Allen Roy wrote:
<< You are assuming that the Bible NEEDS interpreting in order to make sense.
In other words, the Bible cannot mean what it really says. You must change
the meaning to fit whatever philosophies are in vogue at the time.>>
But, what it really says is not what you are saying it says. You are
changing the meaning to fit a philosophy that is in vogue at this time in
certain evangelical circles.
<<You are assuming that God would NEED to accommodate his revelation to the
science/history of the times. It is the sciences/histories of the times
which need correcting, not the other way around.>>
Nothing I have said implies that I am assuming any such thing. But, you are
assuming that God did not accommodate his revelation to the science/history
of the times; and, the Bible does not say he did not do this. Your assumption
is resting on your own extra-biblical philosophy.
<<You are assuming that Greek science is the oldest philosophy where a
spherical earth was ever conceived.>>
I am not assuming it. There is evidence that prior to the Greeks people
believed in a flat earth and there is no evidence that they did not.
<< Does the original Hebrew word [for firmament] as used in context
throughout the Bible mean something solid?>>
There is evidence that it does and no evidence that it does not.
<<It says "waters" not "sea" above it. >>
Gen 1:6, 7 speaks of "THE waters." This grammatically implies that the
subject in verse 6 and 7 is the "waters" mentioned earlier; and the only
"waters" mentioned earlier are the "waters" of the "Deep" in 1:2. The "Deep"
is a translation of the Hebrew word for "sea." So, the waters in 1:6, 7
which are above and below the firmament are halves of a sea. So, the Bible is
_really saying_ there was a sea above the firmament; and Psa 148:4 implies it
was still there in the time of David.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 10 2001 - 02:02:30 EST