RE: Firmament and the Water above was [asa] Re: Slug

This is for Paul and George M.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Seely [mailto:PHSeely@msn.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:41 AM
>
> Sorry. But other concordists have done silly things like saying the
> firmament is the "matrix of space", so I just thought you
> were doing the
> same sort of thing.
> Now that I see your real point, I will answer that:
>
> The statements of modern astronomers which use words that
> could be construed
> as being out of concord with reality must be interpreted
> within the context
> of modern knowledge. In that context, we know they are not
> saying the sky is
> really solid. Similarly the statements in Scripture must be
> interpreted
> within the context of ancient knowledge. In that context, we
> know they ARE
> saying the sky is really solid.
>

I have a question. I have read the Kabalah, and I have read parts of the
Zohar (another kabalistic writing) and the Legends of the Jews (a collection
of things from the Talmud and Haggada). The thought has formed that the
interpretation of the meaning of the word raqiya may very well have been
influenced by Ptolemy. The Legends of the jews, a 1909 complilaton says
this:

"The firmament is not the same as the heavens of the first day. It is the
crystal stretched forth over the heads of the Hayyot, from which the heavens
derive their light, as the earth derives its light from the sun."

But isn't that an Aristotelean concept? Is the entire raqiyah argument
based upon Aristotle rather than being based upon Hebrew? Is this a case of
1st century eisegesis? I wish someone would show me an ancient document
which used raqiya in the sense of a dome without it being in Genesis.

I have also looked at the other occurrences of firmament (raqiya) and if it
has the meaning of a solid dome, then it is really hard to understand some
of the verses containing raqiya.

Daniel 12:1 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the
firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever
and ever.

Well, the solid dome is not always bright. At night it is quite dark. So,
this verse seems to indicate an alternative meaning to raqiya than the
commonly held view of a solid dome.

Psalms 150:1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in
the firmament of his power.

Praise him in the solid dome of his power? I could understand 'expanse' of
his power. But Dome? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Sounds like they are
talking about heaven, not a dome.

Here from Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly
the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in
the open firmament of heaven

The bird flies *in* the open solid dome? Clearly this Genesis usage is not a
solid dome because birds don't fly inside material, so why must we believe
what the raqiyaologists say? As I said above, I think they are basing their
case on an ancient eisegesis which left few records with which it can be
found.

The only case of raqiya which can be construed to be a crystal is Ez 122 the
likeness of the firmament was on the heads of the living creature and was
the color or the terrible crystal. Which terrible crystal? What exactly is
the likeness of the sky? So even this one gives me some problems seeing it
unequivocally as a solid dome.

>
> From the slug thread you asked me for a modern book on
> apologetics. I have
> not kept up with them, but assume they exist. I think William
> Lane Craig has
> some good literature, but the last apologetics book I read
> and recommend is
> Gary R. Habermas and Anthony G.N. Flew, Did Jesus Rise From
> the Dead? Terry
> L. Miethe, editor (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) It is a
> critical
> debate on the question "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" that
> took place
> between world-renowned atheistic philosopher, Dr. Anthony
> Flew, and New
> Testament scholar and Christian, Dr. Gary Habermas. A panel of five
> philosophers from leading universities judged the outcome.
> What was the
> conclusion? Four votes for Habermas. None for Flew. And one draw.

If votes determine truth, I suspect that buddhism wins hands down. I find
this vote for truth example kind of a stretch. Are you really trying to say
that a vote makes something evidence for the resurrection? I think I want
to cry.

The inconsistent thing you are doing is saying that I am not allowed to find
evidence to support Genesis, but you are allowed to find evidence to support
the resurrection. This is illogical and inconsistent. You are saying that
concordism in Genesis is a non-starter, but it isn't a nonstarter with the
resurrection, yet, I would suggest that observational data of what happened
at the big bang is more solid than is the evidence for the resurrection.
Why? The BB evidence is objective, the historical evidence depends upon the
trustworthyness of the disciples and the biblical authors and that is highly
subjective. I can't prove that the disciples weren't liars or delusional.
One can understand this doubt one can gather when a group of believers
gather and say things like: yeah that guy that translated those golden
plates with the reformed hieroglyphics which just happen to retranslate back
to the King James Bible(using language 300 years out of date) is a really
trustworthy fellow.

&&

George M. interestingly asks:

>Are you really unable to distinguish between "wanting" the Bible to be
>factually false and being willing to accept that some parts of it are?
Whether you agree with the latter position or not, it is just >not the same
as "wanting" falsity.

In my life exploring for oil, I have noticed a particular phenomenon among
us humans. If a person likes a theory of where oil might be found, they
fight like crazy to answer the questions and get the well drilled. If they
don't like that theory, then they don't look to solve the problems. Indeed,
I would say we are all afflicted with that particular issue, me included.
In finding oil, this behavior can be down right detrimental to getting a
group to accomplish a necessary task. Sometimes we have obligation wells,
wells that a company simply must drill. But we still have to do our due
diligence on each prospect. But when people don't like the prospect, they
don't work hard to solve the problems.

I had a geophysicist work for me once who, when I would say something
disparaging about his project, would be in my office the next day telling me
precisely why my remarks were wrong. I loved it. The guy would fight for
his ideas. Most often he would convince me of the error of my ways. That is
much better than the person who, when disparaging things are said about the
project, just gives up. That person will never find the truth. People have
said disparaging things about the veracity of the Bible, an you guys have
given up.

How does that apply here? Well, you all say that you want the Bible to be
true, but mostly you mean theologically true. But when I ask how do you
determine theological truth, frankly I find the answers to be illogical or
self-levitating(at least Paul acknowledged it). We all as scientists can
agree that if we make the right observations, a ball will fall according to
the z = -.5gt^2 law. And we will say that that is true because it concords
to reality. If I disparage that law by, say, advocating MOND, lots of
people will defend the observed concordance between Newton's law and
observation telling me how wrong I am and why MOND won't work, and will
explain why the pioneer probe data fits within regular newtonian dynamics.
(MOND is MOdified Newtonian Dynamics). They are concordists.

But with the Bible, when its truth is being discussed, very few defend the
need for observation to play a role in any part of the Bible save where Paul
put it--the resurrection (which is where you put it). Because of this lack
of defence, one can see that there is a lack of enthusiasm for the defense
of any form of observational concordism. That lack of enthusiasm is IMO
because no one wants the Bible to be observationally or empirically correct.
You guys will defend vigorously when I attack the theological truth you see.
That means you do believe that.

But since observational falsity/disconcordism/disconfirmation means that the
Bible is not true (at least in that regard), and since you won't defend the
idea that the Bible tells us something real (indeed y'all fight it tooth and
nail), I think it is a fair comment to say that you all have something
invested in the Bible being observationally false and thus don't want it to
be observatinally true.

The difference between us really boils down to the different conclusions we
would draw from that observational falsity. I say it would likely be bunk,
and y'all continue to say how sublime it is.

Short answer, I think I can distinguish wanting it to be false from it being
false. Behavior involving what a person will defend tells a lot. Y'all
won't defend observational truth in the Bible

>>>Paul, & I, & others who do not see the need for concordism, do not "want"

the Bible to be false. To say that we do is simply a violation of the
commandment against bearing false witness.<<<

This is an interesting approach. You believe parts of the Bible are
observationally false, have built up well developed theological views which
would be false if concordism is true, and you are trying to tell me that you
wouldn't care that everything you have written turned out to be wrong. I
may be the only person on this list who can say I went through finding out
that everything I had published was false. I did this when I changed from
YEC to OE. I can assure you, that one cares not to have to make that
admission. Indeed, part of the struggle was my ego telling me that I would
look like a fool if I acknowledge how wrong I was. I didn't WANT YEC to be
wrong. But by the same token, if the Bible should turn out to be
observationally true by some interpretation or other, you won't want it to
be true for precisely the same reason.

So, no, I don't think I have borne false witness. Why? It is so easy to
cast the liar word around (or its equivalent), but lying requires knowing
that one is wrong and doing it anyway. Frankly, I don't think I am wrong (I
may be wrong but that wouldn't make me a liar either--it would make me
wrong). I think you, Paul, or any of you would have exactly the same
struggle that I had when I found out how wrong I had been as a YEC. I think
you want your theories to be right (as is only human), and that requires
that the Bible be observationally false.

If you don't want it to be observationally false, then start thinking of
ways to make it not observationally false. Everytime I throw out something
as a way to read scripture such that it would be less observationally false,
I am told that I am re-writing the Bible, which of course is bunk. I am
re-interpreting it. And that is quite a different thing. I will absolutely
agree with you and Paul that under the most widely accepted interpretation
of scripture IT IS FALSE, but if it can be read in another fashion, well,
that is a new game. But even that seems to find many opponents. Why would
one want to oppose an alternative reading/interpretation which might solve
the problem of the Bible being observationally false? The only reason I can
think of is that people don't wan't the Bible to be observationally true.
They like it being as false as grandpa's teeth.

I keep being reminded of Tipler's quote, which you don't like, but which you
never work to prove wrong:

        "Of course, the real reason modern theologians want to keep
science divorced from religion is to retain some intellectual
territory forever protected from the advance of science. This can
only be done if the possibility of scientific investigation of the
subject matter is ruled out a priori. Theologians were badly burned
in the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions. Such a strategy
seriously underestimates the power of science, which is continually
solving problems philosophers and theologians have decreed forever
beyond the ability of science to solve." ~ Frank J. Tipler, The
Physics of Immortality, (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 7

Having lived in western Europe I can attest to the veracity of this next
Tipler quote:

"The majority of
Western Europeans and a large minority of Americans have already
become effective atheists: they rarely if ever go to any church, and
a belief in God plays no role in their daily lives. The evidence is
clear and unequivocal: if scientists have no need of the God
hypothesis, neither will anyone else. Were theologians to succeed in
their attempt to strictly separate science and religion, they would
kill religion. Theology simply must become a branch of physics if it
is to survive. That even theologians are slowly becoming effective
atheists has been documented by the American philosopher Thomas
Sheehan." ~ Frank J. Tipler, The Physics of Immortality, (New York:
Doubleday, 1994), p. 9-10

Fighting observational reality WILL be the death of Christianity. If it
isn't real, no one will believe it and that is why so many flock to YEC and
ignore the ASA. As I have noted before, this organization has zero impact
on the world. No one listens to us except us.

Well, Paul has said a couple of times that he can use evidence to support
his views. Yet he, you and others try to deny me the same right, telling me
no matter what I come up with that this is the wrong approach. If any
evidentiary support for the bible is wrong when I do it, why is it so great
when Paul claims to have it???? Seems a wee bit hypocritical.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Jun 17 16:03:30 2006