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

[Niblo]

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

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

Well, not really. They usually wave science.

Contradicting himself?

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

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.

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

What “priestly” writer is he talking about?

Hi Dorothy.

Am in the High Arctic at the moment. Very patchy wifi on board. In shāʾ Allāh, I'll be back in the UK on Friday, and can give your reply the attention it deserves.

Blessings.

 

[Barbarian]

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.

Correct:
Spherical Earth or Earth's curvature refers to the approximation of figure of the Earth as a sphere.The earliest documented mention of the concept dates from around the 5th century BC, when it appears in the writings of Greek philosophers.[1][2] In the 3rd century BC, Hellenistic astronomy established the roughly spherical shape of Earth as a physical fact and calculated the Earth's circumference. This knowledge was gradually adopted throughout the Old World during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.

Spherical Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Eratosthenes of Alexandria came up with a remarkably accurate measure of the Earth's circumference about 400 years before Christ was born.

 

[TMal3]

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

There are entire academic books devoted the subject, including evidence from ancient texts as well as archaeological evidence of ANE beliefs. Here is but one example

 

[TMal3]

See, also, "Firmament."

Here's another resource. I couldn't find a direct link but if you put in Google Scholar there will be plenty of free pdf's of the article that you can download. (*It's a two part article, so make sure you download part 1 & part 2. Seely traces the solid sky belief in numerous ancient cultures, and also addresses the Genesis account):

Seely, Paul H. "The firmament and the water above." The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991): 227-240.

(Importantly, the solid sky belief is not limited to arched domes on a flat earth, but includes solid spheres with fixed stars around a spherical earth globe as well held by the Greeks, Ptolemy, Copernicus, etc. that seemed to be required to explain stellar and planetary phenomena. See, for example, "Celestial Spheres.")

 

[Angelical]

Here's another resource. I couldn't find a direct link but if you put in Google Scholar there will be plenty of free pdf's of the article that you can download. (*It's a two part article, so make sure you download part 1 & part 2. Seely traces the solid sky belief in numerous ancient cultures, and also addresses the Genesis account):

Seely, Paul H. "The firmament and the water above." The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991): 227-240.

(The sold sky belief is not limited to arched domes on a flat earth, but includes solid spheres with fixed stars around a spherical earth globe as well held by the Greeks, Ptolemy, Copernicus, etc. that seemed to be required to explain stellar and planetary phenomena. See, for example, "Celestial Spheres."

The Spirit World is flat when you are Dead, and you can only see this side through the Sephirot, like you can see the Calendar. And you can use what you learned, and everyone shows each other things. And actually in the last like 2 Years the place where the Dead Live has become much more connected to the place where the Living Live. The Veil Between Life and Death. The Egyptians would use the Eye of Wadjet to Symbolize this, she is Wadj-et, or Djed-et, or the Wax on the 4 Pillars of the Earth in the Spirit World, represented by our Lower Ribcage.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

There are entire academic books devoted the subject, including evidence from ancient texts as well as archaeological evidence of ANE beliefs. Here is but one example

Two point: A book written by a man can only refer to books written by men but cannot possibly tell what all thought. A book could not be written today to tell us what all people thought everywhere on the earth. As I said, there was at least one ancient people who knew the earth was a globe. Don’t know if they left written material or if it would have survived.

Second point, scientists at the same time thought many things that were wrong totally independent of scripture which they didn’t even have.

Why are errors of the past important to you?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

See, also, "Firmament."

Here's another resource. I couldn't find a direct link but if you put in Google Scholar there will be plenty of free pdf's of the article that you can download. (*It's a two part article, so make sure you download part 1 & part 2. Seely traces the solid sky belief in numerous ancient cultures, and also addresses the Genesis account):

Seely, Paul H. "The firmament and the water above." The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991): 227-240.

(Importantly, the solid sky belief is not limited to arched domes on a flat earth, but includes solid spheres with fixed stars around a spherical earth globe as well held by the Greeks, Ptolemy, Copernicus, etc. that seemed to be required to explain stellar and planetary phenomena. See, for example, "Celestial Spheres.")

Why is this important and why don’t you answer my simple question as to what Hebrew word would have more accurately described the heavens that God should have used? If your knowledge of Hebrew is so great, you ought to know a better word for the cosmos than firmament.

How do you deal with God describing himself stretching out the sky? How can it be a support or a solid dome if it was STRETCHED OUT? If the ancients got their view of the cosmos from the Hebrew scripture (which only the Hebrews had for millennia), why would they think flat earth and solid dome if the scripture says the sky was stretched out?

 

[TMal3]

Two point: A book written by a man can only refer to books written by men but cannot possibly tell what all thought. A book could not be written today to tell us what all people thought everywhere on the earth. As I said, there was at least one ancient people who knew the earth was a globe. Don’t know if they left written material or if it would have survived.

Second point, scientists at the same time thought many things that were wrong totally independent of scripture which they didn’t even have.

Why are errors of the past important to you?

Why ask me for evidence if you're just going to summarily dismiss it with a wave of the hand and without even reading the resources?

The answers to your questions are in the resources I've provided that you refuse to read.

"Errors of the past"? How about errors of the present? Modern translations mistranslate Scripture so it will "fit" with modern science. That is changing God's Word. Instead of changing God's inspired Word to make it say what we think it should say, we should take Scripture at face value for what it actually says.

 

[Angelical]

Two point: A book written by a man can only refer to books written by men but cannot possibly tell what all thought. A book could not be written today to tell us what all people thought everywhere on the earth. As I said, there was at least one ancient people who knew the earth was a globe. Don’t know if they left written material or if it would have survived.

Second point, scientists at the same time thought many things that were wrong totally independent of scripture which they didn’t even have.

Why are errors of the past important to you?

Egypt knew it was a Sphere because the Moon and Sun and the Dung Beetle showed them, so they saw, and they were all trying to figure out the Eclipse.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Why ask me for evidence if you're just going to summarily dismiss it with a wave of the hand and without even reading the resources?

Because I’ve read modern books purporting to say with authority what a people group I belong to think and know they were wrong and we’re of the same culture and language group. The whole idea assumes all people always think alike.

The answers to your questions are in the resources I've provided that you refuse to read.

Since you’ve read them, you should be able to tell me what Hebrew word would have been better.

"Errors of the past"? How about errors of the present? Modern translations mistranslate Scripture so it will "fit" with modern science.

Where? I have a few translations and cannot think of one that does this.

That is changing God's Word. Instead of changing God's inspired Word to make it say what we think it should say, we should take Scripture at face value for what it actually says.

Give an example please of a verse that changes the meaning to fit modern science in Genesis. I can give you examples that do so to support a translator’s personal theology but not science.

I’m asking YOU to provide evidence for your position not a book that provides someone else’s position you agree with.

 

[TMal3]

Since you’ve read them, you should be able to tell me what Hebrew word would have been better.

You're confused. Firmamentum is not a Hebrew word nor is it used to describe "the cosmos" and you're assuming there's a better word than the word already used (raqia, stereoma)

Give an example please of a verse that changes the meaning to fit modern science in Genesis

Any translation that renders raqia as "space" or "expanse" like the ESV and NLT, without clarifying the meaning of "expanse," which refers to the expansion or expanding of metal when it is beaten or hammered out not an atmospheric, space "expanse"

 

[TMal3]

I’m asking YOU to provide evidence for your position not a book that provides someone else’s position you agree with.

I already have. And it's not "my position," it's what any standard Bible concordance states:

Raqia

Stereoma

 

[Dorothy Mae]

You're confused. Firmamentum is not a Hebrew word nor is it used to describe "the cosmos" and you're assuming there's a better word than the word already used (raqia, stereoma)

When it says God created the Firmament, that’s not the earth so it’s the cosmos. What else is there? Please drop accusing me of being confused. I see quite clearly. You refuse to answer the question.

Any translation that renders raqia as "space" or "expanse" like the ESV and NLT, without clarifying the meaning of "expanse," which refers to the expansion or expanding of metal when it is beaten or hammered out not an atmospheric, space "expanse"

No one writes a piece and defines every word or even many words. Everyone knows what “expanse” means and it is not limited to a material item. What word in English should be used that expresses that area above (or surrounding) the earth should be used?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I already have. And it's not "my position," it's what any standard Bible concordance states:

Raqia

Stereoma

If a reader has to look up what every noun means, they won’t read far.

So what word should be instead of firmament or expense to accurately present God creating the area out side of earth (since you don’t like the word “cosmos.”)

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I already have. And it's not "my position," it's what any standard Bible concordance states:

Raqia

Stereoma

What would should be there instead of "expanse" or "firmament?" That is the question I ask that you have not answered. Pasting a bit out of book is not you answering WHICH WORD should be there.

 

[TMal3]

What would should be there instead of "expanse" or "firmament?" That is the question I ask that you have not answered. Pasting a bit out of book is not you answering WHICH WORD should be there.

Firmament is completely acceptable, a transliteration of the Latin Vulgate Bible firmamentum meaning a firm, solid support, itself translated from the Greek OT stereoma which means a solid support. What are you not understanding? I tire of repeating myself.

Are you asking what other ways has this been translated in English? Surely you know how to Google Bible translations comparisons for yourself. But sure, I'll do it for you.

I will also repost the Bible concordance lexicon entires:
what any standard Bible concordance states:

Raqia

Stereoma

 

[Dorothy Mae]

TMal3, what gather from reading your posts, is that you do not believe that Genesis is part of the inspired word of God because some peoples at some times haven't had a correct understanding of the cosmos and that is the fault of Genesis. That people who did not have that Hebrew and later Greek book still believed strange things like the world was sitting on a turtle and such needs to be considered. That is, people did not understand the nature world accurately with or without the Bible so it is not the Bible's fault.

You insist "firmament" or the Hebrew word means solid and can never mean anything else. I ask you what word ought to be used instead to convey a more accurate picture and am still waiting. Ironically, you complain Genesis is misstranslated to match known science and complain that "firmament" does not match known science. What do you want? You complain that ancient people were wrong about the cosmos not being firm and ignore that men of medical science were wrong about the human body as though only the Bible believers were wrong about science.

Do you believe the Bible is the inspired words from God for life?

 

[TMal3]

I have already stated it is the inspired Word of God

And I do not "insist." This is what all the standard Bible concordances state. If you don't like it, please take it up the Bible concordances. Don't blame me or make this out like this is somehow my personal idea or "my position."

What would should be there instead of "expanse" or "firmament?" That is the question I ask that you have not answered. Pasting a bit out of book is not you answering WHICH WORD should be there.

Firmament is completely acceptable, a transliteration of the Latin Vulgate Bible firmamentum meaning a firm, solid support, itself translated from the Greek OT stereoma which means a solid support.

I will also repost the Bible concordance lexicon entires:

Raqia

Stereoma

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Firmament is completely acceptable, a transliteration of the Latin Vulgate Bible firmamentum meaning a firm, solid support, itself translated from the Greek OT stereoma which means a solid support. What are you not understanding? I tire of repeating myself.

Is "Firmament" or "Stereoma" accurately describing the area outside of earth?

Are you asking what other ways has this been translated in English? Surely you know how to Google Bible translations comparisons for yourself. But sure, I'll do it for you.

"Vault" is a very poor translation. Vaults are what a bank has. It conveys no information and only misinformation. One pictures a bank vault.

I will also repost the Bible concordance lexicon entires:
what any standard Bible concordance states:

Raqia

Stereoma

"Dome" is an equally poor translation. I think the problem is as I wrote. You very much WANT Genesis to be wrong and that any word used that can also be thought of as solid has to be solid here. I do look up the Hebrew and that word, Raquia is used twice.

rā·qî·a‘ — 2 Occurrences
Genesis 1:6
HEB: אֱלֹהִ֔ים יְהִ֥י רָקִ֖יעַ בְּת֣וֹךְ הַמָּ֑יִם
NAS: said, Let there be an expanse in the midst
KJV: said, Let there be a firmament in the midst
INT: God Let there be an expanse the midst of the waters

Ezekiel 1:22
HEB: רָאשֵׁ֤י הַחַיָּה֙ רָקִ֔יעַ כְּעֵ֖ין הַקֶּ֣רַח
NAS: [there was] something like an expanse, like the awesome
KJV: And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads
INT: the heads creature an expanse gleam of crystal

So one CANNOT deduct from the text that is means a solid surface. It is never used to describe anything on earth that is solid. My husband studied Hebrew and while there are assumptions as to the meaning, the fewer times a Hebrew word is used, the more difficult it is to know the exact meaning. You want it to mean solid surface because you want the scripture to be wrong. That people did not understand astronomy is for you proof that the scripture is wrong. That people were wrong who never read the scripture is not considered.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I have already stated it is the inspired Word of God

Then why do you emphasis that Genesis is wrong? Who got it wrong? God or man?

And I do not "insist." This is what all the standard Bible concordances state. If you don't like it, please take it up the Bible concordances. Don't blame me or make this out like this is somehow my personal idea or "my position."

And yet that word is NEVER used to describe a solid surface, just the area outside of earth.
Can you please not put your cut and paste bits in extremely large type. It is not necessary to shout.