- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Concerning the second creative period, or “day,” Genesis 1:6-8 states: “And God went on to say: ‘Let an expanse [Heb., ra·qi′a‛] come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.’ Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. And God began to call the expanse Heaven.” Later the record speaks of luminaries appearing in “the expanse of the heavens,” and still later of flying creatures flying over the earth “upon the face of the expanse of the heavens.”—Ge 1:14, 15, 17, 20.
The Greek Septuagint used the word ste·re′o·ma (meaning “a firm and solid structure”) to translate the Hebrew ra·qi′a‛, and the Latin Vulgate used the Latin term firmamentum, which also conveys the idea of something solid and firm. The King James Version, the Revised Standard Version, and many others follow suit in translating ra·qi′a‛ by the word “firmament.” However, in its marginal reading the King James Version gives the alternate reading “expansion,” and the American Standard Version gives “expanse” in its footnote. Other translations support such rendering—“expanse” (Ro; Fn; Yg; An; NW); “expansión” (VM [Spanish]); “étendue [extent or expanse]” (Segond; Ostervald [French]).
Some endeavor to show that the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe included the idea of a solid vault arched over the earth, with sluice holes through which rain could enter and with the stars fixed within this solid vault, diagrams of such concept appearing in Bible dictionaries and some Bible translations. Commenting on this attitude, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia states: : “But this assumption is in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the O[ld] T[estament].” —Edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. I, p. 314.
While it is true that the root word (ra·qa‛′) from which ra·qi′a‛ is drawn is regularly used in the sense of “beating out” something solid, whether by hand, by foot, or by any instrument (compare Ex 39:3; Eze 6:11), in some cases it is not sound reasoning to rule out a figurative use of the word. Thus at Job 37:18 Elihu asks concerning God: “With him can you beat out [tar·qi′a‛] the skies hard like a molten mirror?” That the literal beating out of some solid celestial vault is not meant can be seen from the fact that the word “skies” here comes from a word (sha′chaq) also rendered “film of dust” or “clouds” (Isa 40:15; Ps 18:11), and in view of the nebulous quality of that which is ‘beaten out,’ it is clear that the Bible writer is only figuratively comparing the skies to a metal mirror whose burnished face gives off a bright reflection.—Compare Da 12:3.
So, too, with the “expanse” produced on the second creative “day,” no solid substance is described as being beaten out but, rather, the creation of an open space, or division, between the waters covering the earth and other waters above the earth. It thus describes the formation of the atmospheric expanse surrounding the earth and indicates that at one time there was no clear division or open space but that the entire globe was previously enveloped in water vapor. This also accords with scientific reasoning on the early stages of the planet’s formation and the view that at one time all of earth’s water existed in the form of atmospheric vapor because of the extreme heat of the earth’s surface at that point.
That the Hebrew writers of the Bible did not conceive of the sky as originally formed of burnished metal is evident from the warning given through Moses to Israel that, in the event of their disobedience to God, “Your skies that are over your head must also become copper, and the earth that is beneath you iron,” thus metaphorically describing the effects of intense heat and severe drought upon the skies and land of Israel.—De 28:23, 24.
Similarly, it is obvious that the ancient Hebrews held no pagan concept as to the existence of literal “windows” in the arch of the sky through which earth’s rain descended. Very accurately and scientifically the writer of Job quotes Elihu in describing the process by which rain clouds are formed when he states, at Job 36:27, 28: “For he draws up the drops of water; they filter as rain for his mist, so that the clouds [shecha·qim′] trickle, they drip upon mankind abundantly.”
Likewise, the expression “floodgates [’arub·both′] of the heavens” clearly manifests a figurative expression.—Compare Ge 7:11; 2Ki 7:1, 2, 19; Mal 3:10; see also Pr 3:20; Isa 5:6; 45:8; Jer 10:13.
In his vision of heavenly arrangements, Ezekiel describes “the likeness of an expanse like the sparkle of awesome ice” over the heads of the four living creatures. The account is filled with figurative expressions.—Eze 1:22-26; 10:1.
Though the formation of the expanse, or atmosphere, surrounding earth did not involve a ‘beating out’ of something as solid as some metallic substance, yet it should be remembered that the gaseous mixture forming earth’s atmosphere is just as real as land and water and has weight in itself (in addition to carrying water and innumerable particles of solid materials, such as dust). The weight of all the air surrounding earth is estimated at more than 5,200,000,000,000,000 metric tons. (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1987, Vol. 1, p. 156) Air pressure at sea level runs about 1 kg per sq cm (15 lb per sq in.). It also exercises resistance so that most meteors hitting the immense jacket of air surrounding the earth are burned up by the friction created by the atmosphere. Thus the force implied in the Hebrew word ra·qi′a‛ is certainly in harmony with the known facts.
Quote Please read the title of the thread. If you are not happy with it, you are free to start a new one. –stu
OK, nothing new here. Refuses to answer the hard questions. Shall we move on then?
Quote This is about questions that biblical literalists can't answer, and this question is one of those. I'm wondering what the point of this is? If we were to add up the questions scientists currently can't answer, what would that indicate? Anything?
It might indicate that we are currently lacking information.Also, when people refuse to answer something that they themselves demand an answer to, and then play the judge, how convincing to you believe most would take that to be?
Quote (david @ April 18 2008,17:36) Quote Please read the title of the thread. If you are not happy with it, you are free to start a new one. –stu
OK, nothing new here. Refuses to answer the hard questions. Shall we move on then?
Yes, that's what I asked. You evidently were, so congratulations. It was Reality 3 – Biblical literalism 0.Let's play on…
Stuart
Quote (david @ April 18 2008,17:40) Quote This is about questions that biblical literalists can't answer, and this question is one of those. I'm wondering what the point of this is? If we were to add up the questions scientists currently can't answer, what would that indicate? Anything?
It might indicate that we are currently lacking information.Also, when people refuse to answer something that they themselves demand an answer to, and then play the judge, how convincing to you believe most would take that to be?
The bible makes truth claims. In many cases (three here so far) that claim cannot be substantiated. If the fundamentalist christians here will admit that there are many places in the Judeo-christian scripture where it really just can't be so, then I guess I for one would abandon this thread for the futility it would have. As I have not heard any of them deny the bits of scripture that are wrong, shall we keep going?Stuart
David, in your customary fashion you have copied and pasted from an apology. That apology was also pasted here for example:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin….0&m=241So thank you for answering your own question, ‘”What are you talking about? Which scripture says there some solid big thing in the sky that is attached to the stars? “
The holy Wikipedia adds this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FirmamentIncluding:
In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word used for “firmament” is “raqiya`” (pronounced rä·kē'·ah) meaning an extended solid surface or flat expanse,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 1:7 And God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.That is all god made on day 2. A firmament. Called Heaven.
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:
Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,God put stars in the firmament. How were they attached? This event in Revelation completes the picture:
Rev 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
Rev 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; …So the firmament is a solid thing with stars in it or somehow attached to it. And no spacecraft has ever encountered such a solid thing. Unless NASA is an atheist conspiracy, and there is a secret firmament-cutting attachment on the front of rockets.
Stuart
Quote If we were to add up the questions scientists currently can't answer, what would that indicate? Anything? No answer then. Let's move on….
Quote The bible makes truth claims.
And scientists don't?Is there anything that science does know?
Quote (david @ April 19 2008,11:47) Quote If we were to add up the questions scientists currently can't answer, what would that indicate? Anything? No answer then. Let's move on….
Quote The bible makes truth claims.
And scientists don't?Is there anything that science does know?
I have not ever claimed that science has 'all the answers'. far from it, the history of science is that of uncovering more than one mystery for every one that is explained. If a scientific theory is wrong, it can be demonstrated to be so. The bible on the other hand, makes truth claims and many of these can be demonstrated to be untrue.As I said earlier, this thread is about things that biblical literalits cannot explain. If you want to start a thread called what science cannot explain then I cannot and would not want to stop you. Science will take on all comers and admit its ignorance honestly. Shame bible-believers can't do that.
Is it 4 – 0 yet, or does anyone want to defend the firmament?
Stuart
Quote The bible on the other hand, makes truth claims and many of these can be demonstrated to be untrue. Such as?
My point of course was that science doesn't know all the answers. Yet, you expect us to know all the answers.
Thus far, you have demonstrated that there are some things we don't presently understand.
I could say the same of science. Yet, what does that prove?You haven't shown a single thing to be untrue, at least not on this thread. You've pointed out the obvious–that there are some things that can't presently be answered, but we all knew that, or at least, I thought we did. We knew it of science, and we know it of the Bible.
Perhaps, if you could explain why you know kiwis have been ….
but that's not your aim is it. It seems only to be to show what we do not know.
I could ask you many questions about evolution that you simply do not know or that the evolutionists continue to struggle with. Yet, that proves what exactly?Quote As I said earlier, this thread is about things that biblical literalits cannot explain.
Why don't I make a thread on things evolutionists can't explain. In the minds of the weak, that might prove something. Who exactly are you pandering to?Quote Science will take on all comers and admit its ignorance honestly. Shame bible-believers can't do that.
I freely admit I don't know a lot about kiwis. Other than the fruit, didn't even know they were birds until you asked the question.So, I looked up “firmament.” My Bible uses the word “expanse” which is one definition of firmament.
fir·ma·ment (fûrm-mnt)
n.
The vault or expanse of the heavens; the sky.1. sky: the sky, considered as an arch ( literary )
2. celebrities' sphere of operation: the world occupied by all the celebrities in a particular field such as the theater or sports
a big name in the yachting firmamentJacket image of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary
firmament
/furmmnt/
• noun literary the heavens; the sky.Your wikipedia you quote begins by saying:
Firmament is a name for the sky or the heavens,
So, as was stated, the making of this expanse was the creation of an open space, or division, between the waters covering the earth and other waters above the earth. It thus describes the formation of the atmospheric expanse surrounding the earth and indicates that at one time there was no clear division or open space but that the entire globe was previously enveloped in water vapor.
Is this scientifically correct? That the entire globe was enveloped in water vapor?
If it is correct, then I think you should ask yourself how anyone back then would know that. And if you can't answer how anyone would know that, you may want to start keeping track of questions you can't positively answer. Sure, you may say it's a guess, or this or that. But you have no actual way of knowing. It's another one of these questions you can't answer. And that proves what?Quote God put stars in the firmament. How were they attached?
As I've repeatedly said to you in another thread, the account of genesis is described as an earth observer would have viewed it.
So when the scripture says: “Let there be lights in the firmament [expanse] of the heaven” it is like saying God let the light shine through to the earth from these stars.
You say: “God put stars in the firmament. How were they attached?”
If Someone says “there are stars in the sky [expanse/firmament]” we know what they mean. There are no stars in the actual sky. But that is how it is viewed. People have said: “Look at the stars in the sky” billions of times. We understand what it means. The stars aren't in (and certainly not attached) to the sky. And the Bible doesn't say this.Quote This event in Revelation completes the picture: Rev 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
Rev 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; …
I think you forgot to read Revelation 1:1, where is says that these things were presented “in signs.”Hi David
Stu: The bible on the other hand, makes truth claims and many of these can be demonstrated to be untrue.
Quote Such as?
Oh please. Why is the score here 4 – 0?Quote My point of course was that science doesn't know all the answers. Yet, you expect us to know all the answers. Thus far, you have demonstrated that there are some things we don't presently understand. I could say the same of science. Yet, what does that prove?
Truth claims in the bible are unsubstantiated. Science could be wrong. If you are saying ‘bible could be wrong’ then we are making progress.Quote You haven't shown a single thing to be untrue, at least not on this thread. You've pointed out the obvious–that there are some things that can't presently be answered, but we all knew that, or at least, I thought we did. We knew it of science, and we know it of the Bible.
Rockets do not encounter a solid firmament as outlined in the bible. The creation story does not explain the fossil record. The kiwi could not possibly have been involved in the alleged flood, for which there is no corroborating evidence (and which, given the creationist claims about the extent of the geological rearrangements during it, should have washed low-lying rock drawings off cave walls but didn’t). Leviticus says that homosexuality is an ‘abomination’. That is not really a truth claim, but there is no evidence that homosexuality is damaging. 4 – 0.Quote Perhaps, if you could explain why you know kiwis have been ….
but that's not your aim is it. It seems only to be to show what we do not know.
No it is to show that what is held to be unquestionably true is not necessarily so.Quote I could ask you many questions about evolution that you simply do not know or that the evolutionists continue to struggle with. Yet, that proves what exactly?
You could. You are welcome to try, in fact. I don’t know what it would prove.Quote Why don't I make a thread on things evolutionists can't explain. In the minds of the weak, that might prove something. Who exactly are you pandering to?
It is a weak mind that cannot critically consider truth claims. Maybe such a thread would help. I don’t think people here have much of a problem with being skeptical about science though. Their criticisms are usually mistaken.What is an evolutionist?
Quote I freely admit I don't know a lot about kiwis. Other than the fruit, didn't even know they were birds until you asked the question.
We you did not fall into the trap of saying they flew here. Their ancestors did, of course.Stuart
Hi David
Quote So, I looked up “firmament.” My Bible uses the word “expanse” which is one definition of firmament.
fir·ma·ment (fûrm-mnt)
n. The vault or expanse of the heavens; the sky.
1. sky: the sky, considered as an arch ( literary )
An arch. I’m no clearer as to what state of matter you think the firmament takes.Quote Your wikipedia you quote begins by saying:
Firmament is a name for the sky or the heavens,
So, as was stated, the making of this expanse was the creation of an open space, or division, between the waters covering the earth and other waters above the earth. It thus describes the formation of the atmospheric expanse surrounding the earth and indicates that at one time there was no clear division or open space but that the entire globe was previously enveloped in water vapor.
Is this scientifically correct? That the entire globe was enveloped in water vapor?
If it is correct, then I think you should ask yourself how anyone back then would know that. And if you can't answer how anyone would know that, you may want to start keeping track of questions you can't positively answer. Sure, you may say it's a guess, or this or that. But you have no actual way of knowing. It's another one of these questions you can't answer. And that proves what?
What a poor attempt at diversion. What separation is there between water in the oceans and water in the atmosphere? They are the same, in equilibrium. Otherwise how do we have rainfall?Stu: God put stars in the firmament. How were they attached?
Quote As I've repeatedly said to you in another thread, the account of genesis is described as an earth observer would have viewed it. So when the scripture says: “Let there be lights in the firmament [expanse] of the heaven” it is like saying God let the light shine through to the earth from these stars.
So he let the starlight shine through holes in the firmament? That is pretty much what ancient Hebrews believed, isn’t it?Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
We are told where god puts the lights. There is no ambiguity or relativistic interpretation required. Either god put the lights in the firmament or he did not. If this is a different firmament to the one that is beaten out across the sky (or made of dirt as was claimed here before – not a very malleable material usually) then you would think it might have been mentioned. The firmament separates water from water. There is no water in interplanetary space, so it must be the one he created in the Genesis account. Which is not there.
Quote You say: “God put stars in the firmament. How were they attached?”
If Someone says “there are stars in the sky [expanse/firmament]” we know what they mean. There are no stars in the actual sky. But that is how it is viewed. People have said: “Look at the stars in the sky” billions of times. We understand what it means. The stars aren't in (and certainly not attached) to the sky. And the Bible doesn't say this.It depends what you mean by sky. My first two searches for a definition gave me roughly this: Sky: the atmosphere and outer space as viewed from the earth. So we know that stars are in outer space. No problem with that. Genesis says they are in the firmament. That is what the ancients believed. Genesis is their account but it is not what we find when we send rockets up there. Understandable error, but not inspired by the thing that did the creating.
Stu: This event in Revelation completes the picture:
Rev 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
Rev 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; …Quote I think you forgot to read Revelation 1:1, where is says that these things were presented “in signs.” Rev 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.Where does it say about presenting things ‘in signs’? Rev 1:3 says keep those things which are written in the prophecy. Not alluded to or hinted at, but written. Like the stars falling off the firmament while it rolls up like a scroll. That is what is written.
Stuart
Quote Stu: The bible on the other hand, makes truth claims and many of these can be demonstrated to be untrue.
Quote–stu
Thus far you haven't done this. You're attempting to demonstrate things we don't have answers for. There is a difference.
Quote Oh please. Why is the score here 4 – 0?
Because the judge is just slightly biased. Moving on…Quote Truth claims in the bible are unsubstantiated. Science could be wrong. If you are saying ‘bible could be wrong’ then we are making progress.
Science is often wrong, and such is isn't nature. We expect it. The Bible could be wrong, but thus far, you haven't been able to demonstrate it. You have succeeded in finding some things we don't know the answer to.Quote Rockets do not encounter a solid firmament as outlined in the bible.
A solid firmament [sky]? Is the word “solid” in there? What are you talking about?
It is true that when science had no clue about world or universe, people looking at the Bible had some weird ideas. But these were not based on things the Bible specifically detailed. They were based on scientific ignorance and trying to match that ignorance up with scriptures that weren't highly detailed. This shows THEY were wrong, not the Bible.Quote The creation story does not explain the fossil record.
When you look at what genesis says with what we actually have actual evidence for, there is no contradiction. It's the assumptions made on both sides that tend to get people in trouble.Quote The kiwi could not possibly have been involved in the alleged flood, for which there is no corroborating evidence (and which, given the creationist claims about the extent of the geological rearrangements during it, should have washed low-lying rock drawings off cave walls but didn’t).
If by “no” corroborating evidence, you mean the lack of most cultures in the world having a story about this happening, then you'd be wrong.
The Genesis account isn't written like those other stories of course. It tells us the precise year, month, and day when the Deluge began, when and where the ark came to rest, and when the earth dried off. Details about the ark are also precise–the layout, the measurements, and the material used to build it. Fables, by contrast, are usually vague in their descriptions, and like gilgamesh's story, for example, the sip was a cube. That's not gonna work, is it?
There are two geneological accounts in the Bible that testify that Noah was a real person. (1 Chron 1:4; luke 3:36)It's possible there is actually much evidence, it's just interpreted the wrong way. Scientists used to find ice ages everywhere, and now what they used to think took millions of years is often understood to be water action in very short periods of time.
Quote You could [ask you many questions about evolution that you simply do not know]. You are welcome to try, in fact. I don’t know what it would prove.
Apparently, it would prove exactly what you are proving in this thread. Not a lot.
If every time I asked you a question that science doesn't have an answer for, I made the score 1-0, 2-0, etc, we'd quickly surpass this thread in score. Instead of attempting to show things we can't answer, you should attempt to show things that are actually wrong. (Not things that if interpreted one way could possibly be wrong, or things that are taken from Revelation which was written “in signs” and you interpret it literally, and bingo, the Bible's wrong…I'm talking something that we ACTUALLY know, that is in disagreement with the Bible.Quote Where does it say about presenting things ‘in signs’? Rev 1:3 says keep those things which are written in the prophecy. Not alluded to or hinted at, but written. Like the stars falling off the firmament while it rolls up like a scroll. That is what is written. hmmm. Never noticed that before.
The Bible I commonly use has “he sent forth his angel and presented it in signs….”
Some other Bible's do render it this way:
William F. Beck in his The Holy Bible: An American Translation translates:“….and by way of symbols sent the message…”
J. B. Rotherham in his Emphasised Bible translates:
“…and he showed them by signs…”
Here's why:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/newworl….gns.htmHi David
Stu: The bible on the other hand, makes truth claims and many of these can be demonstrated to be untrue.
Quote Thus far you haven't done this. You're attempting to demonstrate things we don't have answers for. There is a difference.
Truth claim: All the animals went out of the ark. All the other animals (except aquatic life, presumably) had died. The ark landed on Mt. Ararat. There is no evidence that the kiwi has ever been outside New Zealand (except by removal by humans, which I imagine is now illegal). There is a completely cogent and plausible scientific explanation, entirely supported by everything we know about the kiwi, that it evolved from ancestors that flew over the Tasman sea from Australia.That goes much further than “demonstrating things we don’t have answers for”. That is the bible making an hypothesis and the evidence disproving it.
Stu: Oh please. Why is the score here 4 – 0?
Quote Because the judge is just slightly biased. Moving on… You’re the first person to claim bias in this thread. Do you have a case to put in support of it?
Stu: Truth claims in the bible are unsubstantiated. Science could be wrong. If you are saying ‘bible could be wrong’ then we are making progress.
Quote Science is often wrong, and such is isn't nature. We expect it. The Bible could be wrong, but thus far, you haven't been able to demonstrate it. You have succeeded in finding some things we don't know the answer to.
OK. If the bible could be wrong, let’s celebrate your admission. Do you agree that it is wrong enough to question its divine inspiration?Stu: Rockets do not encounter a solid firmament as outlined in the bible.
Quote A solid firmament [sky]? Is the word “solid” in there? What are you talking about?
Please go back and read. The firmament can be beaten out across the sky. It is as a sheet (to translate more accurately, as we have seen already).Quote It is true that when science had no clue about world or universe, people looking at the Bible had some weird ideas. But these were not based on things the Bible specifically detailed. They were based on scientific ignorance and trying to match that ignorance up with scriptures that weren't highly detailed. This shows THEY were wrong, not the Bible.
So your post is not relevant to this thread then. You are not a biblical literalist. You do not believe it is literally true.Stu: The creation story does not explain the fossil record.
Quote When you look at what genesis says with what we actually have actual evidence for, there is no contradiction. It's the assumptions made on both sides that tend to get people in trouble.
The evidence says that evolution is a completely unguided process. The creation myth clearly posits a designer. The two are implacably opposed.Stu: The kiwi could not possibly have been involved in the alleged flood, for which there is no corroborating evidence (and which, given the creationist claims about the extent of the geological rearrangements during it, should have washed low-lying rock drawings off cave walls but didn’t).
Quote If by “no” corroborating evidence, you mean the lack of most cultures in the world having a story about this happening, then you'd be wrong.
Well that is not what I mean. I mean archeological evidence.Quote The Genesis account isn't written like those other stories of course. It tells us the precise year, month, and day when the Deluge began, when and where the ark came to rest, and when the earth dried off. Details about the ark are also precise–the layout, the measurements, and the material used to build it. Fables, by contrast, are usually vague in their descriptions, and like gilgamesh's story, for example, the sip was a cube. That's not gonna work, is it?
Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle, typically for a Victorian writer, gives very precise descriptions of Sherlock Holmes.Quote There are two geneological accounts in the Bible that testify that Noah was a real person. (1 Chron 1:4; luke 3:36)
Conan Doyle wrote four novels and fifty-six short stories that featured Holmes.Quote It's possible there is actually much evidence, it's just interpreted the wrong way. Scientists used to find ice ages everywhere, and now what they used to think took millions of years is often understood to be water action in very short periods of time.
How did the cave drawing from before the alleged flood survive the waters? ‘Flood hydrologists’ (Henry Morris for example) whose ideas you are relying on here make all sorts of claims about the tremendous volumes of material that were transported during the flood, for example laying down the entire fossil record, (although how the species were sorted into morphological order of accumulating adaptations was not really explained by that charletan)?Stu: You could [ask you many questions about evolution that you simply do not know]. You are welcome to try, in fact. I don’t know what it would prove.
Quote Apparently, it would prove exactly what you are proving in this thread. Not a lot.
I think we are showing that the bible ain’t necessarily so. Why do you have a problem with that?Quote If every time I asked you a question that science doesn't have an answer for, I made the score 1-0, 2-0, etc, we'd quickly surpass this thread in score.
If you have a good understanding of that material then we sure would.Quote Instead of attempting to show things we can't answer, you should attempt to show things that are actually wrong. (Not things that if interpreted one way could possibly be wrong, or things that are taken from Revelation which was written “in signs” and you interpret it literally, and bingo, the Bible's wrong…I'm talking something that we ACTUALLY know, that is in disagreement with the Bible.
Appeal considered and rejected by reality.
It’s 4 – 0. Ready for the next one?Stuart
Next:
Gen 30:37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
Gen 30:38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
Gen 30:39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
Notwithstanding the use of the collective noun ‘flocks’ for herds of cattle, can any biblical literalist explain how striped rods can cause genetic changes in the offspring of animals copulating nearby?
Stuart
Quote You are not a biblical literalist. You do not believe it is literally true. “Jehovah is a rock.”–the Bible.
Do I believe this is literally true, or do I understand what a metaphor is?
Some places in the Bible, such as Revelation, which you like to take as completely literal to prove your point, are quite symbolic. (See post above.)
Other times, things are presented as facts, with detailed places, times, etc. Such is the Noah account. We have no hint of it being just a story with some moral. The geneology of noah is noted in two places and presents him as real. The dimensions of this ship, as real. The time, day, year, etc, as real. No hint of anything to suggest it is real, except how you interpret it. ie: What is a Bible “kind.”? Not very specific, but you'd like it to be.I don't actually have time to respond to the rest of your post, but I will…
Quote (david @ April 21 2008,14:16) Quote You are not a biblical literalist. You do not believe it is literally true. “Jehovah is a rock.”–the Bible.
Do I believe this is literally true, or do I understand what a metaphor is?
Some places in the Bible, such as Revelation, which you like to take as completely literal to prove your point, are quite symbolic. (See post above.)
Other times, things are presented as facts, with detailed places, times, etc. Such is the Noah account. We have no hint of it being just a story with some moral. The geneology of noah is noted in two places and presents him as real. The dimensions of this ship, as real. The time, day, year, etc, as real. No hint of anything to suggest it is real, except how you interpret it. ie: What is a Bible “kind.”? Not very specific, but you'd like it to be.I don't actually have time to respond to the rest of your post, but I will…
The bible says there is a firmament, like a sheet, that can be beaten out then rolled up with stars falling off. In the case of the stars it says to read what is written. It says there was an ark. Do you think these things are literally true or not?Stuart
.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
