There is beauty in this, and order:
I think it was Einstein who said, "There are those who live as though nothing is a miracle. And there are those who live as if everything is a miracle." Beautiful!
Posted on 03/09/2009 3:50:09 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Critics of the Bible have often said that the writings of Genesis reflect an “unscientific view” of the universe—one that reflected the cosmology of the ancient world. One of these criticisms centers on the Hebrew word raqia used in the creation account of Genesis 1. Several Bible versions, such as the New King James, translate this word as firmament:
Genesis 1:6–8, NJKV
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. [Emphasis added.]
The argument from these Bible critics is that the ancient Hebrews believed in a solid dome with the stars embedded in the dome. They say that the word firmament reflects the idea of firmness, and this reflects erroneous cosmology. Therefore, the Bible is not the inspired Word of God, and we don’t need to listen to its teaching.
However, other versions of the Bible, such as the New American Standard, translate raqia as expanse:
Genesis 1:6–8, NASB
Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. [Emphasis added.]
But which is the correct term to use?...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
I don’t believe I have ever claimed that. I have claimed that a Christian must compromise the clear teaching in Genesis (not to mention Jesus, who affirmed the the days of creation) in order to believe in neo-Darwinian evolution (RM + NS).
In any case everything we know about modern history was penned by either eyewitnesses, or people who have researched the events and penned their own accounts. The Bible is no different, except that God has guided the recording process, to keep it error free. Just because we don't have the reference materials that Moses used, does not mean they did not exist!
Who wrote Shakespears plays? We don't have the original manuscripts, so perhaps they were handed down by oral tradition as well.
How is math faith based?
http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=Who+wrote+Shakespeare%27s+plays&go=&form=QBLH
That is a matter of some debate.
You need to learn your history.
The organization that edited, translated, collated, published and canonized the Bible, would, obviously, have more knowledge about the origin of said documents than YOU. That organization, of course, is the Roman Catholic Church.
Do you have some bogus history of the production of the Bible that you would like to present to us here? To say that the Catholic Church may have made some mistakes is one thing, but to deny the Catholic role in the very existence of the Bible is something else.
And, as far as disagreement with Jesus are concerned: “Peter, you are rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church, whatsoever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, whatsoever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven” -— St. Peter is buried under St. Peter's Cathedral, in Rome. Rather strong claim to Papal authority, I would say. Now, if you truly understood, you would know that we are not required to believe that Popes will never make mistakes. They certainly have.
The point is only that faith should be based on tradition AND scripture, taken together, as there is no possible way that we can use Scripture alone to understand what was written, without knowledge of the culture and lifestyle and metaphors of the time.
Again, your Bible IS the direct product of the Catholic Church. I know that it has been modified, it was the Protestants who changed the Bible, to fit their theology.
Even so, said changes were rather minor, as compared to the parts we agree upon. Not my point to get into a theological discussion of every difference between the faiths.
I only wish to stress that you have no possible way to distance the origin of your Bible from the Catholic Church.
Your Bible is a DIRECT PRODUCT of the Catholic Church, with some of the original scriptures concerning purgatory and justification removed, to fit the Catholic Priest Martin Luther's need to rebel against the corruption he saw, in the church. Luther, by the way, informed Henry the XIII that even as King, Henry had no just cause to leave the Catholic Church. A copy of that letter is actually in the Vatican museum. Several spiritual texts were ruled heretical, and it was the Catholic Church that did not include those texts. Several Councils of the Church decided what to include and what to exclude.
If you feel the Catholic Church never had any legitimate authority, it is then you, yourself who has demeaned the very Editor and Publisher of the original Bible.
It would then be you that has demeaned the Bible, itself. You might like to read the explanation of this Presbyterian minister who converted to the Catholic faith. He began a Papal and Catholic critic, just like you:
There is beauty in this, and order:
I think it was Einstein who said, "There are those who live as though nothing is a miracle. And there are those who live as if everything is a miracle." Beautiful!
However, I appreciate the translation issues, and the learnings drawn from the discussion from that perspective.
Interesting assertion. Rayleigh scattering is prominent is gas, but much less so in solids. Hence, greenhouses. If the canopy was ice, would your assertion be diminished?
No because ice absorbs light more that water.
No.
Genesis 1 shows that there was a spherical canopy of water above the earth.
Genesis 6 describes the falling of that water canopy to the earth, as well as the breaking up of the earth’s crust and the fountains of the deep being opened.
Do you know what that much water falling through the air would do to the temperature of the planet?
I can read about it. Things got a lot colder for one.
That would not be the result. The result would be surface temps of 5,700 c.
“For liquid or ice particles to
remain above the earth’s atmosphere, they must be in
orbit. For anything to orbit the earth, its velocity must
exceed 17,000 miles per hour (760,000 cm/sec). (As
stated earlier, a layer of water only 40-feet thick
contains 6.22 ´ 1021 grams of water.) Just as a spacecraft
generates great heat as it reenters the atmosphere, so also orbiting liquid or ice particles release
vast amounts of heat as they fall from orbit. That heat
energy equals the kinetic energy of the particles in
orbit, which is
where 2.39 ´ 10-8 converts the units to calories. This
heat would raise the atmosphere’s temperature
Even if a canopy began with the coldest ice possible
(absolute zero) or if some of this heat were transferred
elsewhere, insufferable heat would still result.
There is another interpretation that doesn’t violate a straightforward reading of the creation account in Genesis:
http://www.icr.org/articles/print/3472/
You might want to check out Dr. Humpheys’ book “Starlight and Time” for more. Fascinating stuff!
What is the basis for your assertion? Clear ice that has no trapped air shoul behave similar to glass. I am not aware of any detailed research on this subject, but it is intriguing thought. However, a hypothesis that have been untested are just a guess, really.
Nevertheless, whether it was ice, water, or water vapor, water in some form was seperated from the waters on the Earth.
Why do you assume it had no trapped air?
Actually, Genesis is a book of history, specifically, the history of beginnings.
Because ice that has trapped air is white, and blocks sunlight. There may be ice that has trapped air, but that is beyond my knowledge. However, ice without air is crystal clear. The kind used in ice sculptures is formed very slowly in special freezers for that reason.
Is glass crystal clear?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.