A Different Look at Genesis
- Thread starter Trekson
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Dcopymope
Well-Known Member
Stan,
There is no canopy in those verses.
I read of waters that are separated from the earth and clouds fit that description as they are heavenly lakes, seas, and perhaps even oceans.
USGS: The Water Cycle: Water Storage in the Atmosphere
The water cycle is all about storing water and moving water on, in, and above the Earth. Although the atmosphere may not be a great storehouse of water, it is the superhighway used to move water around the globe. Evaporation and transpiration change liquid water into vapor, which ascends into the atmosphere due to rising air currents. Cooler temperatures aloft allow the vapor to condense into clouds and strong winds move the clouds around the world until the water falls as precipitation to replenish the earthbound parts of the water cycle. About 90 percent of water in the atmosphere is produced by evaporation from water bodies, while the other 10 percent comes from transpiration from plants.
There is always water in the atmosphere. Clouds are, of course, the most visible manifestation of atmospheric water, but even clear air contains water—water in particles that are too small to be seen. One estimate of the volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 3,100 cubic miles (mi3) or 12,900 cubic kilometers (km3). That may sound like a lot, but it is only about 0.001 percent of the total Earth's water volume of about 332,500,000 mi3 (1,385,000,000 km3), as shown in the table below. If all of the water in the atmosphere rained down at once, it would only cover the globe to a depth of 2.5 centimeters, about 1 inch.
In short there is enough water there to flood the globe. Melting ice caps would add more but they may have been melted already if the global temperatures of pre-flood time was higher as the canopy hypothesis proposes. The warmer temperature also would have contributed to more cloud cover.
There is no canopy in those verses.
I read of waters that are separated from the earth and clouds fit that description as they are heavenly lakes, seas, and perhaps even oceans.
USGS: The Water Cycle: Water Storage in the Atmosphere
The water cycle is all about storing water and moving water on, in, and above the Earth. Although the atmosphere may not be a great storehouse of water, it is the superhighway used to move water around the globe. Evaporation and transpiration change liquid water into vapor, which ascends into the atmosphere due to rising air currents. Cooler temperatures aloft allow the vapor to condense into clouds and strong winds move the clouds around the world until the water falls as precipitation to replenish the earthbound parts of the water cycle. About 90 percent of water in the atmosphere is produced by evaporation from water bodies, while the other 10 percent comes from transpiration from plants.
There is always water in the atmosphere. Clouds are, of course, the most visible manifestation of atmospheric water, but even clear air contains water—water in particles that are too small to be seen. One estimate of the volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 3,100 cubic miles (mi3) or 12,900 cubic kilometers (km3). That may sound like a lot, but it is only about 0.001 percent of the total Earth's water volume of about 332,500,000 mi3 (1,385,000,000 km3), as shown in the table below. If all of the water in the atmosphere rained down at once, it would only cover the globe to a depth of 2.5 centimeters, about 1 inch.
In short there is enough water there to flood the globe. Melting ice caps would add more but they may have been melted already if the global temperatures of pre-flood time was higher as the canopy hypothesis proposes. The warmer temperature also would have contributed to more cloud cover.
Sorry try copying the URL and pasting it into the YouTube app. I'm not sure what the problem is sometimes on this site with YouTube links?Dcopymope said:
If it was clouds it would have said clouds not water above and water below. If you refuse to understand or except wHat the Bible says, then there's nothing I can help you with. There are no clouds in the Old Testament until after the flood.kerwin said:
StanJ,
Who are we to say what words God would choose to voice any particular idea.
I can speculate he chose water over clouds because he was emphasizing it.
The water cycle was known to the Greeks as early as the Iliad and most certainly known to its Creator even before that. In short they and God before them knew rain comes from clouds.
I do not refuse to understand what Scripture states but I refuse the extra-Scriptural invention of human beings.
Who are we to say what words God would choose to voice any particular idea.
I can speculate he chose water over clouds because he was emphasizing it.
The water cycle was known to the Greeks as early as the Iliad and most certainly known to its Creator even before that. In short they and God before them knew rain comes from clouds.
I do not refuse to understand what Scripture states but I refuse the extra-Scriptural invention of human beings.
Dcopymope
Well-Known Member
Well it is made clear in Genesis 2 that there was no rain used to nourish the plant life, because it didn't rain at all. So its not that simple to say that rain comes from clouds. In order for visible moisture to occur in the form of precipitation, you need clouds. To get clouds to occur you need condensation, which today only happens due to the instability of our atmosphere which is determined by the temperature lapse rate. The temperature needs to decrease to the dew point so that the air becomes saturated, and like I said, in order for that to happen, you need atmospheric instability which gives you lift. If the atmosphere before the flood was stable as it is strongly implied by the statement that God had not caused it to rain, then it means that there wasnt the necessary lower level convergence and upper level divergence to produce the clouds needed for rain to occur.kerwin said:
In other words, there was no temperature lapse rate like it is today. There was no cold or warm fronts that would produce lift or low level convergence, and there was no upper air troughs or areas of low pressure aloft that would produce the upper level divergence that would lower the pressure at the surface for lift to occur, and by that I'm referring to the development of surface reflections simply called low pressure centers. In all likelihood, there was only upper level convergence at best, meaning the pressure was too high for clouds to develop to any meaningful degree, if at all.
I’m familiar enough with postmodernism to know that it’s a pretty wide field - so wide that the term itself is almost meaningless. Why exactly you associate the Jesus Seminar with postmodernism is unclear to me. Quests for the historical Jesus seem deeply ‘modern’ at heart. However, you’ll be pleased to hear that I’m no fan of the Jesus Seminar myself: not because I shy away from historical-criticism as such, but because it seems to me that the Jesus Seminar has sacrificed sound academia for the sake of sensationalism, starting with its (IMHO) ridiculously dating of the Gospel of Thomas.OzSpen said:
Actually I have read the link you provided to Dr John Mac Millam’s article, just as I have read the article you linked about poststructuralism in Christianity. I suspect though that either you did not read the latter yourself, or you did understand it completely differently than I did: To my surprise I found your article to make the case that poststructuralism does not necessarily deny God and that it ought to be viewed just like any other of the many philosophies that have been used throughout the history of Christianity to make sense of Scripture and Christian faith. This does not seem to reflect your opinion.
So while you (again) evaded my question what you as an ‘inerrantist’ think I ought to have told my Sunday School kids in regard of the Bible’s many ‘factual’ contradictions, I’m indebted to you for drawing my attention to dartmouthapologia.org. It seems to be a rather interesting site linking to a lot of other interesting sites. To go back to topic, here’s from one of them that you may find helpful: http://www.harvardichthus.org/2010/03/interview-with-francis-collins/
OzSpen
Well-Known Member
- Mar 30, 2015
- 3,728
- 795
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Australia
That's easy. I've spent the last 5 years researching a 488pp dissertation on the presuppositions of leading Jesus Seminar fellow, John Dominic Crossan. He's a postmodernist in his philosophy.junobet said:
By the way, I wrote of Dr John Millam, not Dr John Mac Millam.
Oz
Dcopymope,
The passage in Genesis 2 means it just had not rained til that day not that it would not rain until the flood.
The idea that there were no highs and lows seems far-fetched as even tropical areas are subject to rains. I might take time to look into it.
The passage in Genesis 2 means it just had not rained til that day not that it would not rain until the flood.
The idea that there were no highs and lows seems far-fetched as even tropical areas are subject to rains. I might take time to look into it.
Dcopymote and StanJ,
The Psalms are credited to King David and he implies the water was still above the heavens well after the days of the Flood.
Psalm 148:4 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens,
and ye waters that be above the heavens.
The Psalms are credited to King David and he implies the water was still above the heavens well after the days of the Flood.
Psalm 148:4 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
4 Praise him, ye heavens of heavens,
and ye waters that be above the heavens.
Dcopymope
Well-Known Member
Yeah and? How does that change our current understanding of how the weather works? Which heaven is he even referring to here anyway? The waters being above the sky or above space itself? Either way, it still has little to do with clouds bringing precipitation, as the Bible makes it very clear that it didn't happen until God made it happen in Genesis six. It means that the atmosphere was almost nothing like it is today, it was stable. The weather was like a pilots wet dream because they wouldn't have to ever worry about running into any thunderstorms.kerwin said:
Dcopymope
Well-Known Member
Dcopymope,
The idea of the canopy theory is derived from the wording of Genesis 1:7 but ignores other parts of Scripture that disprove it. The Psalmist, who came after the Great Flood, spoke of waters that were still above the earth to that day. There is no such canopy today and yet we still have water vapor in the form of clouds and humility that is separated from the earth by the sky.
Complaint: The "c" in the font they use on this website looks like an o unless one pays close attention, at least as interpreted by Chrome. Please forgive em if I make a error related to that fact.
The idea of the canopy theory is derived from the wording of Genesis 1:7 but ignores other parts of Scripture that disprove it. The Psalmist, who came after the Great Flood, spoke of waters that were still above the earth to that day. There is no such canopy today and yet we still have water vapor in the form of clouds and humility that is separated from the earth by the sky.
Complaint: The "c" in the font they use on this website looks like an o unless one pays close attention, at least as interpreted by Chrome. Please forgive em if I make a error related to that fact.
It's called biblical hermeneutics. You may want to study up on it. We have languages to convey ideas that's what they're there for and the original Hebrew and Greek languages conveyed ideas just as well as our modern-day languages do and maybe even better. Once you know the Bible then you know what ideas God is conveying and they're not that hard to see or understand. Nobody has to speculate with the Bible says that's the whole point of biblical hermeneutics. Unless the context conveys otherwise you take the Bible literally for what it says. There is no speculation in the Bible and whoever reads it can't read it with a speculative eye because it says exactly what it means.kerwin said:
If you can show me any mention of clouds before the great flood then please do so otherwise all you're doing is speculating with no evidence whatsoever. I've already shown you the scripture that says how the Earth was watered in the beginning and it was not watered by rain it was watered by underground Springs pushing water up through the ground. If you understand the situation of Genesis then you will understand that it would be impossible for there to be any clouds until after the great canopy of water inundated the Earth in the great flood.
That's because this Psalm is about creation and conveys the common Jewish understanding of the canopy of water that was above the sky.kerwin said:
The canopy of water was the reason there was such a temperate climate over all the earth before the flood and why men lived so long. The absence of the canopy of water is the reason why men started dying younger and younger because they were no longer shielded from the harmful cosmic rays of the Sun. Whether David still Jewish thought that the canopy of water existed as Genesis 1 taught is not really known but it does indicate that this was the belief in his day. The fact is it may have been a belief for longer than that, until men were actually able to see beyond the Earth far up into the cosmos and see that there was no water there. The point is that according to Genesis 1, it was there in the beginning and according to what we know today it was what caused the great flood.
I’m sorry I’ve been away from the conversation for a week, the wife and I were on vacation. Part of our trip was going to the creation museum and Noah’s Ark. It was really quite informative for those who may be confused between the truth of creationism and the evil dogma of evolution.
Reply to Junabet’s Post 37 Your words: “And as much as I’m glad to hear that you don’t really believe God dictated the Bible, I wonder why you speak of “verbal inspiration” then. Is it possible you never ever bothered to think your beliefs through? It all sounds very inconsistent to me.”
While the link to the article I gave spoke of verbal inspiration, I also posted that I don’t believe that God “dictated” the bible so I don’t “speak” of verbal inspiration and I wrote affirming that. Divine inspiration does not have to be verbal to be a reality.
Your words: “I’ve got so much love for these ancient writings that it pains me when people make an utter travesty of them just to make them fit their 20th century fundamentalist doctrine. It’s not faith that makes one burying one’s head in the sand, it’s fear.”
For one who supposedly reveres the Word of God you seem to spend a lot of time trashing its validity in many areas. Personally, I feel that most 20th century doctrine echoes the doctrines from the dawn of time. You just haven’t figured that out yet.
Your words: “Should you ever put your own creationist doctrine’s goggles off for a moment and open your eyes to Genesis 1-2, considering genre and historical setting, you’ll find powerful poetry followed by insightful prose: Two different texts giving very different orders of creation, certainly not being bothered with scientific explanations whatsoever, but both conveying deep spiritual truths about the one God, this world’s relationship with him, our need for relationship with each other and creation as a whole.”
This sounds like some sort of psycho-babble trying to confuse the issues. There is NO “different texts giving different orders of creation” in Gen. 1-2. Only those who lack faith in His word would say something like that. All it really takes to understand this “supposed” difference is faith and common sense. So let me take this time to enlighten you. It’s possible I guess, you might be speaking of Gen. 2:4 where God is just confirming that He created the plants BEFORE they were IN the earth. One strike against evolution! Or perhaps it is Gen. 2:19 that is confusing you where God is just reminding us that out of GROUND He formed every beast of the field and fowl of the air. HMM, not primordial ooze, strike 2 for evolution! So of all of His creations before man, He is just bringing them to Adam to name. No puzzle, no conflicting order, just common sense! Gen. 2:7 says God created MAN from the dust of the ground, not "eventually" through some sort of 'ape". Strike 3 against evolution. It's out of here! as any type of logistical theory!
I don’t believe in evolution simply because it is “junk science” similar to alchemy. It has zero basis in fact, no observable verifications and was formed as a way to try and dismiss God from the realms of humanity. Any “reasonable” human being just needs to look around at all the variety in every form of life and the complexities of their biology and just “know” only a divine Creator could be responsible. Giving God a head nod and saying thanks for the ooze Lord, we couldn’t have done it without that is, imo, the epitome of hypocrisy.
Your words: “where did you get the Bible from in the first place? It was the Churchfathers who eventually agreed on the first New Testament Canons, and who decided which texts should be in the Bible and which texts should not be in there. So, while we may question the Churchfathers in many issues, we should not underestimate these old fellows’ inspiration out of mere vanity concerning our own unreflected ‘present day truths”
The truth is “they” didn’t decide, it was the Holy Spirit who led and guided these men to create the bible as He wanted it to be. They were simply the tools God used to accomplish His purpose!
Reply to Junabet’s Post 37 Your words: “And as much as I’m glad to hear that you don’t really believe God dictated the Bible, I wonder why you speak of “verbal inspiration” then. Is it possible you never ever bothered to think your beliefs through? It all sounds very inconsistent to me.”
While the link to the article I gave spoke of verbal inspiration, I also posted that I don’t believe that God “dictated” the bible so I don’t “speak” of verbal inspiration and I wrote affirming that. Divine inspiration does not have to be verbal to be a reality.
Your words: “I’ve got so much love for these ancient writings that it pains me when people make an utter travesty of them just to make them fit their 20th century fundamentalist doctrine. It’s not faith that makes one burying one’s head in the sand, it’s fear.”
For one who supposedly reveres the Word of God you seem to spend a lot of time trashing its validity in many areas. Personally, I feel that most 20th century doctrine echoes the doctrines from the dawn of time. You just haven’t figured that out yet.
Your words: “Should you ever put your own creationist doctrine’s goggles off for a moment and open your eyes to Genesis 1-2, considering genre and historical setting, you’ll find powerful poetry followed by insightful prose: Two different texts giving very different orders of creation, certainly not being bothered with scientific explanations whatsoever, but both conveying deep spiritual truths about the one God, this world’s relationship with him, our need for relationship with each other and creation as a whole.”
This sounds like some sort of psycho-babble trying to confuse the issues. There is NO “different texts giving different orders of creation” in Gen. 1-2. Only those who lack faith in His word would say something like that. All it really takes to understand this “supposed” difference is faith and common sense. So let me take this time to enlighten you. It’s possible I guess, you might be speaking of Gen. 2:4 where God is just confirming that He created the plants BEFORE they were IN the earth. One strike against evolution! Or perhaps it is Gen. 2:19 that is confusing you where God is just reminding us that out of GROUND He formed every beast of the field and fowl of the air. HMM, not primordial ooze, strike 2 for evolution! So of all of His creations before man, He is just bringing them to Adam to name. No puzzle, no conflicting order, just common sense! Gen. 2:7 says God created MAN from the dust of the ground, not "eventually" through some sort of 'ape". Strike 3 against evolution. It's out of here! as any type of logistical theory!
I don’t believe in evolution simply because it is “junk science” similar to alchemy. It has zero basis in fact, no observable verifications and was formed as a way to try and dismiss God from the realms of humanity. Any “reasonable” human being just needs to look around at all the variety in every form of life and the complexities of their biology and just “know” only a divine Creator could be responsible. Giving God a head nod and saying thanks for the ooze Lord, we couldn’t have done it without that is, imo, the epitome of hypocrisy.
Your words: “where did you get the Bible from in the first place? It was the Churchfathers who eventually agreed on the first New Testament Canons, and who decided which texts should be in the Bible and which texts should not be in there. So, while we may question the Churchfathers in many issues, we should not underestimate these old fellows’ inspiration out of mere vanity concerning our own unreflected ‘present day truths”
The truth is “they” didn’t decide, it was the Holy Spirit who led and guided these men to create the bible as He wanted it to be. They were simply the tools God used to accomplish His purpose!
StamJ.
People started dying younger and younger before the flood even took place. Other than Enoch, Methuselah was the oldest and after him his descendants began dying younger and younger. Even Abraham is credited with living quite long though nowhere near his earlier ancestors. Neither of us can actually prove our respective claims at Scripture gives us too small of a sample size. God must not see it as important to give us enough evidence to resolve the issue.
Psalms 148 is not about the flood. It is about praising God and the Psalmist used present tense verbs.
People started dying younger and younger before the flood even took place. Other than Enoch, Methuselah was the oldest and after him his descendants began dying younger and younger. Even Abraham is credited with living quite long though nowhere near his earlier ancestors. Neither of us can actually prove our respective claims at Scripture gives us too small of a sample size. God must not see it as important to give us enough evidence to resolve the issue.
Psalms 148 is not about the flood. It is about praising God and the Psalmist used present tense verbs.
StanJ,
Unless the context conveys otherwise you take the Bible literally for what it says.
That really does not makes sense because who is to say the context conveys otherwise.
It is not true as Jesus spoke in parabolic words while the Samaritan woman spoke literally and so he confused her until she caught on. (John 4)
One can claim the context indicates otherwise which is why I stated the statement does not make sense.
The context of "water above the firmament" does reveal otherwise since the Sun, Moon, and stars are all in the firmament according to Genesis 1:14-16. Unless you place that canopy of water on the edges of the universe a literal rendition does not fit your hypothesis.
Unless the context conveys otherwise you take the Bible literally for what it says.
That really does not makes sense because who is to say the context conveys otherwise.
It is not true as Jesus spoke in parabolic words while the Samaritan woman spoke literally and so he confused her until she caught on. (John 4)
One can claim the context indicates otherwise which is why I stated the statement does not make sense.
The context of "water above the firmament" does reveal otherwise since the Sun, Moon, and stars are all in the firmament according to Genesis 1:14-16. Unless you place that canopy of water on the edges of the universe a literal rendition does not fit your hypothesis.
I’m afraid over here in Europe the opening of this ‘museum’ was just another occasion for the media to make fun of Christians. Very few articles cared to point out that most Christians are not Young Earth Creationists and deem this enterprise absolute bogus. In fact churches in Germany protested when a similar ‘museum’ was planned in Heidelberg.Trekson said:
But I hope you had a nice holiday. Just out of interest: does the Kentucky Ark have room for 7 pairs of elephants (Gen. 7:2) etc. or just one pair (Gen. 7:15)?
Why link an article to explain what you believe, when you don’t believe what the article says?
It’s not that I am thrashing the validity of the Bible, Trekson. I’m trashing the validity of your interpretation of it. Big difference!
When I try to figure things out, I don’t just rely on my feelings, but start doing research. Hence I vaguely know what doctrines Irenäus and Augustine held, whereas you already admitted you don’t.
Seems that to you God is just some kind of potter playing with mud. To me He’s the supreme mind that can foresee all varieties of life that it did, does and will bring forth by means of evolution.
Personally I would not even mind if you believed in a flat earth that doesn’t move but stands on pillars (1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 75:3), if it wasn’t for you calling more spiritual interpretations of Genesis, that tell us to protect the environment and to grant everybody the same human rights ‘psycho-babble’. How come so many creationists have such a low opinion on God’s creation, that they hope for it to be destroyed before the oil runs out rather than speaking out against man-made climate change?
There was a time when many people thought heliocentrism was junk science because it wasn’t in the Bible. Seems even most fundamentalist evangelicals don’t question that the earth moves around the sun these days.
The epitome of hypocrisy is that you still don’t acknowledge that biologists may know more about the natural world than you and I do and that evolution does not rule out a divine creator: http://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/what-is-evolution
Sure, I also believe that the Bible's canonization was an inspired process. But it seems you believe God chose fools as tools for His purpose. Or why is it that you discard the churchfathers’ views on Scripture and ist relation to science so easily?
Similar threads
