The authors of Genesis wouldn’t have known what we know now about the dating of the dinosaurs. Why is it relevant to figuring out what meaning they intended?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A "Deep" Question
- Thread starter sandy whitelinger
- Start date
74x12
Well-Known Member
The word earth is simply land. The bible actually doesn't say when the planet was made or the water that was apparently already on the planet. The first sentence is explained further in the account of creation. Meaning it shows you how God made the earth by letting the dry land appear and how God made the heaven by separating the waters to create an expense called heaven or the sky.
Apparently. Their creation isn’t addressed in the story.
The story doesn’t say. My inference that it was the raw material that God started with.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I'm intrigued.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
The heaven and the sky are two different things.
Even though many Christians believe that their god created the universe from nothing, the Bible suggests that he actually formed it from "formless" material. Where this formless stuff came from the story doesn't say.
Right: in Genesis, the sky is the solid dome of "the firmament" and Heaven is the area on the other side of the dome.
74x12
Well-Known Member
I understand what you're saying from a modern understanding, but this is an ancient text. The meaning should be considered identical. I'm not saying there is no heaven as you understand it. I'm only saying the Genesis creation account isn't necessarily differentiating between which heaven is being referred to. Apparently we may assume they're made at the same time. In fact the heaven in Genesis 1:1 is literally plural. Meaning heavens were made. Not just one heaven.
Tumah
Veteran Member
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Why does that sound stupid? Now the birds are supposed to fly in that solid dome.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I'm not accepting that. It shuts too many doors to more profound meanings.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Notes on "deep."
Genesis 1:2 (KJV)
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1. If he earth was without form naturally it couldn't have existed.
2. Because it was void suggests it was also empty, which is pretty much a redundancy of "without form."
(Amateur writers. 
)
3. So, there is no earth.
4. "Darkness" implies there was no Sun or other stars around. However . . . . .
5. "Deep" strongly demands some kind of measurable physical condition, as does "upon," but of what? According to Strong's Concordance it's most likely water. And for water to exist it must either have been a huge "blob" floating in space by itself OR attached to a solid, such as a planet.
6. Soooo, if it's on a planet, and that planet is Earth, then it couldn't be co-incidental with the time when the earth was without forum, but after it had taken shape. Therefore, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." does not indicate simultaneous conditions.
7. First the earth was without form, then it took on a form and contained water.
8. Now, what a spirit moving upon the face of the waters is, and why it's important is anybody's guess.
.
,
Genesis 1:2 (KJV)
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
2. Because it was void suggests it was also empty, which is pretty much a redundancy of "without form."
(Amateur writers. )3. So, there is no earth.
4. "Darkness" implies there was no Sun or other stars around. However . . . . .
5. "Deep" strongly demands some kind of measurable physical condition, as does "upon," but of what? According to Strong's Concordance it's most likely water. And for water to exist it must either have been a huge "blob" floating in space by itself OR attached to a solid, such as a planet.
6. Soooo, if it's on a planet, and that planet is Earth, then it couldn't be co-incidental with the time when the earth was without forum, but after it had taken shape. Therefore, "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." does not indicate simultaneous conditions.
7. First the earth was without form, then it took on a form and contained water.
8. Now, what a spirit moving upon the face of the waters is, and why it's important is anybody's guess.
.
,
Last edited:
It seems to me that the problem with the OP and the thread is that you are asking for a modern, scientifically literate, interpretation of the stories told by primitive, scientifically illiterate, people. And one told to you in a modern language, extremely different from the one it was told in thousands of years ago. Without knowing a lot about the cultural context in which it was told.
There simply aren't answers to the questions you are asking that can be contained in a university level class, much less an internet post on RF.
Tom
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I understand the cultural context. I find it irrelevant. I follow the text.
Skwim
Veteran Member
But in light of the contention that what the Bible says, no matter what the time or language it's words and passages convey the meaning as god intends, your objection here is meaningless. Of course if god never intended his "word" to be taken literally then that's a whole other kettle of fish. That Jesus was born of a virgin could be absolutely wrong, as could the "miracles" he is said to have preformed, and story of him rising from the dead. Jesus may well not have been born of a virgin, and may never have preformed any miracles or risen from the dead.
As I see putting one's faith in the Bible, it comes down to two options: Believe everything literally, which comes with a whole host of difficulties, or cherry-pick it to death so it coincides with one's theology.
.
74x12
Well-Known Member
I love more profound meanings. I believe in layers of meaning to start with. Genesis is one of the most spiritual books in the scriptures.
The birds would be flying below the sky in the air above us, I assume.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Yet the Bible doesn't call it a dome and it says the birds fly in it.
Your assumpton also presumes that the atmosphere is not the sky.
You’re right: I was talking specifically about the firmament. I suppose the firmament is just one part of the sky.
And I was reading into things when I assumed that the firmament was a dome; AFAIK, the Bible doesn’t describe its specific shape, only that it’s between Heaven and Earth and holds back “the waters above.”