Waters over Firmament, Flat Earth, and whether the Bible can be factually incorrect.

[oxmixmudd]

I obviously reject your premise for #1. Naturally you'll claim it's based on my ignorance, so such a discussion is futile for both of us.

It would only be futile if you don't want to know. Which is as best I can tell the most accurate assessment of the situation. 'My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts.'

Nonetheless, it cuts both ways. #3 will lead to #2 just as fast as you presume #1 will

I made no predictions about #1 leading to #2. I simply said #1 is unstable, there are too many facts that must be ignored and shoved under the table, so eventually one is forced to willfully ignore them, which will force a move away from #1 or actual suppression of what one knows to be true.

when your honest about the theological problems as I was in the previous post.

I am honest about the problems. I know what they are. And I've struggled with them over a long period of time. But I also believe there are viable solutions to them. But those solutions only present themselves if you first abandon the idea Genesis 1-3 can be taken as a scientifically viable or literally historical rendition of events. And for that you must rid yourself of the burden that comes from trying to tell God what is the only acceptable way to write a creation story.

From my perspective, we let the data and the context (cultural/textual) tell us what kind of creation story Genesis is. That evidence points clearly to a polemic against the pagan gods of the surrounding cultures and a narrative that provides a spiritual context for who we are and what our relationship to God is. (The extension to 'we' from 'the Israelites' comes through the Resurrection). We then apply that understanding to how we view its use in the remainder of Scripture. However, that application must be done in faith. IOW, we don't say that because it is a polemic against pagan gods that it is not longer true or inspired. The Bible tell us ALL scripture is inspired by God, that those that recorded Genesis were moved by the Holy Spirit and that it is profitable for doctrine and reproof. You have put conditions on that truth: "Only if it can be shown Genesis 1 is literal history and scientifically viable". But those conditions do not exist in scripture itself. It IS inspired. Period.


Jim


Jim

[seanD]

It would only be futile if you don't want to know. Which is as best I can tell the most accurate assessment of the situation. 'My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts.'



I made no predictions about #1 leading to #2. I simply said #1 is unstable, there are too many facts that must be ignored and shoved under the table, so eventually one is forced to willfully ignore them, which will force a move away from #1 or actual suppression of what one knows to be true.




I am honest about the problems. I know what they are. And I've struggled with them over a long period of time. But I also believe there are viable solutions to them. But those solutions only present themselves if you first abandon the idea Genesis 1-3 can be taken as a scientifically viable or literally historical rendition of events. And for that you must rid yourself of the burden that comes from trying to tell God what is the only acceptable way to write a creation story.

From my perspective, we let the data and the context (cultural/textual) tell us what kind of creation story Genesis is. That evidence points clearly to a polemic against the pagan gods of the surrounding cultures and a narrative that provides a spiritual context for who we are and what our relationship to God is. (The extension to 'we' from 'the Israelites' comes through the Resurrection). We then apply that understanding to how we view its use in the remainder of Scripture. However, that application must be done in faith. IOW, we don't say that because it is a polemic against pagan gods that it is not longer true or inspired. The Bible tell us ALL scripture is inspired by God, that those that recorded Genesis were moved by the Holy Spirit and that it is profitable for doctrine and reproof. You have put conditions on that truth: "Only if it can be shown Genesis 1 is literal history and scientifically viable". But those conditions do not exist in scripture itself. It IS inspired. Period.


Jim


Jim

Nah, I haven't ignored the subject in order to conclude that it's false. Humans didn't evolve from lower primates. Now you can go through the typical ritualistic routine of calling me ignorant, unintelligent, naive, unenlightened, a moron all you want in order to find some explanation or rationale why a reasonably literate guy would deny something you firmly believe is a scientific truth, but you can't use the belief that I ignore it or suppress it as an explanation because that's categorically false. Moreover, you did imply #1 leads to #2 by making a reference to "a stumbling block" in your last post. #3 is just as unstable, hence the reason TEs need to try and solve the theological incongruities with off-the-wall theoretical accessories that neither the bible nor science supports, or one must just ignore these theological issues or shove them under the table, much like you claim is necessary with #1 (though in my case that's not true at all), which will force a suppression of what one knows are major theological problems with #3. It's essentially the same situation was my point.

[oxmixmudd]

Nah, I haven't ignored the subject in order to conclude that it's false. Humans didn't evolve from lower primates. Now you can go through the typical ritualistic routine of calling me ignorant, unintelligent, naive, unenlightened, a moron all you want in order to find some explanation or rationale why a reasonably literate guy would deny something you firmly believe is a scientific truth, but you can't use the belief that I ignore it or suppress it as an explanation because that's categorically false. Moreover, you did imply #1 leads to #2 by making a reference to "a stumbling block" in your last post. #3 is just as unstable, hence the reason TEs need to try and solve the theological incongruities with off-the-wall theoretical accessories that neither the bible nor science supports, or one must just ignore these theological issues or shove them under the table, much like you claim is necessary with #1 (though in my case that's not true at all), which will force a suppression of what one knows are major theological problems with #3. It's essentially the same situation was my point.

You just want a fight - don't you? So far I've avoided calling you any sort of names and just tried to have a discussion, but you sure do want me to go off on you - don't you? Will it make it easier to dismiss my words if I do that?

But you are drawing flawed conclusions. The issue of conscience is a stumbling block, but does not necessarily or even normally lead to a loss of faith (#2). It is a problem for the one dealing with it.

#3 is not unstable in the sense I am speaking. I do not have to shove under the covers certain physical realities to avoid a crisis of faith. That is the context of 'unstable'. I do agree that both #1 and #3 have potential contradictions to deal with. But the difference is that there are and have always been diverse potential approaches to the key theological elements you mention. For example - is mankind mortal in the Garden? Does it say? What purpose does the tree of life serve if He is immortal? The text clearly states Adam is cast out lest he eat the tree of life and become immortal in his sin. Traditional theology assumes the entry of death was imposed, but the context leaves wide open immortality itself was as much missed as lost. The outcome is the same in either case. The need for salvation the same as well. But one view is consistent with science and the other is not.

But please clarify for me. You are clearly very hostile to the TE point of view, and mine in specific. But I don't want to make assumptions about what drives your hostility, and I do not remember your precise position on these: Is it my belief in millions of years, or is it my belief life evolved, or is it just my belief mankind evolved that triggers your hostility? Or is it more just that I accept that the language in Genesis 1 is culturally driven and describes a domed heaven and it has nothing at all to do with my assessment of the age of the Earth or human evolution. Or is it some complex combination of the above.

Thanks,

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

While the uses of raqia‘ in Genesis 1 do not provide any direct indication as to the nature of the material, Gen 1:14, 20 provide some insight from a phenomenological perspective as to how the ancient Hebrews understood raqia‘. In v. 14, raqia‘ is where the sun, moon and stars are located but v. 20 indicates that birds can fly upon it or (better) in it! The full Hebrew expression al-pni raqia‘ is often translated "in the open heavens," meaning "up," "above," or "in" the heavens. In other words, the birds would be flying below the firmament (and the sun, moon and stars) if the raqia‘ was thought of as a solid structure! The text has birds flying in the raqia‘ but clearly at a lower level than the sun, moon and stars. Either the writer conceives of multiple layers or a continuous expanse from the level of the birds to the level of the sun, moon, and stars. Sailhamer, preferring the latter explanation, argues that raqia‘ should be understood simply as "sky." The author‘s own review of Bible commentators from the Byzantine period, Middle Ages, and up to the time of the Enlightenment shows that raqia‘ is commonly translated as "expanse"—something not solid—and not understood as an upside down metal bowl.[/box]

Except that al-pni means "on or across the face of", which again implies a surface, as does the remainder of the context, and the use of the word raqia throughout.

The kind of translation approach seen above is simply a reaction to the conflict between the plain meaning of the text and what we know plainly and clearly through science. raqia is only used one other place in the OT that helps define its meaning, and that is in Ezekial 1 and 10 to describe a crystal dome. Interestingly, in Daniel it is referred to as bright (having its own light). Please note also that al-pni is the same phrase translated 'surface/face of the waters' and 'surface/face of the deep' in Genesis 1. The clear meaning is that of a surface stretched out. Later in genesis 7, the text refers to opening or windows to let the waters above through. Other passages use the same work for 'windows' or 'sluices' to describe how God delivered manna in the wilderness, and to describe the openings angels traverse to go to an from the earth.

The problem is that IF you are going to go with more concealed meanings in the Hebrew to avoid conflicts with science over the issue of the implied properties of the raqia, based solely on how science drives the interpretation, how are you then going to condemn similar approaches to the text to deal with what science has to say about the age of the Earth, or how life came to be?

There is no real logic or consistency to the approach here. e.g. "I don't like what it says literally about the sky because of what I know scientifically, ok I'll use some obscure possible meaning to find a way out. But I don't like what science says about how life formed on the Earth, so I'll now demand that the literal meaning of day be the only possible rendering of the text."

It's just a calvin ball approach.

I think a consistent approach is to recognize that God spoke His revelation using the 'language' of the prophets, and recognize this included culturally derived idioms and conventions. Further, it is important to recognize that the text is not purposed towards a scientific end, but a spiritual one. And the purpose of a creation epic in ancient cultures was not to provide or impart history or science, but to provide a context, a narrative that defined WHO they were, and what their relationship was to their God(s). Understanding these things, we can then allow for God's accommodation of His revelation to the intended audience and purpose. Without God's accommodation to who we are, we are without hope. He lowered himself and became a man so that we might know Him. This is so critical to our understanding of Him and what He has done in Christ, and in Scripture. And in this day and age, with what we know about the history of life on the Earth and the age of the universe, it is all the more critical to faith that we understand this element of how God reveals and revealed truth in scripture.


Jim

[Adrift]

Except that al-pni means "on or across the face of", which again implies a surface, as does the remainder of the context, and the use of the word raqia throughout.

The kind of translation approach seen above is simply an attempt to obscure the plain meaning of the text. raqia is only used one other place in the OT that helps define its meaning, and that is in Ezekial 1 and 10 to describe a crystal dome. Interestingly, in Daniel it is referred to as bright (having its own light). Please note also that al-pni is the same phrase translated 'surface/face of the waters' and 'surface/face of the deep' in Genesis 1. The clear meaning is that of a surface stretched out. Later in genesis 7, the text refers to opening or windows to let the waters above through. Other passages use the same work for 'windows' or 'sluices' to describe how God delivered manna in the wilderness, and to describe the openings angels traverse to go to an from the earth.

It may be the case that "in front" or "before" is a very good translation for the preposition al-P'nëy, but, as Professor Younker pointed out this is not the only way the preposition can be translated. Even many modern Bible translations translate the verse something like "across the open expanse" (NIV, ESV) or "in the open firmament" (ASV, ERV).

Westermann, though a proponent of a solid dome, and birds flying in front of it, admits,

Source: Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary, pg. 137

P describes the living space by using the preposition עַל in two different ways: "Let birds fly above (עַל) the earth, across (עַל) the firmament of the heavens." It is very difficult for us to render the preposition here as it has such a broad scope; what is intended is, over the earth and under the vault of heaven. Hebrew had to use some such roundabout expression because it had no word for space or atmosphere, where the air was, but only for air in motion (L. Kohler, ZAW 32 [1912] 12).

© Copyright Original Source

So, again, although Westermann ultimately believes that what was intended is that birds "fly under the vault of heaven", he makes clear that the issue is far from uncomplicated. Its not as simple as plugging in al-P'nëy and assuming that's all there is to it.

The problem is that IF you are going to go with more concealed meanings in the Hebrew to avoid conflicts with science over the issue of the implied properties of the raqia, based solely on how science drives the interpretation, how are you then going to condemn similar approaches to the text to deal with what science has to say about the age of the Earth, or how life came to be?

That isn't my position. My position is the same as that of scholars like Walton and Sailhammer; that we should first seek to understand what the author intended for his original audience. As a fellow old earth creationist, that leans towards theistic evolution, I have little issue with how to deal with what science has to say about the age of the earth or how life came to be.

There is no real logic or consistency to the approach here. e.g. "I don't like what it says literally about the sky because of what I know scientifically, ok I'll use some obscure possible meaning to find a way out. But I don't like what science says about how life formed on the Earth, so I'll now demand that the literal meaning of day be the only possible rendering of the text."

I would have thought after all these years you would have understood that my stance on this subject is more nuanced than the strawman that you've erected.

I think the only consistent approach is to recognize that God spoke His revelation using the 'language' of the prophets, and recognize this included culturally derived idioms and conventions. Further, it is important to recognize that the text is not purposed towards a scientific end, but a spiritual one. And the purpose of a creation epic in ancient cultures was not to provide or impart history or science, but to provide a context, a narrative that defined WHO they were, and what their relationship was to their God(s). Understanding these things, we can then allow for God's accommodation of His revelation to the intended audience and purpose. Without God's accommodation to who we are, we are without hope. He lowered himself and became a man so that we might know Him. This is so critical to our understanding of Him and what He has done in Christ, and in Scripture. And in this day and age, with what we know about the history of life on the Earth and the age of the universe, it is all the more critical to faith that we understand this element of how God reveals and revealed truth in scripture.

Jim, I acknowledge this is your position on the subject. I do not totally reject this view, however, I believe there is a middle way that allows for a more literal, phenomenological understanding of the text.

[oxmixmudd]

It may be the case that "in front" or "before" is a very good translation for the preposition al-P'nëy, but, as Professor Younker pointed out this is not the only way the preposition can be translated. Even many modern Bible translations translate the verse something like "across the open expanse" (NIV, ESV) or "in the open firmament" (ASV, ERV).

It is my opinion that the modern trend toward this kind of wording is driven not by the best literal rendering of the text, but by the desire to make the text understandable to a modern audience. Given the same phrase is used to say before the face of, or before the surface of in the opening verses, I think that opinion is supported by the evidence. The idea that the ancient and not scientific peoples tend to view the sky as some sort of surface or solid structure is well supported by Seely, and not at all uncommon. And the verse in Job where the sky is described as made of cast metal supports strongly that those ancient cultures into which this revelation was given held just such a view.

Westermann, though a proponent of a solid dome, and birds flying in front of it, admits,

Source: Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary, pg. 137

P describes the living space by using the preposition עַל in two different ways: "Let birds fly above (עַל) the earth, across (עַל) the firmament of the heavens." It is very difficult for us to render the preposition here as it has such a broad scope; what is intended is, over the earth and under the vault of heaven. Hebrew had to use some such roundabout expression because it had no word for space or atmosphere, where the air was, but only for air in motion (L. Kohler, ZAW 32 [1912] 12).

© Copyright Original Source

So, again, although Westermann ultimately believes that what was intended is that birds "fly under the vault of heaven", he makes clear that the issue is far from uncomplicated. Its not as simple as plugging in al-P'nëy and assuming that's all there is to it.

It was not my intent to oversimplify, or to imply that the Hebrews were unaware of the space between the earth and the sky, but rather to say the context strongly supports the idea that the writer understood the sky in terms similar to that of Job's friend. That is was some sort of fixed surface over the Earth, above which were the waters of heaven, in which were the stars, sun and moon, and below which were the earth and the clouds and before the face of which the birds flew.

That isn't my position. My position is the same as that of scholars like Walton and Sailhammer; that we should first seek to understand what the author intended for his original audience. As a fellow old earth creationist, that leans towards theistic evolution, I have little issue with how to deal with what science has to say about the age of the earth or how life came to be.

My apologies. I was unfortunately taking a more defensive stance that was needed. And to be honest, I had somehow gotten the wrong person in my mind when I was responding to your post. In fact, when I got to this part I went back and checked and somehow I had managed to see the moniker of one of the other posters and then the text of your post and had them confused as I was responding. Which explains ...

I would have thought after all these years you would have understood that my stance on this subject is more nuanced than the strawman that you've erected.

Yep - my bad.

Jim, I acknowledge this is your position on the subject. I do not totally reject this view, however, I believe there is a middle way that allows for a more literal, phenomenological understanding of the text.

I accept and respect that. Clearly I don't know for certain which is the best approach. I continue to review my own and look for approaches to the text of faith, approaches that retains recognition God inspired these writings, that there are elements in these writings that are far more than what would have been the output of the human writer alone. And I go with what seems closest to the truth* from where I sit at the moment - always from a attitude of prayer and recognition of my own limitations. And I try to be open to correction. That can be a hard openness to retain if one has worked long and hard to arrive at one's current position, but that is my goal - however meager my actual success at achieving it might be.


Jim

* Within the context of faith in the death, burial, and physical resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ

[rakovsky]

Out of the answers in the poll, I absolutely rule out #2: "the waters above the firmament refer to clouds including those in the earth's atmosphere".
If the clouds are in fact under the firmament or in the firmament, then the waters "above" the firmament cannot be the clouds.

The other ones I don't totally rule out because I am not omniscient about what is at the edge of the universe or on the other side of it.

My best guess would simply be the answer "No". Christianity does not require us to accept absolute factual inerrancy of the Bible, nor does the Bible say that it's everywhere factually inerrant. With so many verses dealing with 1000+ years of history and factual events, my guess is that at least one time there was an error factually when the writer intended to write factually.

I would prefer for the Bible to be factually inerrant,or at least would be OK with it emotionally, I just don't think that's realistic.

[Jedidiah]

In a sense, yes. But not the sense you mean here. The parables of Christ are just stories, but do you say His teachings are merely stories? Do you sneer at those that take them seriously and study them carefully? Are they empty and devoid of truth because they are 'stories'?

Recognizing the reality of how and what God was teaching in Genesis is far better a place to be than foisting the myth that Genesis can be used to define what is true and what is false in science. Now THERE is a myth in the sense you intend above.

Jim

Only young earthers seem to believe that their faulty exegesis tops science.

[Jedidiah]

You perceive me as thinking like an unbeliever because I make it difficult and uncomfortable for you to accommodate both beliefs, which is my intent. Mainly because I hate cowards who want it both ways because it's comfortable that way. TEs just love to equate the issue of geocentrism with ToE in order to justify the error when the two issues aren't at all the same. No one based the theology of the resurrection on geocentrism like Paul did with the Genesis creation. Paul believed death came because of what Genesis describes. Apparently this was an error on Paul's part because death was here long before Adam. But it's not just that Paul was in error, it's the questions that are raised as a result. Why did Adam need salvation if he never sinned like Paul says he did? Why didn't the ape-like creations evolving need salvation? Why and where did death come from if it was such a detrimental factor to humanity that required a God-Savior to defeat it? It's amusing watching you guys jump through hoops to accommodate both beliefs that not only the bible doesn't support but science doesn't support. The problems of geocentrism with ToE aren't the same... at all.

Paul did not say all death came from man's sin. Read it again. Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

[shunyadragon]

Only young earthers seem to believe that their faulty exegesis tops science.

A very significant part of the population which includes old earthers that believe faulty exegesis tops science.

[Yttrium]

A very significant part of the population which includes old earthers that believe faulty exegesis tops science.

Not to mention all the geocentrists.

Well, both of them.

There might be a few more hidden out there somewhere...

[seanD]

Paul did not say all death came from man's sin. Read it again. Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—

I'm not sure where I see a difference or how that helps your case. I see: because of sin, death resulted, thus spread to all men because they all sin, therefore sin = how death came about and how it affected all men. Paul didn't have a theory that accommodated both modern scientific belief and the Genesis story. The Genesis story was all Paul had and what he was going by. Did God create man-ape creatures that Paul didn't know of who didn't sin at some point? How do you work that into the evolution scheme?

[shunyadragon]

Not to mention all the geocentrists.

Well, both of them.

There might be a few more hidden out there somewhere...

There are probably a lot of closet geocentrists out there. I wonder what happens when they run out of closets.

The literal interpretation of Genesis indicates a geocentrist view of our universe.

[rogue06]

There are probably a lot of closet geocentrists out there. I wonder what happens when they run out of closets.

The literal interpretation of Genesis indicates a geocentrist view of our universe.

Not so much Genesis but Joshua 10:12-13; I Chronicles 16:30; Job 9:7; Psalms 19:4-6; 93:1; 96:10; Ecclesiastes 1:5; Isaiah 38:8 and Habakkuk 3:11 (a reference to Joshua 10) are the verses most often presented by geocentrists as evidence.

[rogue06]

I'm not sure where I see a difference or how that helps your case. I see: because of sin, death resulted, thus spread to all men because they all sin, therefore sin = how death came about and how it affected all men. Paul didn't have a theory that accommodated both modern scientific belief and the Genesis story. The Genesis story was all Paul had and what he was going by. Did God create man-ape creatures that Paul didn't know of who didn't sin at some point? How do you work that into the evolution scheme?

The difference is that Paul here is saying that death spread to mankind not all of creation.