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

[The Lady Kate]

I think it's pretty arrogrant to say the Bible is fallible and we're just absorbing its general message.

Is it arrogant to say that both the human authors and the human readers of the Bible are fallible?

Because if you're claiming absolute perfect knowledge of Scripture, then who's being arrogant?

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 personally don't see the moral backsliding as being particularly "record breaking." look at the fall of the Roman Empire, for example, and you'll see levels of depravity and debauchery that we haven't quite reached.

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

So going back to the OP -- where's the water?

 

[IisJustMe]

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

I think it explains it, for anyone who understands the Old Testament. BTW, the same goes for Shernren's query about whether I meant the Torah or not. The Torah deals with far more than than the Law, but the Jewish faith uses the word tor`ah to mean 1) the writings of Moses, 2) Moses and the prophets, 3) the entire of what we call the Old Testament, depending upon what discipline of Judaism is discussing it. When I refer to the Law, I am referring to the Mosaic Law. If that's confusing to you, my apologies.

If you want to use biblical terms, elaborate on whose definition you are using.

 

[chaoschristian]

Well, I'm glad its me and not you.

Now, I was under the impression that 'The Mosaic Law', while superficially dealing with physical matters, dealt with those physical matters as a means through which to deal with spiritual matters.

That the purpose and intent behind all those purity codes was to enable mere humans to become spiritually clean enough in order to approach the Holy Presence of God.

If this is the case, then how could 'The Law' not be about spiritual matters?

 

[vossler]

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

Please point one out.

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

That's quite some nerve us Creationists have, bringing God and His Word into the physical world we live in.

Good. SO the creationist claims about science, or claims about the Bible as a scientific text those claims will cease?

How's that? If the Bible says six days and because science says trillions of days the Bible now gets put on the shelf because it isn't a science textbook and therefore has been preempted? Hardly, maybe that's the TE world you live in, it's certainly not mine.

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.

Saying science says trillions when the Bible says 6 is using science as evidence for faith in evolution. Sounds like a BIG problem to me.

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.

No one claims that the Bible to be a scientific textbook, however whenever it speaks of a subject it is to be considered the ultimate truth. So, the Bible shouldn't be used to prove science, science should be used to prove the Bible. Unfortunately, evolutionists don't do this at all.

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

They do when their claims directly contradict the Bible.

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.

Not quite, because creationist claims originate from the Word of God while man's scientific claims do not.

Nope, that accusation is not valid.

So you believe, but the Word of God proves otherwise.

 

[shernren]

When I refer to the Law, I am referring to the Mosaic Law. If that's confusing to you, my apologies.

Fair enough. Whenever someone says "the Law" I either hear "the Books of the Law", the Torah, or the general concept of moral law as discussed in Romans which enlightens and reveals without justifying and saving. But coming back to this:

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

are you trying to say that a verse like, say, Exodus 20:11, doesn't attempt to address the creation of the world? And by extension, any NT discussion which revolves exclusively around the Law, like Jesus' discourses on divorce in Matthew 19 and Mark 10 don't attempt to address the creation of the world either.

Am I right to infer that from what you have said?