Hey, anyone read Genesis 1:6-8 and get confused?
God makes the waters and calls them the sea. Okay.
Then he creates an expanse, and calls it heaven (the sky). Okay.
Then he separates the waters and places some above the sky and some below the sky.
What the heck? Water above the sky? What is this talking about?
Abonohu te:
Posto komente (Atom)
9 komente:
I found this cool site with articles pertaining to Genesis, specifically to the scientific and interpretative issues.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp
I believe that Johnny has mentioned about this tonight dead on, when he explained about how the water canopy (up in the sky) has prevented many of the harmful ultraviolet radiation that has depreciated human longevity. People back then lived longer than the present time because the water above the sky has protected them from aging and cancer. I know my answer seems to be vague at best but I'm opening this up as a way for others to formulate a discussion.
Good stuff, Kevy and Biscuit.
Anyone more interested in the issue should follow that link immediately.
Johnny did have the creation issue dead-on.
Genesis chapter 1 tells us that it didn't used to rain, and that "mist used to rise up from the ground." Plants got water from underground springs and geysers. So the first time it rained was in the flood.
Perhaps, in part, that explains why there was SO MUCH water in the flood, enough to cover the earth. If God placed water above the sky, it would be in absolute-zero space. What is water at zero degrees Fahrenheit? It's either ice or super-dense fog. So, as Johnny said, this "canopy" could have both been a source of flood water and created a greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect would have done more than merely protect us from radiation. It would have equalized pressure and temperature on the earth, creating a hyperbaric chamber.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbaric_chamber
Living in a super-oxygenated pressurized atmosphere is speculated to be incredibly healthy. So healthy that humankind could very well live longer in such an atmosphere.
It could possibly explain all these 900 year-old Genesis guys.
I am confused as well. I don't see how you can have water above and below the sky.
Sorry if I'm going on a sidetrack here but I am curious as to know if the issue of Global Warming have any bearing or any credibility to any of you guys? I used to believe wholeheartedly in this but I realize that Global Warming does have many holes in their theory.
I know that I shouldn't be too political about this but I was in a debate with somebody the other day and I explained as to how many developed nations in Europe and Canada are pressing countries like the United States and Australia to implement the Kyoto Protocol.
You can find more information about the Kyoto Protocol in wikipedia but to make it brief in my own words, the Kyoto Protocol is a mandate for many rich nations (like the US) to reduce overall global greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels in less than a short period time.
Here's the problem with this protocol or treaty. This treaty excludes heavily polluting nations from usually less developed or to say it in a less PC term, third world nations such as China and India. They were excluded because their economy or to be more exact their GDP Per Capita is not within First World standards.
I tend to be very moderate in some environmental issues but its virtually impossible to have a man-made rule stating that we should control CO2 emissions in the atmosphere by reducing it to impossible standards.
The four reasons I believe that its impossible to eradicate it because
1.) solar activity
2.) volcanic emissions
You can't possibly plug all of the volcanoes to stop a huge amount CO2 emissions from coming up to the Earth's atmosphere.
3.) variations in the Earth's orbit (Orbiting forcing)
4.) Greenhouse gases.
I'm pretty sure that some of you who are reading this are probably wondering why I'm even mentioning this, I am mentioning about this because not only this issue is dividing political philosophies but also even within evangelical Christian circles.
People such as Ted Haggard, former head of the National Association of Evangelicals who stated that global warming should be at the "forefront of the organization's agenda." or Saddleback Church's pastor, Rick Warren with his famous book called the Purpose Driven Life made many within the evangelical community disappointed when he signed the highly controversial Global Warming Pact, primarily co-signed by many non-believers and liberal to mainline denominational Christians.
You guys, its true that in the Bible it talks about being good stewards of the environment since the Scriptures in fact, clearly emphasize this. But it would very dangerous precedent if we in the body of Christ were to focus on the creation rather than serving to the creator who created creation. (I hope this make sense)
It is rather odd that you bring up global warming, though not necessarily a bad thing. What made you think of it? All this talk of a greenhouse water canopy around the earth? You should have posted an original message about it so we can navigate it easier, though it's no big deal.
To me, global warming lacks evidence of its existence and rationality in its predictions. The earth's temperature has been fluctuating for a long time, just as the whole in the ozone layer grows smaller and larger. There is no sound proof that global warming is occurring. Still less is there proof that greenhouse gases emitted by humanity have little to any contribution on our environment. As you mentioned, a volcano is about 1000 times more destructive than all the cars in America.
Likewise, no one has proven that global warming, if it occurred, would necessarily be a bad thing. If we had a true greenhouse canopy around the earth which slowly grew at a fixed rate for the next 1000 years and orbit around the sun remained the same, we would achieve a rather high universal temperature around the earth (probably 90 degrees or so), which would create similar conditions as there currently are on the equator. Now, on the equator, life of all kinds flourish at a high rate (cut open a tree on the equator and you will find 50 different species of ant). Heat, in general, is good for life.
Cold-water animals would go extinct (penguins, killer whales, polar bears) or adapt, while all other kinds of life would rapidly proliferate.
Isn't that good?
So what Pat is trying to say is that if we get more of these gases into the atmosphere, the world will turn into Maui. I like it!
Maybe my posts would be more serious if I knew more about what we're talking about. Whatever, I'm going to go read my Bible.
Pat, the reason why I brought up Global Warming is because something came up to my mind as I was reading about the water canopy theory as well as the end result of what has happened. I can further explain below in the following two or so paragraphs as to how I lead up to this type of thinking or reasoning.
As far as I know, the water canopy dissipated due to an end result of it leading up to a global flood which therefore contributed to the decline of many environmental conditions and human longevity.
If I understood this theory properly, the water canopy serves not only as protective barrier for life from harmful UV radiation but also serves as a double protective layering of the Ozone layer?? Help me on this because since the water canopy is in no longer existence today, we only have the ozone layer to protect us but many in the scientific community say that global warming will lead to the depletion of the planet's ozone layer. That's "part" of the reason why Global Warming came up in my mind when I posted a very long post out of nowhere. I even made a brief disclaimer in the beginning of my previous post apologizing of sidetracking the topic a little bit.
I'm frank enough to say that I don't believe in Global warming.
That's my 2 cents.
Hey, Seabiscuit -
Sorry, didn't mean to come across like you were out of line. On the blog, we welcome tangents.
I think in some places you are more educated on this topic than I am, though this discussion is great!
I would definitely agree that a canopy of ice or super-dense water vapor would stop UV rays just like ozone. It would refract and dissipate the wavelengths of light passing through it, stopping the glare but allowing the heat.
At least, I'm no physicist but that'd be my guess. So I suspect that the canopy did act as a "double ozone."
Rather, perhaps because God planned to dissipate the canopy he added the ozone layer as the backup protection.
Whether or not global warming would further affect the ozone layer is under speculation. I think it's the pollutants we put out that "affect" the ozone layer, and that's a by-product of global warming. But there's no proof we're permanently depleting the ozone layer. There is a hole in the ozone layer that some scientists have recorded is "growing," but in actuality it merely oscillates--the hole will get larger and then smaller, and repeat this process. So I think the ozone layer regenerates.
Erik - by water above the sky, we're referring to Genesis chapter 1:6-9. It says clearly God made an "expanse between the waters" and that one water was ocean and that the expanse was sky, so he must have placed water above the sky. If he did, it would have been in space, which is very cold and would have frozen it. So if you can imagine a sphere of ice around the earth, making the earth a greenhouse.
Posto një koment