Question for the YECs

[Merlin]

so, if we assume even one molecule of water per million cubic miles, then there is more water in space than on earth
therefore, the sun is indeed amongst the water

 

[Dark_Lite]

so, if we assume even one molecule of water per million cubic miles, then there is more water in space than on earth
therefore, the sun is indeed amongst the water

That's a massive interpretive stretch. Did the water (which is frozen by the way) fly through space from all over to come and drop down upon the world?

 

[philadiddle]

so, if we assume even one molecule of water per million cubic miles, then there is more water in space than on earth
therefore, the sun is indeed amongst the water

Do you realize that your interpretation is now completely void of context, proper exegesis, or any standard interpretation method? Do you realize that you are just trying to force the text to fit our current understanding of the universe (concordism)? Or do you actually think that there is something about your method of interpretation that is correct in some way? What do you think would happen if you submitted these ideas to a Christian university for review?

 

[Merlin]

Do you realize that your interpretation is now completely void of context, proper exegesis, or any standard interpretation method? Do you realize that you are just trying to force the text to fit our current understanding of the universe (concordism)? Or do you actually think that there is something about your method of interpretation that is correct in some way? What do you think would happen if you submitted these ideas to a Christian university for review?

linguistically, no problem
traditionally, might be bad

 

[parsa]

>>so, if we assume even one molecule of water per million cubic miles, then there is more water in space than on earth
therefore, the sun is indeed amongst the water>>

But then that would make the distinction between land and sea, or water and non-water, for that matter, kind of mute, wouldn't it? Since just about everything has a whole lot higher concentration of water than space.

 

[Merlin]

>>so, if we assume even one molecule of water per million cubic miles, then there is more water in space than on earth
therefore, the sun is indeed amongst the water>>

But then that would make the distinction between land and sea, or water and non-water, for that matter, kind of mute, wouldn't it? Since just about everything has a whole lot higher concentration of water than space.

there was a great amount of water.

the water was divided by a 'firmament'

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.

the water under the firmament was gathered together

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place

just about everything has a whole lot higher concentration of water than space.
maybe not before it was 'gathered together'?

 

[pgp_protector]

so, if we assume even one molecule of water per million cubic miles, then there is more water in space than on earth
therefore, the sun is indeed amongst the water

Given this logic we can also say that the sun & earth is amongst any element in existence.

 

[parsa]

maybe not before it was 'gathered together'?

It surely isn't wrong but it does seem like kind of a stretch.

Personally I would think that when you are putting names on things you have in mind of how people perceive that word.

Our perception of calling something a body of water is not based on percentage of water present and although were talking about a long time ago but my first guess would be that people at that time had a some what close understanding of the word water as we do today.

 

[Merlin]

It surely isn't wrong but it does seem like kind of a stretch.

yes
i only point out a possibility and why i believe GOD didn't lie.
i have no idea what conditions were like then.

Personally I would think that when you are putting names on things you have in mind of how people perceive that word.

Our perception of calling something a body of water is not based on percentage of water present and although were talking about a long time ago but my first guess would be that people at that time had a some what close understanding of the word water as we do today.

the word was not 'water'. the bible wasn't written in english.
the word was hebrew-- mayim

 

[parsa]

Well I can totally accept that. Anyone that knows more than one language knows that there is so much that can be lost in translation even if you try your best.

The other problem is that although words may not often change their meaning over time that much but they do change what they specifically refer to.

 

[The Lady Kate]

so, if we assume even one molecule of water per million cubic miles, then there is more water in space than on earth
therefore, the sun is indeed amongst the water

And if we assume cottage cheese...

 

[Mallon]

so, if we assume even one molecule of water per million cubic miles, then there is more water in space than on earth
therefore, the sun is indeed amongst the water

Yes, surely that is what God was referring to when He addressed a nation of early Hebrew people who didn't even know what a molecule was.

 

[philadiddle]

so, if we assume even one molecule of water per million cubic miles, then there is more water in space than on earth
therefore, the sun is indeed amongst the water

A single H2O molecule is not water. The same molecule can also be ice or steam. You are forcing the text to conform to your cosmology.

the word was not 'water'. the bible wasn't written in english.
the word was hebrew-- mayim

And what does the etemology of the word mayim tell you about its meaning? It seemed to mean water when it was gathered together to make the oceans, so why does it mean something else when referring to the waters above the firmament?

 

[sk8Joyful]

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

Well since it wouldn't occur to GOD to 'lie', chalk this up to another language misunderstanding

 

[sk8Joyful]

Well I can totally accept that. Anyone that knows more than one language knows
there is so much that can be lost in translation even if you try your best.

Very true parsa!

(she says having studied 7 languages to date)

 

[philadiddle]

Well since it wouldn't occur to GOD to 'lie', chalk this up to another language misunderstanding

So what does it mean then?

 

[juvenissun]

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

God gives me a question (answer) the other day. I just pass it to you on this issue. It is nothing new, but is a way to understand.

Mars had (or still has) water. Would the water on Mars fit the "water above" description? Why not?

 

[Assyrian]

God gives me a question (answer) the other day. I just pass it to you on this issue. It is nothing new, but is a way to understand.

Mars had (or still has) water. Would the water on Mars fit the "water above" description? Why not?

Good question.

Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so.

Gen 1:16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.

You have the sun, moon and stars set in the firmament, so I don't see how the water on Mars could be above the firmament.

It is the sort of question Calvin was challenged by when he realised from the astronomy of his day that Jupiter was much larger than the moon, though Genesis describes the sun and moon as the two great lights God placed in the firmament. Perhaps with the Mars water question you could come to the same conclusion Calvin did, that God wasn't teaching astronomy but was accommodating what he was teaching in Genesis to the Hebrews' limited understanding.

 

[juvenissun]

Good question.

Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so.

Gen 1:16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth.

You have the sun, moon and stars set in the firmament, so I don't see how the water on Mars could be above the firmament.

It is the sort of question Calvin was challenged by when he realised from the astronomy of his day that Jupiter was much larger than the moon, though Genesis describes the sun and moon as the two great lights God placed in the firmament. Perhaps with the Mars water question you could come to the same conclusion Calvin did, that God wasn't teaching astronomy but was accommodating what he was teaching in Genesis to the Hebrews' limited understanding.

The "above" is used for us on the earth. As long as Europa is separated from the earth by the firmament, its ocean is also hanging above us and above the firmament to us.

Yes, I agreed with your view. But there is one more important update to us today: liquid water is indeed everywhere in the universe. So, don't be surprised if somebody told us that he found a water planet somewhere in the space.

 

[Assyrian]

The "above" is used for us on the earth. As long as Europa is separated from the earth by the firmament, its ocean is also hanging above us and above the firmament to us.

Yes, I agreed with your view. But there is one more important update to us today: liquid water is indeed everywhere in the universe. So, don't be surprised if somebody told us that he found a water planet somewhere in the space.

It means the water is above us true enough, but it specifically says the water is above the firmament. Unless you find your water planet beyond the stars, it is can't be water above the firmament because the stars are set in the firmament. Just stick with Calvin's accommodation, it is much simpler.