Christianity and evolution

[universalchiro]

So I'm curious: why do many people think that Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive? Thoughts please?

Evolution attempts to explain all processes through Darwinian Evolution, Natural Selection. Therefore, no supernatural being to create anything nor sustain what He created.
The Bible declared that God created everything in 6 literal days and rested the 7th.
100% of the time in the Bible when a number is directly in front of the word day, it is always taken literally.
When there is no number in front of day, it could mean eons, ages, some distant day of the Lord.
Compounding the prior point, each successive day of creation has the phrase, "There was evening and morning second day", or the number of day corresponding with that day. Indicating that creation, from the perspective of earth, the duration of a day was determined by the rotation of the earth. Which means that since time was created on the 4th day, time too is subjective to and subservient to what was already the standard of duration. Therefore, time was created to fit the standard of the earth's rotation that started on day 1.

God, while giving Moses the 10 commandments, verbally told Moses, that He wanted all the Israelites to work 6 days and rest the 7th. And explained why. For God created everything in 6 days and rested the 7th. (Exodus 20)
God, while giving Moses the 10 commandments, Wrote in stone this phrase, "you shall work 6 days and rest the 7th, for I the Lord your God, created everything in 6 days and rested the 7th day. (Exodus 20)
Then Moses broke the 10 commandments and God repeated what He verbally told Moses: 6 days you shall work and the 7th day is a day of rest, for I the Lord made everything in 6 days and rested the 7th day. (Exodus 31)
Then God again wrote IN STONE, the very same phrase again: Moses and all Israel, you shall work 6 days and rest the 7th. For I created everything in 6 days and rested the 7th day. (Exodus 31)

One can't be more clear than repeating themselves twice and writing it down in stone twice. This is God's own testimony of what He did and saw, that God created everything in 6 days and rested the 7th. A child can read this and understand it.

To take the creation account figuratively, would be to say God's own testimony is in error. For all of the Bible is the very word of God breathed through man to write. And if the creation account is not to be taken literally, then there is a problem with all the grass and plants and trees being created on the 3rd day without the sun and moon not being created till day 4. So how many days, years, eons does one want to speculate photosynthesis didn't occur before the sun is created. And insects for pollination weren't created until day 6. So how long does one want to speculate time went by without insects?

Jesus quotes Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 regarding Adam and Eve. So why does the Son of God bother with quoting Genesis creation account exactly, if it's not to be taken literally, why not just paraphrase? Because Jesus and all the writers of the Bible affirmed that one jot or tittle will not pass away. The length that the writers went to to illustrate that the Scriptures were the very Word of God is in harmony with the attention to detail of noting jot and tittle.

When Adam first appears, the Bible describes him walking, not crawling. When God first appears, the Bible describes God walking not crawling or some other primitive means of travel. When ever God or angels appear, they are always in human form. Why? God said, let us make man in our image according to our likeness. Genesis 1:27.

God said to each kind, be fruitful and multiply after your kind. "After your kind" is repeated many times in the Creation account. Why?
Mankind was created with the same characteristics of God, the ability to love, think, reason, plan, desires, etc.
When mankind paints something, we sign it to seal it and protect it.
When mankind writes a book, we copyright it to seal it and protect it.
When mankind invents something, we patent it to seal it and protect it.
God, when creating humans, He sealed and protected us too. How?

The human female egg has a shell around it. This shell needs to be dissolved for fertilization to occur. There is only one kind of creature on earth that has the necessary enzyme to dissolve this shell at the tip of the spermatozoa for fertilization to occur. The human male.
This human male enzyme is so specific, that it won't dissolve any other shell of any other egg of any other creature on earth.
And it's like this for every kind. Only dogs can fertilize female dog's eggs. And only cats can fertilize female cat's eggs. ect.
Why did God do this? God in His sovereignty knew mankind would do awful beastly sexual deviations with other creatures, so God sealed us in His image. We are unable to evolve to another kind. Nor can any other kind evolve into another kind. Why? For one reason Crossbreeding of kinds is blocked by God and this is revealed to us by medical science. Another reason is there are limits to adaptation to environmental changes and stimuli. Too much change results in sterility or still birth (DOA).

The spiritual aspect: Jesus is the Word. John 1:1-20. Jesus said Moses wrote about Him John 5:39-45. And Revelation reveals Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. From Genesis 1:1 in the beginning God. The word God is Elohim, is the plural form of God, hence God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That's why the plural personal pronouns in Genesis 1:27 "Let us make man in our image according our likeness". To Malachi last verse in the Old Testament is about Jesus. To the first verse of Matthew 1:1 to the last verse in Revelation is about Jesus. So to say that Jesus' Word is filled with errors, is to say Jesus is filled with errors, for it's His Words that the Father gave Him to say.

Believing in God as the creator of all and is Lord of your life, is to say you agree with His Word. And the Bible declares that God can't lie. So when God declares He made everything in 6 days and rested the 7th, you either accept God and His word, or you don't. But don't fool yourself and say one believes in God but not completely what He said or wrote about. One can't pick and choose what parts of God's word is truthful and which parts are in error. It's either all truth or all error. There is no middle ground. Jesus said you are either for me or against me.

Summary: Believing in God of the Bible or evolution is mutually exclusive.

[universalchiro]

We, as humans, can sit and discuss the origins of religion forever. There is simply no proof that God does, or does not exist. Sure we can place things from the bible in history, but we can only go back and prove what we were present for, or we have scientific evidence of.

I beg the differ with you.
That mankind has a unique morality, points to evidence that there was a creator with morals.
That mankind has unique reasoning skills, points to evidence that there is a creator with knowledge and a mind that we were created after.
That mankind can't procreate with any other kind, nor can any other kind procreate with any other kind, points to evidence that a creator preserved His creation.
That mankind from it's earliest writings, the Code of Hammurabi, is a unique kind of being with laws, morals and communication skills that is beyond all other kinds of life on earth.
That Jesus was written about in first century secular writings as one that lived, died and was claimed to have been seen after His death as a risen human being is note worthy evidence that something supernatural occurred. And to get first hand followers to follow Jesus, even though tortured to stop following Jesus is note worthy. For no human would follow someone they knew was a fake and receive no financial gain, no sexual gain and promised and realized persecution for doing so. During the '70's, 12 top political figures with their careers on the line couldn't hold a secret about Watergate for 3 weeks, but 12 disciples can hold a lie about Jesus for 40 years though being tortured? Come on...

But the biggest evidence is the Bible itself. For a collection of writings by 40 authors over a time period of 1,500 years to all be in harmony on religion, to proclaim events and people centuries before they were, give evidence that somebody had information that was beyond human means. The Bible talks about the earth being a sphere a millennium before it was known. The Bible talks about the heavens wearing out, a tenet of physics, entropy. a millennium before Sir Isaac Newton. The Bible tells of how the Sun drags the Solar System a millennium before Copernicus. The Bible is archeologically accurate, historically accurate, medically accurate, etc. The Bible is without errors, without contradiction and has stood the test of time.

Also, we see intelligent design in life. If only one of the tenets of physics are slightly out of tune, then life is not sustainable. If the earth is slightly closer or farther away from the sun, then life is not sustainable. When we see a watch, we know there is a watch maker. When we see sheets of music, we know there was a composer. When we see simple stones placed in a circle or straight line, we assume an intelligent being placed them there. Yet when we see the ultra complex DNA code of humans, the consensus is a leap of faith that random, unguided mutations made substantive changes in kind? This is silly. For the DNA code is so complex that when mapped out on paper with small font, typed on both sides of the paper, and piled high, would stack up as high as the Washington monument. Software writers know how hard it is to write a simple program and if there is one single error, then the program with have wholesale problems. Similarly, any changes to the DNA code is more likely to degrade the code rather than enhance a positive change. So to have such a complex DNA code, is strong evidence of intelligent design.

summary: There is ample evidence of God.

[fadedpsychosis]

wow... I go away for a few days and *boom* explosion of text... anyway, questions time: (TLDR: this is going to be a very long post)

You are switching you standpoint.
First you propose that you can believe in the Christian God but not take the Bible at all literally. Now you say you have to take it literally, just not 100% (which I actually agree with- not all of the Bible is intended to be taken literally). Please, before posting again, try hold fast to a concrete standpoint and then present it.
If you still agree with your first proposal, I'd like to ask, how can you disregard the Bible, and still believe in the Christian God?
We aren't talking about a few misunderstood texts, or a few figurative V literal passages, I'm talking neglecting the depictions of God in the Bible as a falsehood, yet still claiming to believe in the Christian God? Care to clarify?

um... what does ANY of this have to do with why evolution is contradictory with christianity, or more specifically in this instance; how does it contradict what is in the bible?

Emphatically not,evolution has precisely zero to say about the origin of life..that field of study is called abiogenesis.I wish I had a penny for every time this tired old canard is wheeled out.

thank you chang, I did not know the name of the field. this is entirely correct: evolution DOES posit the origins of particular species, and the mechanisms of change, but it does NOT speculate on how life originated in the first place

Yet again I ask you, show me how the Bible and evolution can coincide. I ask this time and time again yet no one can come up with any evidence. Sir, have you read Genesis chapter one or are you just guessing?

I must take a slight tangent here: I take it by your reactions that you take the origin story presented in Genesis to mean 7 literal days. I must ask: who measured the days? by the text written, sentient beings did not come into existence until the very end, and I can't recall seeing God say "oh, by the way, everything you see took me exactly a week". the text itself lacks a frame of reference in regards to time. if this is your sole objection, then I ask this: could the days listed simply represent a period of time? if so, then why could not evolution simply be the mechanism which God used to create all the diversity shown throughout creation (or for that matter why couldn't "Let there be Light" have been manifested as an extraordinarily powerful explosion)?

Considering that the Bible claims that God created humans in the pure form they exist in today ...

The story in Genesis states that God personally made "The Man" from the ground, specifically from "dust" because when people die they eventually return to dust. But before we go there, we need to know where "there" is. There is a lot of tradition at time for things that one might say were "anti" Egypt. One is the notion of allowing the dead to "return to the dust" as opposed to the idea in Egypt that it was necessary to preserve the body for the soul to remain in the afterlife. Thus being formed from "the dust" is a symbolic link and explanation of the practice of deliberately avoiding complex embalming rituals.

In the seven day creation story, it simply says that male and female were created, but it doesn't say how. Man is created last, but this isn't exactly what you think it is either since the order of creation in the first story is a hierarchy; thus in placing man last he places him on top of everything else.

God creates man and beast on the same day (regardless of whether you think the timeframe of creation is literal or figurative, this is significant).
God gave man dominion over beast (hard to have dominion over beast if you're still evolving from beasts yourself).
God creates man in His own likeness (how you can liken bacteria to God is beyond me).

1: see my previous question. if man and beast were created in the same era (which even 'evolutionists' would say makes sense) then Man came about after the beasts
2: see 1, and your own previous argument: what we are talking about is modern homo sapiens; once we became what we are (however that happened) we most certainly dominated the food chain
3: see 2, again we are talking about modern man, not bacteria... bacteria predate plants, so were likely 'day 3' creations anyway

If we are direct descendents of Adam and Eve, then we would basically have no split in our DNA, as Adam was basically cloned, from his rib, to make Eve. How does that explain that we all have different DNA, and it takes parts of both parents chromosomes to make a child?

Why would you assume this? When God created Eve out of Adam, he did not make another identical man, he made a woman. A woman cannot be a clone of a man.

Per the rest, Gene recombination, flat mutations, variations in genetic transfer etc, etc, etc.

I would argue that God, being omnipotent, could easily clone a woman from a man by removing the Y chromosome and replacing it with a duplicate X... but then God, being omnipotent, could (and I think would) completely rearrange the DNA in question anyway... I always interpreted this part to mean "God used Adam as a template, modified it a bit, then made Eve in the same mold" though I would ask yet another question: why emphasize creating a woman when he had already created fish and fowl etc, a fairly large percentage of which reproduce sexually? there were already males and females of various species around. I personally think this part was to emphasize the creation of another distinct person (thus essentially creation of another soul)

Yep, many (not all) religious people are quite happy to embrace science until it puts forward uncomfortable disagreements with whatever their religion tells them. Then suddenly this thing that was marvellous because it gave them better churches/houses and better cars and more effective medicines becomes evil incarnate and "just a theory".

I have yet to see an argument (it would probably look similar to the figurative/literal debate on biblical truth) as to why some science is good, but other science is evil (note - not bad, there can always be incompetent/dishonest scientists, but that following the same scientific methods with the same integrity and honesty in one scientific field (e.g. electronics) is fine, but in another scientific field (e.g. evolution) is not.)

I would say that good vs evil is more a matter of philosophy and religion than one of science anyway... but I will content myself with saying that while a particular science itself could not be classified as good or evil (science being the modern descendant of philosophy which in its ancient form was simply the pursuit of truth, or in the literal translation "love of wisdom") but there are acts which done in the pursuit of a particular science which could be called evil (ie. some of the things done in the pursuit of advancing medicine)

Alright, sir, I'll be more contrarian. I see that you changed 'know' to 'theorize'. What do you 'know', hairy Greek man? Or is 'knowing' off-limits for everyone?

the irony here being that it was a Greek man (who was likely fairly hairy) that said "The beginning of wisdom is to know how little you know." (or something to that effect, I'm quoting from memory)

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The method God used to create Eve, in the basic context, is what we call cloning today. I will admit, I am not a biblical scholar. I am more of an agnostic that sways more towards the fundamentalist side, than the atheist side. I believe in god, I just don't put forth all of my being to showing it. I practice the positive teachings, and nothing more.

OK, looks like I did misunderstand, but it wasn't cloning. If it were, then both would be identical and a woman is not identical to a man. Some theologians believe its improper to truly call the first being "man", that the original Adam held both male and female and that God split the parts. At any rate, it just wasn't cloning.

see, I'm not sure I could get on board with this one... to me that seems like God created Man as an asexual being and went "no, I don't think I like it" then fissioned him off into 2 halves of a sexual pair...

anyway, please by all means continue, I quite enjoy an actual debate (as opposed to pointing fingers and name calling AKA politics)

[fadedpsychosis]

gah! didn't see page 6! my apologies chiro *reads*

ok, finally some actual sourcing, specifically Exodus, answering one of my other questions

I still don't see that evolution and creation cannot co-exist. you say that time itself was created on day 4, meaning God created an element of physics after the fact. why could He also not have put into place other mechanisms after the beginning? Or are you saying the world and all the beings in it have not changed since the beginning of time? again, I am not trying to troll or be rude, but it seems folly to think than an omnipotent and omniscient God would not have put into place a mechanism (or multiple mechanisms) for change while leaving the world itself at the mercy of change

[tzor]

The Bible declared that God created everything in 6 literal days and rested the 7th.

The Bible also declares that there is a metal dome that separates the waters above the sky from the waters below the sky and that the waters above the sky are where the rain comes from. Upon this metal dome is attached the sun, moon and stars (the Hebrew word suggests a gigantic metal dome).

Do you believe in that metal dome? If not, then why not? And if you don't believe that the metal dome is literal, why do you insist that the days are literal? Why do you pick and choose which parts are literal?

[tzor]

To take the creation account figuratively, would be to say God's own testimony is in error. For all of the Bible is the very word of God breathed through man to write. And if the creation account is not to be taken literally, then there is a problem with all the grass and plants and trees being created on the 3rd day without the sun and moon not being created till day 4. So how many days, years, eons does one want to speculate photosynthesis didn't occur before the sun is created. And insects for pollination weren't created until day 6. So how long does one want to speculate time went by without insects?

The six days of creation are not linear; they are hierarchical. The six days are divided into two sets of three with the second set providing those who rule over the first set.

Day one: Night and Day
Day four: Sun and Moon

Day two: Seas and Sky
Day five: fish and birds

Day three: Dry land
Day six: Those that live on the Dry Land and last and most importantly man

This is why plants and trees are on day three; they don't really "rule" the land, they are just a part of the land. They exist purely as food and shelter for the proper rulers of the land (and also the sky).

This is why you have three cycles of day and night before the sun existed; because the sun is placed as the ruler of the day. Literally! "God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night, and the stars."

God's testimony is not in error. Your understanding of God's testimony is in error.

[universalchiro]

The Bible declared that God created everything in 6 literal days and rested the 7th.

The Bible also declares that there is a metal dome that separates the waters above the sky from the waters below the sky and that the waters above the sky are where the rain comes from. Upon this metal dome is attached the sun, moon and stars (the Hebrew word suggests a gigantic metal dome).

Do you believe in that metal dome? If not, then why not? And if you don't believe that the metal dome is literal, why do you insist that the days are literal? Why do you pick and choose which parts are literal?

tzor, You must be mistaken, there is no metal dome and your interpretation is missing the mark. For Moses wrote that God created an expanse/firmament as an opening and the Hebrew word gives describes how God didn't it. The Strong's Concordance give clarity on your misunderstanding:
For you are only referring to the root of the word: raqa (7554), but the Bible uses the word raqiya (7549) in the Genesis account of creation. This is where you have made your error.
7554 raqa` raw-kah' a primitive root; to pound the earth (as a sign of passion); by analogy to expand (by hammering); by implication, to overlay (with thin sheets of metal):--beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.
7549 raqiya` raw-kee'-ah from 7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:--firmament.

The idea is not metal in the sky, but that when God created the expanse/firmament/heaven/atmosphere, He expanded it just like a blacksmith would hammer out metal.

Summary: The Bible does NOT say there is metal surrounding our atmosphere in the sky. This is really far left field interpreting error. And a result of little research, Please be more careful with saying things authoritatively when you haven't done your research.

And on a separate note, I already know you are an evolutionist with some sort of belief in some portion of the God of the Bible. And some parts of the Bible you take literally, but as far as when you jump in and start taking the Bible literally, you are confused and wouldn't answer my inquires to dialogue with you. For you knew you were trapped at God declaring to Moses emphatically twice verbally and twice written in STONE that He made everything in 6 days and rested the 7th. However you want to twist your interpretation to get around that is your business, but please stop trying to speak for the Bible without knowing the Bible.

[universalchiro]

To take the creation account figuratively, would be to say God's own testimony is in error. For all of the Bible is the very word of God breathed through man to write. And if the creation account is not to be taken literally, then there is a problem with all the grass and plants and trees being created on the 3rd day without the sun and moon not being created till day 4. So how many days, years, eons does one want to speculate photosynthesis didn't occur before the sun is created. And insects for pollination weren't created until day 6. So how long does one want to speculate time went by without insects?

The six days of creation are not linear; they are hierarchical. The six days are divided into two sets of three with the second set providing those who rule over the first set.

Day one: Night and Day
Day four: Sun and Moon

Day two: Seas and Sky
Day five: fish and birds

Day three: Dry land
Day six: Those that live on the Dry Land and last and most importantly man

This is why plants and trees are on day three; they don't really "rule" the land, they are just a part of the land. They exist purely as food and shelter for the proper rulers of the land (and also the sky).

This is why you have three cycles of day and night before the sun existed; because the sun is placed as the ruler of the day. Literally! "God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night, and the stars."

God's testimony is not in error. Your understanding of God's testimony is in error.

I am taking God's statement of what He did at creation at face value as He said it was done. You sir, are not.
When a child reads the Genesis account of creation, a child is able to understand it simply as it reads without someone explaining it to them. But your version of interpretation requires someone to teach it to the children after they read the creation account. Your version is not viewable with simple reading of the text. The Bible's version of simplicity is that a child can read it and understand.
Your version leaves out the stars, the insects.
Also, you are forgetting that grass, plants, trees are created on the 3rd day, yet the sun wasn't created till day 4. With your millions of years between each day, there's no photosynthesis. And the insects aren't created till day 6. So in your evolutionary version there are potentially billions of years between plants created and insects for pollination. Too many holes and then you have to ignore God's testimony in Exodus 20 and 31 that He created everything in 6 days. He said this phrase twice and wrote it IN STONE TWICE.
tzor, You have stated your view. I understand your view, but I reject your view and adhered to the simplicity of a literal Genesis creation account, so that a child can read it and understand without some guru or leader telling them what they read. We are on different paths.

[universalchiro]

gah! didn't see page 6! my apologies chiro *reads*
ok, finally some actual sourcing, specifically Exodus, answering one of my other questions
I still don't see that evolution and creation cannot co-exist.

Let us let God speak for Himself on this matter of whether evolution exist, of whether God is accepting of or approving of evolution. That we evolved from rocks or plant life or whatever:

Jeremiah 2: 2 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem:“This is what the Lord says:
“‘I remember the devotion of your youth, how as a bride you loved me and followed me through the wilderness, through a land not sown.
3 Israel was holy to the Lord, the firstfruits of his harvest;all who devoured her were held guilty, and disaster overtook them,’”
declares the Lord.4 Hear the word of the Lord, you descendants of Jacob, all you clans of Israel.5 This is what the Lord says:“What fault did your ancestors find in me, that they strayed so far from me? They followed worthless idols and became worthless themselves.
6 They did not ask, ‘Where is the Lord, who brought us up out of Egypt and led us through the barren wilderness, through a land of deserts and ravines, a land of drought and utter darkness, a land where no one travels and no one lives?’ 7 I brought you into a fertile land
to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and made my inheritance detestable. 8 The priests did not ask, ‘Where is the Lord?’ Those who deal with the law did not know me; the leaders rebelled against me. The prophets prophesied by Baal,
following worthless idols. 9 “Therefore I bring charges against you again,” declares the Lord. “And I will bring charges against your children’s children. 10 Cross over to the coasts of Cyprus and look, send to Kedar and observe closely; see if there has ever been anything like this: 11 Has a nation ever changed its gods? (Yet they are not gods at all.) But my people have exchanged their glorious God for worthless idols. 12 Be appalled at this, you heavens, and shudder with great horror,” declares the Lord. 13 “My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water. 14 Is Israel a servant, a slave by birth? Why then has he become plunder? 15 Lions have roared; they have growled at him.
They have laid waste his land; his towns are burned and deserted. 16 Also, the men of Memphis and Tahpanhes have cracked your skull. 17 Have you not brought this on yourselves by forsaking the Lord your God when he led you in the way? 18 Now why go to Egypt
to drink water from the Nile? And why go to Assyria to drink water from the Euphrates? 19 Your wickedness will punish you;
your backsliding will rebuke you. Consider then and realize how evil and bitter it is for you when you forsake the Lord your God
and have no awe of me,” declares the Lord, the Lord Almighty. 20 “Long ago you broke off your yoke and tore off your bonds;
you said, ‘I will not serve you!’ Indeed, on every high hill and under every spreading tree you lay down as a prostitute.
21 I had planted you like a choice vine of sound and reliable stock. How then did you turn against me into a corrupt, wild vine?
22 Although you wash yourself with soap and use an abundance of cleansing powder, the stain of your guilt is still before me,”
declares the Sovereign Lord. 23 “How can you say, ‘I am not defiled; I have not run after the Baals’? See how you behaved in the valley;
consider what you have done. You are a swift she-camel running here and there, 24 a wild donkey accustomed to the desert,
sniffing the wind in her craving— in her heat who can restrain her? Any males that pursue her need not tire themselves;
at mating time they will find her. 25 Do not run until your feet are bare and your throat is dry. But you said, ‘It’s no use!
I love foreign gods, and I must go after them.’ 26 “As a thief is disgraced when he is caught, so the people of Israel are disgraced—
they, their kings and their officials, their priests and their prophets. 27 They say to wood, ‘You are my father,’ and to stone, ‘You gave me birth.’ They have turned their backs to me and not their faces; yet when they are in trouble, they say, ‘Come and save us!’
28 Where then are the gods you made for yourselves? Let them come if they can save you when you are in trouble! For you, Judah, have as many gods as you have towns. 29 “Why do you bring charges against me? You have all rebelled against me,”
declares the Lord. 30 “In vain I punished your people; they did not respond to correction. Your sword has devoured your prophets
like a ravenous lion. "


Darwinian Evolution is nothing new. Israel has already been there and done that. For Israel rejected the testimony of God and declared that their ancestors are wood and stone. Israel was saying that they came from rock and wood. This is detestable to God, for God declared He created us in His image. So for one to say they came from rock or wood through some evolutionary process is messing with an almighty God and they are storing up wrath for themselves.

Learn from the mistake that the Israelites did while wondering in the desert for 40 years. Remember the story of Moses going up to Mt Sinai to get the 10 Commandments and the Jews wanted to worship God but they did it their way, and in an improper way, they made a golden calf to worship God. They thought they were doing well, but that sure made God mad. And judgement came as a result. So when it comes to someone saying they love God, but wants to believe that rock and primordial mixture of complex chemicals initiated life spontaneously and that through natural processes that rock became a single cell amoeba and later after hundreds of millions of years of random, undirected, mutations humans evolved, is blasphemy. Not according to me, but according to God through the inspired words of Jeremiah the prophet.

[tzor]

tzor, You must be mistaken, there is no metal dome and your interpretation is missing the mark.

The word "firmament" is used to translate raqia, or raqiya` ( רקיע), a word used in Biblical Hebrew. The connotation of firmness conveyed by the Vulgate's firmamentum is consistent with that of stereoma, the Greek word used in the Septuagint, an earlier translation. The notion of solidity is advanced explicitly in several biblical passages. The original word raqia is derived from the root raqa ( רקע), meaning "to beat or spread out", e.g., the process of making a dish by hammering thin a lump of metal. Raqa adopted the meaning "to make firm or solid" in Syriac, a major dialect of Aramaic (the vernacular of Jesus) and close cognate of Hebrew. Conservatives and fundamentalists tend to favor translations that allow scripture to be harmonized with scientific knowledge, for example "expanse". This translation is used by the New International Version and by the English Standard Version. The New Revised Standard Version uses "dome", as in the Celestial dome.

The notion of the sky as a solid object (rather than just an atmospheric expanse) was widespread among both ancient civilisations and primitive cultures, including ancient Greece, Egypt, China, India, native Americans, Australian aborigines, and also early Christians. The sky is depicted as a solid dome arched over the earth in both Mesopotamian and Indo-European mythologies (e.g., creation myths) and poetry. The Sumerian sky-god An ruled these firmament-like "heavens", which the wind-god had separated from the flat disc of the earth below, and there were primordial seas above the firmament. Ancient Indians also believed in a solid sky: "Firm is the sky and firm is the earth," says the Rig Veda. This approach to cosmology is probably universal, and is also encountered in mythologies of the New World.

An extremely literalistic interpretation of the Bible and non-canonical related texts present a cosmology that is incompatible with modern scientific knowledge.[8] The firmament was a great tent-like[9] ceiling made of solid crystalline-like material,[10] which, according to the pseudepedigraphic 2nd or 3rd century book of 3 Baruch, might be pierced by tower and gimlet.[11] It had many windows, some of which opened and closed for the sun and moon to travel through[12] or to let water, which was held above, fall through as rain.[13] On top there were also warehouses of snow and hail.[14] Stars were small objects that were attached tenuosly to its surface.[15]

9: Isaiah 40:22
10: Job 37:18 and Ezekiel 1:22
11: 3 Baruch 3:7-8
12: Enoch 72:2-5
13: Genesis 7:11
14: Job 38:22
15: Genesis 1:14-17, Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, Revelation 6:13, Revelation 8:10, and Revelation 9:1, Revelation 12:4.

The Jewish Encyclopedia describes the firmament as follows:

The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.

I'll talk to my favorite Jewish friend on the Hannity forums to see if he agrees with me or you on the definition of the word raqiya.