tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post112308339639509195..comments2024-03-20T10:47:46.434-07:00Comments on Annotated Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Let there be a firmament (Gen 1:6-8)Bruckerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08445755788968924719noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post-18596336989469092462014-10-01T22:04:27.116-07:002014-10-01T22:04:27.116-07:00"there are raindrop impressions preserved in ..."there are raindrop impressions preserved in ancient sedimentary rocks."<br /><br />This blows my mind. I ask seriously, and not sarcastically at all, how the heck does that even work? I don't think I've seen a raindrop impression preserved from five seconds previous, and you're telling me there are ones on ancient rocks? Tell me more!Bruckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445755788968924719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post-24488276474992842252014-10-01T21:23:33.022-07:002014-10-01T21:23:33.022-07:00One thing about the "water canopy" idea ...One thing about the "water canopy" idea that really makes it problematic is that water vapor is a very potent greenhouse gas; in fact, it is primarily the water vapor in our atmosphere that allows the earth's surface to retain heat as well as it does. Put loads of extra water up in the sky, though, and you end up with something like Venus where everything on the planet is literally Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04268809274540757100noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post-61435138336356560882013-01-29T12:27:00.793-08:002013-01-29T12:27:00.793-08:00The course I took from Spiegelman was one of my fa...The course I took from Spiegelman was one of my favorites of all time, although it had some oddities. First of all, the day of the first lecture happened by chance to coincide with the day <i>Maus</i> was awarded the Pulitzer. Because of this, despite the class having about 25 people enrolled in it, the college moved us to a huge lecture hall, since all these people from the press showed up. So Bruckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445755788968924719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post-84572780202309150312013-01-26T11:16:55.203-08:002013-01-26T11:16:55.203-08:00Definitely a more plausible Noah story. We could g...Definitely a more plausible Noah story. We could go a step further and say the two by two only referred to the need of male and female to keep stocks up. He build a boat big enough for enough of his farm animals and family, and managed to ride the storm. Possibly he lived in an area that flooded a lot, so having a boat wasn't a bad idea.<br /><br />Warm, dense and moist places tend to get Nahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04613150595253823984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post-77911992562965441152013-01-21T21:46:54.108-08:002013-01-21T21:46:54.108-08:00F: Could you confirm whether this firmament was a ...F: Could you confirm whether this firmament was a container or just magic[?]<br />A2: No. As the whole thing is largely speculation, I have nothing that I know of to tell me what the substance of the "firmament" was. All I know is that it allowed light through.<br /><br />F: That deals with how the world isn't under water, but it does beg the question of why Noah needed to get all Bruckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445755788968924719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post-25586796684017103682012-10-07T15:57:55.268-07:002012-10-07T15:57:55.268-07:00Okay let's go back over the questions.
Q = My...Okay let's go back over the questions.<br /><br />Q = My Question A = Your Answer F = Follow up<br /><br />Q. What held that water in the air?<br />A. The firmament, whatever it was.<br />F. Could you confirm whether this firmament was a container or just magic. If it was a container where did it go, if it was magic then there is no reason based discussion to have, and you believe it purely Nahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04613150595253823984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post-88386521000945211172012-10-04T00:29:24.732-07:002012-10-04T00:29:24.732-07:00The thing about what you're saying here, as we...The thing about what you're saying here, as well as what I was saying when I wrote the post, is that all of this relates back to the story of Noah, which I continue to admit as a logistical mess even without trying to deal with "windows of heaven" and "firmaments" and such. <br /><br />The reason I bring up the items I do is that a lot of people see them as providing a Bruckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445755788968924719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post-13286846411204088342012-10-03T15:24:10.502-07:002012-10-03T15:24:10.502-07:00This is R. Crumb's take on all this.
The Crea...This is R. Crumb's take on all this.<br /><br />The Creation: "Let there be a vault in the midst of the waters." After closely reading the beginning of the Creation, I suddenly imagined an ancient man standing on the shore of a sea, and gazing out at the horizon, and seeing only water meeting the sky. It appears to him that somewhere off in the vast distance the water curves up and Nahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04613150595253823984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post-3385849987395045172012-09-22T05:17:05.339-07:002012-09-22T05:17:05.339-07:00Okay, you say the Bible isn't a scientific tex...Okay, you say the Bible isn't a scientific textbook, but then with the next breath you entertain this "water canopy" idea as being something that could actually be real, though to your credit you did give us fair warning that you were going to be a little nuts on this post, so at least you recognise it. I'm guessing you think that this water canopy stretched around the world andNahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04613150595253823984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post-77115709260892876172007-09-11T18:13:00.000-07:002007-09-11T18:13:00.000-07:00I still hold that there is a problem with ambiguit...I still hold that there is a problem with ambiguity whenever you deal in propositions, and this ambiguity is twofold: not only is there possibility of ambiguity in the original writings, but when it comes to translating the writings to another language, it may be a tough choice.<BR/><BR/>The difference between using "above" to describe the water while using "in" to describe the "lights" may be a Bruckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445755788968924719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post-29965276009650764362007-09-11T01:19:00.000-07:002007-09-11T01:19:00.000-07:00I understand what you’re getting at, but Genesis 1...I understand what you’re getting at, but Genesis 1 is far more than a story; it’s a description of our origins and creation; it’s God who is acting and creating. The author is saying God ‘did this’ and God ‘did that’, so we have to assume that God handed down this knowledge to Moses. The author clearly said “water above the firmament”, but when speaking of the two great lights he made the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post-58865952362208055632007-08-14T07:55:00.000-07:002007-08-14T07:55:00.000-07:00I think you're missing the point of my comments. N...I think you're missing the point of my comments. No matter what language you are speaking/writing in, there is always some ambiguity when it comes to prepositions. As I said, or maybe just hinted at, even today in proper English we say that stars are "in" the sky. Actually, in addition to that, it occurs to me that is colloquially understood that when you speak of something like the moon or sun Bruckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445755788968924719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post-79193262791776851832007-08-13T01:44:00.000-07:002007-08-13T01:44:00.000-07:00I read your comment, but here's the problem. The H...I read your comment, but here's the problem. The Hebrew word "above" is properly translated according to it's definition in the Strong's Concordance. So, why wasn't that same word used to describe the two great lights being "above" the firmament, rather than using "in" the firmament which is also properly translated from the Hebrew. I read your comment, but it seems you're trying to make sense Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post-48007721544089264062007-08-10T07:49:00.000-07:002007-08-10T07:49:00.000-07:00You need to see my comments here.You need to see my comments <A HREF="http://reannotated.blogspot.com/2005/08/hast-thou-with-him-spread-out-sky-gen.html#comment-112811763730679775" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Bruckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445755788968924719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post-74534559734284654522007-08-09T13:47:00.000-07:002007-08-09T13:47:00.000-07:00I always believed in the water canopy theory becai...I always believed in the water canopy theory becaise it made sense, but then I ran into this issue. If there truly was the remanents of a water canopy, then why does it say "waters above the firmament" but when talking about the two great lights sun and moon, it says God placed them "in the firmament". Naturally, the only conclusion you can come to is the author believed the sun, moon and stars Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post-1141170626451393852006-02-28T15:50:00.000-08:002006-02-28T15:50:00.000-08:00You're asking a bigger question than I'm sure I ca...You're asking a bigger question than I'm sure I can adequately answer; people have written books and books on the subject and I'm sure more than a few churches have been torn apart by disagreement on whether or not God created mankind either <I>knowing</I> that we would be a failure, <I>intending</I> that we would be a failure, or perhaps intending that a short-term failure could pave the way forBruckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445755788968924719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post-1140552211074895082006-02-21T12:03:00.000-08:002006-02-21T12:03:00.000-08:00The idea that the 2nd day is not called "good", be...The idea that the 2nd day is not called "good", because God has a heavy heart does not make sense to me.<BR/><BR/>A perfect God cannot, by definition, create something that is not good. Further, how can a perfect God create things which he knows will "fail" - this seems impossible. If he knows that Adam and Eve will be "bad", why bother creating them to begin with. He's all knowing!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14900114.post-1128110467727731052005-09-30T13:01:00.000-07:002005-09-30T13:01:00.000-07:00"...wait for the fourth day, I'm going to take som..."...wait for the fourth day, I'm going to take some time to talk about translation and prepositions."<BR/><BR/>I totally forgot to do this! I'm going to add it on the <A HREF="http://reannotated.blogspot.com/2005/08/hast-thou-with-him-spread-out-sky-gen.html" REL="nofollow">comments</A> today.Bruckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08445755788968924719noreply@blogger.com