Yes, but I'm making a different point.
Ok.
The word "eretz" in Hebrew means either "land" or "whole world" from what I understand. Maybe I should have said "whole world" instead of "globe earth" there. The narrative seems to be introduced as the creation of "the heavens and the earth". I'm not sure that that usage of "the earth" in verses 1 and 2 means "the whole world", but might be just "the dry land". That wouldn't have to mean that the whole world was excluded, but that you need the whole world--the globe earth--to have the dry land on which we live. It is interesting that the two things focused on are the place were man lives and the place where God lives.
So you basically have conceded half the battle to me with this.
My position is that it was in fact the planet earth that was created in verse one, and all the matter that God used to create the other things in the universe.
To put it another way, God created matter ("the heavens"), and like a good potter would do for a small piece of pottery, instead of using a large chunk of "clay," He separated off a planet sized piece of it to create the planet we live on ("the earth").
Thus, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Synecdoches, where a part or parts are referred to by the whole, or the reverse, where the whole is referred to by a part or parts, are common in the Bible, and there's no reason to think that this is not the case in Genesis 1.
Agreed! And perhaps not even that yet, if the globe earth is not intended in vs 1 and 2.
Let me rephrase, because I think you misunderstood.
or that at that point it was anything but the mantle with water on it, ESPECIALLY GIVEN VERSE 2!
I don't see any indication in the text that says that the earth had been formed in any way other than it being made.
In other words, in verse 1, God made the heavens (that being the matter which He used to form the things made on day 4; synecdoches, remember?), and the earth (that being the matter which He used to form the earth into the paradise that He had yet to create), and then in verse 2, THE EARTH has no form, but was covered by deep waters, which the Spirit of God hovered over.
Getting a bit into the physics side of things, based on what we know today...
We know that large bodies of matter naturally pull themselves into a sphere in space, or as close to spherical as possible. an earth size lump of matter would, rather quickly, pull itself into a spherical shape, but not quite spherical.
PLEASE ANSWER: Is it possible that the earth being "formless" is referring to a primordial earth which has not been smoothed out into a proper sphere yet, being a formless lump of clay for God to start working with, but instead of it not having nothing around it, it's covered in water?
That is what I said, is it not?
Verse 1: The beginning.
Also Verse 1: God created the heavens and the earth..
----
I'm not sure that vs 1 is part of the creation sequence.
I don't see why it couldn't be, especially given verse 2.
Rather it appears to be, as I mentioned in a previous post, merely an introduction to the more detailed sequence,
Why can't it be both an introduction and a statement of a specific event within the story?
because neither "the heavens" nor "the earth" is recognizable as in existence in vs 2.
The heavens, sure... unless you include verse 1.
But the earth is described as formless (not shaped) and void (without features), with water on its surface, and deep water at that.
In other words, vs 1 is a whole creation account in itself.
Why? In other words, there's no need for it to be.
But I could be wrong. It might be that it includes all of the material and space needed.
Supra.
I think I've answered this already, but if "the earth" is really "the dry land on which we live", then it isn't in existence yet...it is still "formless and void", but the materials and space are there.
The problem is that this contradicts what you said before (which I address below), that if an article is used, then it's referring to the first use of that word without the article.
I generally agree that if the verse mentions something, it's in all likelihood referring to the last usage of that something, even if there's no instance of the something without the article, unless otherwise indicated.
In other words, I would assert, based on the fact that there's no indication in the text to think otherwise, that "the earth" in verse 1 is the same "the earth" in verse 2.
It appears to be a mass of water.
Water yes.
"A mass of water," as in, "a glob of water in the void," no.
It could be something that behaves like water but isn't exactly the same, perhaps what all the mass in the universe would behave like if it were gathered into one area with no structure to hold things apart.
Why?
You have "the earth," then "the deep," then "the waters."
That's a structure, a depiction of the entirety of the earth in it's formless and void state.
Where are you getting the idea that it's not on the planet, but rather just a glob of water? That's not consistent even with your position.
Would that be a globe of water?
Remember, the context so far of Genesis 1 is "God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was formless and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit was hovering over the face of the waters.
Why would it be a globe of (just) water, when the context is "the earth"?
Ok, that's fine.
God doesn't define "the deep" in Gen 1.
So what does the rest of scripture say. If it wasn't for the fact that my question was specifically about Genesis 1:2, and the context of Genesis 1, I could almost accuse you of special pleading on this, but that would be unfair to you, and extremely dishonest of me. So then now:
PLEASE ANSWER: Does the Bible anywhere give any indication as to what "the deep" is?
Additionally:
PLEASE ANSWER: Could it be Genesis 1 DOES define "the deep, but because of your paradigm of beliefs regarding what the chapter says, you can't see it?
I'm not sure how accurately I can answer. They were "here" in the place where our universe is today. But I don't know how much of the space they were taking up.
In other words, you don't know.
Might I suggest, as I have all along, and did just now, that the waters are on the earth, as per Genesis 1:2, the only known place in our universe where there is liquid water, and that the only reason you think it's not on the earth is because of your a priori interpretation of the formation of the universe?
As I said above, I don't know.
You do realize that there are different words for "ice" and "air" in Hebrew, right?
Meaning, when the Bible says "the waters," you can trust that it is talking about water in it's liquid form.
Don't commit a historian's fallacy by assuming they understood that there are water molecules in the air, because I can assure you that they did not.
When the Bible says water, it means water.
What reason do you have to think otherwise?
Is it scripture? or is it an a priori assumption of your beliefs that tells you it's something else?
but without anything to hold it in, and without anything to hold it out, if all the material in the universe today were all in one place, it would look like a black hole. Maybe that's why "Let there be light" is important.
I reject your premise that Genesis 1:2 is talking about something other than the current (at that time) state of planet earth.
That seems like an overly broad question, but I'll try to answer and you clarify if I'm not getting your intent.
There is a progression from light to dark (evening) and from dark to light (morning). I think this means that, since the light and dark are separate, there's a rotation that has been started.
Agreed.
Since the sun has not been created, there is likely a source of photons (assuming light only comes from photons, like we think today) or a glob of photons or something.
I don't disagree, but I don't quite agree, but that's a topic for a different discussion.
This may have come from the "waters", if the waters is supposed to be inclusive of all the material in the universe, or it might have been a separate creation of material. Hard to say.
Honestly, Derf, it sounds like you're making a lot of this up on the fly (not saying you actually are), but the important point is that it's not very consistent with what the text says.
So far, you have water that isn't really water, the earth that isn't really the earth, the heavens which isn't quite the heavens, and the deep which you don't know what it is, but maybe it's water(?).
And we're not even done with day 1 yet, let alone days 2, 3, and 4!
It's not a very good theory if most of it is just guesswork!
On the other hand, with my position, I simply let the words mean what they say:
The heavens are the heavens. (Synecdoche: the matter that was used to make the heavens)
The earth is the earth. (Synecdoche: the matter that was used to make the earth)
The deep is just the depths of the waters.
The waters is the upper portion of the water that was on the earth.
And the evening and the morning is God setting the earth into motion, spinning it on its axis, after making light and causing the earth to be lit up only on one side, rather than it being omnidirectional (cf. Revelation 21:23, 22:5).
Yes, as far as I can tell, the waters in verse 6 are, for the most part, the same as the waters in vs 2.
You have now conceded another quarter of the discussion to me with this.
However, if the waters in vs 2 include all the material in the universe, and the light was created from those waters,
I reject your premise that "the waters" in verse 6 is referring to anything other than water that is on the earth.
then it seems like the vs 6 waters is less mass than the vs 2 waters.
First, which waters in verse 6 are you referring to?
Second, what reason do you have to assert that the waters you are referring to in the above question, in verse 6 is less mass than in verse 2?
I'm not sure I'm understanding the question. "The deep" and "the waters" in vs 2 are referring to the same thing, but "the waters" and "the waters" in vs 6 is referring to 2 separated masses of material (still not sure if these are actual "water" yet).
If the deep is "the waters," as in, the deepest parts of "the waters," then why could not "the waters" and "the waters" being divided not refer to the deep (which would no longer be as deep, yet still referred to as the deep elsewhere in scripture since it is still lower down) and the upper parts of "the waters"?
In other words:
In verse 2, you have the formless and void earth, with "the face of the deep" above that, and "the face of the waters" above that, yes?
Why could not the division be between "the deep" and "the waters" at "the face of the deep", instead of appealing to a structure other than the earth outside of the earth? (reminder: synecdoches) In other words, dividing "the waters" ("below the firmament") ("the deep" which is down anyways, hence "below") from "the waters" ("above the firmament") (above which is the Spirit of God, hovering "over" "the face of the waters")?
Good question. I'd guess that it's because they are more important to mankind, for whom He is forming and filling the earth (globe, but dry land works, too, I guess).
So you don't know.
Posit: Moses' describing "the waters below the firmament" first, in the sequence where God divides "the waters" from "the waters," is because he is tying the sequence back to "the waters" of verse two, where "the deep" is mentioned first...
AND
...that his describing "the waters above the firmament" second, in the sequence where God divides "the waters" from "the waters," is because he is tying the sequence back to "the waters" of verse two, where "the waters" (cf 1:6, "divide the waters from
the waters") is referring to the waters above the deep, but below "the face of the waters."
In other words:
He's drawing a parallel back to verse 2 with verses 6-7, as follows (verse 2 first line, verse 6 second line, verse 7 third line):
"and darkness was on the face of the deep."
"divide the waters"
"divided the waters which were under the firmament"
"And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."
"from the waters"
"from the waters which were above the firmament"
A thought occurred to me as I was writing this, that God possibly used some of the material from His molding of the mantle closer to being that of a sphere to make the granitic crust. But I'm not beholden to that idea, so you don't have to respond to this bit.
I don't know, but not all did. Some used "heavens" and some used "sky".
Is there a reason it cannot be because the word used in verse 8 there is different in form than the rest of the uses in Genesis 1?
Your position isn't very strong here.
I think this is where God changed the material from whatever it was in vs 2 to regular waters and dirt/solid material.
Why do you think that?
At the very least, the waters were saturated with non-H2O material that was pulled from the waters to make the dry land.
Why can't "the waters" here be referring to "the waters which were above the firmament"?
Remember, on my view, "the heavens" are still above everything that has been discussed so far since the end of day 1, untouched.
Everything above the lower waters until you get to the upper waters.
What reason do you have to say this?
Remember, on my view, "the waters which were above the firmament" are still below "the heavens" which have not been interacted with since day 1.
This includes the sky and the universe that we know, but without any stars yet.
On this part, we agree.
Probably in a large ocean, and probably surrounding a single large continent.
So, on "the earth." Yes?
PLEASE ANSWER: Why can there be a "large ocean" here in verse 9, but not in verse 2?
PLEASE ANSWER: Why do you assume that there is a single large continent (this is not the point of contention here) surrounded on all sides by water?
Probably in the midst of the single large ocean.
You don't know?
Think of it rationally. Water flows downhill (Caveat: USUALLY, rule of thumb, generally speaking, etc).
If there is a surface with water above it, and God causes the water to gather together into a place, and dry land appears, would it not make sense that the surface is what rose up and caused the water to gather together in a different place than it was previously?
So it wasn't "the earth" which He named "Earth"?
Why do you assume it was a single large ocean?
I think your questions are all good ones, and I don't have time to respond to the rest of your post right now, so see if what I've given is helpful to you. And if you'd like me to do respond further, just ask (with some kind of link so I know which posts you still think I need to respond to).
That should be mostly everything, and I'm pretty sure I cover anything that was missed below.
Thank you.
I think you are not understanding my position here.
Hence why I asked all the questions in post #72.
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.
There are several problems with this, not the least of which being Psalm 136:6 and 2 Peter 3:5.
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.
Or, you've completely missed them, and are, either intentionally or unconsciously, ignoring them.
Hence why I asked all the questions in post #72.
Right. Isn't that where we find dry land today??
No, below the firmament of the heavens, we find birds flying.
The structure of the creation as per Genesis 1 is as follows, from top to bottom.
the firmament of the heavens
birds flying in the sky across the face of the above
the dry land called "Earth," and the gathered together waters called "Seas," formerly known as "the waters above the firmament"
the firmament
the deep, formerly known as "the waters below the firmament"
the foundations of the earth
You've taken the waters above the firmament and put them above the firmament of the heavens. The only reason is because you come to the text with the belief that there is only one firmament.
You've taken the deep and called it the gathered together waters, in direct contradiction of other scriptures, which distinguish the deep from the seas and the waters.
You've taken the earth and put it below the deep, in direct contradiction of Psalm 136:6, which says that the earth was spread out ABOVE the waters (a la the waters below the firmament of Genesis 1:6-10).
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.
So where did the waters come from in this verse?
To Him who laid out the earth
above the waters,For His mercy endures forever;
To Him who laid out the earth above the waters, For His mercy endures forever;
www.biblegateway.com
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 you want to find out what a specific word was originally intended to convey, then you shouldn't go to the Latin. Not that there's anything wrong with the latin translations, but meaning can be lost when you go from Hebrew to Latin to English.
This is one of the best arguments we have against atheists who claim "well wouldn't your Bible have lost any of the original meaning, since it's been translated so many times?" because the claim begs the question that it has, when in fact it's only been translated ONCE, from Hebrew and Greek DIRECTLY into English.
Because of that, instead of trying to find out what the English transliteration of a Latin word means, like "firmamentum" or "expansum," we can go directly to the Hebrew word, to find out the meaning that was originally intended to convey, or as close to it as possible.
The Hebrew word that was used, that most English Bibles have as "firmament" or "expanse" is "raqia."
Raqia means:
Strong's h7549
- Lexical: רָקִיעַ
- Transliteration: raqia
- Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
- Phonetic Spelling: raw-kee'-ah
- Definition: an extended surface, expanse.
- Origin: From raqa'; properly, an expanse, i.e. The firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky.
- Usage: firmament.
- Translated as (count): the firmament (8), in the firmament (3), of the firmament (3), a firmament (1), from above the firmament (1), in firmament (1). |
Raqia is the noun from the verb raqa meaning being hammered or spread out, as in working metal into a thin sheet or plate. "They beat (raqa) the gold into thin sheets" (Exodus 39:3). "The goldsmith overspreads (raqa) it with gold" (Isaiah 40:19; i.e., gold-plated). Similarly, God overspread the waters of the earth with the plates of the earth's crust, i.e., the firmament, what Walt Brown calls hydroplates. For "God made the firmament (raqia), and divided the waters which were under the firmament (raqia, the crustal plates) from the waters which were above the firmament" (Genesis 1:7). |
kgov.com/firmament
To reiterate: The "firmament of the heavens" is a figurative usage of "firmament" which describes the appearance of firmness which allows God to place stars in the sky, and give the appearance of them not moving. Thus, the birds can fly across "the face of the heavens" because it is something that has the appearance of a "firm surface" into which the stars were set, even if it's not ACTUALLY a surface at all.
This is why it's a bad idea to take scripture TOO literally, or TOO figuratively, and especially why it's a bad idea to read preconceived notions into the text!
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.
Not when it's not a void, but a surface that is being described.
It's literally why the flat earth movement is taking over the minds of modern Christians, and why it's important to understand exactly what is being said in Scripture, to be able to combat both the atheists and the flat earth movement.
In other words, in addition to providing a mostly physics-based explanation for the flood of Noah, the Hydroplate Theory has the added benefit of being able to scripturally counter such nonsense movements like the flat earth.
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 firmament wasn't called "good" yet because it wasn't finished being made yet, and then it WAS called good on
DAY 3, NOT on Day 4!
Day 1: God made the heavens, the earth, and light, and starts the world spinning. "It was good."
Day 2-3: God started making the firmament, but didn't finish it until partway into day 3, which would make sense if the firmament is something that needs to be pounded out or beaten, to be spread out in the midst of the waters. And then...
Day 3: God started working on forming the firmament, to shape it into terrain that the thing he works on next can live upon.
"It was good." and only then, later in the day, He started to make plant life.
"It was good."
Day 4: While the plants are growing, having been "pulled" up from the ground (accelerated growth, most likely, as per scripture), He puts lights in the sky, stars, the sun, and the moon, and gives meaning to their movements, and sets them for seasons, day and night (likely attaching light to stars at this point). "It was good."
Day 5: God makes sea creatures and puts them into the Seas, and creates birds that fly across "the face of the firmament of the heavens" (supra). "It was good."
Day 6: God makes land animals. "It was good." God makes man, and gives him dominion over the earth He just created. "It was very good."
You want to tell me that the firmament wasn't "good," yet after everything God made in chapter 1, He saw that "it was good."
There is a "it was good" after making light, and additionally, the heavens and the earth, which was formless and void before God started creating.
There is a "it was good" after making the firmament.
There is a "it was good" after making plant life.
There is a "it was good" after making the lights in the heavens.
There is a "it was good" after making creatures that fly/swim through fluids.
There is a "it was good" after making land animals.
There is a "it was very good" after making man.
The only difference between the firmament and the rest is that it took longer than a day to complete.
Edit: And coming back through this, I think I see the problem.
You seem to think that God did not say "it was good" after making the firmament, and that the only time on day 3 that He said it was after making the plants. This is clearly not the case.
He saw that something was good TWICE on day 3, and 0 TIMES on Day 2.
I'm not sure how you missed that!
The Earth was formless and void. And dark. And God never said it was good like that.
Because He hadn't started forming what He had created yet.
He started that in verse 6, on day 2.
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".
In English, yes, they are synonyms.
But you're forgetting that ancient Hebrew had far fewer words (around 14,000 words) than modern English does (171,476 words in current use), and so what was said was said carefully.
"Void" in Genesis 1:2 is "bohu."
"Desolate" in Jeremiah 4:27 is "shemamah."
Also, Jeremiah 4:19-31 is a prophecy against Israel, not describing something and comparing it to the events of Genesis 1, like other passages do, though I do recognize the parallels.
Yes. Isn't that what you are saying? That God made the "firmament of the heavens" and the earth?
No, because that's not what the Bible says.
It says that God made {the heavens} on day 1, and then on day 4 put the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament (figurative use comparing it to the raqia of days 2-3) of {the heavens}.
I'm saying what the Bible says, which is that God made a raqia on day 2, then formed that raqia on day 3, and called it Heaven, not {the heavens}. And then defined the "location" of what was made on day 1, {the heavens}, as "the firmament of the heavens."
Greek and Hebrew, as well as English, tend to treat the first usage of a word different than the subsequent uses.
Then why in Genesis 1 does the first usages of "shamayim" and "erets" both use the article?
Something doesn't line up with this claim.
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.
And it's not until verse 10 that "erets" is used without the article.
Same as "shamayim."
This supports my position, in that something new is introduced with the non-article "erets" and "shamayim." Something other than "the heavens" and "the earth."
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.
Yes, God can indeed bring forth grass from "the earth."
Just as God can put stars in the firmament of "the heavens."
This doesn't require there to be a literal "firmament" in the heavens.
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.)
I addressed this above, but here's a hint:
Seas are made of water. Where else in Genesis 1 is there water?
Sounds like an appeal to authority to me, and likely a false one from your own point of view.
This is the second time now that you've falsely accused me of an appeal to authority.
You don't seem to understand what it is.
An appeal to authority is when you say "Because authority X says P, therefore P must be true."
I have NOT done this.
What I said was that there was a reason that the translators (the authority) used "Heaven" instead of "the heavens." And it was the fact that 1) there is no "the" article present in the Hebrew, and 2) God was NAMING SOMETHING!
THAT is PLENTY OF REASON to use "Heaven."
Note how NEITHER of those reasons for using "Heaven" are "because the translators used Heaven"!
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).
YOU'RE now the one making an appeal to authority.
The reason (in other words, a reason beside "X said so") that "sky" was used is because that's literally what is being talked about.
I'm not saying that those instances of "shamayim" are talking about the crust of the earth. I'm saying a specific instance of "shamayim" is talking about the crust of the earth, the one which the context describes as "raqia."
That's not really true. The Bible is a true authority, and we both appeal to it all the time.
Yes, but what we have is not perfect, and so therefore care must be taken when dealing with important passages (such as the creation week) so that we do not be misled into believing falsehoods based on what other men have said.
The ones you have to watch out for are FALSE appeals to authority.
Which I have not once made!
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.
I honestly don't care what they think. They aren't here to discuss it. You're more than welcome to invite them on, and then we can discuss. But until they do, all it is is anecdotes against the theory.
What I care about is what the Bible ACTUALLY says, not what some random people think about what the Bible says.
In other words, the theory doesn't require, in their opinion and mine, that tenet.
Then clearly neither you nor they understand the hydroplate theory.
The theory asserts that the firmament of day 2 IS the crust of the earth, and that the "waters above the firmament" are what were "gathered into one place," and that the waters below the firmament are the deep of verse 2, "laid up in storehouses" (Psalm 33:7) and covered by the earth (Psalm 136:6),
If calling "earth" "heaven" is a foundation of the theory, then it deserves to fall.
Based on what evidence, sir?
Because you it doesn't line up with your preferred interpretation of what it says?
Because it disagrees with your
a priori beliefs about the text?
Because "the firmament" of day 2 is commonly understood as referring to the sky, rather than something which no one has considered yet?
None of those are valid reasons for the Hydroplate theory to "fall."
I don't think that's foundational.
So what?
I don't care what you think.
I care about what the text ACTUALLY SAYS!
I care about the truth, not the opinions of a random stranger on the internet who thinks something isn't foundational.
If the whole earth was made of water at the beginning,
Not what I said, nor is that what the HPT asserts.
This is why I said you clearly weren't paying attention to what I wrote in post #61, because I EVEN POSTED IMAGES DEPICTING A CUTAWAY VIEW OF WHAT THE EARTH WOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE!!!!
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.
:blabla:
Of course! That's because it is the first use of the word.
Except it isn't.
It's not the first use of the word, for either "erets" OR for "shamayim."
Guess where the first use is?
GENESIS 1:1!
"In the beginning God created....
THE HEAVENS and
THE EARTH
"The heavens" is "hassamayim" (shamayim).
"The earth" is "haares" (erets).
THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT I WAS SAYING IN POST 61!!!
If you use the definite article when you are defining your usage of the word for the first time,
That's what Moses did.
Because you say so?
"The Heavens" indicates that the reader knows which Heavens you are talking about.
Genesis 1:1
READ. IT.
But if you haven't previously introduced the concept of "Heavens",
Moses did.
In. Verse. ONE.
the definite article doesn't belong.
Then Moses has some explaining to do.
Later (every other usage) the definite article makes sense.
The only time in Genesis 1 where there is no article used for EITHER "erets" or "shamayim" is in verse 8.
In BOTH instances, there has ALREADY BEEN a usage of BOTH WORDS
WITH the article.
Your position is what doesn't make sense, unless verse 8 is introducing a new "heaven" and a new "earth" that hasn't already been described.
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).
You're begging the question that your assumption that the firmament is space is true.
The HPT challenges that assumption. Therefore, you cannot just assume that your assumption is correct, and you have yet to establish that it IS correct.
Are the following verses speaking of the heaven that is the crust of the earth or the firmament of the heavens (where stars are and on the surface of which birds fly)?
Genesis 6:17 KJV — And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
This one could be argued either way.
[Bringing floodwaters from under heaven to destroy all flesh] certainly fits the HPT view.
But I think in all likelihood, the "from under heaven" is referring to all flesh, rather than the waters.
But certainly possible.
Genesis 7:11 KJV — In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
This is talking about rain falling. From the sky, in case that wasn't obvious.
Rain falling from the sky AFTER the fountains of the great deep breaking forth describes water going up then coming back down, causing flooding.
Genesis 7:19 KJV — And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
This is indeed referring to the sky.
...
And before you try to make the argument: No, using verses that are accounted for by my position does not work as an argument against my position, especially considering the possibility that one of the verses could have been influenced by the translators' view (which is why an appeal to authority is a fallacy) that the firmament of day 2 is talking about the heavens, rather than the crust of the earth, and thus translated to fit that view. Or, maybe my position is just influencing my reading of the text, which is why I'm not relying on my own understanding, but using scripture to interpret scripture.