Jobar

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jobar
Thomas, are you a Biblical literalist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moderately.

Now, there's another unusual thing. That's always been a yes-or-no question, in my experience. A literalist thinks that all the Bible is literally true; how do you hold that position 'moderately'? Is the book divinely guided and inspired and thus without error, or is it not?

On the subject of the Flood, this forum is practically bristling with topics concerning it, and its impossibility. We just moved all the 2002 threads to our archives- if you would like to check out what has been written here before. Or if you wish to start a topic of your own about it, feel free.

We are, mostly, atheists here; this particular forum specializes in anti-creationism, but I look forward to engaging you in conversation and debate on other topics also (I was formerly a moderator in our Existence of God forum.)

Bubba

This is interesting. If we are willing to admit the bible is written by human authors, why would we expect the whole thing to be literal or literally true? Why can't it have value as an account of the Hebrew culture and beliefs of 3000 years ago and also have teachings of moral or spiritual value?

My favourite Christian is the (former president) Jimmy Carter. He is far from a literalist. In fact, Steven J Gould is one of his favourite authors.

So I guess my question is "Why do you find this suprising?"

Bubba

Bubba

I think maybe "moderately" must mean that there are some parts of it that are seen as actual history. In other words, the way that I would see "moderately" would be that they would accept the historical nature of say king David but also admit translation errors, errors based on historical context, errors based on a lack of scientific evidence at the time, etc.

Bubba

Thomas Cassidy

Carter is the best ex-president this country has ever had. His work with habitat for humanity is more meaningful than the work any ex-president in my memory.

And I loved Steven Gould's writings, and was quite irate at the comments made on the BB regarding his death.

Jimmy Higgins

Actually, its more likely that you made a post and just didn't post it by accident. Pressed the wrong button or something. Or as Scigril suggests, maybe you posted it elsewhere. That's happened to me plenty of times.

According to the JPS Tanakh, it is 'expanse of the sky", The NAB is "beneath the dome of the sky", KJV states "open firmament of the heaven". So the verse says that the fowls fly within the expanse or heaven and under the dome. So I'd agree with your reading of that verse.

Now from what you just posted, I'd disagree fully that the claim of the verse is a seperate heaven. If we were to fall on the line of straight rhetoric, I feel there are two possibilities for translation of this verse you've given.
"in the firmament of the heaven"
1) Literally in the firmament. As in the divider that is at the edge of the sky.
2) Means within the firmament, in other words, the same place where the birds fly.
I don't see any reasonable conclusion that can be made to assume a different heaven. To go further, let me get a couple other translations here (all emphasis is added).
The JPS Tanakh states, "shall serve as lights in the expanse of the sky" which indicates matching my idea in point 1 above. It should also be noted that the wording for 1:15 is similar to 1:20 with the JPS. 1:20 states across the expanse, like a chord and 1:15 states in the expanse, like a chord, though with no real definitive definitions as to exact places where each star must be, just as long as it is "in the expanse." Of course, it could again be taken literally that the stars are in the expanse literally, as in the border, but there is no reason whatsoever, when using the JPS to think that a different heaven is being spoken of.
The NAB states, "in the dome of the sky." Now this translation doesn't need to be taken strictly literal if suggesting that it means the stars are literally in the dome (aka the expanse edge). The NAB clearly suggests that they are literally in the dome.
The KJV bible claims "firmament of heaven" however, I wouldn't jump to a conclusion this means another heaven. The KJV specifically uses the same term "firmament of heaven" in 1:20. So it would seem that such a term is generically being used for the word sky or expanse as in other versions.

So by looking at your verse, and by looking at your verse, which I'm now assuming is the KJV as I look at my KJV bible, seem to indicate that the stars are sources of lights that are within the border of the sky, within the expanse itself, the edge of the firmament. Exactly like how stars are shown in a planetarium. They are spotted all on a dome. I'd hardly say that a planetarium is another realm of heaven.

From the NAB, pg 1317.
Alright, Paul says there are three heavens. However, you have only accounted appropriately for the creation of 1, through Gen. 1:15 and Gen 1:20, both revealing the same heaven. 2 Cor. 12:2 indicates there being three. However, the creation of the other 2 are never indicated.

I'm still looking forward to you replying to the rest of my previous post. And well to this post as well.

Jimmy Higgins

Thomas, I'm eagerly awaiting your reply to my previous two posts to you. You've been quick to reply previously, I'm wondering if you have been too caught up in another thread lately.

Thomas Cassidy

Nothing to reply to. All the information is in my initial post. One heaven where the birds fly, one where the stars shine, and the third one which is the abode of God. If you think the stars shine in the atmosphere, or that birds fly in outerspace, then your cosmology is a bit warped.

Jimmy Higgins

Or more likely your understanding of Genesis is.

MortalWombat

...err, you do know that his "Ph.D." was obtained through a degree mill, right? See Questionable Creationist Credentials.

Jimmy Higgins

Well, after that I think I immediately wrote, "but you know how much credence we give to that."

I was showing how just because Tom Cassidy is a teacher in religion doesn't mean that he has a clue. Just like just because Dr. Dino has a PhD doesn't mean he has a clue.