Pyramids

Now you are being exceptionally silly. The term raqiya indicates metal pounded out and spread over a solid surface. Even in your pretentious "solid blue" you indicate a necessisary understanding of a solid dome. The author I quoted conqures with my summation about a dome which does not occure in reality over the earth. Metal is a solid surface and raqiya is a metalurgical term. Thus a solid dome. You are purposely trying to be obstinate so as to assume I am alone in the solid dome view of the description in genesis which I've shown you by the quote is not true.

Here you are wrong Firmament mean solid structure as it is from latin firmamentum or solid structure I've shown how the greek translates similarily.

Young's isn't showing the literal translation. What they do is take Raqiya which mean to pound out a metal and spread it over a surface. Using pound out and spread out aspects to suggest expance because the interpretors understanding a modern cosmology know there is not a solid aspect to the atmosphere yet they leave out the solid aspect of the word opting for a partial translation. Where its obvious they get into trouble is here

transfering the term expanse (again) and inserting earth. So it reads below the expanse and above the expanse or

relating to raqiya. Thus keeping water above the atmosphere or in outer space which is clear that the Expanse, Vault, Dome keeps these waters away from the earth. It is clear the intent was for a solid dome. Youngs is a translation not literal.

jAll I've done is shown the literal translation here it is clear you are inserting supposition. thus in order to understand this story of Genesis you must insert some inane supposition that is extra biblical for it to make sense. I'm sorry I agree with Wallace. The genesis account isn't to be understood literally.

So if I am to understand you by your reasoning in this imperfect world people would not be running around naked? Remember, I've lived in Africa and I know of tribes in south america that run about naked and they live in this imperfect work. According to you Noah exposed to radiation should have gotten cancer and died with in a hundred years after the flood but no. He live over 300 more years!!!! You claim I add to the bible!!!!! Look at how you jump through hoops to create supositions to support a literal translation!!!!!

The windos? Or beter translated floodgates. This supports what I've been saying. It doesn't say your earth sheild collapesed but that there were openings that allowed the water above in outer space to fall causeing the flood. Again we see an primative and ancient cosmology

Your appeal to the metalic is just plain grasping at straws. Because you can't deny the bible describes a primative cosmology which is inclusive of a solid dome and it uses a metalogical term Raqiya. Which was a metal pounded out and spread over a solid surface.

 

Who is being silly???
Here is what raqia means:

I looked in a multitude of translations also, and here is what I found: firmament, expanse, space, dome, horizon, and some others. The dome (when used) referred to the horizon. We look up and we see a blue sky that looks like a dome--the horizon from east to west and from north to south is shaped like a dome. It has nothing to do with metallurgy. And the Bible doesn't say anything about it. Neither do definitions or translations. It was simply a space between the waters above the earth to divide them from the waters below the earth--exactly as the Bible says.

It is a problem for you to believe what is written in the Bible?


God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse, and it was so. God called the expanse sky. There was evening and there was morning, a second day. (Genesis 1:6-8) WEB
--The expanse was the sky. It was the atmosphere. Above the atmosphere was water, and below the atmosphere was water. That is what the Bible says.

It is God that calls it "sky." Why do you argue with him?

You are the only one that I know of that believes this.
1. I have never read this in over 30 years of Christian service, and I teach Genesis as one of my courses.
2. I have showed you what raqia means via Strong's concordance and your meaning is not in there.
3. There is not a single translation that supports your contention.
4. This time I quoted from the World English Bible, a much more modern translation, not very literal at all. It still gives the same sense.

Well, it is called literal for a reason; "Youngs Literal Translation."
There may have been a solid dome. There was an expanse or space that we call atmosphere that separated that dome from the waters on the earth. That dome was no doubt made of ice if it were solid. There is some evidence for that theory.

Who is inserting supposition? You have to be serious here. It is complete supposition to believe there was a metallic dome around the earth. The belief, quite frankly is absurd. "It doesn't hold any water."
God told Moses to write the history of creation. And Moses wrote the words that God told him. This is inspiration. We have an historical account of what happened during the days of creation, and no need to dispute, disbelieve, allegorize, question, or doubt, the authenticity of this account found in the first chapter of Genesis.

Nope, never said that. Here is what I said. I referred to this Scripture:

They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (Genesis 2:25)
--The climate was such that they did not need clothes, as we can see from the above verse. The fact that they were not ashamed speaks to the time when there was no sin or the time before the fall. After the Fall people clothed themselves or they felt a great sense of shame as we do today. However, up until the Flood, the climate was such that clothing was not needed for intemperate climatic reasons. It was only needed to cover their shame.

Why do you add to what I say, misquote me, and make yourself look like a fool. If you are going to try and quote me then use the quote feature and quote me, otherwise do away with the false accusations and personal attacks. I said no such thing.
1. The water canopy that surrounded the world helped keep out or filter out harmful rays possibly enabling those that lived before the Flood longer. Remember they lived 900 plus years as opposed to those after the Flood.
2. I said nothing of cancer or any other disease. Don't be foolish.
3. There was a drastic change in the climate after the Flood: now four seasons--winter, summer, spring, fall. Now there was extreme cold and extreme hot, both of which would take its toll on mankind. The era of the Flood is probably the time when the dinosaurs became extinct--so great were the climactic changes that they could not adapt.

Either translation works. Neither supports what you are saying.

The flood gates opened up. God caused a lot of water to come down. He is the one who did it. I was not there to observe it and neither were you, so I am not going to make dogmatic statements about what I do not know. But I can make dogmatic statements on what I know did not happen. There was no metal shield. I know that much.

It seems to me that you are using pagan sources for your authority and not the Bible. I have told you the definition of raqia, and it has nothing to do with metallurgy. It has nothing to do with a metal dome. You are really stretching here to read some pagan myth into the Bible. Even the Bible itself says very plainly:
And God called the expanse sky. 1:8 (WEB)
How much clearer could it be.

 

DHK, note that the only reason thinkingstuff wishes for there to be a metal dome covering the earth is to prove how silly the biblical account is compared to all the experts in science. Otherwise, he really doesn't care a bit. If the dome is sky, then the premise for his argument, that the Bible is completely irrelevant as an accurate descriptor of Creation, goes out the window.

 

Bolded mine

Is this not the ultimate purpose of virtually all this questioning of His word for the vast majority??? Some are just unwittingly lured into this approach by "educational pride", but most are just trying to discredit God's word.

I'm sure the reasoning(?) goes like this: "If God did not MEAN what He said about 'X', then perhaps He did not mean what He said about 'Y'!"

The end of this approach is that eventually God does not condemn abortion, sod0my, nor anything else one wishes to participate in or be a part of.

Dangerous path to tread!!!!!

 

DHK a couple of things need to be pointed out. Strongs though it says its exhaustive is not entirely so. The definition of Raqiya is

And Even Strongs indicates the root is raqa which is

The term is clear that a solid surface is intended. Note Firmament is from Lating meaning solid structure. English translation Solid structure. LXX Greek word use is sterewma or στερέωμα translated means

So this premise that a solid structure isn't meant is wrong. You're Strong's is only giving a part picture and further study is required but Hebrew scholars seem conclusive on this Solid structure.
Next how long you've been a Christian is irrelevant. I've been a Christian some time myself and I do know one thing you can always learn more. Next I've also noticed how people develope a theology and their colored theology blinds them to other valid interpretations. Like Pentecostals will always see the give of tounges as babyling ridiculously. Reformed will always see providence, and armenians will always see free will. Verses can be shown each of these groups however each will hold to their mistaken view. And not be honest that that is exactly what it is. For many years I believed as most of you guys with the young earth theory, God only died for the elect. But as read the scriptures openly without predujice I learned that I was mistaken about a few things. This I fear is what you cannot do. However, I believe I have the advantage of being forced to be open because I've lived all over the world with differing cultures and differing mores. I have that ability to see things from differing perspectives and get past certain predujices.

Unfortunately, Glfredrick and Justwantpeace have misjudged me entirely. Because my argument is substantive they must attack character by saying such nonsense as

is entirely wrong. The bible will never be irrelevant. That is not my Goal. My goal is to show you why I think by taking the bible literally conserning the creation acount is wrong and God did not intend us to take it that way. I believe that by taking scriptures in a fashion they are not meant is not only wrong but dangerous. Apocalyptic literature cannot taken literally. Imagine if you did. But also its a type of forced ignorance. Much like Islam that if you believe contrary no matter what the facts are you will be isolated and killed. I like the Amish but one of their tennants is that they don't go beyond 8th grade for education because why people will begin to question their held beliefs with regard to scripture and maybe find out that they don't have to ride a horse and buggy to be in God's will. Christians aren't asked to lay aside their reasoning but to embrace it. Its is this type of thinking that the reformers wanted to get aways from robotic thinking. No one thinks for themselves. Our faith is not like. that.

 

Thank you for giving me good reason to continue to believe as I do about your primary cause...

Is Genesis classified as apocalyptic literature? And, if so, by whom?

As far as "thinking" and "reasoning" I am utterly sure that I am capable of doing that from a solid biblical foundation instead of from a scientific foundation, though I am capable of working in both worlds. Like I said above, it is not that I do not know the science -- it is that I know it well and reject it. It is based on a priori presuppositions that are not proven, and not even truly (in the case of evolution or the creation of the cosmos) theory, nor is much of the current state of affairs for these areas falsifiable.

Darwin was correct when he said that if it could be proven that evolution could not come about through successive small steps that his theory would be invalid. It has now been demonstrated that the cellular and micro-biology of the cell is far too complex to have come about by mere chance over time.

Same goes for the advent of the universe. Science is in a conundrum. They know that the cosmos had a beginning, because there is no such thing as an actual infinity, but they also press for a cosmos without a beginning by placing that beginning in an alternative or multiple universes where it can never be tested, making their belief nothing more than a metaphysical expression of faith -- but their faith is not even objective, it is subjective, for we CANNOT and never will be able to escape the bounds of our own universe to test the hypothesis put forward. That is not science --it is faith -- in naturalism and scientism. It is that reason (and a hundred others) that I reject science for God's Word rightly understood in context.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?
Job 37:18 (ESV)

 

Most excellent post sag38....do not agree with you often,but this is so right I have to thank you:thumbsup:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=113091348265
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=114091821145

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup:Amy....correct absolutely.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1150991191
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11509915283
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=114091829220

 

Yeah, that is one translation. It is poetical. Here is a few others followed by an explanation from Adam Clarke

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? (Job 37:18) KJV

Canst thou with him spread out the sky, Which is strong as a molten mirror? (Job 37:18) ASV

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, firm, like a molten mirror? (Job 37:18) Darby

Can you, with him, spread out the sky, Which is strong as a cast metal mirror? (Job 37:18) WEB

Thou hast made an expanse with Him For the clouds--strong as a hard mirror! (Job 37:18) Young’s

(Job 37:18) will you, with him, spread out the clouds, solid as a mirror of molten metal? NET

Thou perhaps hast made the heavens with him, which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass. Douay Rheims

Can you stretch out the skies with him and make them as firm as a mirror made of metal? Great Word

Adam Clarke says of this verse:

Job 37:18

 

Seems like (pun intended) the key words there are "as", "as if", and "like".

 

Thinkingstuff, Let me give you an example of your reasoning and logic.
I looked on your profile and saw that your occupation is an auditor, correct?
Now, I took Webster's dictionary to find out what an auditor is.
Here is what I found out:

--So as far as I know you are one that sits around all day listening to court cases in the capacity of a judge. Is this what you do? That is how Webster defines "auditor."
--And this is how you arrive at your definition of raqia. You take the secondary meanings, however minor they may be, and force them to be the primary meanings.

If you are interested here are the definitions of auditor:

Your meaning is wrong, absolutely wrong. The meaning of the word is determined by the context. And there is no possible way that the context of Genesis chapter one will allow for your meaning of that word to fit. And, secondly, it is a very minor meaning, one that is hardly used. You are forcing a minor usage into the text (a practice of the cults) in order to get the result that you want. In applying the scientific method this is prejudicial and biased and looks for a predetermined outcome already established by the one doing the research. The research is flawed before it has even started.

The fact that I have been teaching the Book of Genesis in a Bible College as one of my courses has a great deal of relevance.

It also insulates them from heresy.

I also have lived all over the world. I think you know that. But I haven't opened up myself to any kind of heresy or unorthodox doctrine as I have seen you post on this board previously.

Unfortunately, Glfredrick and Justwantpeace have misjudged me entirely. Because my argument is substantive they must attack character by saying such nonsense as is entirely wrong. The bible will never be irrelevant. That is not my Goal. My goal is to show you why I think by taking the bible literally conserning the creation acount is wrong and God did not intend us to take it that way.[/quote]
And your evidence for this is what??? You have an opinion here and that is all. No evidence. It is even a denial of the words of Christ who believed in a literal creation.

Accordingly, we believe you are taking the Scriptures in a fashion they are not meant to be taken, and that is wrong and dangerous.

But Genesis (as you know) is not apocalyptic literature. It is simple straightforward history.

Their reasoning; yes. A fool's reasoning; No!

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. (Psalms 14:1)
--You quote fool after fool to make your point. You keep on quoting those who don't believe the Bible. Indirectly you attack the integrity and inspiration of the Bible, and have decided that the science and scientism of fools are your authority rather than the Word of God.

Having put two models before you: A. Creation, and B. Evolution, I believe you chose evolution, whereas we believe that science fits the model of creation better than the model of evolution. It takes more faith to believe in the religion of evolution than it does to believe in the resurrected Creator who made all things.

What type of thinking????

 

I took the liberty of running raqiya past Dr. Russel Fuller -- perhaps one of the best Hebrew men in God's kingdom today:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0825426502/?tag=baptis04-20

Here is his response to my inquiry (which matches what I posted in this thread):

 

See how you purposely misconstrue what I have said. You do it intentionally because of course you can't be wrong. I never said Genesis wasn't meant to be taken literally and I've put forward a defense for it and have showed you that there are other scripture experts that support my contention. What I did say also was that certain parts of scripture is not to be taken literally such as apocalyptic literature. I didn't say Genesis was appocalyptic. This is the standard misdirect you try to incert in your argument. like a magician who shows you one hand and does something in the other. Purposeful misdirect. Anyone ready what I've said would understand I did not say Genesis was apocalyptic but contextually understand that it is of a type of literature that cannot be taken literally like apocalyptic. I call the genesis account a creation myth account. Do not take this to mean God did not create the universe nor that he didn't do it in an orderly fashion but not as it is described in Genesis. Genesis is for theolgical purposes only.

I am glad to here you say that. We wouldn't want to be like the Catholic church threatening to put people in jail because they have a heliocentric view of the solar system.

So you are a geocentrist. I'm sorry but evidence supports otherwise.

I don't disagree with this premise. I know God had a plan and man is special in his creation. Its clear from the Genesis account which I hold to be true but not literal. I don't hold to Macro evolution either though there is significant support on a micro level. Just because I don't think Genesis is to be taken literally doesn't automatically place me in Darwin's faction. I don't agree with Darwinism either. However, it doesn't mean there isn't some merit to his view. But that is far from saying he's right.

Its true they know little of the begining of the Universe. And I think you've mistaken string theory for multiverses with a "metaphysical expression of Faith" when all string theory has done is predict multiverse by equations. The math leads one to think that way not the other way around. Either way its not proven thus irrelevant. String theory is a hypothesis. I however do know there is a burgeoning eastern view infecting string theory of late because of the number of scientist coming out of india that are very educated. But again that is irrelevant to the discussion since its a hypothesis.

Not now anyway. Who knows? What will be possible in the future. However, something definately occures when we die.

No its supposition and hypothesis. There are facts that are scientific. When water gets to 32 degrees it freezes. Thats a fact. Now I will say God did it in that he set the laws in place that such an effect would happen. Still it happens at that teperature.

You certainly have a right to your opinion. I'm giving and defending mine.

 

Ok I would love to see it.

Actually I think that's what you've done by accepting only the spread out aspect of the Term Raqiya. The full term is to mean pounding out of metal and spread across a solid surface. However, You used strongs to suggest only the spread out part. Look lets take your example to the level. Taking my position title of auditor you pulled up your definition from Websters So I went to Websters to see for myself and this is what I come up with

I don't know why you left out the "examine and verify accounts" aspect but you did. the reality is my job requires all four points. I verify and make an attestation to financials or accounts. I also listen as an audience member to make a judgement based on what I hear from certain companies. I can audit a course of study like in college but I also have continuing education credits I need to maintain my certifications. I provide at times legal advice and in the process of making an attestation to something I act as a judge. Each can be applied but leave one aspect out and you get something less then what I do. And that is what I believe you have done with the definition of raqiya.

Only if you have a presuposition of what it is supposed to mean. In otherwords you read into it what you want it to say rather then letting it way what it is. By doing just that you are in fact not taking the words literally and reading your tradition into it. That is the point. A literal reading will have you believe there is a solid dome and that the earth is flat.

the full definition of a word is not a minor usage. We see the common usage is a metalurgical one rather than an "open space" one.

Yes I believe this is what you are doing. Reading into it your already supposed POV no different from the Catholics no different from the cults.

True scientific methods are honest and not prejudicial. One archeologist I saw explaining his time in the Holy Land said that he doesn't dig with the bible in one hand. He lets the evidence say what it does and doesn't predujice his findings. This is true science. I believe it is you who would dig in Israel with a bible in one hand to attempt to verify a faith you already contain rather than let the finds speak for themselves.

Why? When its clear you come at the subject biasedly its not as if you came at it without bias.

Heresy is a different topic. We are discussing what is the literal reading of the words. And if they don't match up with reality can we then assume as you have about other words that they are "poetic" not to be taken literally? I still asert the bible is true in all it asserts. Its inerrent when it comes to faith and morals. I still assert God is a triune God. That the Son is of the same substance of the Father, that the son died for our sins and on the third day rose again. I believe he's coming back. I believe in a resurrection of the dead. These are orthodox beliefs and I hold to them. Two different consepts.

like what genesis can't be taken literally? Thats not an orthodox or not orthodox issue. Its an issue of how the scriptures are interpreted.

and you said

that if the genesis account claims there is a solid dome over the earth which holds out primordial waters when this is not the reality of what is seen; then we must look at if from a non literal view which would include the days of creation. Or that there is a young earth.

Thats fair you're entitled to your position. Just as I am mine.

Not so straight forward because there is no solid dome. Also I believe it was Glfredrick who said. That though he admires people's attempt at timelining the events that the information is not complete and we cannot get an accurate picture which will also effect a "straight forward history". Also the bible leaves out other nations and places like Europe, America, Africa, and Australia. Its primarily conserned with a people group living in the fertile cresent region of the middle east. It is specific to one grouping of people and mentions only other when they come in contact with the hebrews.

To ignore facts and actual truth is misleading.

Which I have never done Thus your contention that

is not true. I quoted another Christian believer. Not baptist but an Orthodox Presbyterian.

Nope he believes the bible. Just understands the issue with taking the Genesis account literally is a recipie for cosmology problems in the faithful.

,Nope. I've attacked you supposition of how Genesis should be interpreted. I have always maintained the bible to be true and valid. The contention is with how people approach the book. The book isn't one piece of literature its a compilation or a library of differing types of literature. And these books must be understood in that context. I for instance hold that divorse is wrong and apart from adultry it may be granted only on the condition that the person never remarries. I believe this to be a clear teaching of scriptures.

again facts are facts. Science has nothing to say regarding my faith and morals.

false delemma I don't have to be either/or. I can choose another option. Creation. Genesis account not literal. Earth could have been here for 4.5 billion years.

Again wrong.

I believe there is sufficient evidence to support the earth being around for a lot longer than 10,000 years.

Actually it takes tremendous amount of faith to believe in 6 days of creation literally. Which you have. Mountain movement should be no problem for you.

 

Translated means he and I have the same bias and he's the top of the group that I agree with. I am certain there are men of God who would disagree with him at his level of education.

 

Let is look at what issue doctor Fuller has a problem with in his response to you. Why don't you ask him about it. he said directly from what you posted.

This is poetical but the rest is literal? Consistency issue here?

And why not the 6 days of creation? Maybe they too are to be taken poetically which is my point. It meets the consistency of language use test. However this isn't his largest issue. Lets look very carefully at what he says next. I'm one of those students he would hate to have in his classes let me tell you. Challenge the prof on everything. But that aside lets look closely at what he says.

Did you catch that? Very clear he changes definition in midstride. On one hand the first underlined part he indicates that the waters are seperated "under" the raqiya indicating in this use that raqiya is sky because he says "i.e. on the earth" So the waters under the raqiya are on earth thus raqiya is "expanse" or "sky" but when he went to above the raqiya (which he alluded to is sky) he now claims raqiya is earth!?! or "above the earth in the skies" he clearly contradicts himself. Above the raqiya is above the sky. He really needs to clear that one up because raqiya in his definition is sky not earth seperate below the raqiya and above the raqiya or sky. There is no other way to look at it.

Yes Genesis says stars are in the raqiya but the water is still placed above the raqiya thus the waters are above the sun and stars. It seems this poetic language is suggesting clearly a dome which keeps the waters out save by floodgates. Thus the whole passage of creation should be taken poetically.

Yes a different word is applied to God's place as I've discussed before there were 3 uses of the word shamayim. Not raqiya. The heaven of God's abode is above the Shamayim of the air space below the raqiya, above the raqiya and finally Gods abode.

 

Thinkingstuff... In most of what you posted above, you actually agree with me, except that you re-worded things to make it sound like you have another take on what I wrote.

About misconstruing you in regards to Genesis as apocalyptic material? I'll remind you that it was you that inserted that comment in a thread speaking to Genesis, not I. If it was not your implication that Genesis was apocalyptic, then why the excursus? I note that others here saw the same thing...

You seem to wish to have your cake and eat it too... You want Genesis to be true, but theological only. Is it true or is it not true? I see no signs anywhere in Scripture, including Jesus' support of the Creation story of Genesis, that indicates that it is not literally true, no matter what science seems to think that it can add to the discussion. And, that would make it true both literally AND theologically, something that you simply cannot accept.

And, don't paint me with the brush of the Middle Age Catholic Church... I can argue the science with you line-by-line if you like. Like I said, I know it, but I do not place it in a position where it dictates my interpretation of Scripture.

About "geocentrist"... Evidence from COBY and other sources now indicates that our earth may indeed be at the center of the cosmos. It is not at the center of our solar system, and it is not at the center of our galaxy, but it appears to be at the center of all creation. If so, that would make the error of the church one of scope, not of substance. I expect that we will never really know for sure due to the makeup of the universe (it may appear that every point is the center of the universe from that vantage point) but we will probably find that out when we meet our Lord one day.

The Bible never says that the earth is flat, nor that the solar system revolves around the earth. Those were errors of interpretation based on the SCIENCE of that day... The science changed and in a sense informed the holders of the error (eventually) who then saw that the Scriptures had not in fact changed, but that their view was simply incorrect.

About the ability to observe alternative universes -- we will never be able to escape the bounds of our own universe, save for what may happen when we are taken by God to eternity. That, we simply do not know, and some speculate that God's abode may indeed be an alternate universe, dimension, etc. In the natural realm, suggesting that science may "one day" be able to peer into an alternate universe is nothing more than wishful thinking. It cannot be for we are indeed bounded by our own universe -- there is nothing apart from it that can exist to us. Check out the physics of this if you like. It is fairly solid as far as science goes. I suggest reading Tippler, Polkinghorne, Schroeder, Plantinga, et al. They are very informative.

And, finally, nice try, but you are not even helping your own cause anymore. I think we're actually done discussing the OP and now degenerating into crud, so I'll abstain unless you have some other germane point to make on the actual topic.

 

Do you think? Ok. I think there are area's of agreement which I'm glad you spotted. But I still reserve from the literalness of the Genesis creation account.

Its called an example and obvious one at that I could have used poetry to the same effect. However, the apocalyptic literature was more obvious for the example.

Yes I often want my cake and eat it too. Otherwize I'm just being teased.

not only also Phenomenological as well.

Its true. One can see a bright flash in the sky and say I saw a falling star. which is true save that a star hasn't really fallen. Another can describe that event as a meteor. Its true either way you say it. However, the literalness of the "falling star" is in question.

A couple of things you must keep in mind these are the verses you are refering to.

And for the most part that is it. First what you see is referrences to other stories in Genesis and none refer directly to creation. The Closest is the discusion about making them male and female. None of these verses say whether Jesus considered the Genesis account of Creation to be literally true or not. Also if I were to make a comparison people today people often refer to ie.. "The boy who cried wolf" and other stories the same way yet they don't consider those stories to be literally true. However, their value of revealing a truth like you get caught in a lie several times people will end up not believing you. It is these values that Jesus brings to the fore by quoting Genesis. Like Marriage, how people behave before their destruction etc.... So just because he quoted them is not necissarily hold that he held they were literal just like I don't hold the literalness of the boy who cried wolf. Context is important.

Why not? If I say light travels at a constant speed of 299 792 458 miles per second and state that the distance of a certain star can be assertained by this factor of being more than 200,000 light years away which if this holds constant then it would seem there is evidence the universe is older than 10,000 years and you tell me I'm a heretic because I don't believe the bible. What am I to think?

Let me ask you a question. Does your faith exclude reason? Or can your reason enhance your faith?

Maybe or maybe not. since we are at the point at which we look out at the universe what we see in a 360 area around us it would seem we are at the center but are we in reality? More data is required. Yet either way which ever is true I'm not going to say its not true because of my "faith". Truth is truth.

I can show you many verses that describe the earth exactly that way.

I concure I was just responding to your statement which required a review of string theory. However, I concur with this statement.