4 ms·
Apparently before the flood there was massive amounts of water suspended high up in the atmosphere (but not falling as rain, hence disbelief of Noah's contempor
by prmph 5y ago
Apparently before the flood there was massive amounts of water suspended high up in the atmosphere (but not falling as rain, hence disbelief of Noah's contemporaries about a coming flood). There was also water stored in rivers, lakes, oceans, and (ice?) on the surface of the earth. Most of the water in the atmosphere is what fell in the flood, causing some changes to the crust on the earth, and initiating the water cycle as we know it today.
But you don't even have to accept this sequence of events. Even now we have large amounts of water suspended in the atmosphere (as clouds) and large amounts on the earth's surface (as described above). I'm not sure what is inaccurate about the description of this general state of affairs in Genesis.
- munk-a 5y agoThe definition of water written about in the bible could not include water vapor suspended in air because that concept was unknown to the authors and not among the major contemporary theories of matter. It is strange to use modern understandings to justify historical statements made without those modern understandings.
- prmph 5y agoIsn't that a circular argument? My implicit claim is that the information in Genesis is coming from a superior source who would know, but you are saying that Genesis cannot be accurate because those who wrote it could not know what was scientifically accurate. The writers of the Bible books generally claimed that the information they wrote down was inspired.
- munk-a 5y agoI think that's a logical trap - it implies that the contents of the bible are a direct transcription from a being with superior (or, in it's word, perfect) knowledge. If that's the case then mortal interpretation of the bible can understood to have been historically flawed until... well, until when? Can we understand it in a truthful manner now or are we still too imperfect beings to comprehend its actual truth? And, if we're failing to understand it properly are we doing so for good or ill - we know that some of the previous flawed interpretations were pretty awful. Declaring crusades and wars in the name of the Bible is an abhorrent interpretation to most modern christians - so how are we to know how correct our interpretations are?
- goto11 5y agoPretty badly inspired then, if they thought plants and trees were created before the sun and stars. Just goes to show that people and books which claim to be divinely inspired tend not to be very reliable.
- dane-pgp 5y agoI don't think believers of the Bible claim that the Creation account in Genesis was written by a human who watched the events unfold, and who understood it enough to write an account based on their own understanding. Instead, it is claimed to be a divine revelation, given by God to explain (using language and ideas that would be most useful to most people) the important truths about the Creation process and Man's place within it.
- f154hfds 5y agoAs a Christian and a believer in the Bible I can attest that I see it exactly in the way you describe. The factual parts of the narrative / poem for the rest of the Bible as I see it are: 1. God is the architect of the universe 2. God is eternal and has no beginning 3. There was probably a historical Adam and Eve. The rest is extremely important for the philosophical basis of: 1. sinfulness of humanity 2. dignity of humanity (image of God) 3. the problem that justice can't be both restorative and retributive 4. inkling toward a solution to 3. (forgiveness/sacrifice/charity) And much more... it's a deep text.
- ChrisKnott 5y agoDid the moon exist before trees?
- goto11 5y ago> I'm not sure what is inaccurate about the description of this general state of affairs in Genesis. So how about God creating the sun, moon, and stars after creating plants and trees?