Can we trust what God says?

[mossrose]

The firmament is in the Bible, and was considered to be a solid dome above the earth. This is from a science-orientated, Christian web site:

http://biologos.org/blog/the-firmame...-not-the-point

"One of those issue concerns the second day of creation (Genesis 1:6-8), where God made the “expanse” or the “firmament.” The Hebrew word for this is raqia (pronounced ra-KEE-ah). Biblical scholars understand the raqia to be a solid dome-like structure. ...
... Ancient Israelites and others in that part of the world assumed the world was flat, and so it looked like the earth is covered by a dome, and the “blue sky” is the “water above” held back by the raqia. The translation “firmament” (i.e., firm) gets across this idea of a solid structure.
Biblical scholars agree on this understanding of raqia."

The Bible clearly and unambiguously says there is a solid dome above the world.

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Which clearly says that the earth is a sphere.

And Job 26:10

"He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters At the boundary of light and darkness.

Oh, look! A horizon! And that spot is called a "terminator", because it is where the light "stops". If you were standing on the terminator you would be either experiencing either sunrise or sunset. Going from dark into light or light into dark. And the terminator is always a circle, because the earth is round.

You might want to note that Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible, so even from the earliest times man understood that the earth is round.

And Proverbs 8:27

“When He established the heavens, I was there,
When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,

And Job 38:14

It is turned as clay to the seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.

referring to the earth.

Seals were often cylindrical shapes carved with the name of the bearer. They were rolled across wet clay to imprint the carving on the seal. So, just as the seal is rolled across the clay and it's features become apparent, the earth, as it rotates on it's axis and is exposed to light, has it's features become apparent to the viewer.

Scripture answers scripture. And there is no contradiction and there is clarity.

[tabibito]

So you will understand, I hope, why I will take claims of the resurrection in the same way.

By the way, I started this discussion of the firmament specifically because of the claim that scripture was not ambiguous. You might like to debate that point with mossrose.

She might prefer someone that she has reason to count believable.

Me? I do not think any of it is.

I was asking for an assessment of the sentence itself, not for background. Sort of like "The bear walking towards me was blue with orange stripes" Which part of "was walking toward me" logically leads to the conclusion that the bear was dead?

Do you? Can you tell me how you can decide which bits are and which bits are not?

That there is a big question. I'll only give a bare outline.
Does a statement have two or more witnesses independently attesting to it? Chalk it up as fact. Sift the facts to determine whether any claim was made that God said it -. If yes, call it prophecy of scripture. Jesus did not require that people believe him without that they had independent evidence from the Holy Spirit to back his assertions.

Does a statement have only one witness?
If it has, throw it in the maybe basket. Sort through the maybe basket - Is there any reason to doubt it? (maybe contradicted by something in the fact basket?) Paul's edicts regarding the role of women don't get past this one, or actually, some of them don't even make it that far.
Make no assertions regarding anything in the maybe basket, but they can be stated provided that the problem is made known.
I have moved only one (to date) item from the maybe basket to the prophecy of scripture category. Simply because it was confirmed as accurate through action of the Holy Spirit. (The believer is an ambassador in Christ's diplomatic service.)

[The Pixie]

Until such evidence is provided, I'll consider "firmament" to be ambiguous.

So you will understand, I hope, why I will take claims of the resurrection in the same way.

By the way, I started this discussion of the firmament specifically because of the claim that scripture was not ambiguous. You might like to debate that point with mossrose.

Which part of "No prophecy of scripture arises from private interpretation, holy men of God spoke as the Holy Spirit moved them" would lead logically to the conclusion that everything in the Bible is inspired by God?

Me? I do not think any of it is.

Do you? Can you tell me how you can decide which bits are and which bits are not?

[tabibito]

Sure, if you pick out certain parts and ignore the rest, I do not doubt you can compose something clear and unambiguous. I am not convinced most people have that in mind when they use the word, however.

Which part of "No prophecy of scripture arises from private interpretation, holy men of God spoke as the Holy Spirit moved them" would lead logically to the conclusion that everything in the Bible is inspired by God?

[tabibito]

"One of those issue concerns the second day of creation (Genesis 1:6-8), where God made the “expanse” or the “firmament.” The Hebrew word for this is raqia (pronounced ra-KEE-ah). Biblical scholars understand the raqia to be a solid dome-like structure. ...
... Ancient Israelites and others in that part of the world assumed the world was flat, and so it looked like the earth is covered by a dome, and the “blue sky” is the “water above” held back by the raqia. The translation “firmament” (i.e., firm) gets across this idea of a solid structure.
Biblical scholars agree on this understanding of raqia."

The Bible clearly and unambiguously says there is a solid dome above the world.

I have no issue with the statement that the verse would generally have been understood to mean a solid dome. Our understanding of the concepts of the time would indicate that very thoroughly. I haven't seen anything beyond bare assertion to support the statement though - so I don't know whether our opinions have a grounding in solid evidence.

The Biblical scholars agree that in the context of this verse, raqia means something solid. The question is, why have they arrived at that opinion? Again - I haven't seen any citations to support the conclusion. No use of the term "raqia" in the Old Testament conclusively indicates a solid. The translation in the LXX is στερεώματι

that which has been made firm

the firmament, the arch of the sky, which in early times was thought to be solid

a fortified place

that which furnishes a foundation

on which a thing rests firmly, support

The only time this word is used in the New Testament (Colossians 2:5), the idea that it can be a physical solid is simply ridiculous. It is a reference to the "foundation" of faith - the final entry for the definition provided.

Bare assertions don't constitute evidence.
Give me something solid as a basis for the claim, and I'll accept it. Until such evidence is provided, I'll consider "firmament" to be ambiguous.

[The Pixie]

If you define scripture as being a subsection of the Bible, that is true.

Sure, if you pick out certain parts and ignore the rest, I do not doubt you can compose something clear and unambiguous. I am not convinced most people have that in mind when they use the word, however.

Solid firmament not so much, and sun, moon, and stars travelling is acceptable if it is kept in mind that a subjective viewpoint is reasonable, and even if it isn't - there's no denying that all these things do travel.

The firmament is in the Bible, and was considered to be a solid dome above the earth. This is from a science-orientated, Christian web site:

http://biologos.org/blog/the-firmame...-not-the-point

"One of those issue concerns the second day of creation (Genesis 1:6-8), where God made the “expanse” or the “firmament.” The Hebrew word for this is raqia (pronounced ra-KEE-ah). Biblical scholars understand the raqia to be a solid dome-like structure. ...
... Ancient Israelites and others in that part of the world assumed the world was flat, and so it looked like the earth is covered by a dome, and the “blue sky” is the “water above” held back by the raqia. The translation “firmament” (i.e., firm) gets across this idea of a solid structure.
Biblical scholars agree on this understanding of raqia."

The Bible clearly and unambiguously says there is a solid dome above the world.

Theistic evolution covers a lot of territory. It is possible to accept evolution theory in its entirety without ditching the smallest part of the Biblical record of creation. It comes unstuck with the flood though.

I think most theistic evolutionists would say the sun was there first, then the earth, then the plants.

[tabibito]

You said before: " Scripture is not ambiguous. It is very clear. And it doesn't contradict itself."

If you define scripture as being a subsection of the Bible, that is true.

The problem is that scripture does indicate a flat earth, covered with a solid firmament across which the sun, moon and stars travel. Should we take that as truth?

Solid firmament not so much, and sun, moon, and stars travelling is acceptable if it is kept in mind that a subjective viewpoint is reasonable, and even if it isn't - there's no denying that all these things do travel.

I am sure you reject that worldview as readily as me, but then YECers compromise the Bible just as a theistic evolutionist does (not that I know where on that spectrum you are). I guess in a sense you are saying this too, as you object to "illogical, unreasoning, clinging to ancient worldviews" as a description for Christians.

Theistic evolution covers a lot of territory. It is possible to accept evolution theory in its entirety without ditching the smallest part of the Biblical record of creation. It comes unstuck with the flood though.

However, this does leave me wondering how you get from a clear and unambiguous scripture to a round earth. The bible promotes an ancient worldview that you apparently reject.

You don't - nothing in the Bible declares the Earth to be round. However, nothing unambiguously declares any shape.

[The Pixie]

And another misconception about believers from those who are not, and another supposed insult toward us......"flat earthers", illogical, unreasoning, etc.

You said before: " Scripture is not ambiguous. It is very clear. And it doesn't contradict itself." The problem is that scripture does indicate a flat earth, covered with a solid firmament across which the sun, moon and stars travel. Should we take that as truth?

I am sure you reject that worldview as readily as me, but then YECers compromise the Bible just as a theistic evolutionist does (not that I know where on that spectrum you are). I guess in a sense you are saying this too, as you object to "illogical, unreasoning, clinging to ancient worldviews" as a description for Christians.

However, this does leave me wondering how you get from a clear and unambiguous scripture to a round earth. The bible promotes an ancient worldview that you apparently reject.

[mossrose]

Yes, there are, and clinging to ancient world views is the slippery slope to a world without reason and logic.

And another misconception about believers from those who are not, and another supposed insult toward us......"flat earthers", illogical, unreasoning, etc.

We do not approach things of God leaving our brains at the door. A lot of very smart people have studied for a very long time and come to the conclusion that God is real, that the things He has declared about Himself are true and timeless.

It would be nice if people who didn't believe in Him would at least acknowledge the fact that there ARE scholars who have certainly used their logic and reason and their mental capacity to come to the conclusions they have without resorting to simple name calling.

Regardless, "fundamentalist", "illogical, unreasoning, clinging to ancient worldviews", whatever. Doesn't matter to me. You don't like the truth, too bad. One day you will know.

[shunyadragon]

People keep tossing "fundamentalist"around as if it's a disease. It certainly is not an insult to me, rather I am glad to be called that! I do not think that word means what you think it means, sort of like "homophobic" is consistently misused.

Homophobia is another issue I consider maybe, but not necessarily so. There are many problems with science, logic and reason, and relationship with those (everyone) who believes differently.

I vote for a disease, or maybe the plague, possibly a global pandemic, regardless of whether it is Judaism, Christianity, Islam or fanatical campaigns of no god(s). Fundamentalism in any form has negative impact on humanity

There are different sects and beliefs because people try to interpret scripture to fit their preconceived ideas of what they want it to say.

Yes, there are, and clinging to ancient world views is the slippery slope to a world without reason and logic.

Look. I have stated my position. I am not ashamed of my position. I stand on scripture as my final authority for everything. I do not worship scripture, I worship the God who gave it to us and I praise Him for His Spirit who enlightens those who desire to learn the truth.

OK

Call me whatever you will, it doesn't matter to me.

'I am a rock and I am an island.'

[mossrose]

I thank God for that!!!

Which one!

[shunyadragon]

You don't believe in the God of the scriptures. You worship a different god.

I thank God for that!!! I definitely do not believe in the god(s) of ancient world views. Yes they believed in God and worshiped God, but there comes a day to give up the ghosts of the ancient past.

And it is a matter of history that atheists and agnostics also murder instructed by their own lack of morality. And those who kill "in the name of God" are not always the name they give themselves. An old and tiresome argument from your side.

The problem is a very real problem from many world views to kill others who believe differently, whether Jews, Christians, Moslems, Atheists or whatever. I do know of anyone who has killed in the name of agnosticism. The argument from my side is that it was a terrible injustice 3000 years ago, 2000 years ago as it is today, and one of the greatest tragedies of human history which continues today, to kill in the name of this god or other god or gods, or no god and it is unjustified,

I do not believe god(s) actually gave such commands to kill. Humans basically justified their actions by claiming that they were acting on god's commands.

It goes back to the authority of scripture and that which is recorded in it. And I have already stated my stand on that.

Yes, I have been on Tweb for many years and aware of your beliefs.

[mossrose]

Only fundamentalists say there is no ambiguity in scripture.It's very unclear on some matters, hence why we midrash. If scripture was entirely clear, there wouldn't be different sects and beliefs.

People keep tossing "fundamentalist"around as if it's a disease. It certainly is not an insult to me, rather I am glad to be called that! I do not think that word means what you think it means, sort of like "homophobic" is consistently misused.

There are different sects and beliefs because people try to interpret scripture to fit their preconceived ideas of what they want it to say.

Look. I have stated my position. I am not ashamed of my position. I stand on scripture as my final authority for everything. I do not worship scripture, I worship the God who gave it to us and I praise Him for His Spirit who enlightens those who desire to learn the truth.

Call me whatever you will, it doesn't matter to me.

[whag]

Bibliolatry. How ridiculous. Scripture is not ambiguous. It is very clear. And it doesn't contradict itself.

And that is my last word on that.

I am not American, either.

Only fundamentalists say there is no ambiguity in scripture. It's very unclear on some matters, hence why we midrash. If scripture was entirely clear, there wouldn't be different sects and beliefs.

[mossrose]

That's bibliolatry and what earned American evangelicalism its bad name. Many human beings speak trustworthy things without a comfy harmonization with scripture. Scripture, we've discovered, is ambiguous.

Take animal cruelty, for example.

Bibliolatry. How ridiculous. Scripture is not ambiguous. It is very clear. And it doesn't contradict itself.

And that is my last word on that.

I am not American, either.