main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Darkside_Spirit vs Grand_Moff_Monkey: The Great Debate

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Darkside_Spirit, May 20, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Darkside_Spirit

    Darkside_Spirit Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2001
    Ok, let me make my point a bit clearer. If I say that someone will descend from Scotland, and I'll meet them in Bristol, am I saying that Scotland is in Bristol?


    This misses the point. "Up" and "down" are meaningless in space. If heaven is not in or above the clouds, then he would come "across from heaven".

    According to 1 Thessalonians 4:17, we are caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. So if he descends from the clouds and we ascend to the clouds, surely we'll miss each other. Why would he need to descend at all, if he's there to begin with?


    According to my argument, heaven must either be located higher up in the clouds, or it must be located above them. If heaven is beyond the frontiers of space, he would come across to earth from beyond the galaxies, not down.

    Consider the following cases where katabaino is used. It is used in the same way as we would say, "Let's go down to Brighton for the weekend". Is Brighton directly beneath us?


    The quoted instances are either up/down relative to the earth's gravity (i.e. moving down to a lower-level piece of land), or up/down relative to north/south. In space, there are no such anchors.

    I do not doubt at all that Christ's second coming will be physical. That's not the issue here. The nature (and location) of the Heaven which Christ comes from is the issue.


    Okay. I just wanted to guard against the argument that the coming "down" is purely spiritual in nature (i.e. "descending" to a lower spiritual realm).

    So after Christ ascended higher than all the heavens (not into the clouds), he filled the universe. God the Son is omnipresent, just like God the Father is. We're not told what happened to Jesus' physical body after his ascension. Some believe that he retained his body while his Spirit filled the universe; others believe that his body dematerialized as he filled the universe. The Bible simply doesn't tell us.


    You can't fill the universe by travelling in any direction. Many spacecraft have gone beyond the earth's atmosphere--they did not fill the universe upon leaving the planet! This sounds silly, I know, but the point is: why go up to the clouds and "dissolve" into the universe there, when high physical altitude has no bearing on the matter? There seems to be no motivation for "ascending" as such, unless heaven is physically "up there", in or above the highest clouds.

    Many ancient cosmologies have no bearing on this. We must be careful not to superimpose any preconceptions onto the text. We have to just look what the Bible itself says. And the Bible nowhere says that Heaven is in the clouds.


    Well, in analysing any text, the situation at the time it was written can indeed count as evidence as to the meaning. GMM used this argument himself earlier (Hebrew architecture was angular). If Hebrew architecture, an external factor not contained within the Bible, is relevant, why can we not take the general cosmological belief systems into account?

    Where exactly does 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 tell us that Christ comes in the clouds at all? It says that we'll meet him in the clouds ? but how do you figure that to mean Christ was in the clouds prior to his descent?


    Because once you leave the earth's atmosphere, it becomes nonsensical to talk about "up" and "down". Therefore, if he came from somewhere in outer space, there would be a period of moving across, from heaven to earth, before coming down through earth's atmosphere.
     
  2. Grand_Moff_Monkey

    Grand_Moff_Monkey Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Nov 29, 2001
    I just want to pick up on one of Darkside's points before I conclude this part of the debate...


    Darkside_Spirit said: The quoted instances are either up/down relative to the earth's gravity (i.e. moving down to a lower-level piece of land), or up/down relative to north/south. In space, there are no such anchors.
    Why do I get the feeling you didn't check a map before posting? The directions traveled are by no means "up/down relative to north/south", but indeed many directions are covered in those references.

    The katabaino from Jerusalem to Capernaum (Mark 3:22) is traveling north, not a "descent" by any means.

    The katabaino from Jerusalem to Nazareth (Luke 2:51) is also going north, as is the katabaino from Judea to Galilee (John 4:47) and Jerusalem to Samaria (Acts 8:15).

    The katabaino from Jerusalem to Jericho (Luke 10:30) is heading east.

    The katabaino from Cana to Capernaum (John 2:12) is north-east.

    The katabaino from Perga to Attalia (Acts 14:25) is west.


    My point being that Jesus' "descent" (katabaino) doesn't automatically mean that Christ will descend straight down. Indeed, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 could just as likely read:
    For the Lord himself will come across from heaven...

    For the Lord himself will journey from heaven...

    For the Lord himself will arrive from heaven...


    In Conclusion then:

    1] 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 does not say that Heaven is in the clouds.

    2] There are over 150 references to clouds in the Bible. Not a single one of those refer to Heaven being in them.

    3] It cannot be shown from the Bible that Heaven is a physical place at all, let alone that it's in the clouds.

    4] Jesus' "descent" from Heaven can just as likely refer to his travel, journey or arrival from there. It doesn't necessarily indicate a direct journey downwards.


    Therefore, the notion that the Bible teaches that Heaven is in the clouds is completely unfounded. It is based on preconceptions, rather than on what the Bible actually says.



    As we've now come to the end of all your references to biblical cosmology, I just wanted to put a scripture forward for discussion before we move onto what the Bible says about weather. Still on the subject of his second coming, Jesus said:
    "And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.

    "In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back. Remember Lot's wife. Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left. Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left. Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left." (Luke 17:26-36)

    I believe that Jesus is making reference here to different time-zones. He says both "in that day" and "in that night" in reference to his return. Aside from that, there are two clear daytime activities occurring "in that night": "in that night there will be two men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left. Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left. Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left."

    I believe that Jesus had different time-zones in mind, and so (by implication) knew about the earth being a sphere.

     
  3. Darkside_Spirit

    Darkside_Spirit Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2001
    "In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back. Remember Lot's wife. Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left. Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left. Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left."


    GMM argues:

    I believe that Jesus is making reference here to different time-zones. He says both "in that day" and "in that night" in reference to his return. Aside from that, there are two clear daytime activities occurring "in that night": "in that night there will be two men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left. Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left. Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left."


    My response is as follows: Jesus used parables as his overriding method of teaching, in order to convey or support doctrinal points. Here, it seems likely that he is simply hammering home the "one will be taken and the other left" message, not making specific predictions.

    Consider the attributes of Jesus' other parables:

    • A relevance to 1st-century Palestine.

    • Narrative simplicity.

    • The telling/reinforcing of a broader meaning.


    The quotation fulfils all three criteria.

    (i) "And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back. This refers to an agricultural lifestyle. "Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left." Again, an agricultural livelihood is implied.

    (ii) "In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away." The examples are simple, with minimal detail or complexity.

    (iii) "Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it." Here, the meaning of the housetop and the field is articulated. They aren't specific commands, but rather illustrations of the overall doctrinal message.
     
  4. Grand_Moff_Monkey

    Grand_Moff_Monkey Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Nov 29, 2001
    You make interesting points, Darkside. But I do not agree that Jesus is telling a parable in this instance.

    There are three reasons why I believe that Jesus is not using a parable here.


    1] Luke 17:26-36 doesn't follow the pattern of any of Jesus' parables.
    The three attributes you listed are really too vague to draw conclusions from. Indeed all three points could be said to apply to Luke's entire narrative.

    Let's consider Jesus' parables from Luke's Gospel. What form do they take?


    They are suppositions:
    Then Jesus told them this parable: "Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Does he not leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?"(Luke 15:3-4)

    "Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Does she not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?" (Luke 15:8)

    "Suppose one of you had a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Would he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, 'Come along now and sit down to eat'?" (Luke 17:7)


    Or similes:
    "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete." (Luke 6:46-49)

    "Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, like men waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him. It will be good for those servants whose master finds them watching when he comes. I tell you the truth, he will dress himself to serve, will have them recline at the table and will come and wait on them. It will be good for those servants whose master finds them ready, even if he comes in the second or third watch of the night. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."
    Peter asked, "Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?" (Luke 12:35-41)

    Then Jesus asked, "What is the kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to? It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air perched in its branches."
    Again he asked, "What shall I compare the kingdom of God to? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough." (Luke 13:18-21)


    Or he tells a clearly discernable story:
    While a large crowd was gathering and people were coming to Jesus from town after town, he told this parable: "A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path; it was trampled on, and the birds of the air ate it up..."(Luke 8:4-5)

    In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead..." (Luke 10:30)

    And he told them this parable: "The ground of a certain rich man produced a good crop. He thought to himself, 'What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops...'" (Luke 12:16-17)

    Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any..." (Luke 13:6)

    Jesus replied: "A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests..." (Luke 14:16)

    Jesus continued:
     
  5. Darkside_Spirit

    Darkside_Spirit Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2001
    I'm not saying that this is a parable, merely that it is in parable form. In other words, the examples are illustrations, told with the purpose of conveying not specifics, but rather a broader meaning (in this case, simply that "one will be taken and the other left").

    Let's consider Jesus' parables from Luke's Gospel. What form do they take?

    They are suppositions...
    Or similes...
    Or he tells a clearly discernable story...

    As we can see, Luke makes it very clear when Jesus is telling a parable. Luke 17:26-36 simply doesn't fit any of these criteria.


    Let's embolden the parts of Luke 17:26-36 relevant to GMM's three-fold test:

    "And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.

    "In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back. Remember Lot's wife. Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left. Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left. Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left."

    As we can see, the excerpt is rife with comparisons.

    After Jesus has told the Parable of the Sower to a large crowd, his disciples ask him later what it meant...

    He then goes on to clearly explain to them what the Parable meant. Jesus says that he speaks in parables "to others". He doesn't use them when speaking to his disciples. Since Luke 17:26-36 is said to his disciples ("Then he said to his disciples" ? verse 22), Jesus wouldn't have used a parable, but spoke plainly to them. If you look at all of the parables in Luke's gospel, not one of them is directed at his disciples.


    Here, we come to the distinction between parable, and parable form. A full-fledged parable (such as the Parable of the Sower, the Parable of the Wineskins, or any of the others), does not usually bear a meaning that is immediately obvious. On the other hand, the essentials of parable form--using simple illustrations to convey a wider meaning--don't necessarily mean that the message will be ambiguous. Here, the meaning is obvious: "one will be taken and the other left". My argument is that the illustrations are not specific predictions, but are simply given to hammer home the "one taken, one left" point. It's difficult to see how the disciples could be confused by that.

    The same applies to "Jesus spoke plainly to his disciples about future events".

    There is at least one point in the passage where Jesus undoubtedly speaks in parable form. Take the excerpt: "In that day, he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back." Was Jesus really issuing precise commands (Do Not Come Down To Take Away Your Goods If You Are On The Housetop, Do Not Turn Back If You Are In The Field)? It seems far more probable that he was simply telling people not to try to rescue material possessions.


    There's one more point that's worth raising before we move on. Even if the predictions are entirely specific, and I'm wrong about them being in parable form, the passage could well be referring to events happening over the period of several hours. There's nothing in there to say it happens instantly. It's just as possible tha
     
  6. Grand_Moff_Monkey

    Grand_Moff_Monkey Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Ok, let's move on to what the Bible says about weather...

    Darkside_Spirit said: The book has similarly incorrect ideas concerning weather. Snow and hail come from storehouses, reserved for times of war; the east wind is scattered upon the earth, light is distributed from some hidden place, channels are cut for the rain (which along with ice, dew and frost is begotten from a womb) and a path is laid down for lightning bolts, which actually report before being launched. These claims are wrong to the point of being ridiculous.
    All of these references are from Job 38, and the Book of Job is a poetic book. Of course, this doesn't immediately disqualify it from any literal interpretation. But it does mean we should be careful when considering its content.

    I believe that all of your points above are to be understood as poetic, and not literal for three main reasons:


    1] All of Darkside's points are unique to one chapter of a poetic book.
    As I have said previously, the Book of Job is poetic and all of your points are to found in one chapter of it ? and nowhere else in the whole Bible.

    All of the natural phenomena you mentioned appear throughout the Bible numerous times outside of Job 38:
    Snow - 23 times
    Hail ? 44 times
    Wind ? 117 times
    Rain ? 84 times
    Ice ? 5 times
    Dew ? 34 times
    Frost ? 4 times
    Lightning ? 27 times
    This brings us to a total 338 times that any of these things are mentioned in the rest of the Bible. Of these 338 times, not one of them says about them what Job 38 says.

    So why should this matter? Surely if the Bible is wrong in one chapter then its wrong, full stop. Well, let's consider this for a moment. The Book of Job was obviously valued by the Hebrews since they included it in their scriptures. Now, let's just suppose that Job 38 is intended to be understood literally. Let's also bear in mind that the words of this chapter are spoken by God himself, so it would've been treated more seriously and with more reverence than the rest of the book. It's odd then that not one other biblical writer made reference to talking lightning bolts, or rain coming from a womb etc. Could it have been that they understood God's words in Job 38 to be poetic?



    2] Poetry is consistently employed in Job 38.
    Before I directly address the points you made, let's look at some of the rest of the chapter:

    "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.
    Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it? (verses 4-5)
    The imagery used here is God as a builder/architect. Did he literally stretch a measuring line across the entire width of the planet? If so, why is it not mentioned in the Genesis creation account? Or in any other of the biblical creation references for that matter?

    On what were its footings set,
    or who laid its cornerstone-
    while the morning stars sang together? (verses 6-7)
    The building imagery continues, and the heavens rejoice. The latter is symbolized by the stars singing. Did the Hebrews literally believe in singing stars?

    "Who shut up the sea behind doors
    when it burst forth from the womb,
    when I made the clouds its garment
    and wrapped it in thick darkness,
    when I fixed limits for it
    and set its doors and bars in place,
    when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther;
    here is where your proud waves halt'? (verses 8-11)
    Is the sea shut up behind doors? We can see by simple observation at a beach that there?s no literal door holding the sea back. Its doors and bars, by the way, literally means "double doors". Since the analogy is of the sea coming forth from a womb, many commentators have seen the double doors as a euphemism for the labia.

    Do the clouds wear garments? "Proud waves"? Can waves experience the emotion of pride? Or is this a simple case of the poetic device of personification?



    3] Darkside?s references are best understood
     
  7. Darkside_Spirit

    Darkside_Spirit Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2001
    I consider that a satisfactory rebuttal. I'll concede the point on this one.
     
  8. Grand_Moff_Monkey

    Grand_Moff_Monkey Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Nov 29, 2001
    While we're still on the subject of the weather, I wanted to bring up couple of things that the Bible says about it. Typical Brits aren't we, talking about the weather. :p


    The planetary wind system:

    "The planetary wind system" refers to the permanent wind belts of the Earth. Let's consider this verse:
    The wind goes toward the south,
    And turns around to the north;
    The wind whirls about continually,
    And comes again on its circuit. (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
    The Book of Ecclesiastes is one of my favourite books of the Bible. The writer (traditionally Solomon) makes continual reference to the circular and repetitive nature of life and the world in general. His frustration is shared by many people in the world, and his conclusion is what's written in my signature. In a book that is so preoccupied with circularity and repetition, it's very interesting that it mentions the wind's circuit as well.

    Needless to say, the circular and continual motion of wind is not something that the naked eye can detect. But in this verse, we can see clearly that: the wind blow in a circuit, and that circuit is continuous.



    The Hydrologic Cycle:

    This cycle, stated simply, is the process in which water evaporates into the atmosphere, clouds are formed, and then it rains/snows. The excess water (the runoff) will drain into lakes/rivers/oceans. The cycle then starts all over again.

    Let's consider two passages:
    For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there until they have watered the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55:10-11)
    So rain and snow come down from heaven (literally "a lofty place") and do not return there until they have watered the earth. So if they don't return there until the earth is watered, that must mean that the rain and the snow return back up there once they've watered the earth. Obviously this is not discernable to the naked eye.

    All the rivers run into the sea,
    Yet the sea is not full;
    To the place from which the rivers come,
    There they return again. (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
    Again we have a verse from Ecclesiastes about the circular nature of life and nature. This time it's referring to the rivers returning to the place where they came from. From simple observation, there's no reason to believe that this happens. When we consider the Hydrological Cycle, it's not only possible, but it happens continually. The water flows into the sea, evaporates, rains down, and flows into the sea again. And so on.

     
  9. Darkside_Spirit

    Darkside_Spirit Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2001
    The planetary wind system

    The Book of Ecclesiastes is one of my favourite books of the Bible. The writer (traditionally Solomon) makes continual reference to the circular and repetitive nature of life and the world in general. His frustration is shared by many people in the world, and his conclusion is what's written in my signature. In a book that is so preoccupied with circularity and repetition, it's very interesting that it mentions the wind's circuit as well.

    Needless to say, the circular and continual motion of wind is not something that the naked eye can detect. But in this verse, we can see clearly that: the wind blow in a circuit, and that circuit is continuous.


    (i) Did the ancients know about wind blowing in circuits?

    Despite having conducted an extensive search, I've been unable to find any material indicating when this knowledge first appeared. However, consider that the writer of the book would likely have witnessed storms, and almost certainly hurricanes. To anyone who has seen a hurricane, it's pretty obvious that the wind blows in circuits at least some of the time (debris swirling round, a column in the middle that appears to be spinning, the pattern of the aftereffects). So this knowledge isn't necessarily unobtainable by the naked eye, and it certainly doesn't require a great scientific leap.

    (ii) Does wind blow continuously in circuits?

    The wind does not blow continuously. Weather systems are constantly changing, as evidenced by the erratic British weather. ;) A cyclone (depression) occurs when warm, damp air meets cold, damp air. The air cannot mix, so the warm air is forced to rise over the cold air. This sets up an inward circulation. Eventually, the warm air will have been completely undercut; at this point, the depression is occluded and circulation ceases. Cyclones (along with anticyclones, their opposites) are temporary phenomena. It's worth noting that the two blow in opposite directions (cyclones blow anticlockwise and anticyclones blow clockwise).

    The Hydrological Cycle

    For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there until they have watered the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55:10-11)

    So rain and snow come down from heaven (literally "a lofty place") and do not return there until they have watered the earth. So if they don't return there until the earth is watered, that must mean that the rain and the snow return back up there once they've watered the earth. Obviously this is not discernable to the naked eye.


    (i) There's no consistency in GMM's argument

    In rebutting many of my points (including Job's references to weather), GMM has argued that we cannot draw conclusions from poetry. Why make an exception for Isaiah 55:10-11?

    (ii) Did the ancients know about the hydrological cycle?

    Again, I haven't been able to find many resources on this. However, consider the following three facts:

    1. Water, when heated to a high temperature, turns into steam, which rises.

    2. Clouds resemble steam.

    3. Rain appears to descend from the clouds.

    All of these can be worked out through simple observation, and the hydrological cycle isn't a great logical leap from them. So, again, it's not a great scientific advance, even for several thousand years ago.

    All the rivers run into the sea,
    Yet the sea is not full;
    To the place from which the rivers come,
    There they return again. (Ecclesiastes 1:7)

    Again we have a verse from Ecclesiastes about the circular nature of life and nature. This time it's referring to the rivers returning to the place where they came from. From simple observation, there's no reason to believe that this
     
  10. Grand_Moff_Monkey

    Grand_Moff_Monkey Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Nov 29, 2001
    The planetary wind system:

    Darkside_Spirit said: (i) Did the ancients know about wind blowing in circuits?

    Despite having conducted an extensive search, I've been unable to find any material indicating when this knowledge first appeared.
    According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, it was the Romans ("What have the Romans ever done for us?!") around 50 BC.



    Darkside_Spirit said: However, consider that the writer of the book would likely have witnessed storms, and almost certainly hurricanes. To anyone who has seen a hurricane, it's pretty obvious that the wind blows in circuits at least some of the time (debris swirling round, a column in the middle that appears to be spinning, the pattern of the aftereffects). So this knowledge isn't necessarily unobtainable by the naked eye, and it certainly doesn't require a great scientific leap.
    The problem with considering hurricanes is that they are a relatively freak occurrence. The writer of Ecclesiastes clearly talks of wind as being on a continual, uninterrupted cycle:
    The wind goes toward the south,
    And turns around to the north;
    The wind whirls about continually,
    And comes again on its circuit. (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
    You said: "To anyone who has seen a hurricane, it's pretty obvious that the wind blows in circuits at least some of the time". That's the problem ? "some of the time". Neither storms or hurricanes occur all that frequently, and so there's no reason either would give the writer the impression that "wind whirls about continually", much less that it "comes again on its circuit".

    Also, both storms and hurricanes appear to blow randomly and unpredictably. It doesn't sound like the meticulous, determined movement that the first part of the verse suggests ("The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north").

    It "whirls about continually", without stopping ? even when you can't actually feel any wind at all. That is not something that is discernable by the naked eye.



    Darkside_Spirit said: (ii) Does wind blow continuously in circuits?

    The wind does not blow continuously. Weather systems are constantly changing, as evidenced by the erratic British weather. A cyclone (depression) occurs when warm, damp air meets cold, damp air. The air cannot mix, so the warm air is forced to rise over the cold air. This sets up an inward circulation. Eventually, the warm air will have been completely undercut; at this point, the depression is occluded and circulation ceases. Cyclones (along with anticyclones, their opposites) are temporary phenomena. It's worth noting that the two blow in opposite directions (cyclones blow anticlockwise and anticyclones blow clockwise).
    Wind does indeed blow continuously.There are six prevailing wind belts in the world, three in each hemisphere.
    [image=http://www.gombergkites.com/nkm/wind2.jpg]
    As for cyclones and our "erratic British weather", this is some information I gleamed from the net:
    "Superimposed upon the general circulation of winds are many lesser disturbances, such as the extratropical cyclone (the common storm of the temperate latitudes), the tropical cyclone, or hurricane, and the tornado; each of these storms moves generally along a path that follows the direction of the prevailing winds but within itself maintains a circulatory wind pattern."
    (Emphasis added. Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/weather/A0861968.html)
    The fact that you didn't know that the planetary wind system operates within continual circuits, doesn't reflect badly on you at all. I didn't know about it either till I started reading up on it. But it does serve to illustrate my point. If we, intelligent enlightened men of the 21st Century, didn't know that wind blows continuously in circuits, how on earth could a Hebrew living a few thousand of years ago possibly have known that?



    The Hydrological Cycle:

    Darkside_Spir
     
  11. Darkside_Spirit

    Darkside_Spirit Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2001
    Contents

    1. Ecclesiastes 1:6
    2. Ecclesiastes 1:7
    3. Isaiah 55:10-11
    4. Response to GMM's previous points
    5. Conclusion

    [1] Ecclesiastes 1:6

    The wind goes toward the south,
    And turns around to the north;
    The wind whirls about continually,
    And comes again on its circuit.


    I contend that there is no reason to believe that this verse pertains to the world's wind patterns; it refers only to the movement of wind in storms, and other small-scale air movements. Let's go through the verse:

    The wind goes toward the south,
    And turns around to the north;


    Is this compatible with reference to individual storms?
    Yes. The above two lines only require wind, of some sort, to be blowing in a circular (or otherwise non-linear) motion. Storms, in which wind whirls about the centre, satisfy this requirement.

    What scientific knowledge does this require?
    The author must have known that storms do not blow along straight lines, but blow in a circular, roundabout motion.

    The wind whirls about continually,

    Is this compatible with reference to individual storms?
    Well, there might be a conflict as regards "continually", because storms do not carry on blowing forever. However, the same argument could be applied to the global weather patterns, which will certainly cease at some point. I think "continually" is best interpreted as meaning "unbroken" or "consistently", rather than necessarily meaning "forever"--and that does not conflict with pertinence to storms, which undergo numerous rotations before subsiding.

    What scientific knowledge does this require?
    Again, the author must have known that storms blow in a circular, roundabout motion.

    And comes again on its circuit.

    Is this compatible with reference to individual storms?
    Yes; the "circuit" is capable of pertaining to any circular air movement.

    What scientific knowledge does this require?
    Again, the author merely needs to know that storms blow in a circular, roundabout motion.

    So, as regards Ecclesiastes 1:6--it could, indeed, refer to the world's weather patterns, but it could just as likely refer to individual storms, and less severe instances of small-scale air movements. Consequently, the author merely needs to have known that storms blow in a roundabout, circular motion--and to anyone who has ever observed a storm, that is fairly obvious.

    [2] Ecclesiastes 1:7

    All the rivers run into the sea,
    Yet the sea is not full;
    To the place from which the rivers come,
    There they return again.


    All that would be required to compose this verse is the belief that riverwater flows into the sea, and then somehow returns to supply more rivers, which flow into the sea, which are recycled to produce more rivers, and so on ad infinitum. That is the limit of its knowledge concerning the hydrological cycle.

    Let's firstly look to the third line of the verse: To the place from which the rivers come. The question I'm going to ask is: does this fit best with the hydrological cycle as we know it (sea to steam to clouds to rain), or with a cavernous reservoir of water underneath the earth that connects with both the rivers and the sea?

    • It implies that there is one, fixed place from which all the rivers emanate. This is at odds with the hydrological cycle, which involves clouds that are constantly changing, forming, and moving around the sky. It fits better with the underground reservoir idea, which--as a massive great cavern--could quite comfortably be referred to as a "place".

    • It implies that the rivers come directly from this "place". This directness is better satisfied by an underground water cavern, from which water would rise to the surface and flow out of the ground in rivers, than by the hydrological cycle, in which there is the intermediate stage of rain.


    Additionally, there is the fourth line of the verse: The
     
  12. Grand_Moff_Monkey

    Grand_Moff_Monkey Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Nov 29, 2001
    As we've gone back and forth four times now with this subject, I would ordinarily sum up and move on at this stage. However, I feel that there'd be too many threads still left hanging. So with your permission, I'd like to reply to some of your points and keep this going for one more round.



    [1] Ecclesiastes 1:6
    The wind goes toward the south,
    And turns around to the north;
    The wind whirls about continually,
    And comes again on its circuit.

    Darkside_Spirit said: I contend that there is no reason to believe that this verse pertains to the world's wind patterns; it refers only to the movement of wind in storms, and other small-scale air movements.
    I disagree with this for two reasons:

    1] The verse says "wind". Actually it says "wind" twice. It makes no reference at all to storms or hurricanes and the like. It says "wind". Surely if this verse "refers only to the movement of wind in storms" etc, it would say so.

    2] Your interpretation doesn't fit the context of the book at all. The book of Ecclesiastes is concerned with the mundane, everyday, repetitive things in life and nature. Storms and hurricanes etc do not occur on a frequent basis. They are unpredictable. So it's hard to see where they'd fit in to the frustrations of the writer of the book. They might even be seen by him to be a welcome break from the norm.



    Darkside_Spirit said: Is this compatible with reference to individual storms?
    Compatibility is irrelevant. The verse itself doesn't mention storms.

    If we go for compatibility, the verse is certainly compatible with what we know of the world's permanent wind belts. Why do you conclude that it's not referring to that?



    [2] Ecclesiastes 1:7
    All the rivers run into the sea,
    Yet the sea is not full;
    To the place from which the rivers come,
    There they return again.

    Darkside_Spirit said: Ecc 1:7 demonstrates a knowledge that seawater is transferred back to the rivers' point of origin. However, this does not necessarily indicate knowledge of the hydrological cycle; it is compatible with ancient notions of a cavernous reservoir underneath the earth.
    These "ancient notions" that you refer to, were not contemporary to Ecclesiastes. The Assyrians came up with this explanation based on their own underground systems which they constructed. This was centuries after even the most liberal dating of Ecclesiastes. So it's very unlikely that the writer had this system in mind.

    Indeed the contemporary view (also held by the Egyptians) was that the excess water drained out of the bottom of the oceans. Obviously, this contemporary world-view couldn't include the idea of waters returning to their point of origin.



    [3] Isaiah 55:10-11
    For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there until they have watered the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

    Darkside_Spirit said: First of all, I'm going to take issue with GMM's criterion for interpreting the first part literally.
    You didn't explain why. I posted a few examples of similes from the Bible. Spiritual/moral truths are always paired with physical realities in order to make its point.

    If I was to say:
    As the penguin juggles the cacti, so I will seek after the Lord.
    It makes absolutely no sense. Because penguins don't juggle cacti, the spiritual truth of the second part is meaningless. However, if I was to say:
    As the penguin seeks after the fish, so I will seek after the Lord.
    Now it makes sense. I will seek after God the same way as penguin seek after fish. Penguins seek after fish with determination and in order to survive. So the spiritual truth now
     
  13. Darkside_Spirit

    Darkside_Spirit Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2001
    As we've gone back and forth four times now with this subject, I would ordinarily sum up and move on at this stage.

    However, I feel that there'd be too many threads still left hanging. So with your permission, I'd like to reply to some of your points and keep this going for one more round.
    Fine by me. I had half a mind to suggest it myself, in fact.

    The verse says "wind". Actually it says "wind" twice. It makes no reference at all to storms or hurricanes and the like. It says "wind". Surely if this verse "refers only to the movement of wind in storms" etc, it would say so.
    Let's transpose this line of reasoning onto GMM's preferred interpretation:

    The verse says "wind". Actually it says "wind" twice. It makes no reference at all to the earth's wind patterns, global wind belts and the like. It says "wind". Surely if this verse "refers to the movement of wind in global belts" etc, it would say so.

    The verse simply references "wind", which is open-ended. If anything, in the absence of other indications it is more likely to pertain to storms, since the writer and readers would have been familiar with them. (As regards "circuits", that word is just as applicable to the roundabout air movements in storms as it is to the global wind patterns.)

    If we go for compatibility, the verse is certainly compatible with what we know of the world's permanent wind belts. Why do you conclude that it's not referring to that?
    I said: "it could, indeed, refer to the world's weather patterns, but it could just as likely refer to individual storms, and less severe instances of small-scale air movements." I'm saying there is an equal probability either way. Here, however, the burden of proof is on GMM, because he is making the positive claim (i.e. Ecclesiastes predicted the global wind patterns). So we assume that the verse refers to storms unless there is good evidence to indicate otherwise.

    These "ancient notions" that you refer to, were not contemporary to Ecclesiastes. The Assyrians came up with this explanation based on their own underground systems which they constructed. This was centuries after even the most liberal dating of Ecclesiastes. So it's very unlikely that the writer had this system in mind.
    Encyclopedia Britannica reports:

    A circulatory system of a different kind, involving movements of water on a large scale within the Earth, was envisioned by Plato (c. 428-348 BC).
    So the first definite appearance of this theory is in the time of Plato, although it may have been in existence for some time before Plato wrote about it. As for the dating of Ecclesiastes, it is a matter of considerable ambiguity. Attempts to find references to historical events within the text have been unconvincing, and there isn't much archaeological evidence. I'm once again going to invoke the burden of proof, and say that, since GMM has, in this instance, made the positive claim, the onus is on him to demonstrate a dating of Ecclesiastes well before the time of Plato.

    You didn't explain why. I posted a few examples of similes from the Bible. Spiritual/moral truths are always paired with physical realities in order to make its point.
    I explained why just below. See the three bullet points.

    If I say to my wife, "I'm going out now. I won't be back until I do the shopping," I am clearly saying that I'll be back once I've done the shopping.
    You aren't, actually. You are implying that you will be back once you've done the shopping, but you aren't stating it definitively.

    If the verse had intended to say that the rain and snow don't come back to where they came from, it could just as easily have said:

    For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return there, but instead they water the earth...

    Wouldn't that clarify it? But that's not what the verse says. It says clearly that the rain and snow
     
  14. Grand_Moff_Monkey

    Grand_Moff_Monkey Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Although I do have issues with some of the translations you quoted from, you have demonstrated that Isaiah 55:10-11 doesn't definitely say that the water returns to where it came from (although I still maintain that Ecclesiastes 1:6 does say that).

    It's a complex issue to do with Hebrew grammar that is beyond my ability to debate any further. As other, older manuscripts and inscriptions are discovered, they shed more light on Ancient Hebrew grammar and sentence structure. So, some of the older translations that you quoted from do imply that the rain and snow do not return, but that is corrected in the newer versions. For example, both the Revised Standard Version and the American Standard Bible say that the rain and snow don't return, but the New RSV and the New ASB say that they do. Also the New Living Translation that you quoted from isn't a translation as such, but a paraphrase aimed at a younger audience.

    But that aside, credit where it's due, you have demonstrated that the rain and snow's return is not a 100% certainty.

    As far as Ecclesiastes 1:7 is concerned, I believe that it refers to the world's permanent wind belts. Its assertions are completely correct: wind blows continuously and it blows in circuits. The verse doesn't mention storms etc, so I have no reason to believe it's referring to storms. The verse also talks about the cycle as continuous. Storms do not occur continuously, but wind does indeed blow continuously. And that is something that is not discernable to the naked eye.



    So now we move onto the most scientifically controversial chapter in the whole Bible ? Genesis Chapter 1. I actually see a remarkable correlation between the events of Genesis 1 and what we have discovered through scientific enquiry. Before I present my case, I will answer your objections to the chapter.


    Darkside_Spirit said (in his original post): A good example of Biblical errancy is the account of the Creation given in Genesis chapter 1. Creation/evolution is a whole subject in and of itself; however, we can quickly address some fairly obvious problems with the Creation story.
    Ok, let's take a look. I'm going to go through this in order, answering in turn each of your objections to the six days of Genesis 1. So let's start with Day 1:



    Darkside_Spirit said: Regarding the first day, we are told that light and darkness are created and divided from each other-but darkness is merely the absence of light, so cannot be "created", and because one is merely the absence of the other, it is nonsensical to speak of "dividing" the two.


    Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
    God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.
    God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (verses 3-5)
    Firstly, the verses don't say that darkness was "created". God said, "Let there be light", and there was light. The light was good. The verses don't speak of darkness being created at all.

    As for dividing/separating the light from the darkness, this is actually less physical than our English translations would suggest. The Hebrew word here is badal, and it refers to making a distinction between things. God makes a distinction between day and night in verse 14 of Genesis 1. It's also used elsewhere in the Bible in this manner:

    Then Moses set apart (badal) three cities across the Jordan to the east, that a manslayer might flee there, who unintentionally slew his neighbor without having enmity toward him in time past; and by fleeing to one of these cities he might live (Deuteronomy 4:41-42)
    The three cities weren't physically divided from other cities, but they were differentiated from them, and assigned a particular purpose. In this case, they were designated cities of refuge.

    We can also see badal being used in refe
     
  15. Darkside_Spirit

    Darkside_Spirit Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2001
    Firstly, the verses don't say that darkness was "created". God said, "Let there be light", and there was light. The light was good. The verses don't speak of darkness being created at all.


    Fair point. This was an error in my reading of Genesis.

    As for dividing/separating the light from the darkness, this is actually less physical than our English translations would suggest. The Hebrew word here is badal, and it refers to making a distinction between things. God makes a distinction between day and night in verse 14 of Genesis 1. It's also used elsewhere in the Bible in this manner:

    Then Moses set apart (badal) three cities across the Jordan to the east, that a manslayer might flee there, who unintentionally slew his neighbor without having enmity toward him in time past; and by fleeing to one of these cities he might live (Deuteronomy 4:41-42)

    The three cities weren't physically divided from other cities, but they were differentiated from them, and assigned a particular purpose. In this case, they were designated cities of refuge.

    We can also see badal being used in reference to making a distinction between the holy and unholy, and the clean and unclean...

    So, basically Genesis 1:3-5 is telling us about God making a distinction between the light and the darkness, rather than physically separating them. The very next thing he does, after differentiating between them, is to name them "day" and "night".


    The translation information given for the word is:

    1. to divide, separate, sever
    2. to separate, set apart
    3. to make a distinction, difference
    4. to divide into parts.

    In all of these, an active distinction/division is being made. People aren't merely recognising that differences exist (e.g. "I went downstairs and made a distinction between the green carpet and the blue carpet"). They are making a useful distinction that wasn't there before (e.g. "I went downstairs and categorised the varying tones of carpet as either mostly green, or mostly blue").

    In the King James Version, badal is rendered:

    "separate" 25 times
    "divide" 8 times
    "difference" 4 times
    "asunder" 2 times
    "sever out" 1 time
    "separation" 1 time
    "utterly" 1 time.

    Let's look to the various verses mentioned above:

    • In Deuteronomy 4:41-42, three cities are designated places of refuge. The distinction is in their administrative treatment.

    • In Leviticus 10:10, things are designated as either clean or unclean. Again, the distinction is in how they are treated.

    • In Leviticus 20:25, animals are designated as either clean or unclean. Again, the distinction is in how they are treated.

    • In Ezekiel 22:26, things are designated as either holy or profane. Once again, the distinction is made so that they are treated differently.


    So, we can see that the distinction serves a purpose. Uncloven and cloven animals aren't separated just for the fun of it; the distinction is so that the Jews know what to eat. Additionally, all of the above involve a categorisation. A number of entities are divided into two or more groups, of which there are a smaller number.

    The question is: if the badal in Genesis 1 is a mental distinction, what purpose would it serve? There are only two (light and darkness) to start with, so they can't be grouped or categorised into a smaller number. There is no other aspect by which they can be distinguished (e.g. holy and unholy). On this basis, I hold that making a mental distinction between light and darkness would be out of place, and that a physical separation makes a greater amount of sense.
     
  16. Grand_Moff_Monkey

    Grand_Moff_Monkey Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Darkside_Spirit said: The translation information given for the word [badal] is:

    1. to divide, separate, sever
    2. to separate, set apart
    3. to make a distinction, difference
    4. to divide into parts.

    In all of these, an active distinction/division is being made. People aren't merely recognising that differences.

    In the King James Version, badal is rendered:

    "separate" 25 times
    "divide" 8 times
    "difference" 4 times
    "asunder" 2 times
    "sever out" 1 time
    "separation" 1 time
    "utterly" 1 time.
    The problem with simply listing the different ways badal is rendered in the King James Version is that many English words have changed meaning since 1611. It's the contexts that must be considered.

    The English word "severed", for example, immediately suggests a physical division. But that is the word the King James uses for the setting aside of the cities of refuge:
    Then Moses severed (badal) three cities on this side Jordan toward the sunrising;
    That the slayer might flee thither, which should kill his neighbour unawares, and hated him not in times past; and that fleeing unto one of these cities he might live: (Deuteronomy 4:41-42, King James Version)
    The three cities weren't severed from other cities, but differentiated from them. It's therefore the context that we must consider to determine whether a separation is a physical one or a mental one.



    Darkside_Spirit said: Additionally, all of the above involve a categorisation. A number of entities are divided into two or more groups, of which there are a smaller number.
    Do you think that really matters? Let's suppose there were only two animals in the whole world. One was clean; the other was unclean. Just because there are only two of them, do you think that no distinction could be made between them?



    Darkside_Spirit said: The question is: if the badal in Genesis 1 is a mental distinction, what purpose would it serve?
    Excellent question. Let's look at the first five verses of Genesis 1:
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
    The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
    Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
    God saw that the light was good; and God separated (badal) the light from the darkness.
    God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
    Now, darkness is already there (verse 2), before God says "Let there be light". God says that the light was good (verse 4) ? notice he doesn't comment on the darkness being good. He then separates (badal) the light from the darkness.

    Light is good, so God differentiates it from the darkness. There are countless reasons why light is considered to be good in the natural world. Photosynthesis is just one of a multitude of examples. So in God's creative act, light was certainly differentiated from the darkness in its purpose.

    Light and darkness are also differentiated in the rest of the Bible for other reasons. The daytime was associated with work and integrity, while the night was associated with drunkenness, theft, secrecy and all manner of evil behaviour. We can also see this difference in our world today. I live in London. There are areas that many people don't feel safe to go into at night, but it's not a problem during the day. Paul puts it this way:
    The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature. (Romans 13:12-14)
    So the daytime was associated with "dece
     
  17. Darkside_Spirit

    Darkside_Spirit Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2001
    It is insufficient simply to list the different ways badal is rendered - especially from the King James Version, as many English words have changed meaning since 1611. It's the contexts that must be considered.
    What I'm trying to establish with the translation information is that badal, in the mental sense, is very unlikely to merely signify recognition of a difference, and almost invariably indicates an active, purposeful separation.

    The English word "severed", for example, immediately suggests a physical division. But that is the word the King James uses for the setting aside of the cities of refuge...
    1. Granted: badal may refer to either a mental distinction, or a physical division.

    2. However, when badal is used in the mental distinction sense, it always refers to making a useful, active distinction, rather than merely recognising a difference.

    3. If "separated the light from the darkness" were to refer to a mental distinction, it would not be useful and active; it would merely be a recognition that a difference exists.

    4. Therefore, the badal in Genesis 1:4 is a physical division, not a mental distinction.

    The three cities weren't severed from other cities, but differentiated from them. It's therefore the context that we must consider to determine whether a separation is a physical one or a mental one.
    We both agree that the context must be considered. However, in Deuteronomy 4:41-42, the differentiation/distinction serves an active purpose (i.e. designating which cities are places of refuge). In Genesis 1:4, a mental distinction would serve no such purpose.

    Additionally, all of the above involve a categorisation. A number of entities are divided into two or more groups, of which there are a smaller number.

    Do you think that really matters? Let's suppose there were only two animals in the whole world. One was clean; the other was unclean. Just because there are only two of them, do you think that no distinction could be made between them?
    Note the word "additionally". My argument is that (a) mental distinctions, when referenced with badal, serve an active purpose, and (b) in Genesis 1:4, such a mental distinction would serve no such purpose. I'm eliminating possible purposes to show that there are none. In the above example, a mental distinction would serve an active purpose because it would determine which animals were clean and which were unclean.

    Light is good, so God differentiates it from the darkness.
    But the differentiation (good and bad) has already been made in the first part: "God saw that the light was good". It could be argued that "and God separated the light from the darkness" is a parallelism (i.e. repeats the first part), but that would be out of sync with how the surrounding verses, which contain no parallels, are written.

    So in God's creative act, light was certainly differentiated from the darkness in its purpose.
    That's like saying: "Mars bars were differentiated from vacuum in how they are eaten". Darkness is the absence of light; it cannot have a purpose, nor can the two be differentiated in such.

    Light and darkness are also differentiated in the rest of the Bible for other reasons.
    But there's no reason they would be differentiated at Genesis 1:4, which deals with the creation.

    Paul puts it this way:

    The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature. (Romans 13:12-14)
    Light and darkness are obviously being used here in a poetic sense, unless Paul actually thought you could make armour out
     
  18. Grand_Moff_Monkey

    Grand_Moff_Monkey Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Darkside_Spirit said: We both agree that the context must be considered. However, in Deuteronomy 4:41-42, the differentiation/distinction serves an active purpose (i.e. designating which cities are places of refuge). In Genesis 1:4, a mental distinction would serve no such purpose.
    Yes it would. Do you seriously feel that there is no purposeful distinction between light and darkness in the natural world? God's badal wasn't simply recognizing a difference, but it was indeed a purposeful distinction in terms of their purpose and effects.

    Genesis 1 deals with the creation of the natural world. In the natural world there is a huge difference between light and darkness. Light was necessary for the many forms of life that were to follow, especially plant life (e.g. photosynthesis). It is indeed a very purposeful distinction that God has made.



    Darkside_Spirit said: Perhaps they were joined together at the moment when light was created. Like adding salt to water, before separating them through evaporation.
    So is the only way you can make your theory work by adding details to the text that aren't there?



    Darkside_Spirit said: The three examples given all have the physical separation brought about by some other object placed between the two separated objects. If light and darkness were considered to have been physically separated, it's very unlikely that there would be envisioned something inbetween.
    Every single time that badal is used to refer to a physical distinction, we are told the manner of the division. So the only exception in the whole Bible is in Genesis 1:3-5? Do you really think that's likely?



    Summary:

    1] Genesis 1 gives us no indication that both light and darkness were considered to be physical. None of the rest of the Bible gives us that indication either.

    2] Darkness and light are first mentioned at different times in Genesis 1, so we have no reason to believe that they were physically joined to begin with.

    3] The text also doesn't say that they become joined later. The only way to see that is if we add things to the text, rather than looking at what the text itself says. Our whole debate is concerned with whether or not the Bible is divinely inspired, not whether your additions to the Bible are divinely inspired.

    4] The light and darkness are then "separated" (badal). Badal can also refer to a mental distinction (as it does the majority of the times it is used), rather than a physical separation. In creation, there is a huge distinction between the purpose and effect of light and darkness (photosynthesis etc).

    5] Every single time that badal is used in the Bible to refer to a physical separation, we are told what it is that separates the two things. We are not told what separates light and darkness in Genesis 1.


    Conclusion:

    I therefore have no reason whatsoever to assume that the badal of light and darkness was a physical separation, rather than a distinction in their purpose and effect.



    So moving right along to the Second Day:

    Darkside_Spirit said (in his original post): On the second day, the earth is made as a "firmament" in the midst of the waters-but in reality it is a planet, orbiting a star and surrounded by vacuum, not dihydrogen oxide.


    Then God said, "Let there be an expanse (raqiya') in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
    God made the expanse (raqiya'), and separated the waters which were below the expanse (raqiya') from the waters which were above the expanse (raqiya'); and it was so.
    God called the expanse (raqiya') heaven (shamayim). And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. (verses 6-8)
    Well, the verses certainly don't deny that the earth is a planet, that it orbits a star or indeed that it is surrounded by vacuum.

    The issue is whet
     
  19. Darkside_Spirit

    Darkside_Spirit Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2001

    Grand_Moff_Monkey:

    [b]Well, the verses certainly don't deny that the earth is a planet, that it orbits a star or indeed that it is surrounded by vacuum.[/b][hr][/blockquote]I am arguing that my particular interpretation of Genesis is the most plausible one, and it incorporates an earth surrounded by water and not vacuum.

    [blockquote][hr]Grand_Moff_Monkey:

    [b]Is the earth made as a "firmament"?

    Well, the earth is clearly mentioned before the creation of the "firmament", so it's obviously not the earth itself that is a "firmament".[/b][hr][/blockquote]The earth is the firmament (dome), in the sense that it is the firmament's hollow interior.

    [blockquote][hr]Grand_Moff_Monkey:

    [b]Is the earth surrounded by water?

    No. The "firmament" separates the water that is above from the water below. We're not told about any water on the sides. It also doesn't say that it separates the waters inside from the waters outside. Both of those would be far more appropriate ways of describing a world surrounded by water. The Bible simply says that the "firmament" separates the waters above from the waters below.[/b][hr][/blockquote]The word translated as "above" is [i]'al[/i]. The [link=http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?search=05921&version=kjv&type=str&submit=Find]translation[/link] given is:

    [blockquote]upon, on the ground of, according to, on account of, on behalf of, concerning, beside, in addition to, together with, beyond, above, over, by, on to, towards, to, against[/blockquote](Note that the translation is quite complex, and I've only quoted a summary of one of two categories, so you might want to look at the full translation info yourself.)

    The word translated as "below" or "under" is [i]Tachath[/i]. The [link=http://www.biblestudytools.net/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?search=08478&version=kjv&type=str&submit=Find]translation[/link] (once again, you may well wish to check the link for yourself) is:

    [blockquote]the under part, beneath, instead of, as, for, for the sake of, flat, unto, where, whereas[/blockquote]So as we can see, the words used as "above" and "below" have very wide meanings, and would certainly be appropriate for describing waters inside and outside a dome.

    [blockquote][hr]Grand_Moff_Monkey:

    [b]So what is the "firmament"?

    Well, we've had a debate on this earlier, but it wouldn't hurt to summarize my position on it. Most of the following points have been brought up before, but there are also some new bits and pieces thrown in for good measure. Sorry that there are so many points here. But I felt it was necessary in order to fully explain my position:[/b][hr][/blockquote]I'll take this opportunity to reiterate my position, using the diagrams I posted earlier. Quotations are from the KJV.

    [b]Genesis 1:2[/b] [i]And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.[/i]

    [b]***************************************************************
    ***************************************************************
    ***************************************************************
    ***************************************************************
    ***************************************************************
    ***************************************************************
    ***************************************************************
    ***************************************************************
    ***************************************************************
    ***************************************************************
    ***************************************************************
    ***************************************************************
    ***************************************************************
    ***************************************************************
    ***************************************************************
    ***************************************************************
    ***************************************************
     
  20. Grand_Moff_Monkey

    Grand_Moff_Monkey Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Glad to see your diagrams have made a comeback. :D

    In this post, I will reiterate my rejection of the "solid dome" interpretation of the raqiya' of Genesis 1. In doing so, I will also answer your comments from your last post.

    You'll notice that I haven't followed through on two of my points from my last post. One of them is the issue of the waters "above" and "below". I found your reply to be satisfactory. Also, I said that extended surface referred to the extending of an already existing surface. I've been unable to dig up the source for that, so just ignore it.



    1] Does Darkside's interpretation of Genesis 1 work in context?

    Darkside_Spirit said: I'll take this opportunity to reiterate my position, using the diagrams I posted earlier.
    Your diagrams certainly are cool, but I do notice a few problems.

    In your second illustration you show the waters going all the way up to the solid dome. God then says, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place..." The waters then sink down thousands of feet. If something is gathered, does that mean it sinks or even that it recedes?

    The waters being "gathered together to one place" also doesn't imply that any water was lost either. So what happened to all that water?

    Maybe it seeped through the dome to the other side? No, then the water would in no way be gathered to one place.

    Maybe it drained out of the bottom of the earth, and what was left formed the oceans? No, the waters would be separated again. It wouldn't constitute being gathered together to one place.

    Maybe it just seeped into the soil of the earth? No, that would imply that the earth is at least as deep as the area between the land and the dome.

    So my question is ? if your diagrams are an accurate portrayal of what the writer of Genesis intended ? what happened to all that water?

    I also have an issue with the sun etc being placed in the dome, but I'll come to that later.



    2] Does "extended surface" work in this context of Genesis 1?

    When raqiya' was used to refer to an extended surface, it was an architectural term. It was always used to refer to straight surfaces. There is not one example in Ancient Hebrew architecture of a dome-shaped surface. They didn't use them, and neither did their neighbours.

    Darkside_Spirit has previously argued that for the raqiya' to be a solid structure, it must be dome-shaped. Clearly if the "extended surface" was horizontal, diagonal or vertical (as their "extended surfaces" always were, with no exceptions), the raqiya' could not keep the water separate. Therefore, a solid meaning in this context is highly unlikely.

    If the writer of Genesis had intended to convey the image of a dome-shaped surface, why use raqiya' at all? Why not just tell us it was a rounded surface?



    Darkside_Spirit said: Because the nature of Genesis--a creation account, the building of the world--would have motivated the use of an architectural term.
    That is a logical step, but we need to note something:

    There are no other architectural terms used in the chapter at all. Obviously, the whole chapter is concerned with God making things, but no architectural terminology is used at all. So, if an architectural term is used for the dome, why not for anything else in the whole of creation?



    Darkside_Spirit said: The author of Genesis, because it pertains to the creation, would have had a very clear motivation for using an architectural term to signify a dome, even if the Hebrews' own architecture did not incorporate dome-shaped structures.
    Ok, let's change the context and apply your logic to another situation.

    Let's say the context was geometry. The word "triangle" is used. If you hear the word triangle, you automatically think of a shape with three sides. But in its context, it refers not to a three-sided shape, but to a square. Would this make any sense?

    Everyone who hears the word triangle
     
  21. Darkside_Spirit

    Darkside_Spirit Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2001

    Grand_Moff_Monkey:

    [b]In your second illustration you show the waters going all the way up to the solid dome. God then says, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place..." The waters then sink down thousands of feet. If something is gathered, does that mean it sinks or even that it recedes?[/b][hr][/blockquote]Is there evidence that the writer of Genesis would have known about the non-compressibility of water (without changing it into solid form)? Unless he was aware that water could not be compressed, he could have seen "gathering" the water into one place as involving a recession.

    (I'd be interested to know how [b]Grand_Moff_Monkey[/b] interprets the gathering of the water into one place, as it happens. Whichever interpretation you choose, it seems to me that the waters must go down in order for the dry land to appear, even if they are just seas to start with. So what does the "gathering" of the water involve, if it doesn't signify a recession?)

    [b]In the previous post, I pointed out that the biblestudytools.net Hebrew Lexicon thinks that [i]raqiya[/i] carries a third meaning--that of "firmament" or "vault of heaven". Grand_Moff_Monkey has failed to take notice of this in his response. The following (blue text) carries the assumption that this third meaning does not exist...[/b]

    [color=darkblue][blockquote][hr]Grand_Moff_Monkey:

    [b]When raqiya' was used to refer to an extended surface, it was an architectural term. It was always used to refer to straight surfaces. There is not one example in Ancient Hebrew architecture of a dome-shaped surface. They didn't use them, and neither did their neighbours.

    Darkside_Spirit has previously argued that for the raqiya' to be a solid structure, it must be dome-shaped. Clearly if the "extended surface" was horizontal, diagonal or vertical (as their "extended surfaces" always were, with no exceptions), the raqiya' could not keep the water separate. Therefore, a solid meaning in this context is highly unlikely.

    If the writer of Genesis had intended to convey the image of a dome-shaped surface, why use raqiya' at all? Why not just tell us it was a rounded surface?[/b][hr][/blockquote]I've already answered this, so I'll try to make it very clear this time. [b]Grand_Moff_Monkey[/b]'s argument is:

    1. If [i]raqiya[/i] does mean "extended surface" in this case, it must be dome-shaped.
    2. Hebrew architecture was angular, and [i]raqiya[/i]'s "extended surface" meaning was an architectural term.
    3. Therefore, any "extended surface" described by [i]raqiya[/i] must be angular.
    4. Therefore, [i]raqiya[/i] cannot mean "extended surface" in this instance.

    My problem lies with point #3. If the writer were referring to a dome, then the use of an architectural term--when the Hebrews' own architecture was angular--would have seemed somewhat inappropriate. However, the writer was talking about the creation, and so would have had a clear motivation for the use of architectural language. This motivation could well have overriden the fact that the Hebrews' own architecture did not incorporate dome-shaped structures.

    [blockquote][hr]Grand_Moff_Monkey:

    [b]There are no other architectural terms used in the chapter at all. Obviously, the whole chapter is concerned with God making things, but no architectural terminology is used at all. So, if an architectural term is used for the dome, why not for anything else in the whole of creation?[/b][hr][/blockquote]To begin with, the dome--if it is present--is the most architectural part of the whole chapter. Architecture deals with the construction of buildings, and the dome would have been a building on a gigantic scale. Nothing else in the chapter would have resembled the construction of a building to the extent a dome would have.

    That aside, I would be interested to see the evidence that [i]raqiya'[/i], in its "extended surface" meaning, was indeed an architectural term, as [b]Grand_Moff_Monkey[/b] has claimed and I have (up to now) accepted.

    [blockquote][hr]Grand_Moff_Monkey:

     
  22. Darkside_Spirit

    Darkside_Spirit Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2001
    MISTAKE CORRECTION

    In point [6a], raqiya should actually be shamayim.

    Sorry about the error. :D
     
  23. Grand_Moff_Monkey

    Grand_Moff_Monkey Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Nov 29, 2001
    I'll just briefly answer a few points before I move on to Day 3. After that, I never want to hear the words dome, expanse or firmament again.



    Darkside_Spirit said: In the previous post, I pointed out that the biblestudytools.net Hebrew Lexicon thinks that raqiya carries a third meaning--that of "firmament" or "vault of heaven". Grand_Moff_Monkey has failed to take notice of this in his response.
    No, I did answer this in my post before last. "Firmament" is a word that was used for this at a much later date, in the aftermath of the Latin Vulgate. It's not a meaning that?s there in the original Hebrew word. Your source uses "firmament" because it follows the King James, which in line with the Latin, translates raqiya' as firmament.



    Darkside_Spirit said: The use of "triangle" to describe a square would be an outright contradiction in terms. The use of "extended surface" to describe a dome would not be.
    My analogy does have its limitations. The word triangle always refers to a shape with three sides, with no exceptions. But to the Hebrews an "extended surface" always referred to a flat surface, with no exceptions. You've been unable to provide just one example of a dome in the entire history of Hebrew architecture. It's a pretty safe bet that "extended surface" wouldn't apply to a dome, unless the passage explicitly said it does.



    Darkside_Spirit said: There is no reason an "extended surface" raqiya could not refer to metal, so there isn't a problem. Even so, does it really matter if the dome is made out of another material, such as stone or wood?
    Okay, so the dome might have been made out of stone or wood. Does this really matter?
    My point was that raqiya' as an extended surface doesn't carry any connotations of the material used. You claimed that it meant it was made of metal. I was simply pointing out that you were in error.



    Darkside_Spirit said: In addition to the information from biblestudytools.net, I came across some passages from Ezekiel involving raqiya. These are... (KJV)
    We've already established that the KJV translates raqiya' as firmament. Why not mention that the vast majority of translations favour "expanse" in all of these cases?

    Let's consider these two verses:

    Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the raqiya' of his power. (Psalm 150:1)
    What makes more sense? The expanse of God's power, or the solid dome of his power?

    And above the raqiya' that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. (Ezekiel 1:26)
    In his vision, Ezekiel explains the appearance of many things in great detail. He doesn't tell us that the raqiya' is transparent, so there's no reason to assume it resembled anything other than what the reader expected it to be. But he then sees above the raqiya'? How does he see above something that was solid and thousands of miles in the air? "Above the expanse" therefore makes more sense in this context.



    Darkside_Spirit said: The Book of Enoch is an apocryphal text, the first section of which provides an interesting insight into Hebrew cosmology
    Yup, Enoch is apocryphal. It's also worth pointing out that the Book of Enoch was never accepted as scripture, either by the Jews or the early Christians. Perhaps one of the reasons for that was that they recognized that its cosmology was erroneous.



    Conclusion:

    1] To the Hebrews "extended surfaces" were always flat, with no exceptions whatsoever.

    2] If the raqiya' of Genesis 1 is an extended surface, we shouldn?t suppose it's a dome unless we?re explicitly told it was.

    3] Raqiya' as an expanse makes sense not only in Genesis 1, but other times in the Bible where raqiya? is mentioned.

    4] Darkside_S
     
  24. Darkside_Spirit

    Darkside_Spirit Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Sep 9, 2001

    Grand_Moff_Monkey:

    [b]I'll just briefly answer a few points before I move on to Day 3. After that, I never want to hear the words dome, expanse or firmament again.[/b][hr][/blockquote]We have something in common then :D

    Now, onto Day 3...

    I accept that the translations of [i]deshe'[/i], [i]'eseb[/i] and [i]pariy 'ets[/i] are ambiguous. However, it has repeatedly been implied by [b]Grand_Moff_Monkey[/b] that, if something is not mentioned explicitly in Genesis, it did not happen. In one of his replies pertaining to the book of Job, he asked why, if God stretched a measuring line across the earth, Genesis does not mention it. On the light/darkness issue, I was condemned for "adding details to the text", and it was argued that, since light and darkness are not "created" like the other elements of the creation, the author of Genesis did not see them as being physical. So we seem to both agree that it is fallacious to read things into the creation account that are not specifically mentioned.

    So: [b]if the insect-dependent plants were not created on Day 3, when were they created?[/b]

    There appears to be nowhere else in the chapter where the insect-dependent plants could have been made, were they not made on Day 3. I suggest that unless our attention can be drawn to another stage in the creation account that [i]would fit the insect-dependent plants better than Day 3[/i], then in all probability, that is when they were created.
     
  25. Grand_Moff_Monkey

    Grand_Moff_Monkey Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    Nov 29, 2001
    Darkside_Spirit said: I accept that the translations of deshe', 'eseb and pariy 'ets are ambiguous. However, it has repeatedly been implied by Grand_Moff_Monkey that, if something is not mentioned explicitly in Genesis, it did not happen. In one of his replies pertaining to the book of Job, he asked why, if God stretched a measuring line across the earth, Genesis does not mention it. On the light/darkness issue, I was condemned for "adding details to the text", and it was argued that, since light and darkness are not "created" like the other elements of the creation, the author of Genesis did not see them as being physical.
    "Condemned" is a bit strong, but it is true that I have maintained that we should just focus on what it written, rather than adding details to the text that aren't there. The difference between the measuring-line scenario from Job (as well as the light/darkness issue) and various species of plants is clear. The species of plants could be seen to exist in the world anyway, regardless of Genesis. However, if God laid a measuring-line across the entire length and breadth of the earth in creation, we wouldn't know about it unless Genesis told us so. The same applies to the light/darkness division.

    There are, however, many observable things in the natural world that are simply not mentioned in the Genesis account. Genesis 3 tells us that the snake was "more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made". But Genesis 1 doesn't even mention snakes. Does this mean that God didn't create snakes? That would be a silly argument.



    Darkside_Spirit said: So we seem to both agree that it is fallacious to read things into the creation account that are not specifically mentioned.
    Exactly. This entire debate is about the Bible itself ? what the Bible actually says. The bottom line is that the Bible doesn't say that insect-dependant plants were created on the 3rd Day.



    Darkside_Spirit said: So: if the insect-dependent plants were not created on Day 3, when were they created?
    Good question. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing for sure. The creation account in Genesis is by no means complete. When were snakes created? What about frogs? Both of these are of far more theological significance than insect-dependant plants, and they're not mentioned at all.

    Day 3 misses out a lot of things we would normally expect to be grouped together with the plants that are mentioned. However ambiguous deshe' and 'eseb might be, it is clear that they do not refer to flowers. Flowers, being the main insect-dependants, are not mentioned at all.

    Pariy 'ets clearly refers to fruit trees, but no mention is made of the vast variety of trees that do not produce fruit. What about Pine trees and Palm trees? What about nut-trees, such as the Oak or the Chestnut? Maybe they were created together with the fruit trees, maybe not. But since we're not explicitly told, we have no way of knowing for sure.



    Darkside_Spirit said: There appears to be nowhere else in the chapter where the insect-dependent plants could have been made, were they not made on Day 3. I suggest that unless our attention can be drawn to another stage in the creation account that would fit the insect-dependent plants better than Day 3, then in all probability, that is when they were created.
    Well, since we can't know for sure, any suggestions I put forward would be pure conjecture. But, so that it doesn't look like I'm avoiding the issue, let me put something forward for consideration.

    On the 3rd Day, we're told that fruit trees were created, but we know nothing about nut trees. All the other days of creation are equally brief. In Chapter 2, however, we get a more detailed look at the events of the 6th Day, when man is created. (It should be said at this stage that I'm aware of the theory that suggests that Genesis 1 and 2 were two separate creation accounts, not intended as one unit. There
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.