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.
rmwilliamsll said:What i don't understand is why people try to push metaphors into historical and scientific boxes they were never intended to fit into.
I didn't quite understand the latter statement here. Can you extrapolate, please?
If "God said" and "God saw" are anthropomorphic metaphors, then the whole YECist and H.Ross agenda of trying to assign scientific and historical order to the days of Genesis is futile.
It stems from a scientism and historicism that essentially says:
if God says let there be light.
then it happened in our time and space, there was sound, perhaps even Hebrew "let there be light", order is important because that is how God created the heavens and the earth.
We are so sure that the real is our time and space that we simply can not imagine an oral culture where stories are told around campfires, where people memorize narratives the length of the Mahabharata and tell it generation after generation with very little change. We have an impoverished imagination that believes that what we can see and scientifically detect is all that is really real, that only things that happen in this world can be true or transmit meaningful ideas. We are truncated people who have been so impressed by the power of our toys that we have lost much of the wonder and creativity and imagination of our forefathers.
Genesis 1 is an extraordinary ode to God, the ex nihilo Creator, the Providential sustainer who anticipates, the real God in the face of the false gods of the neighbors, the idols who are only good as clocks, reaching a climax in the Sabbath. The Sabbath rest which God doesn't even need, nor can he really do if providence is real. The Sabbath that doesn't leave a mark on all the generations from Adam to Moses, no whisper of it.
Yet we endlessly argue not over the theological content (in fact when i first brought up the Sabbath connection no one on the origins boards actually knew what Sabbatarianism was) but over things near and dear to our hearts, science, history, order, cause and effect. Things unimportant to Genesis. We have substituted our needs and desires for a proper hermeneutic of Gen 1 and continue to find the big bang in Gen 1:1 or plasma "let there be light", while straining at these gnats we miss the Sabbath camel and what it means.
Simply put, our modern dominance of the scientific and historical epistemology has substituted for the real theological meaning of Gen 1.
Battie said:Okay, so why do you claim the Biblical firmament and windows were real if you immediately accept that Baal's were not?
Jase already gave an excellent and accurate description of what the firmament actually was to the ancient Hebrews...
...and it was much closer to that of the Canaanite's and other ancient cultures and nothing like the one you describe.
I think there is a glitch in your mathematics. You miss out the radius of the earth which is about 3,959 miles.AV1611VET said: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).
AV1611VET said:Jehovah proved that Baal was a false god.
Jehovah proved that Dagon was a false god.
Jehovah proved Bacchus was a false god.
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).
Post 39 said:AV you said yourself there was windows in the sky before Noah.
Yes, I forgot about those.
Edx said:Right, so you accept windows and a solid dome. Jeez, I'd wish you'd make up your mind.
Nathan Poe said:No, just weaker ones. Par for the course in ancient civilizations.
AV1611VET said:Here is Genesis 1:7 from the last 5 translations of the AV line.
The AV700 Anglo-Saxon, AV330 Gothic, and AV100 Koine Greek were not available on the site I used.
Other than that, I currently don't recognize anything else as authoritative --- especially if it contradicts the above 5 versions.
Notice --- no mention of a solid dome?
Jase said:Leviticus 14.
AV thinks the original Hebrew is junk, so since the KJV just says firmament, AV has no reason to accept the actual Hebrew meaning of it.Gus2009 said:It mentioned something solid in all of those. Perhaps not a dome, but solid nonetheless. Why are you trying to convert the original Hebrew to youre own use of the word? Why do keep skirting around that word firmament? You know exactly what it means. Do you think it is allegory? Do you not take Genesis literally?
Gus2009 said:It mentioned something solid in all of those. Perhaps not a dome, but solid nonetheless.
Jase in Post 55 said:Scripture isn't silent on that firmament being a solid dome.
Why are you trying to convert the original Hebrew to youre own use of the word?
Why do keep skirting around that word firmament? You know exactly what it means.
Do you think it is allegory?
Jase in Post 25 said:Why didn't the space shuttle discovery hit the solid dome over the Earth then?
Do you not take Genesis literally?
Jase said:...AV has no reason to accept the actual Hebrew meaning of it.
It's God's job to convert the original Hebrew to your own use of the word?AV1611VET said:Sorry --- that's God's job --- not mine.
nvxplorer said:It's God's job to convert the original Hebrew to your own use of the word?
I chose to use the original word to which you responded. If it makes you feel better to substitute "translate" for "convert," be my guest. Of course, in the context used, the words are synonymous, so I don't understand your objection.AV1611VET said:I believe the word you want is "translate" - not "convert".
If the original Hebrew word and the King James word are both the same --- what's the problem?nvxplorer said:I chose to use the original word to which you responded. If it makes you feel better to substitute "translate" for "convert," be my guest. Of course, in the context used, the words are synonymous, so I don't understand your objection.
Uh...one is Hebrew, and the other is English, so the words are certainly not the same. The meaning is what we're after (which I'm sure is what you meant to write).AV1611VET said:If the original Hebrew word and the King James word are both the same --- what's the problem?
nvxplorer said:Uh...one is Hebrew, and the other is English, so the words are certainly not the same. The meaning is what we're after (which I'm sure is what you meant to write).
AV1611VET said:Especially when they try to use another language (called 'tongues' in the Bible).
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?