Question for the YECs

[philadiddle]

Gen 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.

It would hardly mean waters that covered the universe.

Why not? If we put in into the context of their understanding then it would imply that.

The firmament was in the MIDST (middle) of the waters. That would mean something like 50/50

Are you guessing or did the original Hebrew word imply 50/50?

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

If 50% is what is in our oceans, then it would be quite a stretch for the other 50% to reach way above the sun, moon and stars (that was not even there until the fourth day).

There are waters above the firmament, and on the fourth day when the sun, moon, and stars are made they are place in the firmament. This brings me back to my original question, where are the waters that are above the sun, moon and stars?

Gen 1:7 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.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

I understand the firmament (heaven) to be the atmosphere or sky.

So you think the sun was originally put in our atmosphere?

 

[juvenissun]

Well I certainly agree with you on this. I think that what God wanted to explain through the human author was influenced by that person's cosmological view. So far it seems that you agree. So since the people at that time saw the universe as a giant ocean, would that have affected the way it was written? The concept they had of the universe was that the waters of the universe were divided by the firmament, which was a solid structure, and in the firmament the sun, moon, and stars were set. There were windows in the firmament that let in the rain and snow. It seems that a straightforward literal reading of Genesis would give us this kind of view. The waters are divided by the firmament, and the sun, moon and stars were placed in the firmament. This makes perfect sense.

This does not mean that God was lying, it means that God was correcting the theological views of the culture at that time and He was accommodating that explanation to the level of understanding that the human author had. It was NOT intended to be a science lesson, it is a theology lesson.

It is very easy to understand it in this light, and most theologians agree with this. It seems that when you try to make it about science as we understand it today you end up coming up with all sorts of ad hoc explanations.

Do you think it is acceptable to see the bible as a literal account of the universe as the human author saw it or does it have to be a literal account of science as we understand it?

Everything said in the Bible are not meant to be science "lessons". Knowledge is knowledge, textbook should not be the only book in which knowledge can be read. We do not have to teach science by the Bible. But scientific knowledge is in the Bible. The key is that the message of science in the Bible IS NOT FALSIFIED through time. Instead of calling it science, you may call it truth.

The nature represented by the word water in Gen 1:2 was scientifically true at Moses time, is still true today, and will still be true in the future. Only God can write it this way.

 

[juvenissun]

Well I certainly agree with you on this. I think that what God wanted to explain through the human author was influenced by that person's cosmological view. So far it seems that you agree. So since the people at that time saw the universe as a giant ocean, would that have affected the way it was written? The concept they had of the universe was that the waters of the universe were divided by the firmament, which was a solid structure, and in the firmament the sun, moon, and stars were set. There were windows in the firmament that let in the rain and snow. It seems that a straightforward literal reading of Genesis would give us this kind of view. The waters are divided by the firmament, and the sun, moon and stars were placed in the firmament. This makes perfect sense.

This does not mean that God was lying, it means that God was correcting the theological views of the culture at that time and He was accommodating that explanation to the level of understanding that the human author had. It was NOT intended to be a science lesson, it is a theology lesson.

It is very easy to understand it in this light, and most theologians agree with this. It seems that when you try to make it about science as we understand it today you end up coming up with all sorts of ad hoc explanations.

Do you think it is acceptable to see the bible as a literal account of the universe as the human author saw it or does it have to be a literal account of science as we understand it?

To God's words, we do not say: "It does not have to be literal" at the first place, then say: "sometimes, it could be literal".

Instead, we should say: " It IS literal", but "sometimes, It does not have to be".

This is an attitude problem, not an interpretation problem.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

To God's words, we do not say: "It does not have to be literal" at the first place, then say: "sometimes, it could be literal".

Instead, we should say: " It IS literal", but "sometimes, It does not have to be".

This is an attitude problem, not an interpretation problem.

To God's words, we do not say: "It does not have to be literal" at the first place, then say: "sometimes, it could be literal".

Instead, we should say: " It IS literal", but "sometimes, It does not have to be".

This is an attitude problem, not an interpretation problem.

You seem to be letting him side track you and go on a rabbit trail when this is a very simple issue to solve.

The original question was concerning the location of the water above the firmament. Your response seemed strange to say it could be plasma or something "like" water, because that would have no value or place in the context of the passage. It would be like saying that "God separated the plasma from the water, and he called this expanse sky."

Its obvious here that the waters are not some substitute word for a substance indescribable to the author. I think Basil the Great put it best in the 4th century:

"Since, then, Scripture says that the dew or the rain falls from heaven, we understand that it is from those waters which have been ordered to occupy the higher regions." (From Hexaemeron 3.8)

The water talked about in Genesis 1:6 is most definately water. Any other definition of it brings one down a slipperly slope of subjectivity that allows a person to change the meaning of whatever they want in the bible under the guise of correcting the human author's ignorance.

Rain comes from above the heavens which are above the sky. That is the water that was separated in Genesis 1:6.

To say it IS literal but sometimes does not have to be is just asking for subjective interpretation and you will fall down the heretical hill of liberalism that is slowly creeping into so many theological centres these days.

 

[Critias]

I'm just looking for the YEC explanation of this, and instead of insisting that you guys are wrong, I'm giving you a chance to explain it to me.

Sorry, but I'm calling you out: "I'm just looking for the YEC explanation of this, and instead of insisting that you guys are wrong" - Bull.

You're looking to argue your point, not hear someone else's view point.

 

[Critias]

To God's words, we do not say: "It does not have to be literal" at the first place, then say: "sometimes, it could be literal".

Instead, we should say: " It IS literal", but "sometimes, It does not have to be".

This is an attitude problem, not an interpretation problem.

They're just trying to get you to explain something that no one can truly explain except for God. Don't give them the satisfaction of your point of view other than to say I believe it was meant literal, period.

They just want to get you to argue and that does nothing for anyone or God.

 

[juvenissun]

They're just trying to get you to explain something that no one can truly explain except for God. Don't give them the satisfaction of your point of view other than to say I believe it was meant literal, period.

They just want to get you to argue and that does nothing for anyone or God.

I know.

I am giving him more than he asked for.

 

[juvenissun]

You seem to be letting him side track you and go on a rabbit trail when this is a very simple issue to solve.

The original question was concerning the location of the water above the firmament. Your response seemed strange to say it could be plasma or something "like" water, because that would have no value or place in the context of the passage. It would be like saying that "God separated the plasma from the water, and he called this expanse sky."

Its obvious here that the waters are not some substitute word for a substance indescribable to the author. I think Basil the Great put it best in the 4th century:

"Since, then, Scripture says that the dew or the rain falls from heaven, we understand that it is from those waters which have been ordered to occupy the higher regions." (From Hexaemeron 3.8)

The water talked about in Genesis 1:6 is most definately water. Any other definition of it brings one down a slipperly slope of subjectivity that allows a person to change the meaning of whatever they want in the bible under the guise of correcting the human author's ignorance.

Rain comes from above the heavens which are above the sky. That is the water that was separated in Genesis 1:6.

To say it IS literal but sometimes does not have to be is just asking for subjective interpretation and you will fall down the heretical hill of liberalism that is slowly creeping into so many theological centres these days.

Thank you. I have been very careful on this. So far, I did not fall into his trap. But he falls into mine.

And, sometimes, like in this thread, your answer is not any better than no answer.

 

[philadiddle]

Sorry, but I'm calling you out: "I'm just looking for the YEC explanation of this, and instead of insisting that you guys are wrong" - Bull.

You're looking to argue your point, not hear someone else's view point.

You are only saying this because you realize that you can't explain why the stars, sun and moon are placed below the waters above. A literal interpretation only works in the context of an ancient cosmology. Concordism is a theological dead end.

 

[philadiddle]

Thank you. I have been very careful on this. So far, I did not fall into his trap. But he falls into mine.

And, sometimes, like in this thread, your answer is not any better than no answer.

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...

 

[AnswersInHovind]

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...

The trap of exposing you as one with no answers, only problems. One who feels no need to back their claims, but simply jump on the liberal bandwagon and hate on orthodoxy.

 

[Siyha]

Sorry, but I'm calling you out: "I'm just looking for the YEC explanation of this, and instead of insisting that you guys are wrong" - Bull.

You're looking to argue your point, not hear someone else's view point.

They're just trying to get you to explain something that no one can truly explain except for God. Don't give them the satisfaction of your point of view other than to say I believe it was meant literal, period.

They just want to get you to argue and that does nothing for anyone or God.

I firstoff want to say I apologize for the length of this post. I tried trimming it down, but the examples and

segways all seem necessary to me to really understand the point I am trying to make.



You are right to call Philaddidle on his bull. But while his tact may not be helpful, there is a place for this question because the answer to it can be surprisingly insightful and benefitial- even moreso than I think Philaddidle realizes, as his main concern seems to be merely polarizing literal and symbolic approaches.

So here is my take on the first Genesis creation account, and how we can apply that to answering the thread's subject of water above the sun and stars.

In breif, Ancient cosmology is the key. The picture being painted in Genesis 1 is NOT symbolic, but it NEITHER is it a literal historical account. It is a picture being painted of the ancient cosmological view of the world. But that is not the point of the passage.

The point of the passage isn't the creation itself, but the creator behind it. This becomes apparent when contrasting Genesis 1 with other Ancient Near East creation accounts. This is not to say that the Bible "copied" or was derived from them as secular scholars (at some at the fringes of Christianity) propose, but rather the text was written against the other creation accounts. The differences between Genesis and others is where the deep majesty of God is revealed, and coincidently, the dealing with water that this thread randomly chose to dissect is one of the most significant - I'll address water specifically in a moment, but first I'd like to give some examples of how reading Genesis in an ANE context is benefitial.

In the Babylonians and Ugaritic accounts (the two most often compared to things in the Old Testament), it is an arguing, fumbling, warring council of gods that makes the world. In Genesis, YHWH just jumps onto the scene and SHABAM! Creation.

My favourite contrast is that in ANE accounts, man is an after thought, created to take care of the world because the gods are too lazy to. In Genesis, man is the pinnacle of Yahweh's creation.

Also, in ANE creation accouts, there is a formless chaotic void that pre-exists creation, and creation itself is giving part of that chaotic void order. In Genesis, Yahweh not only brings order to the void, but creates the void as well.

There are ample other examples in the passage emphasizing Yahweh's power and majesty, but the void is a good segway into "water", the topic of this thread.

Verse 2 is very important in understanding ANE (ancient near eastern) cosmology and its realation to the Biblical account. "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." (Gen 1:2)

Notice how in the formless and empty (chaotic void) form of the earth, the surface of the earth is waters. Thats because the chaotic and vast expanse of the sea was synonymous with the chaotic void in the ANE. The nature of water was beyond that of simple H2O. The sea itself was an evil diety serpent monster creature in almost all ANE mythologies (Tiamat, Rahab, Leviathan, and many other names). So in verse 20 when we read "Let the water teem with living creatures," a more acurate translation would be "monsters." The account is not only showing God is more powerful than the chaos monsters that people feared, but that He, in fact, created them. Another example of this same contrast is when Job calls for himself to be uncreated in Job 3. If you compare his lament in chapter 3 to the Genesis 1 creation account, essentially he is using the passage to poetically call for himself to have never been created, and in verse 8 he speaks of the chaos monster leviathan, which later in the book of Job we see God completely overpower and dominate.


So how does all this go to answering the question of "Do you accept what God said when He said that there is water above the sun, moon, and stars? Or was God lying?" My answer is this: the question has no place in this passage because the purpose of the passage has nothing to do with the shape of the cosmos, but rather it is using the percieved shape of the cosmos to tell us about Yahweh. In this percieved shape of the cosmos, there was a giant sea in the sky that rain and all other precipitation falls from. Answersinhovind's quote of Basil shows that even in the 4th century AD, this view still existed. But this account is not trying to convince the reader of how the universe looks, but rather convince the reader of Yahweh, the founder of the covenant, as the true and uber awesome God.

 

[gluadys]

I firstoff want to say I apologize for the length of this post. I tried trimming it down, but the examples and

segways all seem necessary to me to really understand the point I am trying to make.



You are right to call Philaddidle on his bull. But while his tact may not be helpful, there is a place for this question because the answer to it can be surprisingly insightful and benefitial- even moreso than I think Philaddidle realizes, as his main concern seems to be merely polarizing literal and symbolic approaches.

So here is my take on the first Genesis creation account, and how we can apply that to answering the thread's subject of water above the sun and stars.

In breif, Ancient cosmology is the key. The picture being painted in Genesis 1 is NOT symbolic, but it NEITHER is it a literal historical account. It is a picture being painted of the ancient cosmological view of the world. But that is not the point of the passage.

The point of the passage isn't the creation itself, but the creator behind it. This becomes apparent when contrasting Genesis 1 with other Ancient Near East creation accounts. This is not to say that the Bible "copied" or was derived from them as secular scholars (at some at the fringes of Christianity) propose, but rather the text was written against the other creation accounts. The differences between Genesis and others is where the deep majesty of God is revealed, and coincidently, the dealing with water that this thread randomly chose to dissect is one of the most significant - I'll address water specifically in a moment, but first I'd like to give some examples of how reading Genesis in an ANE context is benefitial.

In the Babylonians and Ugaritic accounts (the two most often compared to things in the Old Testament), it is an arguing, fumbling, warring council of gods that makes the world. In Genesis, YHWH just jumps onto the scene and SHABAM! Creation.

My favourite contrast is that in ANE accounts, man is an after thought, created to take care of the world because the gods are too lazy to. In Genesis, man is the pinnacle of Yahweh's creation.

Also, in ANE creation accouts, there is a formless chaotic void that pre-exists creation, and creation itself is giving part of that chaotic void order. In Genesis, Yahweh not only brings order to the void, but creates the void as well.

There are ample other examples in the passage emphasizing Yahweh's power and majesty, but the void is a good segway into "water", the topic of this thread.

Verse 2 is very important in understanding ANE (ancient near eastern) cosmology and its realation to the Biblical account. "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." (Gen 1:2)

Notice how in the formless and empty (chaotic void) form of the earth, the surface of the earth is waters. Thats because the chaotic and vast expanse of the sea was synonymous with the chaotic void in the ANE. The nature of water was beyond that of simple H2O. The sea itself was an evil diety serpent monster creature in almost all ANE mythologies (Tiamat, Rahab, Leviathan, and many other names). So in verse 20 when we read "Let the water teem with living creatures," a more acurate translation would be "monsters." The account is not only showing God is more powerful than the chaos monsters that people feared, but that He, in fact, created them. Another example of this same contrast is when Job calls for himself to be uncreated in Job 3. If you compare his lament in chapter 3 to the Genesis 1 creation account, essentially he is using the passage to poetically call for himself to have never been created, and in verse 8 he speaks of the chaos monster leviathan, which later in the book of Job we see God completely overpower and dominate.


So how does all this go to answering the question of "Do you accept what God said when He said that there is water above the sun, moon, and stars? Or was God lying?" My answer is this: the question has no place in this passage because the purpose of the passage has nothing to do with the shape of the cosmos, but rather it is using the percieved shape of the cosmos to tell us about Yahweh. In this percieved shape of the cosmos, there was a giant sea in the sky that rain and all other precipitation falls from. Answersinhovind's quote of Basil shows that even in the 4th century AD, this view still existed. But this account is not trying to convince the reader of how the universe looks, but rather convince the reader of Yahweh, the founder of the covenant, as the true and uber awesome God.

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.

 

[shernren]

Rain comes from above the heavens which are above the sky. That is the water that was separated in Genesis 1:6.

To say it IS literal but sometimes does not have to be is just asking for subjective interpretation and you will fall down the heretical hill of liberalism that is slowly creeping into so many theological centres these days.

Then what do you make of:

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so.

And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."
[Gen 1:14-15, 20 ESV; emphases added]

The creation account locates the sun and moon in the expanse, and the birds across the expanse, and the waters above the expanse.Taking the passage literally leads to at least this much cosmology:

Waters (above expanse)
--------------------------------
EXPANSE - with stars, moon, sun
------------ Birds --------------
Waters (below expanse) + Land

Lest you think I'm misinterpreting the passage, this is the view taken by Russell Humphreys of AiG in his book Starlight and Time. (Well, his picture is prettier, but that's beside the point.) Of course, in this arrangement, the waters must actually be beyond interstellar space (which is the space the stars are in), and that is what Russell Humphreys believes, or at least believed at the time of that book in 1994. Fact is that this isn't a crazy liberal reading, it's a conservative literal reading by one of your own, and according to the guy the waters are now a thin expanding shell of ice that surrounds the observable universe.

So which reading is the literal one, his or yours?

 

[Critias]

You are only saying this because you realize that you can't explain why the stars, sun and moon are placed below the waters above. A literal interpretation only works in the context of an ancient cosmology. Concordism is a theological dead end.

You're only saying this to argue your point, in which you make my original point for me.

 

[philadiddle]

You're only saying this to argue your point, in which you make my original point for me.

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.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

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 would agree with you and Siyha were the Bible a human work. But it's not. It is a divine work. So it is not written from the view of an ancient cosmology. Granted, charecters in will speak in terms of ancient cosmological views (Such as job and in the psalms) with references to the pillars of the earth, but that is charecters understandings, not God's. Narration should be dealt with in a different way than speech, and Genesis 1 is a narration of what God did.

 

[philadiddle]

So it is not written from the view of an ancient cosmology.

Granted, charecters in will speak in terms of ancient cosmological views

Contradict yourself much?

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Contradict yourself much?

Either you are just trolling now or you fail the understand what I was saying. Which is it?

 

[crawfish]

The trap of exposing you as one with no answers, only problems. One who feels no need to back their claims, but simply jump on the liberal bandwagon and hate on orthodoxy.

Who says he doesn't have answers? He's trying to figure out what yours are, since they seem to be contradictory to how you demand scripture interpreted in Genesis 1-3.

We have very simple answers for all these questions, answers that bolster our faith because they allow us to read scripture in a way that is logical, consistent and relevant.