YEC's, answer this...

[Assyrian]

This verse alone speaks for itself...
Gen. 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.

How do you understand the word 'firmament' and what do you think it would have meant to a bronze age nomad?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

dose of common sense.

is this the same common sense that says the flat Earth is orbited by the sun?

And it is proof without doubt that there was water above the atmosphere or firmament.

Just SAYING it doesn't make it proof for the nth time!

 

[philadiddle]

Now, when you say misuse of scripture. This is according to whom? And if I may ask, which bible translation?

How can you argue with fact. And are we not given from on High, a dose of common sense. Is one plus one equal to two? That is how the Word of God is understood. Mankind is who complicates God, not God.

This verse alone speaks for itself. And it is proof without doubt that there was water above the atmosphere or firmament. I would have to sit and give a basic bible lessen as to the different firmaments or heavens spoken of in scripture. Instead, I will give the quick lesson. There are 3. Our atmosphere, outerspace and the heaven our Father resides within. Please don't take this as being smug, for I am not. And forgive me if I come across this way. I don't mean to. It just saddens me that this little is understood of God's Holy Writ.

Gen. 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.



How can you argue with this. It says there was water above the firmament. And if you study the rest of Genesis, you discover that there was not rain in the days prior to the flood. The lands were watered by a mist the rose from off the earth. If you disagree with this, you won't agree with anything else. And discussion any further on the subject is useless because you already have your mind made up.

how could i argue with it? hmm, let me think, i'll have to check my handy dandy dictionary of the Hebrew in "The Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch" (T.Desmond Alexander & David W. Baker, 2003)

This book examines the hebrew meaning of words and takes into account the cultural context. It also draws comparisons to other cultures that predate the Biblical writings and how the Bible borrows mythology so it could be better understood by the culture at that time.

from pages 158-159 (emphasis added to the important part)
-------------
2.8 Firmament. Egyptian texts have the concept of a vault that prevents the waters from flooking the earth. This vault is less solid than in the Mesopotamian view (Allen, 4-5). If it is not the sky god Shu who is portrayed as holding up the sky, staves that resemble tent poles are depicted (HOffmeier, 7). In Mesopotamia, Enuma Elish 4.139 reports a "skin/hide" (Akk. Masku) that is established to hold back the waters of Tiamat, who has just been divided to be set up as the waters above and below. We also learn from Babylonian texts that they believed in three levels of heaven. Each one had a different type of stone for its pavement (Horowitz, 4-11), though these pavements were not understood as holding back the primal waters. In the Bible this pavement concept is represented in Exodus 24:10, where the elders have a vision of God in which he is walking on a sapphire (= lapis lazuli) pavement. The Babylonian texts say the middle heavens are paved with saggilmud-stone, which has the appearance of lapis lazuli. This was believed to give the sky its blue color. The lower heavens are said to have a platform of jasper, usually associated with a glassy, translucent or opaque appearance. This is paralleled in Ezekiel's vision in which the platform of the mobile chariot-throne is identified as being of the same quality (Ezek 1:22).
The platform in Ezekiel is called a rãqîa‹, the same word used in Genesis 1:6-8 (NIV: "expanse"). Despite the NIV's attempt to mitigate the meaning of this word in Genesis 1 through an ambiguous translation such as "expanse" and the attempt of others to make is scientifically precise through the translation "atmosphere," Seely has amply demonstrated that, structurally speaking, the rãqîa‹ was perceived by the Israelite audience, as by nearly everyone else until modern times, as a solid dome (Seely 1991,1992). This conclusion is not based on false etymologizing that extrapolates the meaning of the noun from its verbal forms (which have to do with beating something out) but on the comparison of the lexical data from OT usage of the noun with the cultural context of the ancient Near East.
----------------
I don't see how after understanding the Hebrew meaning and culture at that time you could possibly believe what u believe. The book goes on to explain that the stars in Genesis 1:17 us the same word rãqîa‹ because they are part of this solid dome.

So let me throw the question back at you, how could u argue with this?

Another thing, if you put someone underwater from birth they won't live to be 600 years old. A water canopy wouldn't cause long life. And as i said, you need to post scientific evidence of which you have provided none.

 

[HisWordIsMySword]

Interesting. First you boast, let me check my handy dandy Hebrew, then all of a sudden I notice your use of the NIV.

So now I an going to have to check my handy dandy Authority King James Bible. This is all that I need. Not that I don't have all the others at my disposal because I most certainly do. It is just that when it comes to the translation that has stood the test of time and to the translation that has laid all others to rest in translational debates, it only makes good sense to make the KJ the rock on my stand while using the others as mere references.


And now to burst you bubble. You did such a fine job to try and convince my that firmament could mean so much more. And you are right in a sense. The only problem is your misuse of scripture or understanding of God's Holy Writ.

For there are three heavens.

In Genesis verse one, God created the heaven and the earth. This is
the first heaven or as we know it, outer space. In verse 14, God
said, let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide
the day from night. and let them be for signs and for seasons, and
for days. Verse 14 thru 18 are are speaking of the heaven we know as
space.

In verse six, God said, let there be a firmament in the mist of the
waters, and let devide the waters from the waters. This is the second
heaven or as we know it today, our atmosphere. In verse 7, It says
God made the firmament and devided the waters which were under the
firmanent from the waters from the waters that were above the
firmament, and it was so. In verse eight, God called the firmament
heaven. This is the second heaven. In verse 20, it says God created
foul to fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

The scripture is speaking of two heavens in Genesis, for it is
impossible for foul to fly in the heaven we know as outer space.
Proof that this is speaking of more then one heaven is found in the
first verse of Genesis two, thus the heavens and the earth were
finished. Notice, the word heaven is plurul, meaning more then one
heaven. This is not a translation error. Now if we were to put them
is the correct order, naturally, spiritual heaven would be first,
outer space second, and them the atmosphere third.


3rd) 2Cr 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago,
(whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I
cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third
heaven.

 

[philadiddle]

Let me say this in different words. The bible wasn't written in English. The KJ version isn't the orginal copy of the bible. Genesis was written in Hebrew. The cosmology (understanding of the universe) at the time included a solid sapphire dome around the earth. The Genesis account was taking parts of other creation myths from Egypt and Mesopotamia. The word used for "expanse" is talking about the sapphire dome from these ancient cosmological views, not the atmosphere.

The book i use is not based on the NIV, it's based on the Hebrew bible. The article was bringing into question the vague interpretation that the NIV uses. Read to understand, not to argue.

Please provide a source that quotes the original Hebrew and explains how it means "atmosphere" and "space as we know it". Since the bible wasn't written in english you can't simply force your own interpretation on it.

BTW, if there was a canopy of water that caused a world wide flood there would be evidence of that, i'm still waiting for your scientific evidence.

 

[shernren]

N.A. Rupke was the scientist who first coined the term “polystrate fossils.” After citing numerous examples of such fossils (1973, pp. 152-157), he wrote: “Nowadays, most geologists uphold a uniform process of sedimentation during the earth’s history; but their views are contradicted by plain facts” (p. 157, emp. added).

(emphasis added)

In other words, the facts show that geology cannot be explained simply by plain jane sedimentation ... we need to introduce plate tectonics, radioactivity, the occasional extraterrestrial impact, and of course the impact of life itself.

See? If this is the context, then this statement cannot be construed to support creationism in any way. Remember that even as recent as the 60's, plate tectonics were still controversial, and thus anything said about geology then or before needs to be carefully looked at.

 

[vossler]

What is 1 single piece of scientific evidence supporting your claims of a young earth? In the "6000 Year Earth" thread there is a lot of talk about evidence supporting a young earth, but no scientific evidence is ever posted (at least not that i read, i skimmed some of the thread). There is a lot of misinterpretation of scripture, but that isn't scientific evidence that what u say happens. So please enlighten us all and post a single piece of scientific evidence supporting your young earth view.

First of all, at least for me, this question is non sequitur. I trust what God says over what man does, where the two conflict I always go with Him, therefore this isn't even an issue for me. You could bring out thousands of pieces of 'evidence' that 'prove' millions of years but if it doesn't fall within the scope of what the Bible says, it's all meaningless.

So given that, my single piece of scientific evidence is the Bible.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

First of all, at least for me, this question is non sequitur. I trust what God says over what man does, where the two conflict I always go with Him, therefore this isn't even an issue for me. You could bring out thousands of pieces of 'evidence' that 'prove' millions of years but if it doesn't fall within the scope of what the Bible says, it's all meaningless.

So given that, my single piece of scientific evidence is the Bible.

Where is Jerusalem?
Where is Israel?

There is a significant amount of discussion in the Bible about both. So where are they?

Say you are talking to a Mormon like person, except this person believes that Israel is in north american and that Jerusalem is actually located near present day Cleveland.

Now from the Bible show me how he is wrong. No reference to maps or history outside of the Scriptures is acceptable evidence. How would you demonstrate that Jerusalem is, like Israel in the modern day Middle east and is roughly in the same places as both a city and state with the same names?

You have a Bible in your hands. try to do it.
YOU CAN NOT. you can not even answer a simple question like "where is Jerusalem?" without reference to the real world. You need to map the Scriptures to this reality and in doing so you must use history and literal maps, neither of which are part of Scripture itself. If this person is at all knowledgable, you will have no ability to convince him that Jerusalem is not near Cleveland. All of your evidence is circumstantial and extraneous to the Bible itself.

 

[philadiddle]

First of all, at least for me, this question is non sequitur. I trust what God says over what man does, where the two conflict I always go with Him, therefore this isn't even an issue for me. You could bring out thousands of pieces of 'evidence' that 'prove' millions of years but if it doesn't fall within the scope of what the Bible says, it's all meaningless.

So given that, my single piece of scientific evidence is the Bible.

please refer to post 23 before the following question.

when the bible talks about a large solid sapphire dome over the earth you believe that over the current scientific understanding of the atmosphere?

 

[Pats]

What is 1 single piece of scientific evidence supporting your claims of a young earth?

Does YEC require scientific evidence in order to be true?

And.... IF such a thing existed and it was sitting on your desk right now... would it convince you? or would you explain it away???

 

[philadiddle]

Does YEC require scientific evidence in order to be true?

And.... IF such a thing existed and it was sitting on your desk right now... would it convince you? or would you explain it away???

Actions of God don't require scientific evidence because the very thought of that is contradictory. However, having every kind of animal in existence at once since the beginning of the earth, and a global flood wiping out all life exept for pairs of animals would leave evidence. There would be fossil evidence and geological evidence.

And yes, strong evidence would be a great witnessing tool, i just haven't found any.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Does YEC require scientific evidence in order to be true?

No. But it DOES need to be able to explain why the scientific evidence does NOT support evolution to be true.

 

[philadiddle]

No. But it DOES need to be able to explain why the scientific evidence does NOT support evolution to be true.

Although, showing how evolution is not true would not make the Genesis account true, there are many other creation possibilities.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Although, showing how evolution is not true would not make the Genesis account true, there are many other creation possibilities.

absolutely.

 

[jeffweeder]

QUOTE PHIL
Actions of God don't require scientific evidence because the very thought of that is contradictory.

Seeing as God is meant to have unsearchable attributes- wisdom and marvelous works, you would think that if he did create it, the science involved in their make-up, would be mind boggling- and it has turned out that way hasn't it.

However, having every kind of animal in existence at once since the beginning of the earth, and a global flood wiping out all life exept for pairs of animals would leave evidence. There would be fossil evidence and geological evidence.

And yes, strong evidence would be a great witnessing tool, i just haven't found any.

If you were to believe God did flood the world, in the way described in the scriptures, this would explain the fossils and the geography of certain parts of the world.
It seems England seperated from France in a mere 24hrs by floodwaters. (the suggestion was made that we rewrite the text books, that said long ages of erosion did it)
Other parts of the world map seem to have at one time seperated away- How? The same way? The same catastrophic time maybe?
Looking at the extent of it all, i'd say it was one catasrophic event- God did promise that this wasnt going to happen again.
Things have and do happen quicker than what people thought, and this has been observed even.

 

[vossler]

when the bible talks about a large solid sapphire dome over the earth you believe that over the current scientific understanding of the atmosphere?

I have no explanation or comment, it isn't pertinent (at least right now) for me to know what it is or was.

 

[vossler]

No. But it DOES need to be able to explain why the scientific evidence does NOT support evolution to be true.

Why is that? I see no reason for me to have to explain why your scientific evidence doesn't match up with God's written Word.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If you were to believe God did flood the world, in the way described in the scriptures, this would explain the fossils and the geography of certain parts of the world.

How do you figure?

Cos first aof all... I want to know why all the big fossils arent at the bottom and all the light ones at the top, but all spaced out, some big, some small, according to their predicted age?

It seems England seperated from France in a mere 24hrs by floodwaters. (the suggestion was made that we rewrite the text books, that said long ages of erosion did it)

Do you have a source for this besides "my pastor said"?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Why is that? I see no reason for me to have to explain why your scientific evidence doesn't match up with God's written Word.

MY Scientific method is the same scientific method that produced that computer you're working on now, and the medicine you take when you get sick... or do you think that God is what makes the light come on on the screen? Maybe those tablets the doctor gives you are "prayer pills"?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It seems England seperated from France in a mere 24hrs by floodwaters. (the suggestion was made that we rewrite the text books, that said long ages of erosion did it)

it was a dam break and the emptying of a large lake, just like the badlands of western washington state. it not only does not support a global flood but shows the evidence that a global flood is not shown by anything in geology.

ask yourself a simple question:
in a global flood, where does the water flow to?
where is there someplace that is not also getting rained on?