Ok.
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.
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.
So, I think you are saying we have the earth that isn't really the earth, the heavens which is more than the heavens. Sound familiar?
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.
The "not quite spherical" is due to other bodies that can exert forces or other motion that can affect the shape. If the original earth-size lump has no other forces, or if the forces act evenly, and the earth hasn't started spinning, there's no reason to think it wasn't a sphere...except if the matter was made in such a way that it hadn't yet had time to form the sphere. I can certainly see that a water-covered planet would be spherical. We would say that is a "form", like a "circle of the earth" (Is 40:22), as seen from a distance. So if it has the same form (circle/sphere) later as it does in vs 2, why would the text say "formless"?
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?
Yes, but it requires something more than reading just what the text says. We can suppose some things, or assume some things, but it requires more than the text gives us.
That is what I said, is it not?
----
I don't see why it couldn't be, especially given verse 2.
Why can't it be both an introduction and a statement of a specific event within the story?
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.
My guess is that "formless" would have to refer both to "not shaped" and "without features", and "void" would refer to "no contents" (like trees, animals, people).
Why? In other words, there's no need for it to be.
It stands on its own. It doesn't require any of the details that follow to be a complete statement about the whole of creation.
Supra.
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.
Not if the first verse, and the first part of the second is an introduction. As an introduction, the definite articles refer to things recognized by the reader, like "the earth" and "the heavens". These are things he can view around him while reading (or listening to someone read) the text. Kind of like saying "Let me tell you how God created the heavens that you see and the earth that you stand on." Then the creative narrative starts in the 2nd half of vs 2, where the Spirit of God is at work.
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.
I think you're wrong. If the text is sharing something about the things the audience is experiencing (earth under feet and sky overhead including the sun or moon and stars), then the second verse would describe a "no earth under feet" situation that had to be rectified to get to where things become like the audience is seeing.
Water yes.
"A mass of water," as in, "a glob of water in the void," no.
Maybe, at the very beginning:
[Pro 8:27 NKJV] When He prepared the heavens, I [was] there, When He drew a circle on the face of the deep,
Why?
You have "the earth," then "the deep," then "the waters."
You have the earth, which isn't recognizable (formless and void), and the deep which has a surface.
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.
I'm suggesting things. I'm ok with having to alter my position.
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"?
Because, when God specifically called the dry land "Earth", it was because that was the first time it was discernable. And just prior to that, it was all water. Even in your view, the "earth" was not solid until God made the raqia.
Ok, that's fine.
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?
Yes. Most of the time, it is the ocean/sea, as in Jonah.
[Jon 2:3 NKJV] For You cast me into the deep, Into the heart of the seas, And the floods surrounded me; All Your billows and Your waves passed over me.
[Jon 2:5 NKJV] The waters surrounded me, [even] to my soul; The deep closed around me; Weeds were wrapped around my head.
Other times it might be something else, but usually involving water, I think.
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?
Not in the same way. It uses the word to describe something, but it doesn't say "And God called xyz 'Deep'".
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?
A priori? I'm reading the text for what it says! I would never have guessed there's a layer of water surrounding the heavens if the text didn't clearly state it.
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.
From Strongs:
mayim, mah'-yim; dual of a primitive noun (but used in a singular sense); water;
figuratively, juice; by euphemism, urine, semen:— piss, wasting, water(-ing, (-course, -flood, -spring)).
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?
I reject your premise that Genesis 1:2 is talking about something other than the current (at that time) state of planet earth.
You might be correct, but because the terms is specifically defined later, it casts some doubt over whether 1:2 is talking about anything except "the dry" God called "Earth".
Agreed.
I don't disagree, but I don't quite agree, but that's a topic for a different discussion.
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.
I'm reading the passage over and over. I'm trying to read it for what it says, which you repeatedly say to do. I don't mind finding out new information as I'm doing so, and if that makes it seem like I'm making up something on the fly, then so be it. But after all of the re-reading, I still have a hard time with God calling the unrevealed "Earth" "Heaven", then calling it "Earth" when it is revealed and dry, when that's not what the text actually 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(?).
Sounds like I'm in good company (supra).
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).
You have now conceded another quarter of the discussion to me with this.
I reject your premise that "the waters" in verse 6 is referring to anything other than water that is on the earth.
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?
Your first question answers the second. If there was at one time a single mass of waters, then if later there are two masses of waters made from the first, be definition (without additional miracle), either of the second two would be less mass than the first.
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")?
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"
Am I understanding you correctly as saying that vs 2 refers to an already separated waters? That "the deep" is the waters below the firmament that already exists, and "the waters" refers to the waters above the firmament that already exists?
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.
Ok
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?
There is a distinction between the heavens where the stars are and the sky where birds fly. I think some translators are trying to treat them the same, and in some instances that might be correct. But Gen 1 seems to distinguish between the "firmament of the heavens" (where stars are) and "face of the heavens" where birds fly.
Your position isn't very strong here.
Why do you think that?
I'm trying to make sense out of the passage just as you are. I think there are likely deeper things to glean from it than just a surface-level reading would provide, just as you do. But those things are tricky, and need to be re-evaluated often. Sometimes we can try to view them from a lens of what science thinks it knows today, but sometimes we can't.
Why can't "the waters" here be referring to "the waters which were above the firmament"?
Because the firmament wasn't in existence yet in vs 2. Did I misunderstand your question? It seems like you are saying the firmament existed in vs 2, with waters above and below, but the waters weren't divided that way until vs 6, when God said "Let there be a firmament..."
Remember, on my view, "the heavens" are still above everything that has been discussed so far since the end of day 1, untouched.
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.
It is what vs 6 speaks of: a firmament that separated the waters called "Heaven(s)" that will later be filled with stars and such.
On this part, we agree.
So, on "the earth." Yes?
On the globe earth, yes. On the "dry" that is called earth, no.
PLEASE ANSWER: Why can there be a "large ocean" here in verse 9, but not in verse 2?
Because the ocean is defined by the land that didn't exist in vs 2. "Defined" here meaning "marking the borders of". When the text says the waters are moved into one place, it is using the land to mark the waters, not the other way around.
[Gen 1:9 NKJV] 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.
[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.
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?
Implied by the text, but probably more from the way God only had to confuse languages after the flood, before the landmasses were too separate to be bridged (by ice or lower oceans).
I'm not too hard on this point.
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?
"Different" is different than "one".
So it wasn't "the earth" which He named "Earth"?
It was "the dry", according to vs 10. I don't think it was the globe we call Earth there. Read it again and see.
Why do you assume it was a single large ocean?
Supra.
That should be mostly everything, and I'm pretty sure I cover anything that was missed below.
Thank you.
Thank you, too. These kinds of back and forth are helpful, even if the posts get long.
Hence why I asked all the questions in post #72.
There are several problems with this, not the least of which being Psalm 136:6 and 2 Peter 3:5.
I don't see these as conflicting with my view.
[Psa 136:6 NKJV] To Him who laid out the earth above the waters, For His mercy [endures] forever;--
Could mean just that the land that we see is always higher than the waters it touches.
[2Pe 3:5 NKJV] For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,--
Could mean that the dry land was dry (not covered by water) and was above the water at the shoreline.
Or, you've completely missed them, and are, either intentionally or unconsciously, ignoring them.
Hence why I asked all the questions in post #72.
No, below the firmament of the heavens, we find birds flying.
That's what I said...below the firmament. The first chapter of genesis, and as far as I can tell all of the rest of scripture, speaks of only one firmament. You've suggested two in Gen 1, but I don't think you've given other scripture that supports a firmament that is the crust of the earth (I may not be remembering).
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.
Well, I didn't put them there. I would hardly know how.
The only reason is because you come to the text with the belief that there is only one firmament.
No, I come to the text and it calls the first firmament "Heaven", then it never suggests another one, anywhere in scripture.
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,
Below the firmament, not 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).
Yes, because the waters were gathered into one place when the dry land appeared, and, as you said, water flows downhill. So the land is usually above the waters in altitude.
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
The are the waters that were below the firmament that were gathered into one place when dry land, called "Earth" appeared.
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.
It is a type of surface...it is the outer layer of the vacuum of space when compared to the dry land (earth).
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!
Not when it's not a void, but a surface that is being described.
The stars are put into the firmament of the heavens, but the birds fly on the face (surface) of the heavens. I think you need both descriptions to get the idea that it is a volume, not a surface only.
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.
All of which is good and laudable about the HPT.
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!
No, what was called "good" on Day 3 was the dry land and the seas separated (then the plants).
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!
Because He hadn't started forming what He had created yet.
He started that in verse 6, on day 2.
Then you agree that He can create something on one day, like the firmament, that He later calls good after making it less void like putting stars in it.
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.
No, because that's not what the Bible says.
It says that God made {the heavens} on day 1,
I'm not so sure it says that, since it clearly says "Earth" was not made until day 3, yet it is mentioned in vs 1. I.e., Vs 1 may not be talking about day 1 only, but all the days of creation, just like Gen 2:1
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."
I think you are saying that God made a firmament on Day 1, then made another one on Day 2, then called the 2nd one "Heavens", after He had already called the first one "the Heavens".
Then why in Genesis 1 does the first usages of "shamayim" and "erets" both use the article?
Supra, but I'll repeat. If Vs 1 is speaking to a bunch of people that are standing out on dry land, looking up at the heavens, then the article is appropriate, even if later the narrative explains HOW those things were made and then named.
Something doesn't line up with this claim.
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."
I disagree. The new things are called what they are today, but they had just been made.
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.
Depends on what you mean by "literal". If the "firmament" means the stars are fixed in place, or in their paths, then it might be literal in that way.
I addressed this above, but here's a hint:
Seas are made of water. Where else in Genesis 1 is there water?
"Seas" are not referred to until land exists.
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."
Not to use it for something that isn't ever elsewhere called "Heaven".
And He wasn't naming "something"! He was naming "Heaven".
Note how NEITHER of those reasons for using "Heaven" are "because the translators used Heaven"!
YOU'RE now the one making an appeal to authority.
So if I appeal to some English translators, I'm appealing to authority, but if you appeal to other English translators, you're not? How does that work?
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."
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.
Which I have not once made!
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.
Yet I doubt you would be reading the bible this way if Walt Brown had not suggested to do so. Walt Brown is not "some random person" to you, but to me and others he certainly is. So having never heard of anyone coming to the same conclusion as Walt brown or those that have read and agree with his theory, my response is the same as yours--I care about what the bible ACTUALLY says, not what some random people think the bible says.
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),
Based on what evidence, sir?
Based on a lack of evidence. Based on what I've said before, that having to conjure up a weird use of "heaven" that is probably not supportable in other parts of scripture.
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."
So what?
I don't care what you think.
I care about what the text ACTUALLY SAYS!
The pictures you gave are not in the text. That's not what I think, that's factual. Don't use the pictures as evidence. (This is not to say I don't appreciate the pictures, nor even the theory they describe, but just because you can draw a picture of what you think they looked like doesn't mean the scriptures are perfectly describing your pictures.
I care about the truth, not the opinions of a random stranger on the internet who thinks something isn't foundational.
Not what I said, nor is that what the HPT asserts.
I wasn't trying to assert the HPT assertions there. I'm suggesting an alternative.
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!!!!
I'm not talking about the theory's pictures of the earth. Those are...theoretical. They don't carry weight UNLESS the theory proves to be true in all aspects (with regard to Gen 1). I could just as easily draw you a picture of what I'm proposing and use it as evidence for my view. Of course you wouldn't accept it, and neither do I accept your picture as some kind of evidence, only as a speculation.
:blabla:
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!!!
That's what Moses did.
Because you say so?
Genesis 1:1
READ. IT.
Moses did.
In. Verse. ONE.
Then Moses has some explaining to do.
No, I don't think he does. He uses the definite article in vs 1 because he is introducing the topic to the reader, who knows what heaven and earth are. But the creation narrative doesn't use the definite article when the introductions are made in vss 8 and 10.
The only time in Genesis 1 where there is no article used for EITHER "erets" or "shamayim" is in verse 8.
(vs 10 for "erets")
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.
Or, as I said before, the introduction verses are merely introduction, and the topic is being fully detailed after Vs 2. That would, indeed, make vs 8 introduce a new heaven and 9 a new earth not already described. In other words, even vs 2, telling of a "formless and void" earth aren't describing the earth--the earth (dry land) doesn't really exist if it has neither form (shape) or filling: there's just "waters". So vs 9 explains what Earth is and how it got there, and vs 10 names it.
But let's take it as you say, that vs 8 introduces a new heaven not introduced and vs 9-10 introduces a new earth not introduced. But didn't you say that "heaven" in vs 8 is referring to "earth" that wasn't finished yet? So now you have two names for the same creation. Or, if "heaven" refers to the earth before it becomes "earth", then "heaven" is only ever used for that purpose in that one verse in the whole bible. Of course, I think that's where you are anyway, that all other uses of "raqia" and "heaven" in the whole bible after Gen 1:8 are speaking of the above-heaven. The number of "raqia" uses are easily searched, and I think I'm correct. The number of "heaven" (shamayim) uses are numerous, so I'm making the assertion that I'm right and leaving it to you to prove me wrong.
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.
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.
Then the formulation of "heaven" not "the heavens" can be referring to the above-heaven, right?
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.
So again, the formulation of "heaven" without the definite article, can apply to the above-heaven.
This is indeed referring to the sky.
Yeah, I'm not sure why I included that one, although it does seem to help understand the previous one.
...
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.
But if the scripture you are using allows a different reading of the scripture you're trying to understand, you should allow for different reading in the one you're trying to understand.
My three examples (only two good ones) were intended to try to understand if there are any other verses where "heaven" (no definite article) refers to the earth. So since we are in agreement on those, can you offer one or more where "heaven" means something on earth?
(I did some of the above in reverse order. My apologies if it seems like I'm referring to something below as something above.)