From: Gary Collins (gwcollins@algol.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 23 2003 - 04:21:54 EDT
On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 05:20:01 -0400, asa-digest wrote:
>Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:07:54 -0400
>From: "bivalve" <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
>Subject: Re: Concordist sequence
>
[...]
>
>I'm not really sure what the firmament is, as far as assigning a date to it. Taking Genesis 1 as a scientific description in each detail seems to make the firmament into something that
rockets should crash into just after they pass the sun, moon, and stars. If I wanted to defend a concordist view, I would probably take the firmament as simply phenomenological
language rather than an actual object. I suppose one might stretch the interpretation and claim that it referred to something like the microwave background, which appears beyond
the stars. This approach provides scientific language at the expense of an implausible interpretation of the intent of Genesis 1.
>
I was going to suggest that perhaps this isn't a physical barrier at all, but a pre-scientific way of stating that the universe we live in is closed. I'm not sure what the current consenus
on that is... But then someone mentioned the waters above the firmament, thus putting a finger on the one weak spot... Drat, and double drat.... :-)
/Gary
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 23 2003 - 04:22:21 EDT