You used the difference in your argument. We can presume that part of your argument is retracted, right?
I did address the difference, in saying that once it was named, the references to the firmament could now be further described with both words.
Remember that God was creating things and establishing them where they belonged.
The sun and moon and stars were established in the firmament of the heavens because they needed to be integrated into the structure
--not just appear there for awhile-- and not like the birds that only fly on the surface ("face") of the heavens.
Except to show the variations in translation.
Can you tell me what of that you think applies to what I've posted? I read a few pages on from your link, and it mainly seems to be opposed to the canopy models, which aren't my focus. If outer space is the firmament, then the canopy model doesn't work.
|Waters (mayim). This word means a liquid water, not a vapor or solid.15 Had the water in Genesis 1: 6-8 been a vapor, cloud, mist, or ice, other Hebrew words would have been more appropriate. For example, ancient Hebrew had six words for “cloud.”|
II Peter 3:5–6 also implies that this is liquid water. Peter used the same Greek word ( u#dwr) to describe both the liquid water that flooded the Earth and the water out of which the Earth formed, an obvious reference to Genesis 1: 6-7. Liquid water was both above and below the expanse, which contradicts the vapor or ice canopy ideas but is consistent with the “expanse = crust” interpretation.
Separate (badal). This word implies a sharp division. Furthermore, the generally untranslated preposition “ben,” associated with “badal,” means “between.” It suggests an ordering (water, expanse, water) with no overlapping or gaps. Interfaces are also implied on each side of the expanse.16 These meanings oppose a vapor, liquid, or ice particle canopy lying above the atmosphere, because atmospheric gases would mix with the canopy.
In the Midst of (tavek). This word means between, within, among, inside, etc. Sometimes it means “to bisect” or “in the center of.” The respected Jewish scholar, Cassuto, in commenting on Genesis 1: 6–7, stated, “It is true that in the Pentateuch, too, reference is made to the division of the primeval world-ocean into two halves, situated one above the other, ...” 17 [See also Genesis 15:10.] Rabbi Solomon Yitzchaki, in his famous eleventh century Rashi Commentary, stated that the expanse was “in the exact center of the waters.”18 As we have seen, canopy theories place less than one-half of 1% of the Earth’s water above the expanse and the rest below. (This is necessary to reduce the problems associated with heat, light, and pressure mentioned earlier.) Would it not seem strange to say that your scalp is “in the midst of” your body? According to the hydroplate theory, the crust of the preflood Earth approximately bisects Earth’s liquid waters.
Heaven (shamayim). “Heaven” had a variety of meanings in ancient Hebrew, as it does in modern languages. Moses used shamayim to describe outer space (Genesis 26:4), the atmosphere (Genesis 27:28), where God dwells (Deuteronomy 26:15), where angels dwell (Genesis 28:12), and the source of blessings (Genesis 49:25). The context in which shamayim is used is important to understanding its specific meaning.
Expanse or Firmament (raqia). The key Hebrew word in Genesis 1: 6–8a is raqia ((ayqirf). It is translated “firmament” in the King James Version and “expanse” in most Hebrew dictionaries and modern translations. While its original meaning is uncertain, its root, raqa ((qarf), means to spread out, beat out, or hammer as one would a malleable metal. It can also mean “plate.” This may explain why the Greek Septuagint translated raqia 16 out of 17 times with the Greek word stereoma (stere&wma), which means “a firm or solid structure.” The Latin Vulgate (A.D. 382) used the Latin term “firmamentum,” which also denotes solidness and firmness. So, the King James translators in A.D. 1611 coined the word “firmament.” Today, “firmament” is usually used poetically to mean sky, atmosphere, or heavens. In modern Hebrew, raqia means sky or heavens. However, originally it probably meant something solid or firm that was spread out. Indeed, Isaiah 42:5 says the earth was “spread out.”
Then quit doing it.
showed the earth to be stationary.
That killed Newton's theory that required gravity to make things move.
I'm with you.
Einstein had to get things moving again. (protect the heliocentric model)
He did it by saying objects at rest are accelerating as well as warping space and time.
Purdy stupid right?
Yep but it's the only alternative that's been put forth in the last 100 years.
Except for us dimwits who believe God when he says the earth is fixed. (geocentric)
One of the problems with all that is, God never called heaven, earth.
Your position is a spinning flying ball in the heliocentric model.Your arguments are against straw men that have little to nothing to do with my position. I ask that you try to actually make an argument relative (pun not intended) to my position.
So to try to understand you, you're saying before continents or at least if we just imagined the earth without the continents, that there was a single basically uniformly dense crust. Then, the order is important here, then parts of the uniformly dense crust changed to become less dense. Then, the crust began to 'bunch up' where it had become less dense, and that's why there are continents now.Get a mile-long carpet and roll it out. Then shove it around so it piles up in places. The places that are piled up are "continental." The places that aren't are "oceanic."
There is no easy analogy for the basalt. It is a volcanic process that was added after or as the oceanic/continental distinction came about. While oceanic crust is characterized by basaltic rocks, originally there was no difference between the types of crust.
Your position is a spinning flying ball in the heliocentric model.
Problem is that you don't know it as well as I do.
Hence you call it a strawman.
What part of the earth doesn't move makes you think you can still have attraction?
You do it every time you make a statement about gravity that's been proven defunct.
I couldn't have said it better myself. And I mean for me.Hmm. I like these kinds of questions!
I'm no expert at all in geology, so pardon me if my questions seem naïve about some things I've heard.
Well that's what I was trying to find out.Don't we have continental crust (granite) and oceanic crust (basalt) side by side all around the world (not layered atop and below, but side by side)
Yeah, I think so. Different rocks are different in part because of their mineral content, like % this or that atom or metal or whatever. If two rocks are different densities then that has to do with atomic content and maybe how those atoms form crystal lattices with other atoms, and how dense the whole conglomerate rock is different when the 'mix' of atoms is different, because of 'packing density' in the crystal structures that all rocks and minerals and metals form naturally when they solidify., and aren't they made up of different minerals?
I have no idea.Isn't the continental crust older than the oceanic crust?
Could be.Two different substances side by side, and two different ages side by side.
lol you're right. Peace to you.That right there would be enough to ponder "How the heck did that happen?"
No, it doesn't.Saying it doesn't make it so, and Scripture says otherwise:
Yep, lack of motion shows there is no attraction.
You really have no clue about my position.