[_ Old Earth _] Is evolutionism compatible with the Bible?

[civilwarbuff]

No, I'm showing you that the Hebrews originally thought of the sky as a large, solid, inverted bowl holding back water above it. They thought it had gates in it, so that they could be opened to let some of the water fall as rain. That is the meaning we see, for example, in the flood story, with gates being opened in a solid sky let water flood the land.



They didn't have much choice. The text says "floodgates" even though by that time they knew that the sky wasn't a solid dome and there were no gates. They treated it as a parable and went on.

As you know, YE creationism is a modern doctrine, no older than the last century. So it wasn't an issue when they did this.

You need to go back and read the article again, your reading comprehension issues have kicked in once more.....it is nothing more than an article on translation.....

 

[Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes that YE creationism was a 20th century invention of the Seventh-day Adventists)

Ahh, now I see where you are getting your unorthodox ideas from.

Not mine. I'm not a YE creationist.

Even within the Hebrew community, there are nay sayers and apostates

Now there are. But not before the Adventists did it. There were always those few among Jews who thought that everything in Genesis was literally true, but as you see, the most respected Jewish theologians, even before modern times, realized that it wasn't so.

so Just citing people who have a more personally satisfying world view will not ever change the actual truth.

Just pointing out that it wasn't just Christians who realized Genesis wasn't a literal history. As you see, respected Jewish theologians, even in medieval times, realized this.

Barbarian, where would you turn to have your physical eye sight tested, checked and corrected?

Not a YE creationist.

A Doctor, ophthalmologist or similar right?

Someone with credentials. St. Augustine is revered by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants alike as one of the great theologians of Christianity. When he wrote that the six "days" of Genesis could not be literal ones, no one thought to argue with him. Maimonides? Well...

During his lifetime, most Jews greeted Maimonides' writings on Jewish law and ethics with acclaim and gratitude, even as far away as Iraq and Yemen, and although Maimonides rose to become the revered head of the Jewish community in Egypt, there were also vociferous critics of some of his writings, particularly in Spain. Nonetheless, he was posthumously acknowledged as among the foremost rabbinical arbiters and philosophers in Jewish history, and his copious work comprises a cornerstone of Jewish scholarship. His fourteen-volume Mishneh Torah still carries significant canonical authority as a codification of Talmudic law. He is sometimes known as "ha Nesher ha Gadol" (the great eagle) in recognition of his outstanding status as a bona fide exponent of the Oral Torah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides

If you regard these men as "unorthodox", then we've located the problem.

Grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone revealed in Scripture alone.

Why not just accept it as it is, then?

 

[Barbarian]

You need to go back and read the article again, your reading comprehension issues have kicked in once more.....it is nothing more than an article on translation.....

As you see, the word used in Genesis for "sky" is a term for a solid dome. That's how the early Israelites perceived it. Later Jewish scholars realized this, and knowing that the sky is not really a solid dome with windows in it to let in rain (as mentioned in the flood story), accepted it as figurative and not a literal narrative.

Simple as that. Either these things are figurative, of the Earth is flat, and the sky is a solid dome with windows in it that can be opened to let the water above the dome fall to Earth.

One or the other.

 

[Barbarian]

Well, we know your science says resurection is impossible

No, you're wrong again. Science says that it's not naturally possible. (although to be precise, science says it's so improbable naturally as to be essentially impossible ) But if you check, you'll learn that science does not claim that miracles are impossible. Nice try, though. That argument is never used by anyone who actually understands science.

 

[calvin]

I find no text that uses the word 'floodgates in either the Kjv or the Esv.
Windows...yes, floodgates no.
Psa 103:12 Interesting that would not work for a flat earth. No one ever said
'As far as the north is from the south' that could be measured either on a flat earth or a spherical one. The distance from the 'East to the West' on the other hand works well on a sphere and that is why David was inspired to write that.
There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[calvin]

Although the flood was global, there is nothing to say that the rain was global.
If....if the rain clouds were localized (not impossible) then with the rain gathered to one area of the sky, it would indeed be a sluice opened up, and if the rain clouds were confined to one geographic area, what confined them....Trust your Bibles not the short sightedness of man

 

[civilwarbuff]

As you see, the word used in Genesis for "sky" is a term for a solid dome. That's how the early Israelites perceived it. Later Jewish scholars realized this, and knowing that the sky is not really a solid dome with windows in it to let in rain (as mentioned in the flood story), accepted it as figurative and not a literal narrative.

Simple as that. Either these things are figurative, of the Earth is flat, and the sky is a solid dome with windows in it that can be opened to let the water above the dome fall to Earth.

One or the other.

It appears you do not understand the difference between 'translation' and 'concept'. Your magazine article was about translation; my perspective is about concept. Sorry you can't grasp the difference but thanks for playing.....

 

[Barbarian]

I find no text that uses the word 'floodgates in either the Kjv or the Esv.
Windows...yes, floodgates no.

So your argument is that the sky is a dome above a flat Earth with windows in it for water to fall though from the mass of water above the sky? Do you have any evidence for any of this?

 

[Barbarian]

It appears you do not understand the difference between 'translation' and 'concept'.

It's pretty simple. Raqia, from Strong's concordance:
2 the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it, Genesis 1:6,7 (3 t. in verse)

Either the flood story is literal and the sky is a solid dome over a flat earth with openings through which the waters above the sky fall to the Earth, or the passage is figurative and not meant to be literal.

Which do you think it is?

 

[Barbarian]

Although the flood was global,

The Bible doesn't say it's global. It uses the word for "land", but not for "the whole world."

If....if the rain clouds were localized (not impossible) then with the rain gathered to one area of the sky, it would indeed be a sluice opened up,

The flood story says that the windows in the sky opened up and all the waters fell through. Do you think that's actually what is up there in the sky?

 

[civilwarbuff]

It's pretty simple. Raqia, from Strong's concordance:
2 the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it, Genesis 1:6,7 (3 t. in verse)

Either the flood story is literal and the sky is a solid dome over a flat earth with openings through which the waters above the sky fall to the Earth, or the passage is figurative and not meant to be literal.

Which do you think it is?

Do you not understand what concept means? It most certainly does not mean how any particular word is defined.
The ancient Hebrews understood the concept of at least 3 heavens....
https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEViP05WJZm8wACysnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--?p=Ancient+Hebrew+Concept+of+Heavens&fr=yhs-mozilla-002&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-002#id=1&iurl=https://twiggietruth.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/11248163_1441966499447368_8065703154333440062_n.jpg&action=click

 

[calvin]

So your argument is that the sky is a dome above a flat Earth with windows in it for water to fall though from the mass of water above the sky? Do you have any evidence for any of this?

No that is not my argument at all. You need to re read my post from the Psa reference if you are having trouble with my Ausie English then rather than jump in with rash accusations, just ask me to help you.

The Bible doesn't say it's global. It uses the word for "land", but not for "the whole world."

The flood story says that the windows in the sky opened up and all the waters fell through. Do you think that's actually what is up there in the sky?

Again you are jumping to erroneous conclusions.
We are supposed to study God's word with a teachable spirit
As for the flood just covering the land.............err ahh do you seriously think that water could be stacked up to enormous heights without any run off to the sea? Actually this laughable idea has been dealt with in another thread here some place. You would probably do well to search it out and learn why the idea of a flood that only covered land is way beyond impractical.(I'm being charitable here)
Gen 7:20 The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. Esv. A conservative estimate would be 6.86 meters above the highest mountains then present on the earth. We do not know how high the mountains were, but they were sufficiently high that no land based life could survive.
Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Have you not read the above passage? Do you actually think that lands and their high hills on the opposite side of the earth from where Noah built the ark were somehow not included in the roster of lands under the whole heaven?? ........you do? then what were they under?

 

[civilwarbuff]

It's pretty simple. Raqia, from Strong's concordance:
2 the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it, Genesis 1:6,7 (3 t. in verse)

Either the flood story is literal and the sky is a solid dome over a flat earth with openings through which the waters above the sky fall to the Earth, or the passage is figurative and not meant to be literal.

Which do you think it is?

What are you talking about? I am discussing the ancient Hebrews understanding the concept of at least 3 heavens which it has been shown that they did. What exactly does that have to do with the flood?

 

[Barbarian]

What are you talking about? I am discussing the ancient Hebrews understanding the concept of at least 3 heavens which it has been shown that they did. What exactly does that have to do with the flood?

It's your bunny trail. You tell us. I'm just pointing out that the flood story in Genesis has the sky as a solid dome over a flat Earth, with openings in it so that water can fall through from the great mass of water just above the sky. That's actually in the story. Three heavens, not so much.

 

[Barbarian]

Calvin writes:

If....if the rain clouds were localized (not impossible) then with the rain gathered to one area of the sky, it would indeed be a sluice opened up,If....if the rain clouds were localized (not impossible) then with the rain gathered to one area of the sky, it would indeed be a sluice opened up,

Barbarian asks:
So your argument is that the sky is a dome above a flat Earth with windows in it for water to fall though from the mass of water above the sky? Do you have any evidence for any of this?

No that is not my argument at all.

So what is the nature of this "sluice" you suppose is in the sky, that would justify the idea that the sky is a solid dome with openings for water to come through?

We are supposed to study God's word with a teachable spirit

You do seem to have your mind made up a priori.

As for the flood just covering the land.............err ahh do you seriously think that water could be stacked up to enormous heights without any run off to the sea? Actually this laughable idea has been dealt with in another thread here some place.

We have an example that occurred about the right time in the Middle East. Water "stacked up" to about 7,000 feet, covering settlements, mountains, plains, etc. Much of the flood is still there.

You would probably do well to search it out and learn why the idea of a flood that only covered land is way beyond impractical.(I'm being charitable here)

Hint: Google "Black Sea"

 

[civilwarbuff]

It's your bunny trail. You tell us. I'm just pointing out that the flood story in Genesis has the sky as a solid dome over a flat Earth, with openings in it so that water can fall through from the great mass of water just above the sky. That's actually in the story. Three heavens, not so much.

I told you what I am discussing; you can follow whatever lemming you want to.

 

[Cygnus]

Floodgate....doen't have to be an actual literal interpretation. But rather represents something in language that happened or is.
For example there is another example of a gate that uses a word to describe something. Jesus is a gate.

 

[Cygnus]

The Bible doesn't say it's global. It uses the word for "land", but not for "the whole world."

We already had a discussion on this.....it was shown that the word for land you complain about used in other parts of the Bible didn't mean a localized area but rather the entire world.
I little while back I did the research and proved that. Even presented you with verses.

.....now you have the audacity to keep on making your faulty claim?

 

[calvin]

now you have the audacity to keep on making your faulty claim?

Seems that way.

 

[calvin]

Floodgate....doen't have to be an actual literal interpretation.

That seems to be yet another error.none of my Bibles has 'floodgate' in the text, so I wouldn't spend time discussing it.