Atta boy!I don't mind any discussion. That's why we're here.Peace.
As the old saying goes ......
If two people agree on everything then one of them is unnecessary.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
The biggest evidence of the Flood? The world ocean.
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
As the old saying goes ......
If two people agree on everything then one of them is unnecessary.
Not on everything.
Derf
Well-known member
Oh, my mistake.
Right Divider
Body part
Are you claiming some sort of "canopy theory"?
Do you think that there was an ocean of water above the "firmament of the heaven"?
If that's all there was to it, then you might have a point.
But there's a problem. Read through Genesis 1 again. Note where the "it was good" falls for what God started on day 2.
Read it? Good. Did you notice that day 2 does not have God calling what He made "good"?
Why did God not call what He did on day 2 "good," immediately following His naming of the firmament "Heaven", but instead waited until partly through day 3 to call it good?
The answer?
Because He wasn't finished with what he started on day 2. God was still working with the "firmament called Heaven" on day 3, and we can see that the "firmament called Heaven" is clearly NOT the sky, which He called "the heavens," because he's still dealing with "earth" and "seas.":
Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.So the evening and the morning were the third day. - Genesis 1:9-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:9-13&version=NKJV
The "waters under the heavens" are not "the deep." Otherwise you have "fountains of the great deep" breaking forth from above the crust of the earth, and there's no physical way for it to do so.
No, the only rational explanation is that "the deep" is below the crust of the earth, while "the waters under the heavens" are the Seas God made, and "the firmament of the heavens" (heavens [plural]) is the sky.
Only if you define "firmament" and "firmament of the heavens" as the same thing, since where those lights are, there would be water above them. But that would be begging the question, not to mention unnatural in the way humans speak, referring to the "trunk" sentences I brought up earlier.
I am saying that the "firmament called Heaven" is not the same as the "firmament of the heavens," and that there's no real reason (other than tradition) to automatically assume they are the same thing.
One is the crust of the earth.
The other is sky, where the stars are set, as if firmly set there.
Thus, "Heaven" was (at the time) just another name for earth, and "heavens" refers to the sky arching above us.
The Hebrew doesn't quite support the idea either, that the "firmament called Heaven" is the sky.
Derf
Well-known member
I appreciate the detailed response, JR, and such deserves a more thoughtful response from me than I can give right now. But in the meantime, can you confirm for me whether the words for "heaven" and "heavens" really distinguish between singular and plural as you have done?
Nah.
I don't try to perceive the message through natural science, but through metaphor.
I see it as telling us that there were waters (plural) called the dark deep in Gen 1: 2.
The deep seems to be a metaphor of a dark chaotic state.
And then God creates light and dry land to be in between the darkness and waters.
Thus creating a realm where flesh life can be sustained, and it is life that is created afterwards by plants, animals, man.
In other words, order out of chaos for mankind to live.
Order out of chaos being symbolic of life from death.
In the end times we have a similar order out of chaos theme, with the added permanent effect of the deep and darkness being forever separated (no more sea and no more darkness) from life and rivers of living waters.
Right Divider
Body part
There is nothing wrong with "natural science".
It seems like you're trying to make it all metaphor.
And with that, you have just exposed yourself as a member of the Illuminati.
I didn't say there was.
And there is nothing wrong with metaphor.
It seems like you are trying to make none of it metaphor.
Now what?
Dumb assumption on your part.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Can I borrow your decoder ring? Mine slipped down the sink
Derf
Well-known member
I agree it wasn't finished yet, but that's no reason to read something into the passage that doesn't fit. Rather, with the waters still covering the earth, the earth is still "formless and void", the good light only illuminating that fact. There's nowhere for a man to live until the dry land appears.
Like that.
No beef with you there. But it doesn't help your position.
You are limiting your (and God's) imagination.
Well, there's the more straightforward reading of the text.
Not the sky! But all of space. Thus birds fly on the face of heaven, not in heaven.
Right Divider
Body part
You made this statement:
That does not fit with what the Bible says.
Gen 1:6-8 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:6) ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. (1:7) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so. (1:8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
This says that there was water above and below the firmament. If, as you claim, there is but one firmament, then there would be waters above the sky.
Gen 1:14-18 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:14) ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: (1:15) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. (1:16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also. (1:17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, (1:18) And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good.
If there is but a single firmament, then some of the waters are above the sun and the stars. Just how does that work?
My Bible has "Heaven" and "heavens."
Yes it does.
Gen 1:2 tells us of the waters of the deep, and then tells us the firmament (expanse) was to divide those same waters.
The firmament (expanse) is in the midst of the divided waters.
waters of the deep
firmament (the divider)
waters of the deep
There are not two firmaments, there is only one expanse that divides the waters of the deep.
The destruction of life due to the flood was from waters below the expanse and waters above the expanse.
Genesis 7 ESV
(11) In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth [waters below], and the windows of the heavens were opened [waters above].
Fits perfectly.
Right Divider
Body part
One expanse divided the waters... that does not mean that there can only be one and only one expanse.
The water above the expanse was NOT "above the sun and the stars". Genesis 1:14-18.
The sun and the stars are IN the firmament of the heaven.
Right Divider
Body part
Why not? Science just means knowledge. "Natural science" simply deals with what we can know about nature. I'd say that the earth just after it was created definitely falls within that category.
Usually what happens is that when you reject the foundation of the Bible as literal, you end up destroying the foundation for everything else in the Bible.
Why does it have to be a metaphor?
Why can't it just be waters on the surface of the earth, which as of yet has no light hitting it?
What chaos was there?
The Bible doesn't mention any.
There was no death before Adam.
Whatever that means...
So the "firmament of the heavens" divides the waters of the deep?
Or is the "firmament" something other than the "firmament of the heavens"?
I see two. "Firmament" and "firmament of the heavens."
That, we agree upon.
Correct.
Incorrect.
The "waters above the firmament" are called Seas. They would not have been the cause of the flood. They ceased to exist during the flood, their waters merging with the flood waters.
It doesn't.
You're forcing it to say something that it doesn't say.
Consider:
The fountains of the great deep also provided the water for the rain that fell during the flood, aka "the windows of heaven" being opened.
And lets not forget that you have other verses to deal with besides just the ones in Genesis:
Flood Models & Bible Verses
rsr.org/hpt Bible Material Uniquely Supporting Various Flood Models (See note #1) Apparently Uniquely Supportive of: Hydroplate Theory,Vapor Canopy Theory,Catastrophic Plate Tectonics No "It was good" on Day 2 (because raqia was unfinished; see note #2),✔ The dry land finished the crust process ...
For example, 1 Peter 3:5-6 says that the earth was "standing out of water and in the water," and that those same waters were what flooded the earth
Thank you.
Except that it does fit. It fits much better than saying there's water above the sky (firmament of the heavens). Remember, so far, we haven't even TOUCHED the physical, geological, historical, and cultural evidence for my position yet. We're just dealing with the scriptures currently.
Correct. Dry land wasn't made until day 3.
As I said above, the "waters under the heavens" were gathered together to form what were called "Seas."
Thus, they cannot be the "waters of the great deep.
My position is simply that "the heavens" there is the same as the "firmament of the heavens," while the "firmament" that divided the waters above and the waters below is the crust of the earth which God formed, which He called "Heaven," and which became the dry ground He called "Earth," and that had on top of it large pools of water called "Seas."
It doesn't help my position, no, since it's simply a natural conclusion of my position, but it utterly destroys yours.
If the "firmament" and "firmament of the heavens" are the same thing, then your position asserts that "waters under the heavens" would be the deep...
Unless you think that "the heavens" and "the firmament of the heavens" are not the same thing, in which case, your position doesn't make any sense anyways.
But you won't explain how or why?
My answer?
No, I'm not, hypocrite.
Which reads as though they're two different things.
Which is my entire point.
Yes, when I said sky, I was including all of space in that, too.