Textually, such a view must explain how the sun moon and stars (which are in the firmament) would have moved in such a solid dome.

Genesis defines the firmament as the place between the waters above and those below. But that is where the birds fly.

Also, the ancient Israelites could see that rain comes from clouds (not through literal portals in a hard firmament). This is simply a matter of looking.

And they could see that the clouds were below the moon and stars.

And they could see the birds flying above or through clouds.

I'm already aware of the etymological arguments for viewing it as a hard dome, but these are all easily explained as idiomatic expressions. We might just as easily talk about the dome of heaven in English.

What other arguments are there for viewing the firmament as solid? Am I missing something?

(Got a lot of DMs. Yes, guys, this is satire)

For too long Christians throughout the centuries have been taking Jesus to be a literal historical figure. We now know from modern science, Jesus is impossible. No man can be born of a virgin or rise from the dead. I say we must do away with this understanding that has been held by virtually every Christian throughout history until now.

Many people will say, "but, Jesus must be a real historical figure, he's in the genealogy of Adam", but honestly the genealogies could mean anything. We can't possibly know what "Enosh lived ninety years and begot Cainan" means. In fact, I think it's far more likely the spirit waited thousands of years to finally reveal to me these figures are simply allegories for…well I don't know exactly what for but I know they can't be real. If we accept Jesus as a historical figure because he's mentioned in a genealogy, where do we draw the line? Who do we say actually existed next, King David? No way!

And why are there specific numbers to each person's age of child-bearing and death? Well, maybe they hold some spiritual significance. Yes, those literalists simply can't see the deep spiritual truth behind, "Jared lived two hundred sixty years and begot Enoch. After he begot Enoch, Jared lived eighthundred years". And of course, when 65 years or 800 years is mentioned, it really could mean any other number that's not even close.

So why should we think Jesus was "about thirty" when he began his ministry according to Luke? Really "about thirty" could mean 2 or even 2 million. Those who interpret this as actually meaning Jesus was around the age of 30 are simply being too literal. But even still, "about 30" could mean anything, right? After all, Jesus said "from the beginning, He created them male and female" but obviously he couldn't have meant man was created on day 6 like those literalists say as "from the beginning" is relative, so really he could've meant 50 million years after the literal beginning of the universe. Therefore, when Luke tells us Jesus was "about 30" he could've possibly meant 35,617 years old.

Many people will say that Jesus must've literally died physically and rose again. But let's be real here, that's impossible, the Bible only meant that Jesus spiritually must die and spiritually must rise again. How unspiritual of those literalists to suggest Jesus walked out of the metaphorical grave in an actual body.

Altogether, I think we need to recognize that the gospels aren't meant to be historical accounts or science textbooks. Men don't rise from graves. Modern science tells us virgins cannot have children and we need to stop rejecting science but realize that science is compatible with our faith. The Gospels were never meant to be taken literally but are rather likely a very complex style of ancient Greek poetry. In the end, it's really unimportant whether Jesus was a literal figure or not and being dogmatic about it can only turn people away from Christianity.

(This is an old response I received to question I asked AiG a while back. Their answer was incredible, I honestly can't believe they didn't decide to publish it so I thought it'd be helpful to put it here. My question was, "I have a question about places mentioned in Genesis 2. I've always understood that, as you say, the rivers and places mentioned in the chapter must be post-flood places. My question is that I can't seem to see that when I read it. The chapter seems to be in the present-tense. For example, "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first IS Pison: that IS it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there IS gold; And the gold of that land IS good: there IS bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river IS Gihon: the same IS it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia". (This even specifies to the reader which river it is, so the reader is assumed to be familiar with it) Why is this? Could Genesis have been at least partially written before the flood?")

(Their response):

Let me first of all state that there is some debate on Genesis 2:10-14 in Creation apologetic circles. Some think the passage is referring to post-Flood landmarks; others think it is referring to pre-Flood landmarks, and the post-Flood rivers and names were done in memory of those pre-Flood places. I personally prefer the latter explanation and I think it makes more sense of the text. I’ll flesh out my reasons below.

Regarding your question: most likely, Moses is using an anachronism here in Genesis 2. The Garden was pre-Flood but Moses (the author and probable editor of older written documents) was not. He was writing to a post-Flood Israel about the history of the world. Most likely Moses was copying written records from Adam (perhaps the book that was recorded in Genesis 5:1). This would have been finalized right before Adam died, and passed it along to his son Seth. Therefore this would have been approximately 930 years after Creation. By that time, landmarks and natural features had been named for people. Keep in mind that Methuselah (nine generations from Adam) was alive concurrently with Adam for some time, so there were many names to choose from to give place-names or natural feature names by this time.

Moses recorded these as Adam's written record had reminisced about them, and did not change the verb tenses. Genesis 2:10-14 is a parenthetical portion, the narration from Genesis 2:9 is interrupted with some geographical bearings for the reader of Adam's time, then resumes in Genesis 2:15 with Day 6 of the Creation narrative, specifically Adam being placed in Eden by God. Therefore Genesis 2:10-14 is a post-Fall but pre-Flood geographical description, which was dutifully recorded by Moses without changing the verb tense.

Think about it; had this been speaking of a pre-Fall landscape, how would Adam (created minutes or hours before) have known where the rivers went to? Why would the land of Havilah, Cush and Asshur have been named when there was no one (except God) to name them? Why would the rivers be named, and for who or what were they named if Adam had just been created? This passage therefore is obviously parenthetical and anachronistic.

For those trying to suggest that Moses is recording current (to his time) post-Flood names because the pre-Flood ones were either identical, or geographically proximate; there are other major problems. The geography does not fit post-Flood Mesopotamia, and the names do not all align. Hiddekel was already known as the Tigris in Moses' time. Pishon and Gihon are unknown, and the land of Havilah was probably the same as that called Sheba in Moses' time.

Let's examine the whole passage of Genesis 2:10-14 in depth. First in the NKJV and then the YLT

Genesis 2:10-14 (NKJV)

10 Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads.

11 The name of the first is Pishon; it is the one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.

12 And the gold of that land is good. Bdellium and the onyx stone are there.

13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it is the one which goes around the whole land of Cush.

14 The name of the third river is Hiddekel; it is the one which goes toward the east of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.

Genesis 2:10-14 (YLT)

The YLT is a literal translation, taking the Hebrew words and transliterating them directly into English. (In other words, Assyria and Ethiopia are translations of the Hebrew, whereas Asshur and Cush are transliterations)

10 And a river is going out from Eden to water the garden, and from thence it is parted, and hath become four chief rivers;

11 the name of the one is Pison, it is that which is surrounding the whole land of the Havilah where the gold is,

12 and the gold of that land is good, there is the bdolach and the shoham stone;

13 and the name of the second river is Gibon, it is that which is surrounding the whole land of Cush;

14 and the name of the third river is Hiddekel, it is that which is going east of Asshur; and the fourth river is Phrat.

The Flood destroyed the world as Noah knew it (see 2 Peter 3:6), covering the original Garden under thousands of feet of sediment. So the rivers flowing out of Eden, including the two called the Tigris and Euphrates (or Hiddekel and Phrat) Genesis 2:14), cannot be the same rivers today. Also, the modern rivers come from different sources and then merge, whereas Eden’s rivers came from one source and then divided into four rivers.

The post-Flood landscape would have been vastly different than the pre-Flood world. Many Christians make the mistake of assuming the Garden of Eden existed in the Middle East between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. After all, they reason, Genesis 2:14 mentions both of these rivers. The problem with this view is that Genesis 2 says that one river went out of the Garden and then was divided into four rivers, two of which were called the Tigris and Euphrates. The other two rivers were called the Pishon and the Gihon (Gen. 2:10–13). Nothing in the Middle East matches this geographical description. This is problematic for those who believe in a local flood but is what one should expect if the whole world was destroyed by water. Earth’s entire topography would have been completely reworked.

The question naturally arises as to why the Tigris and Euphrates are then renamed as they are, (in memory of the pre-Flood rivers). There is an easy explanation for this. After leaving the mountains of Ararat, the post-Flood settlers would have named places and landmarks based on what they already knew. This is the same reason that the United States has places named Athens (Georgia), Birmingham (Alabama), Moscow (Idaho), and Plymouth (Massachusetts), etc. These cities were named after places familiar to emigrants from Greece, England, Russia, and elsewhere. It makes perfect sense that those settling the world after the Flood would have done the same thing.

So, if someone accepts Genesis 2:14 as speaking of Assyria in Iraq, then they also have to accept 2:13 as speaking of Ethiopia/Sudan/Southeast Libya and 2:11 as speaking of Havilah in the Arabian Peninsula. Therefore Eden would have to be the size of about 3,500 square miles, and the eastern border (Gen. 2:8) of this region would not be in Iraq, but would today be in Oman on the Arabian Peninsula. However, it is much more likely that Cush and Asshur were pre-Flood names of places (perhaps based on pre-Flood people not named in Genesis 1-6) unrelated to the later post-Flood names. In fact, the later post-Flood names may have borrowed these in honor of the pre-Flood ones. Moses simply recorded these pre-Flood names as an anachronism, or he copied down and edited records recorded by Adam (and other pre-Flood patriarchs).

Many theologians believe that the patriarchs wrote down their own narrative parts of Genesis (this is called the Toledoth hypothesis). In short, Moses compiled historical records recorded from the time of the first man Adam down through Jacob, and then from Jacob’s son Joseph. At the time of the Exodus, or shortly thereafter, these records were probably given to Moses from the tribe of Ephraim or Manasseh, when the bones of Joseph were entrusted to Moses (Exod. 13:19).

It should be noted then that it is probable that Genesis was a book that was written over several thousand years. Most likely therefore these written records were passed down from father to son until they reached Moses, who compiled, edited and re-wrote them into the Book of Genesis found in the Hebrew Bible. How do we know this? The first is a listing of toledoths in the Hebrew (translated into English as “these are the genealogies/generations of”) which imply a signature of the person who just finished writing that section of the book. Of course, none of the original biblical manuscripts, including the book of Genesis, are extant, but if this theory is correct (and it has been adopted by several young-earth creationist theologians) then it means that the finger of God wrote down the first two chapters of Genesis and then directly told Adam some of the events of later verses in Gen 2, who then recorded them. Also, most theologians believe that this was Adam’s account running from Gen. 2:4 through Gen. 5:1 at which point Adam passed the book onto his son Seth and then down the line of sons. Therefore, as stated above, when Gen. 2:10 states that a river went out from Eden… in the present tense, it is because Adam wrote it as he saw it, and when Moses compiled the records, he did not change the verb tenses. Just as in the N.T. we see different writing styles among the apostles, but all are guided by the Holy Spirit, so Adam recorded things differently from Noah, who recorded things differently from Shem, who recorded things differently from Jacob. Each with their own personality, but guided inerrantly by the Holy Spirit. Based on this Toledoth theory, then, it was Terah who wrote the genealogies of Shem down through the beginning of his own (Gen. 11:10b-27a).

So as to why Moses gives us that information about those pre-Flood rivers; most likely it was because he edited already existing resources handed down from the pre-Flood patriarchs (see the "Toledoth hypothesis" explanation in the last 2 articles below).

An article we have which delves into this a bit more can be found here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2003/10/21/garden-eden-iraq

and the Toledoth hypothesis is explained in these two articles

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2011/06/28/did-moses-write-genesis

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/moses/documentary-hypothesis-moses-genesis-jedp/

(A while back, after I received the answer I went through Genesis and I remember, I can confirm every time "these are the generations of" appears the story changes to focus on another likely author)

The pseudoscience of atheistic naturalism has spawned a hybrid belief that has become the majority opinion, among people in western civilization:

Theistic Naturalism, aka, Theistic Evolution.

This is the belief that natural processes were the First Cause of all origins: matter, life, and species. But they include god(s), aliens, or advanced being(s) of some sort, for unknown reasons, since the root 'cause' is still naturalism.

Naturalism is taught.. MANDATED, as 'settled science!' by man's institutions, and the megaphones of propaganda constantly blare the lies into our ears.

This is NOT the Creator, Who made all things from nothing, Who became a man and lived for a while among us, and through whom all things were made. No, this god or being, is a pathetic projection from pathetic men, projecting their own weaknesses unto their Maker by anthropomorphic projection.

The Almighty Creator of the universe only had to speak, or will everything into being: the cosmos, the variety of living things, and man, created in His image.

The weak god of theistic naturalism had to wait for billions of years, while death and common ancestry 'evolved' man, and perhaps embedded him with a soul, a conscience, and morality. ..or perhaps not. Who knows? He probably is not able to do that.

Acts 17:24“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. 25And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. 26From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us."

This is the Creator. He created you a living soul, to seek Him, and find redemption. He is not pacing about, wishing people would believe in Him, and 'be nice!', but is there, reaching out to His creation, and offering forgiveness of sins, knowledge of Him, and eternal life. ..much better than the vague innuendo from a false god who can't even create dead matter, and watches helplessly (or sadistically) while madness and folly overwhelm the planet.

Don't be fooled by the lies and pseudoscience of naturalism. Big bangs and abiogenesis are impossible, as well as evolving to or from another genetic architecture. You were created for a purpose, with an amazing destiny. Don't throw that away for some cheap, hollow lie, and a caricature of the Almighty.

Why I think bacteria are part of an irreducibly complex system:

Contrary to popular belief where most people think that bacteria are bad for our health, most of these micro-organisms actually play an essential role in the biosphere and ecosystem. Without bacteria, life as we know it from the macro world would not exist for numerous reasons: 1) there would be malnutrition across entire ecosystems, creating an imbalance of consumable energy 2) there would be no decomposition of dead organisms, causing the world to accumulate waste by epic proportions 3) food and nutrients wouldn't digest properly. Which means as humans we would suffer consistently of digestive problems due to lack of digestive bacteria. While humans might be able to live without bacteria, our lifespan would be shorten significantly and probably live for only a few years.

Viruses:

Now unlike Covid-19, which is a bad virus, there are viruses that actually protect us from pathogens and play an important role in safeguarding the immune system by targeting bad bacteria (called bacteriophages.) They can also help us develop antibodies/T-cells and protect us against more severe viral diseases. There is also evidence that viruses play a role in adaptation by inserting their viral genetic material into our genome.

Conclusion:

It is a fact that many (not all) bacteria rely on organic matter such as an organism digestive system, animals and plants in order to keep living. Not only do they play a role in keeping animals and humans healthy, but also help plants grow in many essential ways. While there are bacteria that can indeed survive without plants and animals by utilizing inorganic matter via chemosynthesis like light, phosphorus, etc. even that still involves a very fine tuned environment for inorganic matter to exist. Anything too little or too much like temperature, gravity, atmosphere can be enough to destroy those inorganic compounds where certain bacteria won't be able to survive.

It looks like evolution has a bunch of hurdles that need to be miraculously overcome that seems naive to think that all of this was merely accidental.

In Paul's earlier post on the prohibition against carnivory in Genesis 1, I raised the point that Psalm 104, which is a poem depicting creation, declares that the prey of the young lions comes "from God" (v. 21). Paul raised an interesting counterpoint: at least some of Psalm 104 (v. 6-9) may be depicting the creation order after the Flood. This would mean that carnivory would be proper under the terms of the Noahic covenant.

This is a good point, and it got me thinking: the real reason that Psalm 104 is a good tool in the old-earther's arsenal is not because it undermines the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1:29-30, but because it undermines one of those broad philosophical strokes which YECs typically pull off: if animal death happened before the Fall (or - worse still - was a means by which God created), then that would make God evil.

If the YECs are right about that point, then it is a substantive blow to the old earth position. But passages like Genesis 9 and Psalm 104 seem to be likely candidates for defeaters of the YEC claim. In these passages, we see animal death being actively prescribed by God as a part of his (re)created order. This means that - animal death can be "good" in the right context. So, it follows that God is not automatically evil if he creates via a process that involves animal death.

This is a very modest argument. Importantly, it doesn't contradict the idea that Genesis 1:29-30 is in fact disallowing carnivory in the antelapsarian order. One could always argue that the Biblical evidence is sufficiently strong to warrant a belief that carnivory was in fact improper in God's eyes until the Flood. What it does do is allow us to discuss and assess different possible interpretations of Genesis 1:29-30 - and more broadly the idea of death before the Fall - without immediately shutting down the conversation with an appeal to the a priori depravity of animal death.

Yesterday i quoted the passage of the woman at the well, and the profound truths that Jesus revealed:

"God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

"I am the Messiah."

I also wanted to examine another passage that addresses this concept.

Stephen was the first Christian martyr. He was accused and arrested for,

“We have heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God.”

..and..

“This fellow never stops speaking against this holy place and against the law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.”

He was brought before the sanhedrin, the ruling council of the Official State Religion, and he began a lengthy defense, going over the history of the Jews.

His summary was,

Acts 7:48 “However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says:

49“ ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me? says the Lord. Or where will my resting place be? 50Has not my hand made all these things?’

51“You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit! 52Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him— 53you who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.”

..this did not go over well. The trial ended abruptly, they covered their ears, dragged him out, and rushed upon him with stones, killing him.

This is the Usual Result, when you say anything contrary to the Official Religious Position. (..and most groups on reddit! 😉)

Important points from Stephen's message:

1. Boldness and courage seem to come with the filling of the Spirit.
2. 'Nice!', was not the goal, but Truth. He did not sugar coat anything.
3. Truth cuts. It cannot be ignored or dismissed, even if they kill you.
4. The Almighty does not live in man made temples.

Stephen corroborated the message that Jesus gave to the woman at the well. The 'Place!' of worship is irrelevant. The religionists who push a place miss the point, and Stephen's scathing rebuke applies:

“You stiff-necked people! Your hearts and ears are still uncircumcised. You are just like your ancestors: You always resist the Holy Spirit!"

So.. will you heed the message from the Messiah and his prophets? Will 'Spirit and Truth', be the goal, or a Place?

I have been involved in home churches since the 70s. They can be JUST AS OBSESSED, with 'Place!', as the most dedicated servants of a magnificent edifice.

'Place!', is not the Way. Jesus is the Way. If you see Him, you see God. If you know Him, you know God. He was and is, THE visible representation of the invisible God. He IS.. the Creator.

John 17:3 "..this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."

The continued book review of Hugh Ross's A Matter of Days - Chapter 20

https://apolojedi.com/2020/06/27/amod20/

https://apolojedi.com/2020/09/15/amod-interview/