A missing Link to Genesis 1:6 God said, “I command a dome to separate the water above it from the water below it.”

[Clete]

I just wanted to say here that I'm content with living with the uncertainty in the passages in question. The firmament that God called "Heaven" is clearly talking about that which we are looking at when we look up at the sky. What it means by the firmament dividing waters from waters is rather confusing but it just seems like we aren't given enough detail to make sense of it. It seems to me to be details that we do not need and so I'm okay with it. The bible isn't a geology book nor is it a book about cosmology. It's a book about the relationship between God and His creation and with mankind in particular. As such, it isn't surprising that there are details left out about how God pulled off creating the Earth and the rest of the universe.

In other words, if the lack of detail here affected some matter of doctrine then it would be a big deal but it really doesn't do that and so, I don't see the need to force it to make perfect sense.

That is not to say that I fault anyone for discussing it and poking around with the issue, making some effort to make sense of it. Maybe such an effort will result in some important insight. If so, great! If not, then C'est la vie.

 

[Derf]

You say, "No" and then make the exact argument that you just denied that you were making. Talking about confusing.

You're saying "it's confusing to the reader" and therefore that isn't the way to understand it because God is not the author of confusion.

Are you not?

Well, just because you're confused doesn't prove that your simpler interpretation is true, both Occham's Razor and I Corinthians 14:33 not withstanding.


If no one is disputing it, why did you bring it up?

I didn't. You did.

The two are the same, are they not? I'm really not following you here at all. Sorry.

"Author" can mean creator or explainer in words. Moses was the author of Genesis, God was the author (by inspiration) of the words and the author of the heavens and earth. "Author of confusion" is about how things are supposed to be done in the church, and applies more to "creator" usage. If God wants people to do things in a slipshod way in the church, then He is an author of confusion. If He gives historical information that uses the same word in the same passage to apply to multiple and opposite concepts (remembering that the whole passage is about the creation of two things: heaven and earth, which He defines specifically in the passage), He is making it confusing to His readers. It's not a matter of simplicity and complexity, but a matter of what words mean and how He uses them.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Okay, the first two seem to be your attempt at explaining WHY it's confusing, and thank you for directing me to those. But the rest are you just saying "because it's confusing" and not explaining why.

Just an observation.



It's a matter of figurative language.

Using one literal thing as a metaphor for another.

That's not confusing. It's beautiful.

The first verse is indeed an introduction, but also telling us what God made on Day 1.

Days 2-3 are God making the crust of the earth, pounding it out flat in the midst of the waters, and then letting gravity form it into peaks and valleys to form Seas and dry land, which He named Earth.

The crust itself He called Heaven, because 1) it's where He would reside and 2) because it was to become a paradise.

Then the next day, He sets the stars in a metaphorical firmament, drawing attention to it with a clarifying phrase that calls back to what He called the literal firmament.

That's not confusing at all!

It's the most brilliant use of figurative language ever!



No, it's the crust of the earth.

PART of the crust becomes the dry land, which is named "Earth."



Indeed it is!



"The firmament called Heaven" is used figuratively to describe "the firmament of the heavens."

"The firmament of the heavens" is a metaphorical use of "the firmament" because the sky appears to be solid, and things in the sky appear to be immovable, despite not actually being so.



No, I don't think it's confusing at all. Because it isn't, once you look at it from the right viewpoint.

Viewed from the correct paradigm, the chapter becomes amazingly beautiful.

The other half of this, Derf, is that He uses the term for the loftiest of heights... for His new dwelling place on the planet He is in the midst of creating.

Not sure if you saw the above posts, Clete.

I just wanted to say here that I'm content with living with the uncertainty in the passages in question. The firmament that God called "Heaven" is clearly talking about that which we are looking at when we look up at the sky. What it means by the firmament dividing waters from waters is rather confusing but it just seems like we aren't given enough detail to make sense of it. It seems to me to be details that we do not need and so I'm okay with it. The bible isn't a geology book nor is it a book about cosmology. It's a book about the relationship between God and His creation and with mankind in particular. As such, it isn't surprising that there are details left out about how God pulled off creating the Earth and the rest of the universe.

Clete, if you have the time (and you'd probably need a lot of it, given how much has been said so far in this thread), I would love to have you share your thoughts and opinions specifically on the conversation between Derf and I on the topic of the Firmament of Genesis 2, to consider the arguments made by both of us. I wouldn't expect you to respond to every single post made, of course. That would be a waste of your time.

I'm mostly just curious to see if the arguments I made hold up against scrutiny.

In other words, if the lack of detail here affected some matter of doctrine then it would be a big deal but it really doesn't do that and so, I don't see the need to force it to make perfect sense.

I generally agree.

One of my favorite verses, though, is Proverbs 25:2, which reads:

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

Bible Gateway passage: Proverbs 25:2 - New King James Version

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

www.biblegateway.com

I think that searching out this matter could result in a stronger defence of Scripture, as we, as Scripture says, should be "ready to give a defence" for our faith.

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Peter 3:15 - New King James Version

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

www.biblegateway.com

And that's never a bad thing.

That is not to say that I fault anyone for discussing it and poking around with the issue, making some effort to make sense of it. Maybe such an effort will result in some important insight. If so, great! If not, then C'est la vie.

It's why I'm so passionate about this subject!

 

[Halster]

I just wanted to say here that I'm content with living with the uncertainty in the passages in question. The firmament that God called "Heaven" is clearly talking about that which we are looking at when we look up at the sky. What it means by the firmament dividing waters from waters is rather confusing but it just seems like we aren't given enough detail to make sense of it. It seems to me to be details that we do not need and so I'm okay with it. The bible isn't a geology book nor is it a book about cosmology. It's a book about the relationship between God and His creation and with mankind in particular. As such, it isn't surprising that there are details left out about how God pulled off creating the Earth and the rest of the universe.

In other words, if the lack of detail here affected some matter of doctrine then it would be a big deal but it really doesn't do that and so, I don't see the need to force it to make perfect sense.

That is not to say that I fault anyone for discussing it and poking around with the issue, making some effort to make sense of it. Maybe such an effort will result in some important insight. If so, great! If not, then C'est la vie.

I totally see where you’re coming from! It makes sense to embrace the uncertainty in those passages. I think the Bible's more about our relationship with God than laying out scientific details. But at the same time, exploring these topics can lead to some cool insights.

 

[Clete]

Not sure if you saw the above posts, Clete.



Clete, if you have the time (and you'd probably need a lot of it, given how much has been said so far in this thread), I would love to have you share your thoughts and opinions specifically on the conversation between Derf and I on the topic of the Firmament of Genesis 2, to consider the arguments made by both of us. I wouldn't expect you to respond to every single post made, of course. That would be a waste of your time.

I'm mostly just curious to see if the arguments I made hold up against scrutiny.



I generally agree.

One of my favorite verses, though, is Proverbs 25:2, which reads:

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

Bible Gateway passage: Proverbs 25:2 - New King James Version

It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.

www.biblegateway.com

I think that searching out this matter could result in a stronger defence of Scripture, as we, as Scripture says, should be "ready to give a defence" for our faith.

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Peter 3:15 - New King James Version

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;

www.biblegateway.com

And that's never a bad thing.



It's why I'm so passionate about this subject!

Well, I don't mind offering the feedback but there is a lot there to wade through. Could you maybe give me something of a summary of your argument or at least point me directly at a good post to start at so that I don't have to read the whole thread?

I can tell you that post 152 (one of the posts you linked to above) is unconvincing to me. I don't get why it would be figurative or how thinking that it is figurative solves anything or makes anything clearer or even has any meaning at all, for that matter.

 

[Derf]

I totally see where you’re coming from! It makes sense to embrace the uncertainty in those passages. I think the Bible's more about our relationship with God than laying out scientific details. But at the same time, exploring these topics can lead to some cool insights.

God may not be intending to lay out scientific details, but if He's laying something out for our understanding, which any passage on the generations of something (see Gen 2:4) would be expected to do, it will contain scientific details. And if He's laying out scientific details, one would either expect those details to be correct, or it would spread a cloud of uncertainty on any facts later laid out in scripture, like how to have a relationship with Him. Could those later details be trusted if the earlier details can't be?

 

[Clete]

God may not be intending to lay out scientific details, but if He's laying something out for our understanding, which any passage on the generations of something (see Gen 2:4) would be expected to do, it will contain scientific details. And if He's laying out scientific details, one would either expect those details to be correct, or it would spread a cloud of uncertainty on any facts later laid out in scripture, like how to have a relationship with Him. Could those later details be trusted if the earlier details can't be?

By "scientific details" do you mean "factual details"?

 

[Derf]

By "scientific details" do you mean "factual details"?

I equivocated a bit between the two uses, in an attempt to draw out @Halster's meaning, to show that it was fallacious. I agree with you that that God includes factual details, and I would equate that with scientific details. But I don't really know what Halster means by "scientific details." I don't think he does either.

 

[Halster]

God may not be intending to lay out scientific details, but if He's laying something out for our understanding, which any passage on the generations of something (see Gen 2:4) would be expected to do, it will contain scientific details. And if He's laying out scientific details, one would either expect those details to be correct, or it would spread a cloud of uncertainty on any facts later laid out in scripture, like how to have a relationship with Him. Could those later details be trusted if the earlier details can't be?

And if God’s sharing something for our understanding, we’d hope it would stand up to scrutiny. So maybe it would break down to how we listen to 'scientific details' as opposed to locating the theological or relational messages in scripture. Perhaps some of those early and even those more recent passages were intended to say much larger truths about creation, about God’s nature, about our relationship to God, not as particulars by our modern scientific standards. However, it is a struggle to reconcile faith with wanting scripture to be consistent throughout as one would wish factual consistency to be.

 

[Derf]

And if God’s sharing something for our understanding, we’d hope it would stand up to scrutiny. So maybe it would break down to how we listen to 'scientific details' as opposed to locating the theological or relational messages in scripture. Perhaps some of those early and even those more recent passages were intended to say much larger truths about creation, about God’s nature, about our relationship to God, not as particulars by our modern scientific standards.

Do you think "larger truths" would mean the words would be confusing people into believing a different thing happened than actually happened?

However, it is a struggle to reconcile faith with wanting scripture to be consistent throughout as one would wish factual consistency to be.

I don't see a struggle there at all. Unless you're assuming infallibility in both sides (science and the bible). Seems that only one side deserves that assumption.

 

[Avajs]

Do you think "larger truths" would mean the words would be confusing people into believing a different thing happened than actually happened?

I don't see a struggle there at all. Unless you're assuming infallibility in both sides (science and the bible). Seems that only one side deserves that assumption.

i don’t think science claims to be infallible.
but why does the bible “deserve that assumption “?

 

[Right Divider]

i don’t think science claims to be infallible.

"Science" doesn't claim anything. Science is not a person.
Many people talk about "science" as though it's infallible. Like those crazy evolutionists that make the claim "Evolution is not just a theory, it's also a fact". Pretty hilarious.

but why does the bible “deserve that assumption “?

It's not an assumptions, but a conclusion.

 

[Derf]

i don’t think science claims to be infallible.
but why does the bible “deserve that assumption “?

For one, it asserts it. like here:
Psalm 119:160 KJV — Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

If it asserts that it is true, and it is false on any point, then the whole thing is worthless. You can't cherry-pick the passages you'd like to be true and discard the one you don't, that's merely asserting your own view. Scientists, the honest ones, will recognize the fallibility of science as a truth source, and thus be wary of ANY truth claims based on "science", which almost always includes man's interpretations/understanding of observations. Christians (hopefully they are honest) will recognize both the truth value of the scriptures and the fallibility of man's interpretations/understanding of it. But that still means that science is fallible and the word of God is infallible.

 

[Avajs]

For one, it asserts it. like here:
Psalm 119:160 KJV — Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

If it asserts that it is true, and it is false on any point, then the whole thing is worthless. You can't cherry-pick the passages you'd like to be true and discard the one you don't, that's merely asserting your own view. Scientists, the honest ones, will recognize the fallibility of science as a truth source, and thus be wary of ANY truth claims based on "science", which almost always includes man's interpretations/understanding of observations. Christians (hopefully they are honest) will recognize both the truth value of the scriptures and the fallibility of man's interpretations/understanding of it. But that still means that science is fallible and the word of God is infallible.

Isnt using a claim in the book that it is infallible to "prove" it is infallible a bit of circular reasoning?

 

[Avajs]

"Science" doesn't claim anything. Science is not a person.
Many people talk about "science" as though it's infallible. Like those crazy evolutionists that make the claim "Evolution is not just a theory, it's also a fact". Pretty hilarious.

It's not an assumptions, but a conclusion.

Well, I'm glad we agree that science is not infallible.
On what basis do you conclude the bible is infallible?

 

[SwordOfTruth]

Isnt using a claim in the book that it is infallible to "prove" it is infallible a bit of circular reasoning?

It's insane and above all utterly cowardly. Onc eyou take that brainwashed stance you're forced to make-up any and all excuses for any actual errors and inconsistencies. Unfortunately entire religions have been founded upon such nonsense.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, I'm glad we agree that science is not infallible.

On what basis do you conclude the bible is infallible?

On the basis of its veracity.

 

[Derf]

Isnt using a claim in the book that it is infallible to "prove" it is infallible a bit of circular reasoning?

I didn't say it proved it. I said it is worthy of the assumption, remember? You jumped in on a conversation where it wasn't necessary to prove infallibility. We can talk about that aspect now, if you like. But first, let's establish together that we both agree that "science" is fallible. I'll go one step further and say that both the techniques and the conclusions of science are fallible. Do you agree?

And, since this us a Christian forum, we get to assume the tenets of Christianity (house rules). Therefore the assumption of infallibility of scripture is established by our starting propositions.

Now, since we've established that science is fallible and the Bible is infallible, what is your complaint?

 

[Nick M]

On what basis do you conclude the bible is infallible?

This concludes you see errors. Can you share them?

 

[Avajs]

I didn't say it proved it. I said it is worthy of the assumption, remember? You jumped in on a conversation where it wasn't necessary to prove infallibility. We can talk about that aspect now, if you like. But first, let's establish together that we both agree that "science" is fallible. I'll go one step further and say that both the techniques and the conclusions of science are fallible. Do you agree?

And, since this us a Christian forum, we get to assume the tenets of Christianity (house rules). Therefore the assumption of infallibility of scripture is established by our starting propositions.

Now, since we've established that science is fallible and the Bible is infallible, what is your complaint?

Yes, science is fallible. Not all Christians believe every word of the Bible is infallible; that may be the house rule here but it need not apply to all Christians.