Genesis Account of Creation: Firmament

[dad]

Abraham and Moses are fictional characters.

Proof?

The Bible stories are morality tales .. not history.

False.

 

[sooda]

Proof?
False.

There was no Exodus.

Genesis was cobbled together from differing accounts in Israel and Judea under king Omri.

 

[dad]

There was no Exodus.

Genesis was cobbled together from differing accounts in Israel and Judea under king Omri.

So you believe. God disagrees. Jesus verified Scripture was true.
Of course it would be useless to ask you to prove your claim, as it is screaming foolishness.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

No, that is one of my pet peeves. When a post is broken up excessively it is rude. It is a almost always a form of lying.

Don't forget that you are the one who keeps responding to my comments. I don't think I have ever first responded to something you have said.

I'm going to throw some simple logic your way - if you don't like how I respond to your comments to me - STOP REPLYING TO MY POSTS!

What is or is not a pet peeve of yours is worthless to me. If you don't like how I respond to posts - you can eat crow.

I don't believe how I respond to posts is rude. I have yet to see anyone else complain about it and I have seen many other people respond the same way I do.

I have asked you in the past to explain how my method of breaking up posts is a "form of lying", but you never took the effort.

So, no, I am not going to change how I respond to posts. I don't think I am doing anything wrong. I am not breaking any forum rules. Your pet peeves don't matter to me.

If you don't like that - then leave me alone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don't forget that you are the one who keeps responding to my comments. I don't think I have ever first responded to something you have said.

I'm going tot how some simple logic your way - if you don't like how I respond to your comments to me - STOP REPLYING TO MY POSTS!

What is or is not a pet peeve of yours is worthless to me. If you don't like how I respond to posts - you can eat crow.

I don't believe how I respond to posts is rude. I have yet to see anyone else complain about it and I have seen many other people respond the same way I do.

I have asked you in the past to explain how my method of breaking up posts is a "form of lying", but you never took the effort.

So, no, I am not going to change how I respond to posts. I don't think I am doing anything wrong. I am not breaking any forum rules. Your pet peeves don't matter to me.

If you don't like that - then leave me alone.

That is because I am not the one in constant need of correction. And it is not that I do not like how you post. I am merely correcting errors. Why take offense?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Many Christians make the error of interpreting Genesis literally. You appeared to be one that made that sort of error. Look at the posts of dad for example.

EDIT: And look who needs to "grow up". You questioned when the Bible was obviously wrong and I mentioned the Flood. And then you posted this:

"Why do you assume that the waters described as "above the firmament" remained there until the time of the Flood?

Bolding mine. Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot.

I cannot believe you are being this dense.

It was gnostic, in Post # 226, who made the claim that the "waters above the firmament" mentioned in the Creation account were the same waters that caused the Flood.

Our discussing what is written in the Genesis account and it's recorded sequence of events is not a claim to any historical validity.

As I have told you before, I have not cemented my own beliefs about the Flood event, so I don't have any strong beliefs about it one way or the other.

This is the second time I have had to clear this up and if I have to point this out to you a third time I will report you for harassment.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

That is because I am not the one in constant need of correction. And it is not that I do not like how you post. I am merely correcting errors. Why take offense?

You have yet to prove that I have made any errors whatsoever.

Every time I ask you to explain my supposed errors or to provide the evidence to back up your claims about my arguments - you clam up and make lame excuses.

Let's see...you have used the "Your response was too long" lame excuse to get out of explaining yourself or defending your argument.

You've also used the, "You need to beg me for my help before I can share these things" lame excuse.

And now your "go to" one seems to be "I don't like how you respond" lame excuse.

I'm not so much offended as I am irritated with the obnoxious behavior of an elderly man-child.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I cannot believe you are being this dense.

It was gnostic, in Post # 226, who made the claim that the "waters above the firmament" mentioned in the Creation account were the same waters that caused the Flood.

Our discussing what is written in the Genesis account and it's recorded sequence of events is not a claim to any historical validity.

As I have told you before, I have not cemented my own beliefs about the Flood event, so I don't have any strong beliefs about it one way or the other.

This is the second time I have had to clear this up and if I have to point this out to you a third time I will report you for harassment.

Let's not break the rules here. You should not threaten people with reporting when you are breaking the rules so clearly yourself. Gnostic was pointing out an error in Genesis. You appeared to be defending it. The problem with the Flood story is that it has been known to be a myth for over 200 years. The "waters above the firmament" is a line that implies that the writers of the Bible thought that the firmament was a solid object that kept water out. They did not understand where rain came from. The many errors in Genesis were due to the quite reasonable fact that people at that time knew very little about our world. It shows that Genesis is a work of man and not a work of God.

You may have a different interpretation of the firmament. But if that is the case it is not the same as the writers of the Bible. By the way, do you believe the flood myth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have yet to prove that I have made any errors whatsoever.

Every time I ask you to explain my supposed errors or to provide the evidence to back up your claims about my arguments - you clam up and make lame excuses.

Let's see...you have used the "Your response was too long" lame excuse to get out of explaining yourself or defending your argument.

You've also used the, "You need to beg me for my help before I can share these things" lame excuse.

And now your "go to" one seems to be "I don't like how you respond" lame excuse.

I'm not so much offended as I am irritated with the obnoxious behavior of an elderly man-child.

Yes, I have, but you will not discuss those errors rationally. You tend to get angry. And you were only so rude once that I had to correct you for that.

Here is a possible clear error of yours, if you believe that there was a flood of Noah that was an error. The story works as a morality tale, but it fails as history since it never happened.

 

[sooda]

So you believe. God disagrees. Jesus verified Scripture was true.
Of course it would be useless to ask you to prove your claim, as it is screaming foolishness.

For starters at the time of Exodus Egypt controlled Sina and Caanan.

You might also notice that Moses was raised in Pharaoh's household, but he didn't know Pharaoh's name.

 

[gnostic]

It was gnostic, in Post # 226, who made the claim that the "waters above the firmament" mentioned in the Creation account were the same waters that caused the Flood.

That’s not my belief, but some of creationists’ beliefs and interpretations regarding to the Flood and the waters above the firmament.

I have been around a long time, I read lots of weird claims from a number of different creationists.

Me, I don’t think the Flood ever happened the way Genesis described, and the numbers of ways creationists interpret this myth.

 

[dad]

For starters at the time of Exodus Egypt controlled Sina and Caanan.

For starters show us exactly how and why you claim the time!!!

You might also notice that Moses was raised in Pharaoh's household, but he didn't know Pharaoh's name.

You do?

 

[gnostic]

So you believe. God disagrees. Jesus verified Scripture was true.
Of course it would be useless to ask you to prove your claim, as it is screaming foolishness.

Jesus didn’t verify anything. And he certainly didn’t write any gospel or letter for the NT.

Anyone living in the 1st century CE, would have been aware of the biblical story, so you couldn’t say Jesus verify anything.

 

[ecco]

Belief based claims that form a set of ideas could be called religious. Science fits the bill.

Denial...ZZzzz
Bingo, so origin sciences are religion by your standards also!

No. People can have faith in many things, a flood is not required for faith.
Apparently there is no use repeating that I never evened mentioned time changing on earth. You might be thinking about the laws of nature...but you will have to will have to articulate your own case.

The bottom line is that your deep childhood religious indoctrination cannot be overcome by any rational arguments. All you do is deny, deny, deny and make up nonsensical stories to try to justify your beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's why cops wear body cam now, and equip their cruisers with one. The cop may give one story, but the camera gives another.

Maybe you should think about that next time you read your bible, which is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a translation of a copy of a translation of a copy of a copy.... which was originally written down after many centuries of oral tradition.

So, again, you cannot use assumptions to refute the Biblical accounts.

Your biblical account is not the equivalent of the camera. It is the equivalent of the cop giving his "testimony".

Scientific evidence, IS the equivalent of the camera.
The "scientific" part of science is the effort to remove human bias.

 

[dad]

The bottom line is that your deep childhood religious indoctrination cannot be overcome by any rational arguments. All you do is deny, deny, deny and make up nonsensical stories to try to justify your beliefs.

Stop the insane denial that you have nothing to support your religion.

 

[joelr]

Whether you believe cripture or not no one can say I made it up, if they are sound of mind.

No one is saying you made up scripture.

I know how they make theories.

Then why do you say science hates and denigrates religion?

Old wives tale.
The bible says nothing of the sort.

The firmament:

The "firmament" is claimed to be a solid "roof" over the world.[16][17] It is described in Genesis 1:6-8 (KJV). This is obviously untrue, unless all those satellites in orbit are a hoax.

Many Christians believe that this Firmament is what fell from the sky and caused the entire earth to flood, with only Noah and his family surviving. Genesis 7:11 "... and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."

In regards to the Earth as the center of the universe:

In the book of Joshua (10:12-13), for example, we read that Joshua spoke to God about prolonging the day so he could kill more of Israel’s enemies. The result was that “The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.” This geocentric miracle is again mentioned in the book of Habakkuk (3:11) where we read that “The sun and moon stood still in their habitation…” Note that the passages do not say the sun “appeared” to stand still.

In Psalms 19:4-6, we read that God has “set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.” In Ecclesiastes 1:5 we read “The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.”

In addition to claiming that the sun moves, the Bible is clear that the earth does not. In 1 Chronicles 16:30 we read: “the world stands firm, never to be moved.” Psalms 93:1—a passage used to challenge Galileo—states “Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved,” a claim repeated verbatim in Psalms 96:10.

The Bible also contains multiple references to “the foundations of the world,” with the clear implication that the earth rests securely and immobile upon a secure foundation.

No, the opposite actually, because it bases it on religion! They have beliefs that they base models of the past on that are not known, not observed not tested etc etc. Just belief.

Science doesn't do that? What theory are you talking about?

If you join a conversation try to get some inkling of what is actually being said. I want science to stop basing things on belief only! As for medical tech and such, that has zero to do with creation, or space/firmament etc.
Newsflash: real knowledge and sciencehas nothing to do with origin sciences and claims. Zero.

Science operates the same all across the board. Medical science and creation science. It looks at available evidence then makes theories. It's never based on belief?

Claims about where life came from or the universe are not discoveries, they are belief based models. Focus.
Stop trying to associate origin so called science with actual science.
There are no experiments that affect my beliefs. Get a grip man.

Origin science is based on available evidence not beliefs.

Hating is OK?

Didn't say it's "ok", I said I don't care. Forum members attitudes are not in question in this discussion, it's about science "hating" on religion.

Phony so called science puts out fables about origins that oppose Scripture.

Then the evidence from the real world doesn't support mythological stories about creation.

Easy to do. They believe in dates derived by faith alone (that nature was the same always on earth) They believe that only the nature we see was responsible for life on earth through the process of evolving. They believe that there was no creation, so explain all things ignoring it.



The opening sentence in your link is an example.

"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction."

This assumes that just because evolution involves reproduction today in this present nature, that it always did!

If you have a theory that reproduction was not involved at some point show evidence.
Reproduction goes back to single celled organisms who would each carry one part of the offspring. This happened after cells dividing was not as efficient in creating different characteristics in offspring which is critical to a species surviving. So that's evidence.

Then, later in your link we see this..

"Thus, in successive generations members of a population are more likely to be replaced by the progenies of parents with favourable characteristics that have enabled them to survive and reproduce in their respective environments."

When talking about early life on earth, they envision creatures that resulted from evolving continuing to evolve only. No created kinds there. No possibility is allowed that evolution came after the fact and after life was already here! In all ways evolution as far as the far past and origins go is just a belief. Nothing more.

It isn't just a belief because we have fossil records of life at different stages. These reproduced by splitting and eventully we see 2 organisms needed for reproduction.
It's just where the evidence is pointing. For you to say it's "just beliefs" is plain wrong.

Earliest known life forms - Wikipedia
The earliest known life forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms found in hydrothermal vent precipitates.[1] The earliest time that life forms first appeared on Earth is at least 3.77 billion years ago, possibly as early as 4.28 billion years,[1] or even 4.5 billion years;[3][4] not long after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[1][2][5][6] The earliest direct evidence of life on Earth are microfossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old Australian Apex chert rocks

 

[joelr]

Not true at all. The written copy may be older than copies of Scripture but that doesn't matter.

Wait...."may be" so you have no evidence just belief HA HA HA HA.



[/QUOTE]Support the dates! I wait.

Sumer was post flood.[/QUOTE]
You are not waiting, whatever sources by experts I give you will just ignore and keep your head in the sand.



Source "1" is Thorkild Jacobsen, his work has been peer-reviewed by other scholars in his field for decades and all scholars agree with these Sumerian dates.
We also have radiocarbon dating:
"Some modern scholars believe the Sumerian deluge story corresponds to localized river flooding at Shuruppak (modern Tell Fara, Iraq) and various other cities as far north as Kish, as revealed by a layer of riverine sediments, radiocarbon dated to c. 2900 BCE,"

This article is just a brief overview there are many many more lines of evidence and how scholars determine them.

Sumerian creation myth,
It is written in the Sumerian language and dated to around 1600 BCE.[1] Other Sumerian creation myths from around this date are called the Barton Cylinder, the Debate between sheep and grain and the Debate between Winter and Summer, also found at Nippur.[2]

Thorkild Jacobsen (1994). Hess, Richard S.; Tsumuro, David Toshio (eds.). [URL='https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=g5MGVP6gAPkC&pg=PA129&dq=Eridu+Genesis.+Nippur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAGoVChMI4ImL2PiCxwIVhNWACh01nwD6#v=onepage&q=Eridu%20Genesis.%20Nippur&f=false']I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern Literary and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis[/URL]
[URL='https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=g5MGVP6gAPkC&pg=PA129&dq=Eridu+Genesis.+Nippur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAGoVChMI4ImL2PiCxwIVhNWACh01nwD6#v=onepage&q=Eridu%20Genesis.%20Nippur&f=false'][/URL]
[URL='https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=g5MGVP6gAPkC&pg=PA129&dq=Eridu+Genesis.+Nippur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAGoVChMI4ImL2PiCxwIVhNWACh01nwD6#v=onepage&q=Eridu%20Genesis.%20Nippur&f=false']Thorkild Peter Rudolph Jacobsen (Danish: [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Danish'][tˢoɐ̯kil ˈjækɒpsn̩]; 7 June 1904 – 2 May 1993) was a renowned historian specializing in Assyriology and Sumerian literature. He was one of the foremost scholars on the ancient Near East.[/URL][/URL]
[URL='https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=g5MGVP6gAPkC&pg=PA129&dq=Eridu+Genesis.+Nippur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAGoVChMI4ImL2PiCxwIVhNWACh01nwD6#v=onepage&q=Eridu%20Genesis.%20Nippur&f=false'][/URL]
[URL='https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=g5MGVP6gAPkC&pg=PA129&dq=Eridu+Genesis.+Nippur&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAGoVChMI4ImL2PiCxwIVhNWACh01nwD6#v=onepage&q=Eridu%20Genesis.%20Nippur&f=false']Thorkild Peter Rudolph Jacobsen received, in 1927, an M.A. from the [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Copenhagen']University of Copenhagen and then came to the United States to study at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, where, in 1929, he received his Ph.D.

He was a field Assyriologist for the Iraq Expedition of the Oriental Institute from 1929 to 1937) and in 1946 became director of the Oriental Institute. He served as Dean of the Humanities Division from 1948 to 1951, as an editor of the Assyrian Dictionary from 1955 to 1959, and as Professor of Social Institutions from 1946-1962.

In 1962, Jacobsen became a professor of Assyriology at Harvard University, where he remained until his retirement in 1974. Beyond being an expert translator, he was a brilliant interpreter whose insights led to a deeper understanding and appreciation of the institutions and normative references of Sumerian and Akkadian culture.[1]


You think an entire field of PhD scholars over the entire world, who dedicate their lives to learning the languages to read source material and make their lives work about these topics are just "wrong" because one amateur apologetics writer wrote some crank history?
There are endless amounts of facts and discoveries you can investigate in the field. Knowledge is there but one has to be willing to learn. [/URL][/URL]

 

[joelr]

Try dealing with what is said rather than pontificating about foolish so called higher education, that is truly clueless on the past.
If you think you are so smart then try dealing with the claims rather than insulting people who disagree with your mistaken ideas!

We already have a field of PhD who have given their lives to the pursuit of correct history? But first - I did deal with Larry Pierce, his footnotes .....HIS SOURCES.....were crank, ancient and in one case he had to assume the flood was real to even make a point??
It's absolute crank history. So he has nothing. It's an article for fundamentalists to feel better. Track him down, ask him if he has submitted his work for peer review. After all it would be an important paper if it could back it up. He hasn't. It's not for that purpose.
It isn't something you can use as a source to back up an argument.

When you need surgery are you going to buy a book and do it yourself? No. So why would you disregard scholarship and their quest for correct history? It takes massive effort to get dates and historical facts considered historical in the field.
If Larry Pierce can be taken seriously then so can Joseph Atwell and his book Ceasars Messiah about how Rome created Jesus in 3AD to control the public. He has "sources" and makes his case and tries to be serious. If Larry Pierce is right then so is Joseph Atwell and all the other crank histories like Jesus being married to Mary Magdeline and so on.

 

[dad]

No one is saying you made up scripture.



Then why do you say science hates and denigrates religion?

Are you suggesting magic gases from space to make oceans, the universe sailing out of a hot little soup, and an elusive first life form from which all plants and animals originated agree with and compliment what God said??

The firmament:

The "firmament" is claimed to be a solid "roof" over the world.[16][17] It is described in Genesis 1:6-8 (KJV). This is obviously untrue, unless all those satellites in orbit are a hoax.

Many Christians believe that this Firmament is what fell from the sky and caused the entire earth to flood, with only Noah and his family surviving. Genesis 7:11 "... and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."

In regards to the Earth as the center of the universe:

Hard to comment on something that lame. So if stars are inside the firmament and it fell to earth...I mean really??

In the book of Joshua (10:12-13), for example, we read that Joshua spoke to God about prolonging the day so he could kill more of Israel’s enemies. The result was that “The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.” This geocentric miracle is again mentioned in the book of Habakkuk (3:11) where we read that “The sun and moon stood still in their habitation…” Note that the passages do not say the sun “appeared” to stand still.

Correct, now try to bring it all home with some point!

In Psalms 19:4-6, we read that God has “set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.” In Ecclesiastes 1:5 we read “The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.

”
And, so..?

In addition to claiming that the sun moves, the Bible is clear that the earth does not. In 1 Chronicles 16:30 we read: “the world stands firm, never to be moved.” Psalms 93:1—a passage used to challenge Galileo—states “Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved,” a claim repeated verbatim in Psalms 96:10.

In that case to be moved is not talking about motion. Seriously?

The Bible also contains multiple references to “the foundations of the world,” with the clear implication that the earth rests securely and immobile upon a secure foundation.

Nope. You just have a shallow comprehension.

Science doesn't do that? What theory are you talking about?

I am talking about what they base models of the past on...the same state past belief used in all origin sciences.

Science operates the same all across the board. Medical science and creation science. It looks at available evidence then makes theories. It's never based on belief?

Hey, you could say a Buzz Lightyear toy operates the same across the room when a boy is making it fly..whether to the moon, or infinity and beyond. The thing is is actually goes almost nowhere. You could say some things happen in this nature, there they also must have happened in the former nature..but you never leave the room of this nature!

Origin science is based on available evidence not beliefs.

Prove there was a same state past then?

Then the evidence from the real world doesn't support mythological stories about creation.

Does to, you just can't read it right.

If you have a theory that reproduction was not involved at some point show evidence.

Not a theory. I ask the question if we know it was in the far past. No. we do not know. So, what fits with the records of history and scripture the best?

Reproduction goes back to single celled organisms who would each carry one part of the offspring.

In your dreams.

This happened after cells dividing was not as efficient in creating different characteristics in offspring which is critical to a species surviving. So that's evidence.

Baloney! How would you know what little cells were doing in Adam's day?

It isn't just a belief because we have fossil records of life at different stages. These reproduced by splitting and eventully we see 2 organisms needed for reproduction.

Source? What evidence from what when? Ha.

Earliest known life forms - Wikipedia
The earliest known life forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms found in hydrothermal vent precipitates.[1] The earliest time that life forms first appeared on Earth is at least 3.77 billion years ago, possibly as early as 4.28 billion years,[1] or even 4.5 billion years;[3][4] not long after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.[1][2][5][6] The earliest direct evidence of life on Earth are microfossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old Australian Apex chert rocks

[/QUOTE] Some of the things that died and could leave fossil remains in Adam's day were tiny microorganisms. Whooopeee doo!