No rain before Noah

[Raf]

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

[chockfull]

Thinking about what you guys said Earl Burton taught: The universe is a bubble with water on the other side of it...

Assuming that bubble burst, any water coming down to earth from it (as opposed to just floating off into the whatever, just making a beeline for earth) would take billions of years to get here. So the flood would not have happened yet.

I think the problem is reading modern scientific understanding about cosmology into the [let's be honest] ignorant cosmology of Genesis. Read the story on its own terms -- it says nothing about the "universe" being "inside a bubble" surrounded by water. Rather, it was the Earth that was surrounded by a firmament.

This is difficult for us to comprehend because we have some degree of scientific literacy. The writers of Genesis did not! For them, the earth was a flat disk surrounded above by a solid dome holding back a wall of water. When the "windows of heaven" were opened, it rained. The sun, moon and stars were INSIDE that dome. That's why the Bible can talk about stars falling from heaven. It was what they knew and understood.

When you think of the "waters above" being right up there on the other side of the dome, the notion of that dome opening up and all the water behind it crashing down on us and flooding the earth becomes much easier to understand.

Trying to rescue Genesis from the ignorance of its writers is something I no longer try to do (as I implied in another thread).

Here's an interesting, non-atheist article on the subject of the firmament.

Of course, anyone is free to accept Earl Burton's teaching that the "firmament" really does exist and is billions of light years from earth, but be honest: do you think that's what the authors of Genesis were trying to convey? Which view makes more sense? That they were actually describing the universe as it is, or that they were describing the world around them as they saw it?

Yes many of those Genesis interpretations were mere speculation and invention - a new mysterious story that sounds cool. Regarding the Genesis writers, I thought basic astronomy was known during that time, much more than worlds of the flat in Columbus days. The zodiac signs and "witness of the stars" or that type of information was I thought catalogued at Alexandria. That doesn't seem to coincide with the claim made in that article though. He just states unequivocably that it was believed the earth was flat in that time without introducing one shred of supporting evidence. Still it's an interesting article.

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.

I did hear it in TWI. It was part of 2nd foundational class.

[waysider]

"Regarding the Genesis writers, I thought basic astronomy was known during that time, much more than worlds of the flat in Columbus days."

Not to drive this too far off track but it was known long before the days of Columbus that the Earth was not flat. Hundreds of years before Christ, the Earth was declared spherical and its size was calculated.

SOURCE

Edited July 19, 2014 by waysider

[Raf]

The article footnotes another article on the same subject. I'll see if I can find and post it. It offers plenty of support for its view.

I can only find it in pdf, and can't figure out how to link it using my Kindle. So google "the firmament and the water above" by Paul Seely.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Raf

[waysider]

Disclaimer: I have not read this yet.

HERE is the link.

[Raf]

That's a link to part 2. There's obviously a part 1 as well.

[waysider]

Part 1

[excathedra]

now to me king's "under the dome" is not an original thought

did anyone ever see the twilight zone episode when those kids from another planet had little humans on their play train track and city. i'll have to look it up

[excathedra]

stopover in a (something i forget town)

maybe no dome but concept same

[TLC]

On ‎7‎/‎18‎/‎2014 at 10:40 AM, Raf said:

Thinking about what you guys said Earl Burton taught: The universe is a bubble with water on the other side of it...

Assuming that bubble burst, any water coming down to earth from it (as opposed to just floating off into the whatever, just making a beeline for earth) would take billions of years to get here. So the flood would not have happened yet.

I think the problem is reading modern scientific understanding about cosmology into the [let's be honest] ignorant cosmology of Genesis. Read the story on its own terms -- it says nothing about the "universe" being "inside a bubble" surrounded by water. Rather, it was the Earth that was surrounded by a firmament.

This is difficult for us to comprehend because we have some degree of scientific literacy. The writers of Genesis did not! For them, the earth was a flat disk surrounded above by a solid dome holding back a wall of water. When the "windows of heaven" were opened, it rained. The sun, moon and stars were INSIDE that dome. That's why the Bible can talk about stars falling from heaven. It was what they knew and understood.

When you think of the "waters above" being right up there on the other side of the dome, the notion of that dome opening up and all the water behind it crashing down on us and flooding the earth becomes much easier to understand.

Trying to rescue Genesis from the ignorance of its writers is something I no longer try to do (as I implied in another thread).

Here's an interesting, non-atheist article on the subject of the firmament.

Of course, anyone is free to accept Earl Burton's teaching that the "firmament" really does exist and is billions of light years from earth, but be honest: do you think that's what the authors of Genesis were trying to convey? Which view makes more sense? That they were actually describing the universe as it is, or that they were describing the world around them as they saw it?

This (like some number of other things taught in TWI) was evidently the product of someone (such as Earl) trying to "make sense" of (i.e., interpret, put a more scientific spin on, present "new light" on... take your pick) certain verses of scripture that were hard to understand.  What often resulted, of course, were things even harder to understand or make good sense of.  

Personally, I don't see there being a point in trying to figure what is or isn't at the edge of the universe (or beyond), as it has absolutely nothing to do with where the water came from that flooded the earth. (There's better, relatively easy to understand, and far more rational explanations for it already published some number of years ago on the Internet.)  Furthermore, any effort to define a boundary in physical terms inherently puts an artificial "distance" between the physical and the spiritual, which really shouldn't be there.  So, no wonder it's hard to make sense of any of that stuff.  Seems to be nothing more than the human mind, man's intelligence, turned loose on something beyond its ability.  

[Raf]

There are no "rational" explanations, because the rational conclusion is that it never happened.

[TLC]

Rationalize whatever conclusion you want. It doesn't preclude the rationality of any and all other explanations. 

[T-Bone]

On 7/18/2014 at 0:40 PM, Raf said:

Thinking about what you guys said Earl Burton taught: The universe is a bubble with water on the other side of it...

Assuming that bubble burst, any water coming down to earth from it (as opposed to just floating off into the whatever, just making a beeline for earth) would take billions of years to get here. So the flood would not have happened yet.

I think the problem is reading modern scientific understanding about cosmology into the [let's be honest] ignorant cosmology of Genesis. Read the story on its own terms -- it says nothing about the "universe" being "inside a bubble" surrounded by water. Rather, it was the Earth that was surrounded by a firmament.

This is difficult for us to comprehend because we have some degree of scientific literacy. The writers of Genesis did not! For them, the earth was a flat disk surrounded above by a solid dome holding back a wall of water. When the "windows of heaven" were opened, it rained. The sun, moon and stars were INSIDE that dome. That's why the Bible can talk about stars falling from heaven. It was what they knew and understood.

When you think of the "waters above" being right up there on the other side of the dome, the notion of that dome opening up and all the water behind it crashing down on us and flooding the earth becomes much easier to understand.

Trying to rescue Genesis from the ignorance of its writers is something I no longer try to do (as I implied in another thread).

Here's an interesting, non-atheist article on the subject of the firmament.

Of course, anyone is free to accept Earl Burton's teaching that the "firmament" really does exist and is billions of light years from earth, but be honest: do you think that's what the authors of Genesis were trying to convey? Which view makes more sense? That they were actually describing the universe as it is, or that they were describing the world around them as they saw it?

Raf,

thanks for the link to that Pete Enns article - good reading!  I even followed the comments below that....I put several of Enns books on my reading list...many of his points make a lot of sense to me...again thanks, Raf - you always bring a lot to the table - much appreciated

[Thomas Loy Bumgarner]

Rocco Errico, a student of George Lamsa and teacher of Unity School wrote a book on Genesis

[Grace Valerie Claire]

45 minutes ago, Thomas Loy Bumgarner said:

Rocco Errico, a student of George Lamsa and teacher of Unity School wrote a book on Genesis

Thomas, I have no idea what the "Unity School" is.  Would you please explain what it is?  Thank you.

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/19/2014 at 10:56 AM, waysider said:

"Regarding the Genesis writers, I thought basic astronomy was known during that time, much more than worlds of the flat in Columbus days."

Not to drive this too far off track but it was known long before the days of Columbus that the Earth was not flat. Hundreds of years before Christ, the Earth was declared spherical and its size was calculated.

SOURCE

Waysider, I didn't know that.  Thanks for the link!

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/20/2014 at 0:16 PM, excathedra said:

now to me king's "under the dome" is not an original thought

did anyone ever see the twilight zone episode when those kids from another planet had little humans on their play train track and city. i'll have to look it up

I did!!  It was one of the best episodes of the series!  

[Rocky]

2 hours ago, Grace Valerie Claire said:

Thomas, I have no idea what the "Unity School" is.  Would you please explain what it is?  Thank you.

Rocco Errico

[Grace Valerie Claire]

2 minutes ago, Rocky said:

Rocco Errico

Wow!  Thanks Rocky!!

[Thomas Loy Bumgarner]

Unity School of Christianity is a spin off of Christian Science, focusing on positive thinking