Question for the YECs

[juvenissun]

So, given these parameters, which I am sure philadiddle agrees with, will you answer his question?

I did not follow this thread. I guess his question is about the water. I think I gave an answer long time ago. The word "water" means "water-like" substance. That should open up many reasonable explanations.

Also, in Psalms, it says: "waters". I am curious about why is it in plural form? To me, the plural case is a perfect explanation of the word, which means various kinds of water.

Philadiddle sticked on the idea of liquid H2O in order to embarrass literalist. It is strictly literal, but it often asks for unnecessary trouble. Besides, I don't think terms such as air, plasma, etc. are proper terms to be used as metaphors of water. In scientific description, metaphor is not useful. Air behaves like water in some fluid properties. But air is not a metaphor of water.

Besides, who knows if the dark matter has any property which is similar to water?

 

[gluadys]

In scientific description, metaphor is not useful.

Scientists seem to find metaphor very useful. Think of gravitational "attraction" "tree of life" "big bang" quark "colours" radioactive "decay", time's "arrow". For that matter how about "cell". Do you know how we came to describe life as "cellular"?

 

[philadiddle]

Regardless of all the other arguments, your last phrase annoys me, the second time. Be a sensible Christian, you should not use that description any more. It violates the basic theological principle. This description may be used to argue that you are not a Christian.

If God is God, then He is not a liar, but definition.
If someone is a liar, then he MUST NOT be God. This is also by definition.
You can not have a God and He is also a liar.

The way that I worded it bothers me too, and I completely agree with this post of yours. The reason I worded it that way is because that is what literalists constantly tell TEs, that not taking the creation account literally makes God a liar. The reason for that statement was to show just how silly the "read it literally or God is a liar" argument is.

So now let me adapt the rest of that post for what you had said:

If the plasma-like substance was once a part of the waters on earth and God separated them, then does that mean they were all part of the earth at one time? How big would the earth have been?

If you simply cannot answer that, then how is your explanation of the separating of the waters useful in science at all? If it's not useful in science, then how is it useful in theology? If it's not useful in theology, then is it possible that we may get more meaning from the passage by comparing it to ancient near eastern cosmogonies? Wouldn't it be more important to us as Christians to try to find the deeper meaning than to continue coming up with ad-hoc arbitrary scientific explanations of a pre-scientific text?

 

[Siyha]

God actively engages in deception in the Old Testament. In 1 Kings 22:

Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the multitudes of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’

“One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, ‘I will entice him.’

22 “‘By what means?’ the LORD asked.

“‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said.

“‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the LORD. ‘Go and do it.’

This is a throne room scene where God is looking for a way to decieve Ahab into going into battle. His intent is to trick him. The Hebrew word behind, "entice" here that is used by God and the lying spirit has deception inherant in its nature. Yahweh may not be the one doing the actual lying, but he is definately involved in it.

Another example (of many) is found in Samuel.
When Samuel goes to the palace to annoint David, he is afraid Saul will kill him, so Yahweh tells Samuel to tell Saul he is there for a sacrifice. This is only a half truth, because, while Samuel is there for a sacrifice, he is also there to annoint David - this would be like me telling my wife I am going out to buy Tylenol, and then after going to Walmart to buy it, I go have an affair and claim the words to my wife about where I was going were "honest."

Not that I think God is a liar. Just throwing this out there to contribute to the conversation.... see what bounces back.

 

[Papias]

Happy wrote:

Our universe would be but like a marble sinking to the depths of an endless ocean. These are the dark waters a psalmist reveals God has ``encompassed`` Himself with.

Happy-

Sorry about the long delay. I missed your reply (busy Halloween with the kids) until now.

Well, we do appear to agree on what Genesis (and other verses outside of Genesis) literally say. They say that there is water above the firmament. I know you don’t see it as I’m about to describe, but let me explain my view.

In the bronze age, think of what a person saw that was big and blue, you saw the sky, of course, but you couldn’t reach it to see what it was made of. You saw large lakes, and the ocean that were big and blue. You may have seen bird that was blue, or a bead or bauble, but the only things that were big and blue (especially things you saw out in nature, not made by humans), were water. From that, you look up and see the big, blue sky, and even though you can’t touch it to check, it’s obvious that it is made of water. Why doesn’t the water come crashing down, like any other water thrown up into the air? Well, God must have made a clear, hard dome to keep it there. This must have been as obvious as the observation that fires are hot and that rocks are hard. Similarly, it must have been obvious that the Earth is flat (go out and look if you aren’t sure) and that the sun went around the earth (go out and look if you aren’t sure).

To communicate to people in that situation, an omniscient God would naturally adopt language that spoke to their world, artfully written as a metaphor that could also fit the world after more was known. The “waters above the firmament” seems like an obvious observation of what, in nature, is big and blue.

With that, I see Genesis as just a two layered metaphor, and there is no need for us to try to come up with intergalactic waters. The idea of our universe in a vast ocean doesn’t fit with the evidence from physics, where the calculations show that we’d all be crunched in a massive black hole if the universe were a bubble in a vast ocean. We may agree to disagree, but my view doesn’t contradict simple math, while the “universe in a vast ocean” does. It’s seems odd that God would give us math, and minds to use it, and then make 99.99999% of the universe in a way that he has to suspend math to keep it from self-destructing.

Have a good day-

-Papias


**************************************************8

Juvie wrote:

You can not have a God and He is also a liar.

In addition to the clear examples Siyha gave, 2 Thes 2:11 explicitly says that God lies on purpose, to deceive.


To avoid calling God a liar, we’d have to stray from a literal reading of every part of one’s chosen Bible……


Papias

 

[juvenissun]

In addition to the clear examples Siyha gave, 2 Thes 2:11 explicitly says that God lies on purpose, to deceive.


To avoid calling God a liar, we’d have to stray from a literal reading of every part of one’s chosen Bible……


Papias

God makes you not understand so you make mistakes, does not mean God cheats you. There are stupid people all over the places. I am pretty sure some of these stupidities are allowed by God.

You want to accuse God a deceiver, a killer, a ..., simply go ahead and do that. This would put you into another category of people.

 

[juvenissun]

God actively engages in deception in the Old Testament. In 1 Kings 22:



This is a throne room scene where God is looking for a way to decieve Ahab into going into battle. His intent is to trick him. The Hebrew word behind, "entice" here that is used by God and the lying spirit has deception inherant in its nature. Yahweh may not be the one doing the actual lying, but he is definately involved in it.

Another example (of many) is found in Samuel.
When Samuel goes to the palace to annoint David, he is afraid Saul will kill him, so Yahweh tells Samuel to tell Saul he is there for a sacrifice. This is only a half truth, because, while Samuel is there for a sacrifice, he is also there to annoint David - this would be like me telling my wife I am going out to buy Tylenol, and then after going to Walmart to buy it, I go have an affair and claim the words to my wife about where I was going were "honest."

Not that I think God is a liar. Just throwing this out there to contribute to the conversation.... see what bounces back.

God makes or allows some people to become stupid for a very good purpose. If God allows me to make mistake due to misunderstanding, and if He is still my God, then He is not deceiving me.

There is not much one can argue about definition. For individual cases, one can always find alternative interpretation without compromising the definition.

 

[juvenissun]

Scientists seem to find metaphor very useful. Think of gravitational "attraction" "tree of life" "big bang" quark "colours" radioactive "decay", time's "arrow". For that matter how about "cell". Do you know how we came to describe life as "cellular"?

Ha ha, speechless,

I am extremely confused now.

This degree of complexity can definitely not be a result of evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

The way that I worded it bothers me too, and I completely agree with this post of yours. The reason I worded it that way is because that is what literalists constantly tell TEs, that not taking the creation account literally makes God a liar. The reason for that statement was to show just how silly the "read it literally or God is a liar" argument is.

So now let me adapt the rest of that post for what you had said:

If the plasma-like substance was once a part of the waters on earth and God separated them, then does that mean they were all part of the earth at one time? How big would the earth have been?

If you simply cannot answer that, then how is your explanation of the separating of the waters useful in science at all? If it's not useful in science, then how is it useful in theology? If it's not useful in theology, then is it possible that we may get more meaning from the passage by comparing it to ancient near eastern cosmogonies? Wouldn't it be more important to us as Christians to try to find the deeper meaning than to continue coming up with ad-hoc arbitrary scientific explanations of a pre-scientific text?

For some reason, I think the Big Bang theory merits some credits in the explanation of God's creation.

What is the single simplest word one could use to describe the status of matter before the birth of the first star? I think water is probably the best choice (consider the density of the "gases" was much higher than that on the sun, which is about 1). And what is the origin of water in all planets of the universe? I think the word "separation" is a perfect one to describe it.

In fact, we can not find a better description anywhere than Gen 1: 1-8 for the creation process of the universe. The proof of God's inspiration on the writing of the Bible is right there at the very beginning.

 

[philadiddle]

For some reason, I think the Big Bang theory merits some credits in the explanation of God's creation.

What is the single simplest word one could use to describe the status of matter before the birth of the first star? I think water is probably the best choice (consider the density of the "gases" was much higher than that on the sun, which is about 1). And what is the origin of water in all planets of the universe? I think the word "separation" is a perfect one to describe it.

In fact, we can not find a better description anywhere than Gen 1: 1-8 for the creation process of the universe. The proof of God's inspiration on the writing of the Bible is right there at the very beginning.

For the bible to hold great scientific truths about our creation we would have to read and interpret the bible to understand how stars form, and then discover that that is actually how they form. In reality though, we discovered how stars form through scientific means and then we apply that to the bible. You are working backwards to give the bible a scientific credit that doesn't seem to be desired in the writing.

I think the most important 2 questions of my post were the following, please answer it because I would like to know what you think:

Is it possible that we may get more meaning from the passage by comparing it to ancient near eastern cosmogonies?

Wouldn't it be more important to us as Christians to try to find the deeper meaning than to continue coming up with ad-hoc arbitrary scientific explanations of a pre-scientific text?

 

[juvenissun]

For the bible to hold great scientific truths about our creation we would have to read and interpret the bible to understand how stars form, and then discover that that is actually how they form. In reality though, we discovered how stars form through scientific means and then we apply that to the bible. You are working backwards to give the bible a scientific credit that doesn't seem to be desired in the writing.

I think the most important 2 questions of my post were the following, please answer it because I would like to know what you think:

Is it possible that we may get more meaning from the passage by comparing it to ancient near eastern cosmogonies?

Wouldn't it be more important to us as Christians to try to find the deeper meaning than to continue coming up with ad-hoc arbitrary scientific explanations of a pre-scientific text?

1. Yes, it is possible. But that does not prohibit the "backward" crediting on science. Do one thing does not interfere doing another thing.

2. You may try to find deeper meaning your way. But the backward crediting IS a way to find deeper meaning. One is not "more important" than the other one.

The problem is that you think the backward crediting is wrong. But I think it is a perfect thing to do. I am about 60 years old. Now I start to really appreciate something my dad told me when I was a kid. God's words on science is in the same situation. We do not understand them does not mean they are wrong, or are simply metaphors.

 

[philadiddle]

1. Yes, it is possible. But that does not prohibit the "backward" crediting on science. Do one thing does not interfere doing another thing.

So we agree that it is possible to get meaning by comparing it to the cosmogonies of that era. So should we be doing that? Have you taken the time to do that?

2. You may try to find deeper meaning your way. But the backward crediting IS a way to find deeper meaning. One is not "more important" than the other one.

How does the deeper meaning of backwards crediting science help our relationship with God grow? How does it help you understand the theology of our place in the universe and our relationship with Him? On the flip side, how does comparing the creation account to ANE cosmology help us answer those same questions?

The problem is that you think the backward crediting is wrong. But I think it is a perfect thing to do. I am about 60 years old. Now I start to really appreciate something my dad told me when I was a kid. God's words on science is in the same situation. We do not understand them does not mean they are wrong, or are simply metaphors.

It's not that backwards crediting the bible with science is wrong, it's that it's pointless. It doesn't help us as Christians. It leads many people away from God, it ignores the intended meaning of the scripture, and it does not help our daily walk with God in any way. It also creates unnecessary division in the church because those who see creation as science tend to have a "it is science or you don't really believe the bible" view.

 

[juvenissun]

So we agree that it is possible to get meaning by comparing it to the cosmogonies of that era. So should we be doing that? Have you taken the time to do that?

How does the deeper meaning of backwards crediting science help our relationship with God grow? How does it help you understand the theology of our place in the universe and our relationship with Him? On the flip side, how does comparing the creation account to ANE cosmology help us answer those same questions?

It's not that backwards crediting the bible with science is wrong, it's that it's pointless. It doesn't help us as Christians. It leads many people away from God, it ignores the intended meaning of the scripture, and it does not help our daily walk with God in any way. It also creates unnecessary division in the church because those who see creation as science tend to have a "it is science or you don't really believe the bible" view.

What is the chance for the Gen 1:1, which uses a non-scientific language, but correctly describes the Singularity and the Big Bang?

You do not have to believe it. But I do and I think you should also. Because human could not write that and the chance of coincidence is none.

 

[food4thought]

Hello, sorry if my response has already been posted somewhere in this thread, but I did not have the time nor patience to read thru 110 posts

My understanding of this verse has to do with what we consider the firmament to be. God names the firmament heaven. Consider what is being speculated upon by science, that there are many more dimensions than we percieve at every point in the universe. If this is indeed true, what would it mean that something is above the firmament? What IS the firmament? I would say that it is entirely possible that the firmament is referring to space. What is immediately above the earth? Atmosphere, but that atmospehere is suspended in space. What is above that? Space. What is above space!?!?!? Could it be that perhaps there is a distinction being made not in our perspective of what is above and below, but from God's perspective, and He knows perfectly well that there are many dimensions both higher than our perception (a possibility not yet seriously tackled by cosmology that I know of) and lower than our perception? Would this not tie in with a figurative view of Genesis 1 AND a literal view of Genesis 1, while at the same time not contradicting what is being speculated upon by science?


Why either/or? WHY NOT BOTH!?!?! Consider that God is omnipresent, and that He dwells in heaven. Consider that there are potentially multiple dimensions at every "point" in space that we cannot perceive, and that perhaps there are "higher" and "lower" dimensions... Consider that God is never far from us. Does this contradict scripture? No. Does this stretch the meaning of heaven? No, actually, it might simplify it by reducung us from having three heavens (atmosphere, outer space, and God's dwelling) to simply one with dimensions we cannot perceive. Does this contradict science? No. Although these dimensions are not directly observable by science, there are very powerful mathamatical reasons for thinking they are there.

Just something for you all to think about.

 

[philadiddle]

Hello, sorry if my response has already been posted somewhere in this thread, but I did not have the time nor patience to read thru 110 posts

My understanding of this verse has to do with what we consider the firmament to be. God names the firmament heaven. Consider what is being speculated upon by science, that there are many more dimensions than we percieve at every point in the universe. If this is indeed true, what would it mean that something is above the firmament? What IS the firmament? I would say that it is entirely possible that the firmament is referring to space. What is immediately above the earth? Atmosphere, but that atmospehere is suspended in space. What is above that? Space. What is above space!?!?!? Could it be that perhaps there is a distinction being made not in our perspective of what is above and below, but from God's perspective, and He knows perfectly well that there are many dimensions both higher than our perception (a possibility not yet seriously tackled by cosmology that I know of) and lower than our perception? Would this not tie in with a figurative view of Genesis 1 AND a literal view of Genesis 1, while at the same time not contradicting what is being speculated upon by science?


Why either/or? WHY NOT BOTH!?!?! Consider that God is omnipresent, and that He dwells in heaven. Consider that there are potentially multiple dimensions at every "point" in space that we cannot perceive, and that perhaps there are "higher" and "lower" dimensions... Consider that God is never far from us. Does this contradict scripture? No. Does this stretch the meaning of heaven? No, actually, it might simplify it by reducung us from having three heavens (atmosphere, outer space, and God's dwelling) to simply one with dimensions we cannot perceive. Does this contradict science? No. Although these dimensions are not directly observable by science, there are very powerful mathamatical reasons for thinking they are there.

Just something for you all to think about.

I'm not brushing off your response with this short answer, just looking for clarification. Are you saying that the "waters above" exist in a dimension that we don't know about? I'm not really sure how your answer directly applies to the question in the OP (assuming you were responding to the OP).

 

[food4thought]

I'm not brushing off your response with this short answer, just looking for clarification. Are you saying that the "waters above" exist in a dimension that we don't know about? I'm not really sure how your answer directly applies to the question in the OP (assuming you were responding to the OP).

sorry it took so long to get back to you on this. Yes, it was mostly a response to the OP but then I kind of expounded a bit lol

Do you accept what God said when He said that there is water above the sun, moon, and stars? Or was God lying?

my point was that in Gen 1:1 God created both the heavens (spacetime) and the earth (matter)... btw, if you look at the various uses for the hebrew words translated as heavens and earth, you will find that taken in total, these modern terms are not really out of place).

If you consider that God called the "expanse" or "firmament" between the waters heaven (I/E, spacetime), this vese might be understood that some of these waters were outside our normal space. I freely admit that there is no tradition for this understanding, yet find it very satisfying so far. I also freely admit that the ony speculation in cosmolgy that I am aware of speaks not of higher and lower diminsions, but of tightly curled up dimensions. I simply speculate; but since there is a heaven God inhabits as well as a heaven in which the earth, atmosphere, and stars are suspended, it is interesting to note the mathematical indications of these extra dimensions. I find it not hard to think that perhaps some of these dimensions may not be simply tightly curled up, but unfurled on the other side. Something akin to our 4 unfurled dimensions that are stretched forth in our perception, yet simply unfurled opposite our 4 dimensions. Kind of like taking thread thru a fabric. On one side you have threads tied off, but on the other side you would have these threads spread out.

I hope I was able to explain this well enough for understanding, as trying to picture extra dimensions is always a difficult mental exercise.

 

[philadiddle]

sorry it took so long to get back to you on this. Yes, it was mostly a response to the OP but then I kind of expounded a bit lol


my point was that in Gen 1:1 God created both the heavens (spacetime) and the earth (matter)... btw, if you look at the various uses for the hebrew words translated as heavens and earth, you will find that taken in total, these modern terms are not really out of place).

If you consider that God called the "expanse" or "firmament" between the waters heaven (I/E, spacetime), this vese might be understood that some of these waters were outside our normal space. I freely admit that there is no tradition for this understanding, yet find it very satisfying so far. I also freely admit that the ony speculation in cosmolgy that I am aware of speaks not of higher and lower diminsions, but of tightly curled up dimensions. I simply speculate; but since there is a heaven God inhabits as well as a heaven in which the earth, atmosphere, and stars are suspended, it is interesting to note the mathematical indications of these extra dimensions. I find it not hard to think that perhaps some of these dimensions may not be simply tightly curled up, but unfurled on the other side. Something akin to our 4 unfurled dimensions that are stretched forth in our perception, yet simply unfurled opposite our 4 dimensions. Kind of like taking thread thru a fabric. On one side you have threads tied off, but on the other side you would have these threads spread out.

I hope I was able to explain this well enough for understanding, as trying to picture extra dimensions is always a difficult mental exercise.

So you think that this particular passage wasn't attempting to make any theological or moral points, it was a bronze age lesson on quantum physics? What would the point of that be?

 

[food4thought]

So you think that this particular passage wasn't attempting to make any theological or moral points, it was a bronze age lesson on quantum physics? What would the point of that be?

I think you miss my point entirely. I believe that the Bible is intended to be understood in both a "literal" sense and a figurative/spiritual sense. I do not deny that there are moral and doctrinal lessons to be gained from Genesis 1, but that does not remove the statements God made regarding His acts of creation. God inspired the writers of the Bible in such a way to be understood by all generations, including ours which has a very heavy dose of scientific thinking; and to look at how His Word might be understood in light of current knowledge is hardly a worthless venture. Considering how many ridicule the Bible for supposed inaccuracy regarding the reality of the natural world, defending the Bible's claims when they are directly linked to the natural world is a natural desire for those who love God and His word. I do not take a hard line literalist stance on the Bible, but to say that it is nothing more than a parable reduces God to clever storyteller...

anyone can write a good moral parable, only a sovereign God can incorporate moral parables into actual history!

BTW philadiddle... what do you think God was trying to say in this verse?

 

[philadiddle]

I think you miss my point entirely. I believe that the Bible is intended to be understood in both a "literal" sense and a figurative/spiritual sense. I do not deny that there are moral and doctrinal lessons to be gained from Genesis 1, but that does not remove the statements God made regarding His acts of creation.

I agree with the general sense of what you just said about the bible. However, to be more specific there are parts of the bible that are not literal at all, such as many passages in Revelations (I don't want to debate the meaning of Revelations, just making a point). However, we can still get meaning from those passages. I don't think that the creation account needs to be taken literally to have meaning. For example, there is no serpent bruising our heals and we do not bruise his head, it has a figurative meaning and it is not literally happening. I also don't think that God literally breaths air with lungs (at least not before He came as Jesus). So the passage about God breathing life into man is an accommodation to our level of understanding.

God inspired the writers of the Bible in such a way to be understood by all generations, including ours which has a very heavy dose of scientific thinking; and to look at how His Word might be understood in light of current knowledge is hardly a worthless venture.

God inspired the author of the creation account to give specific theological truths to a world that was lost in its own mythologies. The Genesis account of creation isn't meant to correct their understanding of how it happened, but rather it's placed within their understanding of how it happened. It is not a copy of creation myths, but rather it is an apologetic to its contemporaries of that time. By comparing them we can see exactly what the author was trying to say about God, the natural creation, man, and our relationship with God.

Considering how many ridicule the Bible for supposed inaccuracy regarding the reality of the natural world, defending the Bible's claims when they are directly linked to the natural world is a natural desire for those who love God and His word.

you're problem is that I am talking about the creation account and you are categorically linking everything said about the creation account to the rest of the bible. Even you don't take a literal view of creation because your explanation for why there is water above the sun moon and stars isn't a literal explanation, you are making those verses symbolic of our scientific knowledge.

I do not take a hard line literalist stance on the Bible, but to say that it is nothing more than a parable reduces God to clever storyteller...

So you believe that Jesus was nothing more than a clever storyteller? After all, He spoke in parables a lot that had nothing to do with literal history.

The clever part of the figurative nature of the creation account is that it captivated the immediate audience by using a context that they understood, otherwise it may have been ignored and lost in time. I trust that God knew what He was doing when He chose to do it this way.

BTW philadiddle... what do you think God was trying to say in this verse?

The creation account describes the ancient cosmological view of the universe as a backdrop to more important theological truths. They believed that the universe was made of water, and that the water was separated by a solid dome, the firmament, which contained the sun, moon and stars.