Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 124 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-26-2017 9:37 AM
441 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), jar, nwr, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat), Stile (6 members, 435 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 799,390 Year: 3,996/21,208 Month: 2,391/1,605 Week: 28/563 Day: 28/27 Hour: 2/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
141516
17
1819Next
Author Topic:   Some water measurements for the Flood
ringo
Member
Posts: 12722
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 241 of 276 (730160)
06-24-2014 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Faith
06-23-2014 2:07 PM


Re: why not miracle
Faith writes:

For worldscale results yes you do


"Nuh uh," isn't much of a response. I quoted Jesus saying, "No you don't."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Faith, posted 06-23-2014 2:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 12722
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 242 of 276 (730161)
06-24-2014 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
06-23-2014 2:11 PM


Faith writes:

The tectonic activity has nothing to do with the amount of water involved and I never said it did.


Yes you did, in Message 1:
Faith writes:

120 feet in 24 hours. Or 4800 feet by the end of the forty days and nights of the rainfall. That would pretty well cover the pre-Flood mountains which werenít anywhere near as high as the mountains we have now that were formed by tectonic force.


You specifically calculated for mountains that are lower than the ones that exist and you made up a non-Biblical mountain growth during the flood.

I even tried to help you out by noting in Message 5 that, "What you need is enough water to reach the highest places where people were living."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 06-23-2014 2:11 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 4:19 PM ringo has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23433
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 243 of 276 (730164)
06-24-2014 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by herebedragons
06-24-2014 9:42 AM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
My point is not to argue the age of the earth, but to illustrate that in principal what we have done is not that different, it is a matter of "severity," not principal. But for the reasons above, I don't think accepting an old earth is all that severe a treatment of the text. It does not diminish my appreciation for the text at all - in fact, it enhances it. Now the text actually makes sense. It makes sense why the author uses strange language like "windows of heaven," "placed the stars in the firmament," and "evening and morning - the first day." (this one was a direct confrontation to the Egyptian myth that Ra, the sun god, went into the underworld every evening and struggled against the dragon and only after defeating it could he rise again the next morning. The God of the Hebrews had no such struggle, there was nothing that opposed him during the night, he did not struggle in the underworld like Ra had to)

I also believe that the early parts of the Bible were written to educate the Israelites away from the beliefs of the pagan nations and teach them the true nature of God which had been lost since the time of Noah, buried under superstitions and demonic reinterpretations and other distortions by the pagan nations. But the particular myth you are hanging everything on isn't the only one they were exposed to. I just googled the topic and found a long discussion of the background influence of the Enuma Elish on the writing of Genesis, meaning Babylonian myth rather than Egyptian myth.

I've also read a very convincing background study on the sacrifice of Isaac in terms of Abraham's experience with the pagan human sacrifices to their gods, and God's teaching him that there is only one human Sacrifice He will accept, represented by the ram in the thicket, and that all the sacrifices of human children are evil misunderstandings of the promise of the Messiah.

So I'm not saying such things don't figure in the understanding of Genesis, but I am saying that what is actually written there has to be taken as God's truth in contrast with all the myths He is answering. What good does it do to think of it as just another myth? We're to learn what the Creation was REALLY like from the Bible, not just another creation myth, we're to learn what God is REALLY like, not just another god myth. Yes, the Bible is intended to answer all the pagan myths, but how can it answer them if it is only another myth? It's the truth or it is nothing. And, yes, of course it would have to have been written in terms that made sense to the first people to hear it, but also in terms that make sense 3500 years later, or it's worthless.

You say all this doesn't diminish your understanding of the text but makes you appreciate it, but that's hard to see from what you've said. You are making it into just another myth that modern science contradicts, judging it by science. If God's word is subject to human judgment it's not God's word.

If the ancient Israelites had such a physicalistic idea of what it was teaching that doesn't mean that's what it IS teaching, it just means they got it wrong. And I'm not totally convinced that the model you keep insisting on really does represent their understanding. ONE understanding maybe, but THE understanding, not convinced. Who actually had that model and believed it, that's not clear from what you've said. Who were they, who did they represent? Where did that model come from?

No, I never look at it that way although of course I notice that there are no actual windows or openings in the sky, which affects my understanding that the word must be metaphorical, but I would assume even the ancients should have seen it that way so their physicalistic rendering seems odd to me.

In fact I'd think even an ancient Israelite should have taken it as metaphorical. All you have to do is look at the sky.

No, the ancients had a pretty messed up view of cosmology, I don't doubt they thought that there were literally windows in the dome of the sky. If you look at the cosmologies of other societies both before and during that time, you will find they are rather similar in their ideas about how the universe was structured. They simply did the best they could with what they could observe and understand.

Which, again, doesn't mean that they were right about what Genesis was saying. God's word accommodates many human points of view, but it isn't written from a human perspective, it's from God's perspective and His revelation speaks to all cultures in all times.

If God had intended Genesis to be a scientific explanation of the cosmos, don't you think he would have corrected those misconceptions about the structure of the universe, not used the same ancient terminology to describe it?

You haven't convinced me yet that the terminology is all that tied to a particular cultural expression, but to the extent it is the aim would have been to communicate a different understanding in the familiar terminology, not set the usual understanding in concrete, so that if they couldn't break out of that understanding that's not the fault of the language of Genesis but just the usual fault of human habits of thought. A later generation would not read it the same way. By the time we get to David we have a much more sophisticated understanding of the heavens above as expressed in the psalms and yet he had the same Book of Genesis the early generations had.

In any case, again, it's God's truth or it isn't, and I say it is, it is not just another myth. And if it's truth and it says anything at all about the physical universe, in a sense that IS a rudimentary form of science, it's a knowledge we must take seriously as written. Or again, we're not talking about God's word, God's truth. It's either God's word or it isn't. What you are doing with it makes it into something less than God's truth.

Nobody reads the Bible in a total vacuum, that would be impossible.

Exactly. And today we have so much more knowledge about how the universe works than they did in ancient Israel. So we need to look at the text, in the best way possible, from the eyes of those it was written to, not as if it was written in the 21st century.

God is a lot bigger than that, HBD, He wrote the text to ALL generations everywhere. Sometimes the writers themselves didn't fully understand what they were writing. They were moved by God to write what they wrote.

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Even the angels didn't completely understand it:

1Pe 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

You seem to want to tie the writing of the Bible too completely to the times in which it was written, making it a merely humanly inspired text, but it presents itself as God-inspired and people in all generations have to reach to understand it.

ANY knowledge we have cannot contradict God's word, but our science does, meaning our sciences of the past do, basic physics doesn't, basic biology doesn't, basic genetics doesn't, even basic geology doesn't, etc etc etc., but old earthism does and evolution does. If the Bible is God's word those sciences are wrong.

So I am OK with you believing what you believe. But, what is not OK is that you try to make those who have different views less Christian than you (if Christian at all) when what they do in principal is really no different than what you yourself do. All because it doesn't fit your preconceived notion of how it should be and your opinion of what constitutes "severe". As in when you say:

In this case, though, literal openings in heaven contradict science -- contradict simple observation

What is not OK is that you consider scientists to be liars and frauds,

I haven't ever said that, but if I ever did it would accord with scripture that says "Let every man be a liar but God be true." Where there is a contradiction with scripture, which, remember, is God's truth, God's word, the scientists are wrong.

Liars and frauds, not necessarily, no, but wrong about whatever they affirm that contradicts God's word. Whatever work they do that accords with God's word is fine, and a lot of it does of course.

... intent only on discrediting the Bible simply because they are trying to understand the world around us in the best way possible.

The problem is that they should start out with a belief in the Bible because it is God's truth, and any conclusions they come to that contradict it should be set aside, but what in fact they do is accept the contradictory science and call God the liar. And that is also what you are doing.

So, if you want to hold to the premise that we can not be sure about the past, fine. But as for me and many others, we believe we can know a lot about the past with a fair amount of certainty.

And apparently it's OK with you if what you think you know contradicts what the word of God says. The reason I reject the sciences of the past for starters is that they contradict God's word, but when you go on from there to think about how they are formulated you should be able to see that there is no actual basis for them, no observational basis, it's all theory and conjecture, a gigantic edifice of thought piled on thought (the entire Geological Timetable for instance, what a fantastic elaborate piece of fiction) that rarely touches earth and when it does it imposes assumptions and interpretations that are not supported by the actual facts. And yet you are willing to accept it as if it were the same as solidly testable science, the kind that sends rockets to distant planets and produces medicines for complicated diseases and invents useful machines and so on. It is not. It contradicts God's word and it produces absolutely nothing useful, only more mind-twisting theory, and it has no basis in actual scientific method either, which of course is to be expected if God's word IS God's word.

And that knowledge must color our understanding of the Bible. To do otherwise would be to read the Bible in a vacuum and quite frankly, would be dishonest.

There is nothing dishonest about taking God's truth as foundational to science. It is in fact the only honest way there is to approach it IF it is God's truth. The only way you can make science the judge of God's word is by not taking it as God's word. Most here don't accept it as God's word so their putting science above it is just an expression of their belief that there is no God and the Bible is just a fairy tale. You on the other hand claim to respect the Bible and yet the way you put science above the Bible shows that in practice you don't really, you reduce it to a humanly inspired text that is subject to human judgment, rather than submitting to it as God's inspired word that judges all of us.

It's a natural reading in my opinion.

Yes, well I guess you could say that treating the Biblical text as just another human production, or just a myth as most here do, IS "natural." That's how the fallen mind works, it's quite natural.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by herebedragons, posted 06-24-2014 9:42 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by herebedragons, posted 06-24-2014 1:07 PM Faith has responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1248
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 244 of 276 (730166)
06-24-2014 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Faith
06-24-2014 10:33 AM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
Do I believe that Jesus was actually a lamb because He's called the Lamb of God? That would be ridiculous. But how do I know He's not a literal lamb? Because I know from my own experience that a human being is not a lamb.

But the world was much different back then. Who knows? Were you there?

Likewise I know from my own personal experience that there are no openings in the sky, so I know that "windows" is a metaphor just as "lamb" is.

Actually I think it's from my own observations as I say above. I can see that there are no holes in the sky and so can everybody else.

Don't ya know the windows are sky-colored, so you can't see them from the ground? You have to go up there, near the surface of the dome to see them.

Well there are lots of unintelligent people, and people who don't know how to read the Bible either. Are you going to require me to say all points of view are equal or something?

No, certainly not. Just that there are people who are genuinely trying to make sense of the Bible and sincerely trying to reconcile it to reality. As far as who to accept as "Christian" or not, there are more central issues that determines what a Christian is - like the Apostle's Creed for example. The age of the earth and related issues are not central themes. To use terminology such as "Biblical Christianity" to refer to those who make stuff up about vapor canopies, rapid plate tectonics, dinosaurs and humans co-existing and a worldwide flood depositing the entire geological column is extremely insulting.

Interesting you are so insistent about this without giving an example to show why it's so "simple and straightforward" that that the earth is old.

Unlike your insistence of the vapor canopy or that there are not windows in the sky because you can't see them when you look up? To me, the age of the earth IS straightforward, but this isn't about the age of the earth, so I'm not obligated to lay out my arguments. It is about how we reconcile what we see as reality with what the Biblical text says.

But in order to claim that the old earth doesn't contradict the Bible you have to accept this whole other explanatory system you are now laying out that would be impossible for a simple reader to glean from the text alone.

How would the average reader glean the vapor canopy idea from the text alone? Or that the phrase "windows of heaven" is metaphoric from the text alone? Or that there really isn't a dome in the sky? - from the text alone as you insist.

What ordinary reader is going to have any knowledge of "Egyptian creation myths" for instance, but you are putting that reader in the position of being completely unable to understand the text for lack of such arcane extrabiblical knowledge.

What average reader has access to the vapor canopy idea? How do you think a Bushman in Africa would read this text? Do think he would clearly recognize this as a metaphor and decide that this must be referring to some kind of vapor canopy that we no longer can see?

The average reader is going to read those verses and say "Hey, Faith, this says that there are windows in the heavens and the stars, sun and moon are placed in a dome and there are pillars of the deep. That makes no sense, what could this mean." And then you can proceed to explain that its is a metaphor for a vapor canopy and whatever else you think explains it.

So to maintain your position you have to disqualify the average reader's ability to read the text. I can agree that it does take some external historical knowledge to understand the Bible well, and the more informed the reader and the more educated in language and other basic knowledge the better, but I can't agree that it takes the mindset of ancient Israel's experience of Egypt to do so. If the Bible is the word of God it is meant for everybody.

It is meant FOR everybody, but it was not written TO everybody. Remember that you don't read the Bible in a vacuum? Well the ancient Hebrews weren't in a vacuum either. They understood certain things in certain ways and not like we do. It's not that we have to have the mindset of the ancient Hebrews, but we do have to consider it in context of their situation. To do otherwise is to miss the point.

And yet it is written to the average reader HBD.

And yet the average reader can't have it in a version that is readable - it has to be the KJV - or at least readable versions are corrupt and so the average reader will be deceived. And yet the Bible uses metaphorical language that is so foreign to us that the average reader can not make sense of it. And yet there are thousands of commentaries that are intended to explain difficult passages of text. And yet there are thousands of different denominations that have broken off because of differing interpretations. And yet so many who set down to read the Bible give up because they feel it is just inaccessible.

I do believe the Bible is relevant to us today. But it takes some unpacking, some explanation and some work to make sense of it and to extract what it has to say about how we live our lives and how it is relevant to us today.

Your claim just doesn't hold water HBD.

Well, neither does the vapor canopy. So what is the source of the "windows of heaven?" What is it metaphorically referring to?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 10:33 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 3:26 PM herebedragons has responded
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 06-25-2014 1:29 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1248
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 245 of 276 (730170)
06-24-2014 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
06-24-2014 12:15 PM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
I only have time for a quick comment.

I just googled the topic and found a long discussion of the background influence of the Enuma Elish on the writing of Genesis, meaning Babylonian myth rather than Egyptian myth.

Yes and also other Mesopotamian and Canaanite influences. A good book on the subject is "In The Beginning... We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in its Original Context" by Johnny Miller and John Soden.

I recommend it. In this book they don't discuss the age of the earth directly, but they start with what they call the most important question of all (in regards to this debate): "What did Genesis mean to the original author and original readers?"

In any case, again, it's God's truth or it isn't, and I say it is, it is not just another myth.

I say it is God's truth also. But it has a higher purpose than to teach science or a scientific understanding of the universe. To take it that way seriously misses the mark. I don't use the word myth to describe the Bible. I believe it teaches the truth, and a truth that transcends science, not supersedes it.

Read the book I referenced. If you can't bring yourself to spend the time to do it, I will try to out line their arguments for you.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 12:15 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 3:06 PM herebedragons has responded
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 06-25-2014 1:17 AM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23433
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 246 of 276 (730172)
06-24-2014 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by herebedragons
06-24-2014 1:07 PM


Retranslating Genesis
I say it is God's truth also. But it has a higher purpose than to teach science or a scientific understanding of the universe.

Such a phrase as "higher purpose" suggests there is going to be an attempt to change the meaning of the text to suit some agenda or other and I fear that is exactly what you are talking about. We no longer have to take it as describing anything in the actual physical world, I suppose, 'cause it REALLY means.... something so "spiritual" it doesn't touch down on Earth I would guess.

Nobody takes Genesis as primarily teaching science, who would ever say such a thing? Creation Science was born in an attempt to counter the Bible-destroying false sciences of evolution and an old earth, building on Genesis, but nobody ever said that was the purpose of Genesis. Nobody reads Genesis as a creation science text as such.

To take it that way seriously misses the mark. I don't use the word myth to describe the Bible. I believe it teaches the truth, and a truth that transcends science, not supersedes it.

Which is the sort of thing that is usually said as a word-twisting way of turning it into a myth and denying what it actually says while claiming to do something else. I read some about the book you recommended, just another tour de force attempt to make the Bible mean something other than it has always been understood to mean, and what for? To rationalize the false sciences of evolution and the Old Earth I would guess.

Read the book I referenced. If you can't bring yourself to spend the time to do it, I will try to out line their arguments for you

From a skim-through at Amazon I get that it's a claim that Genesis 1:1 has been mistranslated lo these many millennia. I didn't spend the time to get a clear idea of what they think it should say, just that they don't like what it says and they think a better understanding of the Hebrew will show that it means something else. A couple of Dallas seminary guys.

I'm sure you don't know enough Hebrew to judge their thinking and I certainly don't so I don't see what it would accomplish to tell me more about their conclusions.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by herebedragons, posted 06-24-2014 1:07 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by herebedragons, posted 06-25-2014 10:40 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23433
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 247 of 276 (730173)
06-24-2014 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by herebedragons
06-24-2014 12:35 PM


Rewriting Genesis
I may spend time on this post later but right now this caught my eye:

What average reader has access to the vapor canopy idea? How do you think a Bushman in Africa would read this text? Do think he would clearly recognize this as a metaphor and decide that this must be referring to some kind of vapor canopy that we no longer can see?

There is no need and no expectation that the Bushman understand the vapor canopy idea. There is no need or expectation that anybody read Genesis 1 to 11 in terms of Creation Science although it certainly should be read as factually true as written. Creation Science is a special study of Genesis for the specific purpose of answering the false sciences of Evolution and the Old Earth, but that is not the "purpose" of Genesis as such and not the way I'd expect people to read it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by herebedragons, posted 06-24-2014 12:35 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by herebedragons, posted 06-25-2014 10:35 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23433
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 248 of 276 (730174)
06-24-2014 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by ringo
06-24-2014 11:53 AM


120 feet in 24 hours. Or 4800 feet by the end of the forty days and nights of the rainfall. That would pretty well cover the pre-Flood mountains which werenít anywhere near as high as the mountains we have now that were formed by tectonic force.

You specifically calculated for mountains that are lower than the ones that exist and you made up a non-Biblical mountain growth during the flood.

I didn't calculate "for" that purpose at all. I calculated based on the highest rate of rainfall I could find mentioned for today's world, it had nothing to do with anything else. I discovered that the rain alone at that rate was sufficient for the coverage of the low mountains we always ascribe to the pre-Flood world. The water level appears to be more than sufficient for that height. I also calculated a lower rate and got a much lower water level, which probably wouldn't be sufficient for the height of the pre-Flood mountains, but all we surmise about them is that they were lower than the mountains we have today, we don't know what their height would have been. In any case, again, my water calculations were in no way planned in relation to the mountain height.

As for the tectonic cause of the higher mountains we have today I've argued that already in many a thread. Why you think it would influence my water calculations is beyond me. Judging from the way the strata were laid down I came to the conclusion that tectonic and other disturbances didn't occur at all during the laying-down period but at the very end. Whether that means while the Flood waters were still present or while they were receding or sometime afterward I don't know, but after all the strata were in place for sure.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by ringo, posted 06-24-2014 11:53 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by ringo, posted 06-25-2014 11:44 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23433
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 249 of 276 (730178)
06-25-2014 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by herebedragons
06-24-2014 1:07 PM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
Feel I have to do a better job responding to this:

I say it is God's truth also. But it has a higher purpose than to teach science or a scientific understanding of the universe.

if it is in fact God's truth then it is true and you can't treat anything it says as false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by herebedragons, posted 06-24-2014 1:07 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23433
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 250 of 276 (730180)
06-25-2014 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by herebedragons
06-24-2014 12:35 PM


Re: Its Literally Metaphoric
It is meant FOR everybody, but it was not written TO everybody.

I don't see as a matter of fact that any of it was exactly written TO anybody specifically at all in the sense of being addressed to anybody in particular if you want to get nitpicky about that. I'm only saying it was all written to everybody in a general sense and not at all confined to the original audience with their peculiar context and expectations.

Remember that you don't read the Bible in a vacuum? Well the ancient Hebrews weren't in a vacuum either. They understood certain things in certain ways and not like we do. It's not that we have to have the mindset of the ancient Hebrews, but we do have to consider it in context of their situation. To do otherwise is to miss the point.

All I've said is that it isn't ONLY written for them and to confine the interpretation to their context is what is wrong. But that's what you seem to be doing and that book you recommended as well.

And yet it is written to the average reader HBD.

And yet the average reader can't have it in a version that is readable - it has to be the KJV - or at least readable versions are corrupt and so the average reader will be deceived.

Now you are bringing in a completely separate point. Yes I argue that the KJV is the most trustworthy translation for many reasons but primarily because the underlying Greek manuscripts are corrupted, but I also allow that the modern translations give enough of the truth for most purposes including conversion. And my point has always been that we still need an updating of the KJV so that it will be more readable. BUT again it is not as hard as people say it is to teach people who know English from the KJV. Granted it would be a lot easier if it had remained our authorized version so that everybody was familiar with it instead of having all these utterly inferior choices that now litter the landscape.

And yet the Bible uses metaphorical language that is so foreign to us that the average reader can not make sense of it.

Here I have no idea what you are talking about.

And yet there are thousands of commentaries that are intended to explain difficult passages of text. And yet there are thousands of different denominations that have broken off because of differing interpretations. And yet so many who set down to read the Bible give up because they feel it is just inaccessible.

Oh balderdash. What a bunch of made-up nonsense. If you want to discuss the Bible go find a thread about it or start a new one.

I do believe the Bible is relevant to us today. But it takes some unpacking, some explanation and some work to make sense of it and to extract what it has to say about how we live our lives and how it is relevant to us today.

Such a general statement can hardly be disagreed with.

Your claim just doesn't hold water HBD.

Well, neither does the vapor canopy. So what is the source of the "windows of heaven?" What is it metaphorically referring to?

Obviously has to be referring to a source of rain, and what is that but a lot of vapor held in the atmosphere, you know, clouds, or in other words "a vapor canopy."

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by herebedragons, posted 06-24-2014 12:35 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-25-2014 10:16 AM Faith has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11107
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 251 of 276 (730194)
06-25-2014 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by Faith
06-25-2014 1:29 AM


Scripture
Your amount of rain calculation is completely irrelevant, which we can discuss if you disagree, but anyways lets focus on scripture instead.

quote:
Gen 7

4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.


The Lord is causing the rain. He's purposefully making it rain to destroy his creation. The rain is a direct result of the Lord's specific action. That is a miracle.

So, where did the rain come from?

quote:
Gen 7

11 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.

12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.


And what are the windows of heaven? Well, what's heaven?

quote:
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.

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.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven.


Heaven is the firmament that divides the waters above from the waters below.

So, there is a "window" or opening in this firmament that can be opened to let some of the waters above fall to the earth.

What else is said about the windows of heaven?

quote:
Malachi 3

10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.


So the windows of heaven can be opened up so the Lord can pour out a blessing. Does the blessing have to be water?

quote:
Psalm 78

23 Though he had commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven,

24 And had rained down manna upon them to eat, and had given them of the corn of heaven.


That says doors instead of windows, but other translations use windows and the commentaries parallel this with Gen 7:11, and they are both openings.. So heaven can be opened up to let other things besides water rain down.

The windows of heaven are an opening in the firmament that divides the upper waters from the lower waters and the Lord can open up these openings to let stuff fall down to the earth.

That is nothing like a "vapor canopy" or any cloud-like thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Faith, posted 06-25-2014 1:29 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Faith, posted 06-25-2014 11:57 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1248
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.3


(5)
Message 252 of 276 (730195)
06-25-2014 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Faith
06-24-2014 3:26 PM


Re: Rewriting Genesis
Creation Science is a special study of Genesis for the specific purpose of answering the false sciences of Evolution and the Old Earth

Creation science is a pack of lies, half-truths, misleading statements, and false science intended to support a particular position that is asserted to be "The Truth"

I began my journey about 7 years ago and I was a YEC, simply by default - because that is just what Christians believed. That's what the Bible says, right? I was a bit offended by a friend of mine who took a more liberal approach to the issue of origins and stated the we don't know, God could have used evolution or whatever means he wanted to create. I remember telling my wife "He's a bit too liberal for me."

Well, I lead the youth group at my local church and someone introduced me to the "Answers in Genesis" idea and it made a lot of sense to me. Genesis was the foundation of the Bible, the starting point. If that crumbles, the whole Bible crumbles, right? So I decided to do a series on creation vs. evolution for youth group.

I was given a book by Kent Hovind that "debunked" evolution and made sense of the "truth" about creation. As I worked though that book, I began to notice things that just didn't make sense. By the time I was finished with it, I was scratching my head and thinking, "something just doesn't add up." I began to do some of my own research on the subject and it was during that time that I found my way here to EvC. I started finding that these creation science claims were not all they were claimed to be (to say the least).

My faith was crushed. What I was discovering was that the Biblical claims (or more specifically creation science claims which were presented as Biblical claims) did not hold true. Genesis was crumbling around me and so was my faith, because, of course, if Genesis falls so does the entire Bible. I managed to maintain a semblance of normalcy, but inside I was on the verge of becoming an atheist.

One of the things this search did for me was re-kindle my love of science. I was a displaced worker (from the automotive industry) so I was unemployed and unable to find suitable work. I decided to go back to school and pursue a career in biology. My wife worked at a local Christian liberal arts university and I was able to enroll in classes for free. I fell in love with the biological sciences.

I had some really strong Christian professors who were not YEC, and I began to have hope that there may be some way to reconcile this conflict. My personal conflict eased a bit and I kind of sat on the fence for a while, unsure; thinking that if I just didn't really face it, it would just not be an issue.

The turning point for me came when I took a course called "Genes and Speciation." 1/3 of the course explored how speciation occurred, 1/3 looked at the history of the earth from a scientific view, and 1/3 spent time comparing the different views on origins. The course was taught by one of the most intelligent men I have ever met. He is also a very devout Christian and a lover of the Bible. He leads the Bible quizzing group at his church and practically has the entire Bible memorized (no seriously). When he worked out at the gym, he would have his Bible in front of him and would be memorizing scripture. He is also an amazing scientist, he has published numerous journal articles and a book on stem cell research.

One of the assignments was to read and review a YEC book. The book I choose was Jonathan Sarfati's Refuting Evolution. What I found was that not one of his "refutations" was unequivocally true. Every one of his claims was either a half truth, a misrepresentation or simply misleading. EVERY ONE! Now I realize that one book does not speak for the whole of creation science, but Sarfati is well respected in YEC circles; Refuting Evolution is a highly regarded book by YECs. And yet it is full of untruth; full of it! Not an occasional error but the entirety. (It is not the only creation science source I have explored and few of them fare any better)

This did it for me, it broke any connection I had to YEC. At this point I was unsure about how to resolve this "conflict" but I knew I was not a YEC. Do we defend the truth of the Bible with lies, half-truths, misrepresentations and made up nonsense? I can't accept that. But to a YEC, it doesn't matter how dishonest the approach is; as long as it defends the initial premise.

Faith, I write this not to convince you that I am right in my opinions, but so that you can see that it is not that I have some agenda to discredit the Bible or to shoehorn my beliefs into the Biblical account, but that I came about this position in an honest, sincere search for the truth. And this search found YEC wanting, empty of truth. And I know that there are many non-YEC Christians who have had a very similar experience as my own. As well, there are many who were unable to reconcile their faith because of YEC teaching and have fallen away.

I also want to point out that you are doing this typical YEC nonsense in this very thread. You will cling to the vapor canopy idea despite that fact that it is completely untenable. You deviate from a clear reading of the text which paints a picture far different from a vapor canopy and yet you cling to this un-Biblical idea tenaciously (NoNukes pointed out this in Message 236). And you expect anyone to buy into this?

Truly I don't expect you to become an old earther or whatever, that is not what I am trying to accomplish by having this discussion. What I want you to acknowledge is that just because I (and others) have a different approach to understanding the book of Genesis, doesn't make us non-believers. It doesn't mean we hate the Bible or want to destroy it. There is not an agenda to turn the Bible into a myth. It is a sincere, honest search to understand reality, to reconcile what Scripture says with what we observe in the physical world.

However, what I am expecting you will do is cling to your ideas like you are infallible. No quarter; no possibility of looking at this issue through someone else's eyes. I expect that you will not abandon the vapor canopy idea no matter what, because it is all you've got. I expect that you won't even really read this post because its too long and you don't really care what I have to say anyway. The only thing that matters is that you be right. So be it.

Enough about this.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 3:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 06-25-2014 12:47 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1248
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 253 of 276 (730196)
06-25-2014 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by Faith
06-24-2014 3:06 PM


Re: Retranslating Genesis
From a skim-through at Amazon I get that it's a claim that Genesis 1:1 has been mistranslated lo these many millennia. I didn't spend the time to get a clear idea of what they think it should say, just that they don't like what it says and they think a better understanding of the Hebrew will show that it means something else. A couple of Dallas seminary guys.

I'm sure you don't know enough Hebrew to judge their thinking and I certainly don't so I don't see what it would accomplish to tell me more about their conclusions.

Neat how you are able to deduce their agenda and determine they are wrong with out even reading it.

Typical.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 3:06 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 06-25-2014 12:12 PM herebedragons has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 12722
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 254 of 276 (730208)
06-25-2014 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Faith
06-24-2014 4:19 PM


Faith writes:

I didn't calculate "for" that purpose at all.


Regardless of your unspoken motivations, you did say that the amount of water you calculated was sufficient to cover the mountains that you "surmise" existed pre-flood. I'm simply pointing out that your surmise is total fiction, totally extra-Biblical. You can't pretend that your scenario is Bible-based when you're making up half of it.

Faith writes:

As for the tectonic cause of the higher mountains we have today I've argued that already in many a thread.


And you've been shown that your argument violates the laws of physics, yet you stubbornly deny any miracle.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Faith, posted 06-24-2014 4:19 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23433
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 255 of 276 (730209)
06-25-2014 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by New Cat's Eye
06-25-2014 10:16 AM


Re: Scripture
Everything you quote has "windows" or "doors" of heaven being clearly metaphorical. Blessings come down from heaven, the manna came down from heaven and so did the rain. It all came from ABOVE. Rain normally comes from vapor in the atmosphere. It's not that God couldn't just pour out rain miraculously but God says He WILL do all kinds of things in scripture and most of it doesn't happen miraculously, such as He will make of Abraham a great nation, He will make a great nation of Hagar's son too, and we don't expect Him to do it as a miracle ex nihilo, He does it through the normal channels of reproduction. "Blessings" from heaven can be anything, probably most of them coming through normal channels. Manna was of course a miracle. But rain from heaven like all the other normal events mentioned doesn't need a miraculous source. God makes EVERYTHING happen, very little of it miraculous, and there's nothing miraculous about rain.

ABE: I pulled up all the "I will" phrases in the Bible and those attributed to God are just about all statements of what He is going to do to Israel either as a blessing or a punishment. This one is typical:

Jer 5:15 Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the LORD: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say.

Again, God does EVERYTHING. In the Bible He shows us what He does and why so we can apply it to our own lives. Very little of it is miraculous. This passage is a prophecy or warning of judgment coming upon the nation in the form of an attack by a powerful enemy.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-25-2014 10:16 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-25-2014 2:29 PM Faith has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
141516
17
1819Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017