Re: Arguing over waters!
- "mathewmaury" wrote, in part:
"I volunteered my own narrative which is
compatible with a literal rendering of the text and seemingly should
satisfy Todd's quibble."
I do wish you would, when you make such claims, repeat the simple,
literal, plain english interpretation of and reconciliation of the texts
wherein it is stated that there were waters above the firmament and the
sun was in the firmament.
I don't think you agree with Bill, so maybe you should work out your
differences on that before going further.
Best I can tell, Bill was willing to accept a figurative interpretation
instead of the literal. That is, he proposed, best I could tell, that
the sun only appeared to be in the firmament where there were waters
What I recall about your recent comments, since you did voice an
appreciation for logic, is that you appeared to commit the "fallacy of
attacking the illustration" regarding Todd's box of toys.
Otherwise, I recall you saying something about the firmament on day 2
growing out beyond the waters which were above it on day 2 to where by
day 4 there was no such thing. Then God put the sun in the expanded, no
waters above it on day 4, firmament. Is that it?
Seems to me we've got Bill willing to admit to the use of figures in
Genesis 1 while you, "mathewmaury", are still seeking a literal
interpretation which, as far as you know, is wrong. What you propose
that can't be wrong, though, is that none of the relevant terms in
Genesis 1 are used in a figurative sense.
I guess I am out of my league on this one, but the foregoing is where I
have concluded "mathewmaury" and Bill are on the issue.