This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
That’s not being true to the understanding communicated. The Hebrew word is not used to describe solid structures.
All I know is what Genesis teaches.
According to Bible concordances the Hebrew word is, in fact, so used:
Where? What else is there? Do you separate reality from scripture?
Ask God. That is all God tells us in His Word that He created a raqia/stereoma "in the midst of the waters to separate the waters from the waters." For us to go beyond that is just speculation on our part. God doesn't give us any more details than that.
You can only use a concordance (not inspired by God) because scripture itself doesn’t support your position. It’s used only twice and never to describe a rock solid surface. Scripture says God STRETCHED out the expanse/cosmos/sky. Not a “structure” that is supporting at all.According to Bible concordances the Hebrew word is, in fact, so used:
Raqia = extended (solid) surface, vault of heaven or firmament regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting waters above it
I’m in direct contact and there’s no solid structure up there.
Is that so? Are you forgetting that the English translation is not inspired Scripture but only Scripture in the original languages? Are you forgetting that the translation committees (that are not inspired) that translated into English based their translations on what they personally believed the Greek and Hebrew mean, based on the same types of academic research and scholarship and lexical and concordance resources
That's like saying "solid support" is never used to to describe a solid support. It's what the words mean. It's also used more than twice (see the concordance entries I've posted half a dozen times now). It is the same raqia solid support God's throne is said to be on in Ezekiel 1.
Actually, Old Testament scholars point to that verse in Job 37 as evidence of the solid nature of the firmament because you don't stretch out air; raqia, however, is a metal working term referring to 'stretching out' and 'expanding metal' by hammering it out into thin sheets
Yes, you have stated the problem well. And this is a very instructive example of why I've said that we must interpret Scripture in its *original context* as it was originally meant to be understood, because when we do that, there is no contradiction.
Excellent post.Yes, you have stated the problem well. And this is a very instructive example of why I've said that we must interpret Scripture in its *original context* as it was originally meant to be understood, because when we do that, there is no contradiction.
Genesis is only "wrong or untrue" if God intended it to be understood as a modern scientific account. But what if God never intended that?
What if God wanted to communicate *theological truth* in terms that those living in biblical times could understand? What if a modern scientific account is not something they would understand?
What if Genesis was meant to be a point by point rebuttal of Egyptian pagan creation myths? (like it gives every indication of being). What if the Hebrews enslaved in Egypt had been indoctrinated by false Egyptian pagan creation myths for 400 years? What if at Mt Sinai, God corrected this by rebutting their false indoctrination point by point? What if that rebuttal was done in such a way that (while offending our modern sensibilities) made sense to them at the time?
"But why didn't God just give them accurate scientific knowledge in doing so" (so asks the modern man/woman who values such things). What if it's not just about us in modern times who have only recently learned all we know about the universe (we didn’t even know there was such a thing as a galaxy until the early 1900s). What if such an "accurate" scientific account would have had little to no meaning to those in ancient times (the way their ancient stories have little to no value to us)? What if such an "accurate" scientific account would have made no logical sense to them (the way ancient cosmology and solid support structures "in the midst of the waters" make no sense to us)?
What if Genesis 1 gives every indication of being a point by point rebuttal against Egyptian paganism the Hebrews had been indoctrinated with---theologies that competed against the one true God Yawheh?
"The similarities in detail and structure are too close to be accidental"
What if Genesis 1 was not meant to be a modern scientific account for us, but a theological rebuttal of Egyptian paganism?
‐------------------------------------------------
*Let me give a specific example:
The modern man/woman ask, "Why didn't God give an 'accurate' scientific account in Genesis?"
Well, let's try to imagine what that would entail: on Day 4, God created the sun, moon, and stars in outer space (what's that?). The sun and stars are giant gas spheres (What is that? The sun is a flat circular disc, not a sphere) larger than the earth (how can that be when they look so small by comparison?) that emit heat, light, and radiation as a result of nuclear fusion (huh?). This nuclear fusion reaction is triggered in the center under crushing pressure and million degree heat (what's a degree?) and is sustained by balancing outward expansion with inward gravitational pull (what does that even mean?).
Do you see how meaningless that would be in an ancient world where everyone (except the Hebrews) believed the sun, moon, stars (and sky, and earth, and water) were all gods and goddesses--- supernatural deities? It would mean nothing to them, nor would such factual information help them *spiritually* in any way.
Our modern scientific account wouldn't even penetrate their psyches past "Sun" and "Moon," because they would think those were the names of the deities, not natural, NON-supernatural, physical objects. We wouldn't be able to even call them the "Sun" & "Moon," or give them any name at all, because, again, they would misunderstand and think those were the names of those gods and goddesses.
But what an impact! What a statement! If those gods were downplayed and disrespected and minimized and completely stripped of deity and devalued by not even giving them names? By simply calling them "the lesser and greater light?" What a slam! What an insult! (*just like how the plagues weren't just plagues but Yawheh's attack on the Egyptian sun God, and god of the Nile, and so on and so forth). Something we skim over today that would not have been lost on them; that would not have been missed in the culture of the time (No deity name? What? Just a lesser and greater light?)
This is but one example of the beautiful truth that Genesis is, the one true God destroying and humiliating the false gods of paganism
-------------------------------------------------
So, yes, Genesis would be wrong IF it was meant to be understood as a modern scientific factual account of things. But all the evidence we have suggests that it is not, but a point by point rebuttal of Egyptian paganism that the Hebrews would have been steeped in and indoctrinated in for 400 years. When understood in its original Ancient Near East context, Genesis makes perfect sense and is not wrong at all, but right in the timeless theological truths it communicates: there is ONE God only, all so-called pagan gods are false gods, all those things sun, moon, stars, earth, sky waters.... are not gods but created things. This one God brought order to chaos (just as the universe today ia remarkably ordered). Humans were not created to serve the gods and provide food and shelter for the gods/idols, which were incapable of feeding and taking care of l themselves, but were specially created in the image of God to be His image bearers, His royal, priestly representatives on earth.
I’ve heard that woosey position the weak church has taken to avoid defending the faith. I don’t believe it because over decades that English Bible has been the cause of everything it promised which is dependent upon being inspired. It’s been tested and proven inspired.
Character plays a large role as well. But since God once spoke through a donkey, and we must assume those words were inspired, I see no problem in translations being inspired UNLESS there is deception or lying involved (which is there in some cases.)
Ezekiel 1 speaks of the space surrounding the planet too. No solid material object in that passage either.
So they think the firmament is hammered-out metal? If not, what was hammered out?
So you do think it es metal or that they stupidly thought so. The idea of using words to express a thought isn’t possible?
In short, raqa relates to metalworking and pounding out a solid piece of metal into thin sheets. And "expand" and "stretch" is referring to the malleability of metal and how the metal "expands, spreads out, thins" as it is being hammered into thin plates or sheets.
You can deceive yourself all you want, while being the one who is dishonoring and changing Scripture. All I've done is communicate the Bible lexicon meanings and the long time historical understanding of the Church. What I've said is not some new interpretation. It's the other way around. According to Martin Luther you are the one compromising the plain truth of Scripture.
Actually, what you have said is as old as unbelief in the integrity of God itself. "Has God said" questioning the validity of the Word of God is very old indeed. It is not the path to truth, but it is a very common path.
"Did God tell the truth" is a question raised in the garden. He is still using that ploy.
For God, there is no "theological truth" divorced from physical reality. There is only truth. That men in the past did not understand the accounts in the Bible is not new. They did not understand that Jesus is the Messiah either but we do not decide to take the view of those who do not understand.
I decided to read again about those Egyptian creation myths but I had to stop as it was pretty gross. One of the gods masturbated to create other gods. It is similar to the Greek and Roman gods, childish, full of violent emotions. There are more than 5 different Egyptian creation stories. I only read part of one. So far from the Biblical account it is absurd.
He gave them accurate knowledge. You have decided the words have to mean something untruth. That is your choice. You are not the first to refuse to understand what was intended to be communicated. The whole host of prophets gave the word of the Lord to the then living people and they refused to understand and killed them. That, by the way, is what one gets if one decides that one has to think as the people who originally received the Word of God thought.
If you go through the many Egyptian creation accounts and cheery pick out the few bits that can be made to resemble Genesis, then this works. It is terribly dishonest, but that is not new either.What if Genesis 1 gives every indication of being a point by point rebuttal against Egyptian paganism the Hebrews had been indoctrinated with---theologies that competed against the one true God Yawheh?
"The similarities in detail and structure are too close to be accidental"
What if Genesis 1 was not meant to be a modern scientific account for us, but a theological rebuttal of Egyptian paganism?
‐------------------------------------------------
"Did God really say and why did he lie?"
The description is vage enough to not need the filling in the blanks as you have done. No "sphere" is mentioned. You are missing the truth there and the purpose. It was to counter the Egyptian and other creation myths that man was made to serve the Gods, that woman was equal to man, why man was capable of evil and what happened. These you will not find in the Egyptian myths.
His goal was not to attack myths which are really silly if not gross. One of the Greek philosophers thought that the Greek gods were like spoiled children. He did not believe in them because they were not morally good.
Well, we have to agree to disagree. I think the Genesis account is amazingly accurate and matches what science knows now although for millennia science was wrong and Genesis was right.
Among other things, I think it shows the importance of how we need to understand the Bible in context. Sometimes I think we (believers in general) forget that the Bible was not delivered straight from heaven, but through the writers of the various biblical books as inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that this took place in different contexts in human history, so it must be understood in those contexts.
in space, because we grew up seeing such photographs, so we're conditioned to think in those terms. By contrast, the ancient Israelites wouldn't of course picture the earth in space since such photos obvioulsy weren’t available to them, so that’s not the mental picture that would naturally come to mind the way it does for us. Plus, the Hebrew word eretz translated "earth" in our Bibles simply means "land."Only when misread through a modern scientific lens does it seem that way. The problem (and what we see happen historically) is that science is always being updated, so then people "update" their interpretation of Scripture. Thus, throughout church history we see the "right" interpretation dogmatically taught until it's replaced by the "real" right interpretation as new scientific discoveries require us to constantly update our biblical interpretation.