STANDARD Hebrew lexica and a number of modern biblical scholars have defined the raqiac (fyqr, “firmament”) of Gen 1:6-8 as a solid dome over the earth.1 Conservative scholars from Calvin on down to the present, however, have defined it as an atmospheric expanse.2 Some conservatives have taken special pains to reject the concept of a solid dome on the basis that the Bible also refers to the heavens as a tent or curtain and that refer- ences to windows and pillars of heaven are obviously poetic.3 The word raqiac, they say, simply means “expanse.” They say the understanding of raqiac as a solid firmament rests on the Vulgate’s translation, firmamentum; and that translation rests in turn on the LXX’s translation stere<wma, which simply reflected the Greek view of the heavens at the time the trans- lators did their work.4 The raqiac defined as an atmospheric expanse is the historical view according to modern conservatives; and the modern view of the raqiac as a solid dome is simply the result of forcing biblical poetic language into agreement with a concept found in the Babylonian epic
The historical evidence, however, which we will set forth in concrete detail, shows that the raqiac was originally conceived of as being solid and not a merely atmospheric expanse. The grammatical evidence from the OT, which we shall examine later, reflects and confirms this conception Continue reading
Robert Roberts in 1869 stated very plainly there was no miraculous change in Adam post the fall. Of course he changed his mind later but never really addressed his exposition of 1 Cor 15.
“But there is a misapprehension lurking under the proposition which we are combating. Our friend imagines there was a change in the nature of Adam when he became disobedient. There is no evidence of this whatever, and the presumption and evidence are entirely the contrary way. There was a change in Adam’s relation to his maker, but not in the nature of his organization. What are the facts? He was formed from the dust a “living soul,” or natural body. His mental constitution gave him moral relation to God. He was given a law to observe: the law he disobeyed, and sentence was passed that he (the disobedient living soul) should return to mother earth. Continue reading
Lead archaeologist Peter Veth excavating a rich layer of dietary remains and artefacts below the surface of Boodie Cave
This comprehensive article provides yet more painful evidence of the need to revisit the literalist assumptions about Gen 1-3. C14 dating plus luminescence dating cross checked in multiple laboratories demonstrates a site in use in Australia from 43,000 years ago until just 6,800 years ago. The article also references many other studies and articles on ancient Australian aboriginal sites.
This cannot be reconciled to the narrow reading of Gen 1-3. It is not a conspiracy. Its not evolution. Its physics, genetics, archaeology and geology. Sorry.
Evolution is irrelevant – what is critical is the theological implications arising from it. However the science of evolution is not the only problem for literalists. Archaeology is usually welcomed by our community as providing evidence for Biblical accounts of history, from the existence of Babylon to the details of Jericho’s construction. However archaeology provides ample evidence that many people have existed continuously over tens of thousands of years. Continue reading
Paul moves on from discussing the implications of the law in his members which dragged him into sin to then discuss Romans 8 – and the triumph of the faithful in God’s love despite their personal failures (as considered in Rom7). Critically he continues the dualistic approach he commenced in Rom 5:12, we are either in Adam/servants of sin/dead/carnal or we are in Christ/servants of God/spiritually minded. Continue reading
Paul describes his natural as carnal/fleshly in Rom7:14 and goes on to with the most pertinent discussion of our nature and our inevitable inability to do what is right in Rom7:17-23 Continue reading
If Paul’s experience, like ours, is that there is always evil present, how asks the special creationist could Adam and Eve be described as a very good? How could Adam & Eve have no knowledge of good and evil if they had a mind like ours and so evil was present with them? Continue reading