TEs, what is the current view of the water above the expanse in Genesis?

[chaoschristian]

If you're going to quote the Bible, know what it says!!

Someone??? It is JESUS!

Ha. Sometimes its hard to read the subtext, especially when one chooses not to use the emoticons.

We all have different styles of communicating. Sometimes I can be less direct than some appreciate. My apologies.

 

[Willtor]

I think it's pretty arrogrant to say the Bible is fallible and we're just absorbing its general message. It worked well throughout the ages and now we are adapting it to meet our comfortable world views, in the face of record breaking moral backsliding.

I don't think anybody said that the Bible is fallible, and all of the posts I've read have indicated that people think otherwise. Maybe you should take a break and come back later and look at what's being said, afresh.

No one has proven the Bible is in error, so view things as you like, and I will do the same.

Nor has anybody tried, as far as I've read. It looks very much to me like people have been attacking your interpretation and you're becoming defensive. Seriously, take a break.

 

[Proselyte]

Ah, well in that case, the Bible is wrong. We know that there is no water in the expanse above the sky we call space. Space is a vaccuum; not the blue water the early Hebrews thought it was (see shernren's post for more).

Wiltor, see above.

I see this time and time again on these forums.

 

[Willtor]

Wiltor, see above.

I see this time and time again on these forums.

2 'l's in Willtor.

Mallon is discussing cosmology. I think he is concerned, just as I am, that the Bible is being used as a textbook on cosmology as opposed to a book on theology written in the context of an ancient cosmology. In this sense, the Bible has failed if one tries to draw cosmological truths out of it. Of course, this is an interpretational issue and is not intrinsic to the Bible, itself.

 

[steen]

Wiltor, see above.

I see this time and time again on these forums.

What would be the vapor pressure and surface temperature from that much water in the atmosphere?

 

[vossler]

False. The Bible is not explained away by science.

The Bible is explained away when science, based on evolution, is introduced. Effectually the Bible is minimized, dismissed and allowed to be viewed as flawed by scientific claims.

Rather, the scientific claims that creationists make, based on the Bible as a science textbook are nowhere to be evidenced, while there is other evidence FOR the established science.

I'm not one to make scientific claims so I can't comment onto the validity of scientific claims of creationists. However, what I can comment on is that those claims don't contradict the Bible like evolutionary claims do. See the foundation for the creationist beliefs is solely the bible not some scientific theory developed by man. It doesn't matter if there isn't any physical evidence for the claims of the Bible because as a Christian I accept God's Word as truth straight up, I don't need man's scientific measurements to confirm or deny biblical truth.

It is not about scientifically disproving the Bible, but rather that there is no scienctific evidence for creationist claims about science.

Here's the bottom line; creationist claims about science have their basis or origins straight from the Bible whereas evolutionist claims have their origins in man's scientific theories. If a creationists theories or ideas don't align with the Bible then they are not valid and are dismissed, whereas an evolutionist who is a Christian will manipulate God's Word to comply with the science he believes in.

 

[steen]

The Bible is explained away when science, based on evolution, is introduced.

Not at all. Why do you say that? Science has absolutely nothing to say about God's existence or lack thereoff. Science in no way discredit God.

What IS explained away, though, are creationist claims of scientific evidence of the Bible. But that in no way diminish God, nor the Bible. It only diminish creationist claims.

Effectually the Bible is minimized, dismissed and allowed to be viewed as flawed by scientific claims.

Not at all. Creationist claims are, but that in no way is the same.

I'm not one to make scientific claims so I can't comment onto the validity of scientific claims of creationists.

Hmm, I do recall you making claims directly pertaining to science, so I don't feel I can agree with you here.

However, what I can comment on is that those claims don't contradict the Bible like evolutionary claims do.

No "evolutionary" claims contradict the Bible. It only contradicts creationists attempt s at imposing the Bible, God's word, into the physical world.

See the foundation for the creationist beliefs is solely the bible not some scientific theory developed by man.

Good. SO the creationist claims about science, or claims about the Bible as a scientific text those claims will cease? Great, then there is no more conflict. Then the Bible shows God's glory and relevance for man, and the science shows the physical function of the physical world. That's a great way for each to complement each other.

It doesn't matter if there isn't any physical evidence for the claims of the Bible because as a Christian I accept God's Word as truth straight up,

Absolutely. God's word is not based on evidence, it is based on faith. As long as nobody try to use Faith as evidence for science or use science as evidence for faith, then there is no problem.

I don't need man's scientific measurements to confirm or deny biblical truth.

I agree 100%.

Here's the bottom line; creationist claims about science have their basis or origins straight from the Bible

Indeed. And THAT is the very problem. The Bible is not a science textbook. Trying to use the Bible to "prove" science seems as absolutely silly as trying to use Science to prove God's word. The problem, of course, is when these two spheres get mixed up, demeaning both of them.

whereas evolutionist claims have their origins in man's scientific theories.

And thus are saying absolutely nothing against God, nor against the Bible.

If a creationists theories or ideas don't align with the Bible then they are not valid and are dismissed,

Just like if a Scientist's ideas and hypotheses don't align with Scientific Evidence, then they are not valid and are dismissed. Exactly the same thing.

whereas an evolutionist who is a Christian will manipulate God's Word to comply with the science he believes in.

Nope, that accusation is not valid.

 

[jfer45]

The "water above" was the ocean at the feet of God. In the picture of the cosmos held by the ancient Hebrews, the Earth was literally the dry land. Beyond the land there was the ocean. Arching over both was a so-called firmament, a dome which enclosed space for the Sun, Moon, stars, etc. and the birds below them. Above the firmament was another ocean, and above that was the throne of God. Water was an image of chaos, and it the creation account shows God forming order out of chaos indicating that He is greater than the chaos.

Well said.

 

[jereth]

I believe there were waters above the firmament.

Can you please clarify:
You believe there were waters above the firmament. So you're saying that Genesis 1 describes the cosmos in a previous state, not its current state? When did the change occur?

Of course, the change must have happened some time after the Psalms were written, because Psalm 104 and Psalm 150 refer to the waters above the heavens. Yes?

Do you at least have an opinion about what these waters were?

What they are specifically, I'm not sure, but the Bible speaks of it and I support it.

The Bible also speaks in no uncertain terms about the existence of a place called sheol. So you support the existence of sheol too? How far do we have to dig into the earth before we reach sheol?

 

[shernren]

You know, if there's anything I've learned from this thread, it's that (to be blunt) I told you so:

Part of the reason for the misery of modernity is that we have fallen for the lie that our myths must be scientific - everything we do must have some quantifiable reason. And scientific creationism plays right into that lie, by believing that in order for the Genesis myth to be authentic it has to be scientific. But making Genesis 1-11 scientific locks it away from being paradigmatic, and locks it away from the sphere of modern life save for when we want to fire Bible hammers at people who disagree. The zeal of scientific creationism to make the Genesis myth scientific causes people to lose sight of what the Genesis myth really means, like a person who goes to great lengths to prove that a cheque is authentic ... and then never cashes it in.


http://www.christianforums.com/t2848141-the-scientific-myth-of-creationism.html

I wrote this more than three months ago, and I cannot see any evidence of it being wrong.

============

This is a very interesting way to interpret the "wineskin" passage:

The Law was the "old wineskin" and the new covenant was not meant to be delivered within the framework of the Law. Both were given by God.

But if the Law had in Jesus' time become an untrustworthy framework for delivering even spiritual truth, which was precisely what it was written to deliver, and which would not have changed over time,

why should you consider it a trustworthy framework for delivering scientific truth, which was something it was not written to deliver, and which has greatly expanded over time?

 

[Assyrian]

Why did the ancient Hebrews think there was water above them in the sky? Was it
(1) the sky is blue and the sea is blue therefore the sky is a sea?
or,
(2) They were nomads who spent their time in the open air, they knew you got wet when rain fell from clouds in the sky. Therefore clouds contained water.

I think the simplest explanation of the water above the expanse is clouds, which also feature heavily in the creation accounts in Job 38 and Psalm 104.

 

[Mallon]

It seems to me that the creationist insistance that interpreting the whole of Genesis scientifically (read: "literally") is akin to scientism (that is, the belief that only the observable can reveal truth). So I'm a little surprised to see creationists take such a hard line on the issue, when it seems to be a complete self-contradiction.

 

[IisJustMe]

But if the Law had in Jesus' time become an untrustworthy framework for delivering even spiritual truth, which was precisely what it was written to deliver, and which would not have changed over time,

why should you consider it a trustworthy framework for delivering scientific truth, which was something it was not written to deliver, and which has greatly expanded over time?

That is the most incredible leap to a conclusion I've ever seen in my life. It has got to be a record!!

The Law was not spiritual, but fleshly. The law convicted and condemned, it did not justify, which is what a good spiritual truth should do. The Law did not even attempt to address the creation of the world, but the sinfulness of man.

 

[chaoschristian]

The Law was not spiritual, but fleshly. The law convicted and condemned, it did not justify, which is what a good spiritual truth should do. The Law did not even attempt to address the creation of the world, but the sinfulness of man.

So, are you therefore saying that 'The Law' was bad spiritual truth?

 

[Mallon]

Do TE's actually read the Bible? Or do they just own one because their Christians? It certainly appears the vast majority of you aren't well enough acquainted with it to use it in defense of your position -- which probably explains why you've opted to squeeze your faith into a secular "wineskin" like evolution.

Whatever the case may be, a patient, kind-hearted attitude does much more to convince me of a person's affiliation with Christianity than a condescending, self-righteous one. It's kind Christian sibblings like gluadys, shernren, choaschristian et al. who have convinced me thus far that it is possible to both subscribe to evolution AND lead a Christ-centered life. Questioning our capacity to read the Bible is akin to shooting yourself in the foot, as it displays a real hostile disposition that reflects poorly on both yourself and the party you're representing. If you're convinced that in your 13 years of reading the Bible you have come to understand it better than any one of us, I pray that you would please have patience with us and explain why this is so, rather than belittling us as you have.
Thanks!

 

[Mallon]

Proselyte, I have been following your threads and can't help but notice that while just about everyone has thus far answered your inquiries, you've made little attempt to answer our questions, which makes me wonder whether you are truly interested in considering some of what we TEs have to say. That said, I thought I might re-post the questions here to give you a fair chance to answer them:

Re: your question about finding scientific evidence in support of the ancient Hebrew cosmology:

How can you base a scientific theory on non-scientific claims?

Two hundred years from now, when some archeologist uncovers your personal diary, do you expect there to be great grand theological and scientific arguments over whether or not you perceived the sky to be blue if you neglected to positively and absolutely state that you perceived the sky to be blue?

Re: understanding Genesis through allegory rather than literally:

Why "relegate"? What is taken away from Genesis 1 if it is treated as a symbolic story - especially if it was written as one?

Re: your ability to tell factual truths in the Bible from allegorical ones:

What makes it so easy for you to distinguish between what the Hebrews meant literally and how they understood the world metaphorically?

Re: omphalos:

If we are to be stewards, if we are to be a part of God's Creative process, then why propose that either Creation itself (and by implication, God) is deceptive in what it tells us about itself, or that it is ultimately unknowable or that God commands that we are to remain purposefully ignorant of Creation through the authority of scripture?

Why would God purposefully hamper and cripple our stewardship? Why would he create us to be a part of Creation and then retard us?

Re: the inerrancy of the Bible:

Which of the two passages quoted in my signature is the "inerrant" one? They can't both be right as they refer to the same disaster.

Re: creationism:

If the divine can only exist where ignorance persists, then what does that say about the nature of the divine and the nature of God himself?

Re: defending creation science:

What would be the vapor pressure and surface temperature from that much water in the atmosphere?

Re: your interpretation of the "firmament":

Can you please clarify:
You believe there were waters above the firmament. So you're saying that Genesis 1 describes the cosmos in a previous state, not its current state? When did the change occur?

Of course, the change must have happened some time after the Psalms were written, because Psalm 104 and Psalm 150 refer to the waters above the heavens. Yes?

Do you at least have an opinion about what these waters were?

Why did the ancient Hebrews think there was water above them in the sky?

I realize you're only one person, Proselyte, and that it may take some time for you to answer these. In the give-and-take of conversation, however, I feel we're owed some answers (you seem to have avoided many of these specific questions). I hope I can return the same courtesy if you want me to to elaborate at all on anything I've said thus far.

 

[IisJustMe]

So, are you therefore saying that 'The Law' was bad spiritual truth?

... didn't I just go to the trouble of making a post where I said "The Law was not spiritual, but fleshly." At least, I thought I did. Hmmm ... am I getting so old I can't remember things anymore?

 

[shernren]

The Law did not even attempt to address the creation of the world, but the sinfulness of man.

Can I assume that you are going to stand by that statement and all its logical implications? (I am assuming that by "The Law" you mean the Torah.)

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The law convicted and condemned, it did not justify, which is what a good spiritual truth should do

actually, it is the active obedience of Jesus as a Jew, fullfilling the obligations of the Law as the great Covenant between God and mankind that earned him as a man eternal life. the law is death to those of us who can not keep it's provisions and thus fall under it's condemnations.

 

[chaoschristian]

... didn't I just go to the trouble of making a post where I said "The Law was not spiritual, but fleshly." At least, I thought I did. Hmmm ... am I getting so old I can't remember things anymore?

Yes, you did.

And now you have at least me and wondering what you meant.