Question for the YECs

[gluadys]

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?

No, because that water is not above the stars.The firmament is above the stars and the water above the firmament needs to be on the far side of the stars.

(That is leaving aside that in ANE cosmology, Mars-like all the solar planets-was classified as a star.)

 

[rcorlew]

No, because that water is not above the stars.The firmament is above the stars and the water above the firmament needs to be on the far side of the stars.

(That is leaving aside that in ANE cosmology, Mars-like all the solar planets-was classified as a star.)

You are incorrectly making an assumption of ANE importation into Hebrew oral traditions, the Hebrew traditions as outlined in the Gospel of Matthew requires a date at or near 4000 BC which predates the most prominent ANE civilizations which makes it more likely that the ANE cosmology had been imported from these Hebrew traditions.

 

[philadiddle]

Just a general observation here, we've talked a lot about possible cosmological explanations for how we could apply that portion of the creation account to our current cosmological understanding. After all that talk, what have we learned about what God was trying to say? How has that helped us understand our relationship with Him?

If understanding the creation account in the setting of an ancient cosmology will help us better understand the message of the creation account, would any of the YECs be willing to consider trying to understand it in that context? If so GREAT! Let's talk about it. If not, why?

 

[Siyha]

You are incorrectly making an assumption of ANE importation into Hebrew oral traditions, the Hebrew traditions as outlined in the Gospel of Matthew requires a date at or near 4000 BC which predates the most prominent ANE civilizations which makes it more likely that the ANE cosmology had been imported from these Hebrew traditions.

what outlines in Matthew are you referring to?

 

[rcorlew]

what outlines in Matthew are you referring to?

The genealogies, I do understand that they are not necessarily a perfect representation of time, but in the least they go back to about 6,000 or so years, at least that is the consensus of those whom I have read about at least.

 

[rcorlew]

Just a general observation here, we've talked a lot about possible cosmological explanations for how we could apply that portion of the creation account to our current cosmological understanding. After all that talk, what have we learned about what God was trying to say? How has that helped us understand our relationship with Him?

If understanding the creation account in the setting of an ancient cosmology will help us better understand the message of the creation account, would any of the YECs be willing to consider trying to understand it in that context? If so GREAT! Let's talk about it. If not, why?

I do believe this is one of the best posts I have seen you make my friend!

The problem here is a simple one, even if God wanted the Israelites to know the "how", there were zero, zip, zilch, nada words in their language to describe it plain and simple. It would be like trying to describe Facebook in the Bible, it just simply was not possible to do that in a manner that the whole of the audience would understand. The Bible was not just written for us right now, it has served God's purpose for 3,000 or so years because the message it shares transcends our time as it transcended their time.

If you understand the story as a parent telling a small child that the sky is blue because God made it that way, then you will have a better understanding of the whole of the Creation epic. We would still not be able to fully understand the "how" although we may have accurately characterized bits and pieces of it.

 

[gluadys]

You are incorrectly making an assumption of ANE importation into Hebrew oral traditions, the Hebrew traditions as outlined in the Gospel of Matthew requires a date at or near 4000 BC which predates the most prominent ANE civilizations which makes it more likely that the ANE cosmology had been imported from these Hebrew traditions.

The chronological order of Hebrew oral traditions vis-a-vis ANE cosmology doesn't really change the point. Whatever the older source, it assumed that planets were a type of star. That assumption continued into near modern times and was only shown to be incorrect with the invention of the telescope.

The Greek word from which we get the term "planet" means "wanderer"; the correlative is "fixed star". Planets were thought to be wandering stars, not rocky or gaseous satellites of the sun.

The Genesis account places all stars, wandering or fixed, in the firmament, and the waters above the firmament. So, water on Mars or on any planet or star is not water above the firmament.

 

[juvenissun]

Just a general observation here, we've talked a lot about possible cosmological explanations for how we could apply that portion of the creation account to our current cosmological understanding. After all that talk, what have we learned about what God was trying to say? How has that helped us understand our relationship with Him?

If understanding the creation account in the setting of an ancient cosmology will help us better understand the message of the creation account, would any of the YECs be willing to consider trying to understand it in that context? If so GREAT! Let's talk about it. If not, why?

I said it in my reply to Assyrian:

There are water planets out there in the space. This is a prediction beyond what astronomers can prove today.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

(This is also a reply to Gluadys

The stuff above us is called firmament (yes, it includes stars).
And the water above, means the water above us.
Then the water above is above "some" firmament. Yes, it is also above some stars, if you position yourself onto the surface of a star.

Don't look this from a view outside or within the space. Look at it from a view on the surface of the earth, which is a way it should be.

 

[Assyrian]

Like being shot at by William Tell and him assuring you the crossbow bolt would go above your head. I would not be too happy if he really meant above some of my head. To me that sound more like in my head than above it.

 

[philadiddle]

I do believe this is one of the best posts I have seen you make my friend!

The problem here is a simple one, even if God wanted the Israelites to know the "how", there were zero, zip, zilch, nada words in their language to describe it plain and simple. It would be like trying to describe Facebook in the Bible, it just simply was not possible to do that in a manner that the whole of the audience would understand. The Bible was not just written for us right now, it has served God's purpose for 3,000 or so years because the message it shares transcends our time as it transcended their time.

If you understand the story as a parent telling a small child that the sky is blue because God made it that way, then you will have a better understanding of the whole of the Creation epic. We would still not be able to fully understand the "how" although we may have accurately characterized bits and pieces of it.

So then maybe God wasn't even trying to describe the how, but focusing on the why.

 

[philadiddle]

Just a general observation here, we've talked a lot about possible cosmological explanations for how we could apply that portion of the creation account to our current cosmological understanding. After all that talk, what have we learned about what God was trying to say? How has that helped us understand our relationship with Him?

If understanding the creation account in the setting of an ancient cosmology will help us better understand the message of the creation account, would any of the YECs be willing to consider trying to understand it in that context? If so GREAT! Let's talk about it. If not, why?

I said it in my reply to Assyrian:

There are water planets out there in the space. This is a prediction beyond what astronomers can prove today.

You quoted my post but your post has nothing to do with the questions I asked. In the overall theme of the bible, how does using hermeneutic gymnastics to make a prediction about water planets help us understand God or our relationship with Him?

 

[juvenissun]

You quoted my post but your post has nothing to do with the questions I asked. In the overall theme of the bible, how does using hermeneutic gymnastics to make a prediction about water planets help us understand God or our relationship with Him?

Believe His words literally.

 

[juvenissun]

Like being shot at by William Tell and him assuring you the crossbow bolt would go above your head. I would not be too happy if he really meant above some of my head. To me that sound more like in my head than above it.

Then how about there are water planets in other galaxies? Or, water planet outside this universe? How far "above" you like to go?

 

[Assyrian]

Believe His words literally.

Apart from words like 'above' of course This is crux of the problem. Literalists say we should take God's words literally, but they don't. They wriggle out of what the text actually says, because if you actually looked at the plain literal meaning of the words you would realise it is not meant to be taken literally.

Then how about there are water planets in other galaxies?

Aren't other galaxies made up of stars?

Or, water planet outside this universe? How far "above" you like to go?

How exactly is the firmament between the waters, if your water planet isn't in this universe?

 

[Mallon]

Believe His words literally.

... said the guy who interprets the word "firmament" non-literally.

 

[Siyha]

The genealogies, I do understand that they are not necessarily a perfect representation of time, but in the least they go back to about 6,000 or so years, at least that is the consensus of those whom I have read about at least.

I guess I don't see the connection between the geneologies going back 6,000 years and this concluding that other civilizations drew from the Hebrew account. For starters, there are civilizations that predate 6,000 years ago. So if this account is acruate, that means that the ancient Sumerians and Mesopotamians were there to witness creation.

Also, the actual Hebrew creation tradition doesn't date back to the beginning of the world. Even under the assumption of a Mosaic authorship, that puts it in writing between 1200 and 2000 BC, and it would have to be oral tradition before this, during a time when other civilizations were writing their creation accounts down.

The ancient Israelites were also relative unknowns in the ancient world, and their cultural influence would have been minimal. Its less likely that nations like Assyria, Egypt, and Mesopotamia would be influenced by the culture of slaves than the other way around. The Old Testament itself is a great example of how easily the Hebrews took on other cultures, most notable the Baal stories Kings, and many of the psalms that draw from storm god and el imagery to describe Yahweh (also see Psalm 77 which uses the plot to Marduk's defeat over Tiamat to describe Yahweh's parting of the Red Sea).

Using other ANE cultures to understand the Hebrew perspective is perfectly valid and has provided a number of answers to confusing questions throughout the Old Testament.

 

[juvenissun]

Apart from words like 'above' of course This is crux of the problem. Literalists say we should take God's words literally, but they don't. They wriggle out of what the text actually says, because if you actually looked at the plain literal meaning of the words you would realise it is not meant to be taken literally.

Aren't other galaxies made up of stars?

How exactly is the firmament between the waters, if your water planet isn't in this universe?

Draw a circle. Everything outside the circle is above the circle. That is it. I don't care what is the configuration outside there. To the circle, everything outside is "above". That is literal enough.

So we have water above the firmament which encircled the earth.

This view also applies to other water planets. So, there are many "seas" in the universe. The earth is only one of such planets.

 

[Assyrian]

Draw a circle. Everything outside the circle is above the circle. That is it. I don't care what is the configuration outside there. To the circle, everything outside is "above". That is literal enough.

So we have water above the firmament which encircled the earth.

Genesis doesn't say anything about the firmament encircling the earth. Everything outside a circle is outside the circle, not above and if you propose water world in other universes, there is no directional relationship between them and your circle in this universe. Besides the text seems to describe the waters sharing a common universe, Gen 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

This view also applies to other water planets. So, there are many "seas" in the universe. The earth is only one of such planets.

Orbiting a star, and don't forget the stars are in the firmament.

 

[philadiddle]

You quoted my post but your post has nothing to do with the questions I asked. In the overall theme of the bible, how does using hermeneutic gymnastics to make a prediction about water planets help us understand God or our relationship with Him?

Believe His words literally.

Again, you quoted me but didn't answer my question. How does your understanding of water worlds add any meaning to the bible? How does your interpretation of water worlds help you understand your relationship with God any better?

Are other YECs here understanding my questions? Or am I speaking in some kind of TE code?