- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ July 09 2008,15:01) Quote (epistemaniac @ July 09 2008,14:59) Quote (Stu @ July 09 2008,14:50) Genesis teaches geocentrism. Everything in space is attached to a concentric firmament. Stuart
prove itblessings,
Ken
Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
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 yearsStuart
still waiting for you to show that Genesis specifically _ teaches geocentrism… simply because you used the word “firmament” and so does the KJV, you have in no way proven your point. Firmament itself is simply, and merely “āqiya‛: A masculine noun meaning an expanse, the firmament, an extended surface. Literally, this word refers to a great expanse and, in particular, the vault of the heavens above the earth. It denotes the literal sky that stretches from horizon to horizon (Gen_1:6-8); the heavens above that contain the sun, moon, and stars (Gen_1:14); or any vaulted ceiling or expanse that stands above (Eze_10:1). By extension, the psalmist uses the word to refer to the infinite and sweeping power of the Lord (Psa_150:1).” (The Word Study Dictionary)There is no way for you to prove your point, your interpretation, because Moses was not concerned with defending or debating heliocentrism versus geocentrism.
Nor does the passage teach that “everything in space is attached to a concentric firmament” and even if it did, this STILL does not mean that Moses was teaching that the earth was the center of the universe.
Foremost Hebrew scholars Keil & Delitzsch teach, in re to Gen 1:6; “The Second Day. – When the light had been separated from the darkness, and day and night had been created, there followed upon a second fiat of the Creator, the division of the chaotic mass of waters through the formation of the firmament, which was placed as a wall of separation (מבדּיל) in the midst of the waters, and divided them into upper and lower waters. רקיע .s, from רקע to stretch, spread out, then beat or tread out, means expansum, the spreading out of the air, which surrounds the earth as an atmosphere.”
Calvin wisely says on this passage; “Hence some resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere.”
One of the foremost modern commentators on Genesis says ““Firmament,” רקיע Its function is defined in the second clause, “a divider between the waters,” i.e., the firmament separates the water in the sky from the seas and rivers. In v 8 it is called “heaven.” Put another way, the firmament occupies the space between the earth’s surface and the clouds. Quite how the OT conceives the nature of the firmament is less clear.
The word is derived etymologically from רקע to “stamp, spread” (Ezek 6:11; Isa 42:5). In Exod 39:3 it means “to spread by hammering.” (piel). Job 37:18 speaks of the skies being “spread out hard as a molten mirror.” The noun is rare outside Gen 1. Ezek 1:22 and Dan 12:3 describe the firmament as shiny. Such comments may suggest that the firmament was viewed as a glass dome over the earth, but since the most vivid descriptions occur in poetic texts, the language may be figurative. Certainly Gen 1 is not concerned with defining the nature of the firmament, but with asserting God’s power over the waters. The separation of heaven and earth is a familiar theme in ancient cosmologies, but the control of the waters appears to be peculiar to Enuma elish and Genesis. There is also the implication that heaven itself was created by God: it is not an aspect of God.
Wenham, Gordon J.: Word Biblical Commentary : Genesis 1-15. Dallas : Word, Incorporated, 2002 (Word Biblical Commentary 1), S. 19So, you will have to try harder to prove your point though at the outset I can assure you your task is hopeless.
blessings,
KenQuote (Stu @ July 09 2008,15:09) Quote (epistemaniac @ July 09 2008,15:02) Quote (Stu @ July 09 2008,14:50) Quote First, I hear echoes of the Anthropic Principle dancing around…. for more on this and it's help towards proving the existence of God see William Lane Craig
“Being surprised at the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being surprised at how well it
fits its hole”
– Douglas AdamsQuote “the church” here was the “Roman Catholic Church”, eg a church that had elevated Aristotle's views of geocentricitty to the level of biblical authority, NOT that the Bible itself taught geocentricity!! This is an important and crucial point.
Genesis teaches geocentrism. Everything in space is attached to a concentric firmament.Stuart
I was not aware that Douglas Adams was an expert in the sciences… I thought his education was in literature… on the other hand, if he can be brought in an authoritative source, I guess anyone else can be as well, and that works for me too…
blessings,
Ken
It would be unkind to you for me to compare your understanding of science with his. So I won't.Stuart
I was not comparing myself to Mr. Adams. He was a highly intelligent highly educated man (who happened to somehow irrationally be a highly devout follower of the atheistic religion, but what can you do? ) while I finished up just sort of a Master's degree in Psychology, with a double minor in Systematic Theology and Apologetics. Meta physics is where my education and interest primarily lies. But then apparently you read minds or are omniscient and knew this already. The general point, which apparently you missed, is that if you are seeking to substantiate a point in regard to the Anthropic Principle, little quips from writers of science fiction are not going to take you far, unless that writer happens to have been educated in the sciences or philosophy. However, now that you have appealed to him as an authoritative resource, that makes it all the easier to appeal to just about anyone I want. TIA blessings,
KenQuote still waiting for you to show that Genesis specifically _ teaches geocentrism… simply because you used the word “firmament” and so does the KJV, you have in no way proven your point. Firmament itself is simply, and merely “āqiya‛: A masculine noun meaning an expanse, the firmament, an extended surface. Literally, this word refers to a great expanse and, in particular, the vault of the heavens above the earth. It denotes the literal sky that stretches from horizon to horizon (Gen_1:6-8); the heavens above that contain the sun, moon, and stars (Gen_1:14); or any vaulted ceiling or expanse that stands above (Eze_10:1). By extension, the psalmist uses the word to refer to the infinite and sweeping power of the Lord (Psa_150:1).” (The Word Study Dictionary)
OK. You can take the alternative view that Genesis teaches a flat earth if you want. Either it is flat earth or geocentrism. No doubt you can find another complicated geometry that will work if you translate it backwards into Icelandic. The ancient Middle Eastern view was of a solid vault, and this is reflected in the Genesis myth.{SNIPPED ludicrous apologia that David has posted before}
Please go back and read our discussions on the firmament. Your points have all been addressed.Quote So, you will have to try harder to prove your point though at the outset I can assure you your task is hopeless.
Do you mean the point about how Genesis says that the sun and Moon and all planets that can be used as indications of time are attached to a beaten-out shiny flat surface? I know it is a hopeless task making a case to people who have a dictionary that changes its definitions on the half-hour. Do also note that NASA has not had to repair the space shuttle due to collision with a solid, beaten-out shiny structure that separates the water below from the water above.Stuart
Quote I was not comparing myself to Mr. Adams. He was a highly intelligent highly educated man (who happened to somehow irrationally be a highly devout follower of the atheistic religion, but what can you do ? ) while I finished up just sort of a Master's degree in Psychology, with a double minor in Systematic Theology and Apologetics. Meta physics is where my education and interest primarily lies. But then apparently you read minds or are omniscient and knew this already.
What on earth is ‘Systematic Theology and Apologetics’? I know that apology is telling lies for god; what actually is theology?Surely…
theology – (history + geography + philosophy + psychology) = 0
Quote The general point, which apparently you missed, is that if you are seeking to substantiate a point in regard to the Anthropic Principle, little quips from writers of science fiction are not going to take you far, unless that writer happens to have been educated in the sciences or philosophy. However, now that you have appealed to him as an authoritative resource, that makes it all the easier to appeal to just about anyone I want. TIA blessings,
You go ahead and quote whomever you want then. The appeal to authority is a bastion of the scoundrel and I did not appeal to Douglas Adam’s authority, just his eloquence. It is worth understanding the difference. If the entire world turned to atheism tomorrow that would not disprove the existence of a god. Likewise with the anthropic principle, you are asking a question that does not have an answer. There is a very good explanation for why humans think they are catered for divinely. You should know about that with your psychology qualification. I based my judgement of your knowledge about science on your poor understanding of the philosophy of science of Karl Popper and others who explained that ‘proof’ is only relevant in mathematics and not in science. Despite me reminding you of that you continued to fail to make the important distinction between proof and disproof. I would have thought a metaphysician might have appreciated that. I further noted that you do not seem to understand that the intelligent design crowd are all Darwinian evolutionists as well. They just drop Darwinism when they get to a bit that they think can easily be turned into their brand of creationism. Much easier to sell to a gullible public. See the Wedge Strategy document for details.Stuart
I'd like to bring up Lot and his daughter's.
Bro 94 agrees that the passage where Lot get's wasted and then has incestuous sex with his daughter's is definitely hard to understand. I believe it qualifies for “The too hard basket” thread.
Does anyone have any ideas of how we can explain this away?
Clearly God had given rules about this type of relationship. Was it just overlooked in their case?
I dunno but I'm curious,
MandyQuote Either it is flat earth or geocentrism stu, this entire thread has made me lose a great deal of respect for you.
Here, your either/or fallacy reminds me how blind you are.
Quote simply because you used the word “firmament” and so does the KJV, you have in no way proven your point. Firmament itself is simply, and merely “āqiya‛: A masculine noun meaning an expanse, the firmament, an extended surface. Literally, this word refers to a great expanse and, in particular, the vault of the heavens above the earth. Eppy, stu will ignore anything that does not support his belief.
Secondly, he has an incredible amount of difficulty differentiating between what the bible says and what people believed it says.
Even though that word can just as easily be translated “expanse” stu will ignore this because then, the bible isn't wrong.
Sometimes, I think stu is more blindly devoted to his anti-God religion than many who he accuses of similarly.
David I don't give a fig for your 'respect'. I am interested in the ideas represented by science and by various kinds of human mythology. (I do not hate figs literally, unlike your imaginary friend and 'his' 'son' of dubious provenance). The bible, the KJV, in English, is pretty clear about what the firmament is. History is also pretty clear about what the ancient Middle Eastern concept of the 'heavens' was, and even the English bible matches that. Your particular bent is to take a modern scientific stance and force scripture to fit it. That is self-fulfilling prophecy and should not fool anyone. Except maybe those eager to be fooled. This thread is about what biblical literalists believe. We cannot open it to allegorical interpretation because we know how dishonest apologists are when we let them uproot the goal posts and run with them.
Stuart
Quote (Not3in1 @ Sep. 09 2008,00:06) I'd like to bring up Lot and his daughter's. Bro 94 agrees that the passage where Lot get's wasted and then has incestuous sex with his daughter's is definitely hard to understand. I believe it qualifies for “The too hard basket” thread.
Does anyone have any ideas of how we can explain this away?
Clearly God had given rules about this type of relationship. Was it just overlooked in their case?
I dunno but I'm curious,
Mandy
Some will say Lot was before the laws in Leviticus were given by Moses. But those same people will ignore this when they explain how Noah knew which animals were unclean and clean for stocking the ark.But Lot was drunk and didn't know what his daughters were doing.
I am not sure where he got all the booze. I don't think that they packed
much when thay left Sodom.
Actually, I wouldn't expect any more from a man who would offer his
virgin daughters to an angry gang of sex starved men.Tim
Maybe the ability to turn water into wine was something more common among Yahweh's people than we originally thought.
Seriously, it is just another story to explain how two more tribes of
people came into being. the story is flawed though. Lot's daughters claimed that they
believed there was no other man alive so thay had to preserve their father's seed
in order to perpetuate the human race.What everyone forgets is that Lot and his daughters went from Sodom to a town called Zoar
while Sodom was being destroyed. They left the town of Zoar to go to the mountains and live
in a cave. Lot's daughters knew that other people were alive in Zoar.
Maybe they were just really ugly. The men in Sodom did not want them and the men in Zoar did
not want them. Only daddy would have anything to do with them, and he had to get drunk first.Tim
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 10 2008,01:27) Are you guys rebelling again?
No T8,Just waiting for an answer to this question.
Are things in the “too hard basket” impossible to answer?When I read things like the story of Lot and his daughters I always think of 2 Timothy.
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Ti 3:16Which one of those things is that scripture profitibale for?
Certainly not instruction in rightenous.
Certainly not doctrine.
It could be reproof or correction except that the bible says nothing about what they did being wrong. It was just one more case where the men of the bible could blame women for what men do.It was eve's fault that Adam ate the forbidden fruit.
It was his daughters fault that Lot got drunk and slept with them.
It was Delilah's fault that Samson came to an untimely end.
It was the virgin's fault that someone raped her and she did not scream loud enough.Did God only create women in order to tempt men?
Tim
Quote (t8 @ Sep. 10 2008,01:27) Are you guys rebelling again?
I know this was meant as a sort of joke but as for me, I feel a bit of it coming on again.And the reason is that I've been studying the OT!!
t8, there ARE some things you just can't explain away….believe me, I'm trying.
Mandy
Quote This thread is about what biblical literalists believe. I think you're mixing up Greek astronomy or what the latin vulgate “firmamentum” means.
“The word is derived from the Hebrew raqa, meaning “to spread out””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FirmamentI don't care how others interpreted, or how it got put in some Bible. What does the actual word mean?
As I said, the ENGLISH word “firmament” comes from Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin firmāmentum, from Latin, which essentially means a support.
But “firmamentum” wasnt the Hebrew word. It's a latin word.
You're confusing this word with raqa.
And your confusing what people used to beleive about this word with what the bible says.
Quote (david @ Sep. 10 2008,13:56) Quote This thread is about what biblical literalists believe. I think you're mixing up Greek astronomy or what the latin vulgate “firmamentum” means.
“The word is derived from the Hebrew raqa, meaning “to spread out””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FirmamentI don't care how others interpreted, or how it got put in some Bible. What does the actual word mean?
As I said, the ENGLISH word “firmament” comes from Middle English, from Old French, from Late Latin firmāmentum, from Latin, which essentially means a support.
But “firmamentum” wasnt the Hebrew word. It's a latin word.
You're confusing this word with raqa.
And your confusing what people used to beleive about this word with what the bible says.
To spread out what?Stuart
Quote (TimothyVI @ Sep. 09 2008,23:36) Seriously, it is just another story to explain how two more tribes of
people came into being. the story is flawed though. Lot's daughters claimed that they
believed there was no other man alive so thay had to preserve their father's seed
in order to perpetuate the human race.What everyone forgets is that Lot and his daughters went from Sodom to a town called Zoar
while Sodom was being destroyed. They left the town of Zoar to go to the mountains and live
in a cave. Lot's daughters knew that other people were alive in Zoar.
Maybe they were just really ugly. The men in Sodom did not want them and the men in Zoar did
not want them. Only daddy would have anything to do with them, and he had to get drunk first.Tim
Greetings Tim……There realy is no explaination other than Lot had an incestrial relationship with his daugters while under the influence of strong drink….Was he aware of his act after the fact Yes…..Did he think it was wrong Yes and his reaction as a result of the shame and guilt for his transgression was one of violence….The last time I checked Lot was human and we all fall short….I don't think this passage in the OT in any way suggests that incest is permissable,however I does say clearly it is wrong…
!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
