[__ Science __ ] WHO IS DEAD? GOD OR DARWIN?

[TMal3]

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Yes, great quote and why we should *not* read Genesis through the lens of modern scientific understanding (which is not constant, but always changing). Genesis 1 is a *theological* polemic against Egyptian pagan creation myths. It's the timeless theological truths that are important

 

[TMal3]

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

The two are not mutually exclusive, and if you re-read my posts you'll see I also mentioned the "man made to serve gods" vs God's image bearers as being part of that polemic too. The lack of personal name for sun and moon simply called the "greater and lesser light" is an anti ANE pagan polemic as well, and has long been recognized

 

[TMal3]

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.

You keep saying that and yet it's not true. So kindly stop saying that I'm "questioning the validity of the Word of God" when I'm doing no such thing.

At worst, this is a difference of opinion on how Genesis should be interpreted. And "my interpretation" of the solid support firmament dividing the waters above from the waters below is not my personal interpretation, but simply a restatement of what the church has predominantly believed for approximately 1,500 years based on what Scripture itself teaches; until the work of Kepler, Newton, Galileo and others forced the church to do one of two things in order to maintain the divine inspiration of the Bible:

Option 1: Accommodationism. We can't change Scripture. Scripture says what it says and it says God created a solid, support *stereoma* "in the midst of the waters to divide the water above from the waters below" "and called it 'Sky'." We now know the 'sky' is atmosphere and then space; not a solid firmament with a 'heavenly ocean' of 'waters above' with the sun, moon, stars/planets attached to the solid support firmament below the 'waters above.' Scientifically, that is not factually accurate. So, the only way to maintain divine inspiration of the Bible and the plain meaning of God's Word is some form of accommodationism: that Genesis was not intended to give us factual scientific information, but to communicate timeless theological truth in ways ancient Israel could comprehend and understand: via the prescientific beliefs of the time.

If not, then what's the alternative to still maintain divine inspiration? Answer: Some form of concordism:

Option 2: Concordism. We change the plain meaning of Scripture so it "fits" with modern scientific understanding.

The problem with Option 2 is that it requires us to change (or, more precisely, *misrepresent*) what Scripture actually says. Option 1 vs 2, is *not* even a difference between literal vs metaphorical/figurative interpretation. Even metaphors need to make sense by analogy. A solid, physical support is not a metaphor for air/atmosphere.

So, if it's not metaphorical and not literal, then what is the interpretation under Option 2? It's a misrepresentation of the lexical definition of the Hebrew word raqia. It's a translational 'sleight of hand,' so to speak, that cherry-picks a single word from the lexical definition ("expanse"), and leaves unwary readers with the wrong idea. It is *a gloss over the facts* so we can ignore and don't have to deal with the problem. Thus, many/most translations today will simply translate raqia as "expanse" without further comment. Then the rest of us see the word "expanse" and read that through our modern lens of understanding and naturally think, "expanse, that's like a wide open area" and because the sun, moon, and stars are in this expanse that's like the "atmosphere or the *expanse* of the universe/outer space."

And voila! Everyone's happy. Divine inspiration is maintained, because an "expanse" of that kind obviously accords with modern science (although, still not quite). And in this way, most people are none the wiser and we can just ignore and sweep the problem, under the rug...

.... while glossing over the fact that it is not an "expanse" like an open space "expanse," but a solid expanse *raqia* referring to the expansion and thinning of metal when it is pounded or hammered out into thin sheets in metallurgy. The closest words for this type of "expanse/expansion" are *malleable* and *ductile* (= 'what can be drawn out or extended with ease; as in ductile metals'; the property of metals like copper that they are malleable (not brittle), and ductile--able to be pressed, pounded, hammered out/extended out into thin metal plating, or wires).

But it makes things so much easier if we just ignore that and cherry-pick "expanse" from the lexical definition of the Hebrew raqia given below, but conveniently leave out the fact that this is a solid expanse..." referring to malleability and ductility in metallurgy.

*Hebrew raqia: "extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out)." "Expanse" is a cherry picked from the lexical definition while leaving out the fact that this is a "solid expanse."

Atmospheric/outer space "expanse" is not a metaphor for malleability, and ductility. It's a translational 'sleight of hand,' so to speak that misrepresents the lexical definition of raqia by cherry-picking one word from that lexical definition ("expanse") that the unwary modern reader then misunderstands, and that in doing so glosses over the problem and gives us the false assurance of Option 2 that Genesis and modern science are concordant. But it's an erroneous, false assurance based on a misrepresentation and cherry-picking of a single word from the lexical definition.

 

[TMal3]

Thus, at worst, this is a difference of opinion over the best interpretation of Genesis, and which of the two options is best supported:

Option 1: Accommodationism. God stooped down and accommodated Himself to our level, communicating in terms that could be understood by ancient biblical people of the time, including via the prescientific beliefs of the time.

Option 2: Concordism. Science and the Bible are concordant, in agreement with each other.

*Importantly, BOTH options seek to preserve the doctrine of divine inspiration and infallibility of the Bible (so, again, I kindly ask that you please stop saying that I am "questioning God's integrity" or "questioning the validity of God's Word," because I am not).

* I am not opposed to Option 2. My point is simply that in the case of the firmament, Option 2 doesn't work. It is (unfortunately) a facade. Genesis 1 only seems to accord with modern science, but not truly. It is a facade that can only be maintained by misrepresenting the lexical definition of the Hebrew word raqia (as explained above).

I have no personal bias against Option 2. I prefer it actually. I truly wish I could say otherwise and say that science and the Bible are in agreement, because I personally like the idea of concordism better. But I don't see how it can be defended without twisting science to fit Scripture or (in this case) Scripture to fit science.

 

[TMal3]

Additional problems with the solid support divider ('firmament') "as a metaphor"-view that is not meant to be taken literally:

(1) A solid support divider is not a metaphor for air/atmosphere/outer space.
(2) It doesn't fit the context of the Creation week. On each day, God creates one or more specific, physical things that are stated literally, not metaphorically: God created literal light, not metaphorical light. God created literal seas, land, plants, birds, animals, etc., not metaphorical. This would make the solid support divider (raqia/stereoma, firmament) the only exception to the rule where what Genesis 1 says God creates is not meant to be taken literally, but metaphorically.
(3) If the solid support divider created on Day 2 is meant to be understood as the "sky" in the way we understand it as everything above earth (i.e., the atmosphere & outer space), then first, that makes it a poor word choice on God's part using a word meaning solid structure that would confuse people; but also second, where were the birds flying on Day 4, which didn't fly *in* the firmament but "across the face/surface of the firmament of the heavens/skies." The sun, moon, and stars were put *in* the (solid) firmament, but the birds flew across the face of the firmament (same Hebrew word for when the Spirit hovers over the face of the waters in v. 2).

Additional problems with Bible-modern science concordism view: *even if* for argument's sake I'm wrong about everything I've said up to this point, and that we are meant to understand the "firmament" as atmosphere/outer space, and not a solid support structure, such a view still does not fit with modern science:

(1) For example, if firmament = atmosphere and the "waters above the firmament" are the source of the forty days of rain globally over the entire earth for Noah's Flood (as the Genesis Flood account seems to teach), then that puts the sun, moon, and stars in Earth's atmosphere, because they were put *in* the firmament below the "waters above."

(2) Alternatively, if the firmament = atmosphere & outer space (which solves problem #1 since that's where the sun, moon, and stars are), then we again run into the problem of where then are the birds, which don't fly in the firmament but across the face/surface of the firmament.

(3) To solve this, if we say firmament only = outer space (so the birds can fly in the sky and not the outer space firmament), that doesn't work either because the Hebrew word used is the word for skies/heavens (which at the very least would have to include the atmospheric sky in order to accord with modern science).

(4) If firmament = outer space (or outer space + atmosphere), then the "waters above" can't be the 40 day global rainwater source for Noah's Flood and would have to be liquid water not just surrounding the earth, but outside of space itself (i.e., the "waters above" would have to be *outside* the universe and not part of the created universe, but somehow and for some reason separately created outside the created universe). Waters that we can't see and that seem to exist for no reason and that have nothing to do with us here on earth; which begs the question why would God bother to tell us some random fact that has nothing to do with us and has no effect on us in any way. That's why the most natural understanding is water above the sky (as the rainwater source of Noah's Flood), but then that puts the sun, moon, and stars in the atmosphere again.

(5) The "waters above" seem to be the same torrential rain of Noah's Flood when the windows of heaven/of the sky are opened, but problematically this can't be clouds, or mists (nor water vapor), because there were different Hebrew words for clouds and mists. The word used for "waters" in Genesis is literal *liquid* water; which doesn't comport with modern physics.

(6) If the firmament is the atmosphere and/or outer space, then according to Genesis the atmosphere/outer space began as an expansion *in the waters* on earth*. This, however, contradicts modern science and cosmological expansion of the universe/outer space, which isn't centered in earth or the waters of earth.

(7) The existence of the earth and waters of earth before outer space also contradicts modern science.

(8) The existence of the earth, waters of earth, atmosphere/outer space, seas, land, and plants prior to the creation of the stars, moon, and sun also contradicts modern science.

(9) The existence of land plants prior to the sun contradicts modern science.

(10) The existence of land plants prior to sea creatures contradicts modern science (paleontology).

(11) The existence of birds on Day 5 prior to land animals on Day 6 also contradicts modern science (paleontology).

(12) And of course a host of problems for "day" = 24 hours, which contradicts modern science. But "day" = "a long period of time" also suffers from the same types of contradictions above.

And on and on....

 

[TMal3]

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.

You are misinformed. Again, I direct you to evangelical Old Testament scholar Gordon Johnston's review article summary of a century of work on the subject, which I've now cited several times and which you obviously haven't read (I couldn't find a direct link, but if you copy paste into Google Scholar you'll find several pdfs you can download):

Johnston, Gordon H. "Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian creation myths." BIBLIOTHECA SACRA-DALLAS- 165.658 (2008): 178.

More than a century ago, the field was plagued by "parallelomania" where the slightest similarity between ancient texts was cited as evidence of a literary connection. And of course with the discovery of ANE texts like the Babylonian Enuma Elish similarities were noted and the standard academic view was that Genesis creation and flood accounts derived from such Mesopotamian texts. That view is obsolete now. It's now recognized that there is no direct literary dependence between the two. The field has advanced beyond the mistakes of the past. Mere similarity is not enough to demonstrate a direct relationship. More often than not today's scholars reject such claims, and recognize that instead of direct literary dependence, the different ANE texts reflect the same cultural stream of ideas and beliefs and practices that were held in common.

That's why the Genesis 1--Egyptian parallels are so striking and unparalleled. They are one of the very few examples of ancient ANE texts that display such a high level of correspondence, not mere similarities, but three different types of parallels: lexical, literary/structural, and thematic/conceptual.

As Johnston states, "The number of parallels and degree of correspondence between Genesis 1 and major Egyptian creation myths is remarkable. It is difficult to dismiss them as mere coincidence." Johnston quotes another scholar as saying, "There exists such a magnitude of parallels that it could not be by mere chance." And quotes yet another scholar who states, "The similarities in detail and structure are too close to be accidental."

There is a striking similarity to the four major Egyptian traditions, including even in the order of creation events, regarding which I already posted these diagrams on but I will repost them again:

Hermopolis tradition

Memphis tradition:

And here's a new screenshot I haven't shared yet:

And there's more on top of this. Again, I direct you to Johnston's article for details.

You also seem to misunderstand what it means to interpret in the original historical context, and think that it requires adopting the mindset of depraved, evil people who killed the Son of God. But that simply doesn't follow and is a misunderstanding of what it means to interpret in the original context. Hitler's actions need to be understood against the background (i.e., in the context of 1930s-1940s Europe). That doesn't mean we're adopting or condoning Hitler's actions or mindset, we're simply putting them in the proper historical context; which means reading them against the backdrop of what was going on in that part of the world at the time. Because words, practices, beliefs, social customs and practices, cultural symbols, idioms, etc., are constantly changing.

We can't understand Ancient Near East (ANE) shame-honor societies through the lens of American individualism. The Mosaic covenant (and what an ancient covenant was) has more in common with Hittite vassal treaties than American democracy and thus must be understood against the Hittite backdrop. If "9/11" isn't understood in the proper, original historical context, then someone a thousand years from now could mistake its meaning for a fraction 9/11 = 0.8181. A beehive is a hive of stinging insects in one context, and a hairdo in another.

If we read a 600 year old document about Mr. Jones being naughty and Mrs. Smith being nice, we'd think that Mr. Jones was bad and Mrs. Smith was good, and would be wrong on both accounts. Because 600 years ago naughty meant to have nothing (to have naught), and nice meant to be ignorant. If you read about a character in Shakespeare who in one of his works he called a "punk," you'd think he was talking about a juvenile delinquent, when in fact "punk" meant prostitute in Shakespeare's day.

That's why we have to read things in their proper, original historical context against the backdrop of the time when they occurred.

Also, as horrible and depraved as those pagan myths were that's the greater moral point: Genesis 1 is not condoning all that, but refuting it and saying it's wrong. Genesis 1 is a theological *polemic* ---- an attack against those pagan myths:

Finally, even for sake of argument if you don't find the striking magnitude of lexical, literary/structural, and thematic/conceptual parallels compelling, it still doesn't change the fact that out of everything ever written in the world for which we have a record throughout the entire history of human civilization from then all the way up to now, there is nothing on earth we know of that compares as closely to Genesis 1 as those ancient Egyptian pagan creation myths do. Genesis 1 has far more in common with those Egyptian cosmologies (and indeed, reads like a point-by-point repudiation of them) than it does with modern cosmology, astronomy, geology, biology, and today's debates on creation-evolution.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You keep saying that and yet it's not true. So kindly stop saying that I'm "questioning the validity of the Word of God" when I'm doing no such thing.

I keep saying it because it is true.

At worst, this is a difference of opinion on how Genesis should be interpreted. And "my interpretation" of the solid support firmament dividing the waters above from the waters below is not my personal interpretation, but simply a restatement of what the church has predominantly believed for approximately 1,500 years based on what Scripture itself teaches; until the work of Kepler, Newton, Galileo and others forced the church to do one of two things in order to maintain the divine inspiration of the Bible:

If you wish to believe what men believed for 1500 years, that is, of course, your choice. If you wish to believe that no man knew the truth for 1500 years, that is, of course, your choice. I would not be proud of that ignorance. Factually, there is no one interpretation of the Bible that all men believe since people have recorded what they believe so I doubt they all believed as you claim. It is easy to claim that millions believed what we know to be untrue when all of them are long dead and cannot refute you.

Option 1: Accommodationism. We can't change Scripture. Scripture says what it says and it says God created a solid, support *stereoma* "in the midst of the waters to divide the water above from the waters below" "and called it 'Sky'." We now know the 'sky' is atmosphere and then space; not a solid firmament with a 'heavenly ocean' of 'waters above' with the sun, moon, stars/planets attached to the solid support firmament below the 'waters above.' Scientifically, that is not factually accurate. So, the only way to maintain divine inspiration of the Bible and the plain meaning of God's Word is some form of accommodationism: that Genesis was not intended to give us factual scientific information, but to communicate timeless theological truth in ways ancient Israel could comprehend and understand: via the prescientific beliefs of the time.

IOW, lying. This was said in the garden by the serpent. God was not telling the truth but accommodating. If you were accommodating the court by not telling the truth in a trial, it would be called "perjury."

If not, then what's the alternative to still maintain divine inspiration? Answer: Some form of concordism:

Option 2: Concordism. We change the plain meaning of Scripture so it "fits" with modern scientific understanding.

The problem with Option 2 is that it requires us to change (or, more precisely, *misrepresent*) what Scripture actually says. Option 1 vs 2, is *not* even a difference between literal vs metaphorical/figurative interpretation. Even metaphors need to make sense by analogy. A solid, physical support is not a metaphor for air/atmosphere.

So, if it's not metaphorical and not literal, then what is the interpretation under Option 2? It's a misrepresentation of the lexical definition of the Hebrew word raqia. It's a translational 'sleight of hand,' so to speak, that cherry-picks a single word from the lexical definition ("expanse"), and leaves unwary readers with the wrong idea. It is *a gloss over the facts* so we can ignore and don't have to deal with the problem. Thus, many/most translations today will simply translate raqia as "expanse" without further comment. Then the rest of us see the word "expanse" and read that through our modern lens of understanding and naturally think, "expanse, that's like a wide open area" and because the sun, moon, and stars are in this expanse that's like the "atmosphere or the *expanse* of the universe/outer space."

And voila! Everyone's happy. Divine inspiration is maintained, because an "expanse" of that kind obviously accords with modern science (although, still not quite). And in this way, most people are none the wiser and we can just ignore and sweep the problem, under the rug...

.... while glossing over the fact that it is not an "expanse" like an open space "expanse," but a solid expanse *raqia* referring to the expansion and thinning of metal when it is pounded or hammered out into thin sheets in metallurgy. The closest words for this type of "expanse/expansion" are *malleable* and *ductile* (= 'what can be drawn out or extended with ease; as in ductile metals'; the property of metals like copper that they are malleable (not brittle), and ductile--able to be pressed, pounded, hammered out/extended out into thin metal plating, or wires).

But it makes things so much easier if we just ignore that and cherry-pick "expanse" from the lexical definition of the Hebrew raqia given below, but conveniently leave out the fact that this is a solid expanse..." referring to malleability and ductility in metallurgy.

*Hebrew raqia: "extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out)." "Expanse" is a cherry picked from the lexical definition while leaving out the fact that this is a "solid expanse."

Atmospheric/outer space "expanse" is not a metaphor for malleability, and ductility. It's a translational 'sleight of hand,' so to speak that misrepresents the lexical definition of raqia by cherry-picking one word from that lexical definition ("expanse") that the unwary modern reader then misunderstands, and that in doing so glosses over the problem and gives us the false assurance of Option 2 that Genesis and modern science are concordant. But it's an erroneous, false assurance based on a misrepresentation and cherry-picking of a single word from the lexical definition.

You can make that so bold that only one word appears on the screen at a time and it still is not true. If you choose to believe God does not tell the truth, then you will not find the truth. What is more, you will not find that He can trust you with truth including that about Him. He hinds understanding from the wise and intelligent and reveals it to babes. He will not give you light as you prefer something else.

I see in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible, truth and a depth of understanding greater than you find on the street. Science was wrong for 1500 years believing the universe was eternal never having a start. Theologians long ago knew there was a start because of the scientific truth in Genesis. Theologians were right and scientists wrong.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You are misinformed. Again, I direct you to evangelical Old Testament scholar Gordon Johnston's review article summary of a century of work on the subject, which I've now cited several times and which you obviously haven't read (I couldn't find a direct link, but if you copy paste into Google Scholar you'll find several pdfs you can download):

Johnston, Gordon H. "Genesis 1 and Ancient Egyptian creation myths." BIBLIOTHECA SACRA-DALLAS- 165.658 (2008): 178.

More than a century ago, the field was plagued by "parallelomania" where the slightest similarity between ancient texts was cited as evidence of a literary connection. And of course with the discovery of ANE texts like the Babylonian Enuma Elish similarities were noted and the standard academic view was that Genesis creation and flood accounts derived from such Mesopotamian texts. That view is obsolete now. It's now recognized that there is no direct literary dependence between the two. The field has advanced beyond the mistakes of the past. Mere similarity is not enough to demonstrate a direct relationship. More often than not today's scholars reject such claims, and recognize that instead of direct literary dependence, the different ANE texts reflect the same cultural stream of ideas and beliefs and practices that were held in common.

That's why the Genesis 1--Egyptian parallels are so striking and unparalleled. They are one of the very few examples of ancient ANE texts that display such a high level of correspondence, not mere similarities, but three different types of parallels: lexical, literary/structural, and thematic/conceptual.

As Johnston states, "The number of parallels and degree of correspondence between Genesis 1 and major Egyptian creation myths is remarkable. It is difficult to dismiss them as mere coincidence." Johnston quotes another scholar as saying, "There exists such a magnitude of parallels that it could not be by mere chance." And quotes yet another scholar who states, "The similarities in detail and structure are too close to be accidental."

There is a striking similarity to the four major Egyptian traditions, including even in the order of creation events, regarding which I already posted these diagrams on but I will repost them again:

Hermopolis tradition

Memphis tradition:

And here's a new screenshot I haven't shared yet:

And there's more on top of this. Again, I direct you to Johnston's article for details.

You also seem to misunderstand what it means to interpret in the original historical context, and think that it requires adopting the mindset of depraved, evil people who killed the Son of God. But that simply doesn't follow and is a misunderstanding of what it means to interpret in the original context. Hitler's actions need to be understood against the background (i.e., in the context of 1930s-1940s Europe). That doesn't mean we're adopting or condoning Hitler's actions or mindset, we're simply putting them in the proper historical context; which means reading them against the backdrop of what was going on in that part of the world at the time. Because words, practices, beliefs, social customs and practices, cultural symbols, idioms, etc., are constantly changing.

We can't understand Ancient Near East (ANE) shame-honor societies through the lens of American individualism. The Mosaic covenant (and what an ancient covenant was) has more in common with Hittite vassal treaties than American democracy and thus must be understood against the Hittite backdrop. If "9/11" isn't understood in the proper, original historical context, then someone a thousand years from now could mistake its meaning for a fraction 9/11 = 0.8181. A beehive is a hive of stinging insects in one context, and a hairdo in another.

If we read a 600 year old document about Mr. Jones being naughty and Mrs. Smith being nice, we'd think that Mr. Jones was bad and Mrs. Smith was good, and would be wrong on both accounts. Because 600 years ago naughty meant to have nothing (to have naught), and nice meant to be ignorant. If you read about a character in Shakespeare who in one of his works he called a "punk," you'd think he was talking about a juvenile delinquent, when in fact "punk" meant prostitute in Shakespeare's day.

That's why we have to read things in their proper, original historical context against the backdrop of the time when they occurred.

Also, as horrible and depraved as those pagan myths were that's the greater moral point: Genesis 1 is not condoning all that, but refuting it and saying it's wrong. Genesis 1 is a theological *polemic* ---- an attack against those pagan myths:

Finally, even for sake of argument if you don't find the striking magnitude of lexical, literary/structural, and thematic/conceptual parallels compelling, it still doesn't change the fact that out of everything ever written in the world for which we have a record throughout the entire history of human civilization from then all the way up to now, there is nothing on earth we know of that compares as closely to Genesis 1 as those ancient Egyptian pagan creation myths do. Genesis 1 has far more in common with those Egyptian cosmologies (and indeed, reads like a point-by-point repudiation of them) than it does with modern cosmology, astronomy, geology, biology, and today's debates on creation-evolution.

Stop yelling your position. I read part of an unbiased version of one of the many Egyptian creation accounts and I will not cut and paste it as it is gross and childish. Anyone can read the non-edited version (although some delicately refer to his "seed" although without a female (and there was none) we know where that came from and how it got there.) Your author has picked out the little bits that fit. Obviously you did not study theology and I know those who did. The creation accounts around were gross and the gods petty and selfish and full of juvenile emotions. You have selected the author you like and no one information will be allowed into your consideration.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Thus, at worst, this is a difference of opinion over the best interpretation of Genesis, and which of the two options is best supported:

It goes deeper than that. You accuse God of not telling the truth to man. That was done way back in the garden and is still being done today, obviously.

Option 1: Accommodationism. God stooped down and accommodated Himself to our level, communicating in terms that could be understood by ancient biblical people of the time, including via the prescientific beliefs of the time.

Yeah, right. God "lied" because people back there were not as sophisticated. He was lacking in integrity to tell the truth or lacking in ability to communicate the truth so that they could understand. Either way, God is severely lacking ether character for verbal skills. I have heard this one before. The snake said approximately the same.

Option 2: Concordism. Science and the Bible are concordant, in agreement with each other.

*Importantly, BOTH options seek to preserve the doctrine of divine inspiration and infallibility of the Bible (so, again, I kindly ask that you please stop saying that I am "questioning God's integrity" or "questioning the validity of God's Word," because I am not).

You are very much questioning the integrity or ability of God to communicate and you might not like it but that is what you are doing.

From observation of those in our church who have embraced this position, I find that the ability to trust God, that is their faith, is diminished. This is a reasonable outcome to embracing the position that God did not or could not communicate the truth that works in real life. If he did not tell them the truth in Genesis, where else did he "accommodate" the truth to us? Hard to trust someone who "accommodates" us instead of teaching us the truth.

* I am not opposed to Option 2. My point is simply that in the case of the firmament, Option 2 doesn't work. It is (unfortunately) a facade. Genesis 1 only seems to accord with modern science, but not truly. It is a facade that can only be maintained by misrepresenting the lexical definition of the Hebrew word raqia (as explained above).

That is your personal opinion you have chosen to believe. I am very sure this method of viewing the Bible is applied elsewhere in your reading of it. One bit of leaven changes the whole lump.

I have no personal bias against Option 2. I prefer it actually. I truly wish I could say otherwise and say that science and the Bible are in agreement, because I personally like the idea of concordism better. But I don't see how it can be defended without twisting science to fit Scripture or (in this case) Scripture to fit science.

I believe God tells and told the truth every time He communicates...no exceptions. I need not twist scripture nor science. And I will say that God explains things to me so that I understand, but I will rarely say what as the explanations given need to stand on their own. When God explains to a man some point, that understanding stands by itself without reference to where it came from. However, if anyone finds me wise, that is where it comes from.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

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.

But that can't be right

What you are missing in all of this rather dry position, is what the scripture says about itself, that is, it is useful for teaching, correction and training in righteousness. If a man reads it with the intent of having it teach him truth, correction error in him, and be trained to DO righteously, the rest falls into place.

Now having said that, over the millennia, for at least 1500 years, some people have decided to support untrue and often hateful decisions by ignoring a great deal of what it says as well as the character of God revealed and supported unrighteousness by using edited or defining words for that purpose. They did not view the scripture as the way God corrects them and trains them to do righteously. The Bible is a means by which the Almighty communicates with us when we are unskilled at hearing Him directly. So this personal aspect of the Bible is missing in your presentation.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The problem with thinking God "accommodates" us instead of telling us the truth, is that in the darkness of trouble, we can never know if God's promises are telling us the truth or if he is again just "accommodating" us to make us feel better or some such. No man can stand on the word of someone who merely "accommodates" our ignorance leaving us in that ignorance rather than tell the truth.

If the "accommodating" theology isn't that slickest example of "did God say" one ever ran across, I would be surprised. I guess the Enemy is accommodating modern man who likes to entertain conflicts points at the same and makes himself comfortable with positions that cannot both be true at the same time. I suspect it makes some people feel sophisticated. In other circles it is called "lying to oneself."

 

[TMal3]

Stop yelling your position. I read part of an unbiased version of one of the many Egyptian creation accounts and I will not cut and paste it as it is gross and childish

I have no idea what you mean. It is standard practice to cite supporting references. The screenshots were done for yours and others' convenience. Not because I'm "yelling" my position

 

[TMal3]

You have selected the author you like and no one information will be allowed into your consideration.

Incorrect. Again. I have merely provided a convenient summary of a century of work on the subject. If you prefer, I could cite dozens of authors and hundreds of references on the subject, but most people have neither the time nor patience for such things.

 

[Vaccine]

I agree with Gordon Johnston's review that Genesis and the Egyptian creation myths have a lot in common.

But who's to say the Egyptians didn't borrow the oral traditions from the descendants of Noah?

The Egyptian a la carte religions had no fewer than 12 creation myths. It seems to me the Egyptian creation myth singled out, the one with 4 different versions, is the polemic against the Jews and not the other way around.

Otherwise why refute only 1 out of their myriad of creation myths? There were other creation myths just as popular as the one Genesis is supposed to refute.

Due to multiple creation myths, each with varying versions, I'd say the parallels are more likely Egyptians borrowing from the Jewish traditions rather than Jews writing a scathing review of the Egyptian traditions.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Incorrect. Again. I have merely provided a convenient summary of a century of work on the subject. If you prefer, I could cite dozens of authors and hundreds of references on the subject, but most people have neither the time nor patience for such things.

Incorrect. Again. You cheery pick out what you want to present and insist that the church, all the believers all throughout time, always believed the same thing about this matter with no exceptions. You won't find a church where all the believers therein all believe all the same thing but for you, this was true for centuries.

The difference is I believe God tells the truth all the time with no exceptions. You focus on what people down through the millennia erroneously believed. You even think that is the best way to read the Bible, that is, focus on what people erroneously believed when they read it or heard it and then stoned the prophet. Hummmmm

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I agree with Gordon Johnston's review that Genesis and the Egyptian creation myths have a lot in common.

How many of the myths have you read?

But who's to say the Egyptians didn't borrow the oral traditions from the descendants of Noah?

Noah would not have written that as it was not the truth.

The Egyptian a la carte religions had no fewer than 12 creation myths. It seems to me the Egyptian creation myth singled out, the one with 4 different versions, is the polemic against the Jews and not the other way around.

I doubt they even knew much about what the other thought. Relationships between the two people groups was not a pleasant exchange.

Otherwise why refute only 1 out of their myriad of creation myths? There were other creation myths just as popular as the one Genesis is supposed to refute.

Due to multiple creation myths, each with varying versions, I'd say the parallels are more likely Egyptians borrowing from the Jewish traditions rather than Jews writing a scathing review of the Egyptian traditions.

I doubt either borrowed from the other since the principle characters could hardly be more radically different.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I have no idea what you mean.

Stop putting them in YELLING font.

It is standard practice to cite supporting references. The screenshots were done for yours and others' convenience. Not because I'm "yelling" my position

It’s not at all convenient. Try cut and paste instead. You otherwise cut and paste when looking at Egyptian myths.

 

[TMal3]

It goes deeper than that. You accuse God of not telling the truth to man. That was done way back in the garden and is still being done today, obviously.

Wrong. I "accuse" men of changing the truth about God (intentionally or unintentionally), not the other way around.

Yeah, right. God "lied" because people back there were not as sophisticated. He was lacking in integrity to tell the truth or lacking in ability to communicate the truth so that they could understand. Either way, God is severely lacking ether character for verbal skills. I have heard this one before. The snake said approximately the same.

No, the people already had incorrect, prescientific views. God simply didn't correct every single error in their thinking. That is a loving God. That is a great teacher. A teacher doesn't correct every single error in thinking, but prioritizes what is most important (*a lifetime wouldn't be long enough to correct all the factually erroneous information people have even today). And it's the theology and their view of God vs pagan gods that is most important and their relationship to the one true God. If God tried to correct every single erroneous prescientific idea they had in ancient times, and educate them on the "true" scientific reality of things, God would have to give them a library full of different "Bibles" on every subject.

And guess what? The same would be true for us today. God would need to provide us a National Archives or National Library of Congress scale of "Bibles" on every subject to correct all the erroneous knowledge we all have. More than any human being could read in a life time.

But hey, then, we would all have access to a myriad number of useless facts that in the eternal scheme of things are irrelevant to knowing God. A voluminous mass of pointless facts that would not help people's spiritual fate, but would make things worse by distracting and burying the most important eternal theological truths under a mountain of useless facts.

You are still not seeing the modern cultural baggage that we carry and how it affects our relationship to all of this. You (and I) would like God to provide us with factual scientific information because we are a product of the Enlightenment & Scientific Revolution that values such things. But you see, it's not all about us and our generation, but thousands upon thousands of generations before us that did not share our modern concerns. People do not realize how much we impose our own modern age standards onto the Bible. Well, guess what? The Bible doesn't meet today's standards of modern historiography. It does, however, meet the standards of *ancient* historiography and biography (and follows those conventions), which is less accurate than our standards. Does that make God:a "liar" as you claim? Not according to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which addresses that very issue.

God doesn’t seem too concerned about correcting the myriad number of factual errors in our thinking that all of us have. Or else He would have written all our science textbooks, too.

*On a personal note, I can relate to both sides of this: as both a scientist (biology & paleontology) who values accuracy and factual exactitude, but also as a (science) teacher who has the responsibility of communicating said facts in a manner that can be comprehended. I am extremely precise and exacting when it comes to teaching scientific information (to the degree I am humanly able). But despite my best efforts, it is still impossible to teach wholly accurate information. It can't be done. For starters, imperfect human language is insufficient to perfectly communicate true reality.

We (teachers) are always forced to accommodate. All knowledge taught everywhere in the world in every classroom must ultimately be "dumbed down" to the level of a given student audience in order for them to understand. Otherwise it will be "over their heads" and they end up learning nothing but frustration. It is unavoidable. We have to use simplified, imprecise definitions, generalized examples that don't account for all the exceptions, artificial categories and classifications that don't exist in reality to organize facts for ease of learning, inaccurate analogies and story-telling; and make connections to science fiction, fantasy, and social-cultural norms and conventions and common sayings and idioms; fashion and music and social media and entertainment and sports and so on, not because those things have any real relationship to the scientific knowledge in a given lecture, but because students better understand and relate to such things, and the brain learns best in the context of prior knowledge by relating new information to what it already knows and understands.

Is it "lying" to do that? Is it lying to "dumb down" factual information to less than factual, so it can be comprehended? Are science teachers (and science researchers) the world over "liars" for teaching students and the public at large the "greenhouse effect" of so-called greenhouse gases that trap solar radiation close to the Earth's surface like heat in a greenhouse, when in reality they do not such thing, and don't trap solar radiation at all? Are parents "liars" for dumbing down things for their kids?

And where do we draw the line? How accurate must the information be to meet your standards? Accurate enough for a preschool kid to understand "why is the sky blue," or a professional scientist's answer to the same question at the expense of the preschooler (and even most non-scientist adults)? Well, I'll tell you something, and I state this in all seriousness: we (humans) do not have the ability to accurately understand true reality in a perfect, completely error-free way, nor do we have the perfect means of communication to do so. Human language is inherently imperfect, so God is already "dumbing down" and accommodating to our level by the sheer fact that He uses imperfect human language to communicate with us.

So, I say again, in all seriousness, how accurate does it need to be? If it needs to be absolutely perfect, then you can't use human language to communicate it.

But surely God could easily correct some of the things in Genesis like, for example, the fact that the Moon is *not* a (lesser) light. The Moon is not a light at all, but reflects light from the sun. How hard would it be for God to say that so it's a reflection (pun intended) of reality?

Well, let's put that theory to the test: "On Day 4 [which you say doesn't really mean a day] God created a large ball of burning incandescent gas called the Sun, and created the Moon to reflect light from that Sun at night."

Would that make you happy (at least for the Moon part)? But such a simple statement of fact would cause more confusion than clarity. How can the Moon reflect light when the Sun is no longer visible at night? And what do you mean by reflect?"

So, let's give these ancients a typical college textbook type definition of light reflection: "when the [electromagnetic] waves encounter a surface or other boundary that does not absorb the energy of the radiation and bounces the waves away from the surface."

Would that be sufficiently accurate to meet your standards and make you happy?

Well, guess what? It would still be scientifically inaccurate and erroneous. Light does not "bounce" off the lunar surface or even a mirror. Do you want to know what light reflection actually is in true reality? I wouldn't know how to even communicate to you, and put it words. I don't even fully understand it myself. But I've looked at the pages and pages of quantum mechanics type math (which is way over my head). Light reflection happens at the quantum level and you need to be an expert in quantum electrodynamics to understand it (which still doesn't fully explain light reflection). Yet, "bounce" is still the best way to communicate the idea, even though that is factually wrong. Light does not "bounce" off a surface. So, does that make me a liar for dumbing it down and telling students that reflection is when light "bounces off" a surface? Would that make God a liar for "dumbing down" true reality and putting it in terms we can understand like "bounce," even though factually that is a scientifically false statement?

 

[TMal3]

Stop putting them in YELLING font.

It’s not at all convenient. Try cut and paste instead. You otherwise cut and paste when looking at Egyptian myths.

I still don't know what you're talking about. I am not making any changes to the font on my end, but simply using the default font. Perhaps on your end it is being recast or reformatted differently

 

[BeyondET]

Scientifically, evolution enjoys substantial empirical backing

Abiogenesis, however, remains an unproven working assumption in science. Science still has yet to demonstrate that life can spontaneously emerge from nonlife via natural processes.

Spontaneous generation "life from nothing" hasn't been a valid theory among scientists in quite awhile.

Scientists have created a living cell from a minimum of dna but it had some defects.