Lions were designed to kill

[ddgently]

So you'll just dodge then? That's cool, I didn't really expect a real response

What dodging? I just dealt with the "flat earth" nonsense.

Flat earth "nonsense?" The earliest recordings of reference to a spheroid earth is from 6th Century BC Greece. Moses lived in the 12th or 13th century BC. Are you saying scripture written prior to that time taught a spherical earth? If so, why did no one else pick up on it?

I'm genuinely interested in your response to some of the rest of this article. You dismissed most of it out of hand as
"rehashed stuff." Could you elaborate?

I'd also like you (or anyone else) respond to the use of raqiya (רָקִיעַ) in Genesis 1, which in the Hebrew is used to mean a solid dome. Do you believe the sky is a solid dome with water above it? If not, why not?

 

[T-Bone]

So you'll just dodge then? That's cool, I didn't really expect a real response

What dodging? I just dealt with the "flat earth" nonsense.

Flat earth "nonsense?" The earliest recordings of reference to a spheroid earth is from 6th Century BC Greece. Moses lived in the 12th or 13th century BC. Are you saying scripture written prior to that time taught a spherical earth? If so, why did no one else pick up on it?

I'm genuinely interested in your response to some of the rest of this article. You dismissed most of it out of hand as
"rehashed stuff." Could you elaborate?

I'd also like you (or anyone else) respond to the use of raqiya (רָקִיעַ) in Genesis 1, which in the Hebrew is used to mean a solid dome. Do you believe the sky is a solid dome with water above it? If not, why not?

Isaiah references the "circle of the earth" in Isaiah 40:22..pre 6th century

 

[ddgently]

The earliest recordings of reference to a spheroid earth is from 6th Century BC Greece. Moses lived in the 12th or 13th century BC. Are you saying scripture written prior to that time taught a spherical earth? If so, why did no one else pick up on it?

I am saying that the only word Moses had to describe the sphere was this word. A sphere is the 3d counterpart of the 2d circle.

Why did no one else pick up on it? Why do we assume that Moses' use of this word only demands "circle" as the meaning. It also means "horizon"

I guess I'm trying to ask a two-part question with regard to Moses. (1) Did he mean sphere? That is, did Moses understand the world to be a ball and not a disc? (2) Did Moses's original readers interpret the cosmology of Genesis 1 to be a spherical earth, or a flat earth?

WAS a dome, not is. It is called the "firmament." YEC believe that it broke apart and caused the flood along with the water in the earth. Cf. Genesis 7:11 It no longer exists.

So here's where I think the link I posted might be getting at. So it seems you would agree that Genesis 1 does describe a solid, domed sky with water above it?

Looking to Genesis 7:11, we see that "the windows (אֲרֻבָּה) of heaven (שָׁמַיִם) were opened." Shamayim (שָׁמַיִם) is equated with "firmament" in Genesis 1:8, so we can presume both verses are talking about the same thing (a solid dome). In Genesis 8:2, the "windows of heaven were stopped." When 'arubbah is used elsewhere in the OT, it literally means windows or small opening.

So wouldn't a literal reading of Noah's flood tell us that openings in the dome were opened, a flood came, and then the openings were closed. It seems that by Genesis 8, things are back to how they were, at least in terms of Shamayim. I don't see how you get "dome collapses" from a literal reading of the text.

What am I missing?

 

[ddgently]

Being that he used the word, why would we assume otherwise? The word means much more than "circle." It means "vault" and "horizon." We even use the word "horizon" today having full knowledge that we do not live on a Frisbee.

I think the word "circle" appears in Isaiah, and not the Torah. Do you have a verse that shows Moses knew the world was round?

No. I do not believe there was a solid dome. There was some kind of atmospheric dome of suspended water that broke (or better "gushed").

What am I missing?

Not allowing idiomatic expressions to explain literal events. The idea of floodgates being opened is very descriptive of showing that this did not happen on its own. God opened the floodgates and the deluge occurred. It is an idiom.

But the text doesn't just say the windows of heaven were opened, but also that the great fountains of the deep burst forth. Many YEC attach great importance in their Flood Geology to that second phrase. So:

(1) why should the fountains of the deep be literal, but the windows of heaven be idiomatic?
(2) what Scriptural support is there for the idea there was an "atmospheric dome of suspended water" that existed pre-flood, but ceased to exist post-flood. As I've pointed out, Gen. 8:2 seems to suggest that atmospheric conditions went back to normal after the Flood.

 

[Svenskman]

5 inch fangs were designed to maim and mangle, not munch on grass.

Perhaps, given their ability to climb trees, they were designed to pick fruit.

 

[prophet]

5 inch fangs were designed to maim and mangle, not munch on grass.

Perhaps, given their ability to climb trees, they were designed to pick fruit.

Yes, or any other explanation that involves us not knowing all the answers.
There are a million things that we havent considered, and wont.
But one thing we can know, we can know when some fool seeks an occasion to accuse God.

Anishinaabe

 

[SaviorSelf]

5 inch fangs were designed to maim and mangle, not munch on grass.

Perhaps, given their ability to climb trees, they were designed to pick fruit.

Assuming this isn't sarcasm, lions don't/can't eat fruit.

5 inch fangs were designed to maim and mangle, not munch on grass.

Perhaps, given their ability to climb trees, they were designed to pick fruit.

Yes, or any other explanation that involves us not knowing all the answers.
There are a million things that we havent considered, and wont.
But one thing we can know, we can know when some fool seeks an occasion to accuse God.

Anishinaabe

:
Nobodies claiming to know all the answers. Nobodies accusing God of anything. I'm only calling a spade a spade. Wings are for flying, feet are for walking, fangs are for tearing flesh.

 

[prophet]

5 inch fangs were designed to maim and mangle, not munch on grass.

Perhaps, given their ability to climb trees, they were designed to pick fruit.

Assuming this isn't sarcasm, lions don't/can't eat fruit.

5 inch fangs were designed to maim and mangle, not munch on grass.

Perhaps, given their ability to climb trees, they were designed to pick fruit.

Yes, or any other explanation that involves us not knowing all the answers.
There are a million things that we havent considered, and wont.
But one thing we can know, we can know when some fool seeks an occasion to accuse God.

Anishinaabe

:
Nobodies claiming to know all the answers. Nobodies accusing God of anything. I'm only calling a spade a spade. Wings are for flying, feet are for walking, fangs are for tearing flesh.

And spell check is for dummies.

Anishinaabe

 

[SaviorSelf]

unless you are a penguin....

Penguins use their "wings" (flippers) for swimming, but they didn't always. Their wings are vestigial and their case is an anomaly.  :

Good example though because penguins and their natural predator leopard seals are also carnivores and are forced to be so by the environment they are adapted to.

unless you;re a monkey...

Monkeys walk..

and yet both vegetarians and children born to vegetarians still have them......

and were you aware that lions... just like all other felines... are perfectly capable of adapting to a vegetarian diet?.....  they just don;t know they can.... and because habits are hard to break... even in animals.... most will starve themselves to death before attempting to eat fruits or vegetables...... like some people... and their faulty assumptions about God...  the cats think they know all there is to know about themselves and refuse to consider any alternative to what they have experienced all their lives.........

God made His creation adaptable..... and since it is His creation He can also change or alter it whenever He likes....  the way He does it is beyond our ability to fathom... but the fact that He is able to is really not that hard to understand..... 

A lion's teeth cannot grind down cellulose and their short digestive tracts don't allow it to digest vegetation either. The only time a lion eats plant matter is to induce vomiting...

 

[SaviorSelf]

Vegan cat food is crushed and processed, meaning half of the digestive work is already done by the manufacturer. not to mention it is enriched with synthetic taurine (normally found exclusively in meat) which is a protein they would die without.

 

[ddgently]

I think the word "circle" appears in Isaiah, and not the Torah. Do you have a verse that shows Moses knew the world was round?

Yes. You are correct. Moses did not use the word. That was an error on my part. I was studying the lexicons. Job, who most believe, predated Moses, used the word. The word means "circle, vault, horizon." Why must we assume that they had a complete understanding of the 3D sphere? Why must we assume that they could not have a 3D understanding?

I don't think we need to assume it, per se. I think the evidence points toward a lack of understanding of what we would consider modern cosmology. Given that Moses doesn't mention a round earth, and that the Genesis 1 narrative comports with the cosmology of other cultures at the time (flat, disc-shaped earth covered by a solid dome), and that knowledge of a round earth isn't recorded anywhere until 800-900 (my dates could be, and probably are off) years after Moses, I think it is safe to say that neither Moses, nor the patriarchs, nor the early Israelite settlers would have known about, let alone believe in, a round earth.

(1) why should the fountains of the deep be literal, but the windows of heaven be idiomatic?

"fountains of the deep" is still idiomatic.

Is it? I think leading creation scientists would disagree. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/flood-waters.asp

(2) what Scriptural support is there for the idea there was an "atmospheric dome of suspended water" that existed pre-flood, but ceased to exist post-flood. As I've pointed out, Gen. 8:2 seems to suggest that atmospheric conditions went back to normal after the Flood.

All I see is that they stopped. I will admit, because of necessity, that I do not know the exact makeup of "firmament/expanse." Who does? We still have water vapor above us. I am not going to argue that the firmament still exists. However, there is nothing in this that would cause me not to believe that Genesis 1 is incorrect.

I am getting the impression that your understanding of "literal" is wrong. When we say that we interpret the Bible, literally, we interpret idioms, metaphors, narratives and poetry as they are normally interpreted.

"Literalists" treat the Genesis account as narrative with idioms sprinkled through out (just like I did in this sentence with the word "sprinkle.")

But Genesis 1 is poetry, and yet it is interpreted as though it were the first chapter of a history textbook!

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ddgently]But Genesis 1 is poetry, and yet it is interpreted as though it were the first chapter of a history textbook!
[/quote]

Biblical "literalism": claiming the best way of interpreting the Bible is "literally" except for those parts we don't think should be interpreted "literally"

 

[ddgently]

[quote author=ddgently]But Genesis 1 is poetry, and yet it is interpreted as though it were the first chapter of a history textbook!

Biblical "literalism": claiming the best way of interpreting the Bible is "literally" except for those parts we don't think should be interpreted "literally"
[/quote]

That's what I've been driving at this whole time. Slippery folks, these "literealists" are.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=admin]What we must reject is that Scripture speaks wrongly about the reality of our cosmos. I start from the basis that Scripture is not thwarted by science.[/quote]

I start from the premise that special revelation (i.e. Scripture) and natural revelation (i.e. science) aren't at even at odds. 

[quote author=admin]It is a narrative that sets the setting for understanding the theological significance of the fall which follows.[/quote]

You mean the Fall that is part of the second creation account?

[quote author=admin]God created all things, man and then enjoyed a Sabbath.[/quote]

Yes...the significance of the passage is that God created all things and then Sabbath, not "this is how God created all things" and then Sabbath.

[quote author=admin]Both you and rsc2a do not understand what "literalism" means.

D.A. Carson has a good discussion on this in his book: Biblical Interpretation and the Church. He says "In biblical interpretation the literal meaning of a passage has been identified with the meaning intended by the author."

That means the "literalist" recognizes metaphors as metaphors, figures of speech as figures of speech... etc.

Because some do not understand what "literalism" means, I just say "I interpret the Bible normally."[/quote]

I fully understand what "literalism" means. I also know that you reject a "literal" interpretation in John 6:53-56 even when the vast majority of Christendom accepts it as a literal statement. Like I said, it's a matter of picking and choosing based on preconceived doctrinal suppositions.

 

[prophet]

I fully understand what "literalism" means. I also know that you reject a "literal" interpretation in John 6:53-56 even when the vast majority of Christendom accepts it as a literal statement. Like I said, it's a matter of picking and choosing based on preconceived doctrinal suppositions.

It is a metaphor. All of the literalists I know (and that is quite a range) ALL take this as a metaphor.

BTW: I take Chapter 2 of Genesis as a summary of chapter 1. Based on the use of the word "toledot" as it is used throughout Genesis as a logical marker of various sections.

Jn 6:58
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven:not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead:he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
"As" alert.

59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

Seems like they knew it was more than skin deep, and couldn't get the surface scratched.

It is metaphorical.  It is also presented as a simile.

Anishinaabe

 

[rsc2a]

I fully understand what "literalism" means. I also know that you reject a "literal" interpretation in John 6:53-56 even when the vast majority of Christendom accepts it as a literal statement. Like I said, it's a matter of picking and choosing based on preconceived doctrinal suppositions.

It is a metaphor. All of the literalists I know (and that is quite a range) ALL take this as a metaphor.

Great! And the overwhelming majority of Christians I know (and that is quite a range) take the creation accounts of Genesis to be something other than narrative. It doesn't change the fact that you are being selective in what you choose to interpret "literately" (and rejecting the "literal" beliefs on a point that puts you at odds with the overwhelming majority of Christendom, both today and throughout history). Kind of hard to take a hermeneutic approach seriously when the advocates abandon it so readily when it becomes doctrinally expedient.

[quote author=admin]BTW: I take Chapter 2 of Genesis as a summary of chapter 1. Based on the use of the word "toledot" as it is used throughout Genesis as a logical marker of various sections.[/quote]

That's all fine and good...except for the fact that they are explicitly different on several points.

 

[rsc2a]

If something is absurd, like canibalizing Christ, then it doesn't matter to me what the "majority" believes.

You mean if something is absurd, something like a Biblical interpretation that requires the one to denying scientific principles on par with the theory of gravity, then you'd reject the questionable interpretation?

[quote author=admin]Who is inconsistent? A "majority" does not determine what consistency is.[/quote]

Anyone who mounts the cry "Literalism! Literalism!" then rejects the very same in the John passage is being inconsistent.

 

[rsc2a]

 

[rsc2a]

Yep. A misnomer about creationists AND evolutionism.

A flu strain mutates into ANOTHER flu strain.

A flu strain will never evolve into a DIFFERENT species.

I know someone who has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. He's also a very outspoken Christian.

His thoughts on people who accept "micro-evolution" and deny "macro-evolution": selective ignorance. Scientifically speaking, they are the same thing.

Your statement also goes to prove another thing: "We are fine with science so long as it doesn't mess without preconceived notions. But, no, we aren't that concerned about consistency because we'll throw that out as soon as science starts challenging those preconceived notions even though we have no rationale for doing so other than it gives us the willies." (Notice, you could replace "science" with "literalism" and it wouldn't change anything.)

 

[rsc2a]

Mutations within a species are quite different than mutations into different species.

The first is verifiable and testable. The second is an assumption that is neither verifiable nor testable.

Science is fraught with presuppositions that are not proven. Why? Because scientists are human.

Case in point: science claims global warming is real. Political assumptions have offset real science.

I'm curious.

Can you give the scientific definition of species? (Caution: it's a trick question.) Could you tell me what differentiates one species from another? What is a subspecies?

Scientifically, gravity is "unproven". That doesn't mean I don't expect my cup to fall to the ground when I drop it.

And "science" doesn't say global warming is real. A few scientists say global warming is real, often by employing really, really bad science due to a preconceived narrative they are trying to write. (There is that idea of preconceived notions getting in the way again.)