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.
Atta boy!I don't mind any discussion. That's why we're here. Peace.
Not on everything.Didn't you just agree with @Idolater?
Oh, my mistake.Not on everything.
Are you claiming some sort of "canopy theory"?One deep divided by one firmament.
Land and sky, the area that sustains life.
It was because he hadn't named the firmament until the 5th time. After he named it, then he associated the two words from then on.
Don't you think it weird for there to be lights in the firmament, called "heavens", when heaven is on earth, as you said?
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?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.
Nah.Are you claiming some sort of "canopy theory"?
Do you think that there was an ocean of water above the "firmament of the heaven"?
There is nothing wrong with "natural science".Nah.
I don't try to perceive the message through natural science, but through metaphor.
And with that, you have just exposed yourself as a member of the Illuminati.In other words, order out of chaos for mankind to live.
Order out of chaos being symbolic of life from death.
I didn't say there was.There is nothing wrong with "natural science".
It seems like you are trying to make none of it metaphor.It seems like you're trying to make it all metaphor.
Dumb assumption on your part.And with that, you have just exposed yourself as a member of the Illuminati.
Can I borrow your decoder ring? Mine slipped down the sinkDumb assumption on your part.
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.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.":
Like that.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
No beef with you there. But it doesn't help your position.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.
You are limiting your (and God's) imagination.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.
Well, there's the more straightforward reading of the text.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.
Not the sky! But all of space. Thus birds fly on the face of heaven, not in heaven.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.
You made this statement:Now what?
That does not fit with what the Bible says.One deep divided by one firmament.
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?
Yes it does.You made this statement:
That does not fit with what the Bible says.
One expanse divided the waters... that does not mean that there can only be one and only one expanse.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 water above the expanse was NOT "above the sun and the stars". Genesis 1:14-18.The destruction of life due to the flood was from waters below the expanse and waters above the expanse.
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.
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.
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.