Pyramids

[quantumfaith]

I am offended. I have never once, since becoming a Christian, have ever indicated that there was no God. I believe there is a God and that the bible is his word. I believe God interacts with humanity through his word. I've never denied such things. And I understand that Jesus sited the LXX. That brings up two questions 1) if the LXX why limit OT to just the Massoretic text copied 500 years later. and 2) Did he actually quote the LXX or Quote the Hebrew copy but because the writers wrote in greek they chose the greek referrence over re-translating a hebrew or aramaic text back into greek since the work of the LXX was already established and well used? See maybe its all these questions I have that get me into trouble.

I realize that this will put me off the Christmas Card list of most here, but anyway I will risk it.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Even though I may not always align with your positions, I do respect them and I do appreciate your courage and independent thought.

 

[quantumfaith]

And the takeover has hurt the cause of Christ greatly. God is not an illogical God. To create vegetation before light is to violate the natural law that God created. Genesis was never meant to be a scientific explanation of creation. To try to make it one is a mistake. The important issue is why God created, not how he created.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

There goes another few Christmas cards.

 

[DHK]

So the Garden of Eden might have been in America, or Antarctica, or Greenland? or on a former continent?

Most people think that it was near "the cradle of civilization," or near Palestine. After all the Ark did land on Mount Ararat. That is in Turkey, and could be the same mount that is referred to in the Bible.

 

[Alcott]

The important issue is why God created, not how he created.

And where does the Bible answer that question?

 

[quantumfaith]

Amy...



Not everyone believes there has ever been "millions" of years regarding the earth, or even the universe.

I myself, and many many others, believe the earth and universe are approximetly 6,000 to 10,000 years old. The young earth view is a very reasonable view, that many very intelligent christian teachers hold to.

Alive,

I am with you philisophically, there are committed believers on both sides of the age of the universe debate, each should have christian love and respect for one another. And to be intellectually honest, we should all investigate knowledge and reason from all sides.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

All this is nothing more than a red herring argument designed to get us off track in this post. You've argued your "metal dome" hypothesis in other threads. I suggest keeping that discussion there instead of here.

In fact, what you ARE attempting to do here is to discount the veracity of Scripture, which I have noticed you doing elsewhere. You seem to wish to pull some of God's words out of the text of Scripture instead of seeing Scripture as God's Word. To do what I (we) see you doing is one of the definitions of liberal in the Christian sense.

A couple of things to mention. First you are sooooo wrong in your assertion that

what you ARE attempting to do here is to discount the veracity of Scripture

. In fact, I've taken scripture at its word and its word is that God created a metal dome over the earth. The fact is; it is not a hypothesis. The very words themselves translated literally say as much. Just like yom is taken as 24 hours. The very words themselves show a problem with regard to plant life. I have not incerted anything that is not there. Its taking the passages literally. So much for your "hypothesis" view. In fact no one ever has sufficiently explained away the dome view save to jump through many hoops to force it to mean what they want. The extra work to show against this is wasted because it ultimately is speculation rather than a literal translation. So if you are literal then take it that way. However, since when we look at the universe from a modern cosmology rather than an ancient one we see divergence from the Metal dome discription of Genesis to the reality that there is nothing above the earth in space. The Atmosphere contains the water within it not above it. So that leave me to conclude several things. 1) the very nature of the earth changed since creation and that there was a metal dome at one time. But no longer is existant. However, there is no evidence of that. 2) The bible is no more than the word of man and his limited understanding and that God is no more than an anthropomorphic expression of nature. God forbid! I know this isn't true. Not only is it contrary to faith but other expressions in the bible and the verasity of history tells me different. 3) So, if the description is not accurate to reality and God truely exist, and God being intelligent enough to create the universe then his meaning is to be taken differently that is supposed. God isn't giving a track record for his creation so much as establishing theology for us to live by and to come in communion with him. the Creation account must therefore be an expressions of truths a) God created everything. b) All those regularily accepted gods of the summerians and the egyptians are no more than natural phenominon created by God thus placing God above all deities making him one God. c) All creation is subject to God. d) God created man specially for a special place in creation. e) God institutes Marriage and thus the family unit and the foundations of community f) God provides us a theology of the sabbath so that man will give one day to God and to honestly rest from his labors. These are the points for which Genesis wishes to communicate. It is not a technical manual on God's creative activities as many try to assume.

I agree with Crabtownboy in his post

And the takeover has hurt the cause of Christ greatly. God is not an illogical God. To create vegetation before light is to violate the natural law that God created. Genesis was never meant to be a scientific explanation of creation. To try to make it one is a mistake. The important issue is why God created, not how he created.

And there is all this speculation that the Egyptian Pyramids were not built before the flood however if you do the math as I've shown here Then it is clear the pyramids were built couple of hundreds of years before the flood took place. There is an issue here. Unless the bible is wrong with its math. And if you suggest it is then what else is wrong with the bible. I'm trying to put for a logical review for the problematic issues associated with scriptures. These are just the simple question and if not dealt with honestly then how can anything be taken seriously? This is why many young college students loose the faith. Forced acceptance of a literal interpretation of the creation account does not match up with facts and People who explain by jumping through speculative hoops are revealed for what they are a bias disinegenious explination to validate a belief. Not an honest look at scripture itself. So these young people saying to themselves well if they force fit the bible to their belief why should I take such a hypocritical stance? And they believe all religions therefore is myth to include Christianity. This is the danger Crabtownboy is mentioning and I've personally witnessed with missionary kids who though raised in the faith go to college and decide their faith isn't worth it. It really sad to see and I've seen it many a time because I grew up with these kids.
And quantumfaith I appreciate your sentiment

I realize that this will put me off the Christmas Card list of most here, but anyway I will risk it.


Even though I may not always align with your positions, I do respect them and I do appreciate your courage and independent thought.

because after all I'm just trying to be honest with what I see and the faith. But I have faith. And I am ok with people who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. What I have a problem with is they say you can't have anyother view of that text and be Christian. I disagree as I am both a born again christian and don't hold that text literally. I believe there is a certain arogance to suggest such a thing as though unlike Paul they have allready attained the goal and are perfect.

 

[glfredrick]

re read genesis 1 and look at the definition of Firmament and then look at the Hebrew word raqiya or רקיע. Which describes the seperation of waters the placement of the stars etc... Raqiya is metal pounded out and spread over a surface and in genesis above this Raqiya or Firmament are waters placed as well as below on our earth. Also note the sun and stars are placed in this Raqiya or metal dome which would mean the stars are below the primordial waters kept out from before their creation indicating that they are part of the dome. Then follow the creation account and see if it makes sense. Also Genesis 2 doesn't seem to corrispond to genesis 1. The creation account also sets up the flood in that it describes the flood gates being opened such as a dome keeping water out of may have. Many many reasons I halt at the literal view.

Otherwise known as a "figure of speech."

 

[Crabtownboy]

And where does the Bible answer that question?

In Genesis. Read it again. You will find it there.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Otherwise known as a "figure of speech."

No. As a discription. See your speculating.

 

[glfredrick]

Okay... I dislike when individual theta's get this long. Difficult to respond without missing something, etc.

A couple of things to mention. First you are sooooo wrong in your assertion that . In fact, I've taken scripture at its word and its word is that God created a metal dome over the earth. The fact is; it is not a hypothesis. The very words themselves translated literally say as much. Just like yom is taken as 24 hours.

Are you a Hebrew scholar? Just wondering. I've seen this argument from you before, and also seen it refuted by those skilled in Hebrew. You have chosen this as a "sticking point" and you bring it up as a way to get your point across in virtually every debate about the subject of Creation.

Yom -- day -- is sort of locked in. It means, yes, "day" in the literal 24-hour sense. It can also be used to illustrate a longer period of time, but that is also always contextually indicated. in the opening verses of Genesis it is contextually driven by "and the evening and morning were the first day..." etc. Yom used in that sense is very locked down.

But the "firmament" is not quite so locked down. There being no distinct context for the term, it can mean any number of things, yes, including a hammered out metal dome, but it is not exclusive of that use. You have made a very classical mistake of choosing one usage based on the root of the word raqa ( רקיע), which does mean to "hammer out, as of from metal" but the word used in the Genesis account is not the root word... It is
raqiya` ( רקיע), and the usage for that term is "stretched out expanse." Just what we actually see in the heavenly realm, otherwise called commonly, "sky" and "space." No metal dome involved. Note that virtually every modern translation of the Bible sees this term as (properly used) "expanse." If you like, I can take the term to a true Hebrew expert and ask his opinion. Just let me know. I'd like to settle this for you and for everyone who you press with your faulty translation. In holding to a "metal dome" concept, you intentionally take a term from Scripture and mis-use it for your own gain, furthering my claim that you have issues with the veracity of Scripture. You are, in a sense, imposing your thoughts upon Scripture instead of letting Scripture be your guide. We will see more of this below.

The very words themselves show a problem with regard to plant life.

How so... God said that there were plants and there were plants. We go outside and see that there are plants all over the globe, even in the most inhospitable of environments. Surely God is correct...

I have not incerted anything that is not there. Its taking the passages literally.

No, in fact, you have attempted to return to the root of a Hebrew word instead of dealing with the actual word used in the Text. That is inserting something that is not there...

So much for your "hypothesis" view. In fact no one ever has sufficiently explained away the dome view save to jump through many hoops to force it to mean what they want. The extra work to show against this is wasted because it ultimately is speculation rather than a literal translation. So if you are literal then take it that way.

If not a hypothesis, then what? Fact for your metal dome? When I've already, very simply shown that you are incorrect about your Hebrew translation? I would suggest that you are the one doing the jumping through hoops, and that in an effort to ACTUALLY discredit the rather simple portrayal of God's creative efforts in Genesis 1.

However, since when we look at the universe from a modern cosmology rather than an ancient one we see divergence from the Metal dome discription of Genesis to the reality that there is nothing above the earth in space.

I believe that the ancients looked at much the same sky as we do... After all, they were not all that ancient... :laugh:

The ancients also had a rather well-developed cosmology seeing as how they had none of the assists that modern scientists have, telescopes, space travel, spectrometry, etc. Sure, they missed on a few points, but so have we. We're all still learning.

The one who did not miss at all, however, was the Creator. I flatly reject anyone who even suggests that He was wrong.

(see posst #2)

 

[glfredrick]

Post #2

The Atmosphere contains the water within it not above it. So that leave me to conclude several things. 1) the very nature of the earth changed since creation and that there was a metal dome at one time. But no longer is existant. However, there is no evidence of that.

Precisely... No evidence whatsoever that there has ever been any sort of "metal dome" over the earth -- largely because that is not what God said (see above). About the water... That we cannot tell, can we? What are the rings of Saturn? Perhaps it is possible to have a water canopy that is not dependent on a metal dome. There are indications in Scripture that this was true, and from the indications, we might also draw inferences when we are told that plants were watered from the mists, that the sky opened up and rained down, etc. The events of the flood almost certainly transformed the entirety of creation, as did the events of the fall in Gen. 3.

2) The bible is no more than the word of man and his limited understanding and that God is no more than an anthropomorphic expression of nature. God forbid! I know this isn't true. Not only is it contrary to faith but other expressions in the bible and the verasity of history tells me different.

I am glad to hear you say this about the Bible. But you continue to try to re-arrange what it says to be convenient with your own point of view.

3) So, if the description is not accurate to reality and God truely exist, and God being intelligent enough to create the universe then his meaning is to be taken differently that is supposed.

This is the issue, isn't it. In a sense, our interpretation of Scripture must always be tempered by other factors. The Church discovered this when they insisted that the entire solar system revolved around the earth, when in fact, it is the other way around. But in truth, the Bible was (and is) correct on this issue -- it was "interpretation" based in worldview that was incorrect.

I submit that interpretation based in worldview can be incorrect on the part of Christians or of Science and we dare not use Science to attempt to correct Scripture. If Scripture says it, it is truth --period. Science will sooner or later catch up to the truth. it is inevitable. In the mean time, we have a host of hypothesis that are antithetical to the scriptural position, which are being pressed forward by those who disavow God. To suggest that there is no bias is ignorant at best.

God isn't giving a track record for his creation so much as establishing theology for us to live by and to come in communion with him. the Creation account must therefore be an expressions of truths a) God created everything. b) All those regularily accepted gods of the summerians and the egyptians are no more than natural phenominon created by God thus placing God above all deities making him one God. c) All creation is subject to God. d) God created man specially for a special place in creation. e) God institutes Marriage and thus the family unit and the foundations of community f) God provides us a theology of the sabbath so that man will give one day to God and to honestly rest from his labors. These are the points for which Genesis wishes to communicate. It is not a technical manual on God's creative activities as many try to assume.

In a sense, you are correct. But that does not exclude the facts that God did tell us about His creative effort. We cannot rightly dismiss what the Scriptures DO say, concerning the number of days of creation, the order of creation, the view of God concerning creation, or even the assumption that God is the God of creation. "Let God be right and every man a liar..."

I agree that the Bible is not a science textbook. I agree that we can (and should) explore -- fully -- the general revelation of the cosmos. I agree that our interpretation of Scripture may change as we gain further understanding, and with that, that we may not have perfect understanding of all things in Scripture.

I DISAGREE that any tenet of Science will EVER set any tenet of Scripture aside.

I agree with Crabtownboy in his post And there is all this speculation that the Egyptian Pyramids were not built before the flood however if you do the math as I've shown here Then it is clear the pyramids were built couple of hundreds of years before the flood took place. There is an issue here. Unless the bible is wrong with its math.

Here is where you, again, get off base. I am a serious student of Scripture in the original languages. I have yet to see where the Bible has "math" about the date of creation. Any dating scheme, by Christians or otherwise, based on the texts of Scripture are just interpretations that may or may not be accurate. If the Bible came straight out and said, "On the 10th of October, 8043 BC, God said, 'Let there be light...'" then there would be no excuse whatsoever concerning dating of the universe. But He, simply, did not.

We have entered the pyramids. We have investigated them for eons of time. They are one of the ancient and modern wonders of the world!

They do not have flood damage...

The only way one can arrive at such a statement concerning the building of the pyramids pre-flood is based on the dating scheme of certain men like Archbishop Usher. But we cannot date from silence, and we cannot know what is not revealed in the text, thus any dating scheme that looks back to Creation, just as one that looks forward to the Day of the Lord is probably not ours to know with certainty. We simply do not have ALL the facts of the matter in which to arrive at a date.

And if you suggest it is then what else is wrong with the bible. I'm trying to put for a logical review for the problematic issues associated with scriptures. These are just the simple question and if not dealt with honestly then how can anything be taken seriously? This is why many young college students loose the faith. Forced acceptance of a literal interpretation of the creation account does not match up with facts and People who explain by jumping through speculative hoops are revealed for what they are a bias disinegenious explination to validate a belief. Not an honest look at scripture itself. So these young people saying to themselves well if they force fit the bible to their belief why should I take such a hypocritical stance? And they believe all religions therefore is myth to include Christianity. This is the danger Crabtownboy is mentioning and I've personally witnessed with missionary kids who though raised in the faith go to college and decide their faith isn't worth it. It really sad to see and I've seen it many a time because I grew up with these kids.

The statement above is, in particular, why I question your true allegiance to Scripture. While you say, "God forbid," in regards to the Bible, you speak out of the other side of your mouth when you also say what you said directly above. You DO have issues with the veracity of Scripture, and you DO wish to interpret it to match your own worldview. You do so for the same reasons every liberal has wanted to do so -- to make the Bible palatable to the masses. God's church world has had to deal with the fallout from liberal scholars every since they started their heretical theologies. The fallout is tremendous -- and at the end of the day, I can say with much assurance that much more damage has been done by attempting to make the Bible palatable to lost persons than has been done by interpreting it as written with an accurate and scientific (yes!) hermeneutic based in the structure of the original languages and context of the surrounding text.

And quantumfaith I appreciate your sentiment because after all I'm just trying to be honest with what I see and the faith. But I have faith. And I am ok with people who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis. What I have a problem with is they say you can't have anyother view of that text and be Christian. I disagree as I am both a born again christian and don't hold that text literally. I believe there is a certain arogance to suggest such a thing as though unlike Paul they have allready attained the goal and are perfect.

FWIW... One can potentially be a Christian and have a totally flawed view of the Word. That is because the act of becoming a Christian is based on the work of God, not man. But, it is difficult... And those who argue against God's Word will always create suspicion as to whether or not they are truly God's own adopted children, for who argues against the very truth of their own Creator, Sustainer, King, and Savior?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Okay... I dislike when individual theta's get this long. Difficult to respond without missing something, etc.

I don't know what you mean by Theta's

Are you a Hebrew scholar? Just wondering. I've seen this argument from you before, and also seen it refuted by those skilled in Hebrew. You have chosen this as a "sticking point" and you bring it up as a way to get your point across in virtually every debate about the subject of Creation.

No, I'm not a hebrew "scholar". I've taken hebrew if thats what you mean. But I'm not a "scholar". However, I do know enough that there are hebrew scholars that have posited this point of view. Very likely you've seen this posited by other people. Being the fact that this is what the word use leads one to believe. I've also taken Latin and the term Firmament used in english translations comes from firmamentum which means support. Both indicate a solid dome. The greek from the LXX used is stereoma means a solid structure. Get the picture. Hebrew raqiya means beating out a metal the root of that term is raqa was commonly used in the making of a dish by hammering out metal. In aramaic it means to make solid. And fortunately I have hebrews scholars to tell me such things.

Yom -- day -- is sort of locked in. It means, yes, "day" in the literal 24-hour sense. It can also be used to illustrate a longer period of time, but that is also always contextually indicated. in the opening verses of Genesis it is contextually driven by "and the evening and morning were the first day..." etc. Yom used in that sense is very locked down.

Yom has two meanings 24 hour day and eon. However, contextually the term does mean 24 hours. Though how this was possible prior to the third day makes on lean away from literalism and choose the view "a period of time".

But the "firmament" is not quite so locked down. There being no distinct context for the term, it can mean any number of things, yes, including a hammered out metal dome, but it is not exclusive of that use. You have made a very classical mistake of choosing one usage based on the root of the word raqa ( רקיע), which does mean to "hammer out, as of from metal" but the word used in the Genesis account is not the root word... It is
raqiya` ( רקיע), and the usage for that term is "stretched out expanse."

as metal is stretched out over a solid object like wood. Where you run into issues is the term above and below. Above is quiet clear as it is not in. As such the stars are described.

Just what we actually see in the heavenly realm, otherwise called commonly, "sky" and "space." No metal dome involved.

Not true you only say that now with a modern view of cosmology. but lets follow your view that it means "expanse".

Note that virtually every modern translation of the Bible sees this term as (properly used) "expanse." If you like, I can take the term to a true Hebrew expert and ask his opinion.

Interesting to note that the documents writen closer to the autographs as I've shown already in this post suggest a solid surface. Nothing in the genesis account is to be understood as not solid. Thus the primordial waters could be kept above the expance (outer space) and below. Strange if the autograph meant with in the expanse. But no. Above it. wooo hooo ooo (imagine the X-Files theme).

Just let me know. I'd like to settle this for you and for everyone who you press with your faulty translation.

I can easily point out a hebrew scholar who would suggest something different.

In holding to a "metal dome" concept, you intentionally take a term from Scripture and mis-use it for your own gain,

No, I've taken the world literally for what it means. Literal. Get it?

furthering my claim that you have issues with the veracity of Scripture.

No, I don't. You have the problem of trying to explain away how a literal interpretation gives problems with the genesis account lets lookie

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Interesting this is a modern translation. Oooh wait I thought modern translations used expanse. Vault has a "solid" perspective does it not? Wait NIV not good for you Ok lets use the NASB

6Then God said, "Let there be an (M)expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

7God made the [c]expanse, and separated (N)the waters which were below the expanse from the waters (O)which were above the expanse; and it was so.

ah here is expanse yet where are the waters seperated? Above and below. Not in and below? How are the waters above held out? Wait I know the expanse has to be solid enough to keep the primordial waters out. That makes sense water floating in space but wait...

14Then God said, "Let there be (T)lights in the (U)expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for (V)signs and for (W)seasons and for days and years;

the stars are in the expanse. Wait that must mean there is water above the stars and the galaxy and the universe. That doesn't makes sense. So the expanse must be solid enough to seperate the water above and it also happens to show the lights of the stars and sun and moon in it. So a solid vault keeping out waters above yet supporting the lights in it. But you might say well what about this verse

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”

birds can't fly in a solid object. However, my hebrew scholar friend has in formed me that this can be translated "in front of" Which makes sense. In front of the vault that contains the stars, sun and moon. Hmmm. Its looking like genesis is describing a solid dome if you take the words literally. So where is this solid dome?

You are, in a sense, imposing your thoughts upon Scripture instead of letting Scripture be your guide. We will see more of this below.

Not at all simple reading of the text. Water above seperate from water below lights in the vault birds fly in front of vault.

I think you should deal with this before even begining on the plants and in inconsistencies between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

I believe that the ancients looked at much the same sky as we do... After all, they were not all that ancient... :laugh:

I happen to know from Egyptian writings, and Summerian writings they considered the sky a solid dome. The ancient world. Had a very different cosmology. Just like the Greeks believed all mater consisted of four elements or humors. They believed the smallest unit of mater was an elemental atom. Thus a water atom, a earth atom, at fire atom, a air atom.

The ancients also had a rather well-developed cosmology seeing as how they had none of the assists that modern scientists have, telescopes, space travel, spectrometry, etc. Sure, they missed on a few points, but so have we. We're all still learning.

They certainly knew about the movement of stars but all of them were primarily geocentric and I'm certain they had no idea about black holes quasars and nebulae.

The one who did not miss at all, however, was the Creator. I flatly reject anyone who even suggests that He was wrong

He's not wrong. He's truthful in what he asserts. He just hasn't given us a technical manual on how he created the universe.

 

[Alcott]

In Genesis. Read it again. You will find it there.

Never mind your silly game. You state that the answer to WHY God created is there, so you tell me where it's found. I just did read the first 3 chapters and did a word search on www.biblegateway.com for the words why and because in the book of Genesis, and the answer is not found with those searches. But anyway, it is not acceptable to answer "Read it... you will find it." I've been through that nonsense with "every Christian will speak in tongues" and "the dead in heaven are watching us," among other questions. "Just read your Bible-- you'll find it!" Yeah, shurrr.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Post #2
Precisely... No evidence whatsoever that there has ever been any sort of "metal dome" over the earth -- largely because that is not what God said (see above). About the water... That we cannot tell, can we? What are the rings of Saturn? Perhaps it is possible to have a water canopy that is not dependent on a metal dome. There are indications in Scripture that this was true, and from the indications, we might also draw inferences when we are told that plants were watered from the mists, that the sky opened up and rained down, etc. The events of the flood almost certainly transformed the entirety of creation, as did the events of the fall in Gen. 3.

Rings of Saturn? and Ice Canopy (after all that is a solid sturcture in fact a dome or globe)? Yet the stars are not "In" the dome and the water above the dome floated away. So all the water above the dome floated out to saturn's rings? This is meer Speculation again. You still have to deal with the term above.

I am glad to hear you say this about the Bible. But you continue to try to re-arrange what it says to be convenient with your own point of view.

I'm not re-arranging anything I'm taking it at its world that that is how it describes it. Look I didn't start out believing in an old earth. When I was first saved I bought the whole young earth hook line and sinker it wasn't until a serious study of the bible that I concluded differently rather than read into it my preference.

This is the issue, isn't it. In a sense, our interpretation of Scripture must always be tempered by other factors. The Church discovered this when they insisted that the entire solar system revolved around the earth, when in fact, it is the other way around. But in truth, the Bible was (and is) correct on this issue -- it was "interpretation" based in worldview that was incorrect.

You are doing here what I've been pointing out with Genesis. Unless you are saying the universe is actually Geocentric. Of course our solar system including the earth is heliocentric. That has been proven. So scripture cannot mean the natural order of the Cosmos is geocentric. No God is geocentric specifically homosapien centric. Its the world view that is correct. And so it is with what I say about Genesis. Its true but that doesn't mean the solar system is geocentric or that the earth was made in 6 days. 6 periods sure.

I submit that interpretation based in worldview can be incorrect on the part of Christians or of Science and we dare not use Science to attempt to correct Scripture. If Scripture says it, it is truth --period. Science will sooner or later catch up to the truth.

What about geocentric verse heliocentric?

it is inevitable. In the mean time, we have a host of hypothesis that are antithetical to the scriptural position, which are being pressed forward by those who disavow God. To suggest that there is no bias is ignorant at best.

Nope. Those are the words in genesis not a hypothetical or a theory. But a literal view.

In a sense, you are correct.

Yes I sure I am.

But that does not exclude the facts that God did tell us about His creative effort.

Only limitedly notice he didn't give dimension as he does with the temple or the Ark. I think thats telling.

We cannot rightly dismiss what the Scriptures DO say,

I haven't.

concerning the number of days of creation, the order of creation, the view of God concerning creation, or even the assumption that God is the God of creation.

To say he created in six periods and is over all is not the same thing as discrediting God. I think that is where your problem lies.

"Let God be right and every man a liar..."

Out of context It has to do with Pauls discourse on moral practice and comparison with the Jew.

1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.
3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:
“So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.”[a]
5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not!

I don't condone immoral living or disbelieving in God or disbelieving in Jesus as have done the Jews in Paul's time. I

agree that the Bible is not a science textbook. I agree that we can (and should) explore -- fully -- the general revelation of the cosmos. I agree that our interpretation of Scripture may change as we gain further understanding, and with that, that we may not have perfect understanding of all things in Scripture.

Good.

I DISAGREE that any tenet of Science will EVER set any tenet of Scripture aside.

apples and oranges. Science doesn't determine our faith and morals. Nor does disproving an young earth call God a liar. but puts his words into its proper context.

Here is where you, again, get off base. I am a serious student of Scripture in the original languages. I have yet to see where the Bible has "math" about the date of creation. Any dating scheme, by Christians or otherwise, based on the texts of Scripture are just interpretations that may or may not be accurate.

So using the text of scripture to verify a date is not reliable? According to you then we can't rely on any math of the bible. The demensions of the Ark are wrong. The tabernacle is wrong. Number of Davids hourses are wrong. Sounds like some serious textual issues for someone who takes 6 days literally.

If the Bible came straight out and said, "On the 10th of October, 8043 BC, God said, 'Let there be light...'" then there would be no excuse whatsoever concerning dating of the universe. But He, simply, did not.

Why not do you think? He certainly dates the flood.

We have entered the pyramids. We have investigated them for eons of time. They are one of the ancient and modern wonders of the world!
They do not have flood damage...

Yes the logic is good.

The only way one can arrive at such a statement concerning the building of the pyramids pre-flood is based on the dating scheme of certain men like Archbishop Usher.

No not true. I didn't use archer. I sued kings and solomons description of when the Israelites left Egypt Which has a pretty clear time line going back to the flood. But hey we can rely on scripture for that.

But we cannot date from silence, and we cannot know what is not revealed in the text, thus any dating scheme that looks back to Creation, just as one that looks forward to the Day of the Lord is probably not ours to know with certainty. We simply do not have ALL the facts of the matter in which to arrive at a date.

Ok so the Pyramids may have been built before the flood as well as after.

The statement above is, in particular, why I question your true allegiance to Scripture. While you say, "God forbid," in regards to the Bible, you speak out of the other side of your mouth when you also say what you said directly above

How so? That I don't take the whole book literally? You do know the bible is made up of different types of literature don't you?

You DO have issues with the veracity of Scripture

Nope, I have issues with yours and and many others interpretation of scripture. Especially with the creation account.

and you DO wish to interpret it to match your own worldview.

Nope, as I've stated before the scriptures changed my world view. Originally my world view was much like yours. An open and honest Study of scripture changed that.

You do so for the same reasons every liberal has wanted to do so -- to make the Bible palatable to the masses.

Nope. The masses can take a hike if they don't believe God's truth of salvation. Truth is just truth. I've already been called a jesus fanatic by non christians and a heretic by you guys so I'm not too conserned with what the masses thingk of me. God's word stands.

God's church world has had to deal with the fallout from liberal scholars every since they started their heretical theologies.

Sometimes. Sometimes people hold the wrong view of scripture like the Catholics did in Gallileo's time. The fallout is tremendous -- and at the end of the day, I

can say with much assurance that much more damage has been done by attempting to make the Bible palatable to lost persons

I don't make the bible palatable to people who want to live immorally, support abortion, have homosexual affairs, etc... The scriptures condemn them out of hand. If that was my intent I would be a universalist. I am not.

than has been done by interpreting it as written with an accurate and scientific (yes!) hermeneutic based in the structure of the original languages and context of the surrounding text.

However, I don't shut of my brain when it comes to science either.

FWIW... One can potentially be a Christian and have a totally flawed view of the Word. That is because the act of becoming a Christian is based on the work of God, not man. But, it is difficult... And those who argue against God's Word will always create suspicion as to whether or not they are truly God's own adopted children, for who argues against the very truth of their own Creator, Sustainer, King, and Savior?

And that is where I persieve you are wrong. I don't argue against the bible but your interpretation of it with regard to the creation account.

 

[glfredrick]

Thinkingstuff...

How does "shamayim" modify the context of "raqiya"?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff...

How does "shamayim" modify the context of "raqiya"?

Shamayim indicates the Heavens in which raqiya is apart. Note Shamayim in Jewish thought indicates a description of 1 of 3 heavens 1) Air where the birds fly. 2) where the celestial bodies are and 3) where God and the host of heaven reside. Thus contextually it is the space where the birds fly in front of the vault.

Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)

 

[DHK]

Thinkingstuff,
When reading the Bible, just the Bible, whatever would lead you to the conclusion that there was a metal dome around the earth. I have never heard in all my years as a Christian such a wild-eyed imaginative idea as that. It has absolutely no credence at all. The Bible gives no such evidence. Even a cursory reading of the Bible would not give any such idea to anything even remotely related to that theory (if it is worthy to be called one).

Where do you get this from??

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff,
When reading the Bible, just the Bible, whatever would lead you to the conclusion that there was a metal dome around the earth. I have never heard in all my years as a Christian such a wild-eyed imaginative idea as that. It has absolutely no credence at all. The Bible gives no such evidence. Even a cursory reading of the Bible would not give any such idea to anything even remotely related to that theory (if it is worthy to be called one).

Where do you get this from??

Get a concordence. Open up the bible. Read what it actually says and see what the direct translation is. Do not read into it any predetermined idea and see what it says. You can read my posts explaining how I came to that conclusion but I doubt you'll consider that authoritative enough. Just read the scriptures. translate the words and voila! Since you live in Canada I through in some french N'est - ce Pas?

Oh and just so you don't think its just me how about this from Peter Wallace Current Pastor of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Indiana. Graduate of Wheaton College and the Westminster Theological Seminary where he says

These passages are entirely consistent with the picture of a flat earth, and a literal reading of them would result in the belief that the earth is flat. Indeed, this was the belief of all people who read them until the study of general revelation indicated that the earth was round.

Another implication from these passages is the idea of geocentricity. The passages cited above plainly indicate that the earth does not move. This, after all, was the primary theological objection to Copernicus and Galileo-since they insisted that the sun was at the center of the solar system. The Roman Church was exegetically correct. Scripture does indeed present us with a geocentric picture of creation. The question is whether general revelation can cause us to question our exegesis.

The biblical authors present the earth as flat. Not one whit of special revelation indicates anything else. The language of foundations, pillars, corners, tents, and firmaments all indicate a flat earth with a solid dome over it. The history of biblical interpretation bears this out. The rabbis debated the thickness of the raqia, and Robert Grosseteste, as late as the 13th century claimed that it was the plain teaching of the scripture and the church that there was a solid dome above the earth (see Robert Letham's article "'In the Space of Six Days': The Days of Creation from Origen to the Westminster Assembly" Westminster Theological Journal 61 (1999) 149-174). No one questioned the flatness of the earth until people studied general revelation. Few questioned the solid dome above the earth until Copernicus and Gallileo challenged the Ptolemaic system. In the former case, the scholars were pagans; in the latter case they were Christians. The study of general revelation caused biblical scholars to question whether they had properly understood special revelation. There were no exegetical grounds for believing in a round earth. Indeed, exegesis would seem to indicate that the earth is flat. Likewise, exegesis plainly indicates that there is a solid blue dome over the earth-but upon scientific investigation, we have discovered that this blue dome is caused by refraction of the sun's light! The study of general revelation may indeed cause us to question whether our traditional exegesis is in fact what the Word of God demand that we believe. Anyone who denies this must believe that the earth is flat, does not move, and has a solid dome above it.

On the other hand, if we admit that the Bible uses figurative language, and recognize that the biblical authors were speaking in the terms of simple observation, there is no dilemma.

 

[DHK]

Get a concordence. Open up the bible. Read what it actually says and see what the direct translation is. Do not read into it any predetermined idea and see what it says. You can read my posts explaining how I came to that conclusion but I doubt you'll consider that authoritative enough. Just read the scriptures. translate the words and voila! Since you live in Canada I through in some french N'est - ce Pas?

Oh and just so you don't think its just me how about this from Peter Wallace Current Pastor of an Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Indiana. Graduate of Wheaton College and the Westminster Theological Seminary where he says

I read in your quote solid blue not metal dome. I have never read metal anywhere.

In fact not until chapter four do we read anything about metals.
And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah. (Genesis 4:22)
--There is the first mention of metals. Tubalcain was the "father" of all those who worked in metals.

Look at the passage in Genesis one:
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (Genesis 1:6)
The word firmament simply means space, as I can show you in other translations. God put a space between the waters. There were waters above the earth and waters upon the earth.

Here is Young's Literal Translation:
And God saith, `Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.' (Genesis 1:6)
--An expanse is a space. It separated the waters: the waters from on the earth from the waters above the earth.

And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which are under the expanse, and the waters which are above the expanse: and it is so. (Genesis 1:7)
--And that is what God did.
That dome that people refer to, the one that is referred to as "blue" was believed to be ice (not steel). It was water in some form or another. It kept out the harmful rays of the sun providing a greenhouse effect over all the world. There were no seasons then. It was a perfect climate. Remember that in the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve were naked. They needed no clothing. After the fall, all they needed for warmth were fig leaves. God provided a coat of skin not for climate sake but that blood had to be shed. The protective canopy was one of the reasons men lived to be 900 some years old.

Then you come to the Flood.
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. (Genesis 7:11)
--The windows of heaven were opened. This was not an ordinary rainfall, though they had never seen rain before this time. This was a world wide flood.

And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. (Genesis 7:19)
--Such a massive amount of water came down that many believe it was that canopy or dome, if you wish; that layer of water or ice that covered the earth that came down with such force that it helped in great part to cause the flood and destroy the world.

It may have looked blue. It may have looked solid. But nowhere do we read that it was metallic. The Bible says that it was made of water.

 

[nodak]

Umm--if the vast majority of Southern Baptists had agreed with the CR it wouldn't be ten million folks smaller than it was back then.