A general comment about “models.”
The construct of models to help us better understand how things work are very valuable…. We have naturalistic models…..societal models…..economic models and of models for astronomy.
But, models are not fixed, immutable concepts.
As we gain more knowledge….new information, a model is subject to change….as it should. Such as the “dark matter” descriptions.
In the link below is an example of a an astronomic model undergoing change…
https://www.astronomy.com/science/is-the-big-bang-in-crisis/Oddly how astronomers Big Bang theory is changing, even though the moniker “Big Bang” remains.
Also note the emergence of the “everywhere, all at once” concept being discussed….interesting stuff.
HOWEVER….. there is a great danger in developing models…. A “model” is only a model. It may not be totally accurate….the danger comes when we begin to …..believe…. That the model is a totally accurate representation of the true action, circumstance or interpretation of some set of facts or events.
The model may be accurate for what we can see today, bit as new information/facts are presented, the model must change.
So…don’t get to carried away…or… “married up” with some way of thinking or model that you have grown comfortable with…..
It’s going to change….
Cool, so you know what a model is.
However, if you remember my original question or request, it was for bible literalist (people who take every word the bible to be literally true) to explain the biblical model of the cosmos to me. A bible literalist would take those words that describe the formation and structure of the biblical account of the to be true. In other words, the model of the universe that is in the bible is the way it actually is. I'm not creating a straw man here, I've met many that claim to actually believe this.
You responded, so I assumed you were taking the stories of Genesis to actually be true.
In the Genesis story of the Noah it is very clear where the water came from and it fits nicely with the first paragraphs of the story of creation. The mountains were not flattened in the bible as you proposed earlier. "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered" Yep, the mountains were still there and they were all covered.
You seem to be completely unaware of where the bible says the water came from.
This is an issue with so many Christians. They profess a belief in the Bible. They will argue that it is true. Yet they don't even know what the [bleep] the Bible actually says. This would just be a moderately annoying, except they are always try to inflict there personal beliefs on others and using the Bible to justify it.
Interesting response, but you are misstating what I said and then go on to respond with irrelevant comments .... This is an issue so many who participate in these "internet exchanges."
So....in addition to understanding "models," I also understand the difference between
exegesis and eisegesis. You seem to respond to what "you wish I had said" instead of "what I actually said."
For example... I never said the "the mountains were flattened... or leveled." You added that ...."
eisegesis".....seemingly thinking it made your response more ... what?... more clever"?
Another example... you commented that..."You seem to be completely unaware or where the Bible says the water came from." Nope, not true at all. I never addressed that in my posts. You asked where did the water come from and where did it go. I simply replied in a statement that there was a sufficiency of water.. ....before the flood.... and there was... and that the water did not somehow "go." It is still here.
Note that you took this comment from me and concluded that I..... "seem to be completely unaware of where the bible says it came from." Nope, you're wrong, just more erroneous fluff you just made up.
So, here is legit issue..."with so many (choose your term).." ..... they possess and spirit of antagonism to the Bible and Christians, so they misinterpret the Bible and also attach "their own meanings" to both the Bible and those who speak of it.
So... "eisegesis and exegesis" is relevant.
