• 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
Here is another point of view. The firmament was a realm established to divide living creatures from living creatures. God was about to create humanity and most people believe that he had already created the angels. This firmament called Heaven was to be a realm where God could place or not place life. I believe he ultimately did use it for storing sentient created beings... such as the saved in Bosom of Abraham, the lost in Hell, and the demons destined for the Pit. There may be other things there by this time ... like - where is the war in Heaven taking place which an angel had to fight his way through to get to ??? was it Daniel???? I forget.

Gen 1 is a place where the Spirit, the invisible God was working within his Spiritual essence creating and establishing new things that were not. He may have even brought forth the heavens and the earth ... but he did not bring forth all things. Gen. 1 is very different from Genesis 2. In Gen. 1 the invisible Spirit was at work but in Genesis two God the Spirit stopped his work and allowed another to complete things.

Gen.2 tells us who was working. YHWY/LORD God. He was "Emmanuel/God appearing with Adam and Woman."He began to bring forth things God the Spirit had already prepared and to manifest them within a realm where things could be SEEN! Gen. 2 is a totally separate event. The LORD, who would talk and walk in the Garden, brought forth all sorts of things which the Spiritual God had already designed and established. I believe that Male/Female spiritually existed alive in Gen. 1 within God the Spirit, but it was The LORD who formed a visible body for them in Gen. 2

Now, once man had been created and angels existed then the firmament realm named Heaven was ready for use when needed.

Did you even bother reading the thread up to this point?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Here is another point of view. The firmament was a realm established to divide living creatures from living creatures. God was about to create humanity and most people believe that he had already created the angels. This firmament called Heaven was to be a realm where God could place or not place life. I believe he ultimately did use it for storing sentient created beings... such as the saved in Bosom of Abraham, the lost in Hell, and the demons destined for the Pit. There may be other things there by this time ... like - where is the war in Heaven taking place which an angel had to fight his way through to get to ??? was it Daniel???? I forget.

Gen 1 is a place where the Spirit, the invisible God was working within his Spiritual essence creating and establishing new things that were not. He may have even brought forth the heavens and the earth ... but he did not bring forth all things. Gen. 1 is very different from Genesis 2. In Gen. 1 the invisible Spirit was at work but in Genesis two God the Spirit stopped his work and allowed another to complete things.

Gen.2 tells us who was working. YHWY/LORD God. He was "Emmanuel/God appearing with Adam and Woman."He began to bring forth things God the Spirit had already prepared and to manifest them within a realm where things could be SEEN! Gen. 2 is a totally separate event. The LORD, who would talk and walk in the Garden, brought forth all sorts of things which the Spiritual God had already designed and established. I believe that Male/Female spiritually existed alive in Gen. 1 within God the Spirit, but it was The LORD who formed a visible body for them in Gen. 2

Now, once man had been created and angels existed then the firmament realm named Heaven was ready for use when needed.
No.

Exodus 20:11
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.

That includes the angels. Before the creation week, God was all that existed.
 

Ps82

Well-known member
No.

Exodus 20:11
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.

That includes the angels. Before the creation week, God was all that existed.
I have to admit that I do not know a lot about angels and when they were created. I just know that waters refers to spiritual life and that Heaven is a place... a realm within the infinite God.

You might find it enlightening or at least interesting to think outside the box for a few minutes regarding Gen 1 and 2. In Gen. 1 God is described as an elohim/elohiym ... and the beginning sentences describe where he is and how he is. He is moving denoting life. He is creating denoting knowledge and power BUT he in deep darkness. A word which may describe deep darkness is invisible infinity!

God/Elohiym is working as a Spirit in Genesis 1 and he establishes all sorts of things and I figure manifested some of them - like sun moon stars and probably we might add planets like earth, BUT at some point the invisible spiritual God stops HIS WORKS.

So, who takes over?
Answer: The LORD God of course begins his generations of work with a more hands on approach.

So who is the LORD who worked in Genesis 2?
Answer: God explained to Moses who he was/is.


I'll share one time when God made it clear who The LORD was. You see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not know of any chosen name of God in their day. Exodus 6:2-3 and Exodus 3:2,6.They thought of him as God Almighty.

The chosen name of LORD was revealed to Moses and he inserted it correctly when he wrote his five books of history.
Here is the official event: Exodus 3:14-16 [The Burning Bush visitation] Verses 15 and 16 being key to my point.

15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shall thou say unto the children of Israel, "THE LORD God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you." [God says:] "This is MY NAME FOR EVER, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, "THE LORD GOD of your fathers ... appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you ..."

Do you get it Clete?
Conclusion: The presence within the burning bush was God in an angelic form which could be seen. The invisible Spirit had an image and when he appeared with it God had chosen a NAME. That name is: The LORD. Moses knew him face to face; so, when Moses wrote Gen. 1 and 2 he knew when to change the name of God from Elohiym to The LORD/YHWH.

God the Spirit rested on the 7th Day but The LORD began working and Adam ultimately saw God Face to face in the Garden.

Conclusion: Gen. 1 and 2 are two separate events ... you do not have to try to fit chapter two into chapter one. I like to describe it for myself like this: The Spirit established things within him and manifested some things as well, but God as The LORD began to bring things forth and worked more face to face hands on.
 

Bladerunner

Active member
No.

Exodus 20:11
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.

That includes the angels. Before the creation week, God was all that existed.
the Bible tells us of three heavens....two of them were made at creation...the first Heaven, (God's own home) was already there prior to this event.
 

Right Divider

Body part
God the Spirit rested on the 7th Day but The LORD began working and Adam ultimately saw God Face to face in the Garden.
Where do you get your bizarre ideas?

Gen 2:1-3 (AKJV/PCE)​
(2:1) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. (2:2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (2:3) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.​

Conclusion: Gen. 1 and 2 are two separate events ...
No, they are NOT. They are two separate ACCOUNTS of the SAME events.
you do not have to try to fit chapter two into chapter one.
No, you don't. Because they are two separate ACCOUNTS of the SAME events.
I like to describe it for myself like this: The Spirit established things within him and manifested some things as well, but God as The LORD began to bring things forth and worked more face to face hands on.
Support your bizarre claims.
 

Derf

Well-known member
He is in control of over everything and all things in the entire universe. NOT one molecule is outside of His control. If it is, then He is not GOD and we can never be assured of what the Bible tells us. I
Meaning that God controls the sinner's thoughts? That the most evil intentions of man's heart are God's intentions? That His will is already done on earth, and it includes murder, rape, adultery, witchcraft, sodomy, etc.? If so, then we already can't be assured of what the Bible tells us, because it tells us "God is love, just, righteous."
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I have to admit that I do not know a lot about angels and when they were created. I just know that waters refers to spiritual life and that Heaven is a place... a realm within the infinite God.
[/QUOTE]
The sea is actually paralleled with death and condemnation and sin. This is why (well, one of the reasons anyway) there will be no oceans on the New Earth.

You might find it enlightening or at least interesting to think outside the box for a few minutes regarding Gen 1 and 2. In Gen. 1 God is described as an elohim/elohiym ... and the beginning sentences describe where he is and how he is. He is moving denoting life. He is creating denoting knowledge and power BUT he in deep darkness. A word which may describe deep darkness is invisible infinity!
In what way is any of that thinking outside of the box?

God wasn't blind before He created light. He is light! (Note that light is NOT God, by the way. Yet another example of where the axiom if A=B then B=A does not hold true.) The darkness existed within the physical, created universe not throughout God's entire existence.

God/Elohiym is working as a Spirit in Genesis 1 and he establishes all sorts of things and I figure manifested some of them - like sun moon stars and probably we might add planets like earth, BUT at some point the invisible spiritual God stops HIS WORKS.
Again, I see nothing here that is outside the box. God is a Spirit, He created, then He stop creating. What's so clever about that?

So, who takes over?
Answer: The LORD God of course begins his generations of work with a more hands on approach.


So who is the LORD who worked in Genesis 2?
Answer: God explained to Moses who he was/is.
This might very well be blasphemy, it is certainly heresy!

Him who became Jesus and died - dead - on the cross is the self same person who created EVERYTHING that exists besides Himself. Jesus IS Yahweh in the flesh! Believe it or die in your sin.

I'll share one time when God made it clear who The LORD was. You see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not know of any chosen name of God in their day. Exodus 6:2-3 and Exodus 3:2,6.They thought of him as God Almighty.

The chosen name of LORD was revealed to Moses and he inserted it correctly when he wrote his five books of history.
Here is the official event: Exodus 3:14-16 [The Burning Bush visitation] Verses 15 and 16 being key to my point.


15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shall thou say unto the children of Israel, "THE LORD God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you." [God says:] "This is MY NAME FOR EVER, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, "THE LORD GOD of your fathers ... appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you ..."

Do you get it Clete?
Conclusion: The presence within the burning bush was God in an angelic form which could be seen. The invisible Spirit had an image and when he appeared with it God had chosen a NAME. That name is: The LORD. Moses knew him face to face; so, when Moses wrote Gen. 1 and 2 he knew when to change the name of God from Elohiym to The LORD/YHWH.
I'm sorry, Ps82, I'm not trying to be insulting here but this is just flatly silly.

Elohiym is the plural for "God". It's nothing at all but the Hebrew word for "Gods".

I strongly caution you against this sort of "theology". This sort of thing is how cults are created. That's literally the truth. This sort of yanking pithy sounding doctrines out of thin air based on practically nothing at all is precisely how David Koresh managed to convince his followers the he was a "sinning messiah" and how that murderous lunatic in Florida figured out his real name was "Yahweh Ben Yahweh". Imagine "God, the Son of God" dying of prostate cancer and people still worshiping that lunatic.

Anyway, you really should leave the bible to say what it says and not what sounds interesting.

God the Spirit rested on the 7th Day but The LORD began working and Adam ultimately saw God Face to face in the Garden.
No.

Conclusion: Gen. 1 and 2 are two separate events ... you do not have to try to fit chapter two into chapter one.
Definitely not!

I like to describe it for myself like this: The Spirit established things within him and manifested some things as well, but God as The LORD began to bring things forth and worked more face to face hands on.
God stopped creating things on day six, Ps82!

What possible motive could there be that is sufficient to completely toss the plain reading of the single most important book of the entire bible in favor of what I can only describe as a form mysticism that is totally foreign to anything that any sect of Christianity or Judaism has ever believed or taught. I don't get it. Maybe I'm just totally not understanding your point.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
He is in control of over everything and all things in the entire universe. NOT one molecule is outside of His control. If it is, then He is not GOD and we can never be assured of what the Bible tells us. I
That is not what the term "sovereign" means to anyone other than Augustinians (i.e. Catholics and Calvinists mostly). The word simply does not mean "control freak". It means "highest authority".

God is the highest authority that exists. He has delegated authority to many creatures for several reasons. Those creatures have the real ability to exercise that authority independent of God's direct input. God, of course, retains both the ability and the absolute right to recall that authority at His own sole discretion. He is therefore, the Sovereign of all existence.

Anything beyond that is unbiblical nonsense that was spawned by Augustine of Hippo through his veritable worship of Aristotle and Plato.
 

Ps82

Well-known member
.
Where do you get your bizarre ideas?

Gen 2:1-3 (AKJV/PCE)​
(2:1) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. (2:2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (2:3) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.​


No, they are NOT. They are two separate ACCOUNTS of the SAME events.

No, you don't. Because they are two separate ACCOUNTS of the SAME events.

Support your bizarre claims.
Shoot! I had almost finished my reply to your questions, my husband walked in to ask me somethings, and I accidentally touched something and my reply vanished!!!! His fault - LOL!

I call my ideas 'out of the usual box' which I've been fed. I read scripture carefully and compare scripture with scripture.

I'll try to explain quickly where I get the idea Gen. 1 and 2 are two separate events. Taking Mother in law to doctor appointment soon.
Gen. 1:1-2 The Strong's concordance explains that the English word God is taken from the Hebrew word #430 and 433. It is a plural word used to describe the supremacy of the ONE true creator. Moses tells us that it is the Spirit at work from Gen. 1 - six... "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. No doubt that the Creator is working as a Spirit while establishing things and forming the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 2:1-2

A serious question for you: Do you believe that The LORD God is God?

Now about Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Which Day? ... the Seventh Day. Did you notice a name change from Elohiym to YHWH or God to The LORD God? Consider how important name changes are in scripture. Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, Saul to Paul. It meant something significant had occurred. So, Who was The LORD of Genesis 2 who did work on the seventh day.

Well, Moses saw him in a burning bush. Moses saw him face to face as one friend sees another. 74 men of Israel saw his body of heaven clearly and ate a meal in his presence. Jonah thought he could run from his presence. Adam and Woman heard the foot steps of the WORD of God walking toward them and thought they could hide from his presence. Scripture is NOT talking about an invisible Spirit in Gen. 2. It was God appearing with the image he created for himself before he ever created mankind and shared its likeness with Adam!

This first mention of God's visible form ultimately became known as The Father LORD God. This was who went to work on the seventh day working in a much more hands on face to face labor. He manifested mankind, manifested the plants and such, manifested animals and brought them to Adam to name. He was a visible God who even Adam and Eve, like Jonah, thought they could hide from his finite glorious presence.

Read Gen. 1 and 2 carefully. In Gen. 1 Elohiym had established all things and brought forth a number of things in our realm of heaven like sun moon and stars and earth ... but in Gen 2. God came within his creation as The LORD and manifested many things already created into the dwelling place of humanity. See two events with Gen. 2 following Gen. 1.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I call my ideas 'out of the usual box' which I've been fed. I read scripture carefully and compare scripture with scripture.
It seems more like you are reading things into the scripture.
I'll try to explain quickly where I get the idea Gen. 1 and 2 are two separate events. Taking Mother in law to doctor appointment soon.
Gen. 1:1-2 The Strong's concordance explains that the English word God is taken from the Hebrew word #430 and 433. It is a plural word used to describe the supremacy of the ONE true creator. Moses tells us that it is the Spirit at work from Gen. 1 - six... "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. No doubt that the Creator is working as a Spirit while establishing things and forming the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 2:1-2
Compare this scripture with scripture:
John 4:24 (AKJV/PCE)​
(4:24) God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.​

A serious question for you: Do you believe that The LORD God is God?
I can only respond by saying DUH!
Now about Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Which Day? ... the Seventh Day.
IN THE DAY is a figure of speech. It is NOT talking about an individual specific day of creation.
Did you notice a name change from Elohiym to YHWH or God to The LORD God? Consider how important name changes are in scripture. Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, Saul to Paul. It meant something significant had occurred.

Saul was NOT "changed" to Paul. Please read the scripture more carefully!

Acts 13:9 (AKJV/PCE)​
(13:9) Then Saul, (who also [is called] Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,​

Paul was his Greek name. Saul was his Hebrew name. They were BOTH his names.

Regarding the names of God ... they are ALL His names. You are reading your ideas into the scripture.

So, Who was The LORD of Genesis 2 who did work on the seventh day.
The Bible clearly says that He RESTED on the seventh day.
Gen 2:2-3 (AKJV/PCE)​
(2:2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (2:3) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Read Gen. 1 and 2 carefully. In Gen. 1 Elohiym had established all things and brought forth a number of things in our realm of heaven like sun moon and stars and earth ... but in Gen 2. God came within his creation as The LORD and manifested many things already created into the dwelling place of humanity. See two events with Gen. 2 following Gen. 1.
Genesis 1 provides a sequential (day by day) description of God's creation of all things.
Genesis 2 provides details regarding the creation of MAN and WOMAN in the garden (it is all specifically focused on SOME of day 6 of creation).

They are NOT two separate events. They are two different ACCOUNTS of the SAME events (the second account being more narrowly focused).

It's just that simple.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I have to admit that I do not know a lot about angels and when they were created.

The Bible tells us when the angels were created.

They were created on Day 1.

“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements?Surely you know!Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened?Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together,And all the sons of God shouted for joy? “Or who shut in the sea with doors,When it burst forth and issued from the womb; When I made the clouds its garment,And thick darkness its swaddling band; When I fixed My limit for it,And set bars and doors; When I said,‘This far you may come, but no farther,And here your proud waves must stop!’

Now you know.

I just know that waters refers to spiritual life

Because you say so?

and that Heaven is a place...

Duh.

a realm within the infinite God.

Sounds like new-age nonsense.

You might find it enlightening or at least interesting to think outside the box for a few minutes regarding Gen 1 and 2. In Gen. 1 God is described as an elohim/elohiym ... and the beginning sentences describe where he is and how he is. He is moving denoting life. He is creating denoting knowledge and power BUT he in deep darkness. A word which may describe deep darkness is invisible infinity!

God/Elohiym is working as a Spirit in Genesis 1 and he establishes all sorts of things and I figure manifested some of them - like sun moon stars and probably we might add planets like earth, BUT at some point the invisible spiritual God stops HIS WORKS.

So, who takes over?
Answer: The LORD God of course begins his generations of work with a more hands on approach.

So who is the LORD who worked in Genesis 2?
Answer: God explained to Moses who he was/is.

Genesis 2 is not a separate account. It's a going into detail about a specific event from chapter 1.

Normal history textbooks do this too, where they'll provide an overview of a period of history, then afterwards, go into detail about a specific part of that period.

Genesis 1-2 is no different.

I'll share one time when God made it clear who The LORD was. You see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not know of any chosen name of God in their day. Exodus 6:2-3 and Exodus 3:2,6.They thought of him as God Almighty.

The chosen name of LORD was revealed to Moses and he inserted it correctly when he wrote his five books of history.
Here is the official event: Exodus 3:14-16 [The Burning Bush visitation] Verses 15 and 16 being key to my point.

15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shall thou say unto the children of Israel, "THE LORD God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you." [God says:] "This is MY NAME FOR EVER, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, "THE LORD GOD of your fathers ... appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you ..."

Do you get it Clete?
Conclusion: The presence within the burning bush was God in an angelic form which could be seen. The invisible Spirit had an image and when he appeared with it God had chosen a NAME. That name is: The LORD. Moses knew him face to face; so, when Moses wrote Gen. 1 and 2 he knew when to change the name of God from Elohiym to The LORD/YHWH.

God the Spirit rested on the 7th Day but The LORD began working and Adam ultimately saw God Face to face in the Garden.

Conclusion: Gen. 1 and 2 are two separate events ... you do not have to try to fit chapter two into chapter one. I like to describe it for myself like this: The Spirit established things within him and manifested some things as well, but God as The LORD began to bring things forth and worked more face to face hands on.

No, they're not separate events.

Chapter 2 is going into detail about day 6, when God made man.

God is the Creator.

God the Son is the Person who did the creating, not the Spirit.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
the Bible tells us of three heavens....two of them were made at creation...the first Heaven, (God's own home) was already there prior to this event.

Someone else who hasn't bothered to read the thread all the way through...

He is in control of over everything and all things in the entire universe. NOT one molecule is outside of His control. If it is, then He is not GOD and we can never be assured of what the Bible tells us.

That's not the definition of "sovereign," as Clete pointed out.

A king is sovereign over his nation.

It doesn't mean he is in absolute control of every single thing and person and atom and molecule He rules over. It means He's the highest authority OVER them.

If a king is analogous to God, then a good king is not a control freak, who has to be in control of every little thing. A good king lets his subjects live their lives and punishes wrongdoers.
 

tieman55

Member
Hello tieman55, Jumping in and going back to your original post. Very interesting read, but may I suggest my thoughts of Gen. 1:6?
I read a KJV Bible and instead of dome it uses the word firmament. It's first meaning in the Strong's Concordance is "expanse." Siri told me it is "an area" ... presenting a wide continuous surface. If God created an expanse to separate two things then it would be for a boundary between them. God actually named the expanse/boundary/firmament which he spoke into existence - He called it Heaven

Now, we may not totally understand what this Heaven is but there are some hints in the Bible. First it is a place. Take a look at a bit of poetic figurative language for a moment. Gen. 1: 6 This firmament was to be in the midst/among the waters. It was to divide the waters from the waters. I have figured out that waters have to do with spiritual life. I also have learned that God, who is life and the giver of life, can associate measures of life to living creatures. I learned this from two scriptures.
1.) The Woman at the Well. John 4: Where Jesus told her he had an additional sort of water/life to give her from which she, as a mortal creature, would never thirst again. IOW,, an additional life that would lead to her immortality.
2.) John 3:34-35 John the Baptist answered a question from a group of his followers regarding who was Jesus. John the B explained: "For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." IOW, God does give things out in measures - just not to the Christ.

Now this firmament separates measures of waters/lives from measures of other lives and this "in-between boundary" is named Heaven. Now, I've concluded that the lives of creatures that were separated were angels from men. They each have their own realm/dwelling place, but there is an in between place as well.


Revelation 12: 7... And there was [in the future] a war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the Dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels; 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. ... [paraphrased ... 10 Satan and his were cast out of heaven at that time and those who dwell in the heavenSSSS/plural should rejoice at that time ... 12 BUT woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you ...]

Conclusion: Heaven is a place not an object. I like to call Heaven a realm for the living even though it was originally established to separate life from life. IOW, it was created for a purpose - to separate created living beings from created living beings. It is a place which has rooms or storage areas for life... and there will be beings within those heavenSSSS at the end of time when Satan is finally cast down to earth having great wrath.

Now, I said all the things above to also share this idea with you. Gen. 1 is a totally different event from Gen. 2. There may be little or no over lapping of events between the two.

a. In Genesis 1 God is establishing all sort of things within his spiritual essence and just one of those things was a place for separating things within himself. In Gen. 1 not everything is manifested the way we know things here on earth at this time. The firmament was a place / an expanse for storing life. Most of us understand that these places in the realm of heaven may be at least three: The bosom of Abraham, the Pit, and Hell. The Saints versus lost souls versus lost angels.

b. Genesis 2 is a new event where God comes among mankind and works as the LORD God to bring forth, manifest, many of the things pertaining to mankind upon the earthly Garden. Earth is really just like another realm where mankind by God's design is separated from, say: the angels, the people who have passed on, and even from God ... unless God decides to visit us.
Johann Kepler looked at what is and then explained what he read in the Bible.
I am just looking at Hoba and then explaining what I read in Genesis 1:6 and elsewhere.
Hoba is what it is, and it was never in space.
Hoba is an alloy, an alloy that is today found in the mid latitudes in the form of massive amounts of Pentlandite ((Fe,Ni)9S8) and Pyrrhotite (Fe1-xS) that is easily explained due to, a breaking up of the fountains of the deep and the presents of sulfur form water life.
Pentlandite and Pyrrhotite that will NEVER be an alloy of iron nickel. Hoba is a very small part of God's infrastructure for? I say fountains of the deep.
This is copied and pasted from deepai.org

Conclusion:
If the Hoba meteorite were pulverized and subjected to the conditions you described (contact with sulfur-rich deep waters, heat, and pressure), it is highly likely that Pentlandite and Pyrrhotite would form. The process would be similar to the natural formation of these minerals in certain geological settings.

This scenario actually provides an interesting model for understanding how some nickel-iron sulfide deposits might form, especially those associated with meteorite impacts or deep crustal processes involving metal-rich materials.

The unique composition of Hoba (particularly its high nickel content) would likely result in a significant amount of Pentlandite, possibly more than what's typically found in many natural terrestrial deposits. The resulting mineral assemblage would be an interesting subject for study, potentially providing insights into both meteoritic materials and terrestrial ore-forming processes.
 

Right Divider

Body part
sovereignty /sŏv′ər-ĭn-tē, sŏv′rĭn-/

noun​

  1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
  2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
  3. Complete independence and self-government.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik
 

JudgeRightly

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

Actually, I'm going to correct something here.

The phrase in Hebrew is "mittahat hassamayim," and in Genesis 1, "hassamayim" is "the heavens, not "heaven."

In other words, it is most likely NOT referring to "Heaven," here, but is instead an English mistranslation that should read "from under the heavens[/U]," to be more consistent with the text.
 

Derf

Well-known member
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).
You don't know?
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;
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.)
 

Ps82

Well-known member
We are getting off topic and it is probably my fault, but I am glad that you are interested.
It seems more like you are reading things into the scripture.
Not sure what 'reading into scripture' means to you. To me it means finding keys to unlock truth. Like learning that waters refer to life God has to share ... and that he shares life in measures to created beings but shared it without measure to Christ. He has another measure of life to share with the saints which will give them immortality in the kingdom of our Risen Lord.
Compare this scripture with scripture:
John 4:24 (AKJV/PCE)​
(4:24) God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.​
I agree totally that God is a Spirit. I believe God the Spirit was working in Genesis1 until Moses describes that he rested from his work. No one has ever seen God the Spirit for we weren't give the eyes that could behold Spirit. Here are scriptures I conclude tell us that God is a Spirit. Genesis 1:2 [God the Spirit moved upon the waters]; Gen.6:3 [My Spirit will not always put up with mankind]; John 4:24 [God is a Spirit]; Ephesians 5:30 [grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto redemption].

I can only respond by saying DUH!​
I'm glad you believe The LORD God is God. I do also. Something you had written made me wonder if you were trying to leave him out of the group of Spirit, Father, and Son.

IN THE DAY is a figure of speech. It is NOT talking about an individual specific day of creation.
It means a time period. The length could vary. In the day my mother-in-law lived happens to be 100 going on 101years ... The seventh day ... is called the generations the LORD worked. The specific seventh day/the Sabbath was set aside to honor the one who began to work on the generations of the seventh day. People were to rest that day for the LORD worked that day. Jesus often explained that he had a right to work on that day for as God come among men to work he was one with the Father. As the WORD of God he was with the Father working in his day. Is it any wonder Jesus scooped up dust from the ground, added a measure of divine water from his mouth and formed eyeballs for a man who had none from birth? Is it any wonder he could reshape the legs of the lame, or that he could bring life to a dead body? These were works performed on the 7th day time period when The LORD created the body for Adam ... and brought forth a living soul. The learned teachers still didn't grasp the meaning behind the works he did nor the words he spoke. I and the Father are ONE.

Saul was NOT "changed" to Paul. Please read the scripture more carefully!

Acts 13:9 (AKJV/PCE)​
(13:9) Then Saul, (who also [is called] Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,​

Paul was his Greek name. Saul was his Hebrew name. They were BOTH his names.
Well, he went by the Gentile name of Paul after his experience with the LORD... and as he was sent to the Gentiles to share the gospel. There must have been a significant reason. And you can't deny the meanings behind the changes of Abram to Abraham, or Jacob to Israel. And Moses knew what he was talking about when he wrote God/Elohiym for Gen.1 and then YHWH for LORD God in Gen. 2. A significant thing had happened. Elohiym rested from his work and The LORD/YHWH began his generations of work. Name changes mean something in scripture.
Regarding the names of God ... they are ALL His names. You are reading your ideas into the scripture.
What are names? They are nouns and they have definitions. Even today. I was given a name on my birth certificate but my family rejected that name and chose another one for me. No matter how many times over the years I've suggested that I be called by my real name none of my family and friends would agree to call me by my legal name. My siblings don't even remember why they gave me a new name but it seems they all liked it. It means pretty and beautiful... well, guess they thought I was a pretty baby. So it is with the list of names given to God by men.They are proper nouns which tell us he is The Lord who rewards, The Lord will Provide, The Lord my Shepherd, The LORD our Righteousness, The Lord who heals ...

However, God told Moses he had chosen one name to be his name forever. Exodus 3:2,13,14-15 [The event at the burning bush when God informed Moses he was to go to the Pharaoh to gain the release of the children of Israel. Moses asked God, If they want to know your name what should I tell them?
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Now, I AM THAT I AM is the definition of the name God has chosen; so, what is the proper noun/name?
Watch.
15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of A, the God of I, and the God of J, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever. unto all generations.

Now, I know The LORD God is KJ English. I think Jewish people like YHWH/Yahweh but no matter the language barriers we humans face we can see that God chose a special name for himself ... forever to all generations. I looked up several definitions various people give ... but basically it means: I Am I Am The One who is The one who will be. I guess - the eternal one. Anyway Moses knew after that exactly when to use that name in a meaningful way. He chose to first use it in Genesis 2. Elohiym rested on the 7th day, but YHWY began his work.

Who is YHWH? He was the one that formed a body for Adam out of the ground. He breathed into Adam's nostrils. He walked in the Garden and talked with Adam and Woman. He sent them out of the Garden and out of his presence. He was God who was seen within his own creation having a personal relationship with mankind. He was still God but was beheld as the second person of the trinity. That's pretty significant.
The Bible clearly says that He RESTED on the seventh day.
Gen 2:2-3 (AKJV/PCE)​
(2:2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (2:3) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Well, I agree, but Genesis 1 tells us it was the Spirit who was working ... therefore, it was the Spirit who stopped his work and rested. Next came The LORD/YHWH who began his work among mankind within the creation.


Genesis 1 provides a sequential (day by day) description of God's creation of all things.
Genesis 2 provides details regarding the creation of MAN and WOMAN in the garden (it is all specifically focused on SOME of day 6 of creation).

They are NOT two separate events. They are two different ACCOUNTS of the SAME events (the second account being more narrowly focused).

It's just that simple.
I totally disagree. The Spirit established things in Genesis 1 but the LORD manifested many of the things when he came within the creation. Read chapter 2 carefully. Watch

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And ... God ended his work which he HAD made. He rested.

Now, this verse shows that God was establishing much. Sometimes he was establishing the potential of things yet to be manifested. Like male and female were established in the Spirit but they did not become a living soul until the LORD scooped up the ground and formed them a body and breathed life into that body. Even then only Adam was manifested. Female was still not to be seen. In fact, animals were brought forth before the female. Sometimes the Spirit was separating things from one another. Other times he brought forth things like Light, the moon, the stars, the sun, the earth... but other things were not yet manifested. Watch

Gen. 2:4-5 [somewhat paraphrased] These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, IN THE DAY [a time period] that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
5 And every plant of the field BEFORE it grew; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain ... and there was not a man to till the ground.
18 - 19 And the LORD God said, It is not good for man to be alone... out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field,... and brought the animals unto Adam to see what he would call them ...

Back to Genesis 1:24 God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his own kind... That does not insinuate that it came forth at that instance but simply commanded that this process happen. In fact, they were brought forth after God rested and when the LORD brought them to Adam to be named. In Gen. 1, people, who think ch 1 and 2 are the same event, have to deal with a conundrum.

It is obvious according to Gen. 2 that the LORD brought forth Adam before there were any plants and animals on the earth! But Genesis 1 shows that animals were established before God created male female in verses26-28. You see The Spirit had established them within himself but the LORD manifested them on the 7th day within the creation.

Conclusion: Gen. 1 and 2 two events. God working as Spirit and presence of the LORD. Yet, don't forget God the WORD was there the whole time with the Spirit and the Father. John the Baptist declared it so.
 
Top