Objectivity in theology?

[philadiddle]

Another observation that I've had lately, other than lots of condescending remarks (from myself too, I apologize for that), is that as we disagree on scripture it's because we all have our own ways of interpreting it. What I'd like to do with this thread is try to come up with objective rules for looking at scripture that we can all agree on. Of course, different areas of the bible are written in different ways, so there are multiple rules unique to certain passages. But maybe we can focus on the creation account and discuss how we should go about interpreting it, not to discuss the conclusions of the interpretation, but to discuss the methods of interpretation.

There will be disagreements of course, and if so let's move past them and find the things we agree on. There are already plenty of other threads where we talk extensively about what we disagree on.

I'll throw out some ideas for approaching the creation account:

1. We should refer back to the original Hebrew to settle differences over the meaning of words. This will have grey areas in it so in addition we can look at the context of the words within the passages.

2. We should look at how other section of the bible treat the creation account.

3. We should consider the message to the immediate audience, as well as to Christians in the present, and determine what truths transcend time and culture.

I would like to stress that I am not looking to follow through with these approaches in this thread, I just want to know if we can all agree on an approach to the creation account. Please add to my list or politely disagree with a short exlplanation as to why. There will probably be a bit of back and forth when there is a disagreement but I'll try to keep that to a minimum.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

4. Traditional interpretations should be held in high regard under the assumption that the Holy Spirit has been a guiding force in the church.

 

[Mallon]

4. Traditional interpretations should be held in high regard under the assumption that the Holy Spirit has been a guiding force in the church.

Like geocentrism?

 

[rcorlew]

5) Do not assume that what we observe to be true today is true at the time of the writing of the particular Biblical text or passage. (An example of this would be assuming that there were necessarily 7 continents similar in size/shape to today's world during the time of the flood) That brings me to #6

6) Do not assume that all generations are listed in the Bible, the Hebrews are notorious for skipping over people of little to no significance, this would alter the age of earth by generation calculation done during the Renaissance.

 

[philadiddle]

5) Do not assume that what we observe to be true today is true at the time of the writing of the particular Biblical text or passage. (An example of this would be assuming that there were necessarily 7 continents similar in size/shape to today's world during the time of the flood) That brings me to #6

So the mediteranean sea didn't exist?

6) Do not assume that all generations are listed in the Bible, the Hebrews are notorious for skipping over people of little to no significance, this would alter the age of earth by generation calculation done during the Renaissance.

Can we also assume that some generations represented households or nations? (That is also a common practice in ancient Hebrew geneologies.)

 

[crawfish]

Unfortunately, I think this thread is bound to fail. Our base assumptions are too different to come up with a consistent set of rules.

 

[philadiddle]

Unfortunately, I think this thread is bound to fail. Our base assumptions are too different to come up with a consistent set of rules.

That may be true, but then by discussing this we could at least make it clear where those differences are. That way we can refer to those fundamental differences instead of going in circles on issues such as the meaning of the word "firmament".

 

[Siyha]

That may be true, but then by discussing this we could at least make it clear where those differences are. That way we can refer to those fundamental differences instead of going in circles on issues such as the meaning of the word "firmament".

Since the YEC movement has grown so much, Wrigley's has a new flavour of mint marketed directly toward them called, "Firmamint"
This works great for the YEC case, since now when the definition of firmament comes up and we claim the ancient perspective is that its made of water, the YEC can say no, because water tastes like nothing and firmamint definatly has flavour.

 

[philadiddle]

Since the YEC movement has grown so much, Wrigley's has a new flavour of mint marketed directly toward them called, "Firmamint"
This works great for the YEC case, since now when the definition of firmament comes up and we claim the ancient perspective is that its made of water, the YEC can say no, because water tastes like nothing and firmamint definatly has flavour.

You're being silly, but I'd like to point out that the firmament wasn't thought to have been made of water, it held up the water.

 

[Mallon]

You're being silly, but I'd like to point out that the firmament wasn't thought to have been made of water, it held up the water.

Indeed, Job and Ezekiel tell us that the Firmament is crystalline and solid.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Like geocentrism?

a lack of geocentrism doesn't have theological implications. While I admit that many hold to YEC out of belief that they are defending Biblical authority, the truth is that TE and other views have strong theological implications beyond that into areas of sin and death.

 

[Mallon]

a lack of geocentrism doesn't have theological implications.

Sure it does. It was long held that, as the stewards of God's creation, He placed us at the centre of it all. Many theologians had a hard time accepting that the earth goes around the sun precisely because it contradicted the dogma they held about our place in the universe and in God's heart.

While I admit that many hold to YEC out of belief that they are defending Biblical authority, the truth is that TE and other views have strong theological implications beyond that into areas of sin and death.

I don't deny it. Sometimes being an evolutionary creationist is tough, just as being a heliocentrist in the 17th century was tough. That doesn't mean we take the easy way out.

 

[rcorlew]

So the mediteranean sea didn't exist?

According to geologists, no it has not always existed.

Can we also assume that some generations represented households or nations? (That is also a common practice in ancient Hebrew geneologies.)

Sure, I mean if you skip 3 or 4 generations in the listed generations between each generation up through maybe David, you could very well be looking at 50,000 or so years, not 6,000.

 

[rcorlew]

Since the YEC movement has grown so much, Wrigley's has a new flavour of mint marketed directly toward them called, "Firmamint"
This works great for the YEC case, since now when the definition of firmament comes up and we claim the ancient perspective is that its made of water, the YEC can say no, because water tastes like nothing and firmamint definatly has flavour.

You are being very mean spirited, all over the threads I read what you write you belittle those with whom you disagree. I urge you that if you desire to be cheeky or sarcastic, do it elsewhere...

And for the record, how much does a cloud weigh, what is it made of, and how is it kept aloft?

Scroll down for answer

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Clouds are made of water droplets, held aloft by thermal convection, now this last part will knock your socks off,

A typical cumulus cloud (the most common cloud) is about 1 cubic kilometer in volume and 2 km above ground. Air density is estimated to be at about 1.007 kg/m3. The clouds (water droplets) are less dense and come close to 1.003 kg/m3 (which is also why they float). There are estimated to be 1,000,000 cubic meters of droplets in an average cumulus cloud. The weight can be calculated using this equation (density by volume by a factor):

1.003 kg/m3x 1,000 x 1 km3 = 1,003,000,000 kg
​

Which is over a billion kilograms of droplets or close to 2.2 billion pounds.


Assuming a blue whale is close to 160 (160,000 kg) tones in weight, a cumulus cloud weighs as much as 6,268.75 blue whales!


How much does a cloud weigh? | Green Earth Facts


So, in a scientific sense, the firmament which is the atmosphere is holding water above the earth, although it is not solid or crystalline.

 

[Mallon]

So, in a scientific sense, the firmament which is the atmosphere is holding water above the earth, although it is not solid or crystalline.

Genesis 1 tells us that God placed the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament. So how can firmament=atmosphere?

 

[rcorlew]

Genesis 1 tells us that God placed the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament. So how can firmament=atmosphere?

Well you may want to pick up a better translation than the KJV

6 Then God said, "Let there be an expanse [b] between the waters, separating water from water." (F) 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above the expanse. (G) And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." [c] Evening came, and then morning: the second day.

Water below expanse = water
Water above expanse = clouds

 

[Mallon]

Well you may want to pick up a better translation than the KJV

I don't know how the version you cited is any better than the KJV. The word used in the original Hebrew is "firmament" (literally, a hammered piece of metal), not "expanse".

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

So again I ask: If the firmament = atmosphere, how do you account for the placing of the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament in Genesis 1?

 

[philadiddle]

Well you may want to pick up a better translation than the KJV

Water below expanse = water
Water above expanse = clouds

Well to look at 2 different versions:
NIRV
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky."

16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,

and the KJ

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And 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.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

In both versions the same word is used to describe what has waters above it and what the sun, moon, and stars were placed in. This is because in the oldest Hebrew copies the same word is used which is "raquia" (Strongs 7549). This describes a solid canopy with water above it (not in it, like the clouds are in the atmosphere) and the stars etc are placed within it. This is the plain literal reading of the text. I'm not making this up as I go, it has been standard Christian doctrine for centuries:

"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding."

- Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43.

And we have futher scripture that confirms this:


Praise the Lord!...Praise Him, sun and moon; Praise Him stars of light! Praise Him highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens!- Psalm 148:1,3-4

I don't know why you want to make the bible into something that it isn't. You can learn a lot more about it by studying the creation account in it's context as it would have applied to its immediate audience. That understanding gives it a direct meaning that applies to us and our relationship with God and our understanding of God, instead of being about a past event that never happened in the literal way that Genesis describes it.

 

[rcorlew]

[yqr Noun Masculine pronounciation (raw-kee'-ah) translated raqiya`
Word Origin : from (07554)
TWOT - 2217a

Definition :
from «07554»; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:--firmament.

1. extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
   1. expanse (flat as base, support)
   2. firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
      1. considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

 

[Mallon]

[yqr Noun Masculine pronounciation (raw-kee'-ah) translated raqiya`
Word Origin : from (07554)
TWOT - 2217a

Definition :
from «07554»; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:--firmament.

1. extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
   1. expanse (flat as base, support)
   2. firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
      1. considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

Let's pretend that the Bible doesn't use the word 'firmament' and instead uses the word 'expanse'. And let's pretend that the word 'expanse' refers to the atmosphere'. How do you square that with the fact that Bible tells us that the sun, moon, and stars are within the 'expanse' (=atmosphere)?