Question for the YECs

[philadiddle]

You are wise beyond your years.

Thank you. Not many people will so readily admit that they can't back up their perspective, especially when it involves their perspective of the theology of the bible.

Also, You Eat Cows.

I actually had a hamburger for dinner. Does that make me a YEC?

 

[juvenissun]

It hasn't moved beyond that point yet. Though kudos to you for at least trying. The other creationists in this thread haven't even attempted to answer it.

So what exactly is your problem? Do you want to know what the "water" exactly is?

If that is the case, I can tell you that we do not know. But as I told you before, it is something with properties similar to that of liquid H2O. So we can exclude things that are not, for example, crystal.

Or, you aimed at that God lies?

 

[philadiddle]

So what exactly is your problem? Do you want to know what the "water" exactly is?

If that is the case, I can tell you that we do not know. But as I told you before, it is something with properties similar to that of liquid H2O. So we can exclude things that are not, for example, crystal.

Or, you aimed at that God lies?

My aim was the to expose the false dichotomy that creationists use when they say "You don't take Genesis literally, so you must think God is lying" as if those are the only two options.

My goal was to expose the ancient cosmology that lies beneath the story. The creation account expresses a worldview that is accomodated to the ANE (Ancient Near East) level of understanding. When we try to make it a science lesson not only do we miss key theological points, but it doesn't even make sense and to try to make it into science makes Christians look foolish.

 

[Critias]

Thank you. Not many people will so readily admit that they can't back up their perspective, especially when it involves their perspective of the theology of the bible.

You'll take anything as an admission or support of your views.

Like I said, to shernen, the way you guys go about science should be what everyone here takes note of.

You guys rock!!

 

[Critias]

My aim was the to expose the false dichotomy that creationists use when they say "You don't take Genesis literally, so you must think God is lying" as if those are the only two options.

Let's flip that. TEs say:

"If you read Genesis literally you're a Bibliotary." It seems the same type of argument goes both ways.

Imagine that.

 

[philadiddle]

You'll take anything as an admission or support of your views.

Like I said, to shernen, the way you guys go about science should be what everyone here takes note of.

You guys rock!!

Why are you still posting in this thread? You obviously don't care to address the topic. In fact, nothing you've posted yet has had any substance to it. Are you able to explain the scripture in question to me or not?

 

[depthdeception]

From Genesis chapter 1:

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,

So basically, there are waters above the firmament (verse 7), and God set the sun, moon and stars (verse 16) in the firmament (verse 17). This would mean that there are waters above the sun, moon and stars.

But where's the part that answers the question about "God said this"...?

 

[Critias]

Why are you still posting in this thread? You obviously don't care to address the topic. In fact, nothing you've posted yet has had any substance to it. Are you able to explain the scripture in question to me or not?

Why post here? To mess with you. You didn't figure that out? Come on now...

I also wanted to show how some of you tend to go about your "scientific belief". Like:

* The lack of an argument is equal to the inability to present an argument - ala you.

* A sample size of two, one being me, is great support for my assertions - ala shernen.

* I present a negative argument and then state I cannot give support for my argument because I cannot prove a negative - ala you again.

YECs should take note that this is how several of you go about having "support" for your assertions and views. It's fabricated.

 

[juvenissun]

My aim was the to expose the false dichotomy that creationists use when they say "You don't take Genesis literally, so you must think God is lying" as if those are the only two options.

My goal was to expose the ancient cosmology that lies beneath the story. The creation account expresses a worldview that is accomodated to the ANE (Ancient Near East) level of understanding. When we try to make it a science lesson not only do we miss key theological points, but it doesn't even make sense and to try to make it into science makes Christians look foolish.

So, you do not care what is the "water", but aimed at the literal/figurative reading problem.

On this regard, I have also discussed it. Simply repeat again what I said: the water does not have to be liquid H2O, but it is limited to something similar to water. This is not as literal as you think it is. But it is literal enough for me. It is definitely not a figurative reading.

Is that good enough for your concern?

 

[philadiddle]

But where's the part that answers the question about "God said this"...?

You'll have to explain why you think that your question hasn't been answered.

 

[philadiddle]

I also wanted to show how some of you tend to go about your "scientific belief". Like:

This thread is about theology and scripture, not a "scientific belief".

* The lack of an argument is equal to the inability to present an argument - ala you.

Until you demonstrate that you are capable of explaining that passage of scripture to me, I'm justified in thinking that you can't. The reason for this is that you've been asked directly several times to explain it and each time you responded but avoided the question.

If you just want to mess with me then I'll stop going in circles with you. By now everyone reading this has recognized that you don't have an answer to the OP.

 

[philadiddle]

the water does not have to be liquid H2O, but it is limited to something similar to water. This is not as literal as you think it is. But it is literal enough for me. It is definitely not a figurative reading.

Is that good enough for your concern?

The reason it's not good enough is that you are arbitrarily changing the meaning of the word "water" from verse to verse to suite your current scientific understanding of the universe. You are not actually considering the etymology of the word, the context it was written in, or any of the various interpretation techniques used to understand the bible. It's just a one off, ad hoc rationalization to suite your personal bias.

I would love to see you develop more of a desire to understand scripture for what it is. You'll get so much more out of it that way.

 

[Merlin]

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

just a misunderstanding.
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." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

 

[philadiddle]

just a misunderstanding.
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." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

What's the misunderstanding? You'll have to explain it to me.

 

[Merlin]

it doesn't say that there is water above the sun, moon, and stars?

 

[Critias]

This thread is about theology and scripture, not a "scientific belief".

Wow, I didn't think you were that naive. I guess I was wrong.

Your belief of how to interpret Genesis 1-11 stems from your belief of what science teaches about evolution.

I'm surprised you were unable to make that connection.

Until you demonstrate that you are capable of explaining that passage of scripture to me, I'm justified in thinking that you can't. The reason for this is that you've been asked directly several times to explain it and each time you responded but avoided the question.

You are more than welcome to believe in what you feel justified. However that does not make you correct.

Again, you're being naive by thinking I am avoiding the question because I cannot answer. You're MAKING that conclusion to SUPPORT your assertion. Again, bad reasoning.

If you just want to mess with me then I'll stop going in circles with you. By now everyone reading this has recognized that you don't have an answer to the OP.

I suppose you didn't grasp what I said before. I, unlike you, don't care what you or anyone else thinks of me or what I say here.

In a few meaningless posts I've been able to manipulate you to show how you reason and deduce what is evidence. Both of which are found wanting.

Feel free to stop whenever you like.

 

[philadiddle]

Wow, I didn't think you were that naive. I guess I was wrong.

Your belief of how to interpret Genesis 1-11 stems from your belief of what science teaches about evolution.

I'm surprised you were unable to make that connection.




You are more than welcome to believe in what you feel justified. However that does not make you correct.

Again, you're being naive by thinking I am avoiding the question because I cannot answer. You're MAKING that conclusion to SUPPORT your assertion. Again, bad reasoning.



I suppose you didn't grasp what I said before. I, unlike you, don't care what you or anyone else thinks of me or what I say here.

In a few meaningless posts I've been able to manipulate you to show how you reason and deduce what is evidence. Both of which are found wanting.

Feel free to stop whenever you like.

I'll stop now then. It's obvious you're a troll because nobody could actually say the things you say and actually believe them.

 

[philadiddle]

it doesn't say that there is water above the sun, moon, and stars?

There are waters above the firmament, and God places the sun, moon and stars into the firmament. So if the stars are in the firmament and the waters are above the firmament then that must mean that there are waters above the stars.

 

[Merlin]

7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water [above in amongst] it. And it was so

 

[philadiddle]

7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water [above in amongst] it. And it was so

There's nothing about the meaning of the word "above" that would imply that "amongst" is a reasonable substitution. Source

I said the following earlier but I don't blame you for not reading every single post in this thread.

From Genesis chapter 1:

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,

So basically, there are waters above the firmament (verse 7), and God set the sun, moon and stars (verse 16) in the firmament (verse 17). This would mean that there are waters above the sun, moon and stars.