Why doesn't god say what he means...?

Kripost · Aug 11, 2006

AV1611VET said:
Good point, Edx --- thank you.

Yes, I forgot about those.

I believe this water canopy was very thin. If you take a layer of water, about 3 miles deep, shear it off, and expand it outward say 100 miles above the Earth's atmosphere, it would be very thin (after all, the stars were visible through it).

Just to clarify, is that 100 miles above the Earth's atmoshere, or 100 miles above sea level in the Earth's atmoshere?

Jase · Aug 11, 2006

AV1611VET said:
Good point, Edx --- thank you.

Yes, I forgot about those.

I believe this water canopy was very thin. If you take a layer of water, about 3 miles deep, shear it off, and expand it outward say 100 miles above the Earth's atmosphere, it would be very thin (after all, the stars were visible through it).

And what is supporting that trillion ton sheet of water?

rmwilliamsll · Aug 11, 2006

but He kept the Order of Operation of how events of Creation transpired so that it could be re-interpreted by scientists now.

It is this kind of reasoning that makes H.Ross even more unbelievable than H.Morris. There is NO modern science in the Gen 1 account, not in the order (see FI), not in the division of kinds, not in light formation first, nada, nothing, zilch.

It is fully a religious document. Setup in the form of a great metaphor to demonstrate the eternal validity of the Sabbath, the treaty of the Great King, showing that since God created all things, He created you and therefore has the right to tell you what to do.

don't look for the big bang in Gen 1:1, nor the origin of sexually-based brain differentiation in Gen 1:27, nor the definition of bats as birds or any other scientific reasoning from it. It is not, nor was it ever intended to be a modern scientific document, any more than it is intended to be a 25thC scientific document to prove that the Klingons are the long lost 13th tribe, or a 30thC science to show that human beings are truely androgeneous before the sin split us into the false distinctions of Adam and Eve.

AV1611VET · Aug 11, 2006

Kripost said:
Just to clarify, is that 100 miles above the Earth's atmoshere, or 100 miles above sea level in the Earth's atmoshere?

Actually I was thinking about 100 miles above sea level. I used to teach it was 62 miles up, as that's roughly where space starts, but I'm really not sure.

More research is needed on this fascinating topic though, as we need to factor angulation into the equation.

This is because we need to see how far a convex wall of water would have to go in order to refract the rays of the Sun in such a way as to keep the Earth a tropical paradise.

Obviously as the radius increases, the thickness of the water decreases; but the biggest hurdle is knowing how much water was sheared off from the surface (of what I call Terra Aqua) in the first place.

I'm using 3 miles as a working model.

Manning · Aug 11, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
It is fully a religious document.

If this religious document was from God I would expect it not to contradict modern scientific theory.

Setup in the form of a great metaphor to demonstrate the eternal validity of the Sabbath, the treaty of the Great King, showing that since God created all things, He created you and therefore has the right to tell you what to do.

Do you have any evidence that this was simply created as a metaphor? It seems to me that people want the bible to be true and in order to accomodate their faith they choose to describe what has been proven false as metaphors, analogies, etc.

Now, if you have some sort of textual evidence that Genesis 1 was merely meant to be a metaphor then by all means please present it.

AV1611VET · Aug 11, 2006

Jase said:
And what is supporting that trillion ton sheet of water?

I don't know. It could have possibly been in a rotation of its own (which I think is a plausible scenario).

The Scripture is silent on the subject though; so that means Science has to explain it if they can, and, quite frankly, we don't know what the variables are.

I don't know, for instance, if it was a ring around the earth (like Saturn), or if it was a canopy stationed between the earth and sun, or if it encased the entire planet (more likely), or what.

All I conjecture is that it was so thin as to be a simple H[sub]2[/sub]O membrane around the earth.

rmwilliamsll · Aug 11, 2006

If this religious document was from God I would expect it not to contradict modern scientific theory.

this is the fundamental call of the inerrancy movement since the early 20thC.

God is truth.
The Scripture is from God.
therefore where the Bible talks about science it is truthful.

The problem is context. Modern science does not form the context for Gen 1, ANE culture does. Gen 1 is not addressed to us, it is addressed to the ancient readers of the text, we are essentially shoulder surfing, peering over their shoulders at them reading the text. As much as possible requires us to put ourselves in their sandals and read it as did they.

Now, if you have some sort of textual evidence that Genesis 1 was merely meant to be a metaphor then by all means please present it.

the wedge into Gen 1 as history and science has been well known for more than 2 millennium, the light is created before the lightbearers. There are excellent books on the topic.
see:

Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview by Meredith G. Kline

The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us About Creation by Howard Van Till

The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science by M. Conrad Hyers

In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis by Henri Blocher

or google: framework interpretation genesis

post-edit

the topic of the Sabbath week forming the metaphor for Creation in Gen 1 has often been discussed in the Christian only origins forum
see:
http://www.christianforums.com/t2823209-yecism-and-sabbatarianism.html
for a good example.

merely meant

it is curious to me how words not only bias discussions but betray controlling ideas.
do you really think that God presenting Creation as if He were the Great Workman building the universe as His temple in the motif of a Sabbath week deserves the modifier "merely"?

why is something devoid of scientific principles so much less truthful than literary truth?
why is it to modern scientism thinking people that only science presents true truth? if the order of Gen 1 is not historical and scientific than it is merely literature and therefore demoted to something less than truthful?

again YECism betrays it's modern roots in 19thC scientism.

vitodabona · Aug 11, 2006

Jase said:
And what is supporting that trillion ton sheet of water?

That trillion ton sheet of water is where all the unicorns, fairies, and magic candie cane ponies live. It's held up by their sweetness and love, and supported by magical clouds of cotton candie.

AV1611VET · Aug 11, 2006

vitodabona said:
That trillion ton sheet of water is where all the unicorns, fairies, and magic candie cane ponies live. It's held up by their sweetness and love, and supported by magical clouds of cotton candie.

And their riders are posting about them.

Nathan Poe · Aug 11, 2006

Jase said:
And what is supporting that trillion ton sheet of water?

Captain Simian and the Space Monkeys!

Manning · Aug 11, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
this is the fundamental call of the inerrancy movement since the early 20thC.

God is truth.
The Scripture is from God.
therefore where the Bible talks about science it is truthful.

Honestly I see no problem with this logic. Althought my thinking would go more along these lines:

God is truth.
The Scripture is from God.
therefore where the Bible talks about ANYTHING it is truthful.

Modern science does not form the context for Gen 1, ANE culture does.

Modern science is simply a representation of the world around us and how the world was in the past. Therefore I see no reasons why God would not be able to accomodate the ACTUAL past and the specific culture of the exact people he was writing to. It seems to me that in your arguement God is incredibly shortsighted. He gives an easy and understandable explaination to those alive during the writing of genesis yet sacrifices the future when a face value reading of Genesis would contradict the evidence we have. I have no doubt that had God explained his creation in some type of dumbed down evolution story christianity would have been greatly helped when Darwin came along instead of shot to pieces in many peoples minds.

Gen 1 is not addressed to us, it is addressed to the ancient readers of the text

Again, short sighted by God once again. You think he would have known that the worlds population would grow exponentially and so by trying to help those few in the ancient world he was greatly harming those in the post-Darwin future.

it is curious to me how words not only bias discussions but betray controlling ideas.

I used this word "merely" because, yes, I do believe that some literary metaphor is lesser than that of an accurate creation story because if that creation story is accurate it should be verifiable by modern science.

Edit: Thank you for the book list and other references. I will check them out when I get a chance.

vitodabona · Aug 11, 2006

AV1611VET said:
And their riders are posting about them.

Come on now we all know that the Rock Candy elves who built the Pillars of heaven were wiped out in the great candy wars by the loyal followers of the hateful fudge demon. There is no creature left alive skillful enough to ride the beasts of the Trillion Ton sheet of water.

rmwilliamsll · Aug 11, 2006

I used this word "merely" because, yes, I do believe that some literary metaphor is lesser than that of an accurate creation story because if that creation story is accurate it should be verifiable by modern science.

this is a key notion.
accurate=scientific
true=verifiable
literary is less true than scientific.

this is weak scientism.

Kripost · Aug 11, 2006

Regarding anthropomorphism, does God have eyes, ears, a face, hands, bowels, and back parts?

Jase · Aug 11, 2006

AV1611VET said:
I don't know. It could have possibly been in a rotation of its own (which I think is a plausible scenario).

A rotation of its own? What does that mean?

The Scripture is silent on the subject though; so that means Science has to explain it if they can, and, quite frankly, we don't know what the variables are.

Scripture isn't silent on that firmament being a solid dome.

I don't know, for instance, if it was a ring around the earth (like Saturn), or if it was a canopy stationed between the earth and sun, or if it encased the entire planet (more likely), or what.

Rings aren't firmaments, and no clue what a canopy between Earth and the sun means...

All I conjecture is that it was so thin as to be a simple H[sub]2[/sub]O membrane around the earth.

Floating in space? And it fell to the Earth how?

Jase · Aug 11, 2006

Manning said:
Honestly I see no problem with this logic. Althought my thinking would go more along these lines:

God is truth.
The Scripture is from God.
therefore where the Bible talks about ANYTHING it is truthful.

Trying curing a leper based on Moses' method and tell me how that works out. And the Bible says pi is 3 (it isn't).

Manning · Aug 11, 2006

rmwilliamsll said:
this is a key notion.
accurate=scientific
true=verifiable
literary is less true than scientific.

this is weak scientism.

I guess you're right, one shouldn't let facts, evidence, and scientific investigation get in the way of what you believe.

Jase said:
Trying curing a leper based on Moses' method and tell me how that works out. And the Bible says pi is 3 (it isn't).

I don't claim the bible is true. As I've argued in this post there are many errors in the bible which lead me to believe it is not inspired by God. Yet you would expect an all knowing God to get these things right.

Manning · Aug 11, 2006

I suppose I should be much clearer Jase. I should have said IF I was a Christian my thinking would go along this lines of:

Assumption #1 - God is truth.
Assumption #2 - The Scripture is from God.
therefore where the Bible talks about ANYTHING it is truthful.

However since I am not a Christian I dont not accept the first two assumptions.

Battie · Aug 11, 2006

AV1611VET said:
Good point, Edx --- thank you.

Yes, I forgot about those.

I believe this water canopy was very thin. If you take a layer of water, about 3 miles deep, shear it off, and expand it outward say 100 miles above the Earth's atmosphere, it would be very thin (after all, the stars were visible through it).

Windows in the sky, yes. Are you familiar with any of the Canaanite stories about Baal? The windows of his mansion were the windows of heaven, of the firmament you claim was real. When he opened those windows, rain fell on the earth. It did not come from clouds. The Hebrews also believed in windows, but God controlled them instead of Baal.

Would you also claim that Baal's windows were real?

rmwilliamsll · Aug 11, 2006

I don't claim the bible is true. As I've argued in this post there are many errors in the bible which lead me to believe it is not inspired by God. Yet you would expect an all knowing God to get these things right.

This is the same principle of scientism only applied to deny the truthfulness of the Scriptures rather than to assert it.

The atheistic denial of the authority of Scripture is surprisingly parallel to the YECist assertation of inerrancy.

both start with the modern weak scientism that says the most valuable knowledge, or the most useful, or the most true is that about which science speaks.

The YECist in response to the pi problem of 1Kings 7:23 assert that the inner and outer circumference are different and hence the ratio is really pi as math would assert. The unbeliever says: "see the Bible has an error in this verse therefore the whole thing is wrong".

Both start from the same starting block, 19thC science, with it's philosophic foundationalism which blossoms into logical positivism in the next century. In order to be true it must be true scientifically.

Another good example is the spotted and speckled goats and sheep of Gen 29. The consistent YECist will immediately launch into a defense of scientific genetics and try to show that the almond branches had a mutagenic component that caused the skin coloring. The skeptic will simply say that this is bad genetics. Neither party actually engages with the text at the level of cultural and linguistical analysis. It is a description of what happened, not an explanation of how it happened. The answer "God did it" was sufficient to the early readers of Genesis who did not share our scientific and skeptical background.

That is one reason why strong YECism is so dangerous to the church, it is essentially the same underpinnings as is unbelief and to move to unbelief is so simple, flip everything around. Remain just as confident that science is the best possible explanation and see that the Bible just doesn't cut it as a science textbook and poof, unbelief substitutes for the belief that was there a moment ago.

Why doesn't god say what he means...?

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

avid reader

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Junior Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

avid reader

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Active Member

avid reader

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Veteran

avid reader

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency