• 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.”

Right Divider

Body part
Not sure what 'reading into scripture' means to you.
It means that you see things that are not there because you want to.
To me it means finding keys to unlock truth.
That's different.
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.
You ignore vast amounts of scripture to do so. Again, you simply believe whatever you want to believe.

The scripture says that all members of the Godhead were involved in creation.
Eph 3:9 (AKJV/PCE)​
(3:9) And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Col 1:16 (AKJV/PCE)​
(1:16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:​
Rev 4:11 (AKJV/PCE)​
(4:11) Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
You are reading the scripture with blinders on.
It means a time period.
That was my point... it's a figure of speech.
The length could vary.
Indeed, because it's a figure of speech.
The seventh day ... is called the generations the LORD worked.
No, it's not. You just made that up out of thin air.
The specific seventh day/the Sabbath was set aside to honor the one who began to work on the generations of the seventh day.
What in the world is "the generations of the seventh day"? Are you making things up again?
People were to rest that day for the LORD worked that day.
If you are taking about the seventh day sabbath... that was specifically given to the children of Israel.

Exod 31:12-17 (AKJV/PCE)​
(31:12) ¶ And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, (31:13) Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it [is] a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that [ye] may know that I [am] the LORD that doth sanctify you. (31:14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it [is] holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth [any] work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. (31:15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth [any] work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. (31:16) Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant. (31:17) It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.​
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.
My point, which you seem to have missed, is that his name was NOT changed as had been the case for Abram and Jacob. God explicitly tells us about them.
There must have been a significant reason.
There is reason that the apostle to the GENTILES went by his GENTILE name.
And you can't deny the meanings behind the changes of Abram to Abraham, or Jacob to Israel.
Duh... again that is NOT the case with Paul.
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.
Where are you getting this term? It's not found in the scripture.
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.
God created and God rested... Where are you getting your strange ideas?
Who is YHWH? He was the one that formed a body for Adam out of the ground.
Man was created on DAY 6. So your story is inconsistent.
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.
Again, this is YOU reading INTO scripture what is NOT there. Scripture says that Christ created ALL THINGS in six days.
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
<BEGIN FAIRY TALE>
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 ...
The phrase "these are the generations of" is very common phrase in Genesis.
It marks the specific story being told.

Gen 6:9 (AKJV/PCE)​
(6:9) ¶ These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man [and] perfect in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.​
Gen 10:1 (AKJV/PCE)​
(10:1) Now these [are] the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood.​
Gen 11:10 (AKJV/PCE)​
(11:10) ¶ These [are] the generations of Shem: Shem [was] an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:​
Gen 11:27 (AKJV/PCE)​
(11:27) ¶ Now these [are] the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.​
Gen 25:12 (AKJV/PCE)​
(25:12) ¶ Now these [are] the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bare unto Abraham:​
Gen 25:19 (AKJV/PCE)​
(25:19) ¶ And these [are] the generations of Isaac, Abraham's son: Abraham begat Isaac:​
Gen 36:1 (AKJV/PCE)​
(36:1) Now these [are] the generations of Esau, who [is] Edom.​
Gen 36:9 (AKJV/PCE)​
(36:9) ¶ And these [are] the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in mount Seir:​
Gen 37:2 (AKJV/PCE)​
(37:2) These [are] the generations of Jacob. Joseph, [being] seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren; and the lad [was] with the sons of Bilhah, and with the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives: and Joseph brought unto his father their evil report.​
It is obvious according to Gen. 2 that the LORD brought forth Adam before there were any plants and animals on the earth!
FALSE...

Gen 1:20-23 (AKJV/PCE)​
(1:20) And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. (1:21) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. (1:22) And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. (1:23) And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:26-31 (AKJV/PCE)​
(1:26) ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (1:27) So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (1:28) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (1:29) ¶ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (1:30) And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so. (1:31) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

But Genesis 1 shows that animals were established before God created male female in verses26-28.
No, it shows that animals were CREATED before God created man and woman.
You see The Spirit had established them within himself but the LORD manifested them on the 7th day within the creation.
Completely FALSE and clearly show from scripture.
Conclusion: Gen. 1 and 2 two events.
Completely FALSE.
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.
You need to believe the scripture over your fairy story.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Not sure what 'reading into scripture' means to you. To me it means finding keys to unlock truth.
Any belief you desire to hold can be read into the scripture Ps82! That is the chief lesson you need to learn from your time here on Theology Online.

If your handling of scripture is justifiable then maybe Hulon Mitchell Jr. really was the Son of God after all.

How would you prove him wrong? I mean, besides the fact the he dead, of course!
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
A lot of this is getting repetitive, so feel free to snip out the text you aren't immediately responding to.

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?

Do you not understand what a synecdoche is?

Again, a synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa.

The heavens is indeed "the heavens," but it's using the whole to refer to the parts.

The earth is the earth. Earth is a part of the earth.

The heavens is the heavens. Heaven is a part of the earth.

except if the matter was made in such a way that it hadn't yet had time to form the sphere.

This is sort of what I was getting at.

I can certainly see that a water-covered planet would be spherical. We would say that is a "form",

"Tohu" (formless) doesn't mean shapeless. A sphere is a shape, but a perfectly spherical ball bearing is "tohu." Its surface is desolate, lacking any meaningful worth, having been laid waste in the manufacturing process, a veritable desert of metal, empty of features.

So too, was the unformed "the earth."

HPT asserts that this was the mantle of the earth, that the crust of the earth had not been formed yet.

like a "circle of the earth" (Is 40:22), as seen from a distance.

Again, that's a shape. Not what is referred to by "formless."

So if it has the same form (circle/sphere) later as it does in vs 2, why would the text say "formless"?

Because there was no crust. It was just the mantle (and everything below that).

My guess is that "formless" would have to refer both to "not shaped"

No. Supra.

and "without features",

Not quite. Supra.

and "void" would refer to "no contents" (like trees, animals, people).

Yes.

It stands on its own.

Because you say so?

It doesn't require any of the details that follow to be a complete statement about the whole of creation.

And yet, without it, there is no context for the rest of the chapter. It's not that it doesn't require the details. It's that the details require the introduction.

Again, I'm not saying that it can't be an introduction, only that if it's ONLY an introduction that stands alone, it introduces problems.

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.

So "let me tell you how God created the heavens that you see and the void and formless earth that you stand on"?

You said "the first verse, and the first part of the second."

The first part of the second verse is where it says that the earth was without form and void.

Which, to the listener listening to you say "let me tell you..." wouldn't make sense, since clearly the earth is not without form and is not void. The listener could rightly dismiss what the speaker is saying without any further details.

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.

Not quite.

"The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

There's no up or down in space. On the surface of a planet, however, up is away from the planet, and down is towards it.

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,

The verse is not talking about "the very beginning," so that's out of the question.

The whole passage (verses 22-31) is literally a description of the creation week!


“The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
I have been established from everlasting,
From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no fountains abounding with water.
Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills, I was brought forth;
While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields,
Or the primal dust of the world.
When He prepared the heavens, I was there,
When He drew a circle on the face of the deep,
When He established the clouds above,
When He strengthened the fountains of the deep,
When He assigned to the sea its limit,
So that the waters would not transgress His command,
When He marked out the foundations of the earth,
Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman;
And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him,
Rejoicing in His inhabited world,
And my delight was with the sons of men.



You could almost argue that Solomon is writing from the perspective of the mantle of the earth, the foundation on which everything else rests, as though he's describing what it was like before, during, and after (in sequence) the week of creation.

Verses 22-26 is from the perspective of "before" creation.

Verse 22: "possessed" here isn't talking about ownership, it's talking about what God was starting with.
23: "I have been established from everlasting" is a description of how strong the mantle is, conveying the image of being steadfast, immovable. Note that "an earth" here is the same word as in Genesis 1:10.
24: God made the mantle before He made the depths, and the latter half could either be referring to the spring in the Garden, or to the fountains of the great deep. Either way, confer with Psalm 33:7.
25: God made the mantle before the mountains had settled, and before the hills were made.
26: "Earth" (again, same word as Genesis 1:10) had not been made; neither had the "place separated by a wall," "chuts," the "outside" (think "outside the city walls"); the dirt, mud, etc had not been made yet.

Verses 27-31 is "during" creation.

Verse 27: "the heavens" here is incorrect. The word is "samayim" (cf Genesis 1:8), not "hassamayim" (cf 1:1, 14, etc). In other words, he's talking about preparing the firmament called heaven on day 2, and "when He drew a circle on the face of the deep" is just another way of saying that. Again: He made the firmament encircle the face of the deep. Thus, when the next verse says...
28: "When He established the clouds above," it does in fact mean that the clouds are above the firmament (and not the other way around), and then it speaks about "strengthening the fountains of the deep." Perhaps this refers to the downward pressure of the firmament on "the deep"? Perhaps God implemented gravity at this point? Food for thought.
29: "Assigning to the sea its limit," etc., is God forming the earth on Day 3. "When He marked out the foundations of earth," (again, no article "the" in the Hebrew text, mistranslation in English) is Solomon tying it all back to the mantle, the foundation on which the earth sits (cf Psalm 104:1-9)
30-31: Tying the above verses to the rest of the chapter with regards to wisdom.

Going through this passage makes me want to go through Psalm 104 now... but I'll hold off on that for now.

You have the earth, which isn't recognizable (formless and void), and the deep which has a surface.

Surface? No.

A face? Yes. Slightly different meaning, but it's important.

I'm suggesting things. I'm ok with having to alter my position.

Because, when God specifically called the dry land "Earth", it was because that was the first time it was discernible. And just prior to that, it was all water. Even in your view, the "earth" was not solid until God made the raqia.

The "earth" did not exist until after the raqia was made.

"The earth," however, did.

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.

Ok, so you agree that "the deep" is referring to water (at least unless the context indicates something else.

Then based on that, would you agree that there are two "things" that are made of water in Genesis 1:2?

Not in the same way. It uses the word to describe something, but it doesn't say "And God called xyz 'Deep'".

Obviously not, but calling something by it's description, and finding other uses of that description can help identify what that something is.

A priori?

"Might I suggest"

And the text does not indicate that there is water in space, as opposed to being on earth, unless you intentionally start with the assumption that the firmament of day 2 is the sky.

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.

Except it doesn't say "there's a layer of water surrounding the heavens," nor does it indicate that.

It says that a firmament divided the waters from the waters.

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)).

The fact that you have to appeal to a figurative and euphemistic usage of the word shows I'm right.

When the Bible says water, it means water.

If it said any of those other things, it's usually because of the context which prevents it from being water.

Thus, in those cases, it doesn't say "water," it says those things, either directly using “water” or indirectly by using “water” in a non-literal way.

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".

The "dry land" had not yet been made. Therefore it could not have been the "dry land."

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.

Watch from 00:35:35 to 1:08:48: (2x speed it's about 16.5 minutes

Sounds like I'm in good company (supra).

No.

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.

It sounded like you were saying that one of the two masses were reduced somehow. Thank you for clarifying.

Am I understanding you correctly as saying that vs 2 refers to an already separated waters?

No. Not "already separated."

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?

The firmament did not exist before day 2.

Genesis 1:2 (among other verses) is a grammatical separation, not describing a literal separation.

Ok

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.

Ok, so the problem right there is that that's not what it says, regardless of our positions.

There is a distinction between the heavens where the stars are and the sky where birds fly. But your last sentence there is incorrect.

The distinction regarding "the heavens where the stars are" and "the sky where birds fly" is not "firmament of the heavens" (which is correct) and "face of the heavens" (this is the incorrect part). It's between the former and "the face of the firmament of the heavens."

But this isn't the point of contention with my position.

The point of contention is that "the firmament" and "the firmament of the heavens" are two different things.

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.

The problem is that what I've been presenting should be convincing, simply based on the fact that it's literally what the scripture says, how it says it, and corroborating scripture that supports what it says.

So far, and pardon my standing on a soapbox for a moment, all I've gotten from you is wild (relatively speaking) postulations about what it might be. You say, "well the waters might be a blob of water in space," and, "when God created the firmament in the midst of the waters, he moved half of the water to a location above heaven," and "the waters might be inclusive of all material in the universe." None of these things are directly supported by scripture, and you have to assume that there must be some other meaning of the words used, that they must be figurative, in order to make those claims.

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.

The premise of the HPT is that unless explicitly stated, or afforded by scripture, one should not assume a miraculous explanation of something described in either the flood account, especially with regards to Creation.

In addition, one should avoid trying to come up with explanations for things that aren't immediately clear in the text, but that might be defined or otherwise mentioned elsewhere in scripture.

Because the firmament wasn't in existence yet in vs 2.

Correct.

Did I misunderstand your question?

Yes.

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..."

My question is why can't "the waters" of verse 2 be part of the same body of water that was divided in verse 6, becoming "the waters above the firmament"?

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.

Yes, that's your position. But then you're begging the question, both that "the heavens" are what 1:6 is speaking of, and that the "heaven" of verse 8 is where the stars will be placed.

What reason do you have to believe that?

I ask because the I'm presenting the case that it can be interpreted differently, which means you can't just assume that your position is correct.

On the globe earth, yes. On the "dry" that is called earth, no.

Okay.

Because the ocean is defined by the land that didn't exist in vs 2.

I'm not finding any definition of "ocean" that requires a landmass to define it.

"Defined" here meaning "marking the borders of".

A common trope in space exploration science fiction stories is an ocean world, a world that is covered in nothing but water.

Why could the planet earth in verse 2 not resemble an ocean world from science fiction (again, "resemble," not "be")?

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.

But that's not what it says.

The verse does not say that the waters are moved into one place.

it says "let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear."

That's not describing the creation of a landmass, that's an appearance of a landmass that already existed.

The Hydroplate's explanation is a far better fit, because the landmass that appears in verse 9 is the very thing that was just created in verse 8, the firmament in the midst of the waters.

Refer back to the GFHPT video I linked to above.

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).

Do you agree or disagree with the current secular theory of "Pangea"?

I'm not too hard on this point.

If the firmament of day 2 is the crust of the earth, would it not make sense that parts of the crust sinking, causing other parts to rise, could potentially cause "dry land" to appear, via the "gathering together" of waters into the dips in the parts of the crust that sank?

"Different" is different than "one".

Missing the point.

If the water is covering the earth, and it is caused to gather together so that dry land appears, regardless of where it appears, the water is in a different location than it was previously, yes?

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.

We agree.

So then why do you say "the earth" and "Earth" (v10) are speaking of the same thing?

Supra.

Thank you, too. These kinds of back and forth are helpful, even if the posts get long.

I don't see these as conflicting with my view.

Yes, which is why I'm pointing out that they do, in fact, conflict.

[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.

A far more reasonable explanation is that "the earth" in this verse is actually above "the waters."

I mean, that's literally what it says.

[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.

That works for "standing out of water," but not "in the water." If you're standing with the water up to your knees just off the shore of an island, the island appears to come out of the water as you follow the slope of land from under the water up to the highest point.

But the only thing "standing in the water" would be you, no? Because before you stood there, where you stood was covered in water.

Your legs are pillars that have pushed the water out of the way of where you stand, and the water is below you, but the land reaches under the water, and eventually comes out of the water somewhere else.

"Standing out of water and in the water" makes far more sense if the firmament of day 2 is the crust of the earth, because it is LITERALLY "standing out of water" (dry land formed by the "arches" of the firmament) and "in the water" (the sunken parts of the crust, which the HPT calls "pillars," based on another verse, are surrounded by water, like a person standing in a shallow pool).

That's what I said...below the firmament.

Birds are not below "the firmament." Water is below "the firmament.

They are below "the firmament of the heavens." They fly across "the face of the firmament of the heavens."

Darkness was on "the face of the deep."

"The face" in both cases is the figurative "surface" (in other words, NOT AN ACTUAL HARD SURFACE) which faces the one who is imagining themselves within the scenario being described.

That's just a long way of saying, "the deep" (which you have agreed is water) is below the reader, and "the firmament of the heavens" is above.

Also:

The Spirit of God hovered over "the face of the waters."

PLEASE ANSWER: Given the above, where are "the waters" relative to the reader? Are they "above" or "below"? Remember, the firmament that divides the waters has not been made yet.

The first chapter of genesis, and as far as I can tell all of the rest of scripture, speaks of only one firmament.

Only if you assume that there is only one firmament in Genesis 1.

In other words, begging the question.

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).

I've given you multiple reasons why Genesis 1 describes two firmaments.

- The first five uses of "firmament" are just "the firmament," and the last four uses of "firmament" are "the firmament of the heavens."
- Psalm 136:6 says the earth is above the waters.
- Psalm 33:7 says God lays up the deep in storehouses
- 1 Peter 3:5 says the earth was "standing out of water and in the water," and then directly ties that phrase to the Flood in the very next verse.
- Genesis 1:2 and 1:6-7, among other passages, describes two layers of water
- The fountains of the great deep broke forth, THEN the windows of heaven were opened, in Genesis 7:11 (indication that the water came up from below first, then fell back down), just like it does with a normal fountain
- In Genesis 1, there is a difference between "the heavens" of verses 1, 14, 15, 17, etc, and the "heaven" of verse 8 in the Hebrew text.

Something I haven't mentioned yet:
- Job 38:8 says that God "shut in the sea with doors" and that it "burst forth and issued from the womb" (from the womb is a figure of speech that often refers to "underground"

Well, I didn't put them there. I would hardly know how. ;)

I know you're trying to be funny, but inconsistency is the mark of a failed belief.

If something contradicts something else, only one of those things can be true.

The Bible says that the water is above "the firmament."

It does not say that the water is above "the firmament of the heavens."

To assume that they are the same, and then claim that the water must be above "the firmament of the heavens" would be begging the question.

No, I come to the text and it calls the first firmament "Heaven", then it never suggests another one, anywhere in scripture.

Again, you're begging the question that there is only one firmament.

That's what is in dispute.

Below the firmament, not the deep.

You missed it.

You've taken the deep and called it the gathered together waters.
You've taken the earth and put it below the deep, because the earth is under the seas, no? Appearing out of the water?

Yes, because the waters were gathered into one place when the dry land appeared, and, as you said, water flows downhill.

Ok.

So the land is usually above the waters in altitude.

Except that's not what the verse says, ESPECIALLY the Hebrew word used for "laid out."

Guess what the word used is?

"Raqa."

God "raqa" the earth above the waters.

That word "raqa" sounds familiar.

Oh, that's right, it's where they get the noun "raqia," which we translate as "firmament."

You know, "the firmament" that God made in the midst of the waters?

Psalm 136:6a Hebrew:
"leroqa haares al hammayim"
raqa, erets, al, mayim

"Erets" is "Earth"

God "raqa" the earth, not "the heavens," above the waters.

Do you see the problem with your position yet?

You're saying the "raqia" of day 2 is "the firmament of the heavens," but Psalm 136:6 says that God "raqa" the earth above the waters.

So, either the author of Psalm 136 was confused, or the firmament of day 2 isn't "the heavens" but is rather "the earth."

The are the waters that were below the firmament that were gathered into one place when dry land, called "Earth" appeared.

So, the Seas.

According to Psalm 136:6, are "the Seas" under "Earth" that God "raqa"?

It is a type of surface...it is the outer layer of the vacuum of space when compared to the dry land (earth).

The Biblical authors had no concept of what the vacuum of space was. They can't describe something that they have no concept of.

They could, however, see the stars in the sky, and understand that "wherever those stars are, it's like that "thing" was "pounded out" over the earth," thus across the face of "raqia hassamayim" is where the birds fly.

But that's not what is being described in Genesis 1:6-10. What's being described there is water. Water would have been known to be "down" from their position. Darkness was on the face of "The deep." The Spirit of God was "above" the face of "the waters." These things are "down." Thus, when it says "God made a firmament in the midst of "the waters," dividing the waters from the waters," the entire structure is "below" the reader, not above, and so...

God - above the waters
raqa - to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out
"[the] Earth" - what the dry land was called
above - over
"the waters" - the waters which were below the firmament.

So that:

The earth - What the dry land was called
was standing out of - dry land
water - seas
and in - subterranean pillars
the water - water laid up in storehouses, the waters below the firmament

The stars are put into the firmament of the heavens,

Correct.

but the birds fly on the face (surface) of the heavens.

Incorrect. Supra.

I think you need both descriptions to get the idea that it is a volume, not a surface only.

This is you trying to read our modern understanding into the scriptures.

Again, the Biblical authors didn't think like this, they didn't think like this.

All of which is good and laudable about the HPT.

No, what was called "good" on Day 3 was the dry land and the seas separated (then the plants).

You missed it.

Read what I said again.

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.

----

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.

If that's what the text says, then yes.

But that's in dispute, and if Psalm 136:6 is talking about the firmament in Genesis 1:6-8, then my position is correct, and the firmament of day 2 is in fact the crust of the earth.

I'm not so sure it says that,

You're telling me Genesis 1:1-5 is not day 1?

"In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said let there be light, and it was so. And God saw the light, that it was good and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day"... All that is not talking about the first day?

since it clearly says "Earth" was not made until day 3,

God "raqa" the earth above the waters.
The earth was made on day 3.

Guess what else was made on day 3?

The FIRMAMENT, aka the "raqia," called "Heaven."

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

You're reaching.

That's not a good sign for your position.

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".

WRONG.

God made the firmament on day 2, and on day 3, he FORMED the firmament that He made on day 2, and called the firmament that He made on day 2 "Heaven."

He made "the heavens," AKA "the firmament of the heavens" on day 1, just like Genesis 1:1 says.

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.

Addressed.

I disagree. The new things are called what they are today, but they had just been made.

And that's where you're failing.

Bob talked about this in the video above. See 00:48:30.

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 mean "literal" as in, "the black surface we see is a solid object in which the stars are placed.

"Seas" are not referred to until land exists.

Not quite.

Seas are not named until God has moved the waters which let the dry land appear.

They are MENTIONED, however, just not by the name "Seas."

"Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together..."

These "the waters under the heavens" are not the waters from Psalm 136:6, ABOVE which the "dry land" (erets) was "raqa" by God.

Not to use it for something that isn't ever elsewhere called "Heaven".

Supra, re: the video at 00:48:30

And He wasn't naming "something"! He was naming "Heaven".

Supra.

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?

No.

If you appeal to some English translators, and say "because these people said this, therefore it's correct," that's an appeal to authority.

If I appeal to some English translators, and say their translation of a certain word to be different from the rest is likely based on the way the word is present in the original language, then that is NOT an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to the Hebrew text (an appeal to evidence) to support the claim that those translators translated the word a certain way for that reason.

See the difference?

Yet I doubt you would be reading the bible this way if Walt Brown had not suggested to do so.

So what? I'm not smart enough to have come up with such a theory, let alone one as thoroughly detailed, let alone as Biblically and scientifically supported as one such as the HPT.

It usually takes the presentation of a paradigm different than yours to make you realize that your paradigm might be flawed.

Walt Brown is not "some random person" to you, but to me and others he certainly is.

So what? IF what he says is true, then you should accept it.
If what he says is false, then you should reject it.

But you can't just assume he's wrong, and that you're right.

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.

And if the HPT is consistent with what the Bible says, then what?

Based on a lack of evidence.

Argument from silence, at best.

And I have given you evidence. So far, you've rejected it unreasonably.

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.

Supra, re: video timestamp

The pictures you gave are not in the text.

Never said they were.

That's not what I think, that's factual. Don't use the pictures as evidence.

I was trying to demonstrate what the text says.

(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

For the record, those images were drawn by Bryan Nickel, not by myself. I requested them from him a while back via email.

doesn't mean the scriptures are perfectly describing your pictures.

No one said the scriptures were perfectly describing the images.

I was using them as an illustration to help you understand my position.

I wasn't trying to assert the HPT assertions there. I'm suggesting an alternative.

Fine.

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).

If the fountains of the great deep is water coming from below the surface of the earth, then the basic assertions of the Hydroplate Theory are true.

That's how confident I am that the HPT is true.

And if the HPT is true, then the firmament of Day 2 IS the crust of the earth.

I could just as easily draw you a picture of what I'm proposing and use it as evidence for my view.

I honestly wish you would!

It would make discussing your theory that much easier!

Of course you wouldn't accept it,

As proof of your position? Of course not.

But as a teaching tool for your position? Why WOULDN'T I want to see it?

and neither do I accept your picture as some kind of evidence, only as a speculation.

Supra.

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.

Supra.

(vs 10 for "erets")

Thank you.

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.

Supra.

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?

Yes.

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.

Why is that a problem?

Refer back to the 00:48:30 point in the above video.

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.

They're not.

Psalm 136:6 "raqa" (verb root of the noun "raqia") is done to "earth" not "the heavens," and the "earth" is above the waters.

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.

Supra.

Then the formulation of "heaven" not "the heavens" can be referring to the above-heaven, right?

Again, if the fountains of the great deep originated from below the crust of the earth, then "heaven" (not "the heavens") being above doesn't make sense.

And additionally, if Psalm 136:6 is referring to Genesis 1, then again no.

"The heavens" is the "above-heaven." The firmament of the heavens.

But "Heaven" in verse 8, is the "below-heaven" (to use your terminology).

So again, the formulation of "heaven" without the definite article, can apply to the above-heaven.

No.

Up from below, then down from above, in that order.

Yeah, I'm not sure why I included that one, although it does seem to help understand the previous one.

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.

What matters is if the reading is consistent with the rest of scripture. If it's not, then you can safely discard that reading.

The HPT reading is far more consistent with scripture and with itself than what you've tried to explain so far.

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.

Why would Heaven" refer to a place on earth after the fall?

So since we are in agreement on those, can you offer one or more where "heaven" means something on earth?

Supra.

(I did some of the above in reverse order. My apologies if it seems like I'm referring to something below as something above.)

Ok.
 

Ps82

Well-known member
It means that you see things that are not there because you want to.

That's different.
I disagree with your statement of how I come to my conclusions. I read what others say but until I'm convinced that I am way off base I will stick with my interpretations.
You ignore vast amounts of scripture to do so. Again, you simply believe whatever you want to believe.

The scripture says that all members of the Godhead were involved in creation.
Eph 3:9 (AKJV/PCE)​
(3:9) And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Col 1:16 (AKJV/PCE)​
(1:16) For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:​
Rev 4:11 (AKJV/PCE)​
(4:11) Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
I totally agree that All of God took part in Creation. I've attempted to make that point in other things I have written. There is ONE God. But God is a spirit... His choice of appearing with an image is an additional miracle due to his wanting to have a personal family relationship with humanity. That relationship began in Genesis Two! I'm sticking with that... and with his continued manifestation of himself as the Messiah in flesh. ONE God appearing twice to the eyes of humanity. The image is not God ... it was created by God for a specific purpose.

Colossians 1:15 Consider a sentence diagram of this KJE sentence, which I can't draw here so will just write about some of the parts and about the truths revealed in it.

[Jesus] who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature...

The antecedent to the pronoun who is - Jesus.

Jesus is the image of the invisible God -
Is - is a linking verb - elaborating on the subject and is called a subjective complement. - It can be a noun, an adjective, a pronoun. In this case Jesus is linked to a noun - image

Truth: The sentence within a prepositional phrase tells us to whom the image belongs. It is God's image which is linked Jesus.

Something important to consider: What is it within this sentence that could be considered a creature - IOW something which was created???
My conclusions:
  • Jesus is the WORD of God, who was with God and is God - he wasn't created.
  • God of course is no creature but the creator.
  • The only thing that could be considered having been created would be God's image.
  • The same one and only image belonging to the one God which was mentioned in Gen. 1 and manifested in Gen. 2 as The LORD God.
  • God graciously blessed Adam by sharing his own image and likeness with mankind as he formed Him. The First Adam.
TRUTH: The image was the first born of any Creature... I consider this to men God had IT before angelic and human beings were given their own.

You are reading the scripture with blinders on.

That was my point... it's a figure of speech.

Indeed, because it's a figure of speech.
I disagree about my having blinders on.
No, it's not. You just made that up out of thin air.

What in the world is "the generations of the seventh day"? Are you making things up again?
All I know is that Moses used the concept in Gen. 2 and it was translated into English as a period of time called generations. It can refer to literal years ... or even as a "family line of descendants". As in Genesis 6:11-32. These are the generations of Noah. Numbers 1:22 - repeatedly makes this point - Of the children of Simeon, by their generations of life on earth and reproducing further generations... All three are really just talking about time periods of working on earth. I can't set a number ... There is an saying: To God a day is like a 1,000 years. I'll let you figure that out.
If you are taking about the seventh day sabbath... that was specifically given to the children of Israel.

Exod 31:12-17 (AKJV/PCE)​
(31:12) ¶ And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, (31:13) Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it [is] a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that [ye] may know that I [am] the LORD that doth sanctify you. (31:14) Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it [is] holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth [any] work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. (31:15) Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth [any] work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. (31:16) Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, [for] a perpetual covenant. (31:17) It [is] a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.​

I agree the Sabbath was given to the children of Israel ... God gave them a number of times of remembrance and for celebrations. All of which were to honor God before the eyes of the nations.The Sabbath pointed specifically the Day [a time period] when God rested BUT The LORD worked!

Is it any wonder that Jesus deliberately did many of his miracles on the Sabbath without feeling that he had broken any commands? He and the Father are the ONE God working among men. Jesus said,"Hither to my Father worked. Now I work." The Father worked in Genesis 2 and Jesus worked in his day. Same God and yes all three were working ... for they are GOD! Of course the WORD of God was there working ... for John tells us He is God. God is not chopped into three person ... He is always ONE. It is just humanity that has trouble understanding that with God all things are possible.
My point, which you seem to have missed, is that his name was NOT changed as had been the case for Abram and Jacob. God explicitly tells us about them.

There is reason that the apostle to the GENTILES went by his GENTILE name.

Duh... again that is NOT the case with Paul.
Not really interested in discussing Paul's names anymore ... sort of off track.
But Moses knew the truth and wrote it for us to help us understand the super-natural. Elohiym worked on days 1-6 then rested. YHWH worked on the Seventh Day. YHWH was the one who appeared to Moses and spoke with him face to face as a friend. That is God who appeared and worked within the Garden. I see a change in the nouns used by Moses even if you don't.
Where are you getting this term? It's not found in the scripture.

God created and God rested... Where are you getting your strange ideas?

Man was created on DAY 6. So your story is inconsistent.
Look beyond the capabilities of mankind. With a Spiritual omni-everything God all things are possible.
God is the commander - the law maker - the creator. He speaks and things are established from boundaries of the separation of life from life to establishing unique sentient beings. BUT they can be and still have no manifested visual form. At conception mankind was male/female ... Yes, they were established with all the potential in them to bring forth the human race, but they did not have a body!!! That only happen when YHWH formed one for them ... and later performed a super-natural operation on Adam to bring forth the female.

Where do I get the concepts of created and rested? Genesis 2:1-3 Read you will see the actual words created and rested.
I suggest you read Gen. 1 and 2 again more carefully and if you have an unction you might read some of my other posts on this thread. I have said: I do believe that the Spirit in Gen. 1 established all things within himself, but actually brought forth some as well ... examples: Light, sun, moon, stars, the earth ... so, if you are concerned about when the rivers were manifested I suggest that The Spirit could have formed the or the LORD could have called forth the waters of the deep.

Genesis 2:8-10 And The LORD God planted a garden ... And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food ... And a river went out ... to water the garden ...

What I see in these three verses in chapter 2 is that the LORD is planting the Garden ... and the river went out of the Garden to water it. There is no mention in Genesis 1 of God sending a river. I figure the LORD, who was God appearing, was designing the Garden.
LOL ... I'm hearing a rushing river sound on my lap top ... how is someone doing this? LOL! Fun Must be The LORD. LOL The Hallelujah Chorus would be nice.
Gen 1:20-23 (AKJV/PCE)​
(1:20) And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. (1:21) And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. (1:22) And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. (1:23) And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
Gen 1:26-31 (AKJV/PCE)​
(1:26) ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (1:27) So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (1:28) And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (1:29) ¶ And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. (1:30) And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so. (1:31) And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


No, it shows that animals were CREATED before God created man and woman.

Completely FALSE and clearly show from scripture.

Completely FALSE.
Read Gen. 2:19 and think ... established/formed/ versus bought forth ...
19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them ...

Truth: Adam had already been manifested by the LORD with his own visible form before the animals were formed from the ground [elements of this world] having their visible bodies!
Genesis 2 is not a repeat of Genesis 1 ... but its own event... when The LORD God formed mankind, planted a garden, and formed bodies for the beasts etc.

You need to believe the scripture over your fairy story.
You need to take another look ... I love the KJV. See you around. Nice discussing with you.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I disagree with your statement of how I come to my conclusions.
That does not impress me.
I read what others say but until I'm convinced that I am way off base I will stick with my interpretations.
So you have to be "way off base" to get corrected? That's funny.
I totally agree that All of God took part in Creation. I've attempted to make that point in other things I have written. There is ONE God. But God is a spirit... His choice of appearing with an image is an additional miracle due to his wanting to have a personal family relationship with humanity. That relationship began in Genesis Two! I'm sticking with that... and with his continued manifestation of himself as the Messiah in flesh. ONE God appearing twice to the eyes of humanity. The image is not God ... it was created by God for a specific purpose.

Colossians 1:15 Consider a sentence diagram of this KJE sentence, which I can't draw here so will just write about some of the parts and about the truths revealed in it.

[Jesus] who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature...

The antecedent to the pronoun who is - Jesus.

Jesus is the image of the invisible God -
Is - is a linking verb - elaborating on the subject and is called a subjective complement. - It can be a noun, an adjective, a pronoun. In this case Jesus is linked to a noun - image

Truth: The sentence within a prepositional phrase tells us to whom the image belongs. It is God's image which is linked Jesus.
You are amazingly confused about what figures of speech mean in the Bible.
Something important to consider: What is it within this sentence that could be considered a creature - IOW something which was created???
My conclusions:
  • Jesus is the WORD of God, who was with God and is God - he wasn't created.
That is correct. Jesus is the eternal God.
  • God of course is no creature but the creator.
Quite obvious... and Jesus is God.
  • The only thing that could be considered having been created would be God's image.
Again, you are confused about FIGURES OF SPEECH.

God's image is NOT a "created thing". It is a CONCEPT... an IDEA.

Heb 1:3 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:3) Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

The SINGLE Greek word (and NO, I'm not a Greek scholar) translated "express image" is:
G5481 χαρακτήρ charakter (cha-rak-teer') n.​
1. an engraver (the tool or the person).​
2. (by implication) an engraving.​
3. (hence) a “character,” the figure stamped.​
4. (by extension) an exact copy.​
5. (figuratively) a representation.​
[from charasso “to sharpen to a point” (akin to G1125 through the idea of scratching)]​
KJV: express image​
Compare: G1125, G1504​
See also: G5480​

That is where we get our English word CHARACTER.
  • The same one and only image belonging to the one God which was mentioned in Gen. 1 and manifested in Gen. 2 as The LORD God.
Again, confusion reigns with you. The WAY that man is made in God's image is that we share SOME of the CHARACTERISTICS of God.
  • God graciously blessed Adam by sharing his own image and likeness with mankind as he formed Him. The First Adam.
Supra
TRUTH: The image was the first born of any Creature... I consider this to men God had IT before angelic and human beings were given their own.
Learn about figures of speech, analogies, metaphors, similes, etc.
I disagree about my having blinders on.
That does not mean that it's not true.
There is an saying: To God a day is like a 1,000 years. I'll let you figure that out.
Again the abuse of this scripture. It's just amazing.
2Pet 3:8-9 (AKJV/PCE)​
(3:8) But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (3:9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.​

It's talking about God's patience and the coming judgement.

I agree the Sabbath was given to the children of Israel ... God gave them a number of times of remembrance and for celebrations. All of which were to honor God before the eyes of the nations.The Sabbath pointed specifically the Day [a time period] when God rested BUT The LORD worked!
Utter confusion. God is the LORD ... the LORD God.
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
Heb 1:3 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:3) Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
The SINGLE Greek word (and NO, I'm not a Greek scholar) translated "express image" is:
G5481 χαρακτήρ charakter (cha-rak-teer') n.​
1. an engraver (the tool or the person).​
2. (by implication) an engraving.​
3. (hence) a “character,” the figure stamped.​
4. (by extension) an exact copy.​
5. (figuratively) a representation.​
[from charasso “to sharpen to a point” (akin to G1125 through the idea of scratching)]​
KJV: express image​
Compare: G1125, G1504
See also: G5480

That is where we get our English word CHARACTER.

Might I add that it says that Jesus is the CHARACTER of HIS PERSON (talking about God).

The "character of His person" means that He has the IDENTICAL "character" of God... i.e., He is God.
 

Ps82

Well-known member
God's image is NOT a "created thing". It is a CONCEPT... an IDEA.

Heb 1:3 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:3) Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

The SINGLE Greek word (and NO, I'm not a Greek scholar) translated "express image" is:
G5481 χαρακτήρ charakter (cha-rak-teer') n.​
1. an engraver (the tool or the person).​
2. (by implication) an engraving.​
3. (hence) a “character,” the figure stamped.​
4. (by extension) an exact copy.​
5. (figuratively) a representation.​
[from charasso “to sharpen to a point” (akin to G1125 through the idea of scratching)]​
KJV: express image​
Compare: G1125, G1504​
See also: G5480​

That is where we get our English word CHARACTER.
I love the definitions above for image for all of these fit my idea of the image of God and how God used it.
1. an engraver (the tool or the person).​
2. (by implication) an engraving.​
3. (hence) a “character,” the figure stamped.​
4. (by extension) an exact copy.
5. (figuratively) a representation.
Since God is a Spirit within which all things exist and consist ... then he is invisible to the human eye. He did choose a tool for his use to appear unto men. It was formed like an engraving might be and it was a figure ... an express image would be an exact copy of the original figure ... and this tool/figure/ representation would be what people saw in OT times as The LORD God ... and then again seen as Jesus the God Messiah in NT times.​
Did you know that Abraham Isaac, and Jacob did not know the name, The LORD, which we use to talk about the image they saw? They referred to him as God Almighty ...It was to Moses that God Almighty finally revealed his chosen name: The LORD, the LORD God. It was Moses, who wrote the first 5 books we have who knew exactly when to use the chosen name. Moses introduced it to us in Genesis 2. I find that significan​
Utter confusion. God is the LORD ... the LORD God.
Well, at least we agree on this... but with my twist of insight: The One God is Spirit, but he chose to create an image for his use among men and he then chose an official name for himself when he appeared using it.
Answer: The LORD God. The definition of the name LORD God is this -I AM that I AM. Moreover God said to Moses, "The LORD God of your fathers Abraham ... Isaac ... and Jacob ..." then added, "This is my name forever." Exodus 3:14-15

The antecedent of the pronoun this is The LORD God. Thus God revealed the name to be used whenever he, the invisible God, appeared unto men.

People did see the express image of the invisible God clearly. Exodus 24:9-11
Then went Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearnesss. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

Right Divider, I'm sure you grasp this: They clearly saw God with his heavenly body. You can also perceive that God's image is that of a male... by the pronoun his used repeatedly. Plus, we all know that he shared the likeness of that image with the first Adam and we understand that Adam looked like a male.

If God was able to share a likeness of his original image with mankind, then why should we deny that he was able to share that same likeness with the Second Adam. Do you know that Jesus was called 'the second Adam.' Not because he was a mere man but because God, the Son, came bearing the likeness of a mere man. Jesus was God and was seen among men again without a super-natural body of heaven but in mortal flesh.

Here I will compare the verse you gave to one I like as well.
Heb 1:3 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:3) Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Colossians 1:15-16
[Jesus] who is the image of [belonging to] the invisible God, the first born of every creature. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven and earth ..."

Now, you can see that it was the image, which belonged to God, that was the first of all creatures to be manifested by the invisible God.
Who is God?
Ans. Isaiah 43:11 I [God the Spiritual Creator], even I, am the LORD [the presence of God seen by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses]: and beside ME there is no savior.
God is The Spirit, the presence of the Father LORD God, and the Lord Messiah Jesus.

Guess you and I have just about discussed most of our disagreements. We haven't come together but I've enjoyed doing Bible Study with you. If you come up with other points just share them.
 

JudgeRightly

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

A lot of this is getting repetitive, so feel free to snip out the text you aren't immediately responding to.



Do you not understand what a synecdoche is?

Again, a synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa.

The heavens is indeed "the heavens," but it's using the whole to refer to the parts.

The earth is the earth. Earth is a part of the earth.

The heavens is the heavens. Heaven is a part of the earth.



This is sort of what I was getting at.



"Tohu" (formless) doesn't mean shapeless. A sphere is a shape, but a perfectly spherical ball bearing is "tohu." Its surface is desolate, lacking any meaningful worth, having been laid waste in the manufacturing process, a veritable desert of metal, empty of features.

So too, was the unformed "the earth."

HPT asserts that this was the mantle of the earth, that the crust of the earth had not been formed yet.



Again, that's a shape. Not what is referred to by "formless."



Because there was no crust. It was just the mantle (and everything below that).



No. Supra.



Not quite. Supra.



Yes.



Because you say so?



And yet, without it, there is no context for the rest of the chapter. It's not that it doesn't require the details. It's that the details require the introduction.

Again, I'm not saying that it can't be an introduction, only that if it's ONLY an introduction that stands alone, it introduces problems.



So "let me tell you how God created the heavens that you see and the void and formless earth that you stand on"?

You said "the first verse, and the first part of the second."

The first part of the second verse is where it says that the earth was without form and void.

Which, to the listener listening to you say "let me tell you..." wouldn't make sense, since clearly the earth is not without form and is not void. The listener could rightly dismiss what the speaker is saying without any further details.



Not quite.

"The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

There's no up or down in space. On the surface of a planet, however, up is away from the planet, and down is towards it.



The verse is not talking about "the very beginning," so that's out of the question.

The whole passage (verses 22-31) is literally a description of the creation week!


“The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
I have been established from everlasting,
From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no fountains abounding with water.
Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills, I was brought forth;
While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields,
Or the primal dust of the world.
When He prepared the heavens, I was there,
When He drew a circle on the face of the deep,
When He established the clouds above,
When He strengthened the fountains of the deep,
When He assigned to the sea its limit,
So that the waters would not transgress His command,
When He marked out the foundations of the earth,
Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman;
And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him,
Rejoicing in His inhabited world,
And my delight was with the sons of men.



You could almost argue that Solomon is writing from the perspective of the mantle of the earth, the foundation on which everything else rests, as though he's describing what it was like before, during, and after (in sequence) the week of creation.

Verses 22-26 is from the perspective of "before" creation.

Verse 22: "possessed" here isn't talking about ownership, it's talking about what God was starting with.
23: "I have been established from everlasting" is a description of how strong the mantle is, conveying the image of being steadfast, immovable. Note that "an earth" here is the same word as in Genesis 1:10.
24: God made the mantle before He made the depths, and the latter half could either be referring to the spring in the Garden, or to the fountains of the great deep. Either way, confer with Psalm 33:7.
25: God made the mantle before the mountains had settled, and before the hills were made.
26: "Earth" (again, same word as Genesis 1:10) had not been made; neither had the "place separated by a wall," "chuts," the "outside" (think "outside the city walls"); the dirt, mud, etc had not been made yet.

Verses 27-31 is "during" creation.

Verse 27: "the heavens" here is incorrect. The word is "samayim" (cf Genesis 1:8), not "hassamayim" (cf 1:1, 14, etc). In other words, he's talking about preparing the firmament called heaven on day 2, and "when He drew a circle on the face of the deep" is just another way of saying that. Again: He made the firmament encircle the face of the deep. Thus, when the next verse says...
28: "When He established the clouds above," it does in fact mean that the clouds are above the firmament (and not the other way around), and then it speaks about "strengthening the fountains of the deep." Perhaps this refers to the downward pressure of the firmament on "the deep"? Perhaps God implemented gravity at this point? Food for thought.
29: "Assigning to the sea its limit," etc., is God forming the earth on Day 3. "When He marked out the foundations of earth," (again, no article "the" in the Hebrew text, mistranslation in English) is Solomon tying it all back to the mantle, the foundation on which the earth sits (cf Psalm 104:1-9)
30-31: Tying the above verses to the rest of the chapter with regards to wisdom.

Going through this passage makes me want to go through Psalm 104 now... but I'll hold off on that for now.



Surface? No.

A face? Yes. Slightly different meaning, but it's important.



The "earth" did not exist until after the raqia was made.

"The earth," however, did.



Ok, so you agree that "the deep" is referring to water (at least unless the context indicates something else.

Then based on that, would you agree that there are two "things" that are made of water in Genesis 1:2?



Obviously not, but calling something by it's description, and finding other uses of that description can help identify what that something is.



"Might I suggest"

And the text does not indicate that there is water in space, as opposed to being on earth, unless you intentionally start with the assumption that the firmament of day 2 is the sky.



Except it doesn't say "there's a layer of water surrounding the heavens," nor does it indicate that.

It says that a firmament divided the waters from the waters.



The fact that you have to appeal to a figurative and euphemistic usage of the word shows I'm right.

When the Bible says water, it means water.

If it said any of those other things, it's usually because of the context which prevents it from being water.

Thus, in those cases, it doesn't say "water," it says those things, either directly using “water” or indirectly by using “water” in a non-literal way.



The "dry land" had not yet been made. Therefore it could not have been the "dry land."



Watch from 00:35:35 to 1:08:48: (2x speed it's about 16.5 minutes



No.



It sounded like you were saying that one of the two masses were reduced somehow. Thank you for clarifying.



No. Not "already separated."



The firmament did not exist before day 2.

Genesis 1:2 (among other verses) is a grammatical separation, not describing a literal separation.



Ok, so the problem right there is that that's not what it says, regardless of our positions.

There is a distinction between the heavens where the stars are and the sky where birds fly. But your last sentence there is incorrect.

The distinction regarding "the heavens where the stars are" and "the sky where birds fly" is not "firmament of the heavens" (which is correct) and "face of the heavens" (this is the incorrect part). It's between the former and "the face of the firmament of the heavens."

But this isn't the point of contention with my position.

The point of contention is that "the firmament" and "the firmament of the heavens" are two different things.



The problem is that what I've been presenting should be convincing, simply based on the fact that it's literally what the scripture says, how it says it, and corroborating scripture that supports what it says.

So far, and pardon my standing on a soapbox for a moment, all I've gotten from you is wild (relatively speaking) postulations about what it might be. You say, "well the waters might be a blob of water in space," and, "when God created the firmament in the midst of the waters, he moved half of the water to a location above heaven," and "the waters might be inclusive of all material in the universe." None of these things are directly supported by scripture, and you have to assume that there must be some other meaning of the words used, that they must be figurative, in order to make those claims.



The premise of the HPT is that unless explicitly stated, or afforded by scripture, one should not assume a miraculous explanation of something described in either the flood account, especially with regards to Creation.

In addition, one should avoid trying to come up with explanations for things that aren't immediately clear in the text, but that might be defined or otherwise mentioned elsewhere in scripture.



Correct.



Yes.



My question is why can't "the waters" of verse 2 be part of the same body of water that was divided in verse 6, becoming "the waters above the firmament"?



Yes, that's your position. But then you're begging the question, both that "the heavens" are what 1:6 is speaking of, and that the "heaven" of verse 8 is where the stars will be placed.

What reason do you have to believe that?

I ask because the I'm presenting the case that it can be interpreted differently, which means you can't just assume that your position is correct.



Okay.



I'm not finding any definition of "ocean" that requires a landmass to define it.



A common trope in space exploration science fiction stories is an ocean world, a world that is covered in nothing but water.

Why could the planet earth in verse 2 not resemble an ocean world from science fiction (again, "resemble," not "be")?



But that's not what it says.

The verse does not say that the waters are moved into one place.

it says "let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear."

That's not describing the creation of a landmass, that's an appearance of a landmass that already existed.

The Hydroplate's explanation is a far better fit, because the landmass that appears in verse 9 is the very thing that was just created in verse 8, the firmament in the midst of the waters.

Refer back to the GFHPT video I linked to above.



Do you agree or disagree with the current secular theory of "Pangea"?



If the firmament of day 2 is the crust of the earth, would it not make sense that parts of the crust sinking, causing other parts to rise, could potentially cause "dry land" to appear, via the "gathering together" of waters into the dips in the parts of the crust that sank?



Missing the point.

If the water is covering the earth, and it is caused to gather together so that dry land appears, regardless of where it appears, the water is in a different location than it was previously, yes?



We agree.

So then why do you say "the earth" and "Earth" (v10) are speaking of the same thing?



Yes, which is why I'm pointing out that they do, in fact, conflict.



A far more reasonable explanation is that "the earth" in this verse is actually above "the waters."

I mean, that's literally what it says.



That works for "standing out of water," but not "in the water." If you're standing with the water up to your knees just off the shore of an island, the island appears to come out of the water as you follow the slope of land from under the water up to the highest point.

But the only thing "standing in the water" would be you, no? Because before you stood there, where you stood was covered in water.

Your legs are pillars that have pushed the water out of the way of where you stand, and the water is below you, but the land reaches under the water, and eventually comes out of the water somewhere else.

"Standing out of water and in the water" makes far more sense if the firmament of day 2 is the crust of the earth, because it is LITERALLY "standing out of water" (dry land formed by the "arches" of the firmament) and "in the water" (the sunken parts of the crust, which the HPT calls "pillars," based on another verse, are surrounded by water, like a person standing in a shallow pool).



Birds are not below "the firmament." Water is below "the firmament.

They are below "the firmament of the heavens." They fly across "the face of the firmament of the heavens."

Darkness was on "the face of the deep."

"The face" in both cases is the figurative "surface" (in other words, NOT AN ACTUAL HARD SURFACE) which faces the one who is imagining themselves within the scenario being described.

That's just a long way of saying, "the deep" (which you have agreed is water) is below the reader, and "the firmament of the heavens" is above.

Also:

The Spirit of God hovered over "the face of the waters."

PLEASE ANSWER: Given the above, where are "the waters" relative to the reader? Are they "above" or "below"? Remember, the firmament that divides the waters has not been made yet.



Only if you assume that there is only one firmament in Genesis 1.

In other words, begging the question.



I've given you multiple reasons why Genesis 1 describes two firmaments.

- The first five uses of "firmament" are just "the firmament," and the last four uses of "firmament" are "the firmament of the heavens."
- Psalm 136:6 says the earth is above the waters.
- Psalm 33:7 says God lays up the deep in storehouses
- 1 Peter 3:5 says the earth was "standing out of water and in the water," and then directly ties that phrase to the Flood in the very next verse.
- Genesis 1:2 and 1:6-7, among other passages, describes two layers of water
- The fountains of the great deep broke forth, THEN the windows of heaven were opened, in Genesis 7:11 (indication that the water came up from below first, then fell back down), just like it does with a normal fountain
- In Genesis 1, there is a difference between "the heavens" of verses 1, 14, 15, 17, etc, and the "heaven" of verse 8 in the Hebrew text.

Something I haven't mentioned yet:
- Job 38:8 says that God "shut in the sea with doors" and that it "burst forth and issued from the womb" (from the womb is a figure of speech that often refers to "underground"



I know you're trying to be funny, but inconsistency is the mark of a failed belief.

If something contradicts something else, only one of those things can be true.

The Bible says that the water is above "the firmament."

It does not say that the water is above "the firmament of the heavens."

To assume that they are the same, and then claim that the water must be above "the firmament of the heavens" would be begging the question.



Again, you're begging the question that there is only one firmament.

That's what is in dispute.



You missed it.

You've taken the deep and called it the gathered together waters.
You've taken the earth and put it below the deep, because the earth is under the seas, no? Appearing out of the water?



Ok.



Except that's not what the verse says, ESPECIALLY the Hebrew word used for "laid out."

Guess what the word used is?

"Raqa."

God "raqa" the earth above the waters.

That word "raqa" sounds familiar.

Oh, that's right, it's where they get the noun "raqia," which we translate as "firmament."

You know, "the firmament" that God made in the midst of the waters?

Psalm 136:6a Hebrew:
"leroqa haares al hammayim"
raqa, erets, al, mayim

"Erets" is "Earth"

God "raqa" the earth, not "the heavens," above the waters.

Do you see the problem with your position yet?

You're saying the "raqia" of day 2 is "the firmament of the heavens," but Psalm 136:6 says that God "raqa" the earth above the waters.

So, either the author of Psalm 136 was confused, or the firmament of day 2 isn't "the heavens" but is rather "the earth."



So, the Seas.

According to Psalm 136:6, are "the Seas" under "Earth" that God "raqa"?



The Biblical authors had no concept of what the vacuum of space was. They can't describe something that they have no concept of.

They could, however, see the stars in the sky, and understand that "wherever those stars are, it's like that "thing" was "pounded out" over the earth," thus across the face of "raqia hassamayim" is where the birds fly.

But that's not what is being described in Genesis 1:6-10. What's being described there is water. Water would have been known to be "down" from their position. Darkness was on the face of "The deep." The Spirit of God was "above" the face of "the waters." These things are "down." Thus, when it says "God made a firmament in the midst of "the waters," dividing the waters from the waters," the entire structure is "below" the reader, not above, and so...

God - above the waters
raqa - to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out
"[the] Earth" - what the dry land was called
above - over
"the waters" - the waters which were below the firmament.

So that:

The earth - What the dry land was called
was standing out of - dry land
water - seas
and in - subterranean pillars
the water - water laid up in storehouses, the waters below the firmament



Correct.



Incorrect. Supra.



This is you trying to read our modern understanding into the scriptures.

Again, the Biblical authors didn't think like this, they didn't think like this.



You missed it.

Read what I said again.



----



If that's what the text says, then yes.

But that's in dispute, and if Psalm 136:6 is talking about the firmament in Genesis 1:6-8, then my position is correct, and the firmament of day 2 is in fact the crust of the earth.



You're telling me Genesis 1:1-5 is not day 1?

"In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said let there be light, and it was so. And God saw the light, that it was good and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day"... All that is not talking about the first day?



God "raqa" the earth above the waters.
The earth was made on day 3.

Guess what else was made on day 3?

The FIRMAMENT, aka the "raqia," called "Heaven."



You're reaching.

That's not a good sign for your position.



WRONG.

God made the firmament on day 2, and on day 3, he FORMED the firmament that He made on day 2, and called the firmament that He made on day 2 "Heaven."

He made "the heavens," AKA "the firmament of the heavens" on day 1, just like Genesis 1:1 says.



Addressed.



And that's where you're failing.

Bob talked about this in the video above. See 00:48:30.



I mean "literal" as in, "the black surface we see is a solid object in which the stars are placed.



Not quite.

Seas are not named until God has moved the waters which let the dry land appear.

They are MENTIONED, however, just not by the name "Seas."

"Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together..."

These "the waters under the heavens" are not the waters from Psalm 136:6, ABOVE which the "dry land" (erets) was "raqa" by God.



Supra, re: the video at 00:48:30



Supra.



No.

If you appeal to some English translators, and say "because these people said this, therefore it's correct," that's an appeal to authority.

If I appeal to some English translators, and say their translation of a certain word to be different from the rest is likely based on the way the word is present in the original language, then that is NOT an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to the Hebrew text (an appeal to evidence) to support the claim that those translators translated the word a certain way for that reason.

See the difference?



So what? I'm not smart enough to have come up with such a theory, let alone one as thoroughly detailed, let alone as Biblically and scientifically supported as one such as the HPT.

It usually takes the presentation of a paradigm different than yours to make you realize that your paradigm might be flawed.



So what? IF what he says is true, then you should accept it.
If what he says is false, then you should reject it.

But you can't just assume he's wrong, and that you're right.



And if the HPT is consistent with what the Bible says, then what?



Argument from silence, at best.

And I have given you evidence. So far, you've rejected it unreasonably.



Supra, re: video timestamp



Never said they were.



I was trying to demonstrate what the text says.



For the record, those images were drawn by Bryan Nickel, not by myself. I requested them from him a while back via email.



No one said the scriptures were perfectly describing the images.

I was using them as an illustration to help you understand my position.



Fine.



If the fountains of the great deep is water coming from below the surface of the earth, then the basic assertions of the Hydroplate Theory are true.

That's how confident I am that the HPT is true.

And if the HPT is true, then the firmament of Day 2 IS the crust of the earth.



I honestly wish you would!

It would make discussing your theory that much easier!



As proof of your position? Of course not.

But as a teaching tool for your position? Why WOULDN'T I want to see it?



Supra.



Supra.



Thank you.



Supra.



Yes.



Why is that a problem?

Refer back to the 00:48:30 point in the above video.



They're not.

Psalm 136:6 "raqa" (verb root of the noun "raqia") is done to "earth" not "the heavens," and the "earth" is above the waters.



Supra.



Again, if the fountains of the great deep originated from below the crust of the earth, then "heaven" (not "the heavens") being above doesn't make sense.

And additionally, if Psalm 136:6 is referring to Genesis 1, then again no.

"The heavens" is the "above-heaven." The firmament of the heavens.

But "Heaven" in verse 8, is the "below-heaven" (to use your terminology).



No.

Up from below, then down from above, in that order.



What matters is if the reading is consistent with the rest of scripture. If it's not, then you can safely discard that reading.

The HPT reading is far more consistent with scripture and with itself than what you've tried to explain so far.



Why would Heaven" refer to a place on earth after the fall?



Supra.



Ok.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I love the definitions above for image for all of these fit my idea of the image of God and how God used it.
1. an engraver (the tool or the person).​
2. (by implication) an engraving.​
3. (hence) a “character,” the figure stamped.​
4. (by extension) an exact copy.
5. (figuratively) a representation.
The definition that Hebrews 1:3 is using is #5
Since God is a Spirit within which all things exist and consist ...​
False. All things do NOT "exist and consist WITHIN" God.
then he is invisible to the human eye.​
As a spirit, of course.
He did choose a tool for his use to appear unto men. It was formed like an engraving might be and it was a figure ... an express image would be an exact copy of the original figure ... and this tool/figure/ representation would be what people saw in OT times as The LORD God ... and then again seen as Jesus the God Messiah in NT times.​
Most all of that is nonsense. Again, it is a FIGURE OF SPEECH.
People did see the express image of the invisible God clearly. Exodus 24:9-11
These are known as a THEOPHANY.
Right Divider, I'm sure you grasp this: They clearly saw God with his heavenly body.
So what? God is able to manifest Himself in a physical form when He chooses to do so.
You can also perceive that God's image is that of a male... by the pronoun his used repeatedly.
God's image has no gender. Again, it is a CONCEPT... an IDEA.

God uses male pronouns to describe Himself throughout scripture. That does NOT mean that God is a man.
Plus, we all know that he shared the likeness of that image with the first Adam and we understand that Adam looked like a male.
Gen 1:26 (AKJV/PCE)​
(1:26) ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.​

Both MALE and FEMALE (i.e., MAN and WOMAN) were made in God's image. Sometimes the word MAN is meant to include both MAN and WOMAN.
If God was able to share a likeness of his original image with mankind, then why should we deny that he was able to share that same likeness with the Second Adam.
Those are TWO DIFFERENT things.

John 1:14 (AKJV/PCE)​
(1:14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.​

WE (mankind) do NOT share the DEITY of Christ in the same way that Christ IS GOD (i.e. DEITY).
Do you know that Jesus was called 'the second Adam.' Not because he was a mere man but because God, the Son, came bearing the likeness of a mere man. Jesus was God and was seen among men again without a super-natural body of heaven but in mortal flesh.
1Tim 3:16 (AKJV/PCE)​
(3:16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.​

You are NOT God and neither was Adam.
Here I will compare the verse you gave to one I like as well.
Heb 1:3 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:3) Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Colossians 1:15-16
[Jesus] who is the image of [belonging to] the invisible God, the first born of every creature. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven and earth ..."
The "belonging to" is false.

And, again, you continue to be unable to understand FIGURES OF SPEECH!

The "firstborn of every creature" is an symbolic analogy. It means that Christ has preeminence over the creation... which only makes sense since He is the CREATOR.
Guess you and I have just about discussed most of our disagreements. We haven't come together but I've enjoyed doing Bible Study with you. If you come up with other points just share them.
Please help us all understand your position better by identifying the cult to which you belong.
 

Ps82

Well-known member
The definition that Hebrews 1:3 is using is #5
No problem.
1.) A representation means: an act or instance of representing.
IOW, the image represented the presence of God
2. an image, likeness
Exactly what I am suggesting. God created an image to represent him.
False. All things do NOT "exist and consist WITHIN" God.
Of course we disagree on this point. Are you suggesting there are things that can exist outside of God and are independent of God?
So what? God is able to manifest Himself in a physical form when He chooses to do so.

Well, it is a key point to understanding how God manifested himself as his own son!

God's image has no gender. Again, it is a CONCEPT... an IDEA.
The Spirit has no gender but God chose one for himself and it is so clear in scripture what it was.
How? God shared his image and likeness with Adam.
Tell me, who is it that thinks the presence of Adam was female????
We know that The LORD brought forth female and gave her own presence and function later.
Adam looked like what we call a male/man,he/him; therefore, God's image looked like a male!!!

BTW, thank you for providing the scriptural truth:

Gen 1:26 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:26) ¶ And God said, Let us make MAN in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
In Genesis 1 mankind was created male female ... In Genesis 2 man/female existed for a time within Adam's initial form... of a man. Later female was brought forth as her own unique human form looking different from Adam's image.

Both MALE and FEMALE (i.e., MAN and WOMAN) were made in God's image. Sometimes the word MAN is meant to include both MAN and WOMAN.

Yes, man can be used to mean mankind, but Genesis 2 went out of the way to make it clear that Adam had one body and female had another. Ultimately Adam was the HE ... Woman was the SHE.


John 1:14 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Questions:
1. And who was the WORD? Ans. God.
2. In what way was he made flesh? Ans. Bodily IOW, God used his image a second time to bring forth Himself as the Messiah.

WE (mankind) do NOT share the DEITY of Christ in the same way that Christ IS GOD (i.e. DEITY).
I so agree. We only share the likeness of his image. I mean, Right Divider, he told us he shared his image with us. Adam looked like the LORD God and we can observe how the looks of men evolved over the years.
Female/Woman only favored the image of God. Mankind [male nor female] cannot and never will be God.
But Jesus was God in flesh as a unique being. John 1:18 tells us it was the first time ever people had seen God manifested as his own Son.

1Tim 3:16 (AKJV/PCE)
(3:16) And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Amen

And, again, you continue to be unable to understand FIGURES OF SPEECH!
It is easy to call something a figure of speech when it says something you don't want to hear.


The "firstborn of every creature" is an symbolic analogy. It means that Christ has preeminence over the creation... which only makes sense since He is the CREATOR.

Please help us all understand your position better by identifying the cult to which you belong.
I do not belong to any cult. Sigh.
Your crutch has become - to deny deny deny what you can't grasp ... and say everything is symbolic analogy or a figure of speech or call a person a cultist.
 

Right Divider

Body part
No problem.
1.) A representation means: an act or instance of representing.
IOW, the image represented the presence of God
2. an image, likeness
Exactly what I am suggesting. God created an image to represent him.
The "image of God" is NOT... repeat NOT a "created thing". It is the essence of WHO God is.
Of course we disagree on this point. Are you suggesting there are things that can exist outside of God and are independent of God?
Absolutely! God's creation is NOT "within" God.
You sound like a pantheist.
Well, it is a key point to understanding how God manifested himself as his own son!
God IS the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

God did NOT "manifested himself as his own son". That is bizarre language at best.

You talk as if God is ONLY the Father.
The Spirit has no gender but God chose one for himself and it is so clear in scripture what it was.
Indeed, that is the way that God TALKS about Himself.
How? God shared his image and likeness with Adam.
That is NOT what scripture says. Scripture says that God MADE man IN His image... NOT that HE "shared His image". Again, I need to know that cult you represent.
Tell me, who is it that thinks the presence of Adam was female????
MAN was made MALE AND FEMALE. That is why Eve was called woMAN!
We know that The LORD brought forth female and gave her own presence and function later.
Matt 19:4 (AKJV/PCE)​
(19:4) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
Mark 10:6 (AKJV/PCE)​
(10:6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Adam looked like what we call a male/man,he/him; therefore, God's image looked like a male!!!
AGAIN, NO... God's IMAGE is a CONCEPT and NOT a physical body.

What you are saying is blaspheme!
BTW, thank you for providing the scriptural truth:
Gen 1:26 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:26) ¶ And God said, Let us make MAN in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Made THEM... Like Matthew and Mark said.
In Genesis 1 mankind was created male female ... In Genesis 2 man/female existed for a time within Adam's initial form... of a man. Later female was brought forth as her own unique human form looking different from Adam's image.
CREATED MALE AND FEMALE.
Yes, man can be used to mean mankind, but Genesis 2 went out of the way to make it clear that Adam had one body and female had another. Ultimately Adam was the HE ... Woman was the SHE.
DUH!

Gen 2:23 (AKJV/PCE)​
(2:23) And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Questions:
1. And who was the WORD? Ans. God.
Jesus is the WORD ... who is GOD!
2. In what way was he made flesh? Ans. Bodily IOW, God used his image a second time to bring forth Himself as the Messiah.
Cultic nonsense.
I so agree. We only share the likeness of his image. I mean, Right Divider, he told us he shared his image with us.
No, it does NOT. It says that Adam was CREATED IN HIS IMAGE. NOT that He "shared His image".
Adam looked like the LORD God
No, he didn't.
and we can observe how the looks of men evolved over the years.
Babbling nonsense.
Female/Woman only favored the image of God.
Babbling nonsense again.
Mankind [male nor female] cannot and never will be God.
Finally, you got one right.
But Jesus was God in flesh as a unique being.
Jesus took on human flesh and became a man. Jesus did NOT become a unique being... He already was.
John 1:18 tells us it was the first time ever people had seen God manifested as his own Son.
Again, you sound very cultic. You AGAIN talk as though the Father became His own Son.
It is easy to call something a figure of speech when it says something you don't want to hear.
Your ignorance is not my problem.
 

Ps82

Well-known member
The "image of God" is NOT... repeat NOT a "created thing". It is the essence of WHO God is.
No! Some things are actually literal in the Bible. God has an image and he did share the looks of it with Adam. Jesus was not talking about some essence when he clearly said: "When you HAVE SEEN me. You HAVE SEEN the Father. " He was not talking in some mystical figurative manner. The Father appeared with a visible image! And the Messiah appeared with a visible image.
Absolutely! God's creation is NOT "within" God.
You sound like a pantheist.
I am not a pantheist. My thinking that created things exist within an omni-everything Spiritual God does NOT mean that I think created things are identical to a supreme entity like God.

I just happen to believe:
God is omni-everthing and there is no place that exists outside of him ... nor any places within him that are empty. Also, he never looses anything pertaining to his supreme Spiritual essence nor does he add anything.
Acts 17:28 explains it clearly and succinctly: "For in him [God] we live, and move, and have our being: .... For we are also his offspring.


God IS the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

God did NOT "manifested himself as his own son". That is bizarre language at best.
John 1:18 explains how the Son is just as much God as the Father was. Diagram form. God is the noun and [the begotten Son] is the appositive. An appositive renames, clarifies, or describes the noun. Watch to see who the Son is.

John 1vs18 sentence diagram.jpg

See how it reads: No man at any time hath seen God, the begotten Son ... Of course the verse goes on to explain how John the Baptist proclaimed the identity of God the Son in his day.

You talk as if God is ONLY the Father.
Well, who do you say is another Father? What does this statement mean to you. There is no God beside me. Is. 45:5 Do you think there is some other God out there somewhere? Probably not... but you just keep denying God's identity as the Spirit.

Indeed, that is the way that God TALKS about Himself.

That is NOT what scripture says. Scripture says that God MADE man IN His image... NOT that HE "shared His image". Again, I need to know that cult you represent.

No cult, just read Genesis two thoughtfully. You will see the facts unfold. The LORD used the elements of creation called ground to form a body for Adam. God had said earlier that he desired to give mankind a body after HIS image and likeness. Did God lie and not do that???

MAN was made MALE AND FEMALE. That is why Eve was called woMAN!

Matt 19:4 (AKJV/PCE)​
(19:4) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
Mark 10:6 (AKJV/PCE)​
(10:6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

I know all about that. In fact, I have found it fascinating to see the plethora of nouns used between Genesis 1 and 2 to discuss 'male/female' humanity. First nouns or names were 'male/female'. Second name 'Adam'. Third names 'Adam and Woman'. Fourth names 'father, and mother'. Fifth names 'Adam and Eve'. Each time there was a name change something significant had happened. But that's another topic.


AGAIN, NO... God's IMAGE is a CONCEPT and NOT a physical body.

What you are saying is blaspheme!

I disagree again, but you are handy at name calling.


Made THEM... Like Matthew and Mark said.

CREATED MALE AND FEMALE.

DUH!

Gen 2:23 (AKJV/PCE)​
(2:23) And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

I have no problem with what is said about them being male female. I just believe God created them within his Spirit before he manifested them a visible body formed from the elements of the earth called ground. At that point God imparted male/female into one body. You know the part about the LORD performing some semblance of an operation to bring forth Woman out of Adam.
Again, you sound very cultic. You AGAIN talk as though the Father became His own Son.

Your ignorance is not my problem.
No the Father did not become the Son. The Father and the Son were God!
Who were they? They were the ONE Spiritual God appearing within creation by the use of his created invisible image. The presence of the Father preceded the appearance of the Son within creation. The Father's presence had a heavenly glory about it. In fact Exodus 24 called it "his body of heaven."
The presence of the Son had a mortal fleshly appearance. They were both God bearing His image but the glory of the Son was diminished compared to the glory of the Father.
 

tieman55

Member
A lot of this is getting repetitive, so feel free to snip out the text you aren't immediately responding to.



Do you not understand what a synecdoche is?

Again, a synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa.

The heavens is indeed "the heavens," but it's using the whole to refer to the parts.

The earth is the earth. Earth is a part of the earth.

The heavens is the heavens. Heaven is a part of the earth.



This is sort of what I was getting at.



"Tohu" (formless) doesn't mean shapeless. A sphere is a shape, but a perfectly spherical ball bearing is "tohu." Its surface is desolate, lacking any meaningful worth, having been laid waste in the manufacturing process, a veritable desert of metal, empty of features.

So too, was the unformed "the earth."

HPT asserts that this was the mantle of the earth, that the crust of the earth had not been formed yet.



Again, that's a shape. Not what is referred to by "formless."



Because there was no crust. It was just the mantle (and everything below that).



No. Supra.



Not quite. Supra.



Yes.



Because you say so?



And yet, without it, there is no context for the rest of the chapter. It's not that it doesn't require the details. It's that the details require the introduction.

Again, I'm not saying that it can't be an introduction, only that if it's ONLY an introduction that stands alone, it introduces problems.



So "let me tell you how God created the heavens that you see and the void and formless earth that you stand on"?

You said "the first verse, and the first part of the second."

The first part of the second verse is where it says that the earth was without form and void.

Which, to the listener listening to you say "let me tell you..." wouldn't make sense, since clearly the earth is not without form and is not void. The listener could rightly dismiss what the speaker is saying without any further details.



Not quite.

"The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

There's no up or down in space. On the surface of a planet, however, up is away from the planet, and down is towards it.



The verse is not talking about "the very beginning," so that's out of the question.

The whole passage (verses 22-31) is literally a description of the creation week!


“The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
I have been established from everlasting,
From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no fountains abounding with water.
Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills, I was brought forth;
While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields,
Or the primal dust of the world.
When He prepared the heavens, I was there,
When He drew a circle on the face of the deep,
When He established the clouds above,
When He strengthened the fountains of the deep,
When He assigned to the sea its limit,
So that the waters would not transgress His command,
When He marked out the foundations of the earth,
Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman;
And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him,
Rejoicing in His inhabited world,
And my delight was with the sons of men.



You could almost argue that Solomon is writing from the perspective of the mantle of the earth, the foundation on which everything else rests, as though he's describing what it was like before, during, and after (in sequence) the week of creation.

Verses 22-26 is from the perspective of "before" creation.

Verse 22: "possessed" here isn't talking about ownership, it's talking about what God was starting with.
23: "I have been established from everlasting" is a description of how strong the mantle is, conveying the image of being steadfast, immovable. Note that "an earth" here is the same word as in Genesis 1:10.
24: God made the mantle before He made the depths, and the latter half could either be referring to the spring in the Garden, or to the fountains of the great deep. Either way, confer with Psalm 33:7.
25: God made the mantle before the mountains had settled, and before the hills were made.
26: "Earth" (again, same word as Genesis 1:10) had not been made; neither had the "place separated by a wall," "chuts," the "outside" (think "outside the city walls"); the dirt, mud, etc had not been made yet.

Verses 27-31 is "during" creation.

Verse 27: "the heavens" here is incorrect. The word is "samayim" (cf Genesis 1:8), not "hassamayim" (cf 1:1, 14, etc). In other words, he's talking about preparing the firmament called heaven on day 2, and "when He drew a circle on the face of the deep" is just another way of saying that. Again: He made the firmament encircle the face of the deep. Thus, when the next verse says...
28: "When He established the clouds above," it does in fact mean that the clouds are above the firmament (and not the other way around), and then it speaks about "strengthening the fountains of the deep." Perhaps this refers to the downward pressure of the firmament on "the deep"? Perhaps God implemented gravity at this point? Food for thought.
29: "Assigning to the sea its limit," etc., is God forming the earth on Day 3. "When He marked out the foundations of earth," (again, no article "the" in the Hebrew text, mistranslation in English) is Solomon tying it all back to the mantle, the foundation on which the earth sits (cf Psalm 104:1-9)
30-31: Tying the above verses to the rest of the chapter with regards to wisdom.

Going through this passage makes me want to go through Psalm 104 now... but I'll hold off on that for now.



Surface? No.

A face? Yes. Slightly different meaning, but it's important.



The "earth" did not exist until after the raqia was made.

"The earth," however, did.



Ok, so you agree that "the deep" is referring to water (at least unless the context indicates something else.

Then based on that, would you agree that there are two "things" that are made of water in Genesis 1:2?



Obviously not, but calling something by it's description, and finding other uses of that description can help identify what that something is.



"Might I suggest"

And the text does not indicate that there is water in space, as opposed to being on earth, unless you intentionally start with the assumption that the firmament of day 2 is the sky.



Except it doesn't say "there's a layer of water surrounding the heavens," nor does it indicate that.

It says that a firmament divided the waters from the waters.



The fact that you have to appeal to a figurative and euphemistic usage of the word shows I'm right.

When the Bible says water, it means water.

If it said any of those other things, it's usually because of the context which prevents it from being water.

Thus, in those cases, it doesn't say "water," it says those things, either directly using “water” or indirectly by using “water” in a non-literal way.



The "dry land" had not yet been made. Therefore it could not have been the "dry land."



Watch from 00:35:35 to 1:08:48: (2x speed it's about 16.5 minutes



No.



It sounded like you were saying that one of the two masses were reduced somehow. Thank you for clarifying.



No. Not "already separated."



The firmament did not exist before day 2.

Genesis 1:2 (among other verses) is a grammatical separation, not describing a literal separation.



Ok, so the problem right there is that that's not what it says, regardless of our positions.

There is a distinction between the heavens where the stars are and the sky where birds fly. But your last sentence there is incorrect.

The distinction regarding "the heavens where the stars are" and "the sky where birds fly" is not "firmament of the heavens" (which is correct) and "face of the heavens" (this is the incorrect part). It's between the former and "the face of the firmament of the heavens."

But this isn't the point of contention with my position.

The point of contention is that "the firmament" and "the firmament of the heavens" are two different things.



The problem is that what I've been presenting should be convincing, simply based on the fact that it's literally what the scripture says, how it says it, and corroborating scripture that supports what it says.

So far, and pardon my standing on a soapbox for a moment, all I've gotten from you is wild (relatively speaking) postulations about what it might be. You say, "well the waters might be a blob of water in space," and, "when God created the firmament in the midst of the waters, he moved half of the water to a location above heaven," and "the waters might be inclusive of all material in the universe." None of these things are directly supported by scripture, and you have to assume that there must be some other meaning of the words used, that they must be figurative, in order to make those claims.



The premise of the HPT is that unless explicitly stated, or afforded by scripture, one should not assume a miraculous explanation of something described in either the flood account, especially with regards to Creation.

In addition, one should avoid trying to come up with explanations for things that aren't immediately clear in the text, but that might be defined or otherwise mentioned elsewhere in scripture.



Correct.



Yes.



My question is why can't "the waters" of verse 2 be part of the same body of water that was divided in verse 6, becoming "the waters above the firmament"?



Yes, that's your position. But then you're begging the question, both that "the heavens" are what 1:6 is speaking of, and that the "heaven" of verse 8 is where the stars will be placed.

What reason do you have to believe that?

I ask because the I'm presenting the case that it can be interpreted differently, which means you can't just assume that your position is correct.



Okay.



I'm not finding any definition of "ocean" that requires a landmass to define it.



A common trope in space exploration science fiction stories is an ocean world, a world that is covered in nothing but water.

Why could the planet earth in verse 2 not resemble an ocean world from science fiction (again, "resemble," not "be")?



But that's not what it says.

The verse does not say that the waters are moved into one place.

it says "let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear."

That's not describing the creation of a landmass, that's an appearance of a landmass that already existed.

The Hydroplate's explanation is a far better fit, because the landmass that appears in verse 9 is the very thing that was just created in verse 8, the firmament in the midst of the waters.

Refer back to the GFHPT video I linked to above.



Do you agree or disagree with the current secular theory of "Pangea"?



If the firmament of day 2 is the crust of the earth, would it not make sense that parts of the crust sinking, causing other parts to rise, could potentially cause "dry land" to appear, via the "gathering together" of waters into the dips in the parts of the crust that sank?



Missing the point.

If the water is covering the earth, and it is caused to gather together so that dry land appears, regardless of where it appears, the water is in a different location than it was previously, yes?



We agree.

So then why do you say "the earth" and "Earth" (v10) are speaking of the same thing?



Yes, which is why I'm pointing out that they do, in fact, conflict.



A far more reasonable explanation is that "the earth" in this verse is actually above "the waters."

I mean, that's literally what it says.



That works for "standing out of water," but not "in the water." If you're standing with the water up to your knees just off the shore of an island, the island appears to come out of the water as you follow the slope of land from under the water up to the highest point.

But the only thing "standing in the water" would be you, no? Because before you stood there, where you stood was covered in water.

Your legs are pillars that have pushed the water out of the way of where you stand, and the water is below you, but the land reaches under the water, and eventually comes out of the water somewhere else.

"Standing out of water and in the water" makes far more sense if the firmament of day 2 is the crust of the earth, because it is LITERALLY "standing out of water" (dry land formed by the "arches" of the firmament) and "in the water" (the sunken parts of the crust, which the HPT calls "pillars," based on another verse, are surrounded by water, like a person standing in a shallow pool).



Birds are not below "the firmament." Water is below "the firmament.

They are below "the firmament of the heavens." They fly across "the face of the firmament of the heavens."

Darkness was on "the face of the deep."

"The face" in both cases is the figurative "surface" (in other words, NOT AN ACTUAL HARD SURFACE) which faces the one who is imagining themselves within the scenario being described.

That's just a long way of saying, "the deep" (which you have agreed is water) is below the reader, and "the firmament of the heavens" is above.

Also:

The Spirit of God hovered over "the face of the waters."

PLEASE ANSWER: Given the above, where are "the waters" relative to the reader? Are they "above" or "below"? Remember, the firmament that divides the waters has not been made yet.



Only if you assume that there is only one firmament in Genesis 1.

In other words, begging the question.



I've given you multiple reasons why Genesis 1 describes two firmaments.

- The first five uses of "firmament" are just "the firmament," and the last four uses of "firmament" are "the firmament of the heavens."
- Psalm 136:6 says the earth is above the waters.
- Psalm 33:7 says God lays up the deep in storehouses
- 1 Peter 3:5 says the earth was "standing out of water and in the water," and then directly ties that phrase to the Flood in the very next verse.
- Genesis 1:2 and 1:6-7, among other passages, describes two layers of water
- The fountains of the great deep broke forth, THEN the windows of heaven were opened, in Genesis 7:11 (indication that the water came up from below first, then fell back down), just like it does with a normal fountain
- In Genesis 1, there is a difference between "the heavens" of verses 1, 14, 15, 17, etc, and the "heaven" of verse 8 in the Hebrew text.

Something I haven't mentioned yet:
- Job 38:8 says that God "shut in the sea with doors" and that it "burst forth and issued from the womb" (from the womb is a figure of speech that often refers to "underground"



I know you're trying to be funny, but inconsistency is the mark of a failed belief.

If something contradicts something else, only one of those things can be true.

The Bible says that the water is above "the firmament."

It does not say that the water is above "the firmament of the heavens."

To assume that they are the same, and then claim that the water must be above "the firmament of the heavens" would be begging the question.



Again, you're begging the question that there is only one firmament.

That's what is in dispute.



You missed it.

You've taken the deep and called it the gathered together waters.
You've taken the earth and put it below the deep, because the earth is under the seas, no? Appearing out of the water?



Ok.



Except that's not what the verse says, ESPECIALLY the Hebrew word used for "laid out."

Guess what the word used is?

"Raqa."

God "raqa" the earth above the waters.

That word "raqa" sounds familiar.

Oh, that's right, it's where they get the noun "raqia," which we translate as "firmament."

You know, "the firmament" that God made in the midst of the waters?

Psalm 136:6a Hebrew:
"leroqa haares al hammayim"
raqa, erets, al, mayim

"Erets" is "Earth"

God "raqa" the earth, not "the heavens," above the waters.

Do you see the problem with your position yet?

You're saying the "raqia" of day 2 is "the firmament of the heavens," but Psalm 136:6 says that God "raqa" the earth above the waters.

So, either the author of Psalm 136 was confused, or the firmament of day 2 isn't "the heavens" but is rather "the earth."



So, the Seas.

According to Psalm 136:6, are "the Seas" under "Earth" that God "raqa"?



The Biblical authors had no concept of what the vacuum of space was. They can't describe something that they have no concept of.

They could, however, see the stars in the sky, and understand that "wherever those stars are, it's like that "thing" was "pounded out" over the earth," thus across the face of "raqia hassamayim" is where the birds fly.

But that's not what is being described in Genesis 1:6-10. What's being described there is water. Water would have been known to be "down" from their position. Darkness was on the face of "The deep." The Spirit of God was "above" the face of "the waters." These things are "down." Thus, when it says "God made a firmament in the midst of "the waters," dividing the waters from the waters," the entire structure is "below" the reader, not above, and so...

God - above the waters
raqa - to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out
"[the] Earth" - what the dry land was called
above - over
"the waters" - the waters which were below the firmament.

So that:

The earth - What the dry land was called
was standing out of - dry land
water - seas
and in - subterranean pillars
the water - water laid up in storehouses, the waters below the firmament



Correct.



Incorrect. Supra.



This is you trying to read our modern understanding into the scriptures.

Again, the Biblical authors didn't think like this, they didn't think like this.



You missed it.

Read what I said again.



----



If that's what the text says, then yes.

But that's in dispute, and if Psalm 136:6 is talking about the firmament in Genesis 1:6-8, then my position is correct, and the firmament of day 2 is in fact the crust of the earth.



You're telling me Genesis 1:1-5 is not day 1?

"In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said let there be light, and it was so. And God saw the light, that it was good and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day"... All that is not talking about the first day?



God "raqa" the earth above the waters.
The earth was made on day 3.

Guess what else was made on day 3?

The FIRMAMENT, aka the "raqia," called "Heaven."



You're reaching.

That's not a good sign for your position.



WRONG.

God made the firmament on day 2, and on day 3, he FORMED the firmament that He made on day 2, and called the firmament that He made on day 2 "Heaven."

He made "the heavens," AKA "the firmament of the heavens" on day 1, just like Genesis 1:1 says.



Addressed.



And that's where you're failing.

Bob talked about this in the video above. See 00:48:30.



I mean "literal" as in, "the black surface we see is a solid object in which the stars are placed.



Not quite.

Seas are not named until God has moved the waters which let the dry land appear.

They are MENTIONED, however, just not by the name "Seas."

"Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together..."

These "the waters under the heavens" are not the waters from Psalm 136:6, ABOVE which the "dry land" (erets) was "raqa" by God.



Supra, re: the video at 00:48:30



Supra.



No.

If you appeal to some English translators, and say "because these people said this, therefore it's correct," that's an appeal to authority.

If I appeal to some English translators, and say their translation of a certain word to be different from the rest is likely based on the way the word is present in the original language, then that is NOT an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to the Hebrew text (an appeal to evidence) to support the claim that those translators translated the word a certain way for that reason.

See the difference?



So what? I'm not smart enough to have come up with such a theory, let alone one as thoroughly detailed, let alone as Biblically and scientifically supported as one such as the HPT.

It usually takes the presentation of a paradigm different than yours to make you realize that your paradigm might be flawed.



So what? IF what he says is true, then you should accept it.
If what he says is false, then you should reject it.

But you can't just assume he's wrong, and that you're right.



And if the HPT is consistent with what the Bible says, then what?



Argument from silence, at best.

And I have given you evidence. So far, you've rejected it unreasonably.



Supra, re: video timestamp



Never said they were.



I was trying to demonstrate what the text says.



For the record, those images were drawn by Bryan Nickel, not by myself. I requested them from him a while back via email.



No one said the scriptures were perfectly describing the images.

I was using them as an illustration to help you understand my position.



Fine.



If the fountains of the great deep is water coming from below the surface of the earth, then the basic assertions of the Hydroplate Theory are true.

That's how confident I am that the HPT is true.

And if the HPT is true, then the firmament of Day 2 IS the crust of the earth.



I honestly wish you would!

It would make discussing your theory that much easier!



As proof of your position? Of course not.

But as a teaching tool for your position? Why WOULDN'T I want to see it?



Supra.



Supra.



Thank you.



Supra.



Yes.



Why is that a problem?

Refer back to the 00:48:30 point in the above video.



They're not.

Psalm 136:6 "raqa" (verb root of the noun "raqia") is done to "earth" not "the heavens," and the "earth" is above the waters.



Supra.



Again, if the fountains of the great deep originated from below the crust of the earth, then "heaven" (not "the heavens") being above doesn't make sense.

And additionally, if Psalm 136:6 is referring to Genesis 1, then again no.

"The heavens" is the "above-heaven." The firmament of the heavens.

But "Heaven" in verse 8, is the "below-heaven" (to use your terminology).



No.

Up from below, then down from above, in that order.



What matters is if the reading is consistent with the rest of scripture. If it's not, then you can safely discard that reading.

The HPT reading is far more consistent with scripture and with itself than what you've tried to explain so far.



Why would Heaven" refer to a place on earth after the fall?



Supra.



Ok.
Great catch. raqia, Hoba was hammered and it looks like it was.
 

Right Divider

Body part
No! Some things are actually literal in the Bible.
No kidding. Alert the news!
God has an image and he did share the looks of it with Adam.
God did NOT "create an image" and it has nothing to do with "looks".

When the Bible speaks about "God's image", is it talking about HIS CHARACTER... HIS PERSON... i.e., WHO HE IS.

Like when it says that Jesus is the "express image OF HIS PERSON".
Jesus was not talking about some essence when he clearly said: "When you HAVE SEEN me. You HAVE SEEN the Father. " He was not talking in some mystical figurative manner.
It was NOT talking about physical seeing. It was... AGAIN... talking about HIS PERSON... HIS CHARACTER.
The Father appeared with a visible image!
No, He did not.
And the Messiah appeared with a visible image.
Jesus, in human flesh, was NOT "a visible image". He was an actual human person.
I am not a pantheist.
But you most certainly sound like one.
My thinking that created things exist within an omni-everything Spiritual God does NOT mean that I think created things are identical to a supreme entity like God.
Sounds like new-age mumbo jumbo now.
I just happen to believe:
God is omni-everthing and there is no place that exists outside of him
Instead of using linguistic nonsense, why don't you use the Bible instead?

Do you think that God will be in the lake of fire? (He won't be).
... nor any places within him that are empty. Also, he never looses anything pertaining to his supreme Spiritual essence nor does he add anything.
Acts 17:28 explains it clearly and succinctly: "For in him [God] we live, and move, and have our being: .... For we are also his offspring.
Again, you seem to think that "in Him" means "inside of Him"... it does NOT.
John 1:18 explains how the Son is just as much God as the Father was.
They are BOTH GOD! As is the Holy Spirit!
Well, who do you say is another Father?
I don't. Where did you get that crazy idea?
What does this statement mean to you. There is no God beside me. Is. 45:5 Do you think there is some other God out there somewhere?
One God... three Persons.
Probably not... but you just keep denying God's identity as the Spirit.
You are lying. Stop lying.
No cult, just read Genesis two thoughtfully.
No, you don't.
You will see the facts unfold. The LORD used the elements of creation called ground to form a body for Adam. God had said earlier that he desired to give mankind a body after HIS image and likeness. Did God lie and not do that???
The Bible is plain and clear about the six days of creation what was created each day. That you cannot understand this makes you very confused.
I know all about that. In fact, I have found it fascinating to see the plethora of nouns used between Genesis 1 and 2 to discuss 'male/female' humanity. First nouns or names were 'male/female'. Second name 'Adam'. Third names 'Adam and Woman'. Fourth names 'father, and mother'. Fifth names 'Adam and Eve'. Each time there was a name change something significant had happened. But that's another topic.
BYI, the word "Adam" means "man".
I have no problem with what is said about them being male female. I just believe God created them within his Spirit before he manifested them a visible body formed from the elements of the earth called ground. At that point God imparted male/female into one body. You know the part about the LORD performing some semblance of an operation to bring forth Woman out of Adam.
That is utter nonsense and probably blaspheme.

No the Father did not become the Son. The Father and the Son were God!
Are God.
Who were they? They were the ONE Spiritual God appearing within creation by the use of his created invisible image.
There is no "created image". You just keep repeating that nonsense.
The presence of the Father preceded the appearance of the Son within creation.
Utter blaspheme. BOTH Father AND Son are the ETERNAL GOD.

John 17:5 (AKJV/PCE)​
(17:5) And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
The Father's presence had a heavenly glory about it. In fact Exodus 24 called it "his body of heaven."
The presence of the Son had a mortal fleshly appearance. They were both God bearing His image but the glory of the Son was diminished compared to the glory of the Father.
😵

You are just so incredibly confused and stubborn. You are "way off base" but will not accept correction.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
There are women in today's society that would be offended by much of what follows. No offense is intended. Quite the contrary, in fact. The intent is constructive converstaion and understanding. If you can't prevent yourself from being offended, don't read it. If you read it and are offended, that's your problem, not mine.....


I think that a major obstacle to constructive conversation with Ps82 might be that she isn't very precise with her language. It seems like she says some things as much for the sake of conveying a feeling as for conveying actual information or for making a logical argument. This leads to confusion for both parties in the discussion. For example, it leads to her saying pantheistic sounding things like "God is a Spirit within which all things exist and consist" and yet not actually believing in pantheism at all. What she means by what she says isn't precisely what is conveyed by the words she uses. It doesn't help when what she says is generated by a misunderstanding of scripture on her part, as in the case of this particular example, which is what I mean by saying that it creates confusion for both parties. She communicates internally with herself in the same manner as she is communicating with us and she doesn't understand why we aren't convinced by the same method that she's used to convince herself.

This is, however, very understandable. Women, generally speaking, are instinctively more emotive that cognitive, more creative than analytical, more subjective than objective. That's the way God made them, and for good reason. It just makes it a rough road when discussing doctrine because what she considers to be "thoughtfully reading Genesis 2", is actually something far less objective than what those words make it sound like. It is thought, but it's the wrong kind of thinking. One simply isn't supposed to get creative with the scripture nor are we to entertain a doctrine based on how appealing it is on a subjective/emotional level, which is, more or less, what Ps82 seems to be doing.

Formulating doctrine needs to be a process that is lead by logos, which is logic or reason. The word "theology" comes from the Greek words "theos" and "logos"; it is the logos of the theos, the logic of God, or sound reason applied to things pertaining to God. The implication being one of objective truth rather than subjective interpretation. That is not to say that emotion has no role to play. Indeed, it would not be possible, much less advisable, to read God's word in an apathetic manner. Subjective emotions are objectively real and cannot be avoided. There are whole sections of scripture that could not be understood at all if emotion was left out of the picture. Indeed, the emotion conveyed is objectively the point of some passages of scripture. God is an emotional God and He has written us a very emotional book, but the point is that objective truth is not found subjectively, except by accident. The subjective comes (or should come) as a result of the objective, not the other way around. Doing it the wrong way around is what eisegisis is all about, and it will always eventually lead to heresy. That's why there is a whole discipline within theology known as "hermaneutics", which is nothing more than an attempt to dispassionately examine how one should best approach the study of theology.

Having said all of that, I will try to be less strict in regards to parcing every word that Ps82 uses and I would ask that she make an effort to be more precise with the words she chooses to use and then maybe something constructive can be found somewhere in that middle ground.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Sorry for taking so long to respond. I haven't had as much time to be on TOL as I'd like.
A lot of this is getting repetitive, so feel free to snip out the text you aren't immediately responding to.
I didn't do a lot of snipping. Just waited to comment until I had something to comment on.
Do you not understand what a synecdoche is?
I do. But I'm saying it doesn't apply, necessarily.
The heavens is indeed "the heavens," but it's using the whole to refer to the parts.
Well, perhaps, but you can also refer to something that isn't made yet in the story, but is recognizable to the listener, when saying "In the beginning God created the heavens". And then (yes, it is repetitive) when you introduce something that isn't the recognizable heavens, and instead looks like a part of the earth, but call it "Heaven", that's when you confuse people.
The earth is the earth. Earth is a part of the earth.

The heavens is the heavens. Heaven is a part of the earth.
Yes, I'm back to being confused by that statement.
This is sort of what I was getting at.



"Tohu" (formless) doesn't mean shapeless. A sphere is a shape, but a perfectly spherical ball bearing is "tohu." Its surface is desolate, lacking any meaningful worth, having been laid waste in the manufacturing process, a veritable desert of metal, empty of features.

So too, was the unformed "the earth."
"Tohu" might mean shapeless, if you are talking about the material you are shaping something from.
HPT asserts that this was the mantle of the earth, that the crust of the earth had not been formed yet.

Because there was no crust. It was just the mantle (and everything below that).
If this is correct, the scripture isn't clear about it. So at this point you are merely putting forth your theory about the formation, not what scripture says. Which is fine--I think it's valuable, until it conflicts with scripture. One way we recognize a conflict is when you call something by its opposite's name, like "Heaven" for "Earth" or some such.
And yet, without it, there is no context for the rest of the chapter. It's not that it doesn't require the details. It's that the details require the introduction.

Again, I'm not saying that it can't be an introduction, only that if it's ONLY an introduction that stands alone, it introduces problems.
I think you are incorrect here. As a statement of the creative power of God, it certainly stands on its own. "God is the maker of heaven and earth." You wouldn't need more description for someone to recognize the God you are talking about, you can merely point to Gen 1:1.
So "let me tell you how God created the heavens that you see and the void and formless earth that you stand on"?
No, more like "let me tell you how God created the heavens that you see and the earth that you stand on. That earth started out formless and void." Later on, when the earth actually makes its first appearance, God names it.
You said "the first verse, and the first part of the second."

The first part of the second verse is where it says that the earth was without form and void.
Yes, I'm not completely sold on that part being with the introduction, but it appears to be prior to the first creative act on the earth (that's still formless and void).
Which, to the listener listening to you say "let me tell you..." wouldn't make sense, since clearly the earth is not without form and is not void. The listener could rightly dismiss what the speaker is saying without any further details.
Supra.
Not quite.

"The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

There's no up or down in space. On the surface of a planet, however, up is away from the planet, and down is towards it.
As far as our understanding of gravity goes, "up" ceases to be the same as soon as you hit some of the Lagrange points or some other similar distance from the earth. For instance, when Jesus ascended up to "heaven" it was daylight, so He wasn't traveling away from the sun. He might have been traveling directly toward it. So, when He reached the point where the gravity of the Sun was more powerful than the gravity of the earth, then "up" was now "down", potentially. Where Jesus went in such a fashion is a source of much conjecture, but as a body-bound human, on His way to the throne-room of the Father, it seems like He...went..."up".
The verse is not talking about "the very beginning," so that's out of the question.

The whole passage (verses 22-31) is literally a description of the creation week!


“The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
I have been established from everlasting,
From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no fountains abounding with water.
Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills, I was brought forth;
While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields,
Or the primal dust of the world.


Up to that point, we're still talking about "before" the creative acts. Notice that the lines are in pairs. You've probably heard of "parallelism", right? Where the same concept is presented in consecutive lines
When He prepared the heavens, I was there,
When He drew a circle on the face of the deep,
If I'm correct about the parallelism above, then it applies here, too. That would suggest that "He prepared the heavens" corresponds with "He drew a circle on the face of the deep." It's telling the same story using different words. Perhaps the circle didn't really exist until that act, until the heavens were prepared that actually caused it to be a circle, whether from gravity being instituted or some other phenomenon.
When He established the clouds above,
When He strengthened the fountains of the deep,
When He assigned to the sea its limit,
So that the waters would not transgress His command,
When He marked out the foundations of the earth,
These could all be consider "gravity action" verses.
Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman;
And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him,
Rejoicing in His inhabited world,
And my delight was with the sons of men.

You could almost argue that Solomon is writing from the perspective of the mantle of the earth, the foundation on which everything else rests, as though he's describing what it was like before, during, and after (in sequence) the week of creation.
Sure. And you could argue from a different point of view, too.
Verses 22-26 is from the perspective of "before" creation.

Verse 22: "possessed" here isn't talking about ownership, it's talking about what God was starting with.
23: "I have been established from everlasting" is a description of how strong the mantle is, conveying the image of being steadfast, immovable. Note that "an earth" here is the same word as in Genesis 1:10.
24: God made the mantle before He made the depths, and the latter half could either be referring to the spring in the Garden, or to the fountains of the great deep. Either way, confer with Psalm 33:7.
25: God made the mantle before the mountains had settled, and before the hills were made.
26: "Earth" (again, same word as Genesis 1:10) had not been made; neither had the "place separated by a wall," "chuts," the "outside" (think "outside the city walls"); the dirt, mud, etc had not been made yet.

Verses 27-31 is "during" creation.

Verse 27: "the heavens" here is incorrect. The word is "samayim" (cf Genesis 1:8), not "hassamayim" (cf 1:1, 14, etc). In other words, he's talking about preparing the firmament called heaven on day 2, and "when He drew a circle on the face of the deep" is just another way of saying that. Again: He made the firmament encircle the face of the deep. Thus, when the next verse says...
28: "When He established the clouds above," it does in fact mean that the clouds are above the firmament (and not the other way around), and then it speaks about "strengthening the fountains of the deep." Perhaps this refers to the downward pressure of the firmament on "the deep"? Perhaps God implemented gravity at this point? Food for thought.
29: "Assigning to the sea its limit," etc., is God forming the earth on Day 3. "When He marked out the foundations of earth," (again, no article "the" in the Hebrew text, mistranslation in English) is Solomon tying it all back to the mantle, the foundation on which the earth sits (cf Psalm 104:1-9)
30-31: Tying the above verses to the rest of the chapter with regards to wisdom.

Going through this passage makes me want to go through Psalm 104 now... but I'll hold off on that for now.



Surface? No.

A face? Yes. Slightly different meaning, but it's important.
Both words are used by different translators.
The "earth" did not exist until after the raqia was made.

"The earth," however, did.
Yes, I understand what you're saying, and maybe it's right, but the other option is possible, too.
Ok, so you agree that "the deep" is referring to water (at least unless the context indicates something else.

Then based on that, would you agree that there are two "things" that are made of water in Genesis 1:2?
I'm not seeing that. "The deep" is used numerous times in scripture to describe the depths of the seas that man can reach, swim in, float boats on. There's no reason to think it is something man cannot reach (under the crust). That's not to say there isn't something like that, but I don't see that the scripture requires it.
Obviously not, but calling something by it's description, and finding other uses of that description can help identify what that something is.



"Might I suggest"

And the text does not indicate that there is water in space, as opposed to being on earth, unless you intentionally start with the assumption that the firmament of day 2 is the sky.
Not "start with", but taking the naming of the firmament "Heaven" as being consistent with other uses of the word throughout the passage.
Except it doesn't say "there's a layer of water surrounding the heavens," nor does it indicate that.

It says that a firmament divided the waters from the waters.



The fact that you have to appeal to a figurative and euphemistic usage of the word shows I'm right.

When the Bible says water, it means water.

If it said any of those other things, it's usually because of the context which prevents it from being water.

Thus, in those cases, it doesn't say "water," it says those things, either directly using “water” or indirectly by using “water” in a non-literal way.



The "dry land" had not yet been made. Therefore it could not have been the "dry land."



Watch from 00:35:35 to 1:08:48: (2x speed it's about 16.5 minutes
I appreciated the link. I watched the timeframe you mentioned. I don't see any of it as any more convincing than what you've already written. I don't want to demean Bob's memory by that, I'm just saying you've done as good a job as he did, and it isn't convincing.
No.



It sounded like you were saying that one of the two masses were reduced somehow. Thank you for clarifying.



No. Not "already separated."



The firmament did not exist before day 2.

Genesis 1:2 (among other verses) is a grammatical separation, not describing a literal separation.



Ok, so the problem right there is that that's not what it says, regardless of our positions.

There is a distinction between the heavens where the stars are and the sky where birds fly. But your last sentence there is incorrect.

The distinction regarding "the heavens where the stars are" and "the sky where birds fly" is not "firmament of the heavens" (which is correct) and "face of the heavens" (this is the incorrect part). It's between the former and "the face of the firmament of the heavens."
At the risk of appealing to authorities, the words "face" and "surface" are both used dependent on translations. So I think I'm not off the mark with what I wrote.
But this isn't the point of contention with my position.
Agreed.
The point of contention is that "the firmament" and "the firmament of the heavens" are two different things.



The problem is that what I've been presenting should be convincing, simply based on the fact that it's literally what the scripture says, how it says it, and corroborating scripture that supports what it says.
No, it needs that little bit of explanation about what "Heaven" means vs "the heavens", which is man-made, as far as I can tell.
So far, and pardon my standing on a soapbox for a moment, all I've gotten from you is wild (relatively speaking) postulations about what it might be. You say, "well the waters might be a blob of water in space," and, "when God created the firmament in the midst of the waters, he moved half of the water to a location above heaven," and "the waters might be inclusive of all material in the universe." None of these things are directly supported by scripture, and you have to assume that there must be some other meaning of the words used, that they must be figurative, in order to make those claims.
I'm trying to understand the creation account as best as I can. If I enter into it with preconceptions, then it is more than likely my preconceptions will drive my understanding to something that may not be what the text was intending to convey.
The premise of the HPT is that unless explicitly stated, or afforded by scripture, one should not assume a miraculous explanation of something described in either the flood account, especially with regards to Creation.
I don't think a miracle is required to produce water from under the crust of the earth if the firmament really is the same as the firmament of the heavens. Neither would a miracle be required to produce water from the "windows of heaven". There's lots of water, and we don't know all the places God put it or used it.
In addition, one should avoid trying to come up with explanations for things that aren't immediately clear in the text, but that might be defined or otherwise mentioned elsewhere in scripture.
Agreed.
Correct.



Yes.



My question is why can't "the waters" of verse 2 be part of the same body of water that was divided in verse 6, becoming "the waters above the firmament"?
I think it probably is the same, though it might have changed in shape, density, or some such.
Yes, that's your position. But then you're begging the question, both that "the heavens" are what 1:6 is speaking of, and that the "heaven" of verse 8 is where the stars will be placed.

What reason do you have to believe that?

I ask because the I'm presenting the case that it can be interpreted differently, which means you can't just assume that your position is correct.



Okay.



I'm not finding any definition of "ocean" that requires a landmass to define it.
It's hard to find something like that from languages that come from land-dwelling people. They would see the oceans as something that wasn't "land", just like they would see the sky and space as something that wasn't "land" where they live.
A common trope in space exploration science fiction stories is an ocean world, a world that is covered in nothing but water.

Why could the planet earth in verse 2 not resemble an ocean world from science fiction (again, "resemble," not "be")?
Sure that could work. But it seems to conflict with the naming of "Earth" later.
But that's not what it says.

The verse does not say that the waters are moved into one place.
That's what "together" means.
it says "let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear."

That's not describing the creation of a landmass, that's an appearance of a landmass that already existed.
Perhaps.
The Hydroplate's explanation is a far better fit, because the landmass that appears in verse 9 is the very thing that was just created in verse 8, the firmament in the midst of the waters.

Refer back to the GFHPT video I linked to above.



Do you agree or disagree with the current secular theory of "Pangea"?
Agree that it seems quite possible, though I can't say I know of the smaller details of the secular theory.
If the firmament of day 2 is the crust of the earth, would it not make sense that parts of the crust sinking, causing other parts to rise, could potentially cause "dry land" to appear, via the "gathering together" of waters into the dips in the parts of the crust that sank?
Sure. I don't find much to disagree with that part of the HPT.
Missing the point.

If the water is covering the earth, and it is caused to gather together so that dry land appears, regardless of where it appears, the water is in a different location than it was previously, yes?
Well, the water was always there where it ended up (though in lesser quantities), but it was also somewhere else that it wasn't after the dry land appeared.
We agree.

So then why do you say "the earth" and "Earth" (v10) are speaking of the same thing?
I think it's because the earth (dry land) is necessary for people to live on this place God was making. And because God named it. Naming it in the narrative specifies what the narrative is speaking of, just like "Heavens" and "Seas".
Yes, which is why I'm pointing out that they do, in fact, conflict.



A far more reasonable explanation is that "the earth" in this verse is actually above "the waters."

I mean, that's literally what it says.



That works for "standing out of water," but not "in the water." If you're standing with the water up to your knees just off the shore of an island, the island appears to come out of the water as you follow the slope of land from under the water up to the highest point.

But the only thing "standing in the water" would be you, no? Because before you stood there, where you stood was covered in water.

Your legs are pillars that have pushed the water out of the way of where you stand, and the water is below you, but the land reaches under the water, and eventually comes out of the water somewhere else.

"Standing out of water and in the water" makes far more sense if the firmament of day 2 is the crust of the earth, because it is LITERALLY "standing out of water" (dry land formed by the "arches" of the firmament) and "in the water" (the sunken parts of the crust, which the HPT calls "pillars," based on another verse, are surrounded by water, like a person standing in a shallow pool).
If the pressure on the water is due to the land being on it, and the pressure actually holds the land up, why are pillars needed?
Birds are not below "the firmament." Water is below "the firmament.
Water is both above and below the firmament. the water below the firmament is gathered into a single place (I'm ok with multiple places, but not sure the text allows for it).
They are below "the firmament of the heavens." They fly across "the face of the firmament of the heavens."

Darkness was on "the face of the deep."

"The face" in both cases is the figurative "surface" (in other words, NOT AN ACTUAL HARD SURFACE) which faces the one who is imagining themselves within the scenario being described.

That's just a long way of saying, "the deep" (which you have agreed is water) is below the reader, and "the firmament of the heavens" is above.

Also:

The Spirit of God hovered over "the face of the waters."

PLEASE ANSWER: Given the above, where are "the waters" relative to the reader? Are they "above" or "below"? Remember, the firmament that divides the waters has not been made yet.
Difficult to say, since no readers were there at the time. But it seems like the waters are in a central location relative to all the rest of the activity that was about to take place. I don't see how the reader's point of view could be inside the waters, so it would have to be outside the waters. I can't tell if the reader is higher or lower than the Spirit hovering.
Only if you assume that there is only one firmament in Genesis 1.

In other words, begging the question.



I've given you multiple reasons why Genesis 1 describes two firmaments.

- The first five uses of "firmament" are just "the firmament," and the last four uses of "firmament" are "the firmament of the heavens."
- Psalm 136:6 says the earth is above the waters.
- Psalm 33:7 says God lays up the deep in storehouses
- 1 Peter 3:5 says the earth was "standing out of water and in the water," and then directly ties that phrase to the Flood in the very next verse.
- Genesis 1:2 and 1:6-7, among other passages, describes two layers of water
- The fountains of the great deep broke forth, THEN the windows of heaven were opened, in Genesis 7:11 (indication that the water came up from below first, then fell back down), just like it does with a normal fountain
- In Genesis 1, there is a difference between "the heavens" of verses 1, 14, 15, 17, etc, and the "heaven" of verse 8 in the Hebrew text.

Something I haven't mentioned yet:
- Job 38:8 says that God "shut in the sea with doors" and that it "burst forth and issued from the womb" (from the womb is a figure of speech that often refers to "underground"
I think that's a good verse for the HPT. It just doesn't require the weird interpretation of "Heaven" means "earth".
I know you're trying to be funny, but inconsistency is the mark of a failed belief.

If something contradicts something else, only one of those things can be true.

The Bible says that the water is above "the firmament."

It does not say that the water is above "the firmament of the heavens."
It might, if there is only one "firmament" in Gen 1. Since the firmament is not named until the waters are separated to make the firmament, and then the firmament is ONLY cited as part of the Heavens afterward, it sure makes it look like there's only one firmament in the chapter. With water above it and below it.
To assume that they are the same, and then claim that the water must be above "the firmament of the heavens" would be begging the question.



Again, you're begging the question that there is only one firmament.

That's what is in dispute.



You missed it.

You've taken the deep and called it the gathered together waters.
You've taken the earth and put it below the deep, because the earth is under the seas, no? Appearing out of the water?



Ok.



Except that's not what the verse says, ESPECIALLY the Hebrew word used for "laid out."

Guess what the word used is?

"Raqa."

God "raqa" the earth above the waters.

That word "raqa" sounds familiar.

Oh, that's right, it's where they get the noun "raqia," which we translate as "firmament."

You know, "the firmament" that God made in the midst of the waters?

Psalm 136:6a Hebrew:
"leroqa haares al hammayim"
raqa, erets, al, mayim

"Erets" is "Earth"

God "raqa" the earth, not "the heavens," above the waters.

Do you see the problem with your position yet?

You're saying the "raqia" of day 2 is "the firmament of the heavens," but Psalm 136:6 says that God "raqa" the earth above the waters.

So, either the author of Psalm 136 was confused, or the firmament of day 2 isn't "the heavens" but is rather "the earth."
I could be wrong, but I couldn't find the Heavens being "raqa'ed" or the earth called "raqia" anywhere in scripture.. Don't know if that's significant, but it seems like it is.
So, the Seas.

According to Psalm 136:6, are "the Seas" under "Earth" that God "raqa"?



The Biblical authors had no concept of what the vacuum of space was. They can't describe something that they have no concept of.

They could, however, see the stars in the sky, and understand that "wherever those stars are, it's like that "thing" was "pounded out" over the earth," thus across the face of "raqia hassamayim" is where the birds fly.

But that's not what is being described in Genesis 1:6-10. What's being described there is water. Water would have been known to be "down" from their position. Darkness was on the face of "The deep." The Spirit of God was "above" the face of "the waters." These things are "down." Thus, when it says "God made a firmament in the midst of "the waters," dividing the waters from the waters," the entire structure is "below" the reader, not above, and so...

God - above the waters
raqa - to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out
"[the] Earth" - what the dry land was called
above - over
"the waters" - the waters which were below the firmament.

So that:

The earth - What the dry land was called
was standing out of - dry land
water - seas
and in - subterranean pillars
the water - water laid up in storehouses, the waters below the firmament



Correct.



Incorrect. Supra.



This is you trying to read our modern understanding into the scriptures.

Again, the Biblical authors didn't think like this, they didn't think like this.
I don't think God was limited in His inspiration to only what the biblical authors thought like. He was giving them truth that would still be relevant in our modern day. And often He gave them prophecies that they couldn't understand, but we can, because we can look at past history to see how those prophecies were fulfilled.
You missed it.

Read what I said again.



----



If that's what the text says, then yes.
Good.
But that's in dispute, and if Psalm 136:6 is talking about the firmament in Genesis 1:6-8, then my position is correct, and the firmament of day 2 is in fact the crust of the earth.
That's a lot of weight to put on a single passage.
You're telling me Genesis 1:1-5 is not day 1?

"In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said let there be light, and it was so. And God saw the light, that it was good and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day"... All that is not talking about the first day?
Yes, I'm suggesting that. Is that a problem? I acknowledge there are different views on how Gen 1:1 fits with the rest of the chapter. I'm proposing the view that says it is a synopsis of the rest of the chapter.
God "raqa" the earth above the waters.
The earth was made on day 3.

Guess what else was made on day 3?

The FIRMAMENT, aka the "raqia," called "Heaven."
Um, can you really say that with a straight face, when down a few lines form here you say "God made the firmament on day 2"?
You're reaching.

That's not a good sign for your position.



WRONG.

God made the firmament on day 2, and on day 3, he FORMED the firmament that He made on day 2, and called the firmament that He made on day 2 "Heaven."
Again, you're inserting your point into scripture, where scripture doesn't say that. (And that's not a good sign for your position.)
He made "the heavens," AKA "the firmament of the heavens" on day 1, just like Genesis 1:1 says.
So you're willing to add that word to the scriptures there?
...
I mean "literal" as in, "the black surface we see is a solid object in which the stars are placed.
Then you are acknowledging that the text is written from a viewpoint of someone on earth, at least in that section.
Not quite.

Seas are not named until God has moved the waters which let the dry land appear.

They are MENTIONED, however, just not by the name "Seas."

"Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together..."
Only when God had separated the water from the land by gathering the waters together, THEN He called them "seas". They weren't seas before then, only "waters under the heavens". Once the name is given, it can be used, like in vs 22, though "waters" is still appropriate. So "seas" can't exist without "earth" (dry land) defining their boundaries. "Waters" can exist with or without dry land. You can call them seas when it is only water on the surface of the globe, if you want, but the bible didn't do so.
These "the waters under the heavens" are not the waters from Psalm 136:6, ABOVE which the "dry land" (erets) was "raqa" by God.
I think they are.
Supra, re: the video at 00:48:30



Supra.



No.

If you appeal to some English translators, and say "because these people said this, therefore it's correct," that's an appeal to authority.
Actually, it's "because these people have expertise in this matter, therefore what they say about this matter is correct." It is an appeal to authority, but not a false appeal, unless they don't actually have the proper expertise in the matter.
If I appeal to some English translators, and say their translation of a certain word to be different from the rest is likely based on the way the word is present in the original language, then that is NOT an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to the Hebrew text (an appeal to evidence) to support the claim that those translators translated the word a certain way for that reason.

See the difference?
No, because an appeal to the Hebrew text requires you and me to accept whatever translation helps we can find. It's essentially the same as accepting one or another of the biblical translations. And they are all appealing to authority, since we don't know Hebrew.
So what? I'm not smart enough to have come up with such a theory, let alone one as thoroughly detailed, let alone as Biblically and scientifically supported as one such as the HPT.
But you are smart enough to read the bible text and see if it matches up with what he's saying. Most of his HPT matches up well. This one point is one where it doesn't.
It usually takes the presentation of a paradigm different than yours to make you realize that your paradigm might be flawed.



So what? IF what he says is true, then you should accept it.
If what he says is false, then you should reject it.
Some things he has said appear to be true. Some things appear to be false (like calling the crust "heaven"). I like to get additional counsel, as there is wisdom in many counselors (like Prov 24:6)
But you can't just assume he's wrong, and that you're right.
Nor should you assume my sources are wrong and you're right.
And if the HPT is consistent with what the Bible says, then what?
I'm all for it. But what I'm seeing is a twisting of scripture, and even of definitions of words in order to get some small bit of scriptural support--where it isn't needed. What that does is cast a cloud on the theory.
Argument from silence, at best.

And I have given you evidence. So far, you've rejected it unreasonably.
Well, that's a matter of opinion.
Supra, re: video timestamp



Never said they were.



I was trying to demonstrate what the text says.



For the record, those images were drawn by Bryan Nickel, not by myself. I requested them from him a while back via email.
Yes, I understand, but for this discussion, you provided the images, so they are "yours".
No one said the scriptures were perfectly describing the images.

I was using them as an illustration to help you understand my position.



Fine.



If the fountains of the great deep is water coming from below the surface of the earth, then the basic assertions of the Hydroplate Theory are true.

That's how confident I am that the HPT is true.

And if the HPT is true, then the firmament of Day 2 IS the crust of the earth.
No, you can keep the HPT even if the firmament of Day 2 is NOT the crust of the earth.
I honestly wish you would!

It would make discussing your theory that much easier!
But it wouldn't be evidence. It would merely be an image of what I'm proposing, just as your images are not evidence, just an image of what you are proposing (yes, I understand that neither the theory or the images are your original work.)
As proof of your position? Of course not.

But as a teaching tool for your position? Why WOULDN'T I want to see it?
I'm not sure how to draw it for here--I'll have to think about it.. Essentially it would be the earth with water covering the face of it, a bunch of space, then a bunch of water surrounding all of the space. How about this: O . The white space in the middle of the letter "O" is the water below the firmament, the globe earth prior to there being land visible anywhere on it. The dark of the "O" is space, and the white outside the "O" is the waters above. Imagine the ink of the "O" being very thick. Moving forward, the inside water gets divided into water (seas) and land in some configuration. Nothing more is said of the outside waters, except possibly in references to rainbows in heaven (speculation on my part).
Yes.



Why is that a problem?

Refer back to the 00:48:30 point in the above video.



They're not.

Psalm 136:6 "raqa" (verb root of the noun "raqia") is done to "earth" not "the heavens," and the "earth" is above the waters.
Is "raqa" ever actually done to the "raqia"?
Supra.



Again, if the fountains of the great deep originated from below the crust of the earth, then "heaven" (not "the heavens") being above doesn't make sense.
If the great deep is the sea, then fountains of the great deep sound like they would be something that comes from below the great deep. I don't see why that's a problem.
And additionally, if Psalm 136:6 is referring to Genesis 1, then again no.

"The heavens" is the "above-heaven." The firmament of the heavens.

But "Heaven" in verse 8, is the "below-heaven" (to use your terminology).
I don't see it that way (of course). If Ps 136:6 is referring to Genesis 1, then the land is higher than the water. Don't you think that makes sense? If the water were higher than the land, wouldn't the land be the bottom of the sea?
No.

Up from below, then down from above, in that order.
I guess I don't understand what you mean. What came "up from below, then down from above"?
What matters is if the reading is consistent with the rest of scripture. If it's not, then you can safely discard that reading.

...

Why would Heaven" refer to a place on earth after the fall?
Can you see the irony in your comments above (I bolded for emphasis). If "Heaven" only refers to a place on earth one single time in all of scripture, "you can safely discard that reading". You've offered 2 other options, but neither of them require your "Heaven" to make sense. Land is above water (water flows downhill, after all). Land is standing in the water (you can see the sand under the water at the beach). Land is out of the water (it's not all covered with water).
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Sorry for taking so long to respond. I haven't had as much time to be on TOL as I'd like.

No worries.

I do. But I'm saying it doesn't apply, necessarily.

Then you can't very well dismiss it without any reasoning given.

Well, perhaps, but you can also refer to something that isn't made yet in the story, but is recognizable to the listener, when saying "In the beginning God created the heavens".

You still haven't given any reason why it cannot be BOTH/AND.

And then (yes, it is repetitive) when you introduce something that isn't the recognizable heavens, and instead looks like a part of the earth, but call it "Heaven", that's when you confuse people.

Put yourself in God's shoes for a moment (figuratively speaking, of course). If you were starting to form a paradise where the creatures you have yet to create would live, wouldn't you call it "Heaven"? Especially if there was no corruption in it?

Looking back at the Bible having been written in the past, knowing that God lives in Heaven, and that we in the Body of Christ are citizens of Heaven (and not of Earth), and that there will be a new Heaven and a new Earth, BOTH of which will be paradises, would one not be able to draw a parallel between God calling the Earth, where there had never been corruption, or judgement of sin, "Heaven"?

Yes, I'm back to being confused by that statement.

Heaven refers to both Earth (the planet) prior to the fall, synecdochally, but specifically, to the firmament God made that divided the waters above from the waters below.

If HPT is true, then it's the brown band between the two blue circles here in this cross-section of earth on day 2:

image(1).png

And then in this cross section of the earth on day 3:

image(1)(1).png

Does it make sense, at least?

Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant here. Is what is depicted in contradiction with Scripture? Or does it comport to what Scripture says?

"Tohu" might mean shapeless, if you are talking about the material you are shaping something from.

That's our modern definition for "formless."

Here is "tohu." Look at how the word is used, and how it's translated:


Strong's h8414

- Lexical: תֹּהוּ
- Transliteration: tohu
- Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
- Phonetic Spelling: to'-hoo
- Definition: formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness.
- Origin: From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. Desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain.
- Usage: confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.
- Translated as (count): in vain (2), of confusion (2), useless (2), and confusion (1), and in the wasteland (1), and worthless (1), by empty (1), empty (1), empty things (1), for nothing (1), formless (1), in a wilderness (1), in the wilderness (1), nothing (1), nowhere (1), the empty space (1), without form (1).



If this is correct, the scripture isn't clear about it. So at this point you are merely putting forth your theory about the formation, not what scripture says. Which is fine--I think it's valuable, until it conflicts with scripture.

Then you need to show where it conflicts, because I'm not seeing it!

One way we recognize a conflict is when you call something by its opposite's name, like "Heaven" for "Earth" or some such.

Until you consider that it's referring to the paradise God was about to create... Then it makes perfect sense to call "Earth" "Heaven"!

I think you are incorrect here.

I think I'm correct. So there.

Derf, could I ask you to not include phrases like "I think... [insert opinion about my postion here]" like the above in your responses?

It doesn't contribute anything to the conversation, and it makes it seem like all you have is opinions, but nothing factual. (cf 1 Peter 3:15; Proverbs 27:17; Matthew 5:37)

As a statement of the creative power of God, it certainly stands on its own. "God is the maker of heaven and earth." You wouldn't need more description for someone to recognize the God you are talking about, you can merely point to Gen 1:1.

When I said "it introduces problems, I should have clarified, "for your position."

It makes no difference whether it stands alone or is part of Day 1 on my position, because my position doesn't require your previously stated rule regarding the "the" article in Hebrew.

In other words, it's completely irrelevant to my position whether it's simply an introduction and also/or just part of day 1. It makes no difference, because of the reasons I've outlined previously.

No, more like "let me tell you how God created the heavens that you see and the earth that you stand on. That earth started out formless and void." Later on, when the earth actually makes its first appearance, God names it.

Except that it's not "the earth" (haares) that He's naming "Earth" (eres).

It's "the dry land" (layyabbasah) that He names "Earth" (eres).

Yes, I'm not completely sold on that part being with the introduction, but it appears to be prior to the first creative act on the earth (that's still formless and void).

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

PLEASE ANSWER: What verse (in Genesis 1) describes God creating "the earth" which in verse 2 is "formless and void"? IOW: Did "the earth" have a beginning? If so, how long did it exist before God started "Day 1," and where is it's creation described in Genesis 1?

As far as our understanding of gravity goes, "up" ceases to be the same as soon as you hit some of the Lagrange points or some other similar distance from the earth. For instance, when Jesus ascended up to "heaven" it was daylight, so He wasn't traveling away from the sun. He might have been traveling directly toward it. So, when He reached the point where the gravity of the Sun was more powerful than the gravity of the earth, then "up" was now "down", potentially. Where Jesus went in such a fashion is a source of much conjecture, but as a body-bound human, on His way to the throne-room of the Father, it seems like He...went..."up".

This is a historian fallacy.

The ancients (including the authors of the Bible) didn't know what "gravity" or what "Lagrange points" or what "space" was.

They knew "the direction away from the ground" = "up".
They knew "the direction towards/into/below the ground" = "down".

Everything written by the ancients is written within that context.

Up to that point, we're still talking about "before" the creative acts. Notice that the lines are in pairs. You've probably heard of "parallelism", right? Where the same concept is presented in consecutive lines

If I'm correct about the parallelism above, then it applies here, too. That would suggest that "He prepared the heavens" corresponds with "He drew a circle on the face of the deep." It's telling the same story using different words. Perhaps the circle didn't really exist until that act, until the heavens were prepared that actually caused it to be a circle, whether from gravity being instituted or some other phenomenon.

These could all be consider "gravity action" verses.

Hmmm, what else is a circle...

*cough*the earth's*cough*crust*cough cough*

;)

Both words are used by different translators.

I'll concede this point.

Yes, I understand what you're saying, and maybe it's right, but the other option is possible, too.

That's not good enough to establish your position, or to discredit mine, for that matter.

"The deep" is used numerous times in scripture to describe the depths of the seas that man can reach, swim in, float boats on. There's no reason to think it is something man cannot reach (under the crust). That's not to say there isn't something like that, but I don't see that the scripture requires it.

Wouldn't that just be confirmation bias?

Most of the uses of "the deep" are post-Flood.

But this also sort of misses the point.

I'm talking about "the deep" pre-Flood. Pre-day-2, for that matter.

If "the deep" of Genesis 1:2 just means deep water, and something is made in the midst of the water, dividing the waters below from the waters above, then "the deep" is no longer "deep" in and of itself, but it's still (at that point) below "the waters above...", is it not?

And since it's still "below," (iow, not "the waters above the firmament") what are the "storehouses" referring to in this verse?

He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap;He lays up the deep in storehouses.

And what are "the doors" referring to in this passage? Especially given the figure of speech used "the womb" which often refers to the depths of the earth (the reverse being used often as well, as a corollary figure of speech), as well as it "bursting forth"?

“Or who shut in the sea with doors,When it burst forth and issued from the womb;

Not "start with", but taking the naming of the firmament "Heaven" as being consistent with other uses of the word throughout the passage.

But it's not consistent with the rest of them.

Again, I point to the qualifying phrase vs the lack thereof for "the firmament."

I appreciated the link. I watched the timeframe you mentioned.

Thank you.

I don't see any of it as any more convincing than what you've already written. I don't want to demean Bob's memory by that, I'm just saying you've done as good a job as he did, and it isn't convincing.

What evidence would defeat your position?

At the risk of appealing to authorities, the words "face" and "surface" are both used dependent on translations. So I think I'm not off the mark with what I wrote.

Supra.

No, it needs that little bit of explanation about what "Heaven" means vs "the heavens", which is man-made, as far as I can tell.

Uh, no...?

This is going to get complicated, but it's the best way to show what I'm talking about as clear as I can.

God (through Moses) ties "haraqia" (the firmament) to "samayim" (Heaven), with raqia being used 5 times prior to that, with NO qualifying phrase. (None is needed.) The five times "raqia" is used are as follows (direct Hebrew to English translation) (verse number):

"yehi raqia" ([let there be] [firmament*]) (1:6)
"wayyaas elohim et-haraqia" ([so made] [God] [-] [the firmament**]) (1:7)
"mittahat laraqia" ([under] [the firmament**]) (1:7)
"meal laraqia" ([above] [the firmament**]) (1:7)
"wayyiqra elohim laraqia samayim" ([and called] [God] [the firmament**] [heavens***]) (1:8)

Within 3 verses, you have five uses of the word "raqia"

Notice:
* "let there be firmament"; there is no article for "raqia" here
** "the firmament" is used four times, all referring to the same "firmament" of verse 6
*** "the firmament" of verse 6 is called "heavens"

Following this, in verse 9, Moses uses "hassamayim" (the heavens) but DOES NOT tie it to "raqia," but rather to "the waters," which are defined as being below "hassamayim," the phrase being "yiqqawu hammayim mittahat hassamayim" ([let be gathered together] [the waters] [under] [the heavens]).

The next time we see "hassamayim" is a few verses later in verse 14, where we both agree that God is making things up in the sky. With this, we see not "haraqia" but a prepositional phrase "birqia hassamayim" ([in firmament] [the heavens]).

This same phrase, "birqia hassamayim" ([in firmament] [the heavens]) appears two more times, once in verse 15, and again in verse 17.

The last use of "hassamayim" is in verse 20, in the prepositional phrase "al-pene reqia hassamayim" ([across] [face] [firmament] [the heavens]).

The last four uses of raqia are "[firmament] [the heavens]," not "[the firmament] [the heavens]." There's no article "the" for any of the "firmament"s.

According to your supposed rule from a few posts ago, apparently Moses was talking about a new firmament each time... or maybe the rule doesn't apply at all, maybe it's not a rule in Hebrew.

Regardless, the text is explicitly clear in how it presents what God is creating, that the first "raqia" was named "Heaven," and that "the heavens" are a ""raqia"" in which the stars are placed and across which the birds fly.

Can you at least agree with me on that much?

I'm not even arguing here that the raqia God created are not the same thing. I'm trying to point out that the text does separate them, at least grammatically.

I'm trying to understand the creation account as best as I can. If I enter into it with preconceptions, then it is more than likely my preconceptions will drive my understanding to something that may not be what the text was intending to convey.

Right, and that's why I'm being so specific with what I'm saying. It's why I just went through the stuff directly above this comment.

I'm trying to show you that your preconceptions in this case are wrong, or at least, not valid.

I don't think a miracle is required to produce water from under the crust of the earth if the firmament really is the same as the firmament of the heavens.

Then you need to answer the following question: "Where did the water come from?"

Especially if no miracle is involved.

The HPT has an answer to this, and it fits scripture.

What is your answer?

Neither would a miracle be required to produce water from the "windows of heaven". There's lots of water, and we don't know all the places God put it or used it.

Or, the Bible tells us exactly where God put it and used it, and your position has obfuscated it (most likely unintentionally) and renders an interpretation that is impossible todiscern.

I think it probably is the same, though it might have changed in shape, density, or some such.

So it's the same, but what it was divided by can't be the crust of the earth because..... why?

It's hard to find something like that from languages that come from land-dwelling people.

Humans are land-dwelling creatures.

Or what, you think mermaids exist?

Again, "ocean worlds" in science fiction stories and scenarios do not typically have any landmasses. Does that mean the body of water on those planets aren't "oceans"?

They would see the oceans

As far as I'm aware, Moses never saw an ocean. The Nile, perhaps, maybe the Mediteranean Sea, but not an Ocean.

At least as far as the english language is concerned, Seas and Oceans are two VERY different things, despite both being large bodies of water.

as something that wasn't "land", just like they would see the sky and space as something that wasn't "land" where they live.

Yes. We agree on this.

Sure that could work. But it seems to conflict with the naming of "Earth" later.

Only if Earth remained an ocean world.

But we BOTH agree that it did not.

That's what "together" means.

This seems to be your strongest support against the HPT, though at best it's coincidental, and not directly against.


There's no "perhaps" about it, Derf.

That's literally what it's describing.

Agree that it seems quite possible, though I can't say I know of the smaller details of the secular theory.

Basically, the secular theory of Pangea is that the continents of NA, SA, Africa, and Europe all fit together like puzzle pieces.

Except there's a huge problem with it.

See 29:18 in the following video for an explanation of what it is and why it doesn't work:

I recommend also just watching the whole video, so that you can get a better idea of just what it is I'm advocating here.

Sure. I don't find much to disagree with that part of the HPT.

That's what the firmament is talking about, according to the HPT.

You've basically just conceded the entire discussion to my position.

Well, the water was always there where it ended up (though in lesser quantities), but it was also somewhere else that it wasn't after the dry land appeared.

In other words, "yes."

I think it's because the earth (dry land) is necessary for people to live on this place God was making. And because God named it. Naming it in the narrative specifies what the narrative is speaking of, just like "Heavens" and "Seas".

Why couldn't God name the crust of the earth, that He was about to turn into a paradise, "Heaven," and then refer to the "firmament" figuratively by calling the sky/space "the heavens"?

If the pressure on the water is due to the land being on it, and the pressure actually holds the land up, why are pillars needed?

Because rock doesn't float and water isn't solid, it's amorphous.

Think of it like a water bed, just big enough to cover the entire globe, but it's thicker in some parts and thinner in others, and stretchy and malleable enough to deform, except unlike a water bed, it's made of granitic rock roughly 60 miles thick.

If you put weights on a water bed, the surface of it deforms, and if it's heavy enough, it will sink until it touches what's underneath it.

image.png
image(1)(1).png

The "pillars" the Hydroplate refers to are the places where the crust in the second image above touches the mantle, and in the first image, are what formed the basins that the waters above the firmament settled into, being "gathered together into one place."

A water bed doesn't collapse even though the material on top is technically heavier than water, because the water is helping to support the top layer, while the sides also provide structural support.

Water is both above and below the firmament.

With no room in between. A firmament "in the midst of the waters" and "dividing the waters below the firmament from the waters above the firmament" is pretty specifically saying that immediately above and immediately below this new firmament that was created is "mayim" (which is always used for liquid water, not air or ice).

the water below the firmament is gathered into a single place

Not what the text says.

Recall what I said above in this post:


Following this, in verse 9, Moses uses "hassamayim" (the heavens) but DOES NOT tie it to "raqia," but rather to "the waters," which are defined as being below "hassamayim," the phrase being "yiqqawu hammayim mittahat hassamayim" ([let be gathered together] [the waters] [under] [the heavens]).



The water below "the heavens" is gathered into one place.

It doesn't use "raqia" here, but "hassamayim."

You can't just assume that "hassamayim" is the firmament that was just talked about and named. You can say "it's the sky," and I would agree.

But to then assert well it must be talking about the firmament when it says "the heavens" would be to read the belief into the text.

(I'm ok with multiple places, but not sure the text allows for it).

I've pointed out a few times that "echad" is a plural unity, and is the word used here.

Difficult to say, since no readers were there at the time. But it seems like the waters are in a central location relative to all the rest of the activity that was about to take place. I don't see how the reader's point of view could be inside the waters, so it would have to be outside the waters.

If by "outside" you mean "above" the waters on the planet earth, sure.

If you mean something else, you'll have to explain it in your response.

I can't tell if the reader is higher or lower than the Spirit hovering.

Not in contention.

I think that's a good verse for the HPT. It just doesn't require the weird interpretation of "Heaven" means "earth".

You know what's another good verse?

Psalm 24:1-2.

The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness,
The world and those who dwell therein.
For He has founded it upon the seas,
And established it upon the waters.

Even in poetry, that would be an odd thing to say if there was not water "below the earth."

It might, if there is only one "firmament" in Gen 1.

No.

It does not say "above the firmament of the heavens."

You have to assume it means that, but that's literally not what the text says.

What you're doing is eisegesis.

Since the firmament is not named until the waters are separated to make the firmament,

Not quite.

The firmament is what is dividing the waters, and is "in the midst of" them.

and then the firmament is ONLY cited as part of the Heavens afterward,

No.

That's not what the text says.

It's "[firmament] [the heavens]."

Or stated a different way (not to be read as though I'm adding to scripture, just trying to clarify what I'm saying), "The heavens (which are) a firmament."

it sure makes it look like there's only one firmament in the chapter. With water above it and below it.

Supra. "In the midst of..."

I could be wrong, but I couldn't find the Heavens being "raqa'ed" or the earth called "raqia" anywhere in scripture.. Don't know if that's significant, but it seems like it is.

You're missing the forest for the trees, Derf.

Again, raqa is the verb, raqia is the noun. They have the same general meaning, just one is a verb, and the other is a noun.

The 'raqia' was named Heaven.
God 'raqa' the earth (above the waters).

The heavens were not raqa'ed.

The earth IS a raqia, because it was raqa'ed, by definition.

Again, raqa means:


Strong's h7554

- Lexical: רָקַע
- Transliteration: raqa
- Part of Speech: Verb
- Phonetic Spelling: raw-kah'
- Definition: to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out.
- Origin: A primitive root; to pound the earth (as a sign of passion); by analogy to expand (by hammering); by implication, to overlay (with thin sheets of metal).
- Usage: beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.
- Translated as (count): and stamp (1), and stamped (1), And they beat (1), and they were hammered out (1), Have you spread out (1), I spread them out (1), is beaten into plates (1), overspreads it (1), To Him who laid out (1), who spread forth (1), who spreads abroad (1).



And 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)."



For the latter, from the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, it clarifies:

"(solid) expanse (as if beaten out; compare Job 37:18)"

The verse mentioned uses raqa.

With Him, have you spread out the skies,Strong as a cast metal mirror?

Another verse that uses "raqa" is Exodus 39:3:

And they beat the gold into thin sheets and cut it into threads, to work it in with the blue, purple, and scarlet thread, and the fine linen, into artistic designs.

God "raqa"ed the earth above the waters.
He founded it upon the seas.
He established it upon the waters.

I don't think God was limited in His inspiration to only what the biblical authors thought like.

Moses still wrote the book, Derf. Yes, God was guiding him, probably giving him information, and giving him details that no one else would have known.

That doesn't change the fact that Genesis, and the rest of the Bible, is still easily understandable by even a 3rd Grader, even when it does contain deeper knowledge that can be accessed through in-depth study.

It also doesn't change the fact that Moses still would have had no idea what a vacuum or gravity was, even though he can describe how God made the earth beautifully by saying "He hangs the earth on nothing." (Moses wrote Job, as far as I'm concerned.)

He was giving them truth that would still be relevant in our modern day. And often He gave them prophecies that they couldn't understand, but we can, because we can look at past history to see how those prophecies were fulfilled.

Sure. Doesn't change what I said.

Good.

That's a lot of weight to put on a single passage.

It's not "a single passage."

It's all of the ones I've given so far, and more that I haven't.

Yes, I'm suggesting that. Is that a problem? I acknowledge there are different views on how Gen 1:1 fits with the rest of the chapter. I'm proposing the view that says it is a synopsis of the rest of the chapter.

Supra.

Um, can you really say that with a straight face, when down a few lines form here you say "God made the firmament on day 2"?

Yes, because wording is important! This is literally what I've been saying this entire time!

God MADE the firmament on Day 2.
He FORMED the firmament on Day 3. Or at least, He completed forming it part way into Day 3.

Again, you're inserting your point into scripture, where scripture doesn't say that. (And that's not a good sign for your position.)

PLEASE ANSWER: What, exactly, did God form in the beginning of Day 3?

So you're willing to add that word to the scriptures there?

I'm not adding anything. I'm tying "the heavens" in verse 1 to "the firmament of the heavens."

You had no problem calling the sky/space "the firmament of the heavens," did you not?

Don't be a hypocrite.

I'm agreeing with you that the "the heavens" in verse 1 is referring to everything above the earth!

Then you are acknowledging that the text is written from a viewpoint of someone on earth, at least in that section.

Did I suggest otherwise?

Only when God had separated the water from the land by gathering the waters together, THEN He called them "seas".

He didn't separate anything.

He cause the dry land to appear, by gathering the waters together.

They weren't seas before then, only "waters under the heavens".

Correct.

Once the name is given, it can be used, like in vs 22, though "waters" is still appropriate.

But the name isn't used after verse 8.

If the name was used, then it would say "Heavens" not "the heavens" in Hebrew.

The heavens have already been introduced in verse 1. What was named was something introduced in verse 6. You're trying to take what was named in verse 6 and say it's what was introduced in verse 1.

So "seas" can't exist without "earth" (dry land) defining their boundaries.

Agreed.

"Waters" can exist with or without dry land.

Agreed.

You can call them seas when it is only water on the surface of the globe, if you want, but the bible didn't do so.

I would call a global body of water with no landmasses an ocean.

I was using "Seas" anachronistically.

New York was founded in 1626. But it wasn't given it's name until 1664. I can still say, however, that New York (which was originally named New Amsterdam) was founded nearly 40 years before "New York" existed.

In the same way, God created what He would eventually name "Seas," BEFORE He gave it the name "Seas."

I'm simply tying "Seas" with the "the waters" (not "the deep") of verse 2.

I think they are.

That's not good enough, especially since what you think put scripture in contradiction with scripture.

Read what I said again.

Actually, it's "because these people have expertise in this matter, therefore what they say about this matter is correct."

"These people [who] have expertise in this matter" can still be wrong about this matter.

Which is why it's a fallacious argument to use.

It is an appeal to authority, but not a false appeal,

Fallacious, not false.

unless they don't actually have the proper expertise in the matter.

This is a false dichotomy.

People can have the proper expertise in a matter, and still be wrong on something pertaining to it.

To use an example I think we both would agree on, secular geologists are experts in their field when it comes to rocks, yet they wrongly assert that the earth is billions of years old.

To claim "they have the proper expertise in rocks, therefore they must be correct on how old the rocks are," is a fallacy, specifically, an appeal to authority.

Do you see what I'm saying?

You can bring up experts, no problem, especially as corroborating witness to a position.

It's when you claim "they are experts in their field, therefore they must be correct" that it becomes a fallacious argument.

No, because an appeal to the Hebrew text requires you and me to accept whatever translation helps we can find.

I have no problem with obtaining translation help.

But to assert that the helper is de facto correct, simply because he's an expert, is wrong, because he, being human, is a fallible human being, just like you and me, and can be wrong on something, even if he's an expert on it.

To say otherwise is to assert that your expert is infallible.

That's hubris at best. Idolatry at worst.

It's essentially the same as accepting one or another of the biblical translations. And they are all appealing to authority, since we don't know Hebrew.

Again, to reiterate: There is a difference between presenting what someone says as evidence for one's position, and presenting what that same person says as though it should be considered de facto correct.

But you are smart enough to read the bible text and see if it matches up with what he's saying. Most of his HPT matches up well. This one point is one where it doesn't.

Why?

Some things appear to be false (like calling the crust "heaven").

Until you consider that the planet God was creating was made to be heaven on earth.

I like to get additional counsel, as there is wisdom in many counselors (like Prov 24:6)

AGREED!

Nor should you assume my sources are wrong and you're right.

AGREED!

Nor should you assume your sources are right!

But what I'm seeing is a twisting of scripture, and even of definitions of words in order to get some small bit of scriptural support--where it isn't needed. What that does is cast a cloud on the theory.

What twisting of scripture? Look, I've been trying (and failing, it seems) to get you to be consistent and precise with which words you use when referring to the different things mentioned in Genesis 1. There's a reason I put quotations around phrases such as "the firmament" and "the firmament of the heavens" and "heaven" and "the heavens" and "earth" and "the earth," etc. It's not just because I like using quotation marks. It's because when the Bible says something specific, we should be paying specific attention to what it's saying, and not just assuming that when it refers to one thing over here, then it must also be referring to something else over there.

God created a paradise on earth, and you want to say that the "Heaven" he created was in the sky?

Do you not see the problem with that?

Well, that's a matter of opinion.

Is it, though? (rhetorical)

No, you can keep the HPT even if the firmament of Day 2 is NOT the crust of the earth.

Wrong.

The whole premise of the HPT is to answer the question of where the water of the flood came from.

If the fountains of the great deep did not come from below the crust of the earth, then the HPT is false, PERIOD.

But it wouldn't be evidence. It would merely be an image of what I'm proposing, just as your images are not evidence, just an image of what you are proposing (yes, I understand that neither the theory or the images are your original work.)

Missing the point.

I'm not sure how to draw it for here--I'll have to think about it.. Essentially it would be the earth with water covering the face of it, a bunch of space, then a bunch of water surrounding all of the space. How about this: O . The white space in the middle of the letter "O" is the water below the firmament, the globe earth prior to there being land visible anywhere on it. The dark of the "O" is space, and the white outside the "O" is the waters above. Imagine the ink of the "O" being very thick. Moving forward, the inside water gets divided into water (seas) and land in some configuration. Nothing more is said of the outside waters, except possibly in references to rainbows in heaven (speculation on my part).

THANK YOU!

I used ChatGPT to convert what you said into an image. Is this close enough to work with?

1000000760.png

The area outside the white circle is water, the white circle itself is the firmament, inside is space, and then in the middle is the earth covered in water (ignore the landmasses there, AI image generation doesn't like drawing planets without landmasses for some reason).

Is "raqa" ever actually done to the "raqia"?

Yes, by implication of the use of the word "raqia."

Again, "raqia" is something that had "raqa" done to it, because "raqa" means to pound out and/or hammered thin, like metal, and "raqia" is something pounded out and/or hammered thin, like metal.

If the great deep is the sea, then fountains of the great deep sound like they would be something that comes from below the great deep. I don't see why that's a problem.

But that's not allowed by what the verse says.

It says "the fountains of the great deep broke forth," not "the fountains from below the great deep broke forth."

See the difference?

If Ps 136:6 is referring to Genesis 1, then the land is higher than the water.

Yes. That is exactly my point. The land is above the water.

Don't you think that makes sense?

It makes perfect sense, if the waters of the flood came from below the crust of the earth.

It makes no sense if the waters reserved for judgement were up in "the heavens"

If the water were higher than the land, wouldn't the land be the bottom of the sea?

Your position, as I understand it, has (from the inside -> out) Earth, waters (Seas of verse 10), the sky/space, the firmament of the heavens, and then water above that firmament.

There is no land higher than the waters, positionally, according to your position. As you put it, the land is at the bottom of the Seas (and sticking out, but that's a slightly different sense than this).

I guess I don't understand what you mean. What came "up from below, then down from above"?

What else? What are fountains? They are (loosely speaking) devices in which water comes up from below, gets pushed out at velocity upwards, then falls back down, usually flooding an area. A perfect analogy (or as close to perfect as possible) for the Flood of Noah.

Can you see the irony in your comments above (I bolded for emphasis).

There is no irony.

If "Heaven" only refers to a place on earth one single time in all of scripture, "you can safely discard that reading".

Until you consider that the one time it's mentioned, it's beefore the Fall, and all the other times it's used are after the Fall.

You keep forgetting that Earth (the planet) was a paradise. There was no need for a separated "Heaven" because Earth was literally Heaven.

The Garden of Eden was literally HEAVEN ON EARTH!

You've offered 2 other options, but neither of them require your "Heaven" to make sense.

The problem is that "Heaven" being separate from "the heavens" makes far more sense than does your interpretation.

Land is above water (water flows downhill, after all).

What you're describing is land rising up from the water, "standing out of water," not "the earth raqa'ed over the waters."

You're describing earth above earth, not earth above water.

Land is standing in the water (you can see the sand under the water at the beach).

That's water over earth. "Waters above the firmament," "the firmament called Heaven," as it were.

The earth standing in the water is like a person standing in shallow water that comes up to his knees.

Land is out of the water (it's not all covered with water).

This is about the only thing you have correct.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No worries.



Then you can't very well dismiss it without any reasoning given.



You still haven't given any reason why it cannot be BOTH/AND.



Put yourself in God's shoes for a moment (figuratively speaking, of course). If you were starting to form a paradise where the creatures you have yet to create would live, wouldn't you call it "Heaven"? Especially if there was no corruption in it?

Looking back at the Bible having been written in the past, knowing that God lives in Heaven, and that we in the Body of Christ are citizens of Heaven (and not of Earth), and that there will be a new Heaven and a new Earth, BOTH of which will be paradises, would one not be able to draw a parallel between God calling the Earth, where there had never been corruption, or judgement of sin, "Heaven"?



Heaven refers to both Earth (the planet) prior to the fall, synecdochally, but specifically, to the firmament God made that divided the waters above from the waters below.

If HPT is true, then it's the brown band between the two blue circles here in this cross-section of earth on day 2:

View attachment 11551

And then in this cross section of the earth on day 3:

View attachment 11553

Does it make sense, at least?

Whether you accept it or not is irrelevant here. Is what is depicted in contradiction with Scripture? Or does it comport to what Scripture says?



That's our modern definition for "formless."

Here is "tohu." Look at how the word is used, and how it's translated:


Strong's h8414

- Lexical: תֹּהוּ
- Transliteration: tohu
- Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
- Phonetic Spelling: to'-hoo
- Definition: formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness.
- Origin: From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), i.e. Desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain.
- Usage: confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.
- Translated as (count): in vain (2), of confusion (2), useless (2), and confusion (1), and in the wasteland (1), and worthless (1), by empty (1), empty (1), empty things (1), for nothing (1), formless (1), in a wilderness (1), in the wilderness (1), nothing (1), nowhere (1), the empty space (1), without form (1).





Then you need to show where it conflicts, because I'm not seeing it!



Until you consider that it's referring to the paradise God was about to create... Then it makes perfect sense to call "Earth" "Heaven"!



I think I'm correct. So there.

Derf, could I ask you to not include phrases like "I think... [insert opinion about my postion here]" like the above in your responses?

It doesn't contribute anything to the conversation, and it makes it seem like all you have is opinions, but nothing factual. (cf 1 Peter 3:15; Proverbs 27:17; Matthew 5:37)



When I said "it introduces problems, I should have clarified, "for your position."

It makes no difference whether it stands alone or is part of Day 1 on my position, because my position doesn't require your previously stated rule regarding the "the" article in Hebrew.

In other words, it's completely irrelevant to my position whether it's simply an introduction and also/or just part of day 1. It makes no difference, because of the reasons I've outlined previously.



Except that it's not "the earth" (haares) that He's naming "Earth" (eres).

It's "the dry land" (layyabbasah) that He names "Earth" (eres).



You can't have your cake and eat it too.

PLEASE ANSWER: What verse (in Genesis 1) describes God creating "the earth" which in verse 2 is "formless and void"? IOW: Did "the earth" have a beginning? If so, how long did it exist before God started "Day 1," and where is it's creation described in Genesis 1?



This is a historian fallacy.

The ancients (including the authors of the Bible) didn't know what "gravity" or what "Lagrange points" or what "space" was.

They knew "the direction away from the ground" = "up".
They knew "the direction towards/into/below the ground" = "down".

Everything written by the ancients is written within that context.



Hmmm, what else is a circle...

*cough*the earth's*cough*crust*cough cough*

;)



I'll concede this point.



That's not good enough to establish your position, or to discredit mine, for that matter.



Wouldn't that just be confirmation bias?

Most of the uses of "the deep" are post-Flood.

But this also sort of misses the point.

I'm talking about "the deep" pre-Flood. Pre-day-2, for that matter.

If "the deep" of Genesis 1:2 just means deep water, and something is made in the midst of the water, dividing the waters below from the waters above, then "the deep" is no longer "deep" in and of itself, but it's still (at that point) below "the waters above...", is it not?

And since it's still "below," (iow, not "the waters above the firmament") what are the "storehouses" referring to in this verse?

He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap;He lays up the deep in storehouses.

And what are "the doors" referring to in this passage? Especially given the figure of speech used "the womb" which often refers to the depths of the earth (the reverse being used often as well, as a corollary figure of speech), as well as it "bursting forth"?

“Or who shut in the sea with doors,When it burst forth and issued from the womb;



But it's not consistent with the rest of them.

Again, I point to the qualifying phrase vs the lack thereof for "the firmament."



Thank you.



What evidence would defeat your position?



Supra.



Uh, no...?

This is going to get complicated, but it's the best way to show what I'm talking about as clear as I can.

God (through Moses) ties "haraqia" (the firmament) to "samayim" (Heaven), with raqia being used 5 times prior to that, with NO qualifying phrase. (None is needed.) The five times "raqia" is used are as follows (direct Hebrew to English translation) (verse number):

"yehi raqia" ([let there be] [firmament*]) (1:6)
"wayyaas elohim et-haraqia" ([so made] [God] [-] [the firmament**]) (1:7)
"mittahat laraqia" ([under] [the firmament**]) (1:7)
"meal laraqia" ([above] [the firmament**]) (1:7)
"wayyiqra elohim laraqia samayim" ([and called] [God] [the firmament**] [heavens***]) (1:8)

Within 3 verses, you have five uses of the word "raqia"

Notice:
* "let there be firmament"; there is no article for "raqia" here
** "the firmament" is used four times, all referring to the same "firmament" of verse 6
*** "the firmament" of verse 6 is called "heavens"

Following this, in verse 9, Moses uses "hassamayim" (the heavens) but DOES NOT tie it to "raqia," but rather to "the waters," which are defined as being below "hassamayim," the phrase being "yiqqawu hammayim mittahat hassamayim" ([let be gathered together] [the waters] [under] [the heavens]).

The next time we see "hassamayim" is a few verses later in verse 14, where we both agree that God is making things up in the sky. With this, we see not "haraqia" but a prepositional phrase "birqia hassamayim" ([in firmament] [the heavens]).

This same phrase, "birqia hassamayim" ([in firmament] [the heavens]) appears two more times, once in verse 15, and again in verse 17.

The last use of "hassamayim" is in verse 20, in the prepositional phrase "al-pene reqia hassamayim" ([across] [face] [firmament] [the heavens]).

The last four uses of raqia are "[firmament] [the heavens]," not "[the firmament] [the heavens]." There's no article "the" for any of the "firmament"s.

According to your supposed rule from a few posts ago, apparently Moses was talking about a new firmament each time... or maybe the rule doesn't apply at all, maybe it's not a rule in Hebrew.

Regardless, the text is explicitly clear in how it presents what God is creating, that the first "raqia" was named "Heaven," and that "the heavens" are a ""raqia"" in which the stars are placed and across which the birds fly.

Can you at least agree with me on that much?

I'm not even arguing here that the raqia God created are not the same thing. I'm trying to point out that the text does separate them, at least grammatically.



Right, and that's why I'm being so specific with what I'm saying. It's why I just went through the stuff directly above this comment.

I'm trying to show you that your preconceptions in this case are wrong, or at least, not valid.



Then you need to answer the following question: "Where did the water come from?"

Especially if no miracle is involved.

The HPT has an answer to this, and it fits scripture.

What is your answer?



Or, the Bible tells us exactly where God put it and used it, and your position has obfuscated it (most likely unintentionally) and renders an interpretation that is impossible todiscern.



So it's the same, but what it was divided by can't be the crust of the earth because..... why?



Humans are land-dwelling creatures.

Or what, you think mermaids exist?

Again, "ocean worlds" in science fiction stories and scenarios do not typically have any landmasses. Does that mean the body of water on those planets aren't "oceans"?



As far as I'm aware, Moses never saw an ocean. The Nile, perhaps, maybe the Mediteranean Sea, but not an Ocean.

At least as far as the english language is concerned, Seas and Oceans are two VERY different things, despite both being large bodies of water.



Yes. We agree on this.



Only if Earth remained an ocean world.

But we BOTH agree that it did not.



This seems to be your strongest support against the HPT, though at best it's coincidental, and not directly against.



There's no "perhaps" about it, Derf.

That's literally what it's describing.



Basically, the secular theory of Pangea is that the continents of NA, SA, Africa, and Europe all fit together like puzzle pieces.

Except there's a huge problem with it.

See 29:18 in the following video for an explanation of what it is and why it doesn't work:

I recommend also just watching the whole video, so that you can get a better idea of just what it is I'm advocating here.



That's what the firmament is talking about, according to the HPT.

You've basically just conceded the entire discussion to my position.



In other words, "yes."



Why couldn't God name the crust of the earth, that He was about to turn into a paradise, "Heaven," and then refer to the "firmament" figuratively by calling the sky/space "the heavens"?



Because rock doesn't float and water isn't solid, it's amorphous.

Think of it like a water bed, just big enough to cover the entire globe, but it's thicker in some parts and thinner in others, and stretchy and malleable enough to deform, except unlike a water bed, it's made of granitic rock roughly 60 miles thick.

If you put weights on a water bed, the surface of it deforms, and if it's heavy enough, it will sink until it touches what's underneath it.

View attachment 11552
View attachment 11553

The "pillars" the Hydroplate refers to are the places where the crust in the second image above touches the mantle, and in the first image, are what formed the basins that the waters above the firmament settled into, being "gathered together into one place."

A water bed doesn't collapse even though the material on top is technically heavier than water, because the water is helping to support the top layer, while the sides also provide structural support.



With no room in between. A firmament "in the midst of the waters" and "dividing the waters below the firmament from the waters above the firmament" is pretty specifically saying that immediately above and immediately below this new firmament that was created is "mayim" (which is always used for liquid water, not air or ice).



Not what the text says.

Recall what I said above in this post:


Following this, in verse 9, Moses uses "hassamayim" (the heavens) but DOES NOT tie it to "raqia," but rather to "the waters," which are defined as being below "hassamayim," the phrase being "yiqqawu hammayim mittahat hassamayim" ([let be gathered together] [the waters] [under] [the heavens]).



The water below "the heavens" is gathered into one place.

It doesn't use "raqia" here, but "hassamayim."

You can't just assume that "hassamayim" is the firmament that was just talked about and named. You can say "it's the sky," and I would agree.

But to then assert well it must be talking about the firmament when it says "the heavens" would be to read the belief into the text.



I've pointed out a few times that "echad" is a plural unity, and is the word used here.



If by "outside" you mean "above" the waters on the planet earth, sure.

If you mean something else, you'll have to explain it in your response.



Not in contention.



You know what's another good verse?

Psalm 24:1-2.

The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness,
The world and those who dwell therein.
For He has founded it upon the seas,
And established it upon the waters.

Even in poetry, that would be an odd thing to say if there was not water "below the earth."



No.

It does not say "above the firmament of the heavens."

You have to assume it means that, but that's literally not what the text says.

What you're doing is eisegesis.



Not quite.

The firmament is what is dividing the waters, and is "in the midst of" them.



No.

That's not what the text says.

It's "[firmament] [the heavens]."

Or stated a different way (not to be read as though I'm adding to scripture, just trying to clarify what I'm saying), "The heavens (which are) a firmament."



Supra. "In the midst of..."



You're missing the forest for the trees, Derf.

Again, raqa is the verb, raqia is the noun. They have the same general meaning, just one is a verb, and the other is a noun.

The 'raqia' was named Heaven.
God 'raqa' the earth (above the waters).

The heavens were not raqa'ed.

The earth IS a raqia, because it was raqa'ed, by definition.

Again, raqa means:


Strong's h7554

- Lexical: רָקַע
- Transliteration: raqa
- Part of Speech: Verb
- Phonetic Spelling: raw-kah'
- Definition: to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out.
- Origin: A primitive root; to pound the earth (as a sign of passion); by analogy to expand (by hammering); by implication, to overlay (with thin sheets of metal).
- Usage: beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.
- Translated as (count): and stamp (1), and stamped (1), And they beat (1), and they were hammered out (1), Have you spread out (1), I spread them out (1), is beaten into plates (1), overspreads it (1), To Him who laid out (1), who spread forth (1), who spreads abroad (1).



And 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)."



For the latter, from the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon, it clarifies:

"(solid) expanse (as if beaten out; compare Job 37:18)"

The verse mentioned uses raqa.

With Him, have you spread out the skies,Strong as a cast metal mirror?

Another verse that uses "raqa" is Exodus 39:3:

And they beat the gold into thin sheets and cut it into threads, to work it in with the blue, purple, and scarlet thread, and the fine linen, into artistic designs.

God "raqa"ed the earth above the waters.
He founded it upon the seas.
He established it upon the waters.



Moses still wrote the book, Derf. Yes, God was guiding him, probably giving him information, and giving him details that no one else would have known.

That doesn't change the fact that Genesis, and the rest of the Bible, is still easily understandable by even a 3rd Grader, even when it does contain deeper knowledge that can be accessed through in-depth study.

It also doesn't change the fact that Moses still would have had no idea what a vacuum or gravity was, even though he can describe how God made the earth beautifully by saying "He hangs the earth on nothing." (Moses wrote Job, as far as I'm concerned.)



Sure. Doesn't change what I said.



It's not "a single passage."

It's all of the ones I've given so far, and more that I haven't.



Supra.



Yes, because wording is important! This is literally what I've been saying this entire time!

God MADE the firmament on Day 2.
He FORMED the firmament on Day 3. Or at least, He completed forming it part way into Day 3.



PLEASE ANSWER: What, exactly, did God form in the beginning of Day 3?



I'm not adding anything. I'm tying "the heavens" in verse 1 to "the firmament of the heavens."

You had no problem calling the sky/space "the firmament of the heavens," did you not?

Don't be a hypocrite.

I'm agreeing with you that the "the heavens" in verse 1 is referring to everything above the earth!



Did I suggest otherwise?



He didn't separate anything.

He cause the dry land to appear, by gathering the waters together.



Correct.



But the name isn't used after verse 8.

If the name was used, then it would say "Heavens" not "the heavens" in Hebrew.

The heavens have already been introduced in verse 1. What was named was something introduced in verse 6. You're trying to take what was named in verse 6 and say it's what was introduced in verse 1.



Agreed.



Agreed.



I would call a global body of water with no landmasses an ocean.

I was using "Seas" anachronistically.

New York was founded in 1626. But it wasn't given it's name until 1664. I can still say, however, that New York (which was originally named New Amsterdam) was founded nearly 40 years before "New York" existed.

In the same way, God created what He would eventually name "Seas," BEFORE He gave it the name "Seas."

I'm simply tying "Seas" with the "the waters" (not "the deep") of verse 2.



That's not good enough, especially since what you think put scripture in contradiction with scripture.

Read what I said again.



"These people [who] have expertise in this matter" can still be wrong about this matter.

Which is why it's a fallacious argument to use.



Fallacious, not false.



This is a false dichotomy.

People can have the proper expertise in a matter, and still be wrong on something pertaining to it.

To use an example I think we both would agree on, secular geologists are experts in their field when it comes to rocks, yet they wrongly assert that the earth is billions of years old.

To claim "they have the proper expertise in rocks, therefore they must be correct on how old the rocks are," is a fallacy, specifically, an appeal to authority.

Do you see what I'm saying?

You can bring up experts, no problem, especially as corroborating witness to a position.

It's when you claim "they are experts in their field, therefore they must be correct" that it becomes a fallacious argument.



I have no problem with obtaining translation help.

But to assert that the helper is de facto correct, simply because he's an expert, is wrong, because he, being human, is a fallible human being, just like you and me, and can be wrong on something, even if he's an expert on it.

To say otherwise is to assert that your expert is infallible.

That's hubris at best. Idolatry at worst.



Again, to reiterate: There is a difference between presenting what someone says as evidence for one's position, and presenting what that same person says as though it should be considered de facto correct.



Why?



Until you consider that the planet God was creating was made to be heaven on earth.



AGREED!



AGREED!

Nor should you assume your sources are right!



What twisting of scripture? Look, I've been trying (and failing, it seems) to get you to be consistent and precise with which words you use when referring to the different things mentioned in Genesis 1. There's a reason I put quotations around phrases such as "the firmament" and "the firmament of the heavens" and "heaven" and "the heavens" and "earth" and "the earth," etc. It's not just because I like using quotation marks. It's because when the Bible says something specific, we should be paying specific attention to what it's saying, and not just assuming that when it refers to one thing over here, then it must also be referring to something else over there.

God created a paradise on earth, and you want to say that the "Heaven" he created was in the sky?

Do you not see the problem with that?



Is it, though? (rhetorical)



Wrong.

The whole premise of the HPT is to answer the question of where the water of the flood came from.

If the fountains of the great deep did not come from below the crust of the earth, then the HPT is false, PERIOD.



Missing the point.



THANK YOU!

I used ChatGPT to convert what you said into an image. Is this close enough to work with?

View attachment 11547

The area outside the white circle is water, the white circle itself is the firmament, inside is space, and then in the middle is the earth covered in water (ignore the landmasses there, AI image generation doesn't like drawing planets without landmasses for some reason).



Yes, by implication of the use of the word "raqia."

Again, "raqia" is something that had "raqa" done to it, because "raqa" means to pound out and/or hammered thin, like metal, and "raqia" is something pounded out and/or hammered thin, like metal.



But that's not allowed by what the verse says.

It says "the fountains of the great deep broke forth," not "the fountains from below the great deep broke forth."

See the difference?



Yes. That is exactly my point. The land is above the water.



It makes perfect sense, if the waters of the flood came from below the crust of the earth.

It makes no sense if the waters reserved for judgement were up in "the heavens"



Your position, as I understand it, has (from the inside -> out) Earth, waters (Seas of verse 10), the sky/space, the firmament of the heavens, and then water above that firmament.

There is no land higher than the waters, positionally, according to your position. As you put it, the land is at the bottom of the Seas (and sticking out, but that's a slightly different sense than this).



What else? What are fountains? They are (loosely speaking) devices in which water comes up from below, gets pushed out at velocity upwards, then falls back down, usually flooding an area. A perfect analogy (or as close to perfect as possible) for the Flood of Noah.



There is no irony.



Until you consider that the one time it's mentioned, it's beefore the Fall, and all the other times it's used are after the Fall.

You keep forgetting that Earth (the planet) was a paradise. There was no need for a separated "Heaven" because Earth was literally Heaven.

The Garden of Eden was literally HEAVEN ON EARTH!



The problem is that "Heaven" being separate from "the heavens" makes far more sense than does your interpretation.



What you're describing is land rising up from the water, "standing out of water," not "the earth raqa'ed over the waters."

You're describing earth above earth, not earth above water.



That's water over earth. "Waters above the firmament," "the firmament called Heaven," as it were.

The earth standing in the water is like a person standing in shallow water that comes up to his knees.



This is about the only thing you have correct.
If anyone reading this thread skips this post, it's worth it to go back and read it.
 
Top