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

[TMal3]

This is interesting but ignorance of science, God’s works, run many ways. The term “the Big Bang” was meant to be insulting and generated by Fred Hoyle in disgust. Scientists believed Aristotle’s teaching that the universe is eternal. This is not that long ago. So Luther was wrong and so were modern scientists who rejected a beginning. It’s not only christians who got science wrong.

True. And it does raise the interesting question of interpretation again, because Luther, Augustine, and pretty much the whole of church history prior to the Copernican Revolution believed the firmament was a solid dome.

The name *firmament* itself is from the Latin meaning "firm," and is itself a translation of the Greek *stereoma* from the Old Testament (Septuagint LXX) used during Jesus's time. *Stereoma* means solid support and is the word in the LXX Old Testament used for firmament.

So, I think Luther and Augustine and the rest of the pre-Copernican Church were truly trying to be faithful to Scripture. Most modern translations obscure this fact (i.e., that the LXX Old Testament teaches the firmament was a solid support divider between the waters above and the waters below). Although there are still some modern translations that reflect the original.

 

[Barbarian]

This is interesting but ignorance of science, God’s works, run many ways. The term “the Big Bang” was meant to be insulting and generated by Fred Hoyle in disgust. Scientists believed Aristotle’s teaching that the universe is eternal.

Hoyle did. But of course, LeMaitre, who discovered the initial expansion, knew better. Most scientists when with LeMaitre, not Hoyle.

 

[Barbarian]

True. And it does raise the interesting question of interpretation again, because Luther, Augustine, and pretty much the whole of church history prior to the Copernican Revolution believed the firmament was a solid dome.

I don't think so. A few hundred years before Christ, Eratosthenes of Alexandria accurately measured the Earth's circumference, getting remarkably close to the figure we have today. Somewhat later, but still BCE, Aristarchus of Samos correctly determined that the Sun was extremely large, and that the Earth revolved around it. His fellow scientists generally didn't go that far, however.

Classical civilization knew very well that the Earth was a sphere; they even depicted it so. They knew this very well from various lines of evidence.

By the high middle ages, it was commonly accepted that the Earth was a sphere. Copernicus was assailed by religious leaders like Luther and Calvin, but by then, most educated people realized that he was correct.

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."
St. Augustine, Confessions

It's not clear whether or not educated people of the time imagined a solid sphere enclosing the sun and planets, but they knew better than to suppose a dome.

 

[TMal3]

I don't think so. A few hundred years before Christ, Eratosthenes of Alexandria accurately measured the Earth's circumference, getting remarkably close to the figure we have today. Somewhat later, but still BCE, Aristarchus of Samos correctly determined that the Sun was extremely large, and that the Earth revolved around it. His fellow scientists generally didn't go that far, however.

Classical civilization knew very well that the Earth was a sphere; they even depicted it so. They knew this very well from various lines of evidence.

By the high middle ages, it was commonly accepted that the Earth was a sphere. Copernicus was assailed by religious leaders like Luther and Calvin, but by then, most educated people realized that he was correct.

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics, and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."
St. Augustine, Confessions

It's not clear whether or not educated people of the time imagined a solid sphere enclosing the sun and planets, but they knew better than to suppose a dome.

True, but doesn't change the fact that the Old Testament (LXX & Masoretic) teaches the firmament is a solid support divider between the waters above and the waters below.

Biblical words translated *firmament*

*Raqia*- a Hebrew term from metal working, hammering out metal into sheets (Hebrew OT)

*Stereoma*- Greek word meaning solid support (Greek OT Septuagint) and the word that Hellenistic Jews used to translate the Hebrew word *raqia* given above.

*Firmament*- transliterated from the Latin *firmamentum* meaning firm, from the Latin Vulgate Bible, itself translated from the Greek *stereoma* already mentioned above

 

[Barbarian]

Of course. The person transcribing the Noah story wasn't quoting God when he said the gates of the sky were opened and water poured through. People who try to make the Bible literal and inerrant in every word are missing the message.

 

[Angelical]

Of course. The person transcribing the Noah story wasn't quoting God when he said the gates of the sky were opened and water poured through. People who try to make the Bible literal and inerrant in every word are missing the message.

A lot of it is kind of Elemental Medicine type Discussion. Air, Fire, Water and Earth. Nephilim means Clouds. There are some kind of “Green Lion eats the Sun”, and Tarot Card type things to all of it. Water is also Chalices, this is like the suit of Hearts in a Card Deck. These things are not necessarily about Water, there are Idioms and things.

Minor Arcana - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Category:Hebrew words and phrases - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Dorothy Mae]

True, but doesn't change the fact that the Old Testament (LXX & Masoretic) teaches the firmament is a solid support divider between the waters above and the waters below.

Biblical words translated *firmament*

*Raqia*- a Hebrew term from metal working, hammering out metal into sheets (Hebrew OT)

*Stereoma*- Greek word meaning solid support (Greek OT Septuagint) and the word that Hellenistic Jews used to translate the Hebrew word *raqia* given above.

*Firmament*- transliterated from the Latin *firmamentum* meaning firm, from the Latin Vulgate Bible, itself translated from the Greek *stereoma* already mentioned above

What is the firmament solidly supporting from scripture?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

True. And it does raise the interesting question of interpretation again, because Luther, Augustine, and pretty much the whole of church history prior to the Copernican Revolution believed the firmament was a solid dome.

Medical Scientists thought for centuries that leeches were the cure for disease believing they were being faithful to proper medical treatment. I don’t see the relevance of mistakes of the past.

The name *firmament* itself is from the Latin meaning "firm," and is itself a translation of the Greek *stereoma* from the Old Testament (Septuagint LXX) used during Jesus's time. *Stereoma* means solid support and is the word in the LXX Old Testament used for firmament.

So, I think Luther and Augustine and the rest of the pre-Copernican Church were truly trying to be faithful to Scripture. Most modern translations obscure this fact (i.e., that the LXX Old Testament teaches the firmament was a solid support divider between the waters above and the waters below). Although there are still some modern translations that reflect the original.

Hebrew scriptures are chock full of metaphors. Jesus is the lamb of God. So Jesus has wool? God has the animals on 1000 hills, which are definitely firm material items, but the 1001th hill is not His, right? Under his wings we trust….God is aviary? Why does that word have to mean solid when “wings” doesn’t mean feathered?

 

[TMal3]

Sometimes these words are used metaphorically, true. Like stereoma which is used metaphorically for inner strength. Context is important, and that's why a metaphorical interpretation would be problematic in Genesis (On Day 2 God *created* a metaphor?).

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Sometimes these words are used metaphorically, true. Like stereoma which is used metaphorically for inner strength. Context is important, and that's why a metaphorical interpretation would be problematic in Genesis (On Day 2 God *created* a metaphor?).

He communicates in words the recipient knows. He doesn’t create metaphors anymore than he creates other literary devises. He created and communicated that act using metaphors as it fits. If a man builds out of his life a strong tower, he neither created an edifice nor invented a metaphor.

 

[TMal3]

There I agree with you wholeheartedly (except the metaphor part). I think that's what it is: accommodationism, not concordism. Genesis 1 reflects Ancient Near East beliefs of an (liquid) ocean of heavenly waters above supported by a solid *stereoma* firmament to which the sun, moon, stars were fastened to "hold" them up too. Those prescientific beliefs were incorrect, but God accommodated Himself to humanity. God communicated timeless theological truth in ways they could understand. Just like how God stooped down to our level and became a man in the Incarnation ("the Word became flesh").

 

[Barbarian]

Genesis 1 reflects Ancient Near East beliefs of an (liquid) ocean of heavenly waters above supported by a solid *stereoma* firmament to which the sun, moon, stars were fastened to "hold" them up too. Those prescientific beliefs were incorrect, but God accommodated Himself to humanity. God communicated timeless theological truth in ways they could understand. Just like how God stooped down to our level and became a man in the Incarnation ("the Word became flesh").

Yes. Well said.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

There I agree with you wholeheartedly (except the metaphor part). I think that's what it is: accommodationism, not concordism. Genesis 1 reflects Ancient Near East beliefs of an (liquid) ocean of heavenly waters above supported by a solid *stereoma* firmament to which the sun, moon, stars were fastened to "hold" them up too. Those prescientific beliefs were incorrect, but God accommodated Himself to humanity. God communicated timeless theological truth in ways they could understand. Just like how God stooped down to our level and became a man in the Incarnation ("the Word became flesh").

I don’t see it that way. He communicates truth always. I don’t see the choice of word “firmament” communicating anything solid. If they thought it, it was going beyond the description. I mean, the stars etc can be seen. They are called the firmament. What would you have called the night sky in one word?

And Words can have many meanings. If I say the idea is solid, it doesn’t mean a material strength. I think you’re limiting the meanings of words.

I asked what you think the firmament was supporting FROM THE TEXT. Did you answer?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Job 26:7

God stretches out the sky…. doesn’t sound solid

God hangs the earth on nothing….sounds like space

It’s a mistake to think those who heard God describe creation knew less than we know.

 

[Niblo]

From Robert M. Price; referring to Genesis 1:1-2:4a (words in parenthesis are also Price’s):

‘Though placed at the head of the Bible, this is not the earliest biblical version of the creation. It comes from the Priestly source and represents a sophisticated rationalizing of earlier creation myths. This may seem surprising in view of how fundamentalists have waved this story like a battle flag in their crusade against evolutionary science. That is quite ironic since the Priestly creation account is itself an example, not of mythology, but of early science. This becomes evident when we compare the story, on the one hand, with earlier and overtly mythic creation accounts, and, on the other, with contemporary natural philosophy (pre-technological scientific speculation).

‘Speaking of the scientific thinking of the ancients, we must draw a vital distinction between mythology and speculation. When Genesis 1 describes the universe with a flat earth floating upon a universal ocean, protected from a cosmic ocean above it by means of a solid dome (a “firmament,” Hebrew raqiya, “a dome beaten out of metal plates”) with windows in it to let in the rain and with stars set in it like ceiling lights – we are dealing not with myth but with scientific speculation.

‘A mythic cosmology (world-schema) would be, for example, one where the earth hatches out of an egg or rests on the back of a giant turtle. But just about all the ancients in the biblical environment thought (not “believed in”) the flat, domed earth with oceans above and below. And they weren’t stupid to think so, either.

'Take a look around you: Doesn’t the earth appear to be basically flat, albeit bumpy here and there? You can’t see very far, but you can chalk that up to plain old distance, right? And doesn’t the sky seem to come down to meet the ground in every direction? A world-dome begins to make a lot of sense. You dig wells and find water deep in the ground, which implies that the earth is built over water. And where does the rain come from? The sky, which means there must be a huge amount of water up in the cosmic attic, too! Nobody had invented telescopes yet, so I submit that what I have just described was the best thinking of the day. The Priestly writer was therefore a natural philosopher….’ (‘Holy Fable: The Old Testament Undistorted by Faith.’).

 

[Dorothy Mae]

From Robert M. Price; referring to Genesis 1:1-2:4a (words in parenthesis are also Price’s):

‘Though placed at the head of the Bible, this is not the earliest biblical version of the creation.

Earlier ones that make sense need to be provided. All I’ve read are totally nonsensical.

It comes from the Priestly source and represents a sophisticated rationalizing of earlier creation myths.

Again, evidence? The Genesis is vastly superior to earlier stories.

This may seem surprising in view of how fundamentalists have waved this story like a battle flag in their crusade against evolutionary science.

Well, not really. They usually wave science.

That is quite ironic since the Priestly creation account is itself an example, not of mythology, but of early science. This becomes evident when we compare the story, on the one hand, with earlier and overtly mythic creation accounts, and, on the other, with contemporary natural philosophy (pre-technological scientific speculation).

Contradicting himself?

‘Speaking of the scientific thinking of the ancients, we must draw a vital distinction between mythology and speculation. When Genesis 1 describes the universe with a flat earth floating upon a universal ocean, protected from a cosmic ocean above it by means of a solid dome (a “firmament,” Hebrew raqiya, “a dome beaten out of metal plates”) with windows in it to let in the rain and with stars set in it like ceiling lights – we are dealing not with myth but with scientific speculation.

Where does Genesis 1 say that? Where is the word “flat” used to describe earth?

‘A mythic cosmology (world-schema) would be, for example, one where the earth hatches out of an egg or rests on the back of a giant turtle. But just about all the ancients in the biblical environment thought (not “believed in”) the flat, domed earth with oceans above and below. And they weren’t stupid to think so, either.

Actually I was in Ephesus once and the guide showed us the statute of feet standing on the earth….the earth was round. Very ancient statue. The author is in error.

'Take a look around you: Doesn’t the earth appear to be basically flat, albeit bumpy here and there? You can’t see very far, but you can chalk that up to plain old distance, right? And doesn’t the sky seem to come down to meet the ground in every direction? A world-dome begins to make a lot of sense.

Except man didn’t invent Genesis and God didn’t say the earth is flat.

You dig wells and find water deep in the ground, which implies that the earth is built over water. And where does the rain come from? The sky, which means there must be a huge amount of water up in the cosmic attic, too! Nobody had invented telescopes yet, so I submit that what I have just described was the best thinking of the day. The Priestly writer was therefore a natural philosopher….’ (‘Holy Fable: The Old Testament Undistorted by Faith.’).

What “priestly” writer is he talking about?

 

[TMal3]

Job 26:7

God stretches out the sky…. doesn’t sound solid

God hangs the earth on nothing….sounds like space

It’s a mistake to think those who heard God describe creation knew less than we know.

In ancient times they believed the sky was solid. The word firmament is transliterated from the Latin firmamentum which literally means firm support; and is itself translated from the Greek Old Testament stereoma which means solid support which itself is translated from the Hebrew Old Testament raqia which has its root meaning in metal working and 'stretching' out metal, hammering solid metal out into thin plates.

The Hellensitic Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek chose the word stereoma to translate the Hebrew, raqia to stereoma which means a solid, firm support. There is no indication that it is meant to be understood metaphorically. (We only question it today in hindsight because it doesn't comport with what we now know about the universe)

 

[Dorothy Mae]

In ancient times they believed the sky was solid.

This is your assumption. Where is evidence for that ignorance?

The word firmament is transliterated from the Latin firmamentum which literally means firm support; and is itself translated from the Greek Old Testament stereoma which means solid support which itself is translated from the Hebrew Old Testament raqia which has its root meaning in metal working and 'stretching' out metal, hammering solid metal out into thin plates.

What are the heavens “supporting” from the text? And You’ve said the above before. Move on. What Hebrew word should God have used?

The Hellensitic Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek chose the word stereoma to translate the Hebrew, raqia to stereoma which means a solid, firm support. There is no indication that it is meant to be understood metaphorically.

What word should they have used that means non-supporting?

(We only question it today in hindsight because it doesn't comport with what we now know about the universe)

Please answer my questions. I said God chose the words he did and it matches the rich choice of words the Hebrew Bible is chock full of. God is a rock….igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic? Did you answer the description spoken of creation in Job? A firm sky can’t really be stretched out and yet it says He did. So did they think the firmament was rubber? Not very supporting or firm.

 

[Angelical]

This is your assumption. Where is evidence for that ignorance?

What are the heavens “supporting” from the text? And You’ve said the above before. Move on. What Hebrew word should God have used?

What word should they have used that means non-supporting?

Please answer my questions. I said God chose the words he did and it matches the rich choice of words the Hebrew Bible is chock full of. God is a rock….igneous, sedimentary or metamorphic? Did you answer the description spoken of creation in Job? A firm sky can’t really be stretched out and yet it says He did. So did they think the firmament was rubber? Not very supporting or firm.

And also, is someone arguing that they aren’t Fastened? To sit here and try to say that what the Stars are is not like Fastened in its Place, moving on its Course, is to like not even understand. I would say that here now today we could call the Stars Fastened. And the Firmament, has anyone brought in Einstein’s Space-Time Grids? If we talk about like Modern Beliefs instead of just pretending like “We know better now”, you could talk about how it’s all still there.

 

[Angelical]

And the whole Firmament argument usually is that the Water was around the Earth, and it came down in the Flood. So some say the Firmament released the Waters onto the Earth. Or is this all about the Luther Bible and things?