basic Genesis cosmology 7: the canopy

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
OCTOBER23 said:
GOD VARIED THE ROTATION OF THE EARTH AND THE KINDS OF BEINGS

THAT COULD LIVE THROUGH THE VARIATIONS.

All this information is known by Astrophysicists.
Click to expand...



Thanks, Oct23,
I agree. Details are needed to demonstrate this.

Please see my thread on the "Theia" event titled "Naturalism lets god in the back door"
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame

Scientific Arguments Opposing a Canopy
  • The Pressure Problem.
  • The Heat Problem.
  • The Light Problem.
  • The Nucleation Problem.
  • The Greenhouse Problem.
  • The Support Problem.
  • The Ultraviolet Problem.


—source​


An Alternate Interpretation
The word expanse (raqia) is used nine times in Genesis, all in the creation account, chapter 1. The first four uses are distinguished from the last four to minimize confusion. Following each of the last four uses (in Genesis 1:14–20) is the phrase “of the heavens.” Clearly, from the context, “expanse of the heavens” means sky, atmosphere, outer space, or heaven. However, the first four uses of “expanse,” in Genesis 1:6–7, do not use the phrase “of the heavens.” That expanse was the Earth’s crust. Surface waters (oceans, seas, lakes, and rivers) were above this crust, and subterranean waters were below. The subterranean waters burst forth, producing the “fountains of the great deep” and the global flood.
Repetition of the phrase, “of the heavens” further helps us distinguish between the last four uses and the first four uses.
Psalm 136:5–9, a song of thanks to God, deserves a special comment as well. It describes three sequential events: (1) the heavens are made, (2) the earth is spread out above the waters, and (3) the Sun, Moon, and stars were made. This sequence is similar to the creation events of Day 1, Day 2, and Day 4. If the proposed interpretation is correct, then Psalm 136:5–9 precisely parallels the creation events of Days 1, 2, and 4.
Several ancient extrabiblical writings also state that the Earth’s crust, when first created, divided liquid waters above from liquid waters below.
If this picture of the newly created Earth is correct, then it seems worthy of inclusion in the brief creation chapter of Genesis 1. However, if “the waters above” refers to a canopy containing less than one-half of 1% of the earth’s water, then why would one creation day and almost 10% of the creation chapter be devoted to it?



—source​
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Base12 said:
If the Earth was much smaller, it would have less gravity, thus the water wouldn't be 'pulled down' and dinos could grow very big.

Think outside the box people...

Before God Split the Nations
Click to expand...




Thanks for the video. If you are available to respond, I have these questions.
1, does the writer intend this to be connected to the dividing or separating of the earth mentioned in Genesis 9?
2, has this been related to the formation of the moon? The "Theia" theory says a collision created the two--earth and moon--from its collision with earth. So is that collision way before this and is this why the earth is smaller to start but enlarges?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Stripe said:

Scientific Arguments Opposing a Canopy
  • The Pressure Problem.
  • The Heat Problem.
  • The Light Problem.
  • The Nucleation Problem.
  • The Greenhouse Problem.
  • The Support Problem.
  • The Ultraviolet Problem.


—source​


An Alternate Interpretation
The word expanse (raqia) is used nine times in Genesis, all in the creation account, chapter 1. The first four uses are distinguished from the last four to minimize confusion. Following each of the last four uses (in Genesis 1:14–20) is the phrase “of the heavens.” Clearly, from the context, “expanse of the heavens” means sky, atmosphere, outer space, or heaven. However, the first four uses of “expanse,” in Genesis 1:6–7, do not use the phrase “of the heavens.” That expanse was the Earth’s crust. Surface waters (oceans, seas, lakes, and rivers) were above this crust, and subterranean waters were below. The subterranean waters burst forth, producing the “fountains of the great deep” and the global flood.
Repetition of the phrase, “of the heavens” further helps us distinguish between the last four uses and the first four uses.
Psalm 136:5–9, a song of thanks to God, deserves a special comment as well. It describes three sequential events: (1) the heavens are made, (2) the earth is spread out above the waters, and (3) the Sun, Moon, and stars were made. This sequence is similar to the creation events of Day 1, Day 2, and Day 4. If the proposed interpretation is correct, then Psalm 136:5–9 precisely parallels the creation events of Days 1, 2, and 4.
Several ancient extrabiblical writings also state that the Earth’s crust, when first created, divided liquid waters above from liquid waters below.
If this picture of the newly created Earth is correct, then it seems worthy of inclusion in the brief creation chapter of Genesis 1. However, if “the waters above” refers to a canopy containing less than one-half of 1% of the earth’s water, then why would one creation day and almost 10% of the creation chapter be devoted to it?



—source​
Click to expand...


So then 1:8 is problematic. Perhaps "sky" is a bad translation? I can't find much of an alternative. A contemporary Hebrews translation (CJB) calls it the dome.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Interplanner said:
Thanks for the video. If you are available to respond, I have these questions.
1, does the writer intend this to be connected to the dividing or separating of the earth mentioned in Genesis 9?
2, has this been related to the formation of the moon? The "Theia" theory says a collision created the two--earth and moon--from its collision with earth. So is that collision way before this and is this why the earth is smaller to start but enlarges?
Click to expand...

The Earth is shrinking. And a smaller Earth would not have less gravity.

Base12 is a fruit loop.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Stripe said:
Try opening the link. :up:
Click to expand...


My mistake. I did get to the link.
It's a great study. Can you answer these questions:

1, I understand the predominant meaning of raqia now, but was a layer of ice ever proposed as the scholarship developed?
2, Is it your understanding that the local bodies (sun, moon, our planets) are what make up the "sky," (in Moses' time) and their movements can be followed easily in relation to earth, while the distant things (Orion for ex.) was known to be outside our local system and were called "heaven" (<Gr. ouranos)? Part of the reason for asking this, is that I believe 2 Pet 3 grouped things this way. And he uses two different verbs for them: the heavens existed from 'ekpalai', while the earth was formed from and through water 'archeia'. Not only are the verbs very different, 'ekpalai' contrasts with 'archeia'. 'Archeia' is grouped with the flood and "that" world. 'Ekpalai' is before 'archeia' and the earth's forming (I don't see where earth is formed 'ekpalai') . In it fall events like the desertion of Satan and his followers, which is why Peter is comfortable using 'tartarus' from Greek myth to name the place where rebellious angels were sent. They are confined to blackest darknesses in 2 Peter 2 and Jude and I think these are celestial places. And guess how we find the earth at its first description? Basically that: black, dark, watery, chaos; the Spirit of God has not worked yet, though he is near.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Interplanner said:
It's a great study.
Click to expand...
You read three paragraphs. :AMR:

Was a layer of ice ever proposed as the scholarship developed?
Click to expand...
Dunno. Looks like it. Try looking into the footnotes.

2, Is it your understanding that the local bodies (sun, moon, our planets) are what make up the "sky," (in Moses' time) and their movements can be followed easily in relation to earth, while the distant things (Orion for ex.) was known to be outside our local system and were called "heaven" (<Gr. ouranos)? Part of the reason for asking this, is that I believe 2 Pet 3 grouped things this way. And he uses two different verbs for them: the heavens existed from 'ekpalai', while the earth was formed from and through water 'archeia'. Not only are the verbs very different, 'ekpalai' contrasts with 'archeia'. 'Archeia' is grouped with the flood and "that" world. 'Ekpalai' is before 'archeia' and the earth's forming (I don't see where earth is formed 'ekpalai') . In it fall events like the desertion of Satan and his followers, which is why Peter is comfortable using 'tartarus' from Greek myth to name the place where rebellious angels were sent. They are confined to blackest darknesses in 2 Peter 2 and Jude and I think these are celestial places. And guess how we find the earth at its first description? Basically that: black, dark, watery, chaos; the Spirit of God has not worked yet, though he is near.
Click to expand...

Dunno. Sounds boring.

Canopy theory is physically impossible. I stick with science that is possible. :up:
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Stripe said:
You read three paragraphs. :AMR:

Dunno. Looks like it. Try looking into the footnotes.



Dunno. Sounds boring.

Canopy theory is physically impossible. I stick with science that is possible. :up:
Click to expand...



No I read to the footnotes to see if I had read the same Cassuto material.

How can 2 Pet 3 on 'ekpalai' and 'archeia' be boring when it determines whether the Bible is referring to a very old universe, but a young earth as we know it, or not? That's as important 'raqia' and as definitive.

It is encouraging to find that there is a sensible resolution to the canopy question that makes the text more scientific.
 
Base12

Base12

BANNED
Banned
I'm starting to really hate this forum I swear.

Why can't you so called "Christians" act like it?

It's just smug arrogance piled on top of Ego around here.

I'm so sick of it.

Sorry Interplanner, I wanted to answer your question but I'm just not in the mood for the insults right now.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Stripe said:

Scientific Arguments Opposing a Canopy
  • The Pressure Problem.
  • The Heat Problem.
  • The Light Problem.
  • The Nucleation Problem.
  • The Greenhouse Problem.
  • The Support Problem.
  • The Ultraviolet Problem.


—source​


An Alternate Interpretation
The word expanse (raqia) is used nine times in Genesis, all in the creation account, chapter 1. The first four uses are distinguished from the last four to minimize confusion. Following each of the last four uses (in Genesis 1:14–20) is the phrase “of the heavens.” Clearly, from the context, “expanse of the heavens” means sky, atmosphere, outer space, or heaven. However, the first four uses of “expanse,” in Genesis 1:6–7, do not use the phrase “of the heavens.” That expanse was the Earth’s crust. Surface waters (oceans, seas, lakes, and rivers) were above this crust, and subterranean waters were below. The subterranean waters burst forth, producing the “fountains of the great deep” and the global flood.
Repetition of the phrase, “of the heavens” further helps us distinguish between the last four uses and the first four uses.
Psalm 136:5–9, a song of thanks to God, deserves a special comment as well. It describes three sequential events: (1) the heavens are made, (2) the earth is spread out above the waters, and (3) the Sun, Moon, and stars were made. This sequence is similar to the creation events of Day 1, Day 2, and Day 4. If the proposed interpretation is correct, then Psalm 136:5–9 precisely parallels the creation events of Days 1, 2, and 4.
Several ancient extrabiblical writings also state that the Earth’s crust, when first created, divided liquid waters above from liquid waters below.
If this picture of the newly created Earth is correct, then it seems worthy of inclusion in the brief creation chapter of Genesis 1. However, if “the waters above” refers to a canopy containing less than one-half of 1% of the earth’s water, then why would one creation day and almost 10% of the creation chapter be devoted to it?



—source​
Click to expand...


do you happen to know how the writer of this material answers the question of the naming of the expanse as the sky (v8) and then placing the sun and moon there (v16, 17)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top