Please Explain This

[sandy whitelinger]

[/i]Deuteronomy 14:11-18


[/i]Genesis 1:20


[/i]Genesis 30:35-40

[/i]
Leviticus 11:23

This is an explanation?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Gen. 1:6ff: "...Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters...God called the dome Sky." The Hebrew word is raqia, I believe -- a hard bowl.

In the usage of that particular passage it means expanse.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Now see in my Christian days, being a liberal Christian, I would have said these parts aren't literal, and not literal doesn't mean not true

 

[sandy whitelinger]

It sounds like an attempt to ask if you believe literally things seemingly non-literal.

It sounds more like mistranslation and not understanding idioms.

 

[Autodidact]

The full context. The thread from which this is taken was discussing evolution, science, and abiogenesis. Danmac maintained that his religion required him to reject modern science, because he interprets it literally.:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danmac
The Bible is the foundation of my beliefs. I have adopted the bible as truth. The Bible is absolute truth. I am a man and subject to error. All knowlege is always borrowed from another source. I prefer to go to the source.

So do you believe that bats are birds? That there is a solid arch above the sky, with windows in it through which the waters above it sometimes falls? That showing sheep speckled sticks will cause them to bear speckled lambs? That there is a winged creature with 4 legs? I hope not, since these are all false. If you build your faith on believing false things, you are building on a foundation of sand. Would it not be better to take the Bible as a book about God, rather than science?

I was trying to persuade him that it's not necessary to take every line of the Bible literally, and that he himself does not do so, as who could? I'm trying to encourage him to a Christianity that accepts modern science, including evolutionary theory.

However, he has not been seen lately.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Now see in my Christian days, being a liberal Christian, I would have said these parts aren't literal, and not literal doesn't mean not true

Part of it seems to be some strange translation. For example bird could be better translated as a flying animal. Perhaps a better question would be why, God, through Moses did not use the Linnean taxonomic system.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The full context. The thread from which this is taken was discussing evolution, science, and abiogenesis. Danmac maintained that his religion required him to reject modern science, because he interprets it literally.:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danmac
The Bible is the foundation of my beliefs. I have adopted the bible as truth. The Bible is absolute truth. I am a man and subject to error. All knowlege is always borrowed from another source. I prefer to go to the source.


I was trying to persuade him that it's not necessary to take every line of the Bible literally, and that he himself does not do so, as who could? I'm trying to encourage him to a Christianity that accepts modern science, including evolutionary theory.

However, he has not been seen lately.

Ah, finally, an explanation. I understand now. Thank you for responding.

 

[Autodidact]

This passage says nothing about bats being birds. It only mentions that they shouldn't be eaten.

11 You may eat any clean bird. 12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, 13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon, 14 any kind of raven, 15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl, 17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant, 18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.

I think it says, "Eat any bird except...and bats." That is, bats are one of the birds you should not eat.

Sounds like selective breeding to me. No harm in that.

35 That same day he removed all the male goats that were streaked or spotted, and all the speckled or spotted female goats (all that had white on them) and all the dark-colored lambs, and he placed them in the care of his sons. 36 Then he put a three-day journey between himself and Jacob, while Jacob continued to tend the rest of Laban's flocks.
37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban's animals.

No, it's saying that he had the goats face the speckled sticks, which caused them to have speckled babies. Doesn't work that way.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I think it says, "Eat any bird except...and bats." That is, bats are one of the birds you should not eat. No, it's saying that he had the goats face the speckled sticks, which caused them to have speckled babies. Doesn't work that way.

If I may, birds could be better translated as a flying animal. The reference to the breeding passage is explained in the next chapter where the increase in Jacobs flock was attributed to God. "Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me." Genesis 31:9

 

[Autodidact]

If I may, birds could be better translated as a flying animal. The reference to the breeding passage is explained in the next chapter where the increase in Jacobs flock was attributed to God. "Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me." Genesis 31:9

I have no expertise in the subject, but I note that the scholars that do translate as follows:

You may eat any clean bird.(NIV)
You may eat any clean bird. (NASB)
You may eat any bird that is ceremonially clean. (NLT)
You may eat all clean birds. (ESV)
Of all clean birds ye may eat. (ASV)
Any clean bird ye do eat; (YLT)
All clean birds shall ye eat. (Darby)

I'm assuming the consensus of these people know what they're talking about.

Isn't everything attributed to God? Including animal husbandry?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Part of it seems to be some strange translation. For example bird could be better translated as a flying animal. Perhaps a better question would be why, God, through Moses did not use the Linnean taxonomic system.

Well I don't assume God did anything through Moses necessarily. You'd have to ask God that

 

[dogsgod]

Well I don't assume God did anything through Moses necessarily. You'd have to ask God that

I'll ask God next time I run into Him.

 

[Willamena]

I'll ask God next time I run into Him.

If you have to wait, then you're going to wait a long time.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That there is a winged creature with 4 legs? I hope not, since these are all false.

Moses at Lev 11vs20-23 is describing the movement; 'going upon all fours' is describing the mode of transportation for the flying 'creeping' things which have 'legs'/ 'feet'.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That showing sheep speckled sticks will cause them to bear speckled lambs?

Genesis 30vs37 to Gen. 31v12

Since Jacob got the desired results Jacob thought his strategy worked.
By Genesis chapter 31 Jacob's wrong idea is corrected by God.
God uses a dream showing him otherwise.-vs 10-12.

Rods or sticks were Not responsible for his success as Jacob mistakenly thought. It was the crossbreeding of the flocks that produced the desired genetic effect. Heredity factors, hybrids, not the rods.

Scripture does not hide or gloss over what Jacob, not God, did wrong.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I have no expertise in the subject, but I note that the scholars that do translate as follows:

You may eat any clean bird.(NIV)
You may eat any clean bird. (NASB)
You may eat any bird that is ceremonially clean. (NLT)
You may eat all clean birds. (ESV)
Of all clean birds ye may eat. (ASV)
Any clean bird ye do eat; (YLT)
All clean birds shall ye eat. (Darby)

I'm assuming the consensus of these people know what they're talking about.

Then they must all agree that bats are birds?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Well I don't assume God did anything through Moses necessarily. You'd have to ask God that

There is no assumption required. All scripture is give n by the inspiration of God and God directed Moses in the writing of the law.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Moses at Lev 11vs20-23 is describing the movement; 'going upon all fours' is describing the mode of transportation for the flying 'creeping' things which have 'legs'/ 'feet'.

The general explaination for that seems to be that they "go (ie. walk) on four feet and jump on the other two. It is also reconginzed as being an idiom.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Genesis 30vs37 to Gen. 31v12

Since Jacob got the desired results Jacob thought his strategy worked.
By Genesis chapter 31 Jacob's wrong idea is corrected by God.
God uses a dream showing him otherwise.-vs 10-12.

Rods or sticks were Not responsible for his success as Jacob mistakenly thought. It was the crossbreeding of the flocks that produced the desired genetic effect. Heredity factors, hybrids, not the rods.

Scripture does not hide or gloss over what Jacob, not God, did wrong.

Actually, the next chapter shows that Jacob understood that God was involved in this: "Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me." Genesis 31:9 KJV.

 

[Autodidact]

Then they must all agree that bats are birds?

No, they seem to agree that the Bible classifies them that way.