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

[nvxplorer]

If we cannot believe many of the parts then why should we believe this message that you claim is from God?

Because a literal interpretation is irrelevant to the message. If you want literalism devoid of message, read an academic science paper.

Correct, but the parts that do deal with facts of the past need to be correct if we are going to accept that this book is indeed from God.

Only if you assume God intended Genesis to be historically factual.

Of course not. However if I write down a story of how the earth and everything on it was formed, how Noah took two of every animal, and how God destroyed Soddom and Gomorah and then want people to accept it was inspired by God it better be dead on to what current evidence shows us actually happened.

I disagree. God is capable of inspiring allegory. When we view Renaissance art, we don't need to assume that the depictions are physically accurate to derive meaning (and feeling) from the artwork.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

God certainly could have dumbed down evolution while still maintaing the basic theory.



the evidence from this forum and hundreds like it, thousands of books on evolutionary theory and yet a significant minority of people disbelieve and misunderstand the theory of evolution today show this to be a false hope.

 

[AV1611VET]

my point being, if god didn't mean he made the universe in seven days, why did he say it?

My take on this is that God created the universe in 144 hours (6 days).

I take Genesis 1 literally.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

My main problem with all of this is that people want to pick and choose which parts they believe. If this was divine scripture passed down from God then why should we not take all of it as historical fact? To me it seems intellectually dishonest to say "Well I like all that love and Jesus stuff, but that Genesis chapter contradicts scientific evidence we know exists, so I'll just believe what I want to".

I think you have hit upon a great irony: religious fundamentalism is dangerous to religion.

By interpreting everything in the Bible literally and insisting that it must all be true or all be false, you have set up a situation in which the existence of Jehovah can be falsified. With this approach, if anything in the Bible can be shown to be factually incorrect, then the Bible is not divinely inspired and Jehovah is a myth.

 

[Jase]

My take on this is that God created the universe in 144 hours (6 days).

I take Genesis 1 literally.

Why didn't the space shuttle discovery hit the solid dome over the Earth then?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why didn't the space shuttle discovery hit the solid dome over the Earth then?

What solid dome over the earth?

 

[Jase]

What solid dome over the earth?

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

A firmament or raqiya in Hebrew is solid.

 

[Manning]

Only if you assume God intended Genesis to be historically factual.

If Genesis was indeed from God I would expect it to be historically accurate. Why would you not expect this?

God is capable of inspiring allegory.

It is certainly possible. Yet I see no reason to believe that when these stories were recorded they were meant to portray anything other than what the authors/god/whatever believed to be the literal truth, not a metpahor.

the evidence from this forum and hundreds like it, thousands of books on evolutionary theory and yet a significant minority of people disbelieve and misunderstand the theory of evolution today show this to be a false hope.

I bet if God were to endorse evolution in the bible many of these people would change their minds. Do you disagree?

By interpreting everything in the Bible literally and insisting that it must all be true or all be false, you have set up a situation in which the existence of Jehovah can be falsified. With this approach, if anything in the Bible can be shown to be factually incorrect, then the Bible is not divinely inspired and Jehovah is a myth.

Bingo! Is there something other than either "true" or "false" that I should be expecting?

 

[AV1611VET]

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

A firmament or raqiya in Hebrew is solid.

The upper waters was a dome of water that refracted the sunlight evenly over the earth's surface, creating a global tropical climate.

The lower waters were the oceans.

In between was the firmament, or atomosphere.

 

[Gracchus]

What solid dome over the earth?

That would be the firmament. (Hebrew "raqiya")

“raqiya (raw-kee’-ah)
1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
1a) expanse (flat as base, support)
1b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
1b1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting ‘waters’ above”

Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

-- KJV Genesis 1

The firmament was solid.

 

[nvxplorer]

If Genesis was indeed from God I would expect it to be historically accurate.

Then you assume that God intended Genesis to be historically factual.

Why would you not expect this?

Because I have no reason to, and because science has shown a literal interpretation to be historically incorrect.

It is certainly possible. Yet I see no reason to believe that when these stories were recorded they were meant to portray anything other than what the authors/god/whatever believed to be the literal truth, not a metpahor.

Perhaps the authors did believe it to be literal truth. Or not. However, from my limited study, the purpose of myth was not to convey literal facts, but rather to connect to and understand the supernatural (as well as the world around them).

 

[Manning]

Because I have no reason to, and because science has shown a literal interpretation to be historically incorrect.

Don't you see the huge problem with this? You believe in a God that is omnipotent and omniscient yet you would not expect a book from him to be consistant with the evidence we currently know exists? Is God then decieveing us because he is a liar or simply doesn't know any better?

However, from my limited study, the purpose of myth was not to convey literal facts, but rather to connect to and understand the supernatural (as well as the world around them).

How does giving us a story that is contradictory to our most recent evidence help us understand anything natural or supernatural.

 

[JohnR7]

If a day to god is something other than a day, why does it say "day" in the bible, and not years... my point being, if god didn't mean he made the universe in seven days, why did he say it?

God clearly tells us that a day is 1000 years. We could go over all the various scriptures, but I do not think that is what your asking. I think that Jesus answered your question when He said that He spoke in parables.

Matthew 13:13
Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Isaiah 44:18
They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.

Genesis 5:5
And all the days (yowm) that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Genesis 5:8
And all the days (yowm) of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
Genesis 5:11
And all the days (yowm) of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
Genesis 5:14
And all the days (yowm) of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
Genesis 5:17
And all the days (yowm) of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
Genesis 5:20
And all the days (yowm) of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
Genesis 5:23
And all the days (yowm) of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
Genesis 5:27
And all the days (yowm) of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
Genesis 5:31
And all the days (yowm) of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.

Genesis 5:28-31
Lamech lived one hundred and eighty-two years, and had a son. [29] And he called his name Noah, saying, "This one will comfort us concerning our work and the toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord has cursed." [30] After he begot Noah, Lamech lived five hundred and ninety-five years, and had sons and daughters. [31] So all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and seventy-seven years; and he died.

Noah was 8 generations from Adam. Adam was still alive for over 50 years when Noah's father Lamech walked the earth. It is easy to figure these dates out to determine when Noah's flood took place.

 

[JohnR7]

If a day to god is something other than a day, why does it say "day" in the bible, and not years... my point being, if god didn't mean he made the universe in seven days, why did he say it?

God clearly tells us that a day is 1000 years. We could go over all the various scriptures, but I do not think that is what your asking. I think that Jesus answered your question when He said that He spoke in parables.

Matthew 13:13
Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Isaiah 44:18
They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.

Genesis 5:5
And all the days (yowm) that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
Genesis 5:8
And all the days (yowm) of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
Genesis 5:11
And all the days (yowm) of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
Genesis 5:14
And all the days (yowm) of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.
Genesis 5:17
And all the days (yowm) of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.
Genesis 5:20
And all the days (yowm) of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.
Genesis 5:23
And all the days (yowm) of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:
Genesis 5:27
And all the days (yowm) of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.
Genesis 5:31
And all the days (yowm) of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.

 

[HappyHealthyHolyRoller]

It's funny how most atheists are fully aware of this, but it eludes biblical literalists. As an atheist, I can gain much wisdom from the myths of all religions. It's also curious that (much) myth is humanistic in nature, but many fundamentalists treat humanism as evil. There is a wealth of wisdom in various religious myth. Sadly, many miss this wisdom in an effort to validate their personal need for literalism.

Why do you give Atheists the credit and say that they're the only ones who don't believe in 6 Days?

I am a Flaming Christian and I don't believe in 6 Days!

Truth be told, if Moses did write Genesis in the way the Universe unfolded, how many people would have thought him a crackpot? If Moses wrote, "In the Beginning, about 10^-42 Planck Time, the Strong nuclear Force was formed when God Created the Quark and God saw that it was good.
...And 500,000 years, God created the Galaxy and saw that it was Good.
...And 8 billion years, God created the Solar System in the Galaxy known as Milky Way; and from that the planet Earth was formed, and God saw that and said it was Good."

C'mon, now! God made Genesis (or had Moses write Genesis) so that the precepts could be easily digested back then, 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 just that simple.

When religions of the day were championing gods like Zeus and Apollo; or even the Steady-State theory that Einstein believed in, our God was creating the Universe in the exact same order that is written n the Bible. An amazing feat for text written 3,000 years ago. I dare say it's mraculous!

 

[nvxplorer]

Why do you give Atheists the credit and say that they're the only ones who don't believe in 6 Days?

I am a Flaming Christian and I don't believe in 6 Days!

I said literalists, not Christians.

 

[Gus2009]

The upper waters was a dome of water that refracted the sunlight evenly over the earth's surface, creating a global tropical climate.

The lower waters were the oceans.

In between was the firmament, or atomosphere.

No, it was a solid dome. The original Hebrew says so. Why do you not take Genesis literally? Why must you try and fit Genesis into youre scientific worldveiw, modern translation of the Bible and use of the word "firmament"? If God didnt mean a solid dome, why would He say it? Do you not believe He meant what He said?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, Gus

No, it was a solid dome. The original Hebrew says so. Why do you not take Genesis literally? Why must you try and fit Genesis into youre scientific worldveiw, modern translation of the Bible and use of the word "firmament"? If God didnt mean a solid dome, why would He say it? Do you not believe He meant what He said?

And God made the firmament; and diuided the waters, which were vnder the firmament, from the waters, which were avoue the firmament: and it was so.

Then God made the firmament, and separated the waters, which were vnder the firmament, from the waters which were aboue the firmament. and it was so.

And God made the firmament, and set the diuision betwene the waters which [were] vnder the firmament, and the waters that [were] aboue the firmament: and it was so.

Than God made the fyrmament and parted the waters which were vnder the fyrmament from the waters that were above the fyrmament: And it was so.

And God made the firmament, and departide the watris that weren vndur the firmament fro these watris that weren on the firmament; and it was don so.

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?

 

[Edx]

AV you said yourself there was windows in the sky before Noah.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV you said yourself there was windows in the sky before Noah.

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).