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 ...
Was it simply standing still?
Then why make it fall from the sky? Why not simply kill all with a singular thought?
Well now, as a "non creationist" and self implied logical thinker, you must be aware that removing the presumed source of the genetic damage would not automatically result in repair, now would it? It would als take time not stated or implied in your scenario. The canopy theory was suggested and removed as plausible by creationists. How is this any different than so many theories regarding evolution that are proposed and later removed?
The things people read from Creationists sources leave them more ignorant than when they started. Creationists are just not serious people.
I have met both "serious" and ignorant creationists and "serious" and ignorant evolutionists. The ignorant of all stripes sometimes expose themselves with broad brush slanders of those with an opposing view. I try to avoid such people.
I would prefer that you not reply, but you probably will.
I'll have to ask God, when I see Him...
What the hell are you talking about? The only time the density of the universe was close to a Planck density of 1 (~5.1 × 10^96 kg/m^3) was about 5 x 10^-44 seconds after the Big Bang (according to modern theories... which I thought we didn't accept around here).
As far as "planck particle pairs" (which has nothing to do with your link, btw; just a rambling psuedo-scientific jumble attempting to piece together disparate snippets of "scientific" discussions), you are obviously confusing two separate ideas. A planck particle is a hypothetical particle, and one with an exceedingly small lifetime (1 x 10^-44 seconds and an even smaller size (1 x 10^-20 the radius of a proton). No one can give a convincing account of how we could detect such a particle... much less any evidence of its existence. As for a virtual particle pair, these are a well accepted feature of modern physics, but, outside of a few obscure and infrequent events, basically average out to a vacuum.
So, in other words, you seem to be repeating terms you have heard somewhere, but don't have the slightest clue what they mean...
Every Biblical Verse you quote has one thing in common:
In the New Testament, No Verse ever directly refers to another Verse in the New Testament, only to Verses in the Old Testament.
The New Testament is not very “self aware” -— It does not refer to itself, because, when all of the different Books were written, individually, no New Testament existed.
The combination of the various Letters and Scriptures was done under the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, which also rejected several Books that were not accepted as Canonical or Sacred.
There was no official authority for several centuries, about what writings were Sacred Scripture and which were not.
Also, you seem to have little or no knowledge of the parchment and writing of the day. It was not practical to make several copies of these Scriptures for public use.
Again, the Early Church was an ORAL Church, which spread the Word by WORD OF MOUTH, almost exclusively.
My Church IS his Church.
Not that any Church is perfect, but all Christian Faith follows directly from the Catholic Church just as surely as all Christian Faith follows directly from its Jewish foundations.
EVERYTHING you read, in your Bible, was, at some point in time, reprinted or redrawn by a member of the Roman Catholic Church.
Also, Catholics, pretty much, are the ONLY faith that even say The Lord's Prayer the same way as Jesus said it.
I guarantee you that Jesus never said the words, “For Thine is the Kingdom, the Power and the Glory forever” at the end of the Prayer.
That was “gloss” it was the addition of a Catholic Monk. It was written on the side of a Monk's reproduction of an older work of Scripture. Protestants incorporated this gloss into the original text.
Divinely inspired?
Yes, I think it was, but it was not in the original Lord's Prayer spoken by Jesus.
There is no doubt, as what we now call the Bible was translated, as separate parchments or sheepskins and ancient documents were redrawn, painstakingly, by hand, that other Catholic Monks also made additions, corrections or added their own “inspirations” to the sacred text. That does not reduce its validity, but -— it does make my point that we can not take the Bible, alone, literally, as the word of any one author. Of course, the original texts turned to dust long ago, as did dozens of copies of those original texts, prior to the invention of the printing press.
The Bible that you read today is directly descended from the Bible that the Catholic Church edited, collated and canonized. That work did not really begin, however, until after Catholic Monks had preserved that text, which was not bound together but on separate parchments. This work was done, through the ages, by hand.
That is a fact of history!
And here I was thinking that vaccines and medical treatments derived from various evolutionary sciences was saving lives each day.
Perhaps the flue shot and the advanced antibiotics are simply figments of our collective imaginations.
Why did you limit your discussion of vaccines to just viral related ones?
You are confusing the assumed density of nuclear matter soon after the assumed big bang with the planck density of planck particle pairs (ppp).
The concept is that space itself consists of ppp (positive and negative) that are recombining and releasing energy as the universe contracts from the initial expansion, hence the source of the ZPE. The ZPE (which is an enormous amount of energy and has been measured as increasing), in turn, generates virtual particles that impede c through space. As the ZPE has increased since creation through the recombination of ppp, the number of virtual particles has increased, slowing c.
"As far as "planck particle pairs" (which has nothing to do with your link, btw; just a rambling psuedo-scientific jumble attempting to piece together disparate snippets of "scientific" discussions), you are obviously confusing two separate ideas."
The link discusses ppp. How can you say it has nothing to do w/ them? Perhaps you are the one who is confused.
"A planck particle is a hypothetical particle, and one with an exceedingly small lifetime (1 x 10^-44 seconds and an even smaller size (1 x 10^-20 the radius of a proton). No one can give a convincing account of how we could detect such a particle... much less any evidence of its existence. As for a virtual particle pair, these are a well accepted feature of modern physics, but, outside of a few obscure and infrequent events, basically average out to a vacuum."
Yes, virtual particles are a well-accepted feature of modern physics and ppp are used to explain the ZPE. How do you explain the ZPE?
"So, in other words, you seem to be repeating terms you have heard somewhere, but don't have the slightest clue what they mean..."
So, in other words, you seem to be repeating objections you have heard somewhere, but don't have the slightest clue what they mean...
No...That's Catholic history written by Catholics, for Catholics...
That's like the link you posted to that phony former Protestant self-proclaimed Christian turned Catholic who claimed Protestants believe that if they own a bible, they are saved...And this guy was a Bishop...And you guys just eat it up...
Why? You will simply ignore every thing that doesn’t fit your non-Biblical world view.
“Anyone here recall how to use a concordance? I’d do it, but I don’t recall where mine is packed away.....”
Download e-Sword http://www.e-sword.net/ (it is free)
You can search any number of translations, including KJV with Strongs Numbers (allows you to check both Hebrew and Greek words used). Searches are fast, easy.
A worthwhile tool on your pc.
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.