But Genesis is not a science textbook’ - Page 4

I wouldn’t really call the Bible as a science book I think it is a salvation book, but when it’s speaks to science because God always speaks the truth, everything that it says about science is true - even thou it is mostly salvation book.

Shtal said, "I was already been told through PM that you are piece of sh*t.."

And as a good Christian you embraced that violation of the ninth Commandment. This is a great chance for me to quote scripture.

"There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community."
 Proverbs 6:16–19

The person who told you that is a coward. He is such a coward that even after reading this he won't come forward and admit he said it.

BTW, you can call me that. He can call me that. It may even be true but what neither of you have said is that I'm wrong. That is the source of your anger and it's not very Christian.

As far as your explanation of Job 26:7, you contradict yourself. You said Psalms was not to be taken literally since it's poetry but now you are saying to not take Job literally. Funny how my first post, I believe, on this topic was to not take the Bible literally.

This quote by you, "We now have pictures of the earth taken from space that show it floating in the cosmic void. The earth literally hangs on nothing, just as the Bible teaches," is wrong. You don't know what literally means. The Earth does not literally hang on nothing as it doesn't hang at all. The Earth doesn't float either, space is a vacuum. If the Earth "hangs" on anything it's the sun's gravity. The Earth orbits around the sun. This is basic science but it's also something that the writers of the Bible knew nothing of.

@Noitsyou:

 

Shtal has to prove his assertions are scientific because faith alone is not enough to support him in what (he says) he believes in when he is witnessing browbeating others into living it too.  He knows that those whom he tells they must adopt his beliefs or suffer eternal damnation are going to ask for some proof, in this Century.   Faith alone would be sufficient for anyone to believe in a deity, as long as they are not trying to con the rest of the world as well as themselves.

Noitsyou wrote: As far as your explanation of Job 26:7, you contradict yourself. 


Don't full yourself lol the supposed contradiction quickly disappears when we examine the context of each passage and recognize it as figurative language. First Samuel 2:8 was spoken during a prayer by Hannah after she dedicated her son Samuel into the Lord’s service. Job spoke the other verse while talking with his friends about man’s weakness in light of God’s majestic power. This sort of poetic imagery (pillars, foundations, etc.) is commonly used in Scripture to describe how God upholds the world. For example, consider what the Lord said to Job:

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone[?] (Job 38:4–6)
We know that the earth does not literally have foundations and a cornerstone like a building; instead, God uses this figurative language to create a mental picture for Job. In the same way, animals do not talk and laugh, yet God also tells Job that the horse “laughs at fear” and “when the trumpet sounds, he says ‘Aha!’” (Job 39:22, 25, ESV).

This is something we are all familiar with in everyday speech. For example, if someone is not particularly sane, we might say he’s “got bats in the belfry,” “losing his marbles,” “coming unglued,” or “vacant upstairs.” All of these are obviously not literal statements but rather figures of speech that give a more interesting look at the concept being expressed.

Critics of yours and ridicule towards me because I endorse the historical-grammatical hermeneutic. You can claim that I must take everything in the Bible in a wooden literal sense. However, the historical-grammatical hermeneutic recognizes figures of speech are used in everyday language, and we should interpret them as such. When I interpret Scripture, I strive to find the author’s intended meaning. Just as we use figurative language today, so also the writers of Scripture often used figures of speech, especially in passages written using poetic language like the examples above.

So, God hangs the earth on nothing, but it’s not just dangling in space. He has firmly fixed an orbit for our planet and upholds it securely in its proper place in our solar system.

Science does not explain things figuratively or in "everyday" language. There is no need to interpret. It seeks to avoid ambiguity.

So why doesn't the Bible simply say we orbit the sun and are under the influence of gravity? Why the need for "poetic" ambiguity?

Regardless, the ancients used metaphors not because they were trying to be poetic but because that was the only way they had to explain things. We say a chair has legs. Why? It's not because the inventor of the chair was trying to be poetic.

Why the need for poetic ambiguity?

I think because the Word of God was always intended to have layers of meaning corresponding to the layers of receptiveness that people present at different times in their lives and understanding.

One point I will agree with Shtal though, is that certain, well... perhaps "all" poetic descriptions ultimately, are borne out in real science. Happy coincidence.... hmm?

I even found out somewhere while surfing the net — there really is a four legged grasshopper! LOL

Hundmutter wrote: Shtal isn't listening; he has his fingers in his ears and is going "La la la la la".

Don't be a fool, I guess ignorance is a bliss for you...

What we call poetic ambiguity is really a manifestation of ignorance. When an ancient Hebrew referred to the pillars of Earth he wasn't being poetic he was expressing something he had no knowledge of in the best way he could. If it were metaphorical it would mean that pillars are being used in place of something actual or real. The ancients had no idea of what was actual so it was simply a case of imagination at work.

They had no concept of gravity like Newton would later have or an understanding of planetary movement like Copernicus or Kepler so they could only think of the Earth as hanging from some invisible coat hanger. They weren't speaking about the same things as Copernicus, Newton and Kepler in a poetically ambiguous way.

Take The Garden of Eden; they had no idea how humans came into existence so they made up the whole creation story to explain how we came into existence. But that isn't important. The story of Eden isn't about explaining "scientifically" how the human race was created, it is an allegory about good and evil among other things. It isn't about science but morality and religion. All of the "science" is there to fill in the gaps where the ancient Hebrews lacked real knowledge.

Let us assume that God spoke to Moses and told him the creation story. Could God have told Moses how he created the Earth in scientific terms? The ancient Hebrews were scientifically illiterate relative to the ancient Greeks. Imagine explaining the Big Bang to the ancients. There are people today who can't grasp the concept. If God told Moses these stories then they were like the ancient world equivalent of Creation for Dummies. These were people who lived in the desert and herded goats.

I will have to disagree with your stance of poetic ambiguity as a stance of ignorance. All great poets will never choose words based on empty meanings. Your imagination has its holes, but that is okay, no one is perfect.

Shtal - oh sorry, perhaps I should have written "Shtal isn't HEARING ..."