Raf

It is

Not sure I follow your allusion.

Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon Michelle Yeoh Tomorrow Never Dies

A very long way.

Closer, but still no.

This series was supposed to be an allegory about the rise of Nazism, but it was kind of botched. The network that broadcast the pilot never called it a pilot. As a result, audiences were disappointed when the story was not resolved. Then, instead of ordering a season's worth of episodes, the network decided to resolve the story. The resolution performed so well in the ratings that the network decided to order a season of episodes. But with the original storyline resolved, the series' writers had to concoct a rationale to keep the story going. The Nazi allegory was ruined, and audiences promptly rejected the campy storyline that was offered. The show was canceled (euthanized, really) after 18 episodes. The original pilot is still considered a classic in its genre. An attempt to revive the series in recent years met with some critical success, but never gained a wide audience. It lasted two seasons, if you can call it that.

Shall We Dance

First off, thanks. I deeply appreciate your courtesy. I don't know if I want to commit myself to a single definition of error, because that might limit the discussion. In the strictest sense, the firmament is a whopper of an error. We've been to space. But can we imagine that the imagery was poetic and not intended to convey a scientific truth? My opinion is no, we can't. But I certainly respect that other opinions may differ. It's worth pointing out, agreeing to disagree, and moving on. Now, when science and biology teach us that mankind cannot trace its first common female ancestor until tens of thousands of years before Eve would have lived, is that an "error"? I may say yes. You may say no. Ok. Stalemate. There was no worldwide flood. That's an actual error. But wait! Lots of Christians believe the flood of Noah was local, not worldwide. Fine. But it still moved a boat from wherever Noah began his journey to Ararat. Actual error. Did the human race speak one language until languages were confounded at Babel? No. Actual error (and that's one I don't think can even be argued). Back to Noah: how old was he when the flood started? 600 and what? And his sons were what, 30? Because they had to repopulate the earth. So either they were remarkably young to be fathered by a 600 year old man, or they were remarkably old to have wives that could still bear children. It's not history. It's a myth. People didn't live that long. Abraham was from Ur of the Chaldeans. Neat trick. The Chaldeans didn't settle in Ur until centuries after the time of Abraham. Centuries after the time of Moses, in fact (which would mean Moses simply could not have written Genesis). That's an actual error. Even a simple comment like Abraham having camels proves to be an actual error: camels were not domesticated in that area until centuries later. Now, the Bible never actually says Moses wrote Genesis. At least, I don't think it does. But whoever DID write it did so after Chaldeans were in Ur, after camels were domesticated, etc. This was hundreds of years after the time of Moses (whose existence I question, but that's a matter for a subsequent Actual Errors in Exodus thread). Etc. By the way, I'm not saying we should privilege PFALs criteria for God breathed. Actually, if you look at what I wrote, I'm saying the opposite: you have to deny the evidence to maintain such a position. Or you can abandon PFALs criteria and define God breathed differently.

I was not thinking of an Addams family movie. More like a royal family. A big royal family. Not oliver

Monk.

Right track, wrong train. It is a classic musical.

Nope. Way off.

Apologies to PatAnswer, as I obviously skipped right over your post as I was reading this thread. Interesting stuff.

If you're right, you will. And I'll have some splaining to do, I suppose. But then, I'll also have answers to the mountains of questions that led me to finally give up trying to make sense of something that made less and less sense the more I studied it.

This is more of a placeholder than anything else for the moment. It is spawned from a discussion in About the Way about their being no rain before Noah's flood. The consensus on that thread was that TWI got it wrong, that there was rain before the Flood. But other issues were brought up -- for example the teaching by Earl Burton that the universe is encapsulated in a gigantic bubble with water on the other side of it. No, seriously. And when reading Genesis, it is not hard to see where he got this idea. Genesis speaks of a firmament (a solid structure) separating the waters above (in the sky) from the waters beneath. Looking at it from the primeval point of view of Genesis, when they didn't have the slightest inkling what the sky was made of, it's easy to see what's being described here: a flat earth covered by a large dome holding back a wall of water. The sun, moon and stars are IN that dome. Birds fly UNDER it. The firmament is NOT synonymous with what we think of as the sky. If visions of Stephen King dance in your head, you're on the right track, for that is precisely what the Bible describes. Were the authors of Genesis being literal? Or were they being poetic? I don't know for sure. I haven't read all the scholarship on the matter. But I am sure of this: the Bible offers no indication whatsoever that they are NOT being literal. So I'll be describing what the Bible actually says, but I'll keep a very open mind about what it all means -- with an eye on what it meant to those living at the time Genesis was first written. For those not keeping track, let me be clear at the outset of this thread: I no longer consider myself Christian, and I no longer believe in God. But you need not hold the same view to recognize what many -- Christians and atheists alike -- have realized for a very long time: There are actual errors in the Bible. Not errors of interpretation. Real, documentable, tangible blunders that show Genesis does not pass PFAL's criteria for what it means to be God-breathed. For those who remain Christian, the challenge is simple: Deny the evidence and conclude Genesis DOES pass PFAL's criteria, or reject PFAL's criteria. Maybe God-breathed means something else entirely. If the second solution satisfies you, far be it from me to take that away from you. I'm not looking to persuade anyone that there is no God. If it's at all possible, I ask you to separate that proposition from the point I am making, which I will reiterate: There are actual errors in Genesis. What to do with them is up to you. Let's examine them. I probably won't be right about every point I make. But I will be right about many of them, and I suspect if you are honest with yourself, you will agree with that statement (even if you loathe where it has led me). Let us begin...

Closer Clive Owen Inside Man

I didn't hear it in TWI, but it did form part of the syllabus of "His Story: God's Purpose of the Ages," which was the "new" foundational class being offered by Vince F. at around the time I left NY. I seem to recall a diagram showing the Earth surrounded by a layer of water on the outer atmosphere. It was an attempt to depict the cosmology shown in Genesis. Of course, there was no evidence that this was ever real, other than the description in the Bible and Vince's attempt to illustrate it literally. If I still have the syllabus somewhere, I'll post it. I'm pretty sure I tossed it ages ago. Addendum: I started a thread in Doctrinal to explore "Actual Errors in Genesis." My purpose in starting that thread is to keep from derailing this one.

One of the better known moments in this film is a speech that few in the American audience even understood, as it was delivered in a foreign language. Translated, the speech reads: "How did I find myself here? They say my famous lover held down my husband and I cut his head off. But it's not true. I am innocent. I don't know why Uncle Sam says I did it. I tried to explain at the police station but they didn't understand." In the same scene, red scarves indicate guilt. But the character who gave the speech above pulls out a white scarf.

The Wizard of Oz of course. Getting to Know You

Read my post again: it was about the firmament and cosmology, not about the progression of creation or the timing of the development of life on earth. Did it rain before Noah? Yes. Absolutely. Of course it did. Is the universe inside a gigantic bubble? As far as I can tell, the premise is untestable, so not really worth debating. But was the Bible describing such a thing when it talked about the firmament? No. That's a late argument designed to explain why the Bible says what it does. The firmament WAS the sky. The concept of a thinning atmosphere giving way to outer space and billions of light years beyond our view was foreign to the writers of the Bible. The firmament was solid to them. A plain reading of Genesis offers no room for any other view save one: They didn't know and didn't pretend to know, but wrote based on what it looked like.

Correct, Twinky. According to TWI, there was a vast period of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 that accounts for all the fossils and geological discoveries, etc. After Genesis 1:2, the account is literal -- which makes no sense because Genesis has the creation of the earth and the development of plant life before the making of the sun. Explore the implications of what TWI taught, and you'll find (I believe) that what Genesis teaches still does not fit with what we have been able to gather through scientific research and study. Did marine life and birds emerge on the same day a few thousand years ago? That's what TWI taught. It is not true. Marine life came ages before birds. Did plant life precede the sun? Couldn't have. Is the earth older than the stars? Hardly. TWI managed to cram billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, but in doing so, it created an enormous "plot hole" in Genesis, where (among other things) God is now re-creating a new type of life on earth, soul life, different from the life that preceded Genesis 1:2. And then there's the firmament (back on topic), which can make some sense on a poetic level but utterly fails to accurately describe the earth and the universe "above" it.

(Get your popcorn, everybody).

Aaaaaand it's stuck in my head.

Oh no, they do count. But this is the About the Way section, and in The Way, it happened in six days a few thousand years ago. Lots happened BEFORE that, but the earth as we know it, with life as we know it, happened in six days a few thousand years ago. We can quibble about Old Earth creationism elsewhere. I would also note that you have said nothing to refute my on-topic point, which was the relationship between the "firmament" to the waters behind it as it relates to the flood. The fact that someone got addition and subtraction correct does not make that person an expert in calculus. :)

Of course, it all happens in six days a few thousand years ago, but who's counting? It also has days and nights preceding the "making" of the sun, moon and stars, but who's counting? It also has plant life preceding the making of the sun, but who's counting?