Please Explain This

[URAVIP2ME]

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.

That is why after Genesis 31v9 comes verses 10-12 about the correction in the dream.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sounds to me like an argument against fundamentalist biblical literalism. Building one's faith on the false premise that every word in the bible is meant to be taken literally true as it is and not in some mytho-poetic, metaphorical, or analogical sense is doomed to failure.

However, I think it's also doomed to failure to dismiss any passage as not intended to be taken as literally true just because it happens to be factually incorrect when taken literally.

If we're talking about poetic or metaphoric passages, fine. But for some of those examples, the plain, literal meaning seems to make the most sense. How do you respond to those?

How do you justify a non-literal interpretation to, say, Genesis 30:35-40? If you're going to argue that the passage is meant to be metaphoric or poetic, then what metaphoric or poetic meaning do you assign to all the stuff about the rods and the colour of the sheep?

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

Similar question to you: on what basis do you reject the passages (all the passages) as non-literal? Some seem poetic, but some don't. Some do seem to be meant to be taken literally.

Is it just a matter of deciding that because we know that a passage can't be literally true, it couldn't have been intended to be literally true in the first place?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That is why after Genesis 31v9 comes verses 10-12 about the correction in the dream.

What got corrected?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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

I would agree with that and that, Biblically, birds are flying animals.

 

[Autodidact]

I would agree with that and that, Biblically, birds are flying animals.

Also in reality, other than flightless birds.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Also in reality, other than flightless birds.

I would suppose that, Biblically, flightless birds may be creeping things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would suppose that, Biblically, flightless birds may be creeping things.

Penguins and ostriches "creep"?

 

[Autodidact]

Maybe the Bible authors were not familiar with any flightless birds. Offhand I can't think of any from the mid-east.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe the Bible authors were not familiar with any flightless birds. Offhand I can't think of any from the mid-east.

It wasn't always that way.

Arabian Ostrich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: as the article points out, ostriches are even explicitly mentioned in the Bible:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job 39:13-39:18&version=NASB

 

[Autodidact]

It wasn't always that way.

Arabian Ostrich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: as the article points out, ostriches are even explicitly mentioned in the Bible:

Job 39:13-39:18 - Passage Lookup - New American Standard Bible - BibleGateway.com

Interesting. So if a non-flying bird is classified as a bird, doesn't that support the translation as being "bird," rather than "flying thing?"

 

[sojourner]

In the usage of that particular passage it means expanse.

Actually, no. It means "dome," just as it says it means. The usage of the term "dome" is accurate, as it reflects the belief of the day as to the composition of the sky and the heavens.

 

[Muffled]

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

If God classifies one way and science another I would have to agree with the person who puts his faith in God. I don't have much faith in science since it is devised by sinful men.

It appears that the objective is to say that science knows better than God. That will have me rothflmao.

 

[Muffled]

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

He didn't say anything about waiting although it is a good policy rather than quicly dismissing the concept that God will answer.

However if you are referring to the idea of God initiating a conversation, I would agree since it is a rare occurrence. The whole concept of proximity is incorrect. God is here now and ready to answer questions if He deems it appropriate.

 

[Autodidact]

If God classifies one way and science another I would have to agree with the person who puts his faith in God. I don't have much faith in science since it is devised by sinful men.

It appears that the objective is to say that science knows better than God. That will have me rothflmao.

O.K., couple hypos for you. You want all of us to see what you have to say. Do you just pray, or do you get on a computer?

You're diagnosed with a serious, life-threatening illness. If, for purposes of the hypo, you have to choose between prayer and the best science-based medical treatment, which do you choose?

Which do you think did a better job of figuring out the stars and planets, the Bible, or science?

Which do you think would be a better cure for Hansen's disease, medicine, or dipping one bird in the blood of another and sacrificing it?

Do you really want to set your religion up in opposition to science? How do you think science is doing on figuring out what's going on in the natural world?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If God classifies one way and science another I would have to agree with the person who puts his faith in God. I don't have much faith in science since it is devised by sinful men.

Why do you keep on using the word "God" when you apparently mean something more like "my interpretation of the Bible"?

Even if we grant the idea that God is the creator of the universe and the inspiration for the Bible, you're still left with this arrangement:

- science: interpretation of God-created material (i.e. the universe) by flawed human beings.
- religion: interpretation of God-created material (i.e. God's message) by flawed human beings.

Why would you automatically accept the religious answer over the scientific one?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Actually, no. It means "dome," just as it says it means. The usage of the term "dome" is accurate, as it reflects the belief of the day as to the composition of the sky and the heavens.

God, being the author of the Bible, is not limited to the belief of the day.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God, being the author of the Bible, is not limited to the belief of the day.

And also not limited to saying what he means, apparently.

If the meaning of the term has changed over time and God meant it in the sense that the term is defined today, then it was incorrect when God said/dictated/inspired it, even if it's become correct since then.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

And also not limited to saying what he means, apparently.

If the meaning of the term has changed over time and God meant it in the sense that the term is defined today, then it was incorrect when God said/dictated/inspired it, even if it's become correct since then.

Except that correct in this subject is a matter of opinion. God created the firmament and placed the sun, moon and stars there.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Actually, no. It means "dome," just as it says it means. The usage of the term "dome" is accurate, as it reflects the belief of the day as to the composition of the sky and the heavens.

More often than not it is translated as firmament or expanse. Genesis 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

More often than not it is translated as firmament or expanse. Genesis 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."

Which just least us back to what "firmament" means.

Here's one answer:

Main Entry: fir·ma·ment
Pronunciation: \ˈfər-mə-mənt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin firmamentum, from Latin, support, from firmare
Date: 13th century
1 : the vault or arch of the sky : heavens
2 obsolete : basis
3 : the field or sphere of an interest or activity <the international fashion firmament>

Here's another:

According to the notion prevalent among the Greeks and Romans, the sky was a great vault of crystal to which the fixed stars were attached, though by some it was held to be of iron or brass. That the Hebrews entertained similar ideas appears from numerous biblical passages. In the first account of the creation (Genesis 1) we read that God created a firmament to divide the upper or celestial from the lower or terrestrial waters. The Hebrew means something beaten or hammered out, and thus extended; the Vulgate rendering, "firmamentum" corresponds more closely with the Greek stereoma (Septuagint, Aquila, and Symmachus), "something made firm or solid". The notion of the solidity of the firmament is moreover expressed in such passages as Job 37:18, where reference is made incidentally to the heavens, "which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass".

[...]

In conformity with these ideas, the writer of Genesis 1:14-20 represents God as setting the stars in the firmament of heaven, and the fowls are located beneath it, i.e. in the air as distinct from the firmament. On this point as on many others, the Bible simply reflects the current cosmological ideas and language of the time.

In both cases, the word has the denotation of physical solidity. As noted above, the other language in the Bible bears this out, as the "firmament" is described in terms of physical attributes posessed by solid objects, such as malleability and strength.