Norseman82 Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 And it was part of what crashed down when the flood hit. You are the third person who has told me this. Could you explain more where you read this? I've reread the flood story in Genesis and it does not say that the dome came crashing down, but that the floodgates opened and closed. This leads me to..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 THe firmament of waters is way the hebrews described the part of the sky where the rain came from. That is the point I was trying to make. It was the ancient Hebrew view of reality at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 I'll just go to Genesis - it is a bad translation to think of it as a dome. What it means is an ... expanse. A dividing - a firmament. It says as well the expanse in Genesis 1:6 separated the waters and the expanse is called 'heaven'. So your dome is heaven. Heaven with God? No - as Paul refers to 'three heavens', the first is just the atmosphere above us, the second.. well take a guess, the third being with Christ. the second heaven is supposedly where Satan and the demons dwell - much debatable however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 ooo I hit 800 posts anyway Yeah, I just want to warn you that this is very liberal stuff. It contracts Papal authority immediately as it builds on a premise that the Bible is not inerrant. It is an attempt to figure out how it got put together as it is and it doesn't believe Moses actually wrote the pentateuch. I would suggest you stay away from things such as that until you have done a little studying against it on your own first. That tektonics webpage has some well done articles dealing with it. Whaa....? The Bible is inerrant in revealing God's will, but it is not inerrant in each literal utterance. Heck, they had that figured out in Galileo's day. (Don't go there, I've read too many historical accounts, I'd trash ya...) The inerrant part is that God created the world with intent. How doesn't have to be literally inerrant (and can't be) because humanity couldn't write. Hence, the Holy Spirit inspired humanity to write Scripture (the Beginnings of Sacred Tradition) to preserve mankinds history and relationship with God as we matured in grace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books Chapter 2 it talks about the J and E text There is actually 4 total I believe the thrid one is I believe "P", and the other one is "D" you know the noah story one says two pairs and the other says 7 one is older than the other. There is other books that goes in more detail on it, but this book is good. On a humorous note.... A priest I knew in college once sang a humorous jingle: J, E, P, and D/reconstruct the bible scientifically/1 and 2 Peter weren't written by Peter at all/and we're not sure about some of the letters of St. Paul.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 Whaa....? The Bible is inerrant in revealing God's will, but it is not inerrant in each literal utterance. Heck, they had that figured out in Galileo's day. (Don't go there, I've read too many historical accounts, I'd trash ya...) The inerrant part is that God created the world with intent. How doesn't have to be literally inerrant (and can't be) because humanity couldn't write. Hence, the Holy Spirit inspired humanity to write Scripture (the Beginnings of Sacred Tradition) to preserve mankinds history and relationship with God as we matured in grace. i didn't say it was... i do assume you are familiar with JEDP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 everything in genesis would be that. it is being argued that genesis 1 was added after genesis 2 though - what would indicate this. Cause its the more detailed version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 i didn't say it was... i do assume you are familiar with JEDP? THere is some truth to it circle. The Bible is a blend of the traditons of the Northern and Southern Traditions of ancient Isreal by the sacred writer/editors. THat is accepted by all bible scholars. The story of Noah falls in the pre-historical period of teaching stories. Higher Form critics go wrong when their personal philosophy precludes the miraculous, and they assume the intervention of God is a legend or myth THey teach themselves right out of the Church when they teach such "theories" as fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Circle_Master Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 THere is some truth to it circle. The Bible is a blend of the traditons of the Northern and Southern Traditions of ancient Isreal by the sacred writer/editors. THat is accepted by all bible scholars. what blend are you talking about. that they recognize culture? i agree. that culture influenced them in their message and changed it from what God had given them? i disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 It is true that many protestant and Catholic biblical scholars consider many things in Scripture to be "didactic stories" or whatever, it seems rather dubious to me because how do you know which stories are true and which one's are, to put it in colloquial terms, fables? It seems like this mentality stems from philosophical positivism, skepticism and weak faith. Most of these scholars (that I know of) reject extraordinary events in the Scripture based primarly on an anti-supernatural bias (in my opinion). As a Catholic this is silly since the whole history of the Church and the lives of the Saints up to our own day are filled with extraordinary events and miracles. If St. Padre Pio could rock miracles why couldn't Moses or St. Paul? John Paul II has canonized hundreds of Saints in his pontifate, for a person to be canonized there must be two miracles that are approved after a critical, scientific investigation that proves that it's supernatural. That's a lot of miracles. Based on this (and many other reasons) I think it is unreasonable to approach Scripture with an anti-supernatural bias. Besides, what's important about Scripture are the truths that lead to eternal Salvation. We should first and foremost approach the Scriptures with reverence and awe, listening for the voice of God, not a cynical attitude that seeks to diminish God's power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TABBY Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 On a humorous note.... A priest I knew in college once sang a humorous jingle: J, E, P, and D/reconstruct the bible scientifically/1 and 2 Peter weren't written by Peter at all/and we're not sure about some of the letters of St. Paul.... LOL LOL LOL how funny..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TABBY Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 I'll just go to Genesis - it is a bad translation to think of it as a dome. What it means is an ... expanse. A dividing - a firmament. It says as well the expanse in Genesis 1:6 separated the waters and the expanse is called 'heaven'. So your dome is heaven. Heaven with God? No - as Paul refers to 'three heavens', the first is just the atmosphere above us, the second.. well take a guess, the third being with Christ. the second heaven is supposedly where Satan and the demons dwell - much debatable however. I know there is good books that you are in search of about Gen. I will find a real good one for you. What exactly you are looking for? I know it is about Gen....but is there a specific thing you are searching for? Like the meaning? Or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 what blend are you talking about. that they recognize culture? i agree. that culture influenced them in their message and changed it from what God had given them? i disagree No that is not what I mean. Remember the early OT is a blend of oral traditions what were eventually written down. Israel was divided into tribes, and eventually kingdoms and when the sacred writer/editor combined the stories, he kept the dialect differences intact. YTHe beginnings of Genesis is a combination of two such traditions. Genesis 1:1- 2:4a talks about the transcendance of God and uses the name Elohim (master of the universe) and is very stylized and beautiful. Genesis 1:31 to 2:4a is the conclusion of the first story. What's interesting here is the seventh in hebrew is the same word as oath or covanant , so the seventh day is also the covanant day when God finished creating the world and saw it was very good. THe second story of Genesis uses the word Yahweh (Lord God) for God throughout and it a different tradition. It actual starts at Genesis 2:verse 4b and is the older of the stories. It has a far different style than Genesis 1 and is a definite teaching story of God's first covanant and how it was broken and sin and death enterd the world. It also shows how much God valued free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 I'll just go to Genesis - it is a bad translation to think of it as a dome. What it means is an ... expanse. A dividing - a firmament. It says as well the expanse in Genesis 1:6 separated the waters and the expanse is called 'heaven'. So your dome is heaven. Heaven with God? No - as Paul refers to 'three heavens', the first is just the atmosphere above us, the second.. well take a guess, the third being with Christ. the second heaven is supposedly where Satan and the demons dwell - much debatable however. Firmament in Genesis 1:6. When it says here that God separated the waters which were above the firmanent what is being taught is that God imposed order on the natural world and responsible for rain, as opposed to neighboring religions who thught it the province of one of their many gods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now