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

[DvAna]

Thank you for your meaningful explination.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hello, Battie --- nice to meet you!

Okay, so why do you claim the Biblical firmament and windows were real if you immediately accept that Baal's were not?

First of all, Jehovah proved that these other gods were false idols.

The Ten Plagues of Egypt, for instance, were not just random plagues, they were God exercising authority over the Egyptian deities.

[bible]Exodus 12:12[/bible]

Jehovah proved that Baal was a false god.

[bible]1 Kings 18:27[/bible]

Jehovah proved that Dagon was a false god.

[bible]1 Samuel 5:4[/bible]

Jehovah proved Bacchus was a false god.

[bible]Daniel 5:25[/bible]

etc.

Second of all, we live by the motto: God said it - that settles it.

So when God mentions the Biblical firmament and windows of heaven as being there, I believe they were there.

Thirdly, to say that I "immediately accept that Baal's were not" is somewhat accurate; but again, it's not that I'm doing this blindly - but God went out of His way to prove them wrong.

Jase already gave an excellent and accurate description of what the firmament actually was to the ancient Hebrews...

Jase claims that the firmament (our atmosphere) was solid. In saying that - he is correct. I believe scientists used to teach that air had no mass. So in that respect, I agree with him.

But until he answers my request for clarification, I'll assume this is what he was talking about.

...and it was much closer to that of the Canaanite's and other ancient cultures and nothing like the one you describe.

As I would expect it to be --- false deities lead to false assumptions.

 

[Assyrian]

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).

I think there is a glitch in your mathematics. You miss out the radius of the earth which is about 3,959 miles.
At 100 miles, the radius of your canopy will be 4,159 miles.
There is not going to be that much difference in the surface area of these spheres.

The surface area of the earth 4πr2
= 4*π*3,959*3,959
= 196,961,284 mi2
The surface area of the canopy
= 4*π*4,159*4,159
=217,364,043mi2

This is only 10% greater than the surface of the earth. Your 3 mile thick layer of water would still be 2.7 miles thick at a distance of 100 miles. The surface of the earth would be as dark as the ocean floor with a canopy this thick.

You could reduce the thickness to a quarter, or 0.75 miles thick by moving the canopy to the height of another earth radius or 3,959 miles above the surface of the earth. At twice the radius of the earth, or 7918 miles high, it would be a third of a mile thick. But this is still too thick for any appreciable light to penetrate.

The other problem is the potential energy of the water (mgh) = mass*force of gravity*height. A rough back of an envelope calculation says each mile gives the water enough energy to raise its temperature by 3°C. Just think of the power generated by a hydroelectric power station.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Jehovah proved that Baal was a false god.



Jehovah proved that Dagon was a false god.



Jehovah proved Bacchus was a false god.

No, just weaker ones. Par for the course in ancient civilizations.

 

[DvAna]

No, just weaker ones. Par for the course in ancient civilizations.

Why do you infer Jehovah is stronger?

 

[Edx]

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).

Right, so you accept windows and a solid dome. Jeez, I'd wish you'd make up your mind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ed, you said in Post 39:

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

And my reply:

Yes, I forgot about those.

Now you say:

Right, so you accept windows and a solid dome. Jeez, I'd wish you'd make up your mind.

Where was a solid dome mentioned in Post 39, that supposedly I'm accepting?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, just weaker ones. Par for the course in ancient civilizations.

Some of those "weaker ones" demanded human sacrifice.

[bible]Jeremiah 32:35[/bible]
[bible]Ezekiel 16:21[/bible]

 

[Gus2009]

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?

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?

 

[AV1611VET]

Leviticus 14.

Okay, let's look at Leviticus 14 verse-by-verse for the cure for leprosy:

1. no
2. no
3. no
4. no
5. no
6. no
7. no
8. no
9. no
10. no
11. no
12. no
13. no
14. no
15. no
16. no
17. no
18. no
19. no
20. no

Sorry, Jase, I just don't see it.

 

[Jase]

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?

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

It mentioned something solid in all of those. Perhaps not a dome, but solid nonetheless.

Jase disagrees with you.

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

I'm sure he will be here soon to show us - (but I've already asked him for clarification).

Why are you trying to convert the original Hebrew to youre own use of the word?

Sorry --- that's God's job --- not mine.

Why do keep skirting around that word firmament? You know exactly what it means.

Actually I do, but evidently Jase doesn't, nor do you. Once again, it means: atmosphere.

Do you think it is allegory?

The Discovery wouldn't hit an 'allegory'.

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

Do you not take Genesis literally?

No.

 

[AV1611VET]

...AV has no reason to accept the actual Hebrew meaning of it.

Neither would the crew of the Discovery.

 

[nvxplorer]

Sorry --- that's God's job --- not mine.

It's God's job to convert the original Hebrew to your own use of the word?

Are you blaming God for your misinterpretation?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's God's job to convert the original Hebrew to your own use of the word?

I believe the word you want is "translate" - not "convert".

 

[nvxplorer]

I believe the word you want is "translate" - not "convert".

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]

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.

If the original Hebrew word and the King James word are both the same --- what's the problem?

 

[nvxplorer]

If the original Hebrew word and the King James word are both the same --- what's the problem?

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).

This is all irrelevant to my original question, however. (Is this "bob and weave" what you referred to the other day as "dance?")

Is it God's job to translate the original Hebrew to that which you infer?

 

[AV1611VET]

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).

Let me simplify this:

I'm not going to let someone try and convince me that the Scriptures - as conveyed in the King James Bible - is any different than what God actually said the day He said it.

Especially when they try to use another language (called 'tongues' in the Bible).

If God said 'firmament', and someone tries to tell me that it means 'solid dome' in Hebrew, Chinese, Latin, or even another translation of English, I will not believe them.

I didn't pay good blessing just to make up something for a signature. I stand behind my signature as a solid truth.

 

[JedPerkins]

Especially when they try to use another language (called 'tongues' in the Bible).

Anyone speaking in english during any period covered in the Bible would have been speaking in 'tongues'. So really everything you believe is spoken in 'tongues'.