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

[AV1611VET]

You said the water is between Earth and the Sun, which means outside the Earth's atmosphere which means it rains in outerspace.

Jase, the Bible says that God divided the 'waters' under from the waters 'over'.

The next time He even mentions that water, it is as 'rain' coming down for 40 days and nights.

Now, I would say right offhand, that as a teacher of Scripture, my job is to report the facts as accurately as they were conveyed to me; which is easy to do because they're in writing.

HOWEVER, it's science's job to fill in the gaps; and frankly, they're doing a poor job of doing it.

Now, I'll give you a few minutes to see if you can come up with an explanation of how a water membrane in space ended up here as rain, WITHOUT it raining in space.

I'm sure you can do it, if you'll think before you post.

If you can't --- I'll be more than happy to tell you.

 

[Manning]

Is my assumption that all writing should be taken literally (whether it is religion, politics, science, etc.) unless proven otherwise wrong? If so why?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Jase, the Bible says that God divided the 'waters' under from the waters 'over'.

The next time He even mentions that water, it is as 'rain' coming down for 40 days and nights.

Now, I would say right offhand, that as a teacher of Scripture, my job is to report the facts as accurately as they were conveyed to me; which is easy to do because they're in writing.

HOWEVER, it's science's job to fill in the gaps; and frankly, they're doing a poor job of doing it.

Now, I'll give you a few minutes to see if you can come up with an explanation of how a water membrane in space ended up here as rain, WITHOUT it raining in space.

I'm sure you can do it, if you'll think before you post.

If you can't --- I'll be more than happy to tell you.

That's an easy one -- No water membrane.

I'll take "Debunking Mythology" for 600, Alex.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, Manning

Nice to meet you.

Is my assumption that all writing should be taken literally (whether it is religion, politics, science, etc.) unless proven otherwise wrong? If so why?

Your assumption is correct. Genesis 1 indeed is meant to be interpreted literally (Jesus, Himself interpreted it literally).

In fact, the whole Bible is meant to be interpreted literally, unless the context says otherwise.

In fact, with the exception of the Books of Poetry, which are known poetic books, I believe the Bible tips a person off when a passage is not to be taken literally.

I could be wrong on that, but for the most part, anyway, it tells the reader he's about to read something that isn't to be taken literally.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's an easy one -- No water membrane.

I'll take "Debunking Mythology" for 600, Alex.

That wasn't fair, Nathan, answering ahead of time for Jase. He's probably busy looking up that cure for leprosy he claims is in the Bible.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Is my assumption that all writing should be taken literally (whether it is religion, politics, science, etc.) unless proven otherwise wrong? If so why?

step back from the question for a moment.
what is the purpose of writing?

mostly to communicate, certainly there are exceptions like diaries which are not intended to be read by any one but the writer, but even then i could make the point that the communication is through time.

but to communicate looks like a good answer to start with.

if the purpose of writing is to communicate, what is being communicated and who determines it?

the writer's ideas, thought, feelings, moods etc are all potential things that he/she wishes to communicate in their writing. the author sets the pace.

so, if the author determines the writing's communication, then the writers intentions whether to write poetry, describe a dream or report a traffic accident outside of her window sets the context and how exactly the message is put into textual form.

That leads us to both the internal evidence and the external context of the writing, both of which are used to elucidate the writers intentions and desires.

the overall purpose, is to as much as possible, duplicate the author's condition so that we get the message intended.

note:
if you are a postmodernist, just cross out writer and substitutes the "author's community"....*grin*

 

[AV1611VET]

how do you create spotted sheep at Gen 27.

I'm sure you meant Genesis 30.

I thought I covered that in another post.

Could you show me where anyone 'created' spotted sheep in Genesis 30 - (or any chapter)?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you guys get the impression that most of what you claim the Bible says - isn't in the Bible at all?

 

[Manning]

unless the context says otherwise.

I agree 100%, and as of now I haven't seen nor have I been given any evidence that the context of Genesis was meant as a metaphor.

Like I have stated before, God "seeing" light must be thought to be a metaphor because of the nature of God, parables should not be taken as literal simply because of the definition of parable.

Yet the creation story/myth as a whole has none of these qualities that would confirm it as a metaphor.

so, if the author determines the writing's communication, then the writers intentions whether to write poetry, describe a dream or report a traffic accident outside of her window sets the context and how exactly the message is put into textual form.

That leads us to both the internal evidence and the external context of the writing, both of which are used to elucidate the writers intentions and desires.

I really have no disagreement with what you just wrote. At face value Genesis seems to portray the order and way in which God created the world. You have not given any "internal evidence" as to why this should be otherwise

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You have not given any "internal evidence" as to why this should be otherwise


the Sabbath.


do you really think God needed to rest?
rest is a human quality. God could not cease from his creative activity of making souls nor could he cease from providential upholding of the very elements of creation. the whole Sabbath week is an accommodation to human thinking patterns. The Sabbath was made for human weakness, it certainly can not be founded in God's rest if he does not need to, nor can he actually rest or cease to be active. the Sabbath itself is an anthropomorphic metaphor.

the meaning of Gen 1 can not be found in an actual historical rest that God took for a day, plus there is good evidence to say that we are in the 7th day now. the contradictions here point to a metaphor of human proportions not God's actual scientifically observable actions in the real historical world.

unless you expect that God can cease to be active and rest for 24 hours without the universe disappearing.

 

[JohnR7]

Do you guys get the impression that most of what you claim the Bible says - isn't in the Bible at all?

I get the impression that most of what they say is on a infidel web site somewhere.
Although I avoid them like the plague. Why would people knowingly poison themselves?

Hebrews 11:25
Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

But if you think about it, they are just not willing to pay the price.

 

[Jase]

That wasn't fair, Nathan, answering ahead of time for Jase. He's probably busy looking up that cure for leprosy he claims is in the Bible.

Leviticus 14.

 

[JohnR7]

HOWEVER, it's science's job to fill in the gaps; and frankly, they're doing a poor job of doing it.

I was watching a program on TV about the "snowball" earth. They cut though 15 feet of ice and sent some divers down and it was beautiful. There was a whole biodiverse system of life. The ice was like a crystal and the sun light went right through it. Water can show up in so many ways, so I do not have any problem with the idea that God seperated the water above from the water below.

 

[AV1611VET]

the Sabbath.


do you really think God needed to rest?

[bible]Genesis 2:1-3[/bible]

That doesn't mean He sat down to regain His strength. It means He was done --- kaput --- over.

This passage actually establishes the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

In fact, God would later use Genesis 1 (and the "rest") as a paradigm of His 4th commandment.

[bible]Exodus 20:11[/bible]

 

[Nathan Poe]

[bible]Genesis 2:1-3[/bible]

That doesn't mean He sat down to regain His strength. It means He was done --- kaput --- over.

This passage actually establishes the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Well that's one interpretation.

In fact, God would later use Genesis 1 (and the "rest") as a paradigm of His 4th commandment.

[bible]Exodus 20:11[/bible]

Or the Hebrew writers would use Genesis 1 as an explanation for the 4th Commandment.

Chicken or egg time -- which came first?

 

[Manning]

do you really think God needed to rest?
rest is a human quality.

Rest could certainly be attributed to God if it means to stop doing something. I certainly dont believe that God took a nap on the seventh day.

God could not cease from his creative activity of making souls nor could he cease from providential upholding of the very elements of creation.

I see no reason the believe that a god would not be able to stop activity for one day. If he had setup up the universe in the previous days along with the scientifc laws he would not need to constantly be "tuning" them.

the whole Sabbath week is an accommodation to human thinking patterns.

Yes, however this would lead my to believe that humans created Genesis, not that God passed this down as a metaphor.

the contradictions here point to a metaphor of human proportions not God's actual scientifically observable actions in the real historical world.

Here comes shortsighted God again, a simple metaphor for an ancient people. Why would God not want his story to be scientifically verifiable? This would sure win over millions of converts in our modern world.

unless you expect that God can cease to be active and rest for 24 hours without the universe disappearing.

I see no reason to believe that it would be impossible for an all powerful God.

P.S. I will not be able to responsd to any more posts until Sunday night.

 

[cpack8]

I used to wonder a lot about the creation story in Genesis. I remember when I was a child I used to ask my mom, "Mom, how did God create the world in only seven days?" Her answer would usually be something along the lines of... "..son, we don't know what a 'day' is to God. Just one of 'God's' days could be a whole bunch of years." Years later, after completing my curriculum in geography and geology and knowing that the earth is far older than most (*most, being most of the christians in my area) christians think, I started to wonder.... In genesis, it is recounted that god made everything in seven days. Flashbacks of "..we don't know 'god's' years..." went throught my head which lead me to wonder: 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?

My brother, I do agree with you in some respect, but let us both together use the power of clairvoyance that God has given us. The bible was written by man, although inspired by God too. Therefore, man is not infallible and can make blemishes when writing the bible. In addition, the bible has also been passed down to countless generations and undergone different translations. That would mean those who bequethed the Word of God and also those who translated it are prone to make mistakes. However, the central theme is always left intact.

You are absolutely right when you say that geology proves that the earth is so old that even we cannot understand the concept of time. For crying out loud the bible makes no mention of dinosaurs. However, it clearly says in Genesis that the earth was nothing but a black void. This means that the earth was already existing before God created it again. Now when I say "again", we have to believe that God had other creations before us, possibly even humans. God created the dinosaurs and when the time came for such creatures to become extinct, He then simply threw an asteroid upon earth that killed the dinosaurs and left the earth covered in darkness or simply a black void. God is eternal and He must be created many things throughout the universe which is no concern to us on earth. God can do anything It wants.

Concerning whether God created the earth in 7 days or 7 years, let us think about this. In order for humans to create anything will expend money and time, for we are limited. However, God is unlimited and all powerful. At first it sounded absurd when I heard God created man from dust. You would think He would need to put a lot of time and study to create man in regard to our organs, emotions, electromagnetic brains, and so on and so forth. However, we would then be saying God is limited. Man is composed of basic elements(carbon, oxygen, phosphorous, etc.), and when scientists examine most soil types they will discover these exact elements. What the bible is then saying is that God is all powerful and He can create anything with just basic organic material.

Forgive me for being discursive and rambling on and on. The point I am trying to make will be easily explained by how many days God created the world. The number 7 signifies complete perfection. Therefore, God created the world based on perfection whether it is 7 days, 7 years, or even 7 seconds. When man wrote the bible he most likely assumed the creation lasted 7 days, but remember the central theme is still intact and that is God's creation underwent a process of completion. You are right though when we think about God and time, for with Her everything is eternal so we do not know how long the creation was.

Jesus said, " seek the Holy Spirit with due diligence and He will reveal the mysteries of heaven" My brother, you and I need to continue to pray in the Spirit because as Jesus Christ is saying in the previous passage is that the bible is limited in what it offers, but it is God who is unlimited and preservance through Him will eventually give us the answers we are seeking. Peace be upon you.

 

[Battie]

Nope --- or I'd find myself making the same mistake the 450 prophets of Baal made --- (thinking Baal was real).

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.

 

[DvAna]

Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

the words "God said" are an anthropomorphic metaphor.
there is no media for the conduction of sound. It is God's accommodation to our mental ability, essentially putting things in babytalk so that we can understand them. Does that make it false, if it is not scientifically true?

Gen 1:4 And God saw the light

the words "God saw" are an anthropomorphic metaphor. God doesn't have eyes anymore than he has a mouth to make words.


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?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

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.