Why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Quickfix

 

I'm kinda wondering why you posted the link about the age of the earth as 6000.

I hope you read the OP - cuz in there I said this:

#Note: The Bible itself does not set any such time limit on the days of creation. Based on known scientific, mathematical, astronomical facts the earth is around 4byo and the universe around 13byo (for now – might change). Gen. 1:1 does not disagree with the established facts. But the 6000 to 10000 year old earth does not fit these well known facts – geologic strata.

But from my last post - are you able to answer the Qs I asked?
Because it's related to your questions.

btw - I found this funny story about c14:

The story said that eleven years ago, an artistic South African grandmother, Joan Ahrens, produced some fine paintings using rocks as her canvases, imitating traditional Bushman art. Later, one of her painted rocks was picked up in the veld near her former home in the city of Pietermaritzburg. Eventually it got into the hands of the curator of the city’s museum. Unaware of the origin of this rock art, the curator had it dated in England by the Oxford University radio carbon accelerator unit. Experts estimated that the painting was 1,200 years old! Why such an embarrassing error? “It has since been established,” according to a report in South Africa’s Sunday Times, “that the oil paint used by Mrs Ahrens contained natural oils which contained carbon—the only substance dated by Oxford.”

--> not sure what this proves but there u go -


ty
edmc2

edit on 11-4-2011 by edmc^2 because: anecdote

The Bible can be dated and is dated. Proven by carbon dating. The Bible was man made so it is adherent to the time span of man. It was not created by "God."

The Earth and man were created a few days apart like the book Genesis says...7 days remember? So the Bible time span does not meet the earth time span, which is a contradiction on its own. And you already admitted in your post that the earth and universe is a few billion years old....no going back on that one...

I answered the C14 dating question in my last post. on page 7 I believe and Included a link.

And that funny story you didn't link, has no real standing, it doesn't prove anything. It just proves that the oil she used could of been very old. Oil has been in use for the last 2,000 years when Jesus was around, it even has a spot in the Bible where it mentions its use.

There is just too many holes in the Bible for it to be factual. It has a few things in there that are useful to know, but should only be taken with a grain of salt...

reply to post by Astyanax


I'm watching a show on the KGB UFO files currently. Here is a segment where the person speaking is talking about pyramids all over the world. He basically says what I stated in response to you, which is that the appearance of similarities all over the world make a person stop and consider why. That particular part starts at about 6:00. The entire segment addresses not only that aspect, but also the notion of giants and ET's in antiquity-they called them "Starwalkers"

reply to post by edmc^2

Why Biblical Creation is factually accurate – The Reality! The evidences are indisputable!

For something to be factual and indisputable, you'd require OBJECTIVE evidence...so let's have a look, shall we?

Fact 1) “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Gen. 1:1. -

So basically, you have to prove that the heavens and earth were created...and not only that, but also that a deity did so.

The Hubble Telescope and other powerful instruments, higher mathematics and the brightest minds of science has confirmed this to be so: the universe had a beginning – ergo: The Big Bang.

So far so good, we know the universe as we know it today had a beginning...the big bang. We don't know what was before the big bang though.

What about the earth? Did it had a beginning? This one too is a ESTABLISHED FACT and no need of further evidence or explanation (unless you're not yet convinced).

We know the earth is around 4.5bil years old, much younger than the universe...so yeah, the earth had a beginning too.

How did Moses, a “goat herder” (as referred to here on ATS) get the facts right?

Because everything we know of has a "beginning". All life forms for example. However, the difference is that he made an ASSUMPTION and didn't back up the claim with objective evidence.

He got the information from someone who has knowledge of space and time. From someone who transcends the material universe because he made it and hence existed before it was. From someone who posses enormous power, with the ability to convert “dynamic energy” into matter (E=mc2 - Isa 40:26 NWT)). In other words Moses was divinely inspired by God the Creator of the heavens and earth - the Almighty God (YHWH - Jehovah/Yahweh). To which he says:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Gen. 1:1.

And here ends the logic and rationality

Where's your proof that your claim is correct? Who's to say he didn't just make an assumption. In genesis, they also assume humans just popped up in their current form...the theory of evolution clearly debunks that. And no, women weren't made of the "rib of man"

So according to your "logic", god also fed him complete misinformation

In short, yes, we know the earth and universe had a beginning...but you present ZERO objective evidence that a deity was involved!

Fact 2) In the eighth century B.C.E. Isaiah wrote of Jehovah “...the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell,” (Isaiah 40:22 NWT/ also DBY)

It specifically says "like a tent"...which would imply the universe has a floor...but for all we know, that's not the case. As for fine gauze, it's a SUBJECTIVE value statement, and you could hardly consider massive supper stars and planets like Jupiter a "fine gauze"

And once again, ZERO evidence that a creator was involved.

Fact 3) “He is . . . hanging the earth upon nothing.”—Job 26:7.

Look up the definition of "gravity"! Clue: the word "nothing" isn't part of it. Also, should you ever go skydiving, I doubt you'll say you fell down because of "nothing".

So yeah, not factual at all I'm afraid...

Where did Job got the information more than 3400 years ago?

I dunno, but he clearly got it wrong. Even worse, he made a random claim and didn't present any objective evidence to support it...which is why he's got it wrong.

Job got the information from someone who has knowledge of space and time.

Which is your SUBJECTIVE opinion...that isn't backed up by any evidence

With just these three undeniable facts the evidence is strong in support of Creation!

Given that you don't back up your claims, you can't really call them "facts"

Which is contrary to Biblical Creation – where The Creator whose name YHWH (Jehovah/Yahweh) was mentioned 7000 times.

Bible Books:
Genesis
Writer: Moses
Place Written: Wilderness
Writing Completed: 1513 B.C.E.
Time Covered: “In the beginning” to 1657 B.C.E.
(3524 yoa)

Job
Writer: Moses
Place Written: Wilderness
Writing Completed: c. 1473 B.C.E.
Time Covered: Over 140 years between 1657 and 1473 B.C.E.
(3484 yoa)

Isaiah
Writer: Isaiah
Place Written: Jerusalem
Writing Completed: After 732 B.C.E.
Time Covered: c. 778–after 732 B.C.E.
(2743)

Meaningless info! Count how many times "Harry Potter" is mentioned in the books...doesn't make him real

Also, the bible obviously isn't objective evidence of anything but what people believed to be true 2,000 years ago...it isn't an accurate description of reality. Hell, there's tons of parts in it that have been proven wrong over and over again.

If you're wondering what the bible got horribly wrong...Madness made a convenient list of a few things that are clearly wrong.

Now let's test the other passages where the Bible gets all sorts of things wrong:

Plants existed before the Sun and Moon (Genesis 1:11-16)

The Earth is created before the Sun (Genesis 1)
...actually, to just shorten this: The order of events in Genesis 1 is wrong

The Sun and Moon are set in a physical firmament above the Earth (Genesis 1:16-17)

The Moon is a/produces light (Genesis 1:16, Isaiah 13:10)

Global flood (Genesis..mentioned several other times in later books)

Humanity at a time of civilization which would have enabled large scale construction projects shared a single language (Genesis 11)

Diverse language happened instantly rather than gradually (Genesis 11)

The Hebrew population in Egypt somehow goes from dozens to millions in a few hundred years. (Exodus)

Hares and coneys are ruminants (Leviticus 11:5-6)

God's cure for lepers (Leviticus 14:2-52)

Snakebites are cured by a brass serpent on a pole (Numbers 21:8)

Giants (way too many passages Numbers, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, Amos)

Dragons (Deuteronomy 32:33, Psalms 148:7)

The Sun apparently moves and can be made to stand still so that people can sneak attack others at night (Joshua 10:12-13)

The Earth has pillars...I guess instead of being hung it's placed.(1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6,26:11,38:4-6...actually, a lot of places)

Pi = 3(1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2)

Either the Earth stopped rotating and moved backward a bit or the Sun moved backward on its own...well, we know what the Bible says about the relationship between the two. (2 Kings 20:11)

The Earth doesn't move.(1 Chronicles 16:30, Job 38:4-6, Psalms 93:1, 96:10...and a lot of other places where it mentions that the Earth is set on foundations)

People think in their heart (Esther 6:6, Isaiah 10:7)

Ostriches are apparently entirely inattentive parents (Job 39:13-16)

The Sun moves around the Earth (Psalms 19:4-6)

Snails melt (Psalms 58:8)

The Earth has four corners (Isaiah 11:12, Ezekial 7:2)

Lots of fantastical creatures used to exist including satyrs, cockatrices, fiery flying serpents, etc (Isaiah)

The Earth is definitively flat (Daniel 4:10-11, 20)

The stars are tiny objects that can fall out of the sky and be stomped upon (Daniel 8:10)

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

note: Pardon the grammar as I did not do any proof reading and was in a hurry to post it. Need to go to my meetings.

you said:

...um...no. No they aren't. But I just addressed how the Bible is clearly scientifically inaccurate in many ways in many places. And I didn't leave out Pi...the reason that the lists seem so similar is that we're pointing out the problems in the same text. I've gotten quite familiar with the text, but I did make sure to search for key terms in online...and then I tried to organize it by book order. It actually took me a while to compile that list, care to address it?

So just to be clear – you don’t believe that the universe and the earth had a beginning as presented in the OP? Correct?

And you also don’t believe that the “earth” is “hanging upon nothing” as explained in the OP? Correct?

OK – I thought you believed in scientific facts, I guess I was wrong. Or is it, you don’t believe and will NOT accept it because the Bible agrees with it? Interesting conundrum. Oh well... to each its own I guess.

Now as for the list you’ve provided – sorry to say this but its old stuff. All of the things you’ve listed or I should say copied (from your favorite anti-bible websites) had been answered already.

Anyway I’ll answer as much as I can here even though you will trash it. But to prove my point and for the benefit of others - here we go...

So… let's start with:

Plants existed before the Sun and Moon (Genesis 1:11-16)

The Genesis account does say such a thing but opponents of the Bible will continue to use their twisted arguments to push their erroneous ideas. That somehow

Plants existed before the Sun and Moon (Genesis 1:11-16)

But upon closer examination the account simply states that:

On the “fourth day,” God went on “to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars.” (Genesis 1:14-19)

Neglecting the fact that God created these heavenly bodies earlier, “in the beginning” at Genesis 1:1. These heavenly bodies including the earth were created thousands even billions of years ago. But Genesis 1:2-11 deals with how the “formless earth” was being prepared for habitation, the rest of the verses deal with creation of living things.

This can be ascertained by the use of the words “created” - (Hebrew, bara′) at Genesis 1:1 and “made” - (Hebrew, ‘asah) at Genesis 1:16.

ba'ra (created) – simply means the 'act of creation' – as “In [the] beginning God created (ba’ra) the heavens and the earth”

'Asah' (made) on the other hand simply means made to appear – so that the “two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night” will serve “as signs and for seasons and for days and years.”

Along with this line, it's also important to note that on the first creative “day,” the expression “Let light come to be” the Hebrew word used for “light” is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense. That is, there was light but can't pinpoint the exact source or location.

But on the fourth “day,” the Hebrew word changes to ma•’ohr′, which means the source of the light. That is, the light rays coming from the sun as daylight and moonlight at night. So one standing on earth at that point in time can now see the sun, moon and stars.

So from this simple observation we can see (but not you) that the sun already existed thousands or even billions of years ago before even the very first blade of grass “shoot” out of the ground.

Side note:
Interestingly scientific evidence is in agreement on the succession of creative events mentioned in Genesis 1.
Also according to science, in order for plants to live and grow they will require sunlight so that photosynthesis will function – any 5th grader knows this.

Funny thing is its noticeable how opponents of the Bible manipulate the scriptures to suit their ill conceived erroneous ideas. Good example is the websites where you got your list from.

Let me show you in addition to the above observation:

To someone who’s not familiar with the Bible, just reading Genesis 1:11-16 one might arrive at a wrong conclusion. But upon consideration of the surrounding verses then the picture becomes clear. The seeming puzzle becomes complete.

So let’s take a look at the rest of the Scriptures starting from Gen 1:1 through v19.

1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

In V1 – Moses the writer of the Bible simply tells us this simple fact: that the “heavens and the earth” were Created. Included in the creation of the “heavens” (universe) are the heavenly bodies such as the stars, the moon and the SUN, as well as Galaxies. There's no mention of time here, so this can be thousands or billions of years – in agreement with known scientific evidence.

In the next verse V2 – the writer now focuses our attention on the "formless" earth:

2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.

Notice the writer said that the “earth” was “formless” – engulf in a “watery deep” - thus no light from the heavenly bodies such as the sun or the moon can penetrate through. No light thus - “there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep “. So at this point in time the earth (solid mass) was uninhabitable. But time arrived to make it habitable.

Interestingly this is how science describes how planets were formed. They reason that at the early stages of the planet’s formation at one time all of earth’s water existed in the form of atmospheric vapor because of the extreme heat of the earth’s surface.

Next stage: 1st Creative “Day”

3 And God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be”* Then there came to be light. 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. 5 And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a first day.

At this stage of the 1st Creative Day – thousands of years - as “God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters”, “light” from heavenly bodies (sun, moon, stars) became visible on the earth. So a person observing on earth can see light* through the “watery deep”. This “light” as explained by the writer created/provided a division between the darkness from the light – God “calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night”.

*“And gradually light came into existence.” (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis)

Next stage, the 2nd Creative Day -

6 And God went on to say: “Let an expanse come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.” 7 Then God proceeded to make the expanse and to make a division between the waters that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse. And it came to be so. 8 And God began to call the expanse Heaven. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a second day.

At this stage of Creation – a division (#expanse – heaven / sky) was created in “between the waters ...that should be beneath the expanse and the waters that should be above the expanse.” In other words a sky is now in view where flying creature can fly to.

#the Bible is silent as to how the “expanse” was created (possibly through atmospheric forces ).

Next stage: 3rd Creative Day

9 And God went on to say: “Let the waters under the heavens be brought together into one place and let the dry land appear.” And it came to be so. 10 And God began calling the dry land Earth, but the bringing together of the waters he called Seas. Further, God saw that [it was] good. 11 And God went on to say: “Let the earth cause grass to shoot forth, vegetation bearing seed, fruit trees yielding fruit according to their kinds, the seed of which is in it, upon the earth.” And it came to be so. 12 And the earth began to put forth grass, vegetation bearing seed according to its kind and trees yielding fruit, the seed of which is in it according to its kind. Then God saw that [it was] good. 13 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a third day.

As this stage of the 3rd Creative Day – dry land appeared – “and God began calling the dry land Earth”. Water sank, were “brought together into one” and “the waters he called Seas”.

Interestingly water weights around 62.4 pounds per cubic foot at 32°F. As they collect together – the total weight can pushed / elevate lands to greater heights – creating more land mass. Plates moved to and fro also creating mountains and valleys and hills. Great land masses appear with massive foundations for thousands of years.
-- National Geographic is good at explaining this event --

This process can be compared to a building where its foundations are sunk underground. On this God asked Job: “Into what have its socket pedestals been sunk down, or who laid its cornerstone?”—Job 38:6.

Factually like “socket pedestals,” earth’s crust is much thicker under continents and even more so under mountain ranges, pushing deep into the underlying mantle, like tree roots into soil.

Note what Putnam’s Geology said:

“The idea that mountains and continents had roots has been tested over and over again, and shown to be valid,”

Oceanic crust is only about 5 miles thick, but continental roots go down about 20 miles and mountain roots penetrate about twice that far. And all earth’s layers press inward upon earth’s core from all directions, making it like a great “cornerstone” of support.

Also at this point in time of the 3rd Creative Day – after “dry land” appeared plant /tree life of every kind began to grow – courtesy of photosynthesis from the sun.

Next stage: 4th Creative Day

14 And God went on to say: “Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. 15 And they must serve as luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth.” And it came to be so. 16 And God proceeded to make the two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night, and also the stars. 17 Thus God put them in the expanse of the heavens to shine upon the earth, 18 and to dominate by day and by night and to make a division between the light and the darkness. Then God saw that [it was] good. 19 And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a fourth day.

Now that vegetation/plant/tree life are well established – courtesy of photosynthesis, the lights coming from the sun, moon and even stars are now observable from man's point of view. At this stage of the Creative Day – there's now a clear division between the 12 hr day and 12 hr night. The “two great luminaries, the greater luminary for dominating the day and the lesser luminary for dominating the night”. A time marker is now possible as the earth turns around its axis (24 hrs -12 for day/12 for night). Serving also “as signs and for seasons and for days and years.”

I’ll stop here on the 4th Creative Day.
=======

Well I hope this helps but then again….


Check the next post for the rest please.

Ty,
edmc2

reply to post by madnessinmysoul



Here we go…

The Moon is a/produces light (Genesis 1:16, Isaiah 13:10)

-- It reflects light coming from the sun so to a person standing on earth thousand years ago it will appear as producing (cold) light. Of course in the modern century we know where the original source of the light is coming from.

Global flood (Genesis..mentioned several other times in later books)

-- Evidence of this is super abundant. Been beaten to death here on ATS. Just don’t want to accept the facts so you keep bringing it up.

Humanity at a time of civilization which would have enabled large scale construction projects shared a single language (Genesis 11)

Wrote Josephus:

“[Nimrod] little by little transformed the state of affairs into a tyranny, holding that the only way to detach men from the fear of God was by making them continuously dependent upon his own power. He threatened to have his revenge on God if He wished to inundate the earth again; for he would build a tower higher than the water could reach and avenge the destruction of their forefathers. The people were eager to follow this advice of [Nimrod], deeming it slavery to submit to God; so they set out to build the tower . . . and it rose with a speed beyond all expectation.”—Jewish Antiquities, I, 114, 115 (iv, 2, 3)

Diverse language happened instantly rather than gradually (Genesis 11)

-- Just a matter of switching / triggering the brain. Possible?
consider the following:

www.telegraph.co.uk...
10:46PM BST 12 Apr 2010
The girl, from the southern town of Knin, had only just started studying German at school and had been reading German books and watching German TV to become better, but was by no means fluent, according to her parents.
Since waking up from her 24 hourcoma however, she has been unable to speak Croatian, but is able to communicate perfectly in German.
Doctors at Split's KB Hospital claim that the case is so unusual, various experts have examined the girl as they try to find out what triggered the change.

Also:
Historian Sir Henry Rawlinson wrote:

“If we were to be guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the Scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar, as the focus from which the various lines had radiated.”

[That observation agrees with the Bible, which shows that God created the first man with language and the ability to use it well. After the flood of Noah’s day, it tells us, “all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words.” However, in time, disobedient men, with their one common language, united in a harmful scheme. In-stead of scattering throughout the earth as God commanded, they converged on the plains of Shinar and began to build a city, Babel, and a tower for practicing false worship.

In order to carry out his will, the Creator took action against the rebellious city builders. Genesis 11:9 informs us: “That is why its name was called Babel, because there Jehovah had confused the language of all the earth, and Jehovah had scattered them from there over all the surface of the earth.”]

-- From there mankind developed further new languages and dialects.

Btw – do you dream in different languages? I do.

The Hebrew population in Egypt somehow goes from dozens to millions in a few hundred years. (Exodus)

- Must be very active and productive people – or maybe something in the water. -- hehe

Hares and coneys are ruminants (Leviticus 11:5-6)

- Research say:

“The habit of ‘refection,’ or passing the food twice through the intestine instead of only once, seems to be a common phenomenon in the rabbits and hares. Domestic rabbits usually eat and swallow without chewing their night droppings, which form in the morning as much as half the total contents of the stomach. In the wild rabbit refection takes place twice daily, and the same habit is reported for the European hare. . . . It is believed that this habit provides the animals with large amounts of B vitamins produced by bacteria in the food within the large intestine.” --The Natural History of Mammals, 1964, p. 41

Also this:

“This may be similar to ‘chewing the cud’ in ruminant mammals. -- The work Mammals of the World (by E. P. Walker, 1964, Vol. II, p. 647)

Tip for you:
“In specific or some areas we can’t judge the accuracy of the Bible statement by the restricted, relatively recent conception of what constitutes a cud-chewing animal.”

God's cure for lepers (Leviticus 14:2-52)

- These verses talks about purification ceremony when a leper was cured. What one needs to do before he is pronounced clean or cured. The ceremony is not what healed the leper but God.

Snakebites are cured by a brass serpent on a pole (Numbers 21:8)

- This one I’ll leave it up to you to run up further your mad wild imaginations as to the reason why.

Giants (way too many passages Numbers, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, Amos)

I believe coyotepoet gave a very extensive proof of Gigantism. It is real man don’t you know?

Dragons (Deuteronomy 32:33, Psalms 148:7)

KJV - Deu 32:33 - Their wine [is] the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.
© Info: - King James Version 1769 Info

Note – “Dragons” was corrected to its proper meaning – serpents, cobras and sea creatures. Obviously you're still using the 1769 version. Need to move to the 21st century – use the best Bible translations out there.

NKJV - Deu 32:33 - Their wine is the poison of serpents, And the cruel venom of cobras.
© Info: - New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

NLT - Deu 32:33 - Their wine is the venom of snakes, the deadly poison of vipers.
© Info: - New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

NIV - Deu 32:33 - Their wine is the venom of serpents, the deadly poison of cobras.
www.blueletterbible.org.../33

Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps:
© Info: - King James Version 1769 Info

NKJV - Psa 148:7 - Praise the LORD from the earth, You great sea creatures and all the depths;
© Info: - New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

NLT - Psa 148:7 - Praise the LORD from the earth, you creatures of the ocean depths,
© Info: - New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

NIV - Psa 148:7 - Praise the LORD from the earth, you great sea creatures and all ocean depths,
© Info: - The Holy Bible, New International Version© 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society

ESV - Psa 148:7 - Praise the LORD from the earth, you great sea creatures and all deeps,
www.blueletterbible.org.../7

there’s more versions showing the same wording.

“33 Their wine is the venom of big snakes And the cruel poison of cobras.” (Deuteronomy 32:33 NWT)

“ 7 Praise Jehovah from the earth, YOU sea monsters and all YOU watery deeps,” (Psalm 148:7 NWT)

You know what – I detect a sign of laziness. It only took me a few seconds to find the above information.

Here’s a test on honesty:

Which version/s is more accurate? Your favorite 1769KJV version or the rest?

The Sun apparently moves and can be made to stand still so that people can sneak attack others at night (Joshua 10:12-13)

- This one I’ll leave it up to you to run up further your mad wild imaginations as to the reason how it happened.

The Earth has pillars...I guess instead of being hung it's placed.(1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6,26:11,38:4-6...actually, a lot of places)

Pi = 3(1 Kings 7:23, 2 Chronicles 4:2)

- About your pi = 3, which person would you pick? Someone who asked you to build him a water jar with an exact “mouth” “brim” of pi = 3.14159265” no more no less or someone who says build me a water jar with a “brim” of about/approximately 3”?

- Note also one Bible commentator regarding this particular issue (Christopher Wordsworth ):

“Up to the time of Archimedes [third century B.C.E.], the circumference of a circle was always measured in straight lines by the radius; and Hiram would naturally describe the sea as thirty cubits round, measuring it, as was then invariably the practice, by its radius, or semidiameter, of five cubits, which being applied six times round the perimeter, or ‘brim,’ would give the thirty cubits stated. There was evidently no intention in the passage but to give the dimensions of the Sea, in the usual language that every one would understand, measuring the circumference in the way in which all skilled workers, like Hiram, did measure circles at that time. He, of course, must however have known perfectly well, that as the polygonal hexagon thus inscribed by the radius was thirty cubits, the actual curved circumference would be somewhat more.”

– notice 5 cubits measured 6 times.

Either the Earth stopped rotating and moved backward a bit or the Sun moved backward on its own...well, we know what the Bible says about the relationship between the two. (2 Kings 20:11)

- I’ll leave this one up to you to run up further your mad wild imaginations as to how it happened.

The Earth doesn't move.(1 Chronicles 16:30, Job 38:4-6, Psalms 93:1, 96:10...and a lot of other places where it mentions that the Earth is set on foundations)

-- These verses when read carefully are not talking about the earth axis or its rotation – but simply saying that the earth will remain forever – will not be moved.

Here are some similar verses:

“He has founded the earth upon its established places; It will not be made to totter to time indefinite, or forever.” (Psalm 104:5)

“A generation is going, and a generation is coming; but the earth is standing even to time indefinite.” (Ecclesiastes 1:4)

People think in their heart (Esther 6:6, Isaiah 10:7)

-- These verses talks about the desires of the heart. Have you ever talked to the desires of your heart? What did your mind say? Never mind?

Ostriches are apparently entirely inattentive parents (Job 39:13-16)

-- These verses show the natural characteristics of an Ostrich towards her young.
When you read the verses pay close attention to the comparison made between the Ostrich and the Stork. The clumsy movement of an Ostrich against the graceful movement of a Stork.
As for their young’s (eggs)

Note what one English traveler Thomas Shaw wrote in Travels in Barbary:

“A very little share of that natural affection, which so strongly exerts itself in most other creatures, is observable in the ostrich. For, upon the least distant noise, or trivial occasion, she forsakes her eggs or her young ones, to which perhaps she never returns; or, if she does, it may be too late. . . . The Arabs meet sometimes with whole nests of these eggs undisturbed, some of which are sweet and good, others addled and corrupted. . . . They oftener meet a few of the little ones, no bigger than well-grown pullets, half-starved, straggling and moaning about, like so many distressed orphans, for their mothers.”

The Sun moves around the Earth (Psalms 19:4-6)

-- These verses merely talks about the SUN RISING from the point of view on EARTH. Have you ever seen the sun rise madness? Very nice!
Notice:

NKJV
Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat.
© Info



NLT
The sun rises at one end of the heavens and follows its course to the other end. Nothing can hide from its heat.
© Info



NIV
It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.
© Info



ESV
Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them, and there is nothing hidden from its heat.

Snails melt (Psalms 58:8)

-- You are one confused guy madness if you’re not able to comprehend this very simple expression and factual occurrence. Where’s your common sense man? Have you ever seen a snail moving? What do you see behind its path? Slime man! As though it’s melting away – just don’t put salt or it will really melt away.

The Earth has four corners (Isaiah 11:12, Ezekial 7:2)

-- These verses are mainly showing directions like in North, East, South and West. As in God will gather his people from all directions of the earth. So in other word it’s an expression.

The Earth is definitively flat (Daniel 4:10-11, 20)

-- These verses merely talks about the far distance reach of King Nebuchadnezzar on the earth during his reign. In symbolism.

The stars are tiny objects that can fall out of the sky and be stomped upon (Daniel 8:10)

-- This verse is also symbolism – I’ll leave it up to you to run up further your mad wild imaginations as to the meaning of the stars.


I have a hunch you did not study these verses very well huh? You just copied the erroneous misleading explanations from your favorite anti-bible website. Am I correct? You know you should stay away from them as they will lead you further to the wrong rabbit hole.

Just in case you forgot this: "And the unicorns shall come down with them." Isa 34:7 I’ll add it.
And this one too: “"I will send serpents, cockatrices among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you." A cockatrice is a serpent, hatched from a cock's egg, that can kill with a glance. They are rare nowadays. Jer 8:17”

Check your latest bible translations to get the correct word – OK?
www.blueletterbible.org.../17
Here are some words that were once problematic based on your favorite Bible version:

KING JAMES VERSION = MODERN TRANSLATION > BIBLE TEXT
alleging = proving by references > Acts 17:3
anon = at once > Mark 1:30
barbarous = foreign-speaking people > Acts 28:2
centurion = army officer > Acts 10:22
charger = plate > Matt. 14:11
charity = love > 1 Cor. 13:13
cheek teeth = fangs (RS) > Joel 1:6
cockatrice = cobra / poisonous snake > Isa 11:8; 14:29; 59:5; and Jer 8:17.
confectionaries = ointment mixers > 1 Sam. 8:13
divers places = in one place after another > Matt. 24:7

May I suggest something madnessnmysoul/MrXYZ – study the Bible more carefully with an open mind and humble hearts so as to learn its true meaning and contents. Who knows it might benefit you.

Ok – I think I'll stop here – I know you have more in your list but I'm getting tired of this childish game of yours but hopefully someone will benefit from the Bible’s undeniable truths.

Ty,
edmc2

Groupies:

I assume that all of you know by now that the 2 Creation Myths of the Jews in the Torah, specifically Bershth ('Genesis') are both mutually contradictory?

Check out Gen chapter 1:1 to 2:4a with the god ELOHIM (there is no YHWH mentioned by the writer of the 1st Myth) creating things like (Heb. 'bara', to create from zero) Firmaments (Heb Req'iak, 'solid dome', round on top, flat on bottom) with the earth at the center/bottom, then vegetation and trees/grasses/herbs BEFORE he bothered to 'create' the sun, the moon and the stars etc., the process of 'creation' taking place in six supposed stages, the last of which he created ADAM (no Hav vah, or Eve) as a sort of hermaphroditic creature with both male and female parts ('in the Day in which Elohim created Adam, MALE AND FEMALE created he them in his own image, and he blessed them...' see Gen 5:2) - note that the creation of humanoids is LAST in the series of creative acts.

Then check out the text of Gen chapter 2:4b to 4:24 and see that the 2nd creation myth of the Jews has YHWH-Elohim creating Adam FIRST, followed by the 'forming' (Heb: 'yatzar' to 'form from pre-existent materials' e.g. clay) of the animals for Adam to mate with, until after a long search for a playmate, YHWH-ELOHIM 'forms' Hav vah from his 'side' etc. - notice that the creation of Adam was FIRST in the series and the creation of Hav vah was LAST in the series of 'formations'.

Thus the very opening of the Hebrew 'bible' is already full of the coarsest contradictions that even a six year old should be able to spot...

So why all this nonsense about 'factual accuracy' - I mean, when was the last time you REALLY believed in a flat earth surrounded by a Req'iak ('solid dome') or thought that vegetation could ever exist BEFORE the stars and the sun and the moon came into existence, that is, without any reference to the process known to scientists (but apparently unknown to the ancient Hebrews) as 'Photosynthesis' ?

Taking the pre-scientific Weltanschauung of ancient semi nomads as scientific fact (a people who borowed their creation myths and much of their 'literature' and cult laws from pagan priests of neighbouring gentile nations where they were exiled (e.g. Assyria, Babylon eetc.) as a result of numerous gentile invasions (Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome etc.) seems jejune and plain silly in the 21st century.

Why not just accept these garbled writings hand copied innumerable times from remote antiquity (with thousands of hand copied errors put into the mix along the way as the fables of pre scientific semi-nomadic tent dwellers? (for all the errors in the Hebrew Scriptures, compare the MT (i.e. the late pointed Masoretic Text of 960 AD) with the much older Hebrew consonantal underlay to the Greek OT LXX and compare all those textual copyists/scribal/priestly 'errors' (or deliberate changes) with the Hebrew of the Samaritan Pentateuch (BCE 420) and then compare those Hebrew consonantal underlays to the Greek versions of Aquilla, Symmachus and Theodotion, to say nothing of the Dead Sea Scroll Manuscript mess to get an idea of what a hotchpotch these traditions actually rest on).

Those who study these matters in some detail find there is no single text of the Hebrew Scriptures to use as a basis for any faith at all - and the situation is even worse in the case of the 5446 Greek Manuscripts of the socalled New Testament - with no two copies alike.

So much for inspiration !!

reply to post by Sigismundus



Sigismundos (cool name) - do you agree that (Heb)"Req'iak ('solid dome')" (gk: ste-re'o-ma) (latin: firmamentum) - can also be used in a figurative sense?

For example:

How do you explain (Job 37:18): “With him can you beat out the skies Hard like a molten mirror?”

if the word tar-qia (beat out) is a literal word?

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by MrXYZ


MrXYZ - what took you this long? hope everything's k on your side of the woods.

Anyway you said:

...
So basically, you have to prove that the heavens and earth were created...and not only that, but also that a deity did so.

OK - let's break it down.

You agree that the "heavens and the earth" had a beginning but you disagree that they were created, correct?

So if they were not "created" then how did they come to be? That is - what was it that made them appear?

Unfortunately - this is where science stops, thus super bright people like you have no other alternative but to come up with NOTHING (don't know) as you courageously admitted:

We don't know what was before the big bang though.

Because the alternative is unacceptable. I understand the conundrum because you've invested so much on believing that DON'T KNOW (nothing) was responsible for all of this. To admit that they were Created means that someone created them. Correct? Unless you're saying that creation doesn't need a creator. But since you don't believe in creation so you're basically stuck. Where's the logic and common sense in that? I don't know.

And this is where you and I differ:

Because my logic sense as well as my common sense and my scientific sense tells me that

Fact 1) “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Gen. 1:1.

Thus Gen 1:1 to me is the ultimate answer to what you don't know. Of course you will adamantly deny it - that's expected, but to do so, means your stuck to the "I DON'T KNOW" until god-science that you depend and trust comes up with the answer. How's it looking so far? I don't know either - they have not figure out the ultimate source yet. So the waiting goes on and on. In the meantime - time is running out on man's system of things because the prophetic events foretold in the very book that you deride and mock are all coming true.

Of course you will mock this but like what I said - that's to be expected because to do otherwise is to betray your belief/faith.

Anyway - can you please answer this simple Q - do you believe on something that does not exist?



ty,
edmc

reply to post by edmc^2

You are one confused guy madness if you’re not able to comprehend this very simple expression

He is not confused, just stubbornly prejudice against simple bible verses.

Good job on the rebuttal answers. I have been through many of these with him from other threads.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
He is not confused, just stubbornly prejudice against simple bible verses.

Good job on the rebuttal answers. I have been through many of these with him from other threads.

I really don't think it's just prejudice against simple bible verses. In my opinion there is something very normal in people of those times looking at things and explaining them in a way that reflects their understanding of the world. The problem is that when you include divine inspiration then you are no longer talking about just simple writers but the all powerful. Seeing that this text would be the manual for all of humanity you would think that god would have made sure the concepts he was trying to get across would be clearer.

I already posted that the term "invisible force" would have been a better choice than "nothing" when discribing what the earth rested upon.

The verse about the fine guaze could just be talking about the air, clouds and probably fog. The OP takes a logical leap and puts words into the writers mouth by saying that he must have meant dark matter. Then he asks "A lucky guess, coincidence or Divine inspiration?" as if his idea that it was dark matter that the writer was talking about has been proven to be fact.

What really bothers me about the all mighty is how impracticle he seems. I mean take the bible. Why not just tell the people of that time that this was the base and that updates would be forthcoming to keep things up to date with the advancment of technology. Even the framers of the US constitution realized you gotta have a way to make changes as time goes by. You would have thought that being all knowing he would have thought of that.

reply to post by edmc^2

Plants existed before the Sun and Moon (Genesis 1:11-16)

The Genesis account does say such a thing but opponents of the Bible will continue to use their twisted arguments to push their erroneous ideas.

LOL, what twisted arguments. It's exactly what the bible states, and it's factually wrong...how is that a twisted argument? Is every argument, no matter how logical, that goes against your belief "twisted"

And no, Genesis 1:1 mentions no light as you claim...

Interestingly scientific evidence is in agreement on the succession of creative events mentioned in Genesis 1.

You mean apart from the fact that stars were created after the earth...not a chance

It's obviously not in agreement because there is no scientific evidence of god...

You agree that the "heavens and the earth" had a beginning but you disagree that they were created, correct?

So if they were not "created" then how did they come to be? That is - what was it that made them appear?

Physics...the very thing that we KNOW created for example the sun. Just because something comes into existence, doesn't mean there has to be a creator. Mountains form without the intervention of a creator, baby cows too. So where's you proof that the earth came into existence by anything than natural forces???

Unfortunately - this is where science stops, thus super bright people like you have no other alternative but to come up with NOTHING (don't know) as you courageously admitted.

Which makes sense, because we clearly don't have all the answers. We don't know for sure how life started in the first place for example, nothing wrong with admitting a lack of knowledge. But filling that gap in knowledge with magic (aka god) is kinda silly considering how horrible the "god did it" track record is.

Because the alternative is unacceptable. I understand the conundrum because you've invested so much on believing that DON'T KNOW (nothing) was responsible for all of this.

If you mean "god" when talking about the alternative...I don't doubt it because I don't want to, I doubt it because of the COMPLETE AND UTTER LACK OF OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE hinting at it.

To admit that they were Created means that someone created them. Correct?

Nope, incorrect. It doesn't have to be someone...it could have been plain old physics and biology. For example, we know how mountains form, or how humans evolved. No magic required.

Because my logic sense as well as my common sense and my scientific sense tells me that

Fact 1) “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Gen. 1:1.

What you're claiming has nothing to do with logic, common sense, or (lol) scientific sense. For that to be the case, you'd have to present objective evidence, which you clearly don't.

Of course you will adamantly deny it - that's expected, but to do so, means your stuck to the "I DON'T KNOW"

Yes, because in the absence of objective evidence leading to knowledge, that's the only honest answer. Everything else is pure speculation or in your case, blind belief.

So the waiting goes on and on. In the meantime - time is running out on man's system of things because the prophetic events foretold in the very book that you deride and mock are all coming true.

Wait...are you one of the dudes claiming "the end is near"? Let me guess, it'll happen soon(TM).

What the hell are you talking about???

Of course you will mock this but like what I said - that's to be expected because to do otherwise is to betray your belief/faith.

I don't care about belief/faith...all I care about is objective evidence.

1) There's things we know...for example, how humans evolved.
2) There's things we don't know (yet)...for example how life started in the first place.

And there's no third category where you can make crap up as you please just because you can't deal with a lack of knowledge. In ancient times, people believed plagues to be an act of god, even though they weren't able to know the true answer...bacteria and viruses. They were WRONG in choosing to fill a gap in knowledge with blind speculation...and they were also wrong when it comes to how man came to be. We now know for a fact how we evolved...which makes the whole "made from dust...and woman made from the rib of man" story complete and utter nonsense.

Anyway - can you please answer this simple Q - do you believe on something that does not exist?

If you mean whether or not I believe in something that isn't backed up by objective evidence...nope, I think it's pretty clear by now that I don't

Hi Edmc -

Quick backgrounder ref: the technical Heb. term you used in your post...

The Scroll of the Book of Job is a literary hotchpotch of at least two different writers with lots of laccunae (gaps in the text);

Scholars studying this difficult Jobian literary mess can see at a glance that chapters 1 and 2 are written in a very late Hebrew PROSE (i.e. not poetry) as is the last paragraph of the very last chapter (the prose sections were introduced as a preamble to the whole book written during the so-called the 'Persian Period' in Israel which included later 'persian-zorastrian' theologies (whicch were to influence the Dead Sea Scroll writers and the earliest Christians) all of which are late post Exilic Hebraic ideas and notions i.e. post 500 BCE during the time (BCE 531 to BCE 331) i.e when Persia militarily occupied Israel as a Satrapy) especially ref: the imported Persian-Zoroastrian beliefs in e.g. dualism, i.e. light and dark, angels and daemons, heaven and hell, the Resurrection of the Dead on a Final Day of Judgment, etc. and the newly introduced figure of Shaitan ('blocker') which in Greek is Satanas - as an original member of the heavenly and heavilly Persian modelled) court of the post exilic clan god of Israel aka YHWH. Before the Persian period (531BCE - 331 BCE) evil AND good were the sole attributes of one god in most of the earliest texts (e.g. Proto Isaiah chapters 1 to 39, written c. 720 BCE which states emphatically 'I YHWH create the Good and it is I who make the Evil...'

The actual [and, much older) core and literary 'meat' of the book, i.e. the the POEM proper of the book of Job begins in chapter 3 and runs nearly to the very end - written in a kind of early Elamite paleoHebrew poetry c. 720 BCE (adapted from an Elamite originals?) which is extremely difficult to translate into modern English as is all paleo Hebrew poetry in general. Because the POEM of Job is not 'science' but a 'literary art form' we cannot take the terms literally, but the specific vocabulary used throughout POINT to the same Weltanschauung ('world view') which the writer(s) tacitly assume throughout without question, sort of like modern Scientists taking gravity for granted without having to explain it every time it comes up in discussion etc.

Note that the POEM of Job uses a rare and weird name for the creator god = ELOAH ( rare feminine sg. of ELOHIM, the masc. plural name of the creator god in Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) for the divine name (some later MSS change Eloah to YHWH in the whirlwind scene of the poem, but that is a scribal alteration of the original). It is the ONLY book among the Hebrew 'canonical' Scriptures to use ELOAH to refer to the clan god of Israel as creator of the cosmos...which is interesting in itself.

A cognate of the paleoHebrew term that you referred in Job (q.v.) is used in Gen 1:1 to 2:4a (1st Creation Myth) i.e. 'Re'qiah' comes from the same verb and literally means 'beaten out dome' or 'hammered out bowl' - the kind of process used to manufacture copper bowls that were in common use in the middle east and elsewhere in antiquity -- which were often literally beaten into shape of a dome and made of beaten copper, i.e. solid.There was a reason why both the Elamite poem of JOB and the writer of the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews (who has a Babylonian paleo-Hebrew accent and can be dated from its Babylonian loan word vocabulary to around 550 BCE - i.e. long long long after the time of Moses !) use the very same idea in both cases when referring to the Dome of the Heavens - they both shared the same basic Cosmology of preScientific cultures in the middle east in general.

And the whole concept-verbal image of the Req'iak (the so-called 'Firmament') in the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) is that of an inverted bowl (or 'dome') which is FLAT at the bottom (where the earth is) and ROUNDED at the top where the stars are 'fixed' - the translators of the early English versions chose to use the word 'Firmament' for 'Req'iak' to describe what the text referred to -- a kind solid metallic type object ('beaten dome') which formed the round sky observable from what they thought was a 'flat earth'.

The verbal Elaminte paleo-Hebrew constructs in the poetical section of Job which you cited clearly bears out the grammatical relation between the Genesis chapter 1 noun Re'qiak ('firmament', 'dome') and the Job creation verb 'to beat out' (i.e. as with making a copper bowl for cooking), and exactly reflects the middle eastern (pre-scientific) idea that a flat earth was the center of the Universe (known as a 'geo-centric Weltanschauung') which aka the Ptolmaic Cosmology more or less universally believed until the time of Copernicus (although admittedly there is evidence that at least some ancient Greek and Egyptian astroomers (etal.) in antiquity actually knew the earth was a sphere and was the body that moved around the sun, i.e. by examining the shadows on the moon caused during eclipses etc. but that is another thread - the semi Nomadic Hebrews also believed the 'sky' was a solid "beaten' dome of a kind of metallicc or even stone material (even the Elamite Hebrew priests who were exiled to Elam post 721 BCE after Assyria removed the 10 'lost' tribes to the area east of Nineveh and its environs including the area around ancient Elam).

Long story short, Job and the writer of the 1st Creation Myth in Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a both believed that the SKY was a solid dome literally beaten out of solid material.

Clear as mud? A solid dome firmament idea for a sky in the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews at any rate is hardly 'scientific' in any modern sense of the term, as you can imagine !

reply to post by Sigismundus

I got what you’re saying Sigismundus but I'm afraid your falling on the same trap like madness. That is, the information that you've posted is in error (specifically Req'iak ). Now please don't get me wrong, I'm not faulting you for there are so many websites out there that are aimed to misinform specially when it comes to the Scriptures.

Let me show you what I mean.

You said:

Long story short, Job and the writer of the 1st Creation Myth in Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a both believed that the SKY was a solid dome literally beaten out of solid material.

Not true.

Here's why.

The correct meaning of ra·qi′a or Req'iak is "expanse" not "solid dome". The Bible writer was well aware of this because the Hebrew ra·qi′a or Req'iak means - to stretch out or spread out or expand.

It’s the bible translators that introduced the errors and made “mud” out of it. Many scholars now are aware of these errors, unfortunately others don’t know about it or just refused to accept it.

Why do I say this? Consider where the errors came from. In fact you've mentioned it already.

Here's what you said:

And the whole concept-verbal image of the Req'iak (the so-called 'Firmament') in the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) is that of an inverted bowl (or 'dome') which is FLAT at the bottom (where the earth is) and ROUNDED at the top where the stars are 'fixed' - the translators of the early English versions chose to use the word 'Firmament' for 'Req'iak' to describe what the text referred to -- a kind solid metallic type object ('beaten dome') which formed the round sky observable from what they thought was a 'flat earth'.

Here's the key words "the translators of the early English versions chose to use the word".

What word? 'Firmament' for 'Req'iak'

To mean what: to describe what the text referred to -- a kind solid metallic type object ('beaten dome') which formed the round sky observable from what they thought was a 'flat earth'.

Noticed the misconceptions? "solid (beaten) dome" and "flat earth".

Any idea when did this happened? Surely not the time when the Bible was written because it's impossible for writer to conceived such an idea. When then did this error got introduced in the Bible then?

Again you answered it already: in the "early English versions" of the Bibles based on the Latin (Vulgate) word "firmamentum".

Wikipeadia explains it this way: (not really a fan of wiki - but I've verified the sources)

Etymology

The English word "firmament" is first recorded in the 13th century.[2] It is directly anglicised from Latin firmamentum, from the Vulgate, which literally means a support.[2] In Latin this word is based on the root firmus, which means (and indeed via French gave rise to the word) "firm".[2] The King James Bible entrenched the use of the term "firmament".

[edit] Translation

The word "firmament" is meant to correspond with the word raqia, or raqiya` ( רקיע), as used in Biblical Hebrew.

Firmamentum was used in the Vulgate, a 4th century Latin translation of the Christian bible. This term was consistent with the previous (circa 200 BC) Septuagint translation of the Old Testament which used the Greek stereoma, meaning solid structure, and with the notion of solidity advanced explicitly by other biblical passages.[3]

The original word raqia is derived from the root raqa ( רקיע), meaning "to beat or spread out", e.g., the process of making a dish by hammering thin a lump of metal.[2][4] Raqa adopted the meaning "to make firm or solid" in Syriac, a major dialect of Aramaic (the vernacular of Jesus) and close cognate of Hebrew.[2] Language experts consider that the most accurate English translation for raqia in biblical Hebrew is "expanse" (i.e., that which was stretched out) and that "firmament" is a mistranslation (due to confusion with Syriac).[2] Among modern translations, NIV and ESV use the word "expanse", while the New Revised Standard Version uses "dome".

The choice of translation is controversial because it affects how prominent the discord with modern cosmology first appears. It is argued that liberal Christians (and nonbelievers) are biased toward accepting a translation that favours critical and nonliteral interpretation (e.g., "firmament") whilst conservatives and fundamentalists seek a translation by which the scripture may harmonise with scientific knowledge (e.g., "expanse" implying empty sky).[5]

en.wikipedia.org...

Interestingly some endeavor to show that the ancient Hebrew concept of the universe included the idea of a solid vault arched over the earth, with sluice holes through which rain could enter and with the stars fixed within this solid vault, diagrams of such concept appearing in Bible dictionaries and some Bible translations.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia explains it this way:

“But this assumption is in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the O[ld] T[estament].”—Edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. I, p. 314.

In fact these ideas were captured in an engraving known as "Flamarion Engraving". Below is what it looks like.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/db1753b1d467.jpg[/atsimg]

SO of course for those whose main purpose is to discridit the Bible what translations will they use? Choice is obvious "firmamentum".

So to correct these misconceptions many new Bible versions now show the correct meaning - that is "expanse", some used "space" but others retained the anglicised form of "firmamentum" - "firmament".

Below are the list of Bible versions with the words "expanse" and "firmament"

Note: today we come to understand firmament as the SKY - not a "solid dome".



KJV

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

© Info

NKJV

Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

© Info

NLT

And God said, "Let there be space between the waters, to separate water from water."

© Info

NIV

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."

© Info

ESV

And God said, "Let there be an expanse* in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

Footnote:

* Or a canopy; also verses 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 20

© Info

RVR

Luego dijo Dios: Haya expansión en medio de las aguas, y separe las aguas de las aguas.

© Info

NASB

Then God said, "Let there be *an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

© Info

RSV

And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

© Info

ASV

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

© Info

YNG

And God saith, `Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.'

© Info

DBY

And God said, Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it be a division between waters and waters.

© Info

WEB

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

© Info

HNV

God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

© Info

VUL

dixit quoque Deus fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum et dividat aquas ab aquis

© Info

WLC

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי רָקִיעַ בְּתֹוךְ הַמָּיִם וִיהִי מַבְדִּיל בֵּין מַיִם לָמָֽיִם׃

© Info

LXX

êáὶ åἶðåí ὁ èåόò ãåíçèήôù óôåñέùìá ἐí ìέóῳ ôïῦ ὕäáôïò êáὶ ἔóôù äéá÷ùñίæïí ἀíὰ ìέóïí ὕäáôïò êáὶ ὕäáôïò êáὶ ἐãέíåôï ïὕôùò

source: www.blueletterbible.org.../6
NWT - “And God went on to say: ‘Let an expanse [Heb., ra·qi′a‛] come to be in between the waters and let a dividing occur between the waters and the waters.’”

Note:

ESV footnote * Or a canopy; also verses 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 20

Also, marginal reading the King James Version gives the alternate reading “expansion,” and the American Standard Version gives “expanse” in its footnote.

So it's clear that such myths was introduced later and NOT the Hebrews - or Moses the writer of Genesis.

==//==

As for (Job 37:18): “With him can you beat out the skies Hard like a molten mirror?” – This statement was meant to be taken figuratively not literally because the word “skies” here comes from a word (sha′chaq) also rendered “film of dust” or “clouds”.

Here’s Young’s translation:

YNG

Thou hast made an expanse with Him For the clouds -- strong as a hard mirror!

Clearly the Bible writer is speaking figuratively by comparing the skies to a metal mirror whose burnished face gives off a bright reflection.

Compare this with Daniel 12:3.

ESV -Daniel 12:3

"And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above;* and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever."

Footnote:

* Hebrew the expanse; compare Genesis 1:6-8


So it’s not as you say a “myths” but a misconception. I hope you closely take a look at your sources or you'll be inadvertently propagating their errors or their lies.

Like what I said in the OP - the Bible is ACCURATE when studied carefully.

In fact when studied in light of Scientific Evidence (not myths) it is accurate:

Note again how Moses the writer of Job quotes Elihu in describing the process by which rain clouds are formed when he states, at Job 36:27, 28: in poetic way -

“For he draws up the drops of water; they filter as rain for his mist, so that the clouds [shecha‧qim′] trickle, they drip upon mankind abundantly.” NWT

"27 It is God who takes water from the earth and turns it into drops of rain. 28 He lets the rain pour from the clouds in showers for all human beings" TEV

www.biblestudytools.com...


Note how science explains the water cycle:

1) Solar power lifts water into the atmosphere by evaporation. (2) Condensation of this purified water produces clouds. (3) Clouds, in turn, form rain, hail, sleet, or snow, which falls to the ground, ready to evaporate again, thus completing the cycle.

I hope this helps.

Ty,

edmc2

btw - this misconception similar to the Hebrew word Sheol – erroneously translated as "hell (infierno)."

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by edmc^2

 

You are one confused guy madness if you’re not able to comprehend this very simple expression

He is not confused, just stubbornly prejudice against simple bible verses.

Good job on the rebuttal answers. I have been through many of these with him from other threads.

edit on 14-4-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

Thanks Blue_Jay33

- you know what, I was wondering why madness did not reply - now I know why, there's a new thread created by him containing the same erroneous ideas about the Bible same childish antics. I guess he likes to rattle peoples cages.

that is so funny...

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


So I take it you're not going to respond to my post at the top of the page? or did you just miss it?

Cause you managed to answer a post below mine..

Get back to me soon, cause I think I addressed a serious issue in your whole "logic."

Originally posted by Quickfix
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So I take it you're not going to respond to my post at the top of the page? or did you just miss it?

Cause you managed to answer a post below mine..

Get back to me soon, cause I think I addressed a serious issue in your whole "logic."

Don't be upset, he ignored most of my post too...at least the parts he thought he couldn't logically respond to.

reply to post by edmc^2

NKJV

Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

© Info

NLT

And God said, "Let there be space between the waters, to separate water from water."

Which of course scientifically speaking is complete and utter nonsense...water came AFTER the earth was formed...but who cares about the facts, right?

Originally posted by Quickfix
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So I take it you're not going to respond to my post at the top of the page? or did you just miss it?

Cause you managed to answer a post below mine..

Get back to me soon, cause I think I addressed a serious issue in your whole "logic."

-- ok - got it - it was on the wiki link.

NO - not ignoring you, I was actually looking for your answer to last Q but didn't find it on page 7.

anyway - apologies though - and thanks for you patience - get back to you later.

edmc2

p.s.

don't let MrXYZ egg on you - he's just grumpy.

Hi Edmc -

I take it your paleoHebrew is a little rusty from your overrly convoluted and ultimately non-sensical posting which is neither 'here nor there' in terms of clarifying your position.

Do you REALLY think you can get hard science from the largely borrowed liturgical poetry of the Hebrews?

At any rate, from your rant, you seem to be blissfully unaware that that the opening verses in Gen 1:1 to 2:4a (i.e. the 1st creation myth of the Jews) which include a mention of the 'Req'iak' ('beaten dome') are written in stanzaic paleo-Hebrew (i.e. liturgical poetic) form - albeit with several Babylonian 'loan words' post 550 BCE; and that the verses that mention the sky being beaten out 'like a hardened mirror' in the older Poetical sections of Job is written in an older paleo "Elamite' Hebrew specifically POETICAL form - in other words, the two fanciful descriptions of the heavens as a 'solid dome' of the 'firrmament' (or lit. 'beaten out bowl') are POETRY and not sober PROSE 'scientfic' writing - so enough literalising the text, please.

Try to understand first that you cannot take paleoHebrew poetry (whether it be expressed with a 'Babylonian accent' as with the 1st Creation Myth of the Jews (Gen 1:1 to 2:4a) , or with an 'Elamite accent', as with the Poetical sections of Job, beginning in chapter 2) to try and anything purely 'astronomically scientific' in the modern sense of 'true/what acctually exists in space' from a casual reading of the various versions of the texts as they have come down to us (Massoretic, Hebrew consonantal underlay-Vorlage to the Greek Septuaginta, aka the LXX, the consonantal text of the older Samaritan Pentateuch, the Dead Sea Scroll versions, the Hebrew underlay to Symmachus and Aquilla and Theodotion etcc.) - one must always be VERY aware in what exact 'literary form' any ideas are expressed in any writing under examination (all of which falls into the scholarly category of 'Form Criticism') before you can gain even a basicc understanding as to the purpose of the writer(s).

Even when other poetical metaphors are used in anquity e.g. in the liturgically sung Psalms ('YHWH spreadeth out the Heavens like a Living Tent..') the writers in such cases are clearly not spouting literal 'scientific concepts' as we know it to-day, but are poetically describing the awe inspiring vastness of the sky specifically 'as it appears' from the earth i.e. without telescopes or any modern astronomical equipment .

The same could hold for (albeit cliched) poetical phrases like 'the four corners of the earth' where the ancients were indicating the conceptual idea ( 'in every direction' ) - they were not writing in that style to give a geology or geography lesson -- it was not their purpose.

But more generally, as it pertains to your comments on this threadlet, I must ask: are you seriously trying the literalise the text of the 1st creation myth of Genesis as 'hard science' i.e. as something that can be backed up by a string of silly quotes from Wikipedia? Do you REALLY believe that vegetation and trees/grasses and herbs existed BEFORE the sun, moon and the stars came into existence?

Just because the ancient preScientific Hebrews never heard of PhotoSynthesis, does not mean that you yourself (as a modern) have to pretend such scientific advancements have never taken place...!

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by randyvs

 

This is a good example of what I mean by arrogance. I have my beliefs. I don't to try to talk down to anyone or try to tell them that they are wrong and that soon they will see how wrong they are. That the truth is under their nose but that they do not want to see it.

You also hear a lot about the signs. When asked what they are they point out starving children, wars and disease. Things that have always existed. I'm sorry but I just don't feel frightened by the state of the world.

edit on 11-4-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

I can't really tell what you are talking about. Are you saying that I was being arrogent where what post?

Mr.XYZ

If only you understood why there is no objective evidence of a creator ? You might begin to see that you don't have the bull by the horns at all. You might even shed some of that arrogance.

He who is of God, hear's Gods words. John 8:47 God has his reasons for not providing what you say you need.