A Concern for Applying the Bible to the Natural Sciences

[The Barbarian]

I don't think God meant for you to think the sky is a dome over the Earth with windows in it for rain to fall through. 

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Which is why He doesn't say any such thing in His Word. I mean - unless you insist on the most ridiculously remote, narrowest and most presumptuous interpretations of certain words.

Fortunately, most translators avoided this trap of confirmation bias - which is why the concepts you describe do not appear in many (if any) translations of the Bible.

(Very large number of translations do just that)

38 minutes ago, Tristen said:

It is true that many of the provided verses used "windows or flood gates", but that was not the full nature of the claim being addressed.

This is dishonest Equivocation (logic fallacy).    I described the concept that the sky has windows in it through which rain could fall.  As you see, your claim that this isn't  in most translations is false.

As to the dome:

In summary, this ‘dome theory’ or ‘firmament notion’ represents the almost unquestioned consensus view of modern scholarship, while ancient Jewish and Christian interpretation has itself long supported important aspects of this model. Furthermore, while a segment of scholars, almost entirely from the evangelical community, previously opposed this view, particularly in light of the scientific problems it introduces, an increasing number of professing evangelical scholars have now openly embraced the firmament interpretation. The earlier evangelical view is represented by the translation of rāqîaʿ as an expanse, rather than as a firmament or dome:

https://hebrewcosmology.com/expanse-firmament-raqia/introduction-to-the-raqia-problem/

Really no point in denying these things.

38 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I am therefore well within reason to reject any insistence that 'raqia' necessarily refers to a "dome".

it is nonetheless a remarkable fact that the earliest ever translation of the Hebrew Bible, from circa 250 B.C., interpreted the rāqîaʿ as referring to some kind of hard heavenly object.

ibid

Of course, you may disagree with the scholarly consensus.   You may even disagree with ancient Hebrew scribe who translated that very old Hebrew Bible.   But you seem to be pretty much out on a limb in that disagreement.

Edited February 18 by The Barbarian

[Tristen]

34 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

It is true that many of the provided verses used "windows or flood gates", but that was not the full nature of the claim being addressed.

This is dishonest Equivocation (logic fallacy).    I described the concept that the sky has windows in it through which rain could fall.  As you see, your claim that this isn't  in most translations is false.

Your original statement was to claim that the Bible says, "the sky is a dome over the Earth with windows in it for rain to fall through".

In your response here, you are therefore intentionally Equivocating. You are knowingly selecting one aspect of the claim - for the purpose of making false accusations - whilst intentionally ignoring the full nature of the claim I was addressing. That is, you have decided to resort to rank, self-evident dishonesty.

Therefore, I have lost interest in wasting any more time in this conversation.

 

 

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It's only a criticism of the modern revisions of YE creationism, not of scripture.

More falsehoods.  You didn't reference any "revisions," you referenced the original text.  It's the Bible itself you disagree with, not any revision of man.  Don't  think yourself so unique.  I've heard all these same arguments from atheists and self-righteous false teachers for many years.  All of your arguments can be found on atheist websites.

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You seem to be somewhat confused here.  Scripture doesn't literally say there are springs in the sky. 

I'm not sure how you passed reading comprehension.  Your own post referenced "fountains of the deep."  DEEP DOES NOT MEAN IN THE SKY!!  Pause your antipathy tor the Scriptures long enough to actually read what you posted.  The fountains of the deep broke and water within the earth rushed upward as the torrential rain came down.  I even gave you a link to a spring so you could see what one looked like.  

It upsets you that the Bible doesn't say what you want it to say so you attack it at every opportunity.  You take phrases out of context and pretend they mean something they don't, which is easily disproved by reading the entire passage.  You say that the Bible has to be all literal or all symbolic, a position held by NOBODY who has ever read the the Bible with an objective eye.

You criticize things you SHOULD understand, but don't.  Jesus said in Matthew 12:50, For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.  Are you doing God's will by attacking God's word with every post you make?  Are you giving support to Christians whose faith may be a little shaky, or are you intending to drive people away?  Interestingly, the "contradictions" you post about are some of the same ones people cite when they renounce their faith.

You understand biology, but biology is not the pathway to salvation.  The only way to be saved is through grace which is obtained by faith.  How much of the Bible do you have faith in?  5%?  10%?

We all need to ask ourselves this.  If being a Christian was declared illegal, would there be enough evidence to convict us?

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

More falsehoods.  You didn't reference any "revisions," you referenced the original text.

I referred to your revisions.   As you know, the test itself rejects your revisions.  It's the Bible itself you disagree with, because you accept man's revisions.

I don't think God meant for you to think the sky is a dome over the Earth with windows in it for rain to fall through.  

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

I'm not sure how you passed reading comprehension.  Your own post referenced "fountains of the deep."  DEEP DOES NOT MEAN IN THE SKY!! 

You're still confusing the deep with the sky.  The supposed windows are in the sky, not the deep.  This is why you keep running into walls here.  

It upsets you that the Bible doesn't say what you want it to say so you attack people who point this out to  you at every opportunity.   You take phrases out of context and pretend they mean something they don't, which is easily disproved by reading the entire passage.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

You say that the Bible has to be all literal or all symbolic

If you feel the need to misrepresent what I say to make your point, that's a pretty good clue, isn't it?

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Are you giving support to Christians whose faith may be a little shaky, or are you intending to drive people away?  Interestingly, the "contradictions" you post about are some of the same ones people cite when they renounce their faith.

My point exactly.    By insisting that these verses have to be literal, you are driving people away from Him.   As you admit, your revisions are among the things people cite when they lose their faith.   YE will have much to account for at Judgement.

You are ignorant of many things science has discovered, but ignorance of science will not cost you your salvation.   Making an idol of your new doctrines, and insisting that others must believe them might be a risky thing for you.

Try to avoid that.

Edited February 18 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

Your original statement was to claim that the Bible says, "the sky is a dome over the Earth with windows in it for rain to fall through".

And I referenced research showing this to be true.  Indeed, the oldest Hebrew text we have indicates the sky is solid.

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

In your response here, you are therefore intentionally Equivocating.

Perhaps you don't know what "equivocating" means.   What do you think it means?    BTW, you don't have to capitalize "equivocating";  it's not a proper noun, and you're using it as a verb.

Anyway, you seem to have fallen back into accusing people who disagree with you of dishonesty.   

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

Therefore, I have lost interest in wasting any more time in this conversation.

Probably a wise move; we don't seem to be able to discuss things without you becoming angry.    Too bad; I actually agreed with you on some things here.

 

[RV_Wizard]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

I referred to your revisions.   As you know, the test itself rejects your revisions.

One of us (me) posts the complete passages and one (you) posts phrases out of context and claims they mean something else entirely.

 

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

You're still confusing the deep with the sky.

From your post.

KJV
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Also from your post.

Scripture doesn't literally say there are springs in the sky.   It doesn't say springs in the sky at all.  Go back and read it again.

As it turns out, you don't even agree with yourself.

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

6 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You're still confusing the deep with the sky.

From your post.

KJV
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

Also from your post.

Scripture doesn't literally say there are springs in the sky.   It doesn't say springs in the sky at all.  Go back and read it again.

I wasn't speaking of the springs.   Only the sky, and the Bible's description of the sky as a solid with windows in it through which rain can fall.   You realized your argument was faulty, so you tried to start a different one.

But you're just arguing with yourself.

 

[RV_Wizard]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

I wasn't speaking of the springs.   Only the sky, and the Bible's description of the sky as a solid with windows in it through which rain can fall.  

Again, your exact words.  You seem to be somewhat confused here.  Scripture doesn't literally say there are springs in the sky.   It doesn't say springs in the sky at all.  Go back and read it again.  Nobody said springs in the sky.  The Bible says the fountains of the deep.  Once more, the deep is NOT in the sky.  

Secondly, the Bible never says anything about a solid dome.  That's your own revisionist addition.  I (and others) have also explained the use of the expression "windows of Heaven."  I think everyone over eight knows that is an expression, regardless of what some may have thought centuries earlier.  The larger question is, do you have no understanding, or do you just like to make up reasons to attack the Bible?

1 Corinthians 2:14
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Isaiah 44:18
They do not know, nor do they understand, for He has smeared over their eyes so that they cannot see and their hearts so that they cannot comprehend.

Ezekiel 12:2
Son of man, you live in the midst of the rebellious house, who have eyes to see but do not see, ears to hear but do not hear; for they are a rebellious house.

Matthew 13:13
Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Luke 8:10
And He said, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand."

Source

[The Barbarian]

I wasn't speaking of the springs.   Only the sky, and the Bible's description of the sky as a solid with windows in it through which rain can fall.   You realized your argument was faulty, so you tried to start a different one.

But you're just arguing with yourself.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Again, your exact words.  You seem to be somewhat confused here.  Scripture doesn't literally say there are springs in the sky.   It doesn't say springs in the sky at all.  Go back and read it again. 

Yes, that was your confusion.    I was pointing out that scripture says that the sky is solid with windows in it for rain to fall through.   

Which points out the foolishness of forcing a literalist interpretation on scripture.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

Secondly, the Bible never says anything about a solid dome.  That's your own revisionist addition. 

In fact raquia means a solid beaten out expanse, like a brass bowl.    And the oldest extant scripture in Hebrew treats the sky as a solid expanse.   So your objections don't mean anything.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

I think everyone over eight knows that is an expression, regardless of what some may have thought centuries earlier. 

Exactly.   The Hebrews back in the time of the Patriarchs, thought the sky was a solid expanse holding back the waters above the Earth.   So it ended up in Scripture.   But that isn't what God was telling you; you've nattered about the incidental errors while ignoring His message to you.

Instead of attacking the Bible for such things, try to let God be God, and accept His words to you.

Set your pride and desires aside and listen to it God's way.   And it won't trouble you any further.

 

 

[RV_Wizard]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

I wasn't speaking of the springs.   Only the sky, and the Bible's description of the sky as a solid with windows in it through which rain can fall.

Now you're retreating faster than a French soldier.  YOU made a post containing the fountains of the deep and then YOU said there were no springs in the sky.  I posted your words.  We all saw them.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

I was pointing out that scripture says that the sky is solid with windows in it for rain to fall through.

The problem is, your post said NOTHING about the sky being solid.

Q.  How would someone in 2,000 BC describe an airplane?  He might call it a great iron bird that soars without flapping its wings.  Then someone like you would titter and laugh because "they thought it was a bird." 

In fact, aluminum had not been invented yet and the words to properly describe the airplane didn't exist yet.  Likewise, even if they knew the composition of the atmosphere, the words to properly describe it did not exist.  The leviathan described in Job seems to resemble a brontosaurus, but the author didn't actually say "brontosaurus," possibly because the word did not exist at that time.

Of course, you are the LAST person I would consult with the meaning of ancient texts.  You can't even gasp the concept of the creation of light on day one, or the fact that the evenings and mornings made six days.  If you can't grasp simple, well known things, why would anyone trust your understanding of UNKNOWN things?

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Exactly.   The Hebrews back in the time of the Patriarchs, thought the sky was a solid expanse holding back the waters above the Earth.

God SPECIFICALLY told you that He created the earth and all that is in it in six days and rested on the seventh, but you're here trying to tell people that it took billions of years for the earth and then millions of years for life to evolve.  If you can't grasp what God tells you plainly, how could you POSSIBLY understand what is revealed through metaphors?  The ancients had but little information.  You have it in abundance, so you are without excuse.