RHOD,
I watched over two minutes of your video. It certainly has some interesting interpretations and seems to strive to distort what the Bible actually teaches. I have no idea how many times I have read the Bible, but certainly didn't get the idea the writers believed it was flat. I always thought the foundations of the earth was gravity. The Bible clearly claims the earth is a sphere and God hunt the north on nothing. It talks about the circle and boundary where light meets darkness.
But, you still didn't answer my question about where you claim the water came from.
Typical Christian. I take the time to find a short 6 minute video* that not only answers your question, but explains the cosmological view of the writers of Genesis and picks out a few of the biblical passages that back it up, and you can’t make it past 2 minutes. This is why Christians are considered intellectually lazy morons.
*I skipped over much longer video lectures and essays explaining it in more and better detail. But I thought, this seems new to this guy should go with something short and sweet, even if not as in-depth as I would like.
Oh boy... where to start.....?
1. Do you understand that the maker of the video took disparate verses from the Bible and attempted to explain how ancient Jewish scholars.... MAY... have interpreted the Creation scriptures?
2. As knowledgeable as the maker of the video may be, he jumped from these many different verses....took his own thoughts and interpretations ...... and made it into a CARTOON? And then, in your ignorance, you told one of the previous posters that this video/cartoon ANSWERS his question ......?
3. Given your comment on eisegesis and exegesis, one would presume you did in fact understand it. Apparently, you do not. The maker of the video was perhaps giving us his best and most accurate rendition of what Jewish scholars thought about the Creation story..... but understand this..... he did indeed take many different verses from different books of the Bible that were not descriptions of the acts of Creation. This is classic "eisegesis."
Now, pls read the following quote.....
"If we accept Genesis 1 as ancient cosmology, then we need to interpret it as ancient cosmology rather than translate it into modern cosmology.
If we turn it into modern cosmology, we are making the text say something that it never said. . . . Since we view the text as authoritative, it is a dangerous thing to change the meaning of the text into something it never intended to say. . . . If God aligned revelation with one particular science, it would have been unintelligible to people who lived prior to the time of that science. . . . We gain nothing by bringing Gods revelation into accordance with todays science. In contrast, it makes perfect sense that God communicated his revelation to his immediate audience in terms they understood ."
Further.....Walton brings analogies to the readers attention that reinforce the coherence of his thesis. For example, when the Old Testament speaks of the mind and refers to the seat of emotions and intellect as the heart, liver, kidneys, and intestines, modern science cannot be aligned with such a notion. As Walton notes, When God wanted to talk to the Israelites about their intellect, emotions, and will, he did not revise their ideas of physiology and feel compelled to reveal the function of the brain. . . .
Consequently, we need not try to come up with a physiology for our times that would explain how people think with their entrails
A point to be made...... The Old Testament scholars could see THAT God created.... but they could not understand HOW.
In the same way, Martin Luther could see..... THAT.... God created but could not understand HOW.
In the same way, you and I can (possibly) ..see THAT.... God created but we cannot understand HOW.
