In the Beginning....

[Thinkingstuff]

I am saying that only the Scriptures have been provided by God as the objective standard to define our faith and practice (Deut.29:29; 2 Tim. 3:15-16)

I agree with this.

and is to be accepted over the opinions of men when they are in conflict (Isa. 8:20).

In relation to faith and practice. But the bible shouldn't be taken literally where it contradicts facts.

I am saying that the Son of God has no visible manifestation and therefore any claim to have personal subjective revelation from Christ is to be SUBJECTED to the Scriptures and thus Scriptures VALIDATE and interpret such professed revelation rather than such professed revelation VALIDATES and interprets scripture (Isa. 8:20; Rom. 3:6).

I
I think you must mean currently. Because Jesus Christ is himself a visible manifestation and is currently seated at the right hand of God. There is no further revelation. There may be more insite to what is already revealed but no further revelation.

am saying that nature is not the objective standard for faith and practice and any subjective opinions and observations by finite creatures is subject to God's Word rather than God's Word subject to them.

Faith is not an affront to reason. I however think you think it is.

Thus far, the evidence you have presented in Genesis to overthrow and reinterpret INTERNAL constants have not stood the test of Scriptures.

The evidence I have provided questions the verasity of a literal intepretation of the Genesis account. I don't believe God placed a solid dome overhead but I don't follow that and say God doesn't exist. I suggest God does and wants us to understand Genesis differently then what has been presented literally.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I agree with this.


In relation to faith and practice. But the bible shouldn't be taken literally where it contradicts facts.

What one calls facts another calls myth. For the past 150 years it has been "scientifically established as fact" that all current life forms have evolved from lower life forms - is that your "fact"????? Don't claim something is a "fact" until it can be proven by the scientific method as "fact."

The evidence I have provided questions the verasity of a literal intepretation of the Genesis account. I don't believe God placed a solid dome overhead but I don't follow that and say God doesn't exist. I suggest God does and wants us to understand Genesis differently then what has been presented literally.

First, not all hebrew scholars share your "evidence" as fact. Even a causal look at any Hebrew Lexicon does not share your opinion that it must be a "solid"! There is sufficient evidence from Genesis use, David's use and Daniel's use that it can be interpreted different and easily so as to fit a literal meaning in Genesis. However, there is no such variable in regard to the consistent usage of "the evening and the morning" throughout Biblical literature. Therefore, again you are attempting to overrule an unquestionable meaning by a variable and thus questionable meaning in regard to internal evidence.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What one calls facts another calls myth. For the past 150 years it has been "scientifically established as fact" that all current life forms have evolved from lower life forms - is that your "fact"????? Don't claim something is a "fact" until it can be proven by the scientific method as "fact."

Certainly a "fact" is that our earth is surrounded by a combination of gases with the major components are Nitrogen, Oxygen, and argon. Its not a solid mixture. Above the atmosphere is space. Stars are million miles away and not engraved on a dome. Certainly, there is no denying of these facts no matter what your faith says. Maybe a "creation scientist" will make an argument that it is.

First, not all hebrew scholars share your "evidence" as fact.

So not all Hebrew scholars want to admit that there is a discrepancy between the writen word and reality. This is what is known as a bias.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Certainly a "fact" is that our earth is surrounded by a combination of gases with the major components are Nitrogen, Oxygen, and argon. Its not a solid mixture. Above the atmosphere is space. Stars are million miles away and not engraved on a dome. Certainly, there is no denying of these facts no matter what your faith says. Maybe a "creation scientist" will make an argument that it is.

I do not know of a single solitary Creation PhD that teaches anything contrary to these "facts" and the interpretation they give for "firmament" is consistent with it's biblical usage in Genesis, Psalms and Daniel.

So not all Hebrew scholars want to admit that there is a discrepancy between the writen word and reality. This is what is known as a bias.

I do not know of any Hebrew Lexicons in existence that limit the meaning of the Hebrew term "raquia" to a "solid" object. I do not know of any Hebrew scholars whether non-creationist or creations who force that term into that restricted meaning. If you do, please point them out.

 

[DHK]

I've explained already they are figurative language that organizes the creation of the universe in sets of three organization steps indicated by a day. Thus day one and day 4 are connected and day 2 and day 5 and day 3 and day 6. It also establishes sabbath theology. It also points to the ancient summerian and Egyptian gods by each classification (as I've shown comparison with the ennuma Elish) of Day showing these elements subservience to God thus implying God is greater than all gods and all gods apart from god are nothing more than natural forces.

You are reluctant to deal with scientific fact aren't you. I gave you science; you gave me figurative language. The science fits creation. You clearly have a bias. Your "model" of creation denies scientific fact. Go through Genesis one. Go through the science that I gave you. It is impossible for you to connect the days as you have connected them, and you have ignored the question of the duration of the days. All of nature must live in harmony. With your model they cannot. How do you account for that.

If you answer it is figurative, may I suggest that the entire death, burial and resurrection is just as figurative and your salvation is in vain. Why not? If such liberties are taken with this chapter why not be consistent and take the same liberties with other historical chapters of the Bible, such as the life of Christ.

 

[Dr. Walter]

So not all Hebrew scholars want to admit that there is a discrepancy between the writen word and reality. This is what is known as a bias.

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament by R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer Jr. and Bruce K Waltke is regard as a standard work and it says concerning the Hebrew term "raqia"

"Firmament. (NASB renders more correctly as "expanse"....literally "an expansion of plates". i.e. broad plates beat out...raqaia may refer to a limited space....It identifies God's heavenly expanse...Mosaic account of creation uses raquia interchangably for the "open expanse of the heavens" in which the birds fly....i.e. the atmosphere....and that farther expanse of the sky in which God placed the "lights....for signs and for seasons"........in pre-Christian Egypt confusion was introduced into biblical cosomology when the LXX perhaps under teh influence of Alexanderian theories of a "stone vault" of heaven, rendered raquia by steroma, suggesting some firm, solid structure. This Greek concept was then reflected by the Latin firmamentum, hence KJV "firmament." To this day negative criticism speaks of "vault" or "firmament" regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting waters above it......the rendering of Job 37:18, "The skies, strong (hazaquim) as molten mirror..." changed by the RSV to read, "the skies, hard,"

Babylonian mythology recounts how Murduk used half of Tiamat's carcass to form the heavens (shamamu) held in place by a crossbar(!). In the OT, however, Isaiah insists that God "stretches out the heavens (lit.) like gauze (doq, Isa. 40:22); and even Ezekiel's limited canopy (raquia) is "as the (lit.) eye of awesome ice" (Ezek. 1:22), i.e., transparent, "shining like crystal" (RSV) though so dazzling as to be terrifying...."

Pardon the pun, but you can easily see that Creationist scientist do not have to "stretch" this term to fit exactly how they interpret it in Genesis. However, your interpretation according to these scholars has its roots in paganism rather than in Biblical language. The idea of a "solid" concept of creation is derived from non-biblical literature and ideas.

 

[PeterM]

If you hold to the "plenary verbal" (or "verbal plenary" I've heard it referred to both ways) inspiration of the Bible, it's kind of difficult to believe anything other than a literal 6 day creation.

 

[Dr. Walter]

If you hold to the "plenary verbal" (or "verbal plenary" I've heard it referred to both ways) inspiration of the Bible, it's kind of difficult to believe anything other than a literal 6 day creation.

Is that your view of the Scriptures?

 

[freeatlast]

Did God create the universe in 6-24 hr days? Or do some scientist who say Billlions upon Billions of years pull weight? Why do you believe what you believe?

There is no question that this issue brings disagreement and not just from those outside the church. However there is one thing that can be stated with assurance. No person who ever picked up the bible and read it (Gen account) for the first time ever got from it that the creation was anything other then 6-24 hour days and i still hold to that reading as it has not changed.

I once had a pastor who held long periods of time in creation. I told him to his face in front of others this because that is where we were in the discussion. "Pastor that is fine if you choose to believe that, just do not imply that you got it from the word of God because you did not". He never said a word.

 

[Dr. Walter]

There is no question that this issue brings disagreement and not just from those outside the church. However there is one thing that can be stated with assurance. No person who ever picked up the bible and read it (Gen account) for the first time ever got from it that the creation was anything other then 6-24 hour days and i still hold to that reading as it has not changed.

I once had a pastor who held long periods of time in creation. I told him to his face in front of others this because that is where we were in the discussion. "Pastor that is fine if you choose to believe that, just do not imply that you got it from the word of God because you did not". He never said a word.

Well said, and well done!

 

[Jedi Knight]

Certainly, there is no denying of these facts no matter what your faith says.

I find your lack of faith disturbing. Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I find your lack of faith disturbing. Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Just a note. The quote "I find your lack of faith disturbing" is from Darth Vader who supports the dark side of the force. However I will quote to you General Motti " Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient Jedi religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you enough clairvoyance to find the rebels' hidden fortress... "
Next. Nothing I've said contradicts Hebrews 11:3. In fact I assert that God created the universe. What I don't assert is that God did it in a literal 6 day period nor do I assert he created a metalic dome keeping the waters above seperated from the waters below.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are reluctant to deal with scientific fact aren't you. I gave you science; you gave me figurative language.

I'm the one who gave you science opposed to the language used in Genesis. I've already agreed Yom means 24 day. However, in the context of the description of creation a solid dome placed over the earth containing celestial lights cannot be taken as anything but figurative thus calling into question literalness of the whole account. Attempting to lessen this view you quote Archer (who, though I like him, is bias) hinders your purpose. Note. They both go to the LXX which was translated hundreds of years after the autographs to assert a Non solid atmospher which you would say the LXX is a inferor document and cannot be considered equal with the autographs. Next raquia specifically means to pound out "metal" and spread out. Note by these verses and commentary we can see that biblical authors thought of the sky as a solid material

Exodus 24:10-"And they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the substance of heaven in its clarity." (Literally, "as the bones of the heavens in purity.") This suggests that Moses conceived of the raqia-named "heaven"-as a solid substance much like sapphire...Job 37:18-"With Him, have you spread out the skies, strong as a cast metal mirror?" This is plainly demonstrates that the biblical authors thought of the skies-the heavens-as a solid object....Psalm 148:4-"Praise Him you heaven of heavens, and you waters above the heavens!" This plainly states that the waters above the heavens are still there. The flood did not exhaust them.... Psalm 150:1-"Praise God in His sanctuary; Praise Him in the firmament of his power." A parallel here is made between the Holy place and the firmament. Each is a dome under which God rules and is worshiped...Isaiah 45:12-"I-My hands-stretched out the heavens."

 

[Dr. Walter]

Just a note. The quote "I find your lack of faith disturbing" is from Darth Vader who supports the dark side of the force. However I will quote to you General Motti " Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient Jedi religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you enough clairvoyance to find the rebels' hidden fortress... "
Next. Nothing I've said contradicts Hebrews 11:3. In fact I assert that God created the universe. What I don't assert is that God did it in a literal 6 day period nor do I assert he created a metalic dome keeping the waters above seperated from the waters below.

Have you found any Hebrew Lexicon or Standard Hebrew work that restricts raquia to a "solid" object? If not, then how can you demand that interpretation when the Creationist view has equal basis? Also, how can you honestly use a questionable interpretation to overrule what is not questioned - the evening and the morning - when it is this very phrase that is the heart of this debate?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm the one who gave you science opposed to the language used in Genesis. I've already agreed Yom means 24 day. However, in the context of the description of creation a solid dome placed over the earth containing celestial lights cannot be taken as anything but figurative thus calling into question literalness of the whole account. Attempting to lessen this view you quote Archer (who, though I like him, is bias) hinders your purpose. Note. They both go to the LXX which was translated hundreds of years after the autographs to assert a Non solid atmospher which you would say the LXX is a inferor document and cannot be considered equal with the autographs. Next raquia specifically means to pound out "metal" and spread out. Note by these verses and commentary we can see that biblical authors thought of the sky as a solid material

Let's suppose your "solid" argument stands. Did you know there are at least two interpretations different than yours that support the traditional six literal day creation?

1. Rick Lanser - http://dsclick.infospace.com/ClickH...4&app=1&hash=A5A5C2B8047498FD711106AA828CBC48

2. Dr. Walt Brown - Compelling Evidence for Creation and the flood

 

[Dr. Walter]

The Third Firmament
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

"And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above." (Ezekiel 1:22)

The English word "firmament" in the Bible is a translation of the Hebrew raqia, meaning "expanse." Its meaning is not "firm boundary" as biblical critics have alleged, but might be better paraphrased as "stretched-out thinness" or simply "space."

Its first occurrence in the Bible relates it to heaven: "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. . . . And God called the firmament Heaven" (Genesis 1:6, 8). This firmament obviously could not be a solid boundary above the sky, but is essentially the atmosphere, the "first heaven," the "space" where the birds were to "fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" (Genesis 1:20).

There is also a second firmament, or second heaven, where God placed the sun, moon, and stars, stretching out into the infinite reaches of space. "And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth" (Genesis 1:17).

The firmament in our text, however, is beneath the very throne of God, and above the mighty cherubim (Ezekiel 1:23) who seem always in Scripture to indicate the near presence of God. This glorious firmament, brilliantly crystalline in appearance, must be "the third heaven" to which the apostle Paul was once "caught up" in a special manifestation of God's presence and power, to hear "unspeakable words" from God in "paradise" (2 Corinthians 12:2-4).

All three heavens "declare the glory of God" and all three firmaments "sheweth his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1). Therefore, we should "praise God in his sanctuary" and also "praise him in the firmament of his power" (Psalm 150:1). HMM

 

[Dr. Walter]

And God called the firmament Heaven.

What would you call the "firmament"? A DOME? What do Biblical critics call the "firmament"? A DOME? What do Old Earth Advocates call the "firmament"? A DOME? Now, What does God call the "firmament"? - "And God called the firmament heaven"

If God calls it "heaven" then what does God define "heaven" to be? The Hebrew term heaven is a translation of the Hebrew plural "shamamu" and the Bible speaks of at least three different types


1. Where the birds fly

Gen. 1:20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


2. Where the stars are

Gen. 1:14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,


3. Where God dwells

2 Cor. 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.

Significantly, those who choose to ignore what God calls the "firmament" focus on one meaning of the Hebrew term 'raqia" that has the idea of metal being hammered out to a thin stretched out plate.

Now, why does God choose raquia to define what he calls "heaven"? Does God have in mind the solidity aspect of raqia or does he have in mind the stretched out aspect conveyed by raqia? God makes it clear which aspect he has in mind when he calls the "raqia" or firmament "shamamu" or heaven:

Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, [shamamu] and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Isa 45:12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

Now why do you think he used the Hebrew term "raqia" and how would you define heaven as raqia?

Do you call raqia what God calls it? "HEAVEN"! or do you call it "A DOME"?

Do you define "heaven" (shamamu) how God defines it? -STRETCHED OUT expanses "IN" which birds fly, stars shine and God dwells or do birds fly in A DOME and stars are in A DOME and God dwells in A DOME?

What does plain old common sense tell you?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm the one who gave you science opposed to the language used in Genesis. I've already agreed Yom means 24 day. However, in the context of the description of creation a solid dome placed over the earth containing celestial lights cannot be taken as anything but figurative thus calling into question literalness of the whole account. Attempting to lessen this view you quote Archer (who, though I like him, is bias) hinders your purpose. Note. They both go to the LXX which was translated hundreds of years after the autographs to assert a Non solid atmospher which you would say the LXX is a inferor document and cannot be considered equal with the autographs. Next raquia specifically means to pound out "metal" and spread out. Note by these verses and commentary we can see that biblical authors thought of the sky as a solid material

The biblical writers did not conceive heaven to be a solid. You are ignoring common language that conveys a simile:

Exodus 24:10-"And they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the substance of heaven in its clarity." (Literally, "as the bones of the heavens in purity.") This suggests that Moses conceived of the raqia-named "heaven"-as a solid substance much like sapphire...Job 37:18-"With Him, have you spread out the skies, strong as a cast metal mirror?" This is plainly demonstrates that the biblical authors thought of the skies-the heavens-as a solid object....Psalm 148:4-"Praise Him you heaven of heavens, and you waters above the heavens!"

This is like saying that Isaiah regarded men to be actually sheep because he said "all we LIKE sheep have gone astray"! This kind of language is called a "simile" and does not convey reality but LIKENESS or COMPARISON. If we applied your application to all the similes in the book of Revelation what a chaotic picture would be created.

To demand the likeness or comparison MUST BE solid and material is to defy all other Old and New Testament concepts of the very nature of God and angels and heaven. Moses knew that God was a non-material "spirit" as well as angels and that heaven was the abode of non-material beings. You just as well argue that David believed God had material wings because he said that God would gather his people "under his wings"!

The New Jerusalem is defined exactly the very same way? Do you think the New Jerusalem above is a SOLID MATERIAL object? Do you think New Testament saints believed the New Jerusalem was a SOLID MATERIAL object? Do you believe that Old and New Testament saints believed God sat upon a SOLID MATERIAL throne? It is the very same language used to describe heaven, New Jerusalem, God's throne and even God himself - Do you think God is SOLID MATERIAL object?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And God called the firmament Heaven.

What would you call the "firmament"? A DOME? What do Biblical critics call the "firmament"? A DOME? What do Old Earth Advocates call the "firmament"? A DOME? Now, What does God call the "firmament"? - "And God called the firmament heaven"

Note upon which he sits. Again a solid

If God calls it "heaven" then what does God define "heaven" to be? The Hebrew term heaven is a translation of the Hebrew plural "shamamu" and the Bible speaks of at least three different types

That is not the word used and still it doesn't dispel the view of a solid dome.

[

B]1. Where the birds fly[/B]

You forgot to quote in the open space. not in the dome itself.

Gen. 1:20 ¶ And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Ah... here you quote it in the open of the dome not the dome itself. key distinction.

2. Where the stars are

Yes because the belief was the stars were engraved on the solid dome.

Gen. 1:14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

Note not in the open space but in the dome itself. The dome which holds up water above it.

3. Where God dwells

this term is not raqia but shameya a different consept And note this quote of 2 cor was 1300 years after genesis. With all the greek influence and discoveries the referrence is different.

Significantly, those who choose to ignore what God calls the "firmament" focus on one meaning of the Hebrew term 'raqia" that has the idea of metal being hammered out to a thin stretched out plate.

No thats the word which is used.

Now, why does God choose raquia to define what he calls "heaven"?

upon which he sits

Does God have in mind the solidity aspect of raqia or does he have in mind the stretched out aspect conveyed by raqia?

as is described in genesis by holding water above it rather than in it I would say both.

Isa 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, [shamamu] and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Note the term there in. Signifies inside. Like inside a dome. Now why do you think he used the Hebrew term "raqia" and how would you define heaven as raqia?

Do you call raqia what God calls it? "HEAVEN"! or do you call it "A DOME"?

The early writers thought the dome was a solid

What does plain old common sense tell you?

Its pretty clear the sky was considered a solid dome. I can pull more verses as well signifying it the other way. God should have used shemaya but the early writers wouldn't think it substantive enough to hold out the waters from above. pretty clear.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The biblical writers did not conceive heaven to be a solid. You are ignoring common language that conveys a simile:

Exodus 24:10-"And they saw the God of Israel. And there was under His feet as it were a paved work of sapphire stone, and it was like the substance of heaven in its clarity." (Literally, "as the bones of the heavens in purity.") This suggests that Moses conceived of the raqia-named "heaven"-as a solid substance much like sapphire...Job 37:18-"With Him, have you spread out the skies, strong as a cast metal mirror?" This is plainly demonstrates that the biblical authors thought of the skies-the heavens-as a solid object....Psalm 148:4-"Praise Him you heaven of heavens, and you waters above the heavens!"

This is like saying that Isaiah regarded men to be actually sheep because he said "all we LIKE sheep have gone astray"! This kind of language is called a "simile" and does not convey reality but LIKENESS or COMPARISON. If we applied your application to all the similes in the book of Revelation what a chaotic picture would be created.

To demand the likeness or comparison MUST BE solid and material is to defy all other Old and New Testament concepts of the very nature of God and angels and heaven. Moses knew that God was a non-material "spirit" as well as angels and that heaven was the abode of non-material beings. You just as well argue that David believed God had material wings because he said that God would gather his people "under his wings"!

Whats really going on here is that you are working hard to say the word that God used didn't really mean that and you find yourself in the same position you've accused me of.