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 heretransfering the term expanse (again) and inserting earth. So it reads below the expanse and above the expanse orrelating 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.
Pyramids
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by IAMWEAK_2007, Feb 9, 2011.
Page 4 of 5
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
Here is what raqia means:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
just-want-peace Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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!!!!! -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
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
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 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: -
Job 37:18 (ESV) -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=113091348265
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=114091821145 -
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1150991191
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11509915283
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=114091829220 -
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
-
-
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:
--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:
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.
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.
-
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):
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
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.
-
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. -
Thinkingstuff Active Member
Page 4 of 5