by the scripture's very testimony. You must answer the question of where the water is.

[size=-1]shamayim or heaven can mean simply sky in hebrew. Paul talked about three heavens, and this is rightly so. Many have failed to understand this concept, thinking that there are three levels of heaven, which Paul was *not* talking about.

So your idea that the water *must* travel through the stars, is incorrect.
[/size]

You fail here in one very critical point. There is no record of the other heavens being created!! Where did you get this idea of three heavens from the creation account? You have recorded ONLY the creation of the "heaven" that was between the waters. Then, without any further creation account of additional heavens, the stars are placed in that very same aforementioned heaven.

If you wish to argue that the heaven is not the same, then the burdon is upon you to show from this creation account when the other heavens were created. Further, the flow of the passage clearly delineates which heaven is being spoken of.
1. He separates the waters above and below, and makes a heaven between them.
2. God then refers to the waters **below the heaven** he just created. So there is a clear continuation of the *heaven* from the previous verse. The waters below are collected, then dry land appears, then vegetation on the dry land.
3. Then, in continuation of *heaven* as a frame of reference, he speaks of what he places in the heaven, which is stars.

There is a continual reference as to which heaven is being spoken of. The scripture with simple hermaneutics rejects your interpolation to the text to make up your own theology. What you believe does not exist in the text. Playing with Hebrew words and meanings does not help your case, neither does reference to Pauline theology 1500 years later.

Genesis 1:14-15
"And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so."

A difference is made here and it is called the 'firmament of the heaven.' This transliteration is the expanse of the sky or visible heaven.

As I pointed out above, the absolutely clear frame of reference is to what he previously just created a few verses above. There is no "difference" made here at all. Just a few verses earlier God said he called the firmament, heaven. He is simply refering back to that exact same reference.

This argument just scratches the very surface of the severe idiosyncrasies of YEC Genesis 1 interpretation. There are many others, but let's answer this first. Did the waters pass through the stars [edit: and where is the water]?

Dark Matter

 

[shernren]

amen and amen.

 

[SBG]

Dried up...to where? Did God distinguish it from existence? Did he zap the molecules into non-existence? Did it evaporate into our atmosphere? Did it retreat into the aquafers? Did it return to the canopy? Did it go into the oceans? You must answer where the water is. The scripture does not not say that God miraculously intervened to make the water disappear. To the very contrary, it says that God used a wind to blow back the waters (as He did with the red sea and Moses). The words above show that the water returned and abated and therefore did so to their original location, or elsewhere, but still on earth. It is still here by the scripture's very testimony. You must answer the question of where the water is.

Scripture does say God made the water decrease. Your argument was that all the water should still be found today. So, let me ask, does water evaporate? Does science say today that are oceans are shrinking because of evaporation?

You fail here in one very critical point. There is no record of the other heavens being created!! Where did you get this idea of three heavens from the creation account? You have recorded ONLY the creation of the "heaven" that was between the waters. Then, without any further creation account of additional heavens, the stars are placed in that very same aforementioned heaven.

No record? Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens. Look it up, its plural. Then read what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 12:2. He talks about a third heaven. Do you argue that Paul is wrong here?

If you wish to argue that the heaven is not the same, then the burdon is upon you to show from this creation account when the other heavens were created. Further, the flow of the passage clearly delineates which heaven is being spoken of.
1. He separates the waters above and below, and makes a heaven between them.
2. God then refers to the waters **below the heaven** he just created. So there is a clear continuation of the *heaven* from the previous verse. The waters below are collected, then dry land appears, then vegetation on the dry land.
3. Then, in continuation of *heaven* as a frame of reference, he speaks of what he places in the heaven, which is stars.

You presented an argument that stated water came from outer space. I presented the hebrew words that do not indicate this. If you would like to deny their meanings, Paul's reference to a third heaven, Genesis 1:1 speaking of heavens as plural, that is your choice.

There are three heavens. First one being what we see between the ground and outerspace. The second being outerspace itself. The third being where God sits on His throne. Again, it is your choice to say Paul is wrong.

There is a continual reference as to which heaven is being spoken of. The scripture with simple hermaneutics rejects your interpolation to the text to make up your own theology. What you believe does not exist in the text. Playing with Hebrew words and meanings does not help your case, neither does reference to Pauline theology 1500 years later.

Well my theology is based on the Bible, including what Paul says.

But what I say seems to not matter as you clearly say Pauline theology isn't a good reference for 1,940 years later.

As I pointed out above, the absolutely clear frame of reference is to what he previously just created a few verses above. There is no "difference" made here at all. Just a few verses earlier God said he called the firmament, heaven. He is simply refering back to that exact same reference.

This argument just scratches the very surface of the severe idiosyncrasies of YEC Genesis 1 interpretation. There are many others, but let's answer this first. Did the waters pass through the stars [edit: and where is the water]?

Dark Matter

You know, if you plainly say Paul's teachings aren't relevant in our day and age, we clearly have nothing to talk about. I believe they are relevant to today.

God really is making a clear line in the sand for everyone to plainly see. This is the very last hour.

 

[Dark Matter]

[/b] Scripture does say God made the water decrease. Your argument was that all the water should still be found today. So, let me ask, does water evaporate? Does science say today that are oceans are shrinking because of evaporation?

Water evaporates into our atmosphere, and then recycles and returns with rain. Evaporated water does not simply vanish! The molecules continue to exist. I have no idea if our oceans are shrinking. If you wish to argue it, then place a reference and I'll read it. My understanding is that with alleged global warming, the poles are melting causing sea levels to rise.

No record? Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens. Look it up, its plural. Then read what Paul says in 2 Corinthians 12:2. He talks about a third heaven. Do you argue that Paul is wrong here?

Ahhh...no, no, no. Please review carefully the contextual argument I layed out for your from Genesis 1. The frame of reference is clearly the aforementioned "heavens". There is nothing in the text that refers you back to Genesis 1:1. There is everything in the text to refer you back to the separating of the waters and the thus created "heaven".

Paul is not speaking of Genesis 1 and you are out of context to speak of it thus.

You presented an argument that stated water came from outer space. I presented the hebrew words that do not indicate this.

I am refering to the water canopy that is touted by a plethora of YECs. If you do not accept this, then you have a larger difficulty in producing sufficient water for your theology.

If you would like to deny their meanings, Paul's reference to a third heaven, Genesis 1:1 speaking of heavens as plural, that is your choice.

I deny neither. I deny your use of both. Genesis 1:1 is not at all refered to in the context, to the contrary, the newly formed "heaven" is. Paul is not speaking of Genesis 1.

There are three heavens. First one being what we see between the ground and outerspace. The second being outerspace itself. The third being where God sits on His throne. Again, it is your choice to say Paul is wrong.

Where has Paul said this? I only know of his comment of being carried to the third heaven. Please demonstrate the rest of this from Paul's writings.

Please also present an argument why Genesis 1, when speaking of the stars being in the heaven, is not speaking of the third heaven. Where did you get the idea that it is speaking of the second heaven? Of course, you must remain consistent with your use of evidence. Please don't make the mistake of using the evidence from the natural realm to define your theology.

Well my theology is based on the Bible, including what Paul says.

Yeah, yeah. Of course it is, and mine isn't, right?

But what I say seems to not matter as you clearly say Pauline theology isn't a good reference for 1,940 years later.

You will do well not to accuse me of false beliefs. It is a sin. I neither said nor believe the above comments. My statement has been that Paul's words had no reference to Genesis 1. Your theological convenience is not justification for ripping Paul's Biblical truths from their context to make your out of context points. Paul's words, 1940 [sic, LOL] years later were not written to convey any of your Genesis 1 theology. It is not that they are not relevant to us today, they are not relevant to your theological interpretation of Genesis 1!

You know, if you plainly say Paul's teachings aren't relevant in our day and age, we clearly have nothing to talk about. I believe they are relevant to today.

It is interesting that you now have twice falsely accused me of things I neither said nor believe. I now here, before our brothers and sisters, clearly admonish you of the sin of bearing a false witness against me. Please either provide me a post number where I "plainly say Paul's teachings aren't relevant in our day and age." You are lying.

God really is making a clear line in the sand for everyone to plainly see. This is the very last hour.

Is lying about my beliefs on the correct side of the line? If so, then perhaps I think it good to be on this other side.

Dark Matter

 

[Biliskner]

Dried up...to where? Did God distinguish it from existence? Did he zap the molecules into non-existence? Did it evaporate into our atmosphere? Did it retreat into the aquafers? Did it return to the canopy? Did it go into the oceans? You must answer where the water is. The scripture does not not say that God miraculously intervened to make the water disappear. To the very contrary, it says that God used a wind to blow back the waters (as He did with the red sea and Moses). The words above show that the water returned and abated and therefore did so to their original location, or elsewhere, but still on earth. It is still here by the scripture's very testimony. You must answer the question of where the water is.

what if the water is under the crust of the earth below the mantle?

science or not?

(oh yeah, just guessing).

and why do we NEED to answer teh question of where the water is? i don't understand the importance.

what if the water we see today is not the amount of water that was pre-Fall? like pre-Fall, there was a canopy of water "in the skies" that isn't there now because it is "in the ocean" - understand?

 

[Biliskner]

This argument just scratches the very surface of the severe idiosyncrasies of YEC Genesis 1 interpretation. There are many others, but let's answer this first. Did the waters pass through the stars [edit: and where is the water]?

Dark Matter

when you say "severe idiosyncrasies" what do you mean? do you mean by "human logic" it does not make sense (Noah/water or whatever) ??

 

[Dark Matter]

when you say "severe idiosyncrasies" what do you mean? do you mean by "human logic" it does not make sense (Noah/water or whatever) ??

Hi Bilskner,
I have found over the years that YECers, including myself in my experience as one, become invulnerably convinced and inexorably tied to this theological worldview, though it is not foundational to the teaching of Jesus nor addressed in any historical creed. I further find that YECers in general have severe conspiratorial complexes for those that disagree with them as being tools of material naturalism, not believing in a literal Adam and Eve and not having their views formed from scripture, as some examples.

Generally in theology, based on continued learning, experience and evidence, people over the years make shifts in their understanding of matters of non-essentials and worldview. Many of these areas include, for example, views of human freedom, understanding of evil, age of baptism, application of historical predestinations and others. YECers are idiosyncratic in that in the Church they uniquely hold the above types of attidudes and views, and how they interpret Genesis 1 is consistent with this.

Human logic is important but must be used rightly in this context. Just because I don't think something makes sense to me, or I think that there was a better way to do it, for example, it doesn't mean that it is illogical or that God didn't do it that way. However, when logic is used rightly, it is necessary to rightly divide the Word of Truth. For example, if I interpret one verse in scripture completely against 10 other similar verses (this is only an example and I am not claiming that you are doing this), then I am not rightly dividing God's Word. How do I know this? It is by human logic. Logic governs the rules of hermaneutics.

Now, as an example from outside the church, consider the Qu'ran. The Qu'ran (I'm told by a former Muslim Iranian friend of mine) places the building of the pyramids at the time of Jesus. This is a serious historical problem. If I were to approach a Muslim and say to him, "See, your religious book cannot be inspired by God and inerrant because it has these very clear historical errors--Jesus did not live at the time of the building of the pyramids, " and he replies to me, "the historical evidence is flawed and is based in secular historian's viewpoints--therefore I stand by the Qu'ran," then what would you think of him?

Another example, consider a Mormon who believes that Jesus came to the United States and preached here. If I were to approach a Mormon and point out that there is absolutely no historical evidence for the claims in the book of Mormon, and he replied to me, "the testimony of the holy spirit (the burning in my busom) testifies to me the truths of all these things, the evidence from natural history is secular and flawed, and the testimony of Jesus' resurrection from the dead is sufficient to prove these things correct," then how would you hear these words from him?

In other words, consider why you reject these other books. You use logic to discern their fallibility. However, when approaching our own theologies and books, a completely other standard is employed and justified by our theological presuppositions. It may work for those in the inner circle, but from outside the whole process looks exactly like the Mormons, Muslims, and all others who hold evidentially opposing views.

Of course, knowledge from the natural world is not perfect, but there are levels of surity of knowledge from natural revelation, and levels of surity from special revelation. The wise theologian will spend time evaluating the surities and applying them in the right proportions. I find the indiosyncratic quality in YECists of overstating the surity of some special revelation and underestimating the surity of some natural revelation.

Dark Matter

 

[Dark Matter]

what if the water is under the crust of the earth below the mantle?

science or not?

What if it is molecularly bound to rocks and hidden, "science or not"?
Science is simply a method of investigation. You mean to say, evidence or not? Simply offering a what if while disregarding evidence leaves you with my comment about rocks above.

and why do we NEED to answer teh question of where the water is? i don't understand the importance.

YECs who argue that their view is evidential and actual, not just theological, have the burdon of demonstrating the veracity of these claims. If you only are YEC theologically, and agree that there is no evidence to support this theology, then you have no burdon to answer.

what if the water we see today is not the amount of water that was pre-Fall? like pre-Fall, there was a canopy of water "in the skies" that isn't there now because it is "in the ocean" - understand?

There is not enough water on the planet to cover the entire earth with water and have all the mountains under water.

Dark Matter

 

[SBG]

Water evaporates into our atmosphere, and then recycles and returns with rain. Evaporated water does not simply vanish! The molecules continue to exist. I have no idea if our oceans are shrinking. If you wish to argue it, then place a reference and I'll read it. My understanding is that with alleged global warming, the poles are melting causing sea levels to rise.

I looked it up and the ocean levels are rising at 2mm a year. I had thought I read otherwise somewhere.

Ahhh...no, no, no. Please review carefully the contextual argument I layed out for your from Genesis 1. The frame of reference is clearly the aforementioned "heavens". There is nothing in the text that refers you back to Genesis 1:1. There is everything in the text to refer you back to the separating of the waters and the thus created "heaven".

Paul is not speaking of Genesis 1 and you are out of context to speak of it thus.

We are talking about Genesis 1:6, right? God made a firmament to hold the waters above the earth. If we want to refer to what the Hebrews believed about this, they thought God created a solid base to hold the waters above what we call sky.

The literal word firmament means expanse, solid base, and an extended surface. It is a commonly held belief that this surface is the sky we see, not outer space where the sun and moon dwell. I believe that was your original argument, correct?

I am refering to the water canopy that is touted by a plethora of YECs. If you do not accept this, then you have a larger difficulty in producing sufficient water for your theology.

I really don't have a problem with this. Do you believe that everything before the flood was the same as we see it today? That nothing has changed, due to the global flood? If you do think something has changed, what changed?

I deny neither. I deny your use of both. Genesis 1:1 is not at all refered to in the context, to the contrary, the newly formed "heaven" is. Paul is not speaking of Genesis 1.

So Paul was not speaking of heaven, the one God created? Do you think in Genesis 1:1 God created heaven then?

Where has Paul said this? I only know of his comment of being carried to the third heaven. Please demonstrate the rest of this from Paul's writings.

Well if there is a third heaven, isn't it logically to conclude there is a second and a first? Paul does state a third heaven. Do you believe heaven is three levels?

Please also present an argument why Genesis 1, when speaking of the stars being in the heaven, is not speaking of the third heaven. Where did you get the idea that it is speaking of the second heaven? Of course, you must remain consistent with your use of evidence. Please don't make the mistake of using the evidence from the natural realm to define your theology.

I am of the belief that Paul saw the third heaven as the place of where God's throne is. He speaks of this in 2 Corinthians 12. I don't believe heaven is seperated into three levels, as other religions do believe. I believe Paul saw the sky to be a heaven, space to be a heaven, and then God's dwelling to be a heaven.

Do you disagree?

Yeah, yeah. Of course it is, and mine isn't, right?

I didn't speak for you, I spoke for myself. Would you rather I speak for you?

You will do well not to accuse me of false beliefs. It is a sin. I neither said nor believe the above comments. My statement has been that Paul's words had no reference to Genesis 1. Your theological convenience is not justification for ripping Paul's Biblical truths from their context to make your out of context points. Paul's words, 1940 [sic, LOL] years later were not written to convey any of your Genesis 1 theology. It is not that they are not relevant to us today, they are not relevant to your theological interpretation of Genesis 1!

In post #31 you said the following:

"Playing with Hebrew words and meanings does not help your case, neither does reference to Pauline theology 1500 years later."

Referring to Paul's teaching some 1500 years later doesn't help my case. This seemed to me to be saying referencing Paul isn't good for what I am saying. Did I misunderstand?

If so, I apologize, but what did you mean by saying Paul is not a good reference to help my case?

It is interesting that you now have twice falsely accused me of things I neither said nor believe. I now here, before our brothers and sisters, clearly admonish you of the sin of bearing a false witness against me. Please either provide me a post number where I "plainly say Paul's teachings aren't relevant in our day and age." You are lying.

I suppose misunderstanding is not a possibility, but rather lying is. If you want to accuse me of bearing false witness, then accuse yourself as well. For you neither thought better of me, of what I said. You did not say I misunderstand, you said I was lying.

If you feel the need to declare your admonishment, and tell me I am wrong, it is your choice. When you said referencing Paul is not good for my case, was it wrong for me to take this as you saying Paul isn't a good reference to present my beliefs?

Is lying about my beliefs on the correct side of the line? If so, then perhaps I think it good to be on this other side.

Dark Matter

I don't feel I lied about your beliefs. I honestly took what you said:

"Playing with Hebrew words and meanings does not help your case, neither does reference to Pauline theology 1500 years later."

To mean that Paul is not a good reference to support my case. If what your wrote was not what you meant, my apologies. I just took it for what was written.

And yes, I do believe God is seperating out His people these very days. If you feel it is better to be against God, all I can say is you might want to rethink that.

 

[shernren]

We are talking about Genesis 1:6, right? God made a firmament to hold the waters above the earth. If we want to refer to what the Hebrews believed about this, they thought God created a solid base to hold the waters above what we call sky.

The literal word firmament means expanse, solid base, and an extended surface. It is a commonly held belief that this surface is the sky we see, not outer space where the sun and moon dwell. I believe that was your original argument, correct?

The "firmament" is literally raqiya (or raqiya shamayim, "firmament of the heavens" or "firmament [called] Heaven" from 1:7), whereas the sky is referred to in Genesis 1:20, referring to the birds and ostensibly the atmosphere in which they fly, as "paniym raqiya shamayim": "on the surface of the firmament of the heavens". From this I would understand that "raqiya shamayim" is referring to outer space.

In Genesis 7, though, the "floodgates (windows) of the heaven" are "arubbah shamayim". Does the lone shamayim refer to the sky, or to outer space? Bear in mind that the "outer water" is beyond outer space, not right outside the atmosphere.

So if shamayim is the atmosphere alone, and the windows of heaven are draining a source of water just outside the water, then where was that water in Genesis 1 and when was it created?
And if shamayim is outer space, how did the water get from the edge of the universe to earth?