Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
ExactlyFrom the Strong's Dictionary and Concordance. I just happen to be working on a digital version right now.
firmament (Strongs H7549 raqiya` רָקִיעַ )
1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
a. expanse (flat as base, support)
b. firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above), considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above.
Gen 1:6, Gen 1:7, Gen 1:7, Gen 1:7, Gen 1:8, Gen 1:14, Gen 1:15, Gen 1:17, Gen 1:20, Psa 19:1, Psa 150:1, Eze 1:22, Eze 1:23, Eze 1:25, Eze 1:26, Eze 10:1, Dan 12:3
Martyrs, I really am glad you posted this and your previous response to me. I had thought I might get a bit of flak from certain long-time YECs here for suggesting that YECs typically hold a lower view of the poetry in Scripture. Thankfully, you chimed in to confirm that this is true before any of them could claim that it was a straw man on my part!So? Your point is? My point is clear. Job was historical, not poetic. Psalms and Proverbs are a combination of both. It isn't that hard to figure out.
Can you sum this up? I just want to know what the purpose is to creation that TEs are missing out on.hi Philis,
You asked: What is the purpose that you mention above that they are missing?
When someone begins to build something, say a house, their ultimate purpose is not to set a nail in this beam to attach it to that beam and then set nails in other beams to attach to other beams. Their ultimate purpose is not to set floor joists from rim to rim upon which they will then nail the floorboards to. Neither is their ultimate purpose to set in stud walls and hang drywall on them to then divide up the space within the outside walls and paint them and put moldings and so forth throughout. Their ultimate purpose is to build a house. A finished product in which they can live and raise their family. All these things that I've mentioned are merely necessary steps by which they can achieve their ultimate purpose. In other words someone doesn't just wake up one day and say to themself, "I think I'll go out here and nail one beam to another." No! They wake up one day and say, "I want to build a house." And in order to achieve that purpose they then have to do all these intermediate steps.
Similarly, when God thought to 'build' a new realm of creation His purpose was to 'build' a home for a new and different creature that He would create to love and serve Him and be loved and served by Him. So, to me, this idea that this all powerful, all knowing, all wise God took billions of years to create that for which He has the power and wisdom and knowledge to just speak into existence in merely a moment seems ludicrous. He's God! He can take an empty black void of space and just by the word of His mouth, fill it from one end to the other with millions, billions of stars, planets, asteroids and the like. Each one perfect and necessary for this realm in which mankind would live. So, as I understand what God has caused to be written to me through the Scriptures, He has told us that that is exactly what He did.
He wanted to build a home suitable to sustain the life of man and He in practically an instant, spoke the earth into existence. No other stars or planets or anything else anywhere in all the universe. He then spoke all of the other intermediate steps to build this home for man. But His ultimate goal in creating was to build a home for man and the God I know doesn't need millions or billions of years to accomplish that.
However, God also had an even more awesome purpose in all of the creating that He did. His ultimate long range purpose was that what He was creating; a home for man who would then sin and need to be redeemed, was to get to the last page of God's revelation to us. "Now the dwelling of God is with men and He will be their God and they will be His people."
So, this idea that God would just start some speck of some kind or some rudimentary framework through which nature would complete the 'home' for man, comes from not understanding the purpose, the power, the majesty, the wisdom of God. God began at some point in His time and took six literal days to build this home for mankind and then He rested. By the way, once the earth was created, if it was spinning on it's axis at roughly the same speed at which it spins today, a day would have passed in roughly 24 hours. I hope that you understand that the literal and current definition of a 'day' doesn't take into account anything as far as the sun and moon being necessary for its completion. A 'day' is merely one full rotation of the earth upon its axis. If you look up the length of a day in any encyclopedia for any of the other planets in our solar system you will find that the calculation of the length of their respective days is nothing more than the calculation of the time it takes for each planet to make one full revolution upon its own axis. I say this because many retort with, "Well, you can't have a day without the sun and the moon." Yes you can!
The God I serve knew exactly all that He was doing when He said the first "Let there be..." and He didn't need millions or billions of years to accomplish the ultimate purpose for His having said that.
However, science does not accept that there are miracles. The basic foundation of science is that everything is explainable naturally if you know all of the necessary variables. So, they argue that the earth must be billions of years old because we couldn't see any stars if it were only 6,000 years old. There are, according to the speed of light, no stars close enough, other than our sun that we would be able to see based on that speed. They refuse to allow such statements as, "Well, yes we know that in the natural world that now exists that light travels at this speed, but if we accept that the creation was a miracle of a God who has the power, wisdom, and knowledge to override all such natural events, there is no reason to believe that when God said, 'let there be stars in the heavens', that He didn't cause the light of those stars to be instantly visible all across the universe." Science does not allow for that possibility and from what I know of the power, glory and majesty of God, that's a very real possibility. That when God spoke the universe into existence that stars nearly instantly cluttered the heavens like the grains of sand on a seashore and that the light from each and every one of them was visible from one end of the universe to the other. That's the power, glory, majesty and purpose of our God.
By the way, I apologize that my posts are so long, and I acknowledge that you have commented about their length a couple times, but consider that it took God 700 pages of fairly small typeface to convey all that He wanted us to know and issues such as this can't be taught and explained in short 3 or 4 sentence posts. So, I hope that you will not only be patient in reading my posts, but give serious consideration to all that I am saying.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
Yes, I also agree with glaudys on this. A good analogy is Revelation 16 which describes the seven bowls of God's wrath, just as Genesis 1 describes the seven days of God's creation. I don't think that the days are really long ages or the bowls are really giant cisterns. The accounts really are talking about literal days and literal bowls. But, the accounts as a whole each use a literary framework. God's wrath isn't really a liquid that can be poured into and out of bowls, no more than God's creative activity is confined to six days or his shalom to one day.In most of what I've read people who don't hold the creation account as literal history are NOT day/agers. Usually the word yom means just that; "day". It's just not referring to an historical day. (Gladys posted something about his above as well).
Can you sum this up? I just want to know what the purpose is to creation that TEs are missing out on.
Good point! Especially since those chapters of Job seem to focus on aspects of God's creation that are not there for human benefit. After all the frightening aspects of weather, we get:I see God's purpose in creating the Universe to be about God's glory and his own enjoyment, often arguing that the reason it took 14 billion years to get to the here and now is because God was enjoying his creation, enjoying his acts of creation, mainly drawing on God's speech to Job (Job 38-41) where to me God expresses joy in his creation
Good point! Especially since those chapters of Job seem to focus on aspects of God's creation that are not there for human benefit. After all the frightening aspects of weather, we get:
It certainly makes Genesis 1's view of creation look tame by comparison!
- The lion hunting prey for its ravenous young (38:39-40)
- The raven bringing prey to its young who sometimes starve (38:41)
- Mountain goats braving harsh elements where humans cannot observe them (39:1-4)
- The wild donkey braving desolate elements and scorning human contact (39:5-8)
- The wild ox who is untamable and of no use to humans (39:9-12)
- The proud ostrich who sometimes tramples her young because God made her stupid (39:13-18)
- The hawk and eagle who live aloof and search out carrion, bringing blood to their young (39:26-30)
Thank you for this response, it was definitely refreshing to take a step back.
According to Strong's Concordance it means that it's a solid dome. But I'm willing to put that aside for now and focus on the ice dome issue.
It does clear some things up but it leaves me with one big question: The firmament seperated the waters above from the waters below, and the waters above are the ice dome. But if the stars/sun/moon were placed in the firmament wouldn't that mean that the ice dome would be on the outskirts of the universe? Reading this literally, the "waters above" are above the stars. That is where I'm not understanding what you think this is literally describing.
That's a fair thing to say. The point of this thread was to get people to otherstand what others believe. Since I already somewhat agree with their theology then it makes more sense for me to take the time to try to understand your theology better. Note, I don't necessarily accept evolution, I'm not familiar with the science, I'm just focusing on what scripture says.
Yes, I also agree with glaudys on this. A good analogy is Revelation 16 which describes the seven bowls of God's wrath, just as Genesis 1 describes the seven days of God's creation. I don't think that the days are really long ages or the bowls are really giant cisterns. The accounts really are talking about literal days and literal bowls. But, the accounts as a whole each use a literary framework. God's wrath isn't really a liquid that can be poured into and out of bowls,
no more than God's creative activity is confined to six days or his shalom to one day.
The picture is of days and bowls, and this picture provides structure to the accounts. But, the reality transcends the picture. (Which is just what we should expect when God reveals a glimpse of something no human eye has witnessed.)
The OP opened the topic to both TEs and YECs.
That is not an honest assessement. It isn't even close to the truth.It is just that I have never seen any solid evidence for literalism or creationism.
I will say it once more: God did not offer multiple choice to His divine truth of creation.I don't think the Spirit of God is that easily insulted by people trying to understand the meaning of his word. I would be more concerned about the precarious position you put yourself in thinking people who disagree with your interpretation must be insulting the Holy Spirit. At very least you are in danger of closing your heart to the Holy Spirit correcting your own understanding.
That is your problem and every faithful and careful researcher of God's Word who has read your positions on the issue know it.Maybe your arguments aren't as sound as you think?
(staff edit)It is up to you whether you want to respond to my post or not, but I have shown you from scripture that there isn't just ONE account of creation scripture and that scripture itself has different interpretations of the accounts.
"Frankly, they cannot boast of a single Bible scholar on this board and are grossly indifferent to the Gospel, Nicene Creed or foundational doctrines of the Christian church. They make a standard profession and become indignant if it is so much as suggested that they lack Christian conviction. Honestly, what they believe about the Bible remains a mystery, to me at least, since their sole interest in these discussions is to confront Creationist beliefs.
Grace and peace,
Mark
In most of what I've read people who don't hold the creation account as literal history are NOT day/agers. Usually the word yom means just that; "day". It's just not referring to an historical day. (Gladys posted something about his above as well).
What do you mean that the definition of "humanity" is absurd? Are the following sources unreliable?
Strong's H120
) man, mankind
a) man, human being
b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
c) Adam, first man
d) city in Jordan valley
Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon
What do "Darwinian" arguments have to do with a theological discussion?
Even in my short time on this subject I'd say this is catagorically false. NT Wright, CS Lewis, and other have certainly spent a great deal of time defending Christianity.
Again, my experience has led me to think that this statement of yours is catagorically wrong. But if it is your experience so be it.
I think I have answered this. Why dwell on such a minor point when there are much, much more heavy matters that need to be explored...like the necessity of the family lineage of Jesus Christ to be legitimate all the way back to Adam...or else it is not legal and Christ would have no claim to the throne of David?
I am a former believer and defender of evolution...and was a Christian during that time. I am very familiar with the science.
Actually in Mark 13:35-37 Jesus himself questions whether the Messiah must be the son of David.
And then there are John the Baptist's words to the Pharisees. (Matthew 3:9). I expect that if God can raise children of Abraham from stones he can do likewise for David. But I doubt that such children could verify a legitimate claim to David's throne to the satisfaction of the scribes.
I have yet to meet any "former believer" in evolution who is actually very familiar with the science.
Perhaps you are an exception.
Just as another poster said:
Actually one early Christian theologian, St. Augustine, answered that very well.
Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.
Even this man Augustine infers that our not believing and accepting what non-christians believe, if and that's a very big and unprovable if, they hold knowledge with certainty from reason and experience. He then proceeds to label the christian position that would hold out against this basically unprovable knowledge and certainty from reason and experience as 'nonsense'. Philis, that is exactly what Paul warned us about the Christian faith. That it would seem as foolishness to those who are perishing. Now what this poster has done is bring in what some believe to be a 'big gun' in christianity and say, "See, even this guy says you're being foolish."
When we say to unbelievers that Jesus died for our sin, that's foolishness to them and so christians look foolish in their eyes. Does that mean that I should give up on believing or teaching that Jesus died for our sin?
Might want to double check that reference:
Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is comingin the evening, at midnight, at the crowing of the rooster, or in the morning lest, coming suddenly, he find you sleeping. And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch! Mark 13:35-37)
That is not a question, that is an indictment against a false assumption that they are something special to God because they are lineal descendants of Abraham.
I actually meet few people who claim to be an 'evolution believer', not really sure what that is.
hi Philis,
You asked: What is the purpose that you mention above that they are missing?
When someone begins to build something, say a house, their ultimate purpose is not to set a nail in this beam to attach it to that beam and then set nails in other beams to attach to other beams. Their ultimate purpose is not to set floor joists from rim to rim upon which they will then nail the floorboards to. Neither is their ultimate purpose to set in stud walls and hang drywall on them to then divide up the space within the outside walls and paint them and put moldings and so forth throughout. Their ultimate purpose is to build a house. A finished product in which they can live and raise their family. All these things that I've mentioned are merely necessary steps by which they can achieve their ultimate purpose. In other words someone doesn't just wake up one day and say to themself, "I think I'll go out here and nail one beam to another." No! They wake up one day and say, "I want to build a house." And in order to achieve that purpose they then have to do all these intermediate steps.
Similarly, when God thought to 'build' a new realm of creation His purpose was to 'build' a home for a new and different creature that He would create to love and serve Him and be loved and served by Him.
So, to me, this idea that this all powerful, all knowing, all wise God took billions of years to create that for which He has the power and wisdom and knowledge to just speak into existence in merely a moment seems ludicrous.
So, this idea that God would just start some speck of some kind or some rudimentary framework through which nature would complete the 'home' for man, comes from not understanding the purpose, the power, the majesty, the wisdom of God.
A 'day' is merely one full rotation of the earth upon its axis. If you look up the length of a day in any encyclopedia for any of the other planets in our solar system you will find that the calculation of the length of their respective days is nothing more than the calculation of the time it takes for each planet to make one full revolution upon its own axis. I say this because many retort with, "Well, you can't have a day without the sun and the moon." Yes you can!
The God I serve knew exactly all that He was doing when He said the first "Let there be..." and He didn't need millions or billions of years to accomplish the ultimate purpose for His having said that.
However, science does not accept that there are miracles.
They refuse to allow such statements as, "Well, yes we know that in the natural world that now exists that light travels at this speed, but if we accept that the creation was a miracle of a God who has the power, wisdom, and knowledge to override all such natural events, there is no reason to believe that when God said, 'let there be stars in the heavens', that He didn't cause the light of those stars to be instantly visible all across the universe."
Science does not allow for that possibility and from what I know of the power, glory and majesty of God, that's a very real possibility. That when God spoke the universe into existence that stars nearly instantly cluttered the heavens like the grains of sand on a seashore and that the light from each and every one of them was visible from one end of the universe to the other. That's the power, glory, majesty and purpose of our God.
You seemed to miss out on what my question was, so I'll only mention it one last time and then I'll leave it so as not to annoy youI think I have answered this. Why dwell on such a minor point when there are much, much more heavy matters that need to be explored...like the necessity of the family lineage of Jesus Christ to be legitimate all the way back to Adam...or else it is not legal and Christ would have no claim to the throne of David?
And like the fact that ALL of the quotes and references of the prophets & authors of the N.T. confirmed the historical reality of the people and events of Genesis 1:12?
Who knows how thick the ice dome was? We aren't told. But there were certainly no stars within it. They were almost certainly only seen through it...like a giant magnifying glass.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?