Religious Knowledge Thread

[inked]

You certainly can make your case, Lief. I just pointed out that what was recorded was in line with what we know of ancient cosmology in multiple cultures and that it had another attached meaning as well.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Inked, I just cited an unbiased, library scientific textbook that showed that the scripture was literally fulfilled. Perhaps there is a symbolic meaning here also, God controlling Chaos, but it's apparent that (coincidentally or not) a literal reading of the scripture happens to precisely parallel modern scientific theory. The modern theory says that the sky and water were once one but were separated from one another, and that dry land came second, exactly as the Bible says.

Because one finds something in a textbook does not make it modern scientific theory.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I found this utterly fascinating when I read it for the first time, and that's why I kept copies of the two pages from the book that relate to this issue. It shows clearly that initially, all the water was in one place, "above the firmament," just like Genesis Chapter 1 says. However, God "divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament." Originally they were together, but God divided them by allowing rainfall to cool the ground, thus allowing for the creation of a massive ocean on the planet's surface. Thus, both the ocean and the sky were formed.

I like your theory Lief. Fascinating indeed!

But I find it hard to accept that the division between the water "above" and "below" was momentary; I understand it as an eternal seperation. Also the clouds - the water in the atmosphere - aren't "above" the firmament (=sky, right?).

Originally Posted by inked

RadagasttB,

this was the up-to-date cosmology of the recorded story. It is a tad different from modern cosmology, as you have noticed. The separation of the land from the waters above and below is an image of God controlling Chaos.

Hope this helps.

Okay. I agree with that..


I have another question: from Job 42:7 -

And it was so, that after the LORD had spoken these words unto Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath

The question is, how come Job was right? He obviously was wrong, from a religious point of view anyway. He said things like:

It is all the same. Therefore I say he destroys the blameless and the wicked. If the scourge kills suddenly, he will mock at the trial of the innocent. The earth is given into the hand of the wicked. He covers the faces of its judges. If not he, then who is it?

(Job 9:22-24)

(Btw, all the quotes are from sites not the Bible; I don't have the Bible in English. So forgive me if there's anything wrong with the quotes.. )

[Rían]

good question - Job's an interesting book! I'll give it a shot later ... gtg now

[inked]

RtB,

Job was right because he confronted God with the suffering of the righteous. The other dudes were toeing the party line that all suffering is deserved and the result of sin by the sufferer. God knew that Job was being tested/tried but not guilty of sin. So God rebukes the concept that all suffering is due to the sinful actions of the sufferer. God validates that bad things happen to good people, in modern parlance. God doesn't explain it though.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

I like your theory Lief. Fascinating indeed!

But I find it hard to accept that the division between the water "above" and "below" was momentary; I understand it as an eternal seperation.

Would you elaborate on that? I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

Also the clouds - the water in the atmosphere - aren't "above" the firmament (=sky, right?).

We're talking about a time period back when the ocean and the atmosphere were one. Cloud formation wouldn't have been the same as it is now.

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

Okay. I agree with that..

I have no problem with a metaphorical explanation too. I think there often is more than one valid interpretation possible of any single verse, and that is a cool interpretation . It is really cool though, how science parallels this verse in a completely literal way.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

I like your theory Lief. Fascinating indeed!

But I find it hard to accept that the division between the water "above" and "below" was momentary; I understand it as an eternal seperation. Also the clouds - the water in the atmosphere - aren't "above" the firmament (=sky, right?).

Okay. I agree with that..


I have another question: from Job 42:7 -
The question is, how come Job was right? He obviously was wrong, from a religious point of view anyway. He said things like:
(Job 9:22-24)

(Btw, all the quotes are from sites not the Bible; I don't have the Bible in English. So forgive me if there's anything wrong with the quotes.. )

Ooo...that is a good question. There are some questions in Job that are rather difficult!

[subliminal]Suffering![/subliminial]

I think inked gives a good explanation, though one could doubtless plumb the depths far more.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Would you elaborate on that? I'm not quite sure what you're saying.

As I understand God seperated the water, one part was placed "above the firmament" and the other below. And they stayed there.

Originally Posted by inked

Job was right because he confronted God with the suffering of the righteous. The other dudes were toeing the party line that all suffering is deserved and the result of sin by the sufferer. God knew that Job was being tested/tried but not guilty of sin. So God rebukes the concept that all suffering is due to the sinful actions of the sufferer. God validates that bad things happen to good people, in modern parlance. God doesn't explain it though.

Alright... so Job was only partly right: he was right in saying that not all suffering is the result of sins. He was wrong in blaiming God?


Actually I didn't think of the question.. the Bible teacher presented it and gave a few explanations by twisting the words and their meanings. I looked for a better explanation.

[inked]

Given the conceptualization of all things as from God directly, and not by secondary agent such as the satan (adversary), Job was right in not attributing all suffering to direct sin in the sufferer and suffering as origined in God. What Job the text is working towards is an understanding of secondary causation as the reason for suffering. Job's counselors (and who doesn't have some such 'friends'?) are corrected by God who says that Job is right about Job. But God doesn't then validate the the whole by an argument in syllogistic form. JOb is right that the innocent suffer, period. But the context of Job is that there are secondary causations for suffering - such as the satan accusing Job before God and getting into a pissing match about Job's faithfulness. Job bears the brunt of the unjust, unfair, undeserved sufferings (but don't forget his wife who also suffered the same losses as Job). The text and conceptualizations open the door for human understanding of secondary causations in general. God, as the source of all being, would be in a sense responsible but not directly. Man's part is to remain faithful under any circumstance. The whole bit about the majesty of God in the whirlwind is offered as a reason to trust God in testings, but it doesn't explain to our satisfaction why that should happen.

Also, Job gets kudos from God for his chutzpah, which is a faith-based lifestyle in his case, and therefore, like Abraham, is justified by his faith. Also, please note that Job was from the land of Uz and not a Hebrew. This is a very subtle observation on the nature of all human understanding of sufferring in the face of God's omnipotence and not just a Jewish understanding per se. Fascinating isn't it!

[frodomerryandaragornrock]

im not Catholic either, but my dad's side is. (sorta) i think that when the confess, they mean that since they confessed they sinned, they should be blessed or that they need the blessing to go on in life or something. im not sure, but its something like that. Also,that the Jews DO think that Jesus is only a teacher/prophet, and in some cases, a blasphemer. My dad is a pastor (not Catholic or a rabbi) and he took Jewish history and stuff as a course and that's what he said. Im not going to pressure any1 to be a Christian or anything, so dont get any ideas or anything that im a pushy person or something. ur last ? though, im not sure about.

[Nurvingiel]

frodomerryandaragornrock: I don't know about that other stuff, but I think that Jews simply believe that Jesus was a false Messiah. IOW: He wasn't really the Messiah and the real Messiah has yet to come to Earth.

On the water in the sky thing, there is water vapour in the atmosphere. Somewhere between 0 and 4%.

[frodomerryandaragornrock]

Yeah, thats true, i didnt really think of that.