-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
C
Actually, proportionately, about the same percentage of jews becomes christians as do gentiles. Yes there are a lot more gentile christians, but there are also a lot more gentile non-christians. Keep in mind too, many jews if not most, don't really believe in what the O.T. says anyway.
But christianity itself is a jewish religion, which bases its roots in the O.T. Jesus is jewish, as are 90% of the N.T. writers. The O.T. is quoted hundreds of times in the N.T. The two testaments are inseparable.
But most impressive are prophesies in the O.T. of Christ. They are particularly uncanny, and I don't think any skeptic can deny this with a straight face.
But christianity itself is a jewish religion, which bases its roots in the O.T. Jesus is jewish, as are 90% of the N.T. writers. The O.T. is quoted hundreds of times in the N.T. The two testaments are inseparable.
But most impressive are prophesies in the O.T. of Christ. They are particularly uncanny, and I don't think any skeptic can deny this with a straight face.
Last edited by a moderator:
Forgive my making a second comment, but I didn't quite notice your point the first time I looked. Water is abundant in the solar system and in deep space, though in space itself it is typically not found in liquid form. I am not questioning the presence of abundant water throughout the universe, no one questions this.
The problem in the Genesis creation account is the presence of "the waters" in liquid form in deep space. There is no star to warm this watery (sphere?) and prevent the water from freezing. Indeed, there appears to be no planet either, just a (planet sized?) body of liquid water. I want to say too that the shape of the watery mass is not defined. It might be a sphere, it might be a cube or even the shape of a rectangular prism. It could even be an irregularly shaped mass of water, which I suppose is the way I typically think of it. There is no information on its nature, at least not in the first couple of lines. I don't know whether the Babylonians say more about it than Genesis does, but they too have a mass of water that I think they describe as a watery chaos. You must notice that without the Sun this water would freeze solid.
If we acknowledge that this account is a creation myth then the problems go away. The ancient writer probably assumed the temperature of the waters would simply be the same temperature as the Mediterranean or the Dead Sea. They never freeze. Why then would this primaeval ocean freeze? And why call it an ocean? It is the size of an ocean and bodies of water this large we typically call oceans, but I sense your hesitation. Oceans have beaches. This watery void has no beach.
What else do we know? Well, God hovers over the surface of the waters. So the water has a surface. There also is an indication that there is a strong wind blowing across it. If there is a strong wind then there are probably large waves. So picture it. A very large body of water hanging in space and buffeted by wind and large waves as God glides across the surface, or at least hovers over the waves. Oh, I nearly forgot. You can’t get wind and waves without an atmosphere. So there must have been an atmosphere.
That is the picture I see. Aside from my assertion that this is a creation myth, can you agree with the picture painted in the preceding paragraph? If you do agree then I can proceed.
The problem in the Genesis creation account is the presence of "the waters" in liquid form in deep space. There is no star to warm this watery (sphere?) and prevent the water from freezing. Indeed, there appears to be no planet either, just a (planet sized?) body of liquid water. I want to say too that the shape of the watery mass is not defined. It might be a sphere, it might be a cube or even the shape of a rectangular prism. It could even be an irregularly shaped mass of water, which I suppose is the way I typically think of it. There is no information on its nature, at least not in the first couple of lines. I don't know whether the Babylonians say more about it than Genesis does, but they too have a mass of water that I think they describe as a watery chaos. You must notice that without the Sun this water would freeze solid.
If we acknowledge that this account is a creation myth then the problems go away. The ancient writer probably assumed the temperature of the waters would simply be the same temperature as the Mediterranean or the Dead Sea. They never freeze. Why then would this primaeval ocean freeze? And why call it an ocean? It is the size of an ocean and bodies of water this large we typically call oceans, but I sense your hesitation. Oceans have beaches. This watery void has no beach.
What else do we know? Well, God hovers over the surface of the waters. So the water has a surface. There also is an indication that there is a strong wind blowing across it. If there is a strong wind then there are probably large waves. So picture it. A very large body of water hanging in space and buffeted by wind and large waves as God glides across the surface, or at least hovers over the waves. Oh, I nearly forgot. You can’t get wind and waves without an atmosphere. So there must have been an atmosphere.
That is the picture I see. Aside from my assertion that this is a creation myth, can you agree with the picture painted in the preceding paragraph? If you do agree then I can proceed.
C
The water/atmosphere angle is going to be a very tough sale as I'll show you. I'm hoping I'm slowly helping you respect the biblical text, as I take away these challenges one by one.
I can only tell you honestly, you've been given bad information on this. No, there is no indication of an atmosphere prior day 2, and it may not have actually formed until day 3 at the creation of the land and sea.
Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Now the word that has probably come into question is ruach which is sometimes translated wind, but when with 'elohiym it is translated 'Spirit of God', and we see this all over the old testament. Please believe me when I say ruach 'elohiym is not to be translated atmosphere, nor does it imply such an rendering even remotely.
Even if you wanted to force that rending and translate it wind of God, this neither could be considered a description of the atmosphere. It would be a special wind generated by God. But I just checked about a dozen translations and all use Spirit of God. No other translations really makes any sense.
Note also it's not blowing, but hovering, or vibrating even. The word there can also mean to tremble or shake, and none of these renderings are descriptive of wind or an atmosphere in any way.
Am I changing your mind yet?
I can only tell you honestly, you've been given bad information on this. No, there is no indication of an atmosphere prior day 2, and it may not have actually formed until day 3 at the creation of the land and sea.
Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
Now the word that has probably come into question is ruach which is sometimes translated wind, but when with 'elohiym it is translated 'Spirit of God', and we see this all over the old testament. Please believe me when I say ruach 'elohiym is not to be translated atmosphere, nor does it imply such an rendering even remotely.
Even if you wanted to force that rending and translate it wind of God, this neither could be considered a description of the atmosphere. It would be a special wind generated by God. But I just checked about a dozen translations and all use Spirit of God. No other translations really makes any sense.
Note also it's not blowing, but hovering, or vibrating even. The word there can also mean to tremble or shake, and none of these renderings are descriptive of wind or an atmosphere in any way.
Am I changing your mind yet?
While it is true that we call the investigation into the origin and development of the universe the science of cosmology, the broader definition of the term would simply be “an account or theory of the origin of the universe” (ODE*), and the Genesis creation account is precisely this. The creation story is the Hebrew (Jewish) cosmology of about 587 BC.
* Oxford Dictionary of English (2005)
* Oxford Dictionary of English (2005)
You're off topic, but after all you are only responding to my own comments. I forgive us both. 
I have always used the term 'gentile' to describe a person who is a non Jew. So I am uncertain what you mean by a gentile Christian, as most would agree that Christians are non Jews anyway.
I agree that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, but I wouldn't consider Christians today to be Jews, except perhaps for that select few who are trying to emulate the original Jewish Christian movement (if are there such people).
I don't have any idea of the numbers. I would agree this is probably true of secular Jews, but not the Orthodox.
So you think Christians are the true Jews? Is this what you are suggesting, and that Jews are not really Jews?
I have always used the term 'gentile' to describe a person who is a non Jew. So I am uncertain what you mean by a gentile Christian, as most would agree that Christians are non Jews anyway.
I agree that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, but I wouldn't consider Christians today to be Jews, except perhaps for that select few who are trying to emulate the original Jewish Christian movement (if are there such people).
I don't have any idea of the numbers. I would agree this is probably true of secular Jews, but not the Orthodox.
So you think Christians are the true Jews? Is this what you are suggesting, and that Jews are not really Jews?
K
You're off topic, but after all you are only responding to my own comments. I forgive us both.
I have always used the term 'gentile' to describe a person who is a non Jew. So I am uncertain what you mean by a gentile Christian, as most would agree that Christians are non Jews anyway.
I agree that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, but I wouldn't consider Christians today to be Jews, except perhaps for that select few who are trying to emulate the original Jewish Christian movement (if are there such people).
I don't have any idea of the numbers. I would agree this is probably true of secular Jews, but not the Orthodox.
So you think Christians are the true Jews? Is this what you are suggesting, and that Jews are not really Jews?
I have always used the term 'gentile' to describe a person who is a non Jew. So I am uncertain what you mean by a gentile Christian, as most would agree that Christians are non Jews anyway.
I agree that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, but I wouldn't consider Christians today to be Jews, except perhaps for that select few who are trying to emulate the original Jewish Christian movement (if are there such people).
I don't have any idea of the numbers. I would agree this is probably true of secular Jews, but not the Orthodox.
So you think Christians are the true Jews? Is this what you are suggesting, and that Jews are not really Jews?
O
the writers of the hebrew scriptures lived in a world without a word for "science". i think the best way to deal with this question is the way martin buber responded to it, and other "contradictions, between modern science and scripture. he said that the question should really be "why was this scripture so important for so many thousand years". when i look at it that way i find that im asking very different questions than if i place all of my faith on the rather dubious "scientific" proof of the accuracy of scripture as a science textbook.
O
You're off topic, but after all you are only responding to my own comments. I forgive us both.
I have always used the term 'gentile' to describe a person who is a non Jew. So I am uncertain what you mean by a gentile Christian, as most would agree that Christians are non Jews anyway.
I agree that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, but I wouldn't consider Christians today to be Jews, except perhaps for that select few who are trying to emulate the original Jewish Christian movement (if are there such people).
I don't have any idea of the numbers. I would agree this is probably true of secular Jews, but not the Orthodox.
So you think Christians are the true Jews? Is this what you are suggesting, and that Jews are not really Jews?
I have always used the term 'gentile' to describe a person who is a non Jew. So I am uncertain what you mean by a gentile Christian, as most would agree that Christians are non Jews anyway.
I agree that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, but I wouldn't consider Christians today to be Jews, except perhaps for that select few who are trying to emulate the original Jewish Christian movement (if are there such people).
I don't have any idea of the numbers. I would agree this is probably true of secular Jews, but not the Orthodox.
So you think Christians are the true Jews? Is this what you are suggesting, and that Jews are not really Jews?
Last edited by a moderator:
C
You're off topic, but after all you are only responding to my own comments. I forgive us both.
I have always used the term 'gentile' to describe a person who is a non Jew. So I am uncertain what you mean by a gentile Christian, as most would agree that Christians are non Jews anyway.
I agree that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, but I wouldn't consider Christians today to be Jews, except perhaps for that select few who are trying to emulate the original Jewish Christian movement (if are there such people).
I have always used the term 'gentile' to describe a person who is a non Jew. So I am uncertain what you mean by a gentile Christian, as most would agree that Christians are non Jews anyway.
I agree that Christianity started out as a Jewish sect, but I wouldn't consider Christians today to be Jews, except perhaps for that select few who are trying to emulate the original Jewish Christian movement (if are there such people).
No, jews are a bloodline. If you trace your ancestry to Jacob, or to the nation of Israel, you are jewish. Every church has jews in them. There are more than you think.
Now if you define jew by someone adhering to modern Judaism, then of course they couldn't be christians. But that would make your initial argument silly, regarding why the jews don't accept christianity. By your own argument, they couldn't as they would lose their jewish identity the moment they converted.
C
Then why did they also speak of the clouds of heaven?? Clouds can be seen by the naked eye moving through an open expanse and yet their said to be in the heavens (shamiym). Clouds really ruin this whole issue for solid-domers like yourself.
When you look at how the ancient biblical writers described the heavens, they put objects in it like birds, tall towers and clouds all of which are easily seen as existing in an open expanse. For your theory to work they would have said these objects were below the heavens. Instead they are in the heavens.
Clouds alone virtually single-handedly ruin your hopes of imposing ANE cosmologies onto the Bible.
Oh I'm with you on this. Same is true of the new testament writers. The heavens, in their minds, were that which is up. Heaven was the great open expanse that was above. Think about it. When Christ ascended to heaven where did He go? Christ refuted much of traditional jewish thought, but He affirmed the old testament in every way possible.
I believe you.
When you look at how the ancient biblical writers described the heavens, they put objects in it like birds, tall towers and clouds all of which are easily seen as existing in an open expanse. For your theory to work they would have said these objects were below the heavens. Instead they are in the heavens.
Clouds alone virtually single-handedly ruin your hopes of imposing ANE cosmologies onto the Bible.
Oh I'm with you on this. Same is true of the new testament writers. The heavens, in their minds, were that which is up. Heaven was the great open expanse that was above. Think about it. When Christ ascended to heaven where did He go? Christ refuted much of traditional jewish thought, but He affirmed the old testament in every way possible.
I believe you.
Last edited by a moderator:
C
Thanks TaylorTG. At least tried to support this idea of solid dome cosmology.
Cycel, so far you get an F. You've probably offered the worst defense of this view I've come across in 10 years. I think you may have just accepted it on blind faith and didn't bother to go back see what the text actually said. At this point you've offered a bad interpretation of ruah which no Bible translation confirms, and that's about it. Eek man. Are you sure you really believe this?
Cycel, so far you get an F. You've probably offered the worst defense of this view I've come across in 10 years. I think you may have just accepted it on blind faith and didn't bother to go back see what the text actually said. At this point you've offered a bad interpretation of ruah which no Bible translation confirms, and that's about it. Eek man. Are you sure you really believe this?