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 ...
Nope??? That's it???
Maby it all depends on whether you put your faith in science, or God...
Or Jesus' interpretation of Jesus...And that's why I chose to never become a Catholic...
That's what you'll find in the Catholic Church, the Church He founded.
It's good that you used the word "or," as it demonstrates the contrast between the Jesus you describe and the Jesus HE describes.
Which definition of Christian are you using today?
This is what your church told you...Why you believe it is a mystery to me and millions of others...
Jesus cleary says your church is wrong...
Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Your church has contaminated the scriptures with it's xtra books...They don't belong in there...They are not in the Hebrew bible either...
Wake up...
“It was so good that
the people and animals were vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30)—it is hard
to imagine a world like that.”
Never thought I would have a nonPETA type call me a sinner for eating meat.
That water canopy would also filter out a considerable portion of visible light and infrared rendering the Earth a giant froze sphere.
What isn’t sound about the theory of evolution? Try to be specific so I can respond in a more directed way.
No, my Church is the Catholic Church, which assembled the canon according to the Holy Spirit.
...They don't belong in there...
I can take your word, or the word of the Church founded by Christ.
Luke 24:44 does not say "the following books shall be in the Bible and none other" or anything to that effect. Your interpretation adds that meaning, but I don't care about your interpretation.
*nod* - Then you see the problem. Is time constant? If it ISN’T, then is it consistent? (IE are there splotches that are ‘faster’ than others?) What about the speed of light, is that constant? It changes in atmosphere and water, so if space is not statistically uniform (in terms of density), then light isn’t a constant speed.
But this DOES apply to the question you asked me. About wether or not it is a 24/hr day or not. Consider that it is God giving an account of things, and consider that a thousand years are as a day and a day is as a thousand years to God, and consider that if “without Him, nothing was made that was made” then time must have been made too. Because time is a made thing, God must exist outside of time. If God exists outside of time, then all points in time are the same, in some sense. If all points in time are the same, in some sense, to God... then He may group them into whatever units He so desires. IE God is not bound by time, and therefore the “24-hr creation day” needn’t be 24-hrs as we see it.
What I’ve been trying to say is this: Time doesn’t affect God; God effects and affects time.
Genesis is a book of faith — not teaching.
Did you read the whole article? I taught me several things I never knew before:
A) 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.\
B) The argument from these Bible critics is that the ancient Hebrews believed in a solid dome with the stars embedded in the dome.
C) The Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures produced by Jewish scholars in the third century BC at the request of the Egyptian pharaoh) translates raqia into the Greek word stereoma, which connotes a solid structure.
D) Later, this Greek connotation influenced Jerome to the extent that, when he produced his Latin Vulgate around AD 400, he used the Latin word firmamentum (meaning a strong or steadfast support).
E) The King James translators merely transliterated this Latin word—and thus was born the firmament.
F) But what does the Hebrew word actually mean? The Hebrew noun raqia is derived from the verb raqa, which means “to spread abroad, stamp, or stretch.”
G) understanding is consistent with the terminology of many other verses, such as Psalm 104:2 and Isaiah 40:22, which speak of the stretching out of the heavens. The Hebrew word used in these verses for heaven is not raqiya, but shamayim (literally “heavens”).
H) However, in Genesis 1:8 God explicitly calls the expanse “heaven,” thus equating raqiya with shamayim. If the stretched out nature of the raqiya is what is intended, then firmament may not be the best translation; expanse is more accurate.
I) The context of Genesis 1:6–8, 14–22 makes it clear that Moses intended his readers to understand raqia simply as the sky (atmosphere and heavens or space) above the earth, as even the sun, moon, and stars were placed in them. In fact, in modern Hebrew raqia is the word used for sky, and there is no connotation of hardness.
Every book is a book of faith. Everything we do, in fact, is an act of faith. Think about it.
For a slightly different take, see the following. I posted it before, but I think they are quite interesting when taken together—GGG
http://creation.com/god-s-mighty-expanse
It’s both.
I have books of algorithms that aren’t based of faith.
The same one I always have:
I don’t see anything in there about not having to disavow evolutionary theory or an old Earth which you have implied many times renders one a “false” Christian.
I don’t see anything in there about not having to disavow evolutionary theory or an old Earth which you have implied many times renders one a “false” Christian.
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.