The Genesis account wasn't provided to us by God as a science paper, so there is no details nor any intent from God to clarify details, thank God. Genesis isn't about ANY of that insignificant crap. What IS provided doesn't conflict with anything science has found. I am a scientist in fact, have been for forty years teaching all branches of science. The only "conflict" is when a "religious" know-it-all begins claiming things that make Christians look stupid, such as claiming creation was made in 7 days of 24 hour periods, or that there was a world wide flood etc.
-
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
Bride, Genesis is a historical account, and an accurate one at that. It provides a great deal of detail about the sequence of events that happened in the past. It explains the origin of sin and the origin of death that resulted. Our history is a history of bad news, which made the coming savior (the good news) necessary.
And we have to admit, this is at odds with modern naturalistic theories which claims death has existed for millions of years before man and sin came on the scene, but we should expect the Bible's account to be at odds with naturalism.
Not only this, even the New Testament is at odds with science in some areas. Do you think the Resurrection is compatible with modern medical science? Why would you then require the miraculous creation account to be compatible? Miracles and science don't mix, and there's no reason to try to force them into naturalistic explanations.
And we have to admit, this is at odds with modern naturalistic theories which claims death has existed for millions of years before man and sin came on the scene, but we should expect the Bible's account to be at odds with naturalism.
Not only this, even the New Testament is at odds with science in some areas. Do you think the Resurrection is compatible with modern medical science? Why would you then require the miraculous creation account to be compatible? Miracles and science don't mix, and there's no reason to try to force them into naturalistic explanations.
If you go into the "meanings" of things, which things are consistent and monumental in meaning throughout the OT, you will find that the "cross" means "crucifying self". Dying, to fulfill the Law of Sin and Death so that a man can be Raised Up to New Life. That is what the cross means, and the solid important concept of this death and resurrection tutoring, was impressed upon men of God such as Moses, to record. For instance, the ark passing through the water is the entire point of the flood.
Yet all I ever hear people jabbering about is whether it was circum-global. The lesson is that it is through water we can die to our old faithless life. Hence baptism. It was also demonstrated again tremendously when Israel passed through the Red Sea miraculously. And again when they first entered the promised land, they had to first pass through the waters of Jordon that were miraculously piled up to protect them. Immediately after, at Gilgal, they circumcised, "cut off the flesh", another "cross" example. And on and on. The OT is incredibly rich with quotes, parallels and scholarly allusions of which most aren't even revealed until we find them mirrored and perfectly fulfilled word for word in the NT! It is what makes the Bible and original ms so fascinating to ponder and prove and be amazed over and over... yea, the cross is everywhere in the Bible, if you know what the "cross" means. It is the first step to Eternal Life.
Yet all I ever hear people jabbering about is whether it was circum-global. The lesson is that it is through water we can die to our old faithless life. Hence baptism. It was also demonstrated again tremendously when Israel passed through the Red Sea miraculously. And again when they first entered the promised land, they had to first pass through the waters of Jordon that were miraculously piled up to protect them. Immediately after, at Gilgal, they circumcised, "cut off the flesh", another "cross" example. And on and on. The OT is incredibly rich with quotes, parallels and scholarly allusions of which most aren't even revealed until we find them mirrored and perfectly fulfilled word for word in the NT! It is what makes the Bible and original ms so fascinating to ponder and prove and be amazed over and over... yea, the cross is everywhere in the Bible, if you know what the "cross" means. It is the first step to Eternal Life.
Genesis 2:3 does say, "God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy, for on it He rested from His work ...."
I quite agree with you that an ancient earth is the only scenario that makes sense, nonetheless it seems obvious that the author of that passage did believe in a six day creation. Don't you agree?
It is my personal observation that people can accept evolution and also believe in God. Is this your position?
I quite agree with you that an ancient earth is the only scenario that makes sense, nonetheless it seems obvious that the author of that passage did believe in a six day creation. Don't you agree?
It is my personal observation that people can accept evolution and also believe in God. Is this your position?
View attachment 89114
That’s pretty much correct. The dome, also called the firmament, must be solid to prevent the waters above from mixing with the waters beneath, but it doesn’t surround the Earth. The Earth is flat. See the illustration below.
Now let’s begin to examine the claim: Note that Genesis starts with one very large body of water in space (I am inferring this primeval ocean is in space, and I call it an ocean, for what else does one call a very large body of water?).
And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” (NOAB: New Oxford Annotated Bible)
Some other versions of Genesis call the dome ‘the firmament’ or ‘the sky,’ but whatever you want to call it I wish to focus your attention on the fact that it is a barrier between the waters above it and the waters beneath. It makes very little sense to call the barrier ‘the sky.’ Think about it. What is our sky? If I step outside on a clear day and look up the sky is simply the atmosphere above the ground. It gets progressively thinner at greater altitudes until at last it disappears altogether. Interestingly, I have noticed when at the beach that the sky actually does look like a dome above my head.
Now think again of the divided waters. God placed a division in the waters to separate the waters above from the waters beneath. If the waters are truly separated at this stage of the creation process, then does the division, or firmament, not have to be solid to prevent the mixing of the now separate bodies of water?
Also, what shape must the division take? It is cutting the two bodies of water in half. It must cut them completely in half for Genesis says “and let it separate the waters from the waters.” They are no longer mixing. Try to picture, if you can, sky between the two bodies of water. Sky is just atmosphere. It can’t possibly divide the waters. It is not a solid barrier. The waters will mix. For that matter the waters above would simply fall with a splash onto the waters beneath and once again you would have a single body of water.
The barrier must be solid.
I’ll stop here to get your reaction. I know we have covered this before, but I feel I need to go over this again. Please bear with me.
That’s pretty much correct. The dome, also called the firmament, must be solid to prevent the waters above from mixing with the waters beneath, but it doesn’t surround the Earth. The Earth is flat. See the illustration below.
Now let’s begin to examine the claim: Note that Genesis starts with one very large body of water in space (I am inferring this primeval ocean is in space, and I call it an ocean, for what else does one call a very large body of water?).
And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” (NOAB: New Oxford Annotated Bible)
Some other versions of Genesis call the dome ‘the firmament’ or ‘the sky,’ but whatever you want to call it I wish to focus your attention on the fact that it is a barrier between the waters above it and the waters beneath. It makes very little sense to call the barrier ‘the sky.’ Think about it. What is our sky? If I step outside on a clear day and look up the sky is simply the atmosphere above the ground. It gets progressively thinner at greater altitudes until at last it disappears altogether. Interestingly, I have noticed when at the beach that the sky actually does look like a dome above my head.
Now think again of the divided waters. God placed a division in the waters to separate the waters above from the waters beneath. If the waters are truly separated at this stage of the creation process, then does the division, or firmament, not have to be solid to prevent the mixing of the now separate bodies of water?
Also, what shape must the division take? It is cutting the two bodies of water in half. It must cut them completely in half for Genesis says “and let it separate the waters from the waters.” They are no longer mixing. Try to picture, if you can, sky between the two bodies of water. Sky is just atmosphere. It can’t possibly divide the waters. It is not a solid barrier. The waters will mix. For that matter the waters above would simply fall with a splash onto the waters beneath and once again you would have a single body of water.
The barrier must be solid.
I’ll stop here to get your reaction. I know we have covered this before, but I feel I need to go over this again. Please bear with me.
Last edited:
Your first paragraph is true, academical, but aside from my point.
I don't require anything.
Your second paragraph contradicted what I wrote, and is wrong altogether. There is a reason I wrote what I wrote. I wrote what I did because of those who believe that science conflicts with scriptures. It doesn't. We have obvious proof that creatures have lived and died on this planet for millions of years. Nothing amazing about that. Praise the Lord! And nothing is in conflict with scriptures about that either. Unless, like I said, someone comes along and pushes their religious ideas of a circumglobal flood or seven 24 hours periods of creation and same such unlearned statements. Then they will just look stupid and religious, and make everyone else "Christian" look stupid too. If we are going to look, stupid about something, let's look stupid in believing the Resurrection. Not in believing that God's creation lasted seven 24 hour days. That isn't about faith, that is about being silly and parroting what some religious leader says just to appear as "faithful" or whatever they think it shows.
Of course miracles happened that conflict with science, such as the resurrection like you say, or the sun standing still or going back. But we aren't talking about those and they don't relate in the least. Trying to relate faith in the resurrection to faith in the short creation myth, or the bigfoot myth or any other myth, is pointless and counter productive. The resurrection and the sun standing still happened and were "miracles" quite out of the natural realm. (Otherwise they wouldn't be miracles). And yes, the fact that God created everything is miraculous in a sense. But it doesn't take a whole lot of common sense and Holy Spirit and Bible study to know that this planet has been around a very long long time, and that the flood was a localized event. And it is wisdom to recognize the difference and the importance of the one over the other.
Resurrection, important to believe in.
The young earth or universal flood, silliness to believe in and meaningless.
I don't require anything.
Your second paragraph contradicted what I wrote, and is wrong altogether. There is a reason I wrote what I wrote. I wrote what I did because of those who believe that science conflicts with scriptures. It doesn't. We have obvious proof that creatures have lived and died on this planet for millions of years. Nothing amazing about that. Praise the Lord! And nothing is in conflict with scriptures about that either. Unless, like I said, someone comes along and pushes their religious ideas of a circumglobal flood or seven 24 hours periods of creation and same such unlearned statements. Then they will just look stupid and religious, and make everyone else "Christian" look stupid too. If we are going to look, stupid about something, let's look stupid in believing the Resurrection. Not in believing that God's creation lasted seven 24 hour days. That isn't about faith, that is about being silly and parroting what some religious leader says just to appear as "faithful" or whatever they think it shows.
Of course miracles happened that conflict with science, such as the resurrection like you say, or the sun standing still or going back. But we aren't talking about those and they don't relate in the least. Trying to relate faith in the resurrection to faith in the short creation myth, or the bigfoot myth or any other myth, is pointless and counter productive. The resurrection and the sun standing still happened and were "miracles" quite out of the natural realm. (Otherwise they wouldn't be miracles). And yes, the fact that God created everything is miraculous in a sense. But it doesn't take a whole lot of common sense and Holy Spirit and Bible study to know that this planet has been around a very long long time, and that the flood was a localized event. And it is wisdom to recognize the difference and the importance of the one over the other.
Resurrection, important to believe in.
The young earth or universal flood, silliness to believe in and meaningless.
Hi thanks for asking. I love so many things and have researched and taught so many things it is hard to say... I love astrophysics and stay tuned to the research attempting to bridge the gap of understanding with a grand unification theory, but it isn't my expertise, probably because I'm not gifted in mathematics. But for years I was right on top of all that went on with the Haydron supercollider and their expectations into the Higgs Boson. That has been most enjoyable. Entomology would have probably been my field of expertise had I not chosen General Science and Research. I've had a very interesting life with insects and am just fascinated with them. I read everything, look up everything, love everything there is to be known about this place we live. Dividing fact from fiction is the greatest reward in these things, and discovering the incredible brilliance of God in His creation and how nature works and lives together. How about you?
C
And yet the Bible defines firmament for us. It is heaven.
And God called the firmament Heaven. (v.8)
The argument you made was the that biblical authors defined firmament as a solid dome. Yet that's clearly not the case if the firmament is said to be heaven. You haven't actually responded to anything I've said on this, and I'll assume it's because you are stumped.
Now contrast this with the biblical view of heaven.
This picture I can support biblically. Clouds are in the firmament and very obviously not fixed in a solid dome. Buildings and towers are said to be able to reach the heavens, and there is no solid dome in sight at those heights. And there is no solid dome appearing in the sky where birds soar.
Biblically, you haven't provided any evidence, and something tells me you've given up on this.
And yet they didn't call it the ocean. The text refers to the primordial waters as simply ha-mayim. You can argue that they should have called them an ocean, but they didn't.
The sky (heavens) is the realm of the clouds and other higher things. According to the Bible the clouds are in the firmament.
To put it simply, clouds destroy your entire theory. You'll ignore them, but I'll kindly keep remind you of them.
Huh? This is your understanding of science? What divides clouds from the earth. Is it not open space? Why would you think this is not a logical way for God to divide something? God defined the firmament.
My reaction is the same as when you brought this up before. Instead of actually going to their writings to see what the biblical authors believed, you are making "logical" arguments about what they should have believed. But the tread is specifically about what the Bible teaches. Do you have anything to say on that? Feels like your arguments are slowly coming to a halt.
And God called the firmament Heaven. (v.8)
The argument you made was the that biblical authors defined firmament as a solid dome. Yet that's clearly not the case if the firmament is said to be heaven. You haven't actually responded to anything I've said on this, and I'll assume it's because you are stumped.
Now contrast this with the biblical view of heaven.
This picture I can support biblically. Clouds are in the firmament and very obviously not fixed in a solid dome. Buildings and towers are said to be able to reach the heavens, and there is no solid dome in sight at those heights. And there is no solid dome appearing in the sky where birds soar.
Biblically, you haven't provided any evidence, and something tells me you've given up on this.
And yet they didn't call it the ocean. The text refers to the primordial waters as simply ha-mayim. You can argue that they should have called them an ocean, but they didn't.
The sky (heavens) is the realm of the clouds and other higher things. According to the Bible the clouds are in the firmament.
To put it simply, clouds destroy your entire theory. You'll ignore them, but I'll kindly keep remind you of them.
Huh? This is your understanding of science? What divides clouds from the earth. Is it not open space? Why would you think this is not a logical way for God to divide something? God defined the firmament.
My reaction is the same as when you brought this up before. Instead of actually going to their writings to see what the biblical authors believed, you are making "logical" arguments about what they should have believed. But the tread is specifically about what the Bible teaches. Do you have anything to say on that? Feels like your arguments are slowly coming to a halt.
Last edited by a moderator:
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Exodus 31:17
It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’”
I guess we should all go ahead and change the Bible so that it can be more logical like our book of the real truth about the existence of the world (Science Book).
[SUP]
18 [/SUP]I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. [SUP]19 [/SUP]And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Exodus 31:17
It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’”
I guess we should all go ahead and change the Bible so that it can be more logical like our book of the real truth about the existence of the world (Science Book).
[SUP]
18 [/SUP]I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. [SUP]19 [/SUP]And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.
I want to make clear that I am not arguing that Genesis should have called the waters hanging in space anything. I am calling it an ocean, not the ocean. I am saying that when presented with a body of water that comprises all the water of the earth, and more, what else can we English speakers call it, but an ocean? Call it ha-mayim if you want, but for an English speaker this word conveys nothing. If we could gather together all the waters of the earth, transport them into space as a single body, what would you call it?
However, if this is throwing you too much then don’t answer. What it is called doesn’t bear upon my argument. What’s important is the body of water itself.
Note that in Genesis 1:6 God divided the waters.
And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” (NOAB: New Oxford Annotated Bible)
And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." (NIV)
And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." (King James)
Some other versions of Genesis call the dome ‘the sky,’ but whatever you want to call it I wish to focus your attention on the fact that God divided the waters, that is he placed a barrier between the waters above and the waters beneath. It makes very little sense to call the barrier ‘the sky.’ The firmament is separating the waters above it from the waters below. What’s that tell us about the nature of the firmament?
You are jumping ahead too quickly. There is no earth. I haven’t moved beyond Genesis 1:6. There are no clouds yet. There are no stars, no sun and no moon. There are only the divided waters. There is no sky above, no land below. There is only a division between the waters. What is it?
God divided the waters, separating the waters from the waters. I picture a volume of water that has somehow been horizontally divided. There are the waters below and the waters above. That is all so far. I ask you to explain, ‘What it is that is acting as the barrier?’ What prevents the waters from mixing? Sky can’t suffice. The waters above would fall and mix with the waters below. The two oceans (sorry, ha-mayim) would re-combine. This is not the world as we know it Calminian. This is an Iron Age account of what was probably a Bronze Age oral tradition of creation.
I want to hammer this home. God placed a barrier in the midst of the waters, separating the waters from the waters. Normally the phrase, “in the midst of the waters,” would be taken to mean about half way down. So I picture about as much water above as below. This becomes important later when the windows of heaven are opened and the waters above the firmament are allowed to drown the earth to the tops of the highest mountains.
So what is the barrier that separates the waters?
What the author believed is that there was some sort of division separating the waters above from the waters below.
It is very important for my argument that we are starting with a single body of water and then dividing it into two. For this to happen there must exist a physical barrier that keeps the waters apart. Nothing else is logical. This is not about science. This is about understanding what the Iron Age author was describing in Genesis 1:6. I am looking for a confirmation from you that something is physically keeping the waters apart.
However, if this is throwing you too much then don’t answer. What it is called doesn’t bear upon my argument. What’s important is the body of water itself.
Note that in Genesis 1:6 God divided the waters.
And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” (NOAB: New Oxford Annotated Bible)
And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." (NIV)
And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." (King James)
Some other versions of Genesis call the dome ‘the sky,’ but whatever you want to call it I wish to focus your attention on the fact that God divided the waters, that is he placed a barrier between the waters above and the waters beneath. It makes very little sense to call the barrier ‘the sky.’ The firmament is separating the waters above it from the waters below. What’s that tell us about the nature of the firmament?
You are jumping ahead too quickly. There is no earth. I haven’t moved beyond Genesis 1:6. There are no clouds yet. There are no stars, no sun and no moon. There are only the divided waters. There is no sky above, no land below. There is only a division between the waters. What is it?
God divided the waters, separating the waters from the waters. I picture a volume of water that has somehow been horizontally divided. There are the waters below and the waters above. That is all so far. I ask you to explain, ‘What it is that is acting as the barrier?’ What prevents the waters from mixing? Sky can’t suffice. The waters above would fall and mix with the waters below. The two oceans (sorry, ha-mayim) would re-combine. This is not the world as we know it Calminian. This is an Iron Age account of what was probably a Bronze Age oral tradition of creation.
I want to hammer this home. God placed a barrier in the midst of the waters, separating the waters from the waters. Normally the phrase, “in the midst of the waters,” would be taken to mean about half way down. So I picture about as much water above as below. This becomes important later when the windows of heaven are opened and the waters above the firmament are allowed to drown the earth to the tops of the highest mountains.
So what is the barrier that separates the waters?
What the author believed is that there was some sort of division separating the waters above from the waters below.
It is very important for my argument that we are starting with a single body of water and then dividing it into two. For this to happen there must exist a physical barrier that keeps the waters apart. Nothing else is logical. This is not about science. This is about understanding what the Iron Age author was describing in Genesis 1:6. I am looking for a confirmation from you that something is physically keeping the waters apart.
G
My Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible says that the Hebrew word [ translated into 'firmament' ] means 'expanse' - in the specific manner of "stretched-out expanse"...
That tells me that the nature of the firmament is that it is an expanse.
"A spread-out region of space."
It is an expanse. Start with that. Don't jump ahead too quickly.
Put your hammer away. You should study some more physics first.
What separated the waters at the crossing of the Red Sea?
Answer: Wind
What "internal forces" does the atmosphere "contain"...?
If there is nothing present except water -- i.e., no solid earth, with a heavy metal core, etc. -- why do you believe there is sufficient gravity present to make the waters above the firmament fall...
Fall where? --- "down"...? Towards the center of gravity? What center of gravity?
( Yes, technically, there would be one; however, the force of it - to "draw together" two bodies of water - would be insignificant compared to the forces drawing them apart. )
Even a little ---- wind ---- would be enough to shape the water into whatever form [ that it might take ].
Something else to think about:
If you draw something apart in such a way that an expanse develops between different parts / portions of [ that something ] -- why would you necessarily think that the expanse [ itself ] is what is keeping [ that something ] "held apart"...?
Many things do not seem logical when a sufficient understanding of it has not yet been obtained.
Sometimes -- this is where having the proper 'faith' can "come in real handy"...
That tells me that the nature of the firmament is that it is an expanse.
"A spread-out region of space."
It is an expanse. Start with that. Don't jump ahead too quickly.
Put your hammer away. You should study some more physics first.
What separated the waters at the crossing of the Red Sea?
Answer: Wind
What "internal forces" does the atmosphere "contain"...?
If there is nothing present except water -- i.e., no solid earth, with a heavy metal core, etc. -- why do you believe there is sufficient gravity present to make the waters above the firmament fall...
Fall where? --- "down"...? Towards the center of gravity? What center of gravity?
( Yes, technically, there would be one; however, the force of it - to "draw together" two bodies of water - would be insignificant compared to the forces drawing them apart. )
Even a little ---- wind ---- would be enough to shape the water into whatever form [ that it might take ].
Something else to think about:
If you draw something apart in such a way that an expanse develops between different parts / portions of [ that something ] -- why would you necessarily think that the expanse [ itself ] is what is keeping [ that something ] "held apart"...?
Many things do not seem logical when a sufficient understanding of it has not yet been obtained.
Sometimes -- this is where having the proper 'faith' can "come in real handy"...
Last edited:
C
Yes, but ha-mayim in english is not ocean. That's the point. You have the initial waters which in hebrew has quite a range of applications. Even urine falls under this category.
You were going good until you inserted the word barrier. You haven't supported this yet. A division doesn't require a solid barrier. You need something to support this. The problem is, all the evidence from the old testament goes against your assertion.
Of course there is. Did you not read the prior verses? There was an unformed and unfilled earth (erets - land) prior to light. This land was referred to as the waters.
I never claimed there were.
Space. Expanse. Think for a moment. If the firmament is defined as the realm of the clouds then the firmament must be open expansive space.
Okay, but you're letting your religious bias of naturalism get in the way here. The creation account in genesis is miraculous, done by the God who created the natural laws. You're trying to justify your own miraculous interpretation by citing a naturalistic problem.
And I'm still hammering you for evidence. Where is the barrier ever mentioned in the Bible? I've completely refuted the idea of it being the firmament, as we can clearly see the clouds of heaven are not embedded in a barrier. So where is the barrier mentioned. Please Cycel, this has gone on for weeks. Do you have anything to support this?
So basically your argument is, yes there is no biblical evidence, but you can't figure out any other way God could have separated something liquid (Guess you don't like the Exodus story either. Do you think God put in a solid barrier parting the red sea?). Even though He created all the natural laws, separating water is just to hard, so He created a barrier out of nothing to help Himself?? Seriously? This is your argument?
Come on man. Be willing to at least learn some things. You'll be a better proponent of your view.
You were going good until you inserted the word barrier. You haven't supported this yet. A division doesn't require a solid barrier. You need something to support this. The problem is, all the evidence from the old testament goes against your assertion.
Of course there is. Did you not read the prior verses? There was an unformed and unfilled earth (erets - land) prior to light. This land was referred to as the waters.
I never claimed there were.
Space. Expanse. Think for a moment. If the firmament is defined as the realm of the clouds then the firmament must be open expansive space.
Okay, but you're letting your religious bias of naturalism get in the way here. The creation account in genesis is miraculous, done by the God who created the natural laws. You're trying to justify your own miraculous interpretation by citing a naturalistic problem.
And I'm still hammering you for evidence. Where is the barrier ever mentioned in the Bible? I've completely refuted the idea of it being the firmament, as we can clearly see the clouds of heaven are not embedded in a barrier. So where is the barrier mentioned. Please Cycel, this has gone on for weeks. Do you have anything to support this?
So basically your argument is, yes there is no biblical evidence, but you can't figure out any other way God could have separated something liquid (Guess you don't like the Exodus story either. Do you think God put in a solid barrier parting the red sea?). Even though He created all the natural laws, separating water is just to hard, so He created a barrier out of nothing to help Himself?? Seriously? This is your argument?
Come on man. Be willing to at least learn some things. You'll be a better proponent of your view.
Last edited by a moderator: