I understand that you are arbitrarily picking and choosing what is representative of ANE cosmology to suite your bias.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I understand that you are arbitrarily picking and choosing what is representative of ANE cosmology to suite your bias.Either you are just trolling now or you fail the understand what I was saying. Which is it?
You can make this about attitude and intention if you like, and even if I am guilty of what you say, the point remains that Genesis reads like an apologetic to its contempories, and is told throught the understanding of an ancient cosmology. Trying to say that I'm up to something is just avoiding the real issue.
I understand that you are arbitrarily picking and choosing what is representative of ANE cosmology to suite your bias.
I understand that you are arbitrarily picking and choosing what is representative of ANE cosmology to suite your bias.
When a charecter speaks its from the perspective of their culture, but when the narrator speaks its not. This is not a very difficult concept to understand, nor is it "arbitrarily" picking and choosing; there is a clear system here.
Is there a clear system? What is it?
The least arbitrary systems I have seen on interpreting biblical texts have been set out by TEs. If you can show me a non-arbitrary system from your perspective, I am all ears.
....
Do I really need to type it out a third time?
Charecter speaks: cultural context
Narrator's words: not
What trap of yours did I fall into? So far you've arbitrarily changed the meaning of several words from verse to verse just to try to make it reflect our current cosmology. I explained why it fits an ancient cosmology perfectly and you have no response. Very telling...
What if it's God speaking?
"Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment. (all 2-D images!)
... "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?
... Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
when the dust becomes hard
and the clods of earth stick together?
(Job 38:12-14; 22,23; 37,38)
This is how most evolutionary creationists (theistic evolutionists) would also interpret the passage. It is the polar opposite of the concordist literalist approach.
I agree, ANE cosmology is the key to the meaning of the passage. It is written as a polemic against the Babylonian/Ugaritic etc. cosmologies and in this context the question then has no place BECAUSE the concordist YEC interpretation cannot be sustained in its own terms as a literal, historic, scientifically accurate record of creation.
What if it's God speaking?
"Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment. (all 2-D images!)
... "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow
or seen the storehouses of the hail,
which I reserve for times of trouble,
for days of war and battle?
... Who has the wisdom to count the clouds?
Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens
when the dust becomes hard
and the clods of earth stick together?
(Job 38:12-14; 22,23; 37,38)
This is the verse I selected to put on the front page of my dissertation. It accurately summarized three years of my work. You do not expect me to explain it to you in a few paragraphs, right?
From then, I started to pay attention to scientific message in the Bible.
So we talk about the "water" again (remember last time I argued with you on this term by something called "solution"?)
Do you know the hydrogen gas on the surface of the sun has density 1? Is it justified to be called "water? (I know you would say no. But I would say yes, and I insist it is literal).
Who says the water has to be H2O? On Titan, it is CH4.
And of course "take the earth by its edges / and shake the wicked out of it" has absolutely nothing to do with flatness, right?Wow! You totally got me!
Obviously when God talked about a seal and garment the main attribute one is to gather is flatness. Or maybe the seal, functioning as a simile, has to do with how they are cast and formed to the exact shape, easily and quickly by the maker (which I guess would back up a creationist view... interesting). Maybe the garment is in reference to the beauty attributed to fine clothing, and the features of the earth that make its beauty stand out.
No, that can't be right. These similes must be refering to flatness. Everyone knows that in the ancient world clothing and seals were basically just synonyms for flat.
If you're not avoiding any issues, then why haven't you attempted to explain to me what God meant when He said there are waters above the sun, moon, and stars?You already made it about attitude and intention and admit to what I pointed out.
I'm not avoiding any issues, just pointing out your issue with trying to argue at people about how you are right and they are wrong. I don't care what you think is right or wrong with whatever you think I believe.
Have you actually study the scriptures on this question yourself? Or are you just being lazy?Do you accept what God said when He said that there is water above the sun, moon, and stars? Or was God lying?
And of course "take the earth by its edges / and shake the wicked out of it" has absolutely nothing to do with flatness, right?
I hope you can agree with me, as a bare minimum, that if we did not know anything about the Earth's actual shape, the most straightforward and contextually accurate rendering of Job 38:12-14 would consider it to describe a flat earth.
Have you actually study the scriptures on this question yourself? Or are you just being lazy?
Yes I have studied the scriptures. Not to the extent that I'm elligible for a degree, but I have. Have you? Do you know what words like "raqui'a" mean?Have you actually study the scriptures on this question yourself? Or are you just being lazy?
If you're not avoiding any issues, then why haven't you attempted to explain to me what God meant when He said there are waters above the sun, moon, and stars?
I will take this to mean that you really don't know what those verses are describing or why they are in there.Persistent, but unconvincing. You're too transparent.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?