• 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.

A missing Link to Genesis 1:6 God said, “I command a dome to separate the water above it from the water below it.”

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Derf, this post is REALLY REALLY LONG. So please, read completely through it first before responding. Otherwise you may not get to the crucial points.

This is where God first introduces the word "Heaven" (and it is always given in the plural: "Heavens").

Again, the firmament, NOT "of the heavens," but the one in the midst of the waters, was called heaven.

Up until this time, the firmament was being formed (more from absence of material),

You can't form something from an absence of material, Derf!

ESPECIALLY not in the midst of the waters, to divide the waters above from the waters below!

and when He was done, He gave us the name for it. The same for the earth (dry), that was named when it appeared. Both of these were given in Gen 1:1 as goals of the creative process:
[Gen 1:1 NKJV] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Followed by how He made them, at which point He named them:
[Gen 1:8 NKJV] And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
[Gen 1:10 NKJV] And God called the dry [land] Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that [it was] good.

Between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:8, God didn't use the word "Heavens", because they (it?) didn't exist. Between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:10, God didn't use the word "Earth", because it didn't exist, Earth being the dry land, and Heavens being the space above the dry land.

That's all well and good, until you realize that you've completely ignored the location of what was called "heaven."

Which you continue to do even after I have pointed it out MULTIPLE TIMES in this thread alone.

The "firmament" God called "Heaven" was "in the midst of the waters.

The VERY SAME WATERS that the Spirit of God was hovering over IN VERSE 2.

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Derf, question 1:

Do you agree that the earth was covered in water in verse two?

Question 2:

If so, where was the firmament God started to create on day 2?

And yes, I expect an answer to AT LEAST the first question.

Note that there are two things the firmament has: an "in" characteristic and an "on" characteristic (same concept as "across the face". The "in" is used to for things like "stars", "sun", and "moon", and the "on" is used for birds, where they fly. The sky, where birds fly, is the part of the expanse that we can experience, but it isn't the expanse. It is merely the surface of it, from our point of view.

Yes, this is true for both our positions.

No, He introduces the concept when He made it, which all happened before he named it, in vs 8. To say God defines a word, then uses it for a completely different concept is the confusion factor I mentioned.

No, Derf!

Naming something "Heaven" (and I see no reason to use the plural, since it's a noun, not an article) does not mean God is introducing the concept of "heavens"!

HE IS NAMING SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN INTRODUCED!

I think you just reversed what you said before, that the firmament is called heavens, then the term changes to "firmament of the heavens".

My position has not changed in the slightest.

There is a firmament, called "Heaven," which is the firmament God created in the midst of the waters of day 2.

There is a firmament of the heavens, which is not the "firmament called Heaven," across the face of which birds fly, and in which God placed the stars, the sun, and the moon.

How do birds fly across the face of a firmament that is sandwiched between two layers of water, even given that dry land has appeared on one side of it, THAT ALSO has stars and the sun and the moon within that firmament?

It's not possible.

There must be, because it is the only rational conclusion, two different firmaments being described in Genesis 1.

I showed you the distinction. You tried to explain it away, and failed.

But now you are saying the the heavens is called a firmament.

We get the word "firmament" from the latin word firmamentum.

It means, not surprisingly, "a firm object."

In a figurative sense, the heavens (not "Heaven," v6, but "the heavens," vs 1, 9, 14, etc.) are a firm object in which God placed the stars, because upon casual observation, they do not appear to move, same with the Sun and moon, though to a noticeably lesser extent.

So yes, the heavens are indeed firm... In a sense.

Hence "firmament of the heavens."

But the latin word "firmamentum" doesn't quite convey the same meaning as the hebrew word used, which is "raqia."

"Raqia" (a noun) comes from the root word "raqqa," a verb that means to pound/beat out, like with metals, to expand them.


Moses Qualified His Last Four Uses of Firmament: Moses used the word firmament nine times in the creation account. He intentionally distinguished the last four occurrences from the first four, which all pivot around the central instance where God called the earth's firmament Heaven. Each of the four in the second grouping (Genesis 1:14, 15, 17, 20) is qualified separately by an exceptional repetition. The prepositional phrase "of the heavens" makes a distinction between the first firmament of the earth, and the second "firmament of the heavens." And if firmament means the "heavens," the very term "firmament of the heavens" would seem unnecessarily redundant, especially when repeated four times. However, the qualifier "of the heavens" is added so that the reader will not confuse this firmament of sky and space with the previous firmament of earth. Thus, readers alien to the notion of "heaven" on earth should nonetheless be able to separate the two firmaments, and understand God's meaning. Now, millennia after the Fall, God's own record of creation notwithstanding, sin has almost completely obscured the original perspective of the earth's surface as "heaven."



I don't see how you can get away from the idea that the heavens HAS a firmament, and it also has a surface. I'll try to remember to come back to this dichotomy.

What?

The firmament called heaven has a surface. Where it's dry, it's called Earth. Where it's covered in water, it was called Seas.

The firmament of the heavens does not have a surface. It's a figure of speech that refers to the sky as though it were something firm.

Except the verses NEVER say God made any creatures "above" the firmament. (Prove me wrong on this, if you can!)

Your assertion is that there is only one firmament, from my understanding, and that it is both "Heaven" and "the heavens."

If so, then these three verses cannot coexist.

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”

To Him who laid out the earth above the waters,For His mercy endures forever;

Why?

Because, according to your position, and using scripture, this would be the structure of the creation (in order from top to bottom):

The spirit of God hovering over…
The earth (Psalm 136:6)
The waters above the firmament of the heavens, and the earth (2 Peter 3:5)
The firmament of the heavens
The birds flying across the face of the firmament of the heavens, and also the waters below the firmament of the heavens (apparently the birds are swimming sometimes, not flying?)
Seas and dry land (which is also apparently the earth?)

You either have to concede that God put the lights in ground, or that God not only made a layer of water underneath the sky, but that somehow dry land appeared in the sky, which of course neither scenario matches reality!

Good grief, that made my head hurt trying explain that.

And you think MY position is confusing!

No, the far more, and I insist the only, rational position is that there are two firmaments, one literal, one figurative, and that the figurative one refers to the sky and to space in general, and the literal one refers to the crust of the earth.

That word combination doesn't exist in the passage, at all, ever.

So what?

There is something introduced regarding "in" the firmament of the heavens and "on" (across the face of) the firmament of the heavens, as you rightly pointed out. But if the same firmament of the heavens is in view for both of those, neither can be talking about a firmament that is below where the birds fly (no stars could be there) or above where the stars are (no birds are there, as far as we can tell, and the bird part of the passage also deals with fish, which we can get access to--they aren't in some place above the firmament of the heavens. And they aren't in some firmament of the earth, called "heaven", because it isn't a concept spelled out that way.

You're not describing problems with my position, Derf.

You're describing the problems with yours, and trying to pass them off as problems with mine, and that is the cause of your confusion. My position is not the cause of it.

Again!

There are TWO firmaments.

The first one is referred to with the FIRST FIVE of nine usages in Genesis 1, all contained within Day 2, and part of Day 3. ALL FIVE refer to something "in the midst of the waters," which divide the waters above from the waters below," the same waters that are mentioned in verse two, and these waters were, according to verse 2, on the earth.

The LAST FOUR of nine are all qualified with "of the heavens," in order to distinguish them from the first five, and they ALL make sense when talking about things "above" us, like the birds flying in the sky or the sun, moon, and stars in space.

You can't have one firmament in both places, because they're two different places, and one thing cannot exist in two different locations simultaneously.

ONLY WITH TWO FIRMAMENTS can you make sense of the chapter, and of plenty of other verses in the Bible as well!

Called "Heavens".

I see absolutely no reason to call the firmament of verse 6 anything other than "Heaven," as translated.

Yes, the Hebrew word used is plural. But for the sake of this conversation, and boy do you need it, I'm trying to make as much of a distinction between the firmament of day 2 and part of day 3, and the firmament of the heavens found throughout the rest of the chapter.

Don't make this harder than it has to be.

Let me offer an explanation that I think fits the scripture better. When God made the space between the waters,

There's your first mistake.

Why do you assume it's "space"?

Space does not divide water on earth (verse 2). Space is FILLED IN BY WATER on earth.

So it can't be space.

He made it firm. How did He do that, make "space" to be "firm"? According to our current theories of the structure of space, He used gravity and motion. Gravity to keep the system from blowing apart, and motion to keep the system from collapsing on itself. There could well be more to it, but that at least provides for a "firmament" of the heavens. And the surface of the firmament, the "face" of it, is the interface between the earth (dry land) and the firmament, called heavens (the space), or the firmament of the space. You can't have the space without a firmament, so the firmament is the space and is of the space.

Your premise is false, therefore the rest of your "explanation" is utter nonsense.

Except God gave no other context.

WRONG!

God gave the context of verse 2.

Here it is again:

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

The context is the earth (the planet, not the dry ground, which doesn't yet exist yet).

Not the heavens. Not the sky.

The earth.

God is focusing on the earth, and thus, His Spirit is over the face of.....

The waters.

God then makes light, and gets the earth turning.

Day 2, BACK TO THE WATERS: God makes something IN THE MIDST of THE WATERS.

The WATERS ON EARTH.

Not in space.

Not underground.

Not in heaven.

ON. EARTH.

Like this:

image(1).png

They are the reason we call the large storage space in modern day vehicles "trunks," because people used to strap them TO THE BACKS OF AUTOMOBILES! Modern vehicles replaced the large bulky boxes with built-in storage, but kept the name "trunk."

Or maybe you knew that, and THAT is what was confusing you.

Here! Let me make this easier for you!

Instead of referring to a trunk box, let's switch the analogy to an elephant trunk instead!

God spends five verses talking about the "trunk", and it's understood by the context that he's talking about an elephants trunk.

He then starts talking in 4 other verses about two different things and puts one of those things in "the trunk of the car" and the other in front of "the trunk of the car".

Question, and I really hope this is an easy one for you!:

Is the "trunk" He spoke about in the first five verse the same object as the "trunk" in the last four verses?

If you answer "yes, they're the same trunk," then you need to get your head checked out, because there is clearly something wrong with it!

NO! OF COURSE THEY'RE NOT THE SAME TRUNK!

One is an elephant's trunk, and the other is the trunk of the car!

Derf! The EXACT SAME PHRASING IS USED IN GENESIS 1!

God talks about a "raqia" (firmament) for five verses and calls it "samayim" (Heaven), then for four more verses, talks about two other things in reference to a raqia hassamayim (firmament of the heavens). The answer is the same as above! The two "raqia"s ARE NOT THE SAME THING! Just like the two "trunk"s are not the same thing!

defining "trunk" as that space, then, in my scenario, He used the word immediately after for some un-introduced concept.

Derf. This may seem off topic, but I assure you, I'm going somewhere with this.

Are you aware that Hebrew often has a certain pattern to it? (particularly in poetry, but even in other forms of writing)

Psalm 19 is one of the most beautiful Psalms in the book, because of the way it is structured.

To give you a glimpse at it, go read it real quick, then come back here.

...

Done yet?

Good. A beautiful psalm, isn't it?

Now, read it again, this time taking note of how in the first 6 verses, David is describing the physical universe with literary terms; and take note of how in the last 8 verses, it is describing Scripture with astronomical terms.

. . .

Done reading?

Did I just blow your mind? It really makes the psalm become so much more vivid!

So where am I going with this, you ask?

Consider that God, in Genesis 1:6-10 describes the firmament of the earth (the crust) as something pounded out (raqia), and then in verses 14, 15, 17, and 20, God reverses it, and literally spreads out the heavens (ie, the sky, space) as though it were a metal being pounded out, that birds can fly across the face of, and that he can set lights into, as though the sky is something physical though it is not!

How beautiful the passage becomes when you realize that Moses (via inspiration of God) wrote a masterpiece of literature for the very first chapter of the Bible, by first describing a physical firmament as the foundation for life on earth, then by describing other things as they relate to a figurative firmament that holds those things in place, or serve as a backdrop for other life.

And that sounded a lot better in my head, but surely you get the idea? (I reiterate this below a lot better after getting some sleep.)

God makes the firmament of the earth (the crust), and calls it heaven, then uses "the heavens" in relation to the opposite of the first "firmament," to denote the sky and what would eventually become known as outer space, to serve as a firmament of sorts to "hold" the lights in the heavens in place (through something unseen).

It's possible, but confusing. And God isn't trying to be confusing, since He spends a fair amount of time defining words.

If you are confused, it's not because of God.

I don't understand your question here, except that you are reading my words from your presuppositions. I don't think that works for that part of my post.

My question is about the logical conclusion of your position.

IF THERE IS ONLY ONE FIRMAMENT:

Then that firmament which was made on earth (cf verse 2; verse 6; 2 Peter 3:4-6; Psalm 136:6) is the same firmament in which God put the sun, moon, and stars.

Agreed. That's why I think you should reject the idea. God defined what "heavens" refers to, and He stuck with that definition. He didn't define a word, then never used the word in that same way again, as your view has Him doing. If you don't believe me, go back to your list of uses of "firmament". He makes a firmament by separating waters; He calls the firmament "heavens"; He then talks about a firmament that He associates with "heavens"; and He never again refers to the ground firmament as "heavens".

Supra.

No, He absolutely did NOT provide a "God saw that it was good" after each thing he makes.

Wrong. And I showed you why that was the case.

For instance, He did not "see that it was good" after the Sun, or the moon, but only after the stars also, ,and when they were put in place. It wasn't enough, in the system of lights in the firmament, just to have a Sun. So He waited until He had also made the moon and the stars and set them in their places before He saw that it was good.

All three of those things are "lights in the sky."

Just read the passage!

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then 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. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 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.

Those lights were:
- to divide the day from the night
- for signs and seasons
- for days and years
- to be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth

The first two lights God made were the sun and the moon, and then He made the stars.

All of that, God saw it was good.

Disagree.

So what?

You haven't established that the thing God didn't see as good was the thing He saw as good partway through day 3.

Just read the passage, Derf! I'm really not sure why you're being so stubborn on this! It's literally what is being said!

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus 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. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. 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.

You have:

- verse 5 (not quoted) ending with the end of the first day
- verse 6 starts with God creating a firmament in the midst of the waters (cf 1:2), dividing the waters from the waters (again, cf 1:2)
- verse 7 which describes God's creation of that firmament, which divided the waters below the firmament (the "deep") from the waters above the firmament (note the band of material between the "waters above" and the "waters below")
image(1).png
- verse 8 which has God calling the firmament (that same band of material) "Heaven", and then day 2 ends with no "and God saw it was good, as with day 1
- verse 9 has the waters under "the heavens" gather into one place, and to cause the dry land to appear (note that the firmament called "Heaven," that band of material, has now sunk down in places)
image(1)(1).png
- verse 10 God calls the dry land Earth and the gathered together waters He calls Seas; only NOW does God recognize His work as good, as Moses moves onto plant life, rather than talking about the firmament
image.png
- verse 11-12 is God making plant life, and at the end He calls the plant life good
- verse 13 end of day 3

If it was as you described it, the waters below the firmament (the band of material in the first and second image in this segment), AKA "the deep," would have been the water that was gathered together into one place.

You're the one asserting that the firmament of verse 6 is the "heavens" of verse 9 and "firmament of the heavens" of verse 14 and onwards.

That means that there would be dry land appearing below this firmament called heaven, this firmament of the heavens.

That's a HUGE problem for your position.

The only way to resolve it is to say that the the firmament is in the sky, but that contradicts (yes, contradicts) the fact that the water is on the earth.

It is just as possible that He left off with the firmament until later (as you agree), but the thing that wasn't good about it was that it was still empty. God doesn't like things that are "void"--they aren't "good"

There is no void in verses 6-8.

There is nothing "void" in verses 6-8.

What does that even mean, anyways, that "God doesn't like things that are 'void'--they aren't 'good.'"?

If God made a massive shell of granite and dirt, ~60 miles, in the midst of the waters, then it would take time for that shell to settle, because it isn't going to stay afloat, and rock at that scale acts is not a rigid material. It would take time for the rock to settle once it had been created, especially for it to settle without cracking which would be caused by rapid movement, which would be counterproductive.

One thing you should take note of, Derf, is that God likes using tools to accomplish His will. Rather than directly affecting His creation, God will use things that He made to affect the universe He created, and even the people He made. For example, rather than trying to convince Pharaoh directly, He attacked their gods using plagues that show His power over the things those gods were supposed to rule over. And He used a flood to wipe out all of mankind, rather than just killing them directly. And he used fish and bread to feed 5000 people, rather than putting food directly into their stomachs.

In the same way, God used gravity along with the bed of water under the crust to form the crust without breaking it, a process that took roughly a day and a half, and once finished, He had just enough time to put something on that canvas before the end of the first day.

Yes, there is a good reason--a word definition. When a word is specifically defined for use in a passage, then it would be strange to never use it for that use again, but instead to use it for something else where the usage was NOT defined. This is standard fare for literary structure.

So in the beginning, God created the firmament and the earth, is what you're saying?

Please explain how that makes sense.

Otherwise, I'll stick to using the context of what is being said to understand the meaning of words, especially for a language that has relatively few words compared to others, where some words have a multitude of definitions, and can be used in multiple ways even within the same passage.

The base word for "the heavens" and "Heaven" in Genesis 1 is "shamayim."

Strong's:

Strong's h8064

- Lexical: שָׁמַיִם
- Transliteration: shamayim
- Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
- Phonetic Spelling: shaw-mah'-yim
- Definition: heaven, sky.
- Origin: Dual of an unused singular shameh {shaw-meh'}; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve).
- Usage: air, X astrologer, heaven(-s).
- Translated as (count): the heavens (82), heaven (73), of heaven (65), in heaven (29), of the air (23), of the heavens (23), from heaven (20), of the heaven (16), to heaven (11), in the heavens (10), the heaven (10), heavens (6), into heaven (6), toward heaven (6), of heavens (5), to the heavens (4), your heavens (4), and the heaven (3), and the heavens (3), and heaven (2), in the air (2), in the sky (2), sky (2), you heavens (2), against the heavens (1), and heavens (1), His heavens (1), in the very heavens (1), of the sky (1), on the heavens (1), than heaven (1), that the sky (1), the astrologers (1), the highest (1), the toward heavens (1), up to heaven (1).



In Genesis 1, it is used in two different ways.

1:1 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:8 - šā·mā·yim
1:9 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:14 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:15 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:17 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:20 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:26 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:28 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:30 - haš·šā·ma·yim

Notice anything?

The ONE TIME in Genesis 1 where it is NOT used as an article is in verse 8!

Meaning it's not "the heavens" but "heaven(s)."

Hebrew only has one article, "ה" ("ha") which corresponds to the English "the."

The fact that it is NOT used in verse 8, but is used in every other place in Genesis 1 where shamayim is used, should give you a hint that the "šā·mā·yim" in verse 8 is NOT THE SAME THING as the other "haš·šā·ma·yim" in all the other verses.

In other words!

There's a reason the English translators used "Heaven" rather than "the heavens."

It's because Moses was trying to make a distinction between the "heaven" of verse 8 and the "the heavens" of the rest of the chapter.

To reiterate: Moses is using a term for the sky and the things that are in it to describe a geological formation, and then uses a geological term, "raqia" to describe the sky, just like with Psalm 19.

It's a nice story, but it isn't a story that's in the first chapter of Genesis.

Yes it is. Supra.

Let's go back to the first verse:
[Gen 1:1 NKJV] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
There are two main foci of the chapter: 1. the heavens, and 2. the earth.

Correct.

If the earth is called "the heavens",

It wasn't, nor is that what I've been saying.

then vs 1 wasn't written correctly, it would only say "In the beginning God created the heavens." But it would be confusing, because the reader wouldn't be sure whether that verse was talking about the earth that is called "Heavens" or another thing that is called "Heavens."

Supra.

Yes, that is what I mean by "the epitome of confusion." You can't help me understand the topic in the way you are explaining it, but not because of my obtuseness. It's because of the inconsistency in your explanation.

There us nothing wrong with the consistency of my position. You have repeatedly misrepresented things that I said (just a few paragraphs up for one example) and then base the rest of your confusion off of that misrepresentation.

I've talked to two scientists that are familiar with and promote Dr. Brown's hydroplate theory, and both of them agree with me that calling the earth heaven is an unnecessary part of the theory.

So what? Many people have disagreed with Dr. Brown. Nothing new under the sun.

Doesn't make them right and him wrong.
Doesn't make them wrong and him right.

Don't make appeals to authority, Derf.

I won't give there names here in the public part of the forum, because I don't want to cause dissension. I can give their names on a private chat with you, if you like. One of them was in a conversation just this week at the homeschool conference in Denver, and I expect you will recognize his name.

It's irrelevant who they are.

Using that phrase doesn't make it NOT so, either.

You cannot remove one of the foundations of a theory and have the theory remain viable.

The firmament of day 2 being part of the earth is FOUNDATIONAL (pun not intended) to the HPT, because it's part of where the water came from during the flood, the very source of the fountains of the great deep.

One more point. I already stated that God first told us what He was going to explain in Gen 1:1, the creation of the heavens and the earth. He then gave the detailed version of the creation in Gen 1:2-31, wrapping it up in 6 days. Then He did (through Moses, of course) what any skilled presenter of information would do, and gave a recap of what He had just explained...a synopsis to make sure everyone got the point. This is what the military are told to do when giving a briefing: "First, tell them what you're going to tell them. Second, tell them what you want to tell them. Third, tell them what you just told them.
Here it is:
[Gen 1:1 NKJV] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
[Gen 1:2-31 is the full description]
[Gen 2:1 NKJV] Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.

Agreed!

There's the clincher in the last verse. "Heavens" is used of what here? Of the solid material between the deep and the surface of the globe? No, it is obviously talking about the "firmament of the the Heavens", because it includes the contents: "and all the host of them."

Yes, we agree on that.

The problem is that now you're special pleading.

Verse 8 "heaven" does not have a "ha" article, just as the rest of the usages do.

All I've been saying this entire time is that THAT SPECIFIC "shamayim" is different than the rest.

Supra.

This is repeated in the Sabbath commandment as "and all that is in them."
[Exo 20:11 NKJV] For [in] six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that [is] in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

AMEN!

We can tell, therefore, that the intention of the use of the word "Heavens", used these two places without "firmament of the" added to it, is on the place where God set the sun, moon, and stars, and not in the ground.

Only in every verse where it's used OTHER than verse 8.

Which is what I've been saying all along!

Verses 6-10 are NOT talking about "the heavens." Otherwise you have gathered together Seas and dry land Earth in the sky, which doesn't make sense at all.
 

Attachments

  • il_fullxfull.3729215686_llx7.jpg
    il_fullxfull.3729215686_llx7.jpg
    561.9 KB · Views: 1

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Ugh, it appears I forgot to copy a portion of my response back into the editor here before posting.

Let me type up the portion missing. It goes after the image and before the text here:

image(1).png


They are the reason we call the large storage space in modern day vehicles "trunks," because people used to strap them TO THE BACKS OF AUTOMOBILES! Modern vehicles replaced the large bulky boxes with built-in storage, but kept the name "trunk."
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I don't remember if I had said anything else above this, after the image, so I'll just add this here and be done with it.

[begin insert]
He literally talks about the trunk of the car,

NO, Derf! He is NOT talking about the trunk of the car!

Do you not know what a trunk is?!

This is a trunk!

il_fullxfull.3729215686_llx7.jpg

They are the reason......
[end insert]
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Early Christians were called "atheists",
I don't think anyone was called "atheist" (an English noun with apparently no known pre-16th Century documentation) in the days of the Roman Empire.
because they didn't acknowledge the Greek/Roman pantheon, or the particular Caesars, as true gods.
I don't know what it would be to "acknowledge [X, Y, and Z] as true gods". But truly, the early Christians never mistook any of their contemporary pagans' idols, or any Caesars, for being YHWH. I doubt anyone has ever been called "atheist" for his/her knowledge (or public expression thereof) of the fact that things and personages that aren't YHWH aren't YHWH.
 

Derf

Well-known member
I don't think anyone was called "atheist" (an English noun with apparently no known pre-16th Century documentation) in the days of the Roman Empire.

I don't know what it would be to "acknowledge [X, Y, and Z] as true gods". But truly, the early Christians never mistook any of their contemporary pagans' idols, or any Caesars, for being YHWH. I doubt anyone has ever been called "atheist" for his/her knowledge (or public expression thereof) of the fact that things and personages that aren't YHWH aren't YHWH.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
"Athiests"?

Anyway, it's not that I wasn't already aware that people say things like "The early Christians were called 'atheists'". Probably nowadays just about everyone has heard people say that sort of thing.

From that article:

This work was called the Plea for the Christians and combats the three most common charges against Christians: atheism, incest and cannibalism. The accusation of cannibalism was, of course, a misunderstanding of the Christian idea of eating the “flesh” and “blood” of the Son of God (partaking of the bread and wine – Luke 22:19-20) in the Lord’s Supper.


Any accusation of cannibalism would necessarily be an accusation that a certain individual(s) cannibalized a certain individual(s). If no Christian was accused of cannibalizing one or more individuals, then no Christian was accused of cannibalism.

Eating bread and drinking wine is not cannibalism, since bread and wine are not people. And doing so is not cannibalism even were the eater/drinker under a sick delusion that the bread and wine he/she is consuming is not bread and wine, but human flesh and blood, instead. If any pagan contemporaries of the early Christians were really accusing Christians' eating of bread and drinking of wine of being cannibalism, then such pagan accusers would necessarily therein be claiming that the bread and wine consumed by the Christians was not really bread and wine, but instead was actually the flesh and blood of one or more human individuals. And so, the question would be: the flesh and blood of what individual(s) were such pagan accusers allegedly claiming Christians' bread and wine to actually be? Is it reported in history that any Christians were ever tried by the state for murdering people and consuming their flesh and blood? Are any names recorded of such perpetrators, and of such victims?

I just can't buy into the "early Christians were accused of cannibalism" line. I take it to be an invention of false teachers trying to come up with props for the delusion called "transubstantiation". The early Christians ate bread and drank wine, and were not under any delusion so as to imagine that the bread and wine they ate and drank was human flesh and blood, rather than bread and wine. So, it's telling if pushers of the delusion called "transubstantiation" use an allegation that PAGAN PERSECUTORS OF CHRISTIANS believed Christians were not really eating and drinking bread and wine, but human flesh instead, as a prop for their so-called "Christian" doctrine, "transubstantiation".
 

tieman55

Member
Is a large Meteorite, named Hoba in Namibia, a missing link to Genesis 1:6

Hoba is ostensibly a “meteorite” that is in Namibia, Africa. Hoba is the largest/only slab of iron/nickel/cobalt ever discovered. It weighs in at 132,000 lbs. 9’ x 9’ x 3’ thick. It lies where it was discovered in 1920 by a farmer plowing a field with an ox to plant corn. Hoba left no crater or obvious path to where it resides to this day.

We are taught/told to believe by the "experts" that Hoba basically had a controlled angled decent in from space with a soft landing at more than 22K MPH and it is the ONLY meteorite in history, of that magnitude, to remain intact on impact… Believe what you want, but there is no way that Hoba came from outer-space… So, if it didn’t come from space, where did it come from?

Consider this:

Hoba is made of an alloy that today is similar to many industrial maraging steels. Hoba alloy is iron, nickel and cobalt, which make it corrosion resistant, having superior elongation, very high tensile strength under pressure and low thermal expansion. There are similar alloy used today like 18Ni by Haynes International and is aka the “asteroid” alloy. Hoba’s properties meet specific engineering requirements. *See foot note Mechanics.

Thanks to Walt Brown and others, many creationists believe that meteorites came from the flood when the fountains of the deep broke the earth open. That is what I believe and it is the premise for my thesis.

Maraging alloy steel is not found on earth in any large pieces except in the millions of meteorites. Since this steel is only found on or very near the surface on earth, it is rightly assumed that they are all meteorites. But is that true?

From the Walt Brown creationist point of view: The fact that maraging steel is only found on the surface begs the question: How did it come to be that every chunk, layer, rock, and or deposit of iron/nickel/cobalt (maraging steel) is on or near the earths surface and they all seem to be meteorites? That fact alone makes the Walt Brown creationist look misguided. Again, from the creationist view, how is the above possible? How can it be that every piece of maraging steel that was on earth went into space? Or is there a missing link?

Hoba is the missing link.

Hoba is the answer. It is the meteorite, that never made it to space, and Hoba is not alone. Here is how: Before the flood, all of the iron/nickel/cobalt steel in creation, located on earth, was as an “interface” between the water below it and the land above it. In Gen: 1:6, God talks about that interface and it is alluded to in various translations, in various figures of speech as a: dome, firmament, expanse, space, something, divider, canopy, vaulted dome, separation, horizon, and others. All of them allude to a contemporary liner between the waters in the sky and the waters below, Hoba is a piece of that liner, keeping water below it and dirt/rock from falling into the deep.

When the fountains of the deep broke open and the alloy steel dome/liner sheared in two, at the point of separation, smaller pieces broke off the liner and were then carried upward by the high-pressure water into space and elsewhere but all of them ended up either in space or on/near the surface of the earth. All meteorites are/were pieces of God's barrier between the land and water before the flood, but all of these so-called meteorites have not seen space.

The largest intact piece of the liner on the earth’s surface is Hoba, as it was just too big to be pushed into space. The vast majority of God's liner, while likely broken up, is likely still deep in the earth. And most geologist believe that the earth’s core is iron/nickel, which is a good fit. This also explains why we do find very small particles of iron/nickel on the surface, anything else found is ostensibly called a meteorite, regardless if it has ever seen space.

The Proof!

If you look at Hoba closely, one side is different than the other, that might indicate one side was in contact with land and the other side was in contact with the water for its 1700 years of service. I predicted before it was known to be so, that one side of Hoba would contain carbonates from the water below it and it would be different than the other side. I was proven to be correct. *See German Study Foot notes.

Hoba is about 250 miles from the existing coast line of Africa, how did it come to rest there? I say it slid there. When the fountains of the deep broke open Hoba broke off from the barrier/dome/liner and high-pressure water pushed Hoba up and it fell on land. With the rush of water, debris, and the entire Africa continent falling down at an angle, combined with Hoba’s inertia and then the continent coming to a halt, Hoba slid to its present position, probably in a few hours. I believe there are undoubtable other Hoba's yet to be discovered. *See Foot notes of traditional.

Conclusion: Hoba is an extant piece of God's "dome" and proof that the Genesis 1:6 is true.

Foot notes:

From deepai.com

The Namibian government does not take a specific position on the origin or origin story of the Hoba meteorite. However, the official stance is that the meteorite is of unknown origin and has been present in the area for thousands of years. **(There is no date on when the govt, took this stance but it appears it goes back to the discovery of Hoba)
There are various theories and hypotheses about the origin of the Hoba meteorite, including:

1. The traditional story is that the meteorite was brought to the area by a flood or a massive storm.
I found a few examples of oral traditions and local legends related to flooding and large chunks of iron/nickel that might be connected to the Hoba meteorite:

2. In some African cultures, there are stories about a great flood that occurred in the region where the Hoba meteorite was found. The flood is said to have been so powerful that it swept away everything in its path, leaving behind only a few remnants of the pre-flood world. Some believe that these remnants are the large chunks of iron and nickel that can be found in the region, including the Hoba meteorite.

3. In another African legend, the flood is said to have been caused by the gods themselves, who were angry with the inhabitants of the earth for their wicked ways. The gods sent a great flood to destroy the earth, but they spared a few individuals who were deemed worthy and saved them on a mountain or a rock. Some believe that these saved individuals brought with them fragments of iron and nickel from the pre-flood world, which eventually became the Hoba meteorite.

These oral traditions and local legends are not only fascinating but also provide a glimpse into the rich cultural heritage and storytelling traditions of Africa. While they may not be directly connected to the Hoba meteorite, they offer a unique perspective on the cultural significance and symbolic meaning of meteorites and other natural phenomena in African societies.

Mechanics of 3’ thick dome.

The pressure would be enormous on every square inch of the dome. With perhaps 12,000 feet of soil/dirt rock the pressure would be about 1 million pounds per square inch. Which would be a challenge for even 3 feet of maraging steel, but the steel is supported by the water below it, so the pressure is compressive.

The compressive properties of meteoritic metal are generally characterized by:

1. Low yield strength: Meteoritic metal typically has a yield strength in the range of 10-50 MPa (1,450-7,250 psi), which is relatively low compared to other metals.

2. Low ultimate strength: The ultimate strength of meteoritic metal is usually around 100-200 MPa (14,500-29,000 psi), which is also relatively low.

3. High ductility: Meteoritic metal is often highly ductile, meaning it can be deformed significantly without breaking or cracking. This is due to the presence of impurities and defects in the metal structure.

4. High strain hardening: Meteoritic metal exhibits significant strain hardening, which means that its strength increases as it is deformed. This is because the metal's crystal structure becomes more aligned and denser as it is compressed.

Conclusion: 3 and 4 make this alloy an engineer’s dream. Ductility because the moon would have raised and lowered the dome every single day and the compression of the metal was in the rage of million psi. increasing it strength.

German Study: The Proof

The top and bottom of the Hoba meteorite have been analyzed, and the results are fascinating. In 2018, a team of scientists from the University of Bremen, Germany, conducted a detailed analysis of the meteorite's surfaces using a range of techniques, including:

1. **Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)**: The team used SEM to examine the surface morphology of both the top and bottom of the meteorite.
2. **Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS)**: They used EDS to analyze the chemical composition of the surfaces.
3. **X-ray Fluorescence (XRF)**: They used XRF to analyze the elemental composition of the surfaces.
4. **Micro-X-ray Computed Tomography (Micro-CT)**: They used Micro-CT to create 3D images of the meteorite's internal structure.

The analysis revealed some striking differences between the top and bottom surfaces:

1. **Surface roughness**: The top surface is smoother than the bottom surface, with a roughness average (Ra) value of 0.5 μm compared to 2.5 μm for the bottom surface.

2. **Chemical composition**: The top surface has a higher concentration of metallic iron and nickel compared to the bottom surface, which is more enriched in silicates and carbonates.

3. **Elemental distribution**: The team found that the top surface has a more uniform distribution of elements, whereas the bottom surface has a more heterogeneous distribution.

4. **Micro-structure**: The Micro-CT analysis revealed that the top surface has a more compact and recrystallized microstructure compared to the bottom surface, which is more porous and has a more complex microstructure.
These differences suggest that the top and bottom surfaces of the Hoba meteorite have undergone different processes during its formation and history in space. The top surface may have been exposed to solar wind and radiation, which could have led to its smoother texture and altered chemical composition. The bottom surface, on the other hand, may have
been buried in regolith or debris, which could have contributed to its rougher texture and more complex microstructure.
The study provides valuable insights into the formation and evolution of the Hoba meteorite, and highlights the importance of analyzing multiple surfaces and samples from a single meteorite to gain a more comprehensive understanding of its history.


Hoba_meteorite_%2815682150765%29.jpg

Hoba has no "fusion crust" which sets it alone, fusion crust happens when the iron-nickel alloy gets hot on reentry. Those who pretend that Hoba had a soft slow landing have a big problem with this one. The temperature and the speed of a meteorite upon re-entry are inversely proportional, and so is the amount of fusion crust and the meteorites re-entry temp. The air is what slows Hoba down and it is the air that makes it hot. "If" Hoba came down slow it had to get VERY hot, if it got hot it has to have thick fusion crust... and it has none.
Now fusion crust can be "worn away" but that is, like any ware process, only done in ware areas. There is no evidence that Hoba has any Fusion Crust, anywhere.

Conclusion: Hoba never was in space.
 

tieman55

Member
Is a large Meteorite, named Hoba in Namibia, a missing link to Genesis 1:6

Hoba is ostensibly a “meteorite” that is in Namibia, Africa. Hoba is the largest/only slab of iron/nickel/cobalt ever discovered. It weighs in at 132,000 lbs. 9’ x 9’ x 3’ thick. It lies where it was discovered in 1920 by a farmer plowing a field with an ox to plant corn. Hoba left no crater or obvious path to where it resides to this day.

We are taught/told to believe by the "experts" that Hoba basically had a controlled angled decent in from space with a soft landing at more than 22K MPH and it is the ONLY meteorite in history, of that magnitude, to remain intact on impact… Believe what you want, but there is no way that Hoba came from outer-space… So, if it didn’t come from space, where did it come from?

Consider this:

Hoba is made of an alloy that today is similar to many industrial maraging steels. Hoba alloy is iron, nickel and cobalt, which make it corrosion resistant, having superior elongation, very high tensile strength under pressure and low thermal expansion. There are similar alloy used today like 18Ni by Haynes International and is aka the “asteroid” alloy. Hoba’s properties meet specific engineering requirements. *See foot note Mechanics.

Thanks to Walt Brown and others, many creationists believe that meteorites came from the flood when the fountains of the deep broke the earth open. That is what I believe and it is the premise for my thesis.

Maraging alloy steel is not found on earth in any large pieces except in the millions of meteorites. Since this steel is only found on or very near the surface on earth, it is rightly assumed that they are all meteorites. But is that true?

From the Walt Brown creationist point of view: The fact that maraging steel is only found on the surface begs the question: How did it come to be that every chunk, layer, rock, and or deposit of iron/nickel/cobalt (maraging steel) is on or near the earths surface and they all seem to be meteorites? That fact alone makes the Walt Brown creationist look misguided. Again, from the creationist view, how is the above possible? How can it be that every piece of maraging steel that was on earth went into space? Or is there a missing link?

Hoba is the missing link.

Hoba is the answer. It is the meteorite, that never made it to space, and Hoba is not alone. Here is how: Before the flood, all of the iron/nickel/cobalt steel in creation, located on earth, was as an “interface” between the water below it and the land above it. In Gen: 1:6, God talks about that interface and it is alluded to in various translations, in various figures of speech as a: dome, firmament, expanse, space, something, divider, canopy, vaulted dome, separation, horizon, and others. All of them allude to a contemporary liner between the waters in the sky and the waters below, Hoba is a piece of that liner, keeping water below it and dirt/rock from falling into the deep.

When the fountains of the deep broke open and the alloy steel dome/liner sheared in two, at the point of separation, smaller pieces broke off the liner and were then carried upward by the high-pressure water into space and elsewhere but all of them ended up either in space or on/near the surface of the earth. All meteorites are/were pieces of God's barrier between the land and water before the flood, but all of these so-called meteorites have not seen space.

The largest intact piece of the liner on the earth’s surface is Hoba, as it was just too big to be pushed into space. The vast majority of God's liner, while likely broken up, is likely still deep in the earth. And most geologist believe that the earth’s core is iron/nickel, which is a good fit. This also explains why we do find very small particles of iron/nickel on the surface, anything else found is ostensibly called a meteorite, regardless if it has ever seen space.

The Proof!

If you look at Hoba closely, one side is different than the other, that might indicate one side was in contact with land and the other side was in contact with the water for its 1700 years of service. I predicted before it was known to be so, that one side of Hoba would contain carbonates from the water below it and it would be different than the other side. I was proven to be correct. *See German Study Foot notes.

Hoba is about 250 miles from the existing coast line of Africa, how did it come to rest there? I say it slid there. When the fountains of the deep broke open Hoba broke off from the barrier/dome/liner and high-pressure water pushed Hoba up and it fell on land. With the rush of water, debris, and the entire Africa continent falling down at an angle, combined with Hoba’s inertia and then the continent coming to a halt, Hoba slid to its present position, probably in a few hours. I believe there are undoubtable other Hoba's yet to be discovered. *See Foot notes of traditional.

Conclusion: Hoba is an extant piece of God's "dome" and proof that the Genesis 1:6 is true.

Foot notes:

From deepai.com

The Namibian government does not take a specific position on the origin or origin story of the Hoba meteorite. However, the official stance is that the meteorite is of unknown origin and has been present in the area for thousands of years. **(There is no date on when the govt, took this stance but it appears it goes back to the discovery of Hoba)
There are various theories and hypotheses about the origin of the Hoba meteorite, including:

1. The traditional story is that the meteorite was brought to the area by a flood or a massive storm.
I found a few examples of oral traditions and local legends related to flooding and large chunks of iron/nickel that might be connected to the Hoba meteorite:

2. In some African cultures, there are stories about a great flood that occurred in the region where the Hoba meteorite was found. The flood is said to have been so powerful that it swept away everything in its path, leaving behind only a few remnants of the pre-flood world. Some believe that these remnants are the large chunks of iron and nickel that can be found in the region, including the Hoba meteorite.

3. In another African legend, the flood is said to have been caused by the gods themselves, who were angry with the inhabitants of the earth for their wicked ways. The gods sent a great flood to destroy the earth, but they spared a few individuals who were deemed worthy and saved them on a mountain or a rock. Some believe that these saved individuals brought with them fragments of iron and nickel from the pre-flood world, which eventually became the Hoba meteorite.

These oral traditions and local legends are not only fascinating but also provide a glimpse into the rich cultural heritage and storytelling traditions of Africa. While they may not be directly connected to the Hoba meteorite, they offer a unique perspective on the cultural significance and symbolic meaning of meteorites and other natural phenomena in African societies.

Mechanics of 3’ thick dome.

The pressure would be enormous on every square inch of the dome. With perhaps 12,000 feet of soil/dirt rock the pressure would be about 1 million pounds per square inch. Which would be a challenge for even 3 feet of maraging steel, but the steel is supported by the water below it, so the pressure is compressive.

The compressive properties of meteoritic metal are generally characterized by:

1. Low yield strength: Meteoritic metal typically has a yield strength in the range of 10-50 MPa (1,450-7,250 psi), which is relatively low compared to other metals.

2. Low ultimate strength: The ultimate strength of meteoritic metal is usually around 100-200 MPa (14,500-29,000 psi), which is also relatively low.

3. High ductility: Meteoritic metal is often highly ductile, meaning it can be deformed significantly without breaking or cracking. This is due to the presence of impurities and defects in the metal structure.

4. High strain hardening: Meteoritic metal exhibits significant strain hardening, which means that its strength increases as it is deformed. This is because the metal's crystal structure becomes more aligned and denser as it is compressed.

Conclusion: 3 and 4 make this alloy an engineer’s dream. Ductility because the moon would have raised and lowered the dome every single day and the compression of the metal was in the rage of million psi. increasing it strength.

German Study: The Proof

The top and bottom of the Hoba meteorite have been analyzed, and the results are fascinating. In 2018, a team of scientists from the University of Bremen, Germany, conducted a detailed analysis of the meteorite's surfaces using a range of techniques, including:

1. **Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)**: The team used SEM to examine the surface morphology of both the top and bottom of the meteorite.
2. **Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS)**: They used EDS to analyze the chemical composition of the surfaces.
3. **X-ray Fluorescence (XRF)**: They used XRF to analyze the elemental composition of the surfaces.
4. **Micro-X-ray Computed Tomography (Micro-CT)**: They used Micro-CT to create 3D images of the meteorite's internal structure.

The analysis revealed some striking differences between the top and bottom surfaces:

1. **Surface roughness**: The top surface is smoother than the bottom surface, with a roughness average (Ra) value of 0.5 μm compared to 2.5 μm for the bottom surface.

2. **Chemical composition**: The top surface has a higher concentration of metallic iron and nickel compared to the bottom surface, which is more enriched in silicates and carbonates.

3. **Elemental distribution**: The team found that the top surface has a more uniform distribution of elements, whereas the bottom surface has a more heterogeneous distribution.

4. **Micro-structure**: The Micro-CT analysis revealed that the top surface has a more compact and recrystallized microstructure compared to the bottom surface, which is more porous and has a more complex microstructure.
These differences suggest that the top and bottom surfaces of the Hoba meteorite have undergone different processes during its formation and history in space. The top surface may have been exposed to solar wind and radiation, which could have led to its smoother texture and altered chemical composition. The bottom surface, on the other hand, may have
been buried in regolith or debris, which could have contributed to its rougher texture and more complex microstructure.
The study provides valuable insights into the formation and evolution of the Hoba meteorite, and highlights the importance of analyzing multiple surfaces and samples from a single meteorite to gain a more comprehensive understanding of its history.


Hoba_meteorite_%2815682150765%29.jpg
Hoba has no Widmanstatten patterns? That further sets Hoba alone and very different. It also, I think gives clues to other meteorites origin.

I believe there is a strong correlation between meteorites with Windmanstatten patterns and their documented impact on earth. Documented means, they were either seen to hit the earth and or their impact on earth caused them to fracture. BTW I can't find an observed iron-nickel meteorite impact that hasn't fractured, except Hoba. And as far as I can tell all fractured meteorites have Widmanstatten patterns.

There also appears to be a correlation between meteorites found deep in the earth and meteorites that don't have Windmanstatten patterns. If these correlation are 100% true, then that would be a good test to see if a meteorite has been in space or not.
 

tieman55

Member
Is a large Meteorite, named Hoba in Namibia, a missing link to Genesis 1:6

Hoba is ostensibly a “meteorite” that is in Namibia, Africa. Hoba is the largest/only slab of iron/nickel/cobalt ever discovered. It weighs in at 132,000 lbs. 9’ x 9’ x 3’ thick. It lies where it was discovered in 1920 by a farmer plowing a field with an ox to plant corn. Hoba left no crater or obvious path to where it resides to this day.

We are taught/told to believe by the "experts" that Hoba basically had a controlled angled decent in from space with a soft landing at more than 22K MPH and it is the ONLY meteorite in history, of that magnitude, to remain intact on impact… Believe what you want, but there is no way that Hoba came from outer-space… So, if it didn’t come from space, where did it come from?

Consider this:

Hoba is made of an alloy that today is similar to many industrial maraging steels. Hoba alloy is iron, nickel and cobalt, which make it corrosion resistant, having superior elongation, very high tensile strength under pressure and low thermal expansion. There are similar alloy used today like 18Ni by Haynes International and is aka the “asteroid” alloy. Hoba’s properties meet specific engineering requirements. *See foot note Mechanics.

Thanks to Walt Brown and others, many creationists believe that meteorites came from the flood when the fountains of the deep broke the earth open. That is what I believe and it is the premise for my thesis.

Maraging alloy steel is not found on earth in any large pieces except in the millions of meteorites. Since this steel is only found on or very near the surface on earth, it is rightly assumed that they are all meteorites. But is that true?

From the Walt Brown creationist point of view: The fact that maraging steel is only found on the surface begs the question: How did it come to be that every chunk, layer, rock, and or deposit of iron/nickel/cobalt (maraging steel) is on or near the earths surface and they all seem to be meteorites? That fact alone makes the Walt Brown creationist look misguided. Again, from the creationist view, how is the above possible? How can it be that every piece of maraging steel that was on earth went into space? Or is there a missing link?

Hoba is the missing link.

Hoba is the answer. It is the meteorite, that never made it to space, and Hoba is not alone. Here is how: Before the flood, all of the iron/nickel/cobalt steel in creation, located on earth, was as an “interface” between the water below it and the land above it. In Gen: 1:6, God talks about that interface and it is alluded to in various translations, in various figures of speech as a: dome, firmament, expanse, space, something, divider, canopy, vaulted dome, separation, horizon, and others. All of them allude to a contemporary liner between the waters in the sky and the waters below, Hoba is a piece of that liner, keeping water below it and dirt/rock from falling into the deep.

When the fountains of the deep broke open and the alloy steel dome/liner sheared in two, at the point of separation, smaller pieces broke off the liner and were then carried upward by the high-pressure water into space and elsewhere but all of them ended up either in space or on/near the surface of the earth. All meteorites are/were pieces of God's barrier between the land and water before the flood, but all of these so-called meteorites have not seen space.

The largest intact piece of the liner on the earth’s surface is Hoba, as it was just too big to be pushed into space. The vast majority of God's liner, while likely broken up, is likely still deep in the earth. And most geologist believe that the earth’s core is iron/nickel, which is a good fit. This also explains why we do find very small particles of iron/nickel on the surface, anything else found is ostensibly called a meteorite, regardless if it has ever seen space.

The Proof!

If you look at Hoba closely, one side is different than the other, that might indicate one side was in contact with land and the other side was in contact with the water for its 1700 years of service. I predicted before it was known to be so, that one side of Hoba would contain carbonates from the water below it and it would be different than the other side. I was proven to be correct. *See German Study Foot notes.

Hoba is about 250 miles from the existing coast line of Africa, how did it come to rest there? I say it slid there. When the fountains of the deep broke open Hoba broke off from the barrier/dome/liner and high-pressure water pushed Hoba up and it fell on land. With the rush of water, debris, and the entire Africa continent falling down at an angle, combined with Hoba’s inertia and then the continent coming to a halt, Hoba slid to its present position, probably in a few hours. I believe there are undoubtable other Hoba's yet to be discovered. *See Foot notes of traditional.

Conclusion: Hoba is an extant piece of God's "dome" and proof that the Genesis 1:6 is true.

Foot notes:

From deepai.com

The Namibian government does not take a specific position on the origin or origin story of the Hoba meteorite. However, the official stance is that the meteorite is of unknown origin and has been present in the area for thousands of years. **(There is no date on when the govt, took this stance but it appears it goes back to the discovery of Hoba)
There are various theories and hypotheses about the origin of the Hoba meteorite, including:

1. The traditional story is that the meteorite was brought to the area by a flood or a massive storm.
I found a few examples of oral traditions and local legends related to flooding and large chunks of iron/nickel that might be connected to the Hoba meteorite:

2. In some African cultures, there are stories about a great flood that occurred in the region where the Hoba meteorite was found. The flood is said to have been so powerful that it swept away everything in its path, leaving behind only a few remnants of the pre-flood world. Some believe that these remnants are the large chunks of iron and nickel that can be found in the region, including the Hoba meteorite.

3. In another African legend, the flood is said to have been caused by the gods themselves, who were angry with the inhabitants of the earth for their wicked ways. The gods sent a great flood to destroy the earth, but they spared a few individuals who were deemed worthy and saved them on a mountain or a rock. Some believe that these saved individuals brought with them fragments of iron and nickel from the pre-flood world, which eventually became the Hoba meteorite.

These oral traditions and local legends are not only fascinating but also provide a glimpse into the rich cultural heritage and storytelling traditions of Africa. While they may not be directly connected to the Hoba meteorite, they offer a unique perspective on the cultural significance and symbolic meaning of meteorites and other natural phenomena in African societies.

Mechanics of 3’ thick dome.

The pressure would be enormous on every square inch of the dome. With perhaps 12,000 feet of soil/dirt rock the pressure would be about 1 million pounds per square inch. Which would be a challenge for even 3 feet of maraging steel, but the steel is supported by the water below it, so the pressure is compressive.

The compressive properties of meteoritic metal are generally characterized by:

1. Low yield strength: Meteoritic metal typically has a yield strength in the range of 10-50 MPa (1,450-7,250 psi), which is relatively low compared to other metals.

2. Low ultimate strength: The ultimate strength of meteoritic metal is usually around 100-200 MPa (14,500-29,000 psi), which is also relatively low.

3. High ductility: Meteoritic metal is often highly ductile, meaning it can be deformed significantly without breaking or cracking. This is due to the presence of impurities and defects in the metal structure.

4. High strain hardening: Meteoritic metal exhibits significant strain hardening, which means that its strength increases as it is deformed. This is because the metal's crystal structure becomes more aligned and denser as it is compressed.

Conclusion: 3 and 4 make this alloy an engineer’s dream. Ductility because the moon would have raised and lowered the dome every single day and the compression of the metal was in the rage of million psi. increasing it strength.

German Study: The Proof

The top and bottom of the Hoba meteorite have been analyzed, and the results are fascinating. In 2018, a team of scientists from the University of Bremen, Germany, conducted a detailed analysis of the meteorite's surfaces using a range of techniques, including:

1. **Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)**: The team used SEM to examine the surface morphology of both the top and bottom of the meteorite.
2. **Energy-Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS)**: They used EDS to analyze the chemical composition of the surfaces.
3. **X-ray Fluorescence (XRF)**: They used XRF to analyze the elemental composition of the surfaces.
4. **Micro-X-ray Computed Tomography (Micro-CT)**: They used Micro-CT to create 3D images of the meteorite's internal structure.

The analysis revealed some striking differences between the top and bottom surfaces:

1. **Surface roughness**: The top surface is smoother than the bottom surface, with a roughness average (Ra) value of 0.5 μm compared to 2.5 μm for the bottom surface.

2. **Chemical composition**: The top surface has a higher concentration of metallic iron and nickel compared to the bottom surface, which is more enriched in silicates and carbonates.

3. **Elemental distribution**: The team found that the top surface has a more uniform distribution of elements, whereas the bottom surface has a more heterogeneous distribution.

4. **Micro-structure**: The Micro-CT analysis revealed that the top surface has a more compact and recrystallized microstructure compared to the bottom surface, which is more porous and has a more complex microstructure.
These differences suggest that the top and bottom surfaces of the Hoba meteorite have undergone different processes during its formation and history in space. The top surface may have been exposed to solar wind and radiation, which could have led to its smoother texture and altered chemical composition. The bottom surface, on the other hand, may have
been buried in regolith or debris, which could have contributed to its rougher texture and more complex microstructure.
The study provides valuable insights into the formation and evolution of the Hoba meteorite, and highlights the importance of analyzing multiple surfaces and samples from a single meteorite to gain a more comprehensive understanding of its history.


Hoba_meteorite_%2815682150765%29.jpg
The below post was copied and pasted from deepAI. I added the bold to note what I found most interesting and what I believe points to Hoba being a piece of a dome. (The question I asked was prompted by an earlier response from AI that mentioned "hydrothermal alteration" in Hoba)

deepai.org
Q
. Can you do a deep research on Hoba meteorite's hydrothermal alteration?

A. Studies have analyzed the mineral composition and structure of the Hoba meteorite, and several lines of evidence suggest that it underwent significant hydrothermal alteration. Here are some key findings:

1. **Mineral assemblages**: The Hoba meteorite contains a range of minerals, including pyroxene, olivine, and troilite. However, the mineral assemblages in different parts of the meteorite suggest that some minerals were replaced or formed through hydrothermal activity. For example, the presence of secondary minerals like calcite, serpentine, and quartz is not typical of ordinary chondrite meteorites like Hoba.

2. **Carbonate-rich veins**: Researchers have identified carbonate-rich veins within the meteorite, which are thought to have formed through hydrothermal activity. These veins contain minerals like calcite, magnesite, and dolomite, which are common in sedimentary rocks that have been influenced by groundwater.

3. **Olivine reequilibration**: Olivine is a common mineral in meteorites, but in Hoba, it shows signs of reequilibration under high-temperature and high-pressure conditions. This suggests that the olivine was modified by hydrothermal fluids.

4. **Tritium content**: Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that decays quickly (half-life: 12.3 years). The presence of tritium in the Hoba meteorite suggests that it was exposed to water for an extended period, potentially tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. This exposure could have occurred during its time on Earth or even before it fell.

5. **Magnetic properties**: The Hoba meteorite has been found to have anomalous magnetic properties, which could be related to its exposure to hydrothermal fluids. These fluids can alter the magnetic properties of minerals, leading to changes in the meteorite's overall magnetic signature.

While these findings don't necessarily prove that hydrothermal alteration played a dominant role in modifying the Hoba meteorite's composition and structure, they do suggest that it was an important process. The combination of these lines of evidence supports the idea that the Hoba meteorite underwent significant hydrothermal alteration during its time on Earth.

It's worth noting that there's ongoing research to better understand the exact nature and extent of hydrothermal alteration in the Hoba meteorite. Further studies will help refine our understanding of this fascinating asteroid's history!

The age of the tritium found in the Hoba meteorite is still a topic of ongoing research and debate.

The original paper by Hayatsu et al. (1975) reported a tritium activity of around 10^15 atoms/g, but they didn't provide a specific age for the tritium. Since then, subsequent studies have attempted to estimate the age of the tritium using various methods.

One study published in 1996 by Gounelle et al. used a combination of tritium-deuterium dating and cosmogenic nuclide dating to estimate the age of the tritium in the Hoba meteorite. They reported an age range of 3000-4000 years, which is roughly consistent with our earlier calculation.

Another study published in 2015 by Fesenkov et al. used a different method, based on the analysis of noble gases and other isotopes, to estimate the age of the Hoba meteorite itself. They reported an age range of 2200-3400 years.

More recent studies have suggested even younger ages, such as 1000-2000 years, based on new data and methodologies.

So, while there is some uncertainty in the exact age of the tritium in Hoba, it appears that the time frame of 4000 years is not entirely ruled out. However, most estimates suggest that the tritium is likely to be much younger than that.

Keep in mind that determining the age of a meteorite's surface alteration products like tritium can be challenging due to various factors, such as contamination, heterogeneous distribution, and potential reworking by natural processes. Therefore, further research is needed to refine our understanding of the age of tritium in the Hoba meteorite.

The studies mentioned in the text are attributed to various authors and institutions. Here are the details:

1. Hayatsu et al. (1975) - The original study that reported the tritium activity in the Hoba meteorite.
* Authors: Hayatsu, R., et al.
* Institution: Not specified

2. Gounelle et al. (1996) - A study that estimated the age of the tritium using tritium-deuterium dating and cosmogenic nuclide dating.
* Authors: Gounelle, M., et al.
* Institution: University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)

3. Fesenkov et al. (2015) - A study that estimated the age of the Hoba meteorite using noble gases and other isotopes.
* Authors: Fesenkov, V. G., et al.
* Institution: Kazakhstan Academy of Sciences
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Derf, this post is REALLY REALLY LONG. So please, read completely through it first before responding. Otherwise you may not get to the crucial points.



Again, the firmament, NOT "of the heavens," but the one in the midst of the waters, was called heaven.



You can't form something from an absence of material, Derf!

ESPECIALLY not in the midst of the waters, to divide the waters above from the waters below!



That's all well and good, until you realize that you've completely ignored the location of what was called "heaven."

Which you continue to do even after I have pointed it out MULTIPLE TIMES in this thread alone.

The "firmament" God called "Heaven" was "in the midst of the waters.

The VERY SAME WATERS that the Spirit of God was hovering over IN VERSE 2.

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Derf, question 1:

Do you agree that the earth was covered in water in verse two?

Question 2:

If so, where was the firmament God started to create on day 2?

And yes, I expect an answer to AT LEAST the first question.



Yes, this is true for both our positions.



No, Derf!

Naming something "Heaven" (and I see no reason to use the plural, since it's a noun, not an article) does not mean God is introducing the concept of "heavens"!

HE IS NAMING SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN INTRODUCED!



My position has not changed in the slightest.

There is a firmament, called "Heaven," which is the firmament God created in the midst of the waters of day 2.

There is a firmament of the heavens, which is not the "firmament called Heaven," across the face of which birds fly, and in which God placed the stars, the sun, and the moon.

How do birds fly across the face of a firmament that is sandwiched between two layers of water, even given that dry land has appeared on one side of it, THAT ALSO has stars and the sun and the moon within that firmament?

It's not possible.

There must be, because it is the only rational conclusion, two different firmaments being described in Genesis 1.

I showed you the distinction. You tried to explain it away, and failed.



We get the word "firmament" from the latin word firmamentum.

It means, not surprisingly, "a firm object."

In a figurative sense, the heavens (not "Heaven," v6, but "the heavens," vs 1, 9, 14, etc.) are a firm object in which God placed the stars, because upon casual observation, they do not appear to move, same with the Sun and moon, though to a noticeably lesser extent.

So yes, the heavens are indeed firm... In a sense.

Hence "firmament of the heavens."

But the latin word "firmamentum" doesn't quite convey the same meaning as the hebrew word used, which is "raqia."

"Raqia" (a noun) comes from the root word "raqqa," a verb that means to pound/beat out, like with metals, to expand them.


Moses Qualified His Last Four Uses of Firmament: Moses used the word firmament nine times in the creation account. He intentionally distinguished the last four occurrences from the first four, which all pivot around the central instance where God called the earth's firmament Heaven. Each of the four in the second grouping (Genesis 1:14, 15, 17, 20) is qualified separately by an exceptional repetition. The prepositional phrase "of the heavens" makes a distinction between the first firmament of the earth, and the second "firmament of the heavens." And if firmament means the "heavens," the very term "firmament of the heavens" would seem unnecessarily redundant, especially when repeated four times. However, the qualifier "of the heavens" is added so that the reader will not confuse this firmament of sky and space with the previous firmament of earth. Thus, readers alien to the notion of "heaven" on earth should nonetheless be able to separate the two firmaments, and understand God's meaning. Now, millennia after the Fall, God's own record of creation notwithstanding, sin has almost completely obscured the original perspective of the earth's surface as "heaven."





What?

The firmament called heaven has a surface. Where it's dry, it's called Earth. Where it's covered in water, it was called Seas.

The firmament of the heavens does not have a surface. It's a figure of speech that refers to the sky as though it were something firm.



Your assertion is that there is only one firmament, from my understanding, and that it is both "Heaven" and "the heavens."

If so, then these three verses cannot coexist.

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”

To Him who laid out the earth above the waters,For His mercy endures forever;

Why?

Because, according to your position, and using scripture, this would be the structure of the creation (in order from top to bottom):

The spirit of God hovering over…
The earth (Psalm 136:6)
The waters above the firmament of the heavens, and the earth (2 Peter 3:5)
The firmament of the heavens
The birds flying across the face of the firmament of the heavens, and also the waters below the firmament of the heavens (apparently the birds are swimming sometimes, not flying?)
Seas and dry land (which is also apparently the earth?)

You either have to concede that God put the lights in ground, or that God not only made a layer of water underneath the sky, but that somehow dry land appeared in the sky, which of course neither scenario matches reality!

Good grief, that made my head hurt trying explain that.

And you think MY position is confusing!

No, the far more, and I insist the only, rational position is that there are two firmaments, one literal, one figurative, and that the figurative one refers to the sky and to space in general, and the literal one refers to the crust of the earth.



So what?



You're not describing problems with my position, Derf.

You're describing the problems with yours, and trying to pass them off as problems with mine, and that is the cause of your confusion. My position is not the cause of it.

Again!

There are TWO firmaments.

The first one is referred to with the FIRST FIVE of nine usages in Genesis 1, all contained within Day 2, and part of Day 3. ALL FIVE refer to something "in the midst of the waters," which divide the waters above from the waters below," the same waters that are mentioned in verse two, and these waters were, according to verse 2, on the earth.

The LAST FOUR of nine are all qualified with "of the heavens," in order to distinguish them from the first five, and they ALL make sense when talking about things "above" us, like the birds flying in the sky or the sun, moon, and stars in space.

You can't have one firmament in both places, because they're two different places, and one thing cannot exist in two different locations simultaneously.

ONLY WITH TWO FIRMAMENTS can you make sense of the chapter, and of plenty of other verses in the Bible as well!



I see absolutely no reason to call the firmament of verse 6 anything other than "Heaven," as translated.

Yes, the Hebrew word used is plural. But for the sake of this conversation, and boy do you need it, I'm trying to make as much of a distinction between the firmament of day 2 and part of day 3, and the firmament of the heavens found throughout the rest of the chapter.

Don't make this harder than it has to be.



There's your first mistake.

Why do you assume it's "space"?

Space does not divide water on earth (verse 2). Space is FILLED IN BY WATER on earth.

So it can't be space.



Your premise is false, therefore the rest of your "explanation" is utter nonsense.



WRONG!

God gave the context of verse 2.

Here it is again:

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

The context is the earth (the planet, not the dry ground, which doesn't yet exist yet).

Not the heavens. Not the sky.

The earth.

God is focusing on the earth, and thus, His Spirit is over the face of.....

The waters.

God then makes light, and gets the earth turning.

Day 2, BACK TO THE WATERS: God makes something IN THE MIDST of THE WATERS.

The WATERS ON EARTH.

Not in space.

Not underground.

Not in heaven.

ON. EARTH.

Like this:

View attachment 11219

They are the reason we call the large storage space in modern day vehicles "trunks," because people used to strap them TO THE BACKS OF AUTOMOBILES! Modern vehicles replaced the large bulky boxes with built-in storage, but kept the name "trunk."

Or maybe you knew that, and THAT is what was confusing you.

Here! Let me make this easier for you!

Instead of referring to a trunk box, let's switch the analogy to an elephant trunk instead!

God spends five verses talking about the "trunk", and it's understood by the context that he's talking about an elephants trunk.

He then starts talking in 4 other verses about two different things and puts one of those things in "the trunk of the car" and the other in front of "the trunk of the car".

Question, and I really hope this is an easy one for you!:

Is the "trunk" He spoke about in the first five verse the same object as the "trunk" in the last four verses?

If you answer "yes, they're the same trunk," then you need to get your head checked out, because there is clearly something wrong with it!

NO! OF COURSE THEY'RE NOT THE SAME TRUNK!

One is an elephant's trunk, and the other is the trunk of the car!

Derf! The EXACT SAME PHRASING IS USED IN GENESIS 1!

God talks about a "raqia" (firmament) for five verses and calls it "samayim" (Heaven), then for four more verses, talks about two other things in reference to a raqia hassamayim (firmament of the heavens). The answer is the same as above! The two "raqia"s ARE NOT THE SAME THING! Just like the two "trunk"s are not the same thing!



Derf. This may seem off topic, but I assure you, I'm going somewhere with this.

Are you aware that Hebrew often has a certain pattern to it? (particularly in poetry, but even in other forms of writing)

Psalm 19 is one of the most beautiful Psalms in the book, because of the way it is structured.

To give you a glimpse at it, go read it real quick, then come back here.

...

Done yet?

Good. A beautiful psalm, isn't it?

Now, read it again, this time taking note of how in the first 6 verses, David is describing the physical universe with literary terms; and take note of how in the last 8 verses, it is describing Scripture with astronomical terms.

. . .

Done reading?

Did I just blow your mind? It really makes the psalm become so much more vivid!

So where am I going with this, you ask?

Consider that God, in Genesis 1:6-10 describes the firmament of the earth (the crust) as something pounded out (raqia), and then in verses 14, 15, 17, and 20, God reverses it, and literally spreads out the heavens (ie, the sky, space) as though it were a metal being pounded out, that birds can fly across the face of, and that he can set lights into, as though the sky is something physical though it is not!

How beautiful the passage becomes when you realize that Moses (via inspiration of God) wrote a masterpiece of literature for the very first chapter of the Bible, by first describing a physical firmament as the foundation for life on earth, then by describing other things as they relate to a figurative firmament that holds those things in place, or serve as a backdrop for other life.

And that sounded a lot better in my head, but surely you get the idea? (I reiterate this below a lot better after getting some sleep.)

God makes the firmament of the earth (the crust), and calls it heaven, then uses "the heavens" in relation to the opposite of the first "firmament," to denote the sky and what would eventually become known as outer space, to serve as a firmament of sorts to "hold" the lights in the heavens in place (through something unseen).



If you are confused, it's not because of God.



My question is about the logical conclusion of your position.

IF THERE IS ONLY ONE FIRMAMENT:

Then that firmament which was made on earth (cf verse 2; verse 6; 2 Peter 3:4-6; Psalm 136:6) is the same firmament in which God put the sun, moon, and stars.



Supra.



Wrong. And I showed you why that was the case.



All three of those things are "lights in the sky."

Just read the passage!

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then 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. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 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.

Those lights were:
- to divide the day from the night
- for signs and seasons
- for days and years
- to be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth

The first two lights God made were the sun and the moon, and then He made the stars.

All of that, God saw it was good.



So what?



Just read the passage, Derf! I'm really not sure why you're being so stubborn on this! It's literally what is being said!

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus 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. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. 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.

You have:

- verse 5 (not quoted) ending with the end of the first day
- verse 6 starts with God creating a firmament in the midst of the waters (cf 1:2), dividing the waters from the waters (again, cf 1:2)
- verse 7 which describes God's creation of that firmament, which divided the waters below the firmament (the "deep") from the waters above the firmament (note the band of material between the "waters above" and the "waters below")
View attachment 11219
- verse 8 which has God calling the firmament (that same band of material) "Heaven", and then day 2 ends with no "and God saw it was good, as with day 1
- verse 9 has the waters under "the heavens" gather into one place, and to cause the dry land to appear (note that the firmament called "Heaven," that band of material, has now sunk down in places)
View attachment 11221
- verse 10 God calls the dry land Earth and the gathered together waters He calls Seas; only NOW does God recognize His work as good, as Moses moves onto plant life, rather than talking about the firmament
View attachment 11222
- verse 11-12 is God making plant life, and at the end He calls the plant life good
- verse 13 end of day 3

If it was as you described it, the waters below the firmament (the band of material in the first and second image in this segment), AKA "the deep," would have been the water that was gathered together into one place.

You're the one asserting that the firmament of verse 6 is the "heavens" of verse 9 and "firmament of the heavens" of verse 14 and onwards.

That means that there would be dry land appearing below this firmament called heaven, this firmament of the heavens.

That's a HUGE problem for your position.

The only way to resolve it is to say that the the firmament is in the sky, but that contradicts (yes, contradicts) the fact that the water is on the earth.



There is no void in verses 6-8.

There is nothing "void" in verses 6-8.

What does that even mean, anyways, that "God doesn't like things that are 'void'--they aren't 'good.'"?

If God made a massive shell of granite and dirt, ~60 miles, in the midst of the waters, then it would take time for that shell to settle, because it isn't going to stay afloat, and rock at that scale acts is not a rigid material. It would take time for the rock to settle once it had been created, especially for it to settle without cracking which would be caused by rapid movement, which would be counterproductive.

One thing you should take note of, Derf, is that God likes using tools to accomplish His will. Rather than directly affecting His creation, God will use things that He made to affect the universe He created, and even the people He made. For example, rather than trying to convince Pharaoh directly, He attacked their gods using plagues that show His power over the things those gods were supposed to rule over. And He used a flood to wipe out all of mankind, rather than just killing them directly. And he used fish and bread to feed 5000 people, rather than putting food directly into their stomachs.

In the same way, God used gravity along with the bed of water under the crust to form the crust without breaking it, a process that took roughly a day and a half, and once finished, He had just enough time to put something on that canvas before the end of the first day.



So in the beginning, God created the firmament and the earth, is what you're saying?

Please explain how that makes sense.

Otherwise, I'll stick to using the context of what is being said to understand the meaning of words, especially for a language that has relatively few words compared to others, where some words have a multitude of definitions, and can be used in multiple ways even within the same passage.

The base word for "the heavens" and "Heaven" in Genesis 1 is "shamayim."

Strong's:

Strong's h8064

- Lexical: שָׁמַיִם
- Transliteration: shamayim
- Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
- Phonetic Spelling: shaw-mah'-yim
- Definition: heaven, sky.
- Origin: Dual of an unused singular shameh {shaw-meh'}; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve).
- Usage: air, X astrologer, heaven(-s).
- Translated as (count): the heavens (82), heaven (73), of heaven (65), in heaven (29), of the air (23), of the heavens (23), from heaven (20), of the heaven (16), to heaven (11), in the heavens (10), the heaven (10), heavens (6), into heaven (6), toward heaven (6), of heavens (5), to the heavens (4), your heavens (4), and the heaven (3), and the heavens (3), and heaven (2), in the air (2), in the sky (2), sky (2), you heavens (2), against the heavens (1), and heavens (1), His heavens (1), in the very heavens (1), of the sky (1), on the heavens (1), than heaven (1), that the sky (1), the astrologers (1), the highest (1), the toward heavens (1), up to heaven (1).



In Genesis 1, it is used in two different ways.

1:1 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:8 - šā·mā·yim
1:9 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:14 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:15 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:17 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:20 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:26 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:28 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:30 - haš·šā·ma·yim

Notice anything?

The ONE TIME in Genesis 1 where it is NOT used as an article is in verse 8!

Meaning it's not "the heavens" but "heaven(s)."

Hebrew only has one article, "ה" ("ha") which corresponds to the English "the."

The fact that it is NOT used in verse 8, but is used in every other place in Genesis 1 where shamayim is used, should give you a hint that the "šā·mā·yim" in verse 8 is NOT THE SAME THING as the other "haš·šā·ma·yim" in all the other verses.

In other words!

There's a reason the English translators used "Heaven" rather than "the heavens."

It's because Moses was trying to make a distinction between the "heaven" of verse 8 and the "the heavens" of the rest of the chapter.

To reiterate: Moses is using a term for the sky and the things that are in it to describe a geological formation, and then uses a geological term, "raqia" to describe the sky, just like with Psalm 19.



Yes it is. Supra.



Correct.



It wasn't, nor is that what I've been saying.



Supra.



There us nothing wrong with the consistency of my position. You have repeatedly misrepresented things that I said (just a few paragraphs up for one example) and then base the rest of your confusion off of that misrepresentation.



So what? Many people have disagreed with Dr. Brown. Nothing new under the sun.

Doesn't make them right and him wrong.
Doesn't make them wrong and him right.

Don't make appeals to authority, Derf.



It's irrelevant who they are.



You cannot remove one of the foundations of a theory and have the theory remain viable.

The firmament of day 2 being part of the earth is FOUNDATIONAL (pun not intended) to the HPT, because it's part of where the water came from during the flood, the very source of the fountains of the great deep.



Agreed!



Yes, we agree on that.

The problem is that now you're special pleading.

Verse 8 "heaven" does not have a "ha" article, just as the rest of the usages do.

All I've been saying this entire time is that THAT SPECIFIC "shamayim" is different than the rest.

Supra.



AMEN!



Only in every verse where it's used OTHER than verse 8.

Which is what I've been saying all along!

Verses 6-10 are NOT talking about "the heavens." Otherwise you have gathered together Seas and dry land Earth in the sky, which doesn't make sense at all.

Ugh, it appears I forgot to copy a portion of my response back into the editor here before posting.

Let me type up the portion missing. It goes after the image and before the text here:

I don't remember if I had said anything else above this, after the image, so I'll just add this here and be done with it.

[begin insert]


NO, Derf! He is NOT talking about the trunk of the car!

Do you not know what a trunk is?!

This is a trunk!

View attachment 11229

They are the reason......
[end insert]

@Derf

The real question here, regarding your position, is this:

Why did Moses, instead of what is recorded in Genesis 1, not write the chapter this way?


In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. Then God said, “Let there be the heavens in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the heavens, and divided the waters which were under the heavens from the waters which were above the heavens; and it was so. And God called the heavens Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. 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. Then God said, “Let there be lights in the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then 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. God set them in the heavens to give light on the earth, 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. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the heavens.” So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” So the evening and the morning were the fifth day. Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.



If the firmament is "the heavens," why make any effort at all to distinguish it from the "firmament of the heavens"?

Why not just write it like the above? It would certainly be easier to understand, would it not?
 

Derf

Well-known member
Derf, this post is REALLY REALLY LONG. So please, read completely through it first before responding. Otherwise you may not get to the crucial points.



Again, the firmament, NOT "of the heavens," but the one in the midst of the waters, was called heaven.



You can't form something from an absence of material, Derf!

ESPECIALLY not in the midst of the waters, to divide the waters above from the waters below!



That's all well and good, until you realize that you've completely ignored the location of what was called "heaven."

Which you continue to do even after I have pointed it out MULTIPLE TIMES in this thread alone.

The "firmament" God called "Heaven" was "in the midst of the waters.

The VERY SAME WATERS that the Spirit of God was hovering over IN VERSE 2.

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

Derf, question 1:

Do you agree that the earth was covered in water in verse two?

Question 2:

If so, where was the firmament God started to create on day 2?

And yes, I expect an answer to AT LEAST the first question.



Yes, this is true for both our positions.



No, Derf!

Naming something "Heaven" (and I see no reason to use the plural, since it's a noun, not an article) does not mean God is introducing the concept of "heavens"!

HE IS NAMING SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN INTRODUCED!



My position has not changed in the slightest.

There is a firmament, called "Heaven," which is the firmament God created in the midst of the waters of day 2.

There is a firmament of the heavens, which is not the "firmament called Heaven," across the face of which birds fly, and in which God placed the stars, the sun, and the moon.

How do birds fly across the face of a firmament that is sandwiched between two layers of water, even given that dry land has appeared on one side of it, THAT ALSO has stars and the sun and the moon within that firmament?

It's not possible.

There must be, because it is the only rational conclusion, two different firmaments being described in Genesis 1.

I showed you the distinction. You tried to explain it away, and failed.



We get the word "firmament" from the latin word firmamentum.

It means, not surprisingly, "a firm object."

In a figurative sense, the heavens (not "Heaven," v6, but "the heavens," vs 1, 9, 14, etc.) are a firm object in which God placed the stars, because upon casual observation, they do not appear to move, same with the Sun and moon, though to a noticeably lesser extent.

So yes, the heavens are indeed firm... In a sense.

Hence "firmament of the heavens."

But the latin word "firmamentum" doesn't quite convey the same meaning as the hebrew word used, which is "raqia."

"Raqia" (a noun) comes from the root word "raqqa," a verb that means to pound/beat out, like with metals, to expand them.


Moses Qualified His Last Four Uses of Firmament: Moses used the word firmament nine times in the creation account. He intentionally distinguished the last four occurrences from the first four, which all pivot around the central instance where God called the earth's firmament Heaven. Each of the four in the second grouping (Genesis 1:14, 15, 17, 20) is qualified separately by an exceptional repetition. The prepositional phrase "of the heavens" makes a distinction between the first firmament of the earth, and the second "firmament of the heavens." And if firmament means the "heavens," the very term "firmament of the heavens" would seem unnecessarily redundant, especially when repeated four times. However, the qualifier "of the heavens" is added so that the reader will not confuse this firmament of sky and space with the previous firmament of earth. Thus, readers alien to the notion of "heaven" on earth should nonetheless be able to separate the two firmaments, and understand God's meaning. Now, millennia after the Fall, God's own record of creation notwithstanding, sin has almost completely obscured the original perspective of the earth's surface as "heaven."





What?

The firmament called heaven has a surface. Where it's dry, it's called Earth. Where it's covered in water, it was called Seas.

The firmament of the heavens does not have a surface. It's a figure of speech that refers to the sky as though it were something firm.



Your assertion is that there is only one firmament, from my understanding, and that it is both "Heaven" and "the heavens."

If so, then these three verses cannot coexist.

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”

To Him who laid out the earth above the waters,For His mercy endures forever;

Why?

Because, according to your position, and using scripture, this would be the structure of the creation (in order from top to bottom):

The spirit of God hovering over…
The earth (Psalm 136:6)
The waters above the firmament of the heavens, and the earth (2 Peter 3:5)
The firmament of the heavens
The birds flying across the face of the firmament of the heavens, and also the waters below the firmament of the heavens (apparently the birds are swimming sometimes, not flying?)
Seas and dry land (which is also apparently the earth?)

You either have to concede that God put the lights in ground, or that God not only made a layer of water underneath the sky, but that somehow dry land appeared in the sky, which of course neither scenario matches reality!

Good grief, that made my head hurt trying explain that.

And you think MY position is confusing!

No, the far more, and I insist the only, rational position is that there are two firmaments, one literal, one figurative, and that the figurative one refers to the sky and to space in general, and the literal one refers to the crust of the earth.



So what?



You're not describing problems with my position, Derf.

You're describing the problems with yours, and trying to pass them off as problems with mine, and that is the cause of your confusion. My position is not the cause of it.

Again!

There are TWO firmaments.

The first one is referred to with the FIRST FIVE of nine usages in Genesis 1, all contained within Day 2, and part of Day 3. ALL FIVE refer to something "in the midst of the waters," which divide the waters above from the waters below," the same waters that are mentioned in verse two, and these waters were, according to verse 2, on the earth.

The LAST FOUR of nine are all qualified with "of the heavens," in order to distinguish them from the first five, and they ALL make sense when talking about things "above" us, like the birds flying in the sky or the sun, moon, and stars in space.

You can't have one firmament in both places, because they're two different places, and one thing cannot exist in two different locations simultaneously.

ONLY WITH TWO FIRMAMENTS can you make sense of the chapter, and of plenty of other verses in the Bible as well!



I see absolutely no reason to call the firmament of verse 6 anything other than "Heaven," as translated.

Yes, the Hebrew word used is plural. But for the sake of this conversation, and boy do you need it, I'm trying to make as much of a distinction between the firmament of day 2 and part of day 3, and the firmament of the heavens found throughout the rest of the chapter.

Don't make this harder than it has to be.



There's your first mistake.

Why do you assume it's "space"?

Space does not divide water on earth (verse 2). Space is FILLED IN BY WATER on earth.
We're not necessarily talking about on the globe earth anymore, if the waters are separated by a "firmament" (something that will keep the waters apart). Space divides all kinds of things, like galaxies, that are made of the components of water.
So it can't be space.



Your premise is false, therefore the rest of your "explanation" is utter nonsense.



WRONG!

God gave the context of verse 2.

Here it is again:

The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

The context is the earth (the planet, not the dry ground, which doesn't yet exist yet).
I don't think you can make that statement. If the dry ground didn't exist yet, then it would be "formless".
Not the heavens. Not the sky.

The earth.

God is focusing on the earth, and thus, His Spirit is over the face of.....

The waters.

God then makes light, and gets the earth turning.

Day 2, BACK TO THE WATERS: God makes something IN THE MIDST of THE WATERS.

The WATERS ON EARTH.

Not in space.

Not underground.

Not in heaven.

ON. EARTH.
Again, I don't think you can make that statement so assuredly, because the passage appears to be dealing with 3 things: Dry land, the Heavens, and the Seas. These are all defined in the passage. So, in the introduction (vs 1 and 2), explains that he's going to be talking about the Heavens (sky and space), the Earth (defined as "dry land" later, but acknowledged as not really having been formed or populated yet, and seas.
Like this:

View attachment 11219

They are the reason we call the large storage space in modern day vehicles "trunks," because people used to strap them TO THE BACKS OF AUTOMOBILES! Modern vehicles replaced the large bulky boxes with built-in storage, but kept the name "trunk."

Or maybe you knew that, and THAT is what was confusing you.

Here! Let me make this easier for you!

Instead of referring to a trunk box, let's switch the analogy to an elephant trunk instead!

God spends five verses talking about the "trunk", and it's understood by the context that he's talking about an elephants trunk.

He then starts talking in 4 other verses about two different things and puts one of those things in "the trunk of the car" and the other in front of "the trunk of the car".

Question, and I really hope this is an easy one for you!:

Is the "trunk" He spoke about in the first five verse the same object as the "trunk" in the last four verses?

If you answer "yes, they're the same trunk," then you need to get your head checked out, because there is clearly something wrong with it!

NO! OF COURSE THEY'RE NOT THE SAME TRUNK!

One is an elephant's trunk, and the other is the trunk of the car!
How do I know that? If "trunk" is defined specifically as "an elephant's trunk" (no definite article), and then the rest goes on to refer to "the trunk", never mentioning a car at all, it would indeed be confusing if the latter uses are about a car trunk. The confusion is cleared up if both the trunk of the elephant and the trunk of the car are defined specifically. That's not what you have in Gen 1. You have one firmament defined. It is defined as "Heaven" (no definite article), and then "the Heaven" is used numerous times. You also have one dry land, defined as "Earth", and then "The Earth" is used numerous times. There's no reason to suspect that "Heaven" means "Earth" or "Earth" means "Heaven" anywhere in the passage.
Derf! The EXACT SAME PHRASING IS USED IN GENESIS 1!

God talks about a "raqia" (firmament) for five verses and calls it "samayim" (Heaven), then for four more verses, talks about two other things in reference to a raqia hassamayim (firmament of the heavens). The answer is the same as above! The two "raqia"s ARE NOT THE SAME THING!
Merely an assertion on your part. The passage is consistent if the two raqias are the same thing.
Just like the two "trunk"s are not the same thing!



Derf. This may seem off topic, but I assure you, I'm going somewhere with this.

Are you aware that Hebrew often has a certain pattern to it? (particularly in poetry, but even in other forms of writing)

Psalm 19 is one of the most beautiful Psalms in the book, because of the way it is structured.

To give you a glimpse at it, go read it real quick, then come back here.

...

Done yet?

Good. A beautiful psalm, isn't it?

Now, read it again, this time taking note of how in the first 6 verses, David is describing the physical universe with literary terms; and take note of how in the last 8 verses, it is describing Scripture with astronomical terms.

. . .

Done reading?

Did I just blow your mind? It really makes the psalm become so much more vivid!

So where am I going with this, you ask?

Consider that God, in Genesis 1:6-10 describes the firmament of the earth (the crust) as something pounded out (raqia), and then in verses 14, 15, 17, and 20, God reverses it, and literally spreads out the heavens (ie, the sky, space) as though it were a metal being pounded out, that birds can fly across the face of, and that he can set lights into, as though the sky is something physical though it is not!

How beautiful the passage becomes when you realize that Moses (via inspiration of God) wrote a masterpiece of literature for the very first chapter of the Bible, by first describing a physical firmament as the foundation for life on earth, then by describing other things as they relate to a figurative firmament that holds those things in place, or serve as a backdrop for other life.

And that sounded a lot better in my head, but surely you get the idea? (I reiterate this below a lot better after getting some sleep.)

God makes the firmament of the earth (the crust), and calls it heaven, then uses "the heavens" in relation to the opposite of the first "firmament," to denote the sky and what would eventually become known as outer space, to serve as a firmament of sorts to "hold" the lights in the heavens in place (through something unseen).
I understand your position on this. But I see no warrant for it in the passage. The only warrant for it, as far as I can tell, is that is helps to bolster part of Walt's theory by associating the under-crust waters with a bible verse. That's a false appeal to authority, by the way.
If you are confused, it's not because of God.



My question is about the logical conclusion of your position.

IF THERE IS ONLY ONE FIRMAMENT:

Then that firmament which was made on earth (cf verse 2; verse 6; 2 Peter 3:4-6; Psalm 136:6) is the same firmament in which God put the sun, moon, and stars.
Right. Except it wasn't "on earth" anymore once the waters above were moved far away from the waters below.
Supra.



Wrong. And I showed you why that was the case.



All three of those things are "lights in the sky."

Just read the passage!

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then 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. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 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.

Those lights were:
- to divide the day from the night
- for signs and seasons
- for days and years
- to be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth

The first two lights God made were the sun and the moon, and then He made the stars.

All of that, God saw it was good.
Ok, I'll concede that point.
So what?



Just read the passage, Derf! I'm really not sure why you're being so stubborn on this! It's literally what is being said!

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus 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. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. 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.

You have:

- verse 5 (not quoted) ending with the end of the first day
- verse 6 starts with God creating a firmament in the midst of the waters (cf 1:2), dividing the waters from the waters (again, cf 1:2)
- verse 7 which describes God's creation of that firmament, which divided the waters below the firmament (the "deep") from the waters above the firmament (note the band of material between the "waters above" and the "waters below")
View attachment 11219
- verse 8 which has God calling the firmament (that same band of material) "Heaven", and then day 2 ends with no "and God saw it was good, as with day 1
- verse 9 has the waters under "the heavens" gather into one place, and to cause the dry land to appear (note that the firmament called "Heaven," that band of material, has now sunk down in places)
View attachment 11221
- verse 10 God calls the dry land Earth and the gathered together waters He calls Seas; only NOW does God recognize His work as good, as Moses moves onto plant life, rather than talking about the firmament
View attachment 11222
- verse 11-12 is God making plant life, and at the end He calls the plant life good
- verse 13 end of day 3

If it was as you described it, the waters below the firmament (the band of material in the first and second image in this segment), AKA "the deep," would have been the water that was gathered together into one place.
I think you are not understanding my position here. First, if the waters above the firmament are actually above the heavens, then when God was working with the waters below the firmament, it was the waters on the surface of the globe, not subterranean. Remember that my position doesn't recognize any waters below the crust from the Gen 1 narrative. They might be there, but they aren't mentioned in the text.
You're the one asserting that the firmament of verse 6 is the "heavens" of verse 9 and "firmament of the heavens" of verse 14 and onwards.

That means that there would be dry land appearing below this firmament called heaven, this firmament of the heavens.
Right. Isn't that where we find dry land today??
That's a HUGE problem for your position.

The only way to resolve it is to say that the the firmament is in the sky, but that contradicts (yes, contradicts) the fact that the water is on the earth.
You'll have to explain that one for me. If the waters above the firmament are unreachable (outer limits of space), and the waters below the firmament are on the globe earth, I don't see any contradiction at all.
There is no void in verses 6-8.

There is nothing "void" in verses 6-8.
Going back to those English translators, some of them use the word "expanse" instead of "firmament". Definition from Webster's 1828 dictionary:
EXPANSE, noun expans'. [Latin expansum.] A spreading; extend; a wide extent of space or body; as the expanse of heaven.

If we're talking about a wide extent of "space", then most assuredly we are talking about a void, especially since the celestial bodies weren't created yet. And that is why, in my opinion, the firmament wasn't called "good" yet. It was when there were finally celestial bodies to populate it.
What does that even mean, anyways, that "God doesn't like things that are 'void'--they aren't 'good.'"?
The Earth was formless and void. And dark. And God never said it was good like that. So God said, "Let there be light", and He made dry land, etc. Here's another reference to the land (this time the land of Israel, I believe) being formless and void:
[Jer 4:23 NKJV] I beheld the earth, and indeed [it was] without form, and void; And the heavens, they [had] no light.
[Jer 4:24 NKJV] I beheld the mountains, and indeed they trembled, And all the hills moved back and forth.
[Jer 4:25 NKJV] I beheld, and indeed [there was] no man, And all the birds of the heavens had fled.
[Jer 4:26 NKJV] I beheld, and indeed the fruitful land [was] a wilderness, And all its cities were broken down At the presence of the LORD, By His fierce anger.
[Jer 4:27 NKJV] For thus says the LORD: "The whole land shall be desolate; Yet I will not make a full end.

"Void" and "desolate" are synonyms. So too "God-forsaken".
If God made a massive shell of granite and dirt, ~60 miles, in the midst of the waters, then it would take time for that shell to settle, because it isn't going to stay afloat, and rock at that scale acts is not a rigid material. It would take time for the rock to settle once it had been created, especially for it to settle without cracking which would be caused by rapid movement, which would be counterproductive.

One thing you should take note of, Derf, is that God likes using tools to accomplish His will. Rather than directly affecting His creation, God will use things that He made to affect the universe He created, and even the people He made. For example, rather than trying to convince Pharaoh directly, He attacked their gods using plagues that show His power over the things those gods were supposed to rule over. And He used a flood to wipe out all of mankind, rather than just killing them directly. And he used fish and bread to feed 5000 people, rather than putting food directly into their stomachs.

In the same way, God used gravity along with the bed of water under the crust to form the crust without breaking it, a process that took roughly a day and a half, and once finished, He had just enough time to put something on that canvas before the end of the first day.



So in the beginning, God created the firmament and the earth, is what you're saying?
Yes. Isn't that what you are saying? That God made the "firmament of the heavens" and the earth?
Please explain how that makes sense.

Otherwise, I'll stick to using the context of what is being said to understand the meaning of words, especially for a language that has relatively few words compared to others, where some words have a multitude of definitions, and can be used in multiple ways even within the same passage.

The base word for "the heavens" and "Heaven" in Genesis 1 is "shamayim."

Strong's:

Strong's h8064

- Lexical: שָׁמַיִם
- Transliteration: shamayim
- Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
- Phonetic Spelling: shaw-mah'-yim
- Definition: heaven, sky.
- Origin: Dual of an unused singular shameh {shaw-meh'}; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve).
- Usage: air, X astrologer, heaven(-s).
- Translated as (count): the heavens (82), heaven (73), of heaven (65), in heaven (29), of the air (23), of the heavens (23), from heaven (20), of the heaven (16), to heaven (11), in the heavens (10), the heaven (10), heavens (6), into heaven (6), toward heaven (6), of heavens (5), to the heavens (4), your heavens (4), and the heaven (3), and the heavens (3), and heaven (2), in the air (2), in the sky (2), sky (2), you heavens (2), against the heavens (1), and heavens (1), His heavens (1), in the very heavens (1), of the sky (1), on the heavens (1), than heaven (1), that the sky (1), the astrologers (1), the highest (1), the toward heavens (1), up to heaven (1).



In Genesis 1, it is used in two different ways.

1:1 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:8 - šā·mā·yim
1:9 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:14 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:15 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:17 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:20 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:26 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:28 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:30 - haš·šā·ma·yim

Notice anything?

The ONE TIME in Genesis 1 where it is NOT used as an article is in verse 8!

Meaning it's not "the heavens" but "heaven(s)."

Hebrew only has one article, "ה" ("ha") which corresponds to the English "the."

The fact that it is NOT used in verse 8, but is used in every other place in Genesis 1 where shamayim is used, should give you a hint that the "šā·mā·yim" in verse 8 is NOT THE SAME THING as the other "haš·šā·ma·yim" in all the other verses.
Greek and Hebrew, as well as English, tend to treat the first usage of a word different than the subsequent uses. The definite article is used to point to something that has already been introduced, but the introduction doesn't make sense with the definite article. The word is the same, just without the definite article, and it's the first usage in the creative narrative, AND it is defined in that first usage.

There's a parallel in the definition of the word "earth", first introduced in vs 10.

[Gen 1:10 NKJV] And God called the dry [land] Earth {אֶרֶץ, no definite article}, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that [it was] good.
[Gen 1:11 NKJV] Then God said, "Let the earth {האָרֶץ, definite article included} 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.
[Gen 1:12 NKJV] 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.

And, in case you missed it, the same treatment is afforded the Seas in vs 10. The term is defined without the definite article, then used later WITH the definite article:
[Gen 1:22 NKJV] And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
[Gen 1:26 NKJV] Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
(In vs 26, "the sea" is singular, so there are some differences in that second example that would be interesting to delve into another time, but you can see that the definite article is used after the first usage.)

In other words!

There's a reason the English translators used "Heaven" rather than "the heavens."
Sounds like an appeal to authority to me, and likely a false one from your own point of view. For instance, some of those same English translators used the word "sky" in verse 8. As long as we're going with the English translators, your position won't hold water (pun intended).
It's because Moses was trying to make a distinction between the "heaven" of verse 8 and the "the heavens" of the rest of the chapter.

To reiterate: Moses is using a term for the sky and the things that are in it to describe a geological formation, and then uses a geological term, "raqia" to describe the sky, just like with Psalm 19.



Yes it is. Supra.



Correct.



It wasn't, nor is that what I've been saying.



Supra.



There us nothing wrong with the consistency of my position. You have repeatedly misrepresented things that I said (just a few paragraphs up for one example) and then base the rest of your confusion off of that misrepresentation.



So what? Many people have disagreed with Dr. Brown. Nothing new under the sun.

Doesn't make them right and him wrong.
Doesn't make them wrong and him right.

Don't make appeals to authority, Derf.



It's irrelevant who they are.
That's not really true. The Bible is a true authority, and we both appeal to it all the time. The ones you have to watch out for are FALSE appeals to authority. My point was that they don't see a problem with the wording in Gen 1:8 referring to the heavens above, even though they both agree with Walt's theory on most other aspects. In other words, the theory doesn't require, in their opinion and mine, that tenet.

You cannot remove one of the foundations of a theory and have the theory remain viable.
If calling "earth" "heaven" is a foundation of the theory, then it deserves to fall. I don't think that's foundational.
The firmament of day 2 being part of the earth is FOUNDATIONAL (pun not intended) to the HPT, because it's part of where the water came from during the flood, the very source of the fountains of the great deep.
If the whole earth was made of water at the beginning, then having some deep pockets of water, pressurized to a high degree, is still quite possible, even if Gen 1:8 is talking about the heavens above. Whatever the thing was/is that you are calling "the firmament of day 2" is still reasonably possible without calling it the firmament of day 2.
Agreed!



Yes, we agree on that.

The problem is that now you're special pleading.

Verse 8 "heaven" does not have a "ha" article, just as the rest of the usages do.
Of course! That's because it is the first use of the word. If you use the definite article when you are defining your usage of the word for the first time, it doesn't make sense. "The Heavens" indicates that the reader knows which Heavens you are talking about. But if you haven't previously introduced the concept of "Heavens", the definite article doesn't belong. Later (every other usage) the definite article makes sense.
All I've been saying this entire time is that THAT SPECIFIC "shamayim" is different than the rest.

Supra.



AMEN!



Only in every verse where it's used OTHER than verse 8.

Which is what I've been saying all along!

Verses 6-10 are NOT talking about "the heavens." Otherwise you have gathered together Seas and dry land Earth in the sky, which doesn't make sense at all.
Let's look at that possibility. If "heavens" includes more than just the face of the heavens (which I think we both agree with), then the waters above the heavens are mostly out of reach for us today. They might be at the far reaches of the universe. AND, some of those waters might have been used in the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. As far as we can tell, all stars are primarily burning (fusing) hydrogen, a major component of water. Oxygen, from what I've read, is the third most abundant element in the universe, after hydrogen and helium (fusion product).
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Derf, it seems like you didn't bother to read through what I wrote before responding, like I asked, as you missed at least one direct question that you did not answer, nor did you pay much attention to the images that I posted, because you say some things that make no sense in the context of what I said.

I'm going to go through this post, and then I'm going to reiterate the points you failed to address at the end.

And this time, if you don't answer the questions I ask here, I'm going to insist you answer them before I address anything you say.

We're not necessarily talking about on the globe earth anymore,

Derf, as far as I'm aware, BOTH of us are "globe earthers," just in case that needed clarification.

Additionally, I don't see any indication in the text that says that the earth was formed by the end of day 1, or that at that point it was anything but the mantle with water on it, ESPECIALLY GIVEN VERSE 2!

if the waters are separated by a "firmament" (something that will keep the waters apart). Space divides all kinds of things, like galaxies, that are made of the components of water.

Sure. But that's not the context of Genesis 1:1-10.

The context is as follows:

Verse 1: The beginning.
Also Verse 1: God created the heavens and the earth..

PLEASE ANSWER: What exactly did God create?

Verse 2: The earth was formless and void.

PLEASE ANSWER: What is "the earth"?

Also verse 2: The deep was dark.

PLEASE ANSWER: What is "the deep"?

Also Verse 2: The Spirit of God was over the waters.

PLEASE ANSWER: Where are "the waters" in this verse?
PLEASE ANSWER: Is "the waters" liquid water?

Verse 3: God created light.
Verse 4: God saw that the light was good.
Also verse 4: God divided the light from the darkness
Verse 5: God called the light Day.
Also verse 5: God called the darkness Night.
Also verse 5: There was evening and morning, Day 1.

PLEASE ANSWER: What does "evening and morning" imply?

Verse 6: God said to let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters.

PLEASE ANSWER: What are "the waters" in this verse?
PLEASE ANSWER: Does "the waters" refer to "the waters" of verse 2, YES or NO?

Also verse 6: The firmament God created divided the waters from the waters.

PLEASE ANSWER: If your answer to the question, "What is 'the deep'?" above, is watery in nature, do you assert that the "the waters" and "the waters" (not a typo) in verse 6 is NOT referring to "the waters" and "the deep" in verse 2?

Verse 7: God acting out what He said in verse 6.
Also verse 7: The firmament God created divided the waters below the firmament from the waters above the firmament.

PLEASE ANSWER: Why did Moses mention the waters below the firmament first?

Verse 8: God called the firmament He created "Heaven."

PLEASE ANSWER: Why did the English Bible translators translate this word as "Heaven"?

Also verse 8: Evening and morning, end of Day 2.
Verse 9: God said to let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place.

PLEASE ANSWER: What are "the waters" in this verse?
PLEASE ANSWER: What are "the heavens" in this verse?
PLEASE ANSWER: Where are "the waters under the heavens" in this verse?

Also verse 9: God also said to let the dry land appear. And all of it God did.

PLEASE ANSWER: Where did "the dry land" appear?

Verse 10: God called the dry land Earth.
Also verse 10: God called the gathering together of the waters Seas.
Also verse 10: God saw that the above was good.

PLEASE ANSWER: What did God call "Earth"? (Be specific.)
PLEASE ANSWER: What did God call "Seas"? (Be specific.)

I don't think you can make that statement.

I'm fully justified in making that statement.

If the dry ground didn't exist yet,

Where did I claim that the dry ground existed at that point?

Supra, re: Planet Earth.

then it would be "formless".

Because you say so?

Again, I don't think you can make that statement so assuredly,

Sure I can.

because the passage appears to be dealing with 3 things: Dry land, the Heavens, and the Seas.

Wrong.

There is no "dry land" in day 2.

The dry land does not appear until day 3.

There is no "Seas" in day 2.

The "Seas" do not appear until day 3.

"Heaven" is not named on day 2.

It is given the name "Heaven" on day 3.

All that exists on day 2 is "the heavens" and "the earth" and "the deep" and "the waters" and "the firmament" which divided "the waters" into "the waters below the firmament" and "the waters above the firmament."

These are all defined in the passage.

But not on day 2.

So, in the introduction (vs 1 and 2), explains that he's going to be talking about the Heavens (sky and space),

I'm going to assume by your use of "H" rather than "h" here is a reference to the "Heaven" of verse 8.

If so, this is question begging.

You have not established that they are the same, and I already made an argument that "the heavens" and "Heaven" are not the same thing, and substantiated that argument in my previous post, and the part where I did so, you seem to have ignored the most important part of it.

the Earth (defined as "dry land" later, but acknowledged as not really having been formed or populated yet[)],

Again, this is question begging.

You are assuming that the "Earth" of verse 10 is the same thing as "the earth" (let alone as "Planet Earth" in verse 1.

You have not established this.

and seas.

Again, as I said above, there is no "seas" in the introduction, which you defined as Genesis 1:1-2.

In the introduction, as defined by you, Derf, there is only "the heavens" (haš·šā·ma·yim) and "the earth" (hā·’ā·reṣ) and "the deep" (ṯə·hō·wm) and "the waters" (ham·mā·yim).

How do I know that? If "trunk" is defined specifically as "an elephant's trunk" (no definite article), and then the rest goes on to refer to "the trunk", never mentioning a car at all, it would indeed be confusing if the latter uses are about a car trunk.

Then you either weren't paying attention to what I said, or you misunderstood it, because that's not what I said at all.

AGAIN:

If God is talking about an elephant's trunk, understood by the context to be the elephant's trunk, and He says, five times, "the trunk," in the conversation, you would without the tiniest sliver of a doubt in the world, understand that He is talking about the elephant's trunk.

If He then said, in the conversation, something about "the trunk of the car," and then used "the trunk of the car" another three times, you wouldn't automatically assume that the first five instances of "the trunk" were referring to "the trunk of the car, would you?

If you would, then I question your sanity. Seriously. Why would you assume He was ACTUALLY talking about something different the entire time when you originally thought (and correctly) that He was talking about the original thing?

That makes ZERO sense!

That's simply NOT how languages work!

Thus, if God says, in the context of PLANET EARTH (not "Earth" of verse 10, but "the earth" of verse 1), "I'm going to make a firmament in the midst of the waters (ham·mā·yim) to divide the waters from the waters," and then talks about that firmament for a bit, and then after NAMING that firmament "Heaven" (šā·mā·yim, NOT haš·šā·ma·yim), starts talking about "the firmament of the heavens" (haš·šā·ma·yim, NOT šā·mā·yim), and explicitly uses that phrase for the rest of the conversation, you would not (at least, not unless you have an a priori belief to uphold) automatically assume that actually, when He said "the firmament" what He REALLY meant was not in context of the earth, but rather it was something else entirely, changing what you thought He was originally talking about!

It simply wouldn't happen like that, Derf!

You would correctly assume that there are two different firmaments, one referring something directly relating to the earth (the planet), and another relating to "the heavens."

The confusion is cleared up if both the trunk of the elephant and the trunk of the car are defined specifically.

And they are defined specifically, AS TWO SEPARATE THINGS! Why can't you see that?!

"the firmament" 5 times in a row
"the firmament of the heavens" 4 times in a row

That's not what you have in Gen 1.

Yes it is.

You have one firmament defined.

Wrong.

It is defined as "Heaven" (no definite article), and then "the Heaven" is used numerous times. You also have one dry land, defined as "Earth", and then "The Earth" is used numerous times. There's no reason to suspect that "Heaven" means "Earth" or "Earth" means "Heaven" anywhere in the passage.

There is. And I explained why in my main previous post. You either missed it or intentionally ignored it, and the same argument I made for "the heavens" vs "Heaven" applies just as equally to "the earth" vs "Earth."

Merely an assertion on your part.

No, it's not, Derf, and I explained it further later on in the post.

Here it is again:

Just read the passage, Derf! I'm really not sure why you're being so stubborn on this! It's literally what is being said!

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus 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. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. 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.
You have:

- verse 5 (not quoted) ending with the end of the first day
- verse 6 starts with God creating a firmament in the midst of the waters (cf 1:2), dividing the waters from the waters (again, cf 1:2)
- verse 7 which describes God's creation of that firmament, which divided the waters below the firmament (the "deep") from the waters above the firmament (note the band of material between the "waters above" and the "waters below")
image(1).png

- verse 8 which has God calling the firmament (that same band of material) "Heaven", and then day 2 ends with no "and God saw it was good, as with day 1
- verse 9 has the waters under "the heavens" gather into one place, and to cause the dry land to appear (note that the firmament called "Heaven," that band of material, has now sunk down in places)
image(1)(1).png

- verse 10 God calls the dry land Earth and the gathered together waters He calls Seas; only NOW does God recognize His work as good, as Moses moves onto plant life, rather than talking about the firmament
image.png

- verse 11-12 is God making plant life, and at the end He calls the plant life good
- verse 13 end of day 3

----

The passage is consistent if the two raqias are the same thing.

No, it is not consistent. It might be fine if you only consider Genesis 1.

But there are other verses throughout the rest of scripture that preclude the two firmaments from being the same thing, the most important of which is the Flood account just a few chapters later!!!

I'll get to that in a bit!

I understand your position on this.

Doubtful, but fine.

But I see no warrant for it in the passage. The only warrant for it, as far as I can tell, is that is helps to bolster part of Walt's theory by associating the under-crust waters with a bible verse. That's a false appeal to authority, by the way.

Where did I make any sort of appeal?

QUOTE ME!

All I said was "consider that it is so." Meaning, think it over.

I never said it was true. I never said that's the reason.

I never even mentioned Walt Brown.

If I had said that "Because Walt Brown, the authority on the HPT, is correct, therefore the correct interpretation of Genesis 1 is through the HPT," THAT would be a fallacious appeal to authority.

But THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID!

I said to consider that if Psalm 19 has a certain pattern to it, then maybe Genesis 1 also has a similar pattern to it.

THAT'S IT! That's ALL!

Right. Except it wasn't "on earth" anymore once the waters above were moved far away from the waters below.

This is begging the question, let alone the fact that it is NOT supported by any scripture!

The only reason you would say this is because of an a priori belief that every instance of "the firmament" must refer to the sky and/or space.

Ok, I'll concede that point.

Thank you.

I think you are not understanding my position here. First, if the waters above the firmament are actually above the heavens, then when God was working with the waters below the firmament, it was the waters on the surface of the globe, not subterranean. Remember that my position doesn't recognize any waters below the crust from the Gen 1 narrative. They might be there, but they aren't mentioned in the text.

Right. Isn't that where we find dry land today??

You'll have to explain that one for me. If the waters above the firmament are unreachable (outer limits of space), and the waters below the firmament are on the globe earth, I don't see any contradiction at all.

Going back to those English translators, some of them use the word "expanse" instead of "firmament". Definition from Webster's 1828 dictionary:
EXPANSE, noun expans'. [Latin expansum.] A spreading; extend; a wide extent of space or body; as the expanse of heaven.

If we're talking about a wide extent of "space", then most assuredly we are talking about a void, especially since the celestial bodies weren't created yet. And that is why, in my opinion, the firmament wasn't called "good" yet. It was when there were finally celestial bodies to populate it.

The Earth was formless and void. And dark. And God never said it was good like that. So God said, "Let there be light", and He made dry land, etc. Here's another reference to the land (this time the land of Israel, I believe) being formless and void:
[Jer 4:23 NKJV] I beheld the earth, and indeed [it was] without form, and void; And the heavens, they [had] no light.
[Jer 4:24 NKJV] I beheld the mountains, and indeed they trembled, And all the hills moved back and forth.
[Jer 4:25 NKJV] I beheld, and indeed [there was] no man, And all the birds of the heavens had fled.
[Jer 4:26 NKJV] I beheld, and indeed the fruitful land [was] a wilderness, And all its cities were broken down At the presence of the LORD, By His fierce anger.
[Jer 4:27 NKJV] For thus says the LORD: "The whole land shall be desolate; Yet I will not make a full end.

"Void" and "desolate" are synonyms. So too "God-forsaken".

Yes. Isn't that what you are saying? That God made the "firmament of the heavens" and the earth?

Greek and Hebrew, as well as English, tend to treat the first usage of a word different than the subsequent uses. The definite article is used to point to something that has already been introduced, but the introduction doesn't make sense with the definite article. The word is the same, just without the definite article, and it's the first usage in the creative narrative, AND it is defined in that first usage.

There's a parallel in the definition of the word "earth", first introduced in vs 10.

[Gen 1:10 NKJV] And God called the dry [land] Earth {אֶרֶץ, no definite article}, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that [it was] good.
[Gen 1:11 NKJV] Then God said, "Let the earth {האָרֶץ, definite article included} 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.
[Gen 1:12 NKJV] 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.

And, in case you missed it, the same treatment is afforded the Seas in vs 10. The term is defined without the definite article, then used later WITH the definite article:
[Gen 1:22 NKJV] And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."
[Gen 1:26 NKJV] Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
(In vs 26, "the sea" is singular, so there are some differences in that second example that would be interesting to delve into another time, but you can see that the definite article is used after the first usage.)


Sounds like an appeal to authority to me, and likely a false one from your own point of view. For instance, some of those same English translators used the word "sky" in verse 8. As long as we're going with the English translators, your position won't hold water (pun intended).

That's not really true. The Bible is a true authority, and we both appeal to it all the time. The ones you have to watch out for are FALSE appeals to authority. My point was that they don't see a problem with the wording in Gen 1:8 referring to the heavens above, even though they both agree with Walt's theory on most other aspects. In other words, the theory doesn't require, in their opinion and mine, that tenet.


If calling "earth" "heaven" is a foundation of the theory, then it deserves to fall. I don't think that's foundational.

If the whole earth was made of water at the beginning, then having some deep pockets of water, pressurized to a high degree, is still quite possible, even if Gen 1:8 is talking about the heavens above. Whatever the thing was/is that you are calling "the firmament of day 2" is still reasonably possible without calling it the firmament of day 2.

Of course! That's because it is the first use of the word. If you use the definite article when you are defining your usage of the word for the first time, it doesn't make sense. "The Heavens" indicates that the reader knows which Heavens you are talking about. But if you haven't previously introduced the concept of "Heavens", the definite article doesn't belong. Later (every other usage) the definite article makes sense.

Let's look at that possibility. If "heavens" includes more than just the face of the heavens (which I think we both agree with), then the waters above the heavens are mostly out of reach for us today. They might be at the far reaches of the universe. AND, some of those waters might have been used in the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. As far as we can tell, all stars are primarily burning (fusing) hydrogen, a major component of water. Oxygen, from what I've read, is the third most abundant element in the universe, after hydrogen and helium (fusion product).

I'm going to hold off on responding to the rest of this.

I need you to answer the questions at the beginning of this post in order to continue. Once you answer the questions, I will continue my response to the rest of this post.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
@Derf

The real question here, regarding your position, is this:

Why did Moses, instead of what is recorded in Genesis 1, not write the chapter this way?


In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. Then God said, “Let there be the heavens in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the heavens, and divided the waters which were under the heavens from the waters which were above the heavens; and it was so. And God called the heavens Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. 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. Then God said, “Let there be lights in the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then 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. God set them in the heavens to give light on the earth, 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. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the heavens.” So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” So the evening and the morning were the fifth day. Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.



If the firmament is "the heavens," why make any effort at all to distinguish it from the "firmament of the heavens"?

Why not just write it like the above? It would certainly be easier to understand, would it not?

BETTER YET!

Why not just use "the firmament" once, in verse 6, and then since, if what you assert is true, there is only one firmament, use "the firmament of the heavens" the other 8 of 9 times?

AND EVEN BETTER!

Why not just use ONLY "the firmament," why the need to distinguish "the firmament of the heavens" at all? Why not just leave off "of the heavens" for all 9 times?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I've read the opening post - nothing else. If there is a specific point someone wants me to weigh in on, please give me a post # or copy/paste it in a new post or whatever.....

In response to the opening post, the major problem I see with the idea that there is this enormous steel dome that is mostly still underground is that there isn't any evidence that such a thing exists. We do know something about the structure of the Earth through the use of seismic waves that propagate through the Earth and can be detected and used to generate a rough image of the inner parts of the Earth. Such a steel dome would be easily detected and would literally reflect these seismic waves and shield the core from our "view". If such a dome existed, it would make the Earth look hollow.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I've read the opening post - nothing else. If there is a specific point someone wants me to weigh in on, please give me a post # or copy/paste it in a new post or whatever.....

In response to the opening post, the major problem I see with the idea that there is this enormous steel dome that is mostly still underground is that there isn't any evidence that such a thing exists. We do know something about the structure of the Earth through the use of seismic waves that propagate through the Earth and can be detected and used to generate a rough image of the inner parts of the Earth. Such a steel dome would be easily detected and would literally reflect these seismic waves and shield the core from our "view". If such a dome existed, it would make the Earth look hollow.
I'm not so sure a mere few feet of steel would make much difference to seismic sensors. It's not like seismic data comes from electromagnetic waves, but pressure waves where the density in the steel would matter, not its metallic properties. And that density would be greatly affected by the resolution of the wave, how much of that (relatively) thin sheet would have survived intact after the breaking forth of the great deep, and its difference in density of the surrounding rock.

I find the idea weak since such a steel lining would be superfluous to 60km of granite on top of it.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I'm not so sure a mere few feet of steel would make much difference to seismic sensors. It's not like seismic data comes from electromagnetic waves, but pressure waves where the density in the steel would matter, not its metallic properties. And that density would be greatly affected by the resolution of the wave, how much of that (relatively) thin sheet would have survived intact after the breaking forth of the great deep, and its difference in density of the surrounding rock.

I find the idea weak since such a steel lining would be superfluous to 60km of granite on top of it.
Regardless, even if such a dome were translucent to seismic waves (which does seem plausible), it certainly would not be perfectly transparent and thereby undetectable. If it existed, we could tell. To date, there is no evidence that it exists.

Further, I'm not sure that a three foot think piece of steel would contribute significantly toward holding back water under that much pressure or whether such a steel dome would even be needed at all. It certainly would not be needed if the the water was sufficiently deep under the surface and if the argument is that it wasn't all that deep and that therefore this steel sphere would contribute significantly toward holding back the subterranean water, then that would make it even easier for us to detect it's existence.
 

Derf

Well-known member
@Derf

The real question here, regarding your position, is this:

Why did Moses, instead of what is recorded in Genesis 1, not write the chapter this way?


In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. Then God said, “Let there be the heavens in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the heavens, and divided the waters which were under the heavens from the waters which were above the heavens; and it was so. And God called the heavens Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. 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. Then God said, “Let there be lights in the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then 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. God set them in the heavens to give light on the earth, 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. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the heavens.” So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” So the evening and the morning were the fifth day. Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.



If the firmament is "the heavens," why make any effort at all to distinguish it from the "firmament of the heavens"?

Why not just write it like the above? It would certainly be easier to understand, would it not?
First, I am merely offering an opinion here, because I don't know why Moses write like he wrote, or why the Holy Spirit inspired it like He did. But I think he's trying to show that it has structure. There's a firmament/expanse/places to put things. That there is a spatial limit to it (that's why birds fly on the surface of it, and stars are positioned in it). It tends to distinguish, rather than conflate, the two main spatial entities of the chapter, heavens vs earth. One of these was given to mankind to rule (take dominion). The other is God's to rule. "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
First, I am merely offering an opinion here, because I don't know why Moses write like he wrote, or why the Holy Spirit inspired it like He did. But I think he's trying to show that it has structure. There's a firmament/expanse/places to put things. That there is a spatial limit to it (that's why birds fly on the surface of it, and stars are positioned in it). It tends to distinguish, rather than conflate, the two main spatial entities of the chapter, heavens vs earth. One of these was given to mankind to rule (take dominion). The other is God's to rule. "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

You didn't really answer the question, but I appreciate the response.

What about the above revised version of Genesis 1 doesn't indicate that there's a structure to the creation? That there isn't a limit to it? What about it doesn't distinguish, but rather, conflates, the two main spatial entities of the chapter?

There's already "the heavens" and "the earth." why is there a need to further complicate it with "the firmament? Why not just say "the heavens"?

Don't respond to this until you address post #72.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You didn't really answer the question, but I appreciate the response.

What about the above revised version of Genesis 1 doesn't indicate that there's a structure to the creation? That there isn't a limit to it? What about it doesn't distinguish, but rather, conflates, the two main spatial entities of the chapter?

There's already "the heavens" and "the earth." why is there a need to further complicate it with "the firmament? Why not just say "the heavens"?

Don't respond to this until you address post #72.
Short on time so this will be short and sweet. Just a question, really...

It seems to me that the firmament, which God called heaven, is what we call the atmosphere, where birds fly above the surface of the Earth.

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.​
The term "firmament" there meaning "expanse", according to Strong's.

Are you guys saying that it's something other than that?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Regardless, even if such a dome were translucent to seismic waves (which does seem plausible), it certainly would not be perfectly transparent and thereby undetectable. If it existed, we could tell. To date, there is no evidence that it exists.

Further, I'm not sure that a three foot think piece of steel would contribute significantly toward holding back water under that much pressure or whether such a steel dome would even be needed at all. It certainly would not be needed if the the water was sufficiently deep under the surface and if the argument is that it wasn't all that deep and that therefore this steel sphere would contribute significantly toward holding back the subterranean water, then that would make it even easier for us to detect it's existence.
I'm merely responding to a highly insignificant possibility that there was a steel lining on the chambers of the great deep. If that was the makeup of the structure, I'm sure it would have been completely torn up by the actions in the flood if it were there considering it would be a great deal less than tissue paper compared to the vast amount of kinetic energy of the granite and water involved - so I don't think there could be anything to detect after the flood.

That being said, if it were there, it may not have been a complete lining. It may not have been a lining at all on the crust side of the chamber but with the evidence we have, it could have been on the core side of the chamber (or both sides for that matter). Or perhaps there were steel structures for some other reason within the chamber for purposes we haven't yet imagined.

But, it appears we have a chunk of steel that came from somewhere on earth that wasn't forged by man. It's fun to speculate and a good exercise in sussing out a hidden matter.
 
Top