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

[Derf]

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.

I have, some time ago. It is the confusion factor...and God is not the author of confusion. Rather, He takes confusing things and makes sense of them, or chaotic things and makes orderly things of them. Thus, when He introduces a confusing thing, like calling something "heaven" that isn't "the heavens", and then NEVER calls it that again, it is confusing. I know you've rejected that reason, but it is both valid and compelling for those who aren't already settled on their interpretation.

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?

Yes, but not then afterward call "Heaven" "Earth" and something else "Heaven".

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"?

But you still recognize a difference between "heaven" and "earth" in the new of each, right? In other words, new "Earth" is not the new "Heaven", right? Even though the new Earth is no doubt a paradise, where God dwells with His people?
[Rev 21:1 NKJV] Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.

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?

I don't have any problem whatsoever with that part of the theory. I thought I had made that clear.

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

It conflicts where "Heaven" is named, then confused with something else called "Heaven" thoughout the bible.

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

NOT IF THERE IS STILL A DISTINCTION BETWEEN "HEAVEN" AND "EARTH". If you call the second "Heaven" and then talk as if you never called it that, but use the word for the original heaven, it is confusing.

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)

I'm trying not to be so convinced of my own opinion that I can't see other points of view. If that bothers you, I don't know what to do about it. I'm not convinced of my interpretation/understanding of the creation narrative on all points. I'm open to hearing different viewpoints, as long as they make sense. The HPT is a good example. It is a worthy theory of the creation events, minus the "heaven"/"earth" confusion bit. But I would have a hard time saying "I know" on any of it that isn't spelled out exactly in scripture.

So, instead, do you want me to call you a liar? If I say that I know for sure you are incorrect, then it leads me to think you are lying. But I don't think (sorry) that you are lying, rather you are putting forward a possible viewpoint. If you think it is completely settled, good for you...unless you are wrong on any part of it, then bad for you, because you can't change without retracting what you've said in the past so forcefully.

But if it helps, you are incorrect on that point.

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?

If "the earth" is formless and void, it isn't yet created. So we have to wait for vs 9 and 10 for it to be created.

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*

Funny. And true. But remember that "historian's fallacy" you pointed out? It applies here to your point as well. They likely didn't know much about the shape of the globe earth.

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.

I admit that it might be a different thing pre-day-2. I doubt it is for pre-flood.

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.

Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 33:7 - New King James Version

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

www.biblegateway.com

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;

Bible Gateway passage: Job 38:8 - New King James Version

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

www.biblegateway.com

It's talking about the shores of the land, possibly because mountains are so much higher now. See the following verses:
[Job 38:8 NKJV] "Or [who] shut in the sea with doors, When it burst forth [and] issued from the womb;
[Job 38:10 NKJV] When I fixed My limit for it, And set bars and doors;
[Job 38:11 NKJV] When I said, 'This far you may come, but no farther, And here your proud waves must stop!'

I expect there are some things we don't quite understand about the plates of the earth, such that they might be buoyant to some degree, so that when the ice of Antarctica and Greenland melt, the shorelines don't change much. But that's speculation.

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

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

The firmament was created by separating part of the waters from the other part of the waters, then it was called "Heaven". Then there are two aspects of that heaven that are discussed: the firmament of it and the face of it. I just don't see how that isn't consistent. Birds don't fly in the firmament, but they do fly on the face of it. By the time you have birds in your view, that firmament has been called "heaven" and then it is called "earth". Or, if it isn't called earth (if it is only the mantle or something else that is still submerged), then how can the birds fly on the face of it?

Thank you.



What evidence would defeat your position?

If the bible said, "And this He also called "Heaven"", or some such. Or if later verses said "You were in the Heaven on Earth where Eden was." Or anything that shows that the thing that was expressly named "Heaven" was on the earth or under the sea for a short time. I'm sure that you think those exist, and have cited them for me, but those are not clearly giving those details; rather they can be easily read in other ways more in keeping with what the world looks like today. I also remembering you mentioning Ps 104, and I hope I'm not stealing your thunder (or making it impotent), but I read through it today, and it can just as easily support my position as yours, assuming you are focusing on vs 3
[Psa 104:3 NKJV] He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters, Who makes the clouds His chariot, Who walks on the wings of the wind,

If there are waters above the heavens

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

Yes, this is the first time "firmament" is used in the narrative, so an article would suggest the reader/listener would know about it already. Therefore no article is used the first time it is introduced, just like "Heavens" vs "the Heavens", "Earth" vs "the Earth", and "Seas" vs "the Seas".

** "the firmament" is used four times, all referring to the same "firmament" of verse 6

Agreed

*** "the firmament" of verse 6 is called "heavens"

Agreed

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]."

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.

I'm way beyond my knowledge of Hebrew here, but at least in the case of prepositions (based on my online search) the definite article is merged with the proposition when a preposition is used, probably because the preposition is a suffix and the article is a suffix, so the prime spot for a suffix requires the preposition. Here's what I found there:
----------------
CASE 5: Before the Definite Article Hey
Finally, if a prefix is joined to a noun with the definite article, a contraction occurs: the Hey drops out and the prepositional prefix takes the vowel that was under the Hey:

Examples:

In each of these cases, notice how the Hey prefix of the definite noun drops and is replaced with the prepositional prefix.
-----------------------------
I don't know if the definite article is needed when the noun "firmament" is used as an adjective to modify the noun "heavens", but perhaps something like the merging described above is done, or the article for the adjective noun is not required.

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?

No. Because the scripture is not clear that a second "raqia" is intended. Rather, the more likely connection is "Heaven", which is connected to both the early and the later "raqias". The most likely use, then, would be to see both the heavens and both the raqias as referring to the same creation object.

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'll call your bluff here, as you ARE arguing that the raqias are different, and I don't see how, based on your description above, anyone would not see that's what you are arguing. That's not at all to say there aren't other raqias. There might be, but there's none that are called "raqia" in Gen 1. Both references are related in the text to "heaven", so there's no reason to suddenly conclude that there are 2 raqias and 2 heavens (not to be confused with the "3rd heaven" Paul refers to, because that might or might not be included in "the heavens").

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.

Sorry, I'm not seeing that I'm wrong there.

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?

You're asking, "Where did the water come from that was released in the fountains of the great deep?" It seems like it came from under the great deep. HPT's answer to that is sufficient, as far as I can tell. But it doesn't fit scripture to say that the great deep is above the firmament and below the firmament, and wherever else you are trying to say that it is. "The great deep" is used of deep waters. Depth of waters is measured from a surface. Some great deep under another great deep might work, but the bible never talks about multiple "great deeps" stacked on top of each other.

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?

Because there's a "heaven" in between, and heaven is defined and used in Gen 1 as the space/expanse/firmament/solid thing that stars are put in.

Humans are land-dwelling creatures.

Or what, you think mermaids exist?

??? All I'm saying is that the perspective of the writers of scripture is inherently from the land. You seem to agree with me, so I'll move on.

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"?

From britannica.com (italics mine)
Ocean, continuous body of salt water held in enormous basins on Earth's surface.
Such language talks about oceans from a land-dwelling perspective, which would not be possible without some land to dwell on, fictional ocean worlds notwithstanding.

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

According to Josephus, Moses was a great captain of the Eqyptian armies against other nations, so he might have. He certainly saw the Red Sea in additional to the Med Sea. Note that Gen 1 doesn't, nor the translators, use the word "oceans", but rather "seas". So I'm not sure of your point about oceans.

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.

Not really very different. Haven't you heard of sailors speaking of "the seven seas"?

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.



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.

I'm not prepared to go through that right now.

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

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

I'm ready to concede, for this discussion, the whole hydroplate theory to you, except where it tries to manufacture data from scripture that just isn't there. It's a glaring inconsistency, that should be dropped, and dropping it will not hurt the theory at all, just some of the supposed support that isn't really there.

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"?

So the firmament is now the primary thing called "Heaven" and the sky/space is more of a figurative "Heaven"? That's just weird.

Because rock doesn't float and water isn't solid.

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, and if the weight is heavy enough, and if there's not

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.

Water at great pressure can support great weights that don't float at lower pressures. Just like some ships are made of concrete. It depends on the displacement. the large continental mass might displace enough water to float it.

The sides of a water bed are not what supports the weight of the person in the bed, though the body is heavier than the water. The displacement of the body is enough to float the body, comparing the weights of the displaced water with the body. The sides merely keep the water from leaving the bed.

With no room in between.

Potentially ONLY room in between. Remember that other words used for it are "expanse" and "space". These are not my words only.

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).

So your "mayim" are UNDER the crust as well? I This is getting weirder.

Not what the text says.

That comment fits well here.

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."

Right, AFTER it called the raqia "Heavens".

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.

I'm not "just assuming". I'm reading the text and letting it speak. It defines "Heavens" then uses "Heavens" with the definite article.

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.

No.

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.

Yes, outside the glob of water. "Above" fits, but is ambiguous if the waters haven't been pulled into a sphere yet. Not saying they haven't, but we don't know.

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.

Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 24:1, Psalm 24:2 - New King James Version

The King of Glory and His Kingdom - A Psalm of David. The earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness, The world and those who dwell therein.

www.biblegateway.com

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

Seas below the earth's crust is already an odd thing to a reader of the text. Rather, "upon the waters" is a relative expression that refers to dry land being above the water, including where it seeps up if you dig near the water. No need for a new concept of "seas" below the crust in the text.

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.

That happens a lot around here.

Not quite.

Yes, quite, as you say below.

The firmament is what is dividing the waters, and is "in the midst of" them.

Right. If waters are above the heavens (which is what the firmament is called), then it divides the waters and is in the midst of them (or between the upper and lower waters). That part fits both interpretations.

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

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)"

H7549 - rāqîaʿ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv)

H7549 - רָקִיעַ râqîyaʻ, raw-kee'-ah; from ; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:—firmament.

www.blueletterbible.org

The verse mentioned uses raqa.

With Him, have you spread out the skies,Strong as a cast metal mirror?

Bible Gateway passage: Job 37:18 - New King James Version

With Him, have you spread out the skies, Strong as a cast metal mirror?

www.biblegateway.com

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.

Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 39:3 - New King James Version

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.

www.biblegateway.com

God "raqa"ed the earth above the waters.
He founded it upon the seas.
He established it upon the waters.

Ok, so you found a verse saying the heavens can be raqa'ed, but you didn't find a verse calling the earth a raqia. 1 point for each of us.

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.

And part of that 'easily understandable' stuff is that when you name something, and then you use the name afterward, it usually refers to the same thing. Even a 3rd grader would understand that.

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.

I think we're in agreement there.

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.

A crack in the proverbial dike?

PLEASE ANSWER: What, exactly, did God form in the beginning of Day 3?

The dry land, which He named "Earth". We might call them continents today, or maybe a single continent. I'm open to either. This dry land/Earth is under the firmament, called "the heavens". It is certainly not dry land under the crust of the earth, right? (Please answer this question, it's not rhetorical.)

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?

Sky is the surface of the firmament, and space is the firmament.

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?

Then there is no way to see the part that is under the waters and under the crust. If you aren't suggesting otherwise, then you must disavow all the stuff that is out of view of the viewer.

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.

"Seas" isn't used after verse 8? Are we reading different passages?

If the name was used, then it would say "Heavens" not "the heavens" in Hebrew.

Supra (echo, echo, echo).

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.

Supra.

Agreed.

Then you agree that you can't have seas under the crust? And because of that, you must be saying that the seas are above the crust only, and therefore if they are said to be "under the heavens", those heavens must be space and not the crust of the earth.

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.

Yet, if God defines/names a particular thing "Seas", then we should be careful calling other things in that passage "Seas", don't you think?

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 don't think I was suggesting they were correct just because they are experts, I was suggesting that their opinions are valuable on this matter. ( I might have forgotten which experts we are talking about, but my conclusion is a good one.)

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.

Which I'm not asserting.

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.

Was it? Isn't this an example of begging the question, since your evidence is the passage in question?

AGREED!



AGREED!

Nor should you assume your sources are right!

Supra

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?

Nope, since He defined what He meant by the word and was consistent with His definition.

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.

I hope you can see that calling the earth "heaven" has nothing to do with whether there might be water below the crust of the earth.

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).

It's a good effort, but the white circle is all of space, rather than encircling space, ending in the atmosphere of the globe earth.

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?

Not really. A fountain is defined by its spray into the air. The ones I usually see are piped from somewhere below the water I can see, but I never here anyone saying "the fountain from below the water in the basin."

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"

Never said they were (except possibly the "windows of heaven" part). The fountains of the great deep were visible above the surface of the water in the seas, but I doubt Noah could tell that anything was coming from under 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.

Close, but not really that close. Land is both under the water and above the water. Space is the firmament of the heavens. There's water above space.

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.

Sure, as I opined above.

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!

That's a phrase that recognizes heaven as somewhere besides earth before it can be on earth. And the phrase is extra-biblical.

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.

So, you're saying heaven on earth still exists today???

The earth standing in the water is like a person standing in shallow water that comes up to his knees.

I don't have a problem with that description. and "out of the water" means it isn't covered by water.

This is about the only thing you have correct.

Hurrah!

 

[JudgeRightly]

I have, some time ago. It is the confusion factor...

What's confusing about the very first verse in the Bible being about God literally creating that which He is about to be described as forming, AS WELL AS being the introduction to the whole creation week?

Why is that confusing?

You keep saying it’s confusing, but you refuse to explain WHY!

and God is not the author of confusion. Rather, He takes confusing things and makes sense of them, or chaotic things and makes orderly things of them.

Not in dispute.

Thus, when He introduces a confusing thing, like calling something "heaven" that isn't "the heavens", and then NEVER calls it that again, it is confusing.

The first problem with this sentence is that you've started with the assumption that something like "calling something heaven, that isn't "the heavens," is by its very nature confusing.

The second problem is that you wrongly assume that, in general, just because something is named once, then never mentioned again, therefore it's confusing, and all I'm trying to say is that maybe it's confusing because you're looking at it from the wrong perspective.

Consider: You're walking along and come across a structure that, when viewed head-on from the direction whence you came, looks like a bunch of odd shapes and lines made up of plastic, and you think, "Well, that's confusing, what's the point of this sculpture?" So you start to walk around it. As you walk around it, the odd shapes and lines shift, and you continue to think that there isn't much point to this sculpture, then BOOM, suddenly there's a woman's face smiling back at you from what you now see is a sculpture.

Had you not walked around the sculpture, and viewed it from the direction you ended up in, you would have been justified in going on with your life thinking that it was just a weird sculpture that had no meaning or purpose.

All I'm doing is standing where you can see the woman's face, and waving at you, and saying, "Hey! Come and stand over here!"

Your response to me right now is, "But all I see is a bunch of junk plastic pieces held up by some string! Why should I give my attention to this mass of confusion?"

I know you've rejected that reason, but it is both valid and compelling for those who aren't already settled on their interpretation.

You're viewing the sculpture as just some junk plastic that someone decided to hang up on some string, and declaring that there's no other way to look at it.

I'm rejecting that it's just junk, and that it's actually something rather amazingly put together sculpture, and asking that you move from your position to try to see this mass of plastic from another perspective.

Or, if we use this video as a reference instead:

I'm telling you to take a step back, and stop looking at the garbage through a magnifying glass up close, so that you can fully appreciate the whole image that the garbage forms, you know, to get the big picture!

Yes, but not then afterward call "Heaven" "Earth" and something else "Heaven".

Take a step back for a moment. You're looking too closely at the details.

God created SOMETHING (the whole), and there was water (part of the whole), and in the midst of that water (part of that whole), God made something else (part of the part of the whole). He called that 'something else' one thing, and then called '>part of that 'something else'<' (a part of the part of the whole) another thing.

Does that make sense?

He then uses the "part of the part of the whole" descriptively to describe something else in a figurative sense.

Does THAT make sense?

But you still recognize a difference between "heaven" and "earth" in the new of each, right?

Yes, which is why I said "parallel."

Look, with the term "Heaven" (1:8), I'm only using the term that the translators use, because it's easy enough for everyone to understand, and looking at the exact definition of the word doesn't really provide any insight into the reason why they did so. I would imagine they used "Heaven" because they looked at the context of the chapter and realized that God was creating a paradise, and so the term "Heaven" just fits. Of course, that's just my layman's understanding, and I could be completely wrong, but you have to remember, both you and I, and the translators, are viewing the creation week through the lens of fallen humans, reading something that before it had been painstakingly transcribed hundreds if not thousands of times, was the perfect account of what God did during that first week.

We are, and more importantly, God is, calling the city "New York" before it was known as "New York," so to speak.

In other words, new "Earth" is not the new "Heaven", right?

As I said, I was drawing a parallel between "Heaven" where God lives, and the pre-Fall Earth, where God lived.

Even though the new Earth is no doubt a paradise, where God dwells with His people?
[Rev 21:1 NKJV] Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.

Supra.

I don't have any problem whatsoever with that part of the theory. I thought I had made that clear.

That's the part of the theory we've been discussing this ENTIRE TIME, Derf!

Please answer the question that I asked!:

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:

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

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?

It conflicts where "Heaven" is named, then confused with something else called "Heaven" throughout the bible.

Have you not considered the possibility that the only one confusing it with something else here is you.

Again, come stand over here where you can see the woman smiling, instead of remaining where you are and being unable to see anything other than junk.

Take a step back, and consider the big picture!

NOT IF THERE IS STILL A DISTINCTION BETWEEN "HEAVEN" AND "EARTH".

"Still"?

There WAS NO DISTINCTION to begin with. And yes, I mean that literally.

The distinction came after the Fall, when God moved "Heaven" (iow, the concept of "where God lives"), or removed, to be more precise, from the earth, and thus created the distinction between the two.

Again, the Earth (the planet) was a paradise. It was what we today would call "Heaven on Earth."

Can you at least grasp that concept?

If you call the second "Heaven" and then talk as if you never called it that, but use the word for the original heaven, it is confusing.

So someone writing a history book cannot start with the formation of New Amsterdam, and then once he gets to the point in history where it's given the name "New York," he must continue to refer to New York as "New Amsterdam" instead?

I'm trying not to be so convinced of my own opinion that I can't see other points of view. If that bothers you, I don't know what to do about it. I'm not convinced of my interpretation/understanding of the creation narrative on all points. I'm open to hearing different viewpoints, as long as they make sense. The HPT is a good example. It is a worthy theory of the creation events, minus the "heaven"/"earth" confusion bit. But I would have a hard time saying "I know" on any of it that isn't spelled out exactly in scripture.

You're saying, "I want to see something other than junk pieces of plastic hanging from the ceiling," but then refusing to come stand over where I'm at so that you can see the woman's smile.

So, instead, do you want me to call you a liar?

I want you to be more confident in what you believe.

I and others on here have constantly pointed out to people who post on TOL that "We don't care about your opinions on a given matter. We want to know the reasoning behind it, WHY you believe what you believe. You're welcome to your beliefs, but unless you can back them up, they're just opinions that have no relevance to any sort of meaningful discussion.

Thus, if you aren't confident in your belief of something, DIG INTO IT! Find out WHY you believe what you believe, and find out if that belief is consistent with the evidence.

As Peter stated, which I referenced, "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you," and last I checked, Genesis 1 is pretty foundational to the belief that Christ came to save the world.

If I say that I know for sure you are incorrect, then it leads me to think you are lying.

Or, my reasoning has led me to a particular belief, and thus, you might have evidence that shows what I believe is wrong, or at least incorrect.

Don't assume malicious intent.

But I don't think (sorry) that you are lying, rather you are putting forward a possible viewpoint.

Thank you.

But as I stated above, unless you can give a valid reason for me to reconsider what I believe, then I have no reason to stop believing it.

Your opinions aren't enough for me to reconsider. I will consider your opinions, but unless and until you show your reasoning for them, I won't be able to comprehend WHY.

If you think it is completely settled, good for you...unless you are wrong on any part of it, then bad for you, because you can't change without retracting what you've said in the past so forcefully.

Which is the point of me telling you to stop being so wishy-washy about your wording.

If my house is built upon the sand, you aren't going to knock it over by tickling it with a feather, let alone if the foundation it's built upon isn't sand, but rather stone.

But if it helps, you are incorrect on that point.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Hence the above.

If "the earth" is formless and void, it isn't yet created.

If there is no earth, then you can't call it "the earth."

And that is simply NOT what those words imply anyways.

Both words imply something exists, but has no form, and is undistinguishable.

So we have to wait for vs 9 and 10 for it to be created.

So the waters (at least part of which were on the face of the earth) that the Spirit of God was hovering over were not yet created?

Your position contradicts scripture.

Funny. And true. But remember that "historian's fallacy" you pointed out? It applies here to your point as well. They likely didn't know much about the shape of the globe earth.

But God did.

He's the One who inspired Moses to write in Job that the Cluster of the Pleiades is bound together, and that the Belt of Orion is loosening.

They may not have understood exactly what those descriptions meant, but that doesn't mean that they aren't true.

Mankind just wouldn't discover HOW true they were until much, MUCH later.

The shape of the earth is no different.

And I argue that the same holds true with regards to the HPT and Genesis 1 and 6.

I admit that it might be a different thing pre-day-2. I doubt it is for pre-flood.

In BOTH cases, both in Genesis 1:2 and elsewhere in scripture, "the deep" is clearly referring to the depths of water. We agree on this. Yes?

All I, and the HPT for that matter, am saying is that what is later referred to in scripture as "the deep" is just the deeper parts of what was "the waters above the firmament," except in specific verses such as Psalm 33:7 where it indicates the possibility of a larger structure that water is stored in, which the HPT claims is interconnected subterannean chambers of "the waters below the firmament."

It's talking about the shores of the land, possibly because mountains are so much higher now. See the following verses:
[Job 38:8 NKJV] "Or [who] shut in the sea with doors, When it burst forth [and] issued from the womb;
[Job 38:10 NKJV] When I fixed My limit for it, And set bars and doors;
[Job 38:11 NKJV] When I said, 'This far you may come, but no farther, And here your proud waves must stop!'

Sure, I'm not committed to this text being speaking of the underground chambers of water.

For now, I'll concede this point.

I expect there are some things we don't quite understand about the plates of the earth, such that they might be buoyant to some degree, so that when the ice of Antarctica and Greenland melt, the shorelines don't change much. But that's speculation.

Ice isn't as dense as water, and when an ice cube in your glass of water melts, the amount of water you have in your glass doesn't change.

We're not talking about ice though.

We're talking about water and rock, and at that, a rock shell that is estimated to have been 60 miles thick on average prior to the flood, according to Dr. Brown.

Rock is only buoyant to the extent that the forces exerted upon it are such that they prevent it from sinking.

That includes the upwards pressure from the water below, and the downwards pressure of the weight of the rock.

You could have a cylinder of water, and have a plug made of rock that fits almost perfectly into the cylinder, and push it down on top of the water, and then eventually, barring any water escaping around the outer edges of the rock plug, that rock WILL NOT SINK, because the forces being exerted onto the rock prevent it from doing so.

The only difference between that and what the HPT describes is the scale, and the fact that the rock is a complete shell that covers the entire mantle, then flexes like putty (that's physics for you at that scale) so that the forces exerted upon on the water, and the forces exerted on the rock shell, are balanced out.

The firmament was created by separating part of the waters from the other part of the waters, then it was called "Heaven".

Yes.

Then there are two aspects of that heaven that are discussed: the firmament of it and the face of it. I just don't see how that isn't consistent.

The inconsistency is in the use of "raqia."

If it were consistent with your position, then there wouldn't be any reason to use "raqia" five times as a noun, then another four times, not as a noun, but as part of a prepositional phrase.

TWO DIFFERENT USES.

One use being an interaction with water, the second use being an interaction with the sky.

Water is Down. Sky is Up.

Birds don't fly in the firmament, but they do fly on the face of it.

The problem with this is that the Bible uses a qualifier for that instance (among 3 other instances) of "firmament" that you're ignoring, or perhaps forgetting.

It's not, they fly across "the face of the firmament."

It's, they fly across "the face of the firmament of the heavens" (In Hebrew: N-CPC:[face] N-MSC:[firmament] Art|N-MP:[the heavens]).

Spoiler

Morphology: N-CPC Part of Speech: - N: Noun Grammatical Categories: - Gender C: Common - Number P: Plural - State C: Genitival Pronoun

Morphology: N-MSC Part of Speech: - N: Noun Grammatical Categories: - Gender M: Masculine - Number S: Singular - State C: Genitival Pronoun

Morphology: Art Part of Speech: - Art: Article Morphology: N-MP Part of Speech: - N: Noun Grammatical Categories: - Gender M: Masculine - Number P: Plural

All of that is part of ONE prepositional phrase in Hebrew.

By the time you have birds in your view, that firmament has been called "heaven" and then it is called "earth".

Correct. And then in verse 20, the birds fly above the face of "the earth" across the face [of] "firmament the heavens."

Or, if it isn't called earth (if it is only the mantle or something else that is still submerged), then how can the birds fly on the face of it?

The mantle is below the firmament. Heaven is the name given to the firmament. Earth is the name given to part of the firmament, specifically, the dry land. The birds fly above the face of the part of the firmament called "Earth," AKA "the dry land."

If the bible said, "And this He also called "Heaven"", or some such.

Doesn't exist.

Or if later verses said "You were in the Heaven on Earth where Eden was."

Doesn't exist, because, as I explained above, the phrase "Heaven on earth" is a phrase that comes from our modern day ("modern" as in, as far as the translation of the Bible into English is modern) understanding of what Heaven and Earth are.

Or anything that shows that the thing that was expressly named "Heaven" was on the earth or under the sea for a short time.

The thing expressly named "heaven" is mentioned in Job 26:11.

Look at the context:

“The dead tremble,Those under the waters and those inhabiting them. Sheol is naked before Him,And Destruction has no covering. He stretches out the north over empty space;He hangs the earth on nothing. He binds up the water in His thick clouds,Yet the clouds are not broken under it. He covers the face of His throne,And spreads His cloud over it. He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,At the boundary of light and darkness. The pillars of heaven tremble,And are astonished at His rebuke. He stirs up the sea with His power,And by His understanding He breaks up the storm. By His Spirit He adorned the heavens;His hand pierced the fleeing serpent. Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways,And how small a whisper we hear of Him!But the thunder of His power who can understand?”

Bible Gateway passage: Job 26:5-14 - New King James Version

“The dead tremble, Those under the waters and those inhabiting them. Sheol is naked before Him, And Destruction has no covering. He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing. He binds up the water in His thick clouds, Yet the clouds are not broken under it. He...

www.biblegateway.com

As for the second half of your sentence, "under the sea for a short time":

"Under the sea": 2 Peter 3:5
"for a short time" but not specifically referring to being under the sea: 2 Peter 3:6

I'm sure that you think those exist, and have cited them for me, but those are not clearly giving those details;

Supra.

rather they can be easily read in other ways more in keeping with what the world looks like today.

Something we haven't gotten to yet is the physical evidence, which I assert is in strong support of the HPT being true.

As I stated above, if the fountains of the "great" deep (something else I haven't had the opportunity to address yet) refers to subterannean chambers of water, then the HPT is true, and the firmament of day 2 IS the crust of the earth, whether you agree or not.

I also remembering you mentioning Ps 104, and I hope I'm not stealing your thunder (or making it impotent), but I read through it today, and it can just as easily support my position as yours, assuming you are focusing on vs 3
[Psa 104:3 NKJV] He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters, Who makes the clouds His chariot, Who walks on the wings of the wind,

I don't recall mentioning Psalm 104... not saying you're wrong, just that I don't remember.

However, verse 3 isn't a verse I would particularly say is talking about the HPT...

If anything, I would point to 104:5-9:

You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.
At Your rebuke they fled;
At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.
They went up over the mountains;
They went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.
You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth.​

Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 104:5-9 - New King James Version

You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever, You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters stood above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled; At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away. They went up over the mountains; They went down into...

www.biblegateway.com

If I might do a bit of eisegesis here, just to show you how I interpret the text...
"You who laid the foundations of the earth..." = the mantle, which cannot be moved
"You covered [the mantle] with the deep as with a garment" = above the mantle is the deep, AKA water, but not "the waters under the heavens"; the deep being water
"the waters stood above the mountains" = creation of the firmament in the midst of the waters; in this phrase, "mountains" don't exist yet, but the author is referring to the parts that would become the “mountains”
"At Your rebuke they fled..." = perhaps a reference to God implementing gravity, but certainly the formation of the firmament, causing the heavier parts to sink, which causes the lighter, more flexible parts to rise, which causes the water to "flee"; confer with Job 26:11
"They went up over the mountains, They went doen into the valleys, to the place which you founded for them" = The NKJV has a footnote here with an alternate translation, that being: "The mountains rose up; the valleys sank down," and while I think what the NKJV has as the main text is a better translation, I think the footnote text is important. "The waters went up over the mountains" and "the waters went down into the valleys" is a beautiful way of saying that the firmament (iow, the crust of the earth) was shaped so that the "mountains" rose up, and the "valleys" sank down, but not "mountains" and "valleys" like we think of them, but rather these refer to the peaks and dips of the crust itself, where the water was gathered together to form seas in the valleys, and the dry land appeared.
"...to the place which You founded for them" = the "founding" here refers to the crust settling onto the foundation of the earth, the mantle. (cf Job 9:6; Psalm 75:3) The HPT calls the parts of the firmament that rest on the mantle and support the rest of it "pillars," and above these "pillars" are the Seas of Genesis 1:9, which are in the valleys formed by the sunken parts of the crust
"You have set a boundary..." = gravity prevents the waters from leveling out and covering the (pre-flood) earth again

If there are waters above the heavens

I think you forgot to finish this part... happens to me too.

Yes, this is the first time "firmament" is used in the narrative, so an article would suggest the reader/listener would know about it already. Therefore no article is used the first time it is introduced, just like "Heavens" vs "the Heavens", "Earth" vs "the Earth", and "Seas" vs "the Seas".

That's all well and good.... until you get to verse 14, 15, 17, and 20, where there is NO ARTICLE for ANY of those four instances.

Are these all different firmaments then?

I'm way beyond my knowledge of Hebrew here, but at least in the case of prepositions (based on my online search) the definite article is merged with the proposition when a preposition is used, probably because the preposition is a suffix and the article is a suffix, so the prime spot for a suffix requires the preposition. Here's what I found there:
----------------
CASE 5: Before the Definite Article Hey
Finally, if a prefix is joined to a noun with the definite article, a contraction occurs: the Hey drops out and the prepositional prefix takes the vowel that was under the Hey:

Examples:

In each of these cases, notice how the Hey prefix of the definite noun drops and is replaced with the prepositional prefix.
-----------------------------
I don't know if the definite article is needed when the noun "firmament" is used as an adjective to modify the noun "heavens", but perhaps something like the merging described above is done, or the article for the adjective noun is not required.

The point I'm making is that, when you take a step back, and get the big picture, like that second video I linked to in this post with the murals made with garbage, you can see that clearly something is different between the last four and the first five instances of "firmament."

No. Because the scripture is not clear that a second "raqia" is intended.

You're missing the thrust of the question.

I'm not saying there is a second raqia, or that one is intended, with what I said. I probably shouldn't have used "first" in my statement. Can you agree that the "raqia" in vs 6 was named "Heaven," and that "the heavens" are a ""raqia"" in which the stars are placed and across which the birds fly, based simply on what the text says, even conceding for the sake of the argument that they are the same "raqia"?

Rather, the more likely connection is "Heaven",

"More likely" because you say so?

which is connected to both the early and the later "raqias".

Using "early" vs "later" concedes the point I make below

The most likely use, then, would be to see both the heavens and both the raqias as referring to the same creation object.

Again, you can assume for the sake of the argument I'm making that it's the same "raqia." Can you see the grammatical separation in the text for the first 5 instances and the last 4 instances?

I'll call your bluff here,

There's no bluff to be called.

as you ARE arguing that the raqias are different,

Right, that's my position.

The point I'm trying to make is that the text distinguishes between the first 5 uses, and the last 4 uses, even if it's the same "raqia" throughout.

Can you at least admit that the text makes the distinction between those two groups of uses?

and I don't see how, based on your description above, anyone would not see that's what you are arguing.

Right, that's the eventual point I'm going to make, but I'm trying to find common ground, to find where exactly we differ in our perceptions of the text.

That's not at all to say there aren't other raqias. There might be, but there's none that are called "raqia" in Gen 1. Both references are related in the text to "heaven", so there's no reason to suddenly conclude that there are 2 raqias and 2 heavens

It's not that I suddenly conclude "there are two of each."

It's that it causes other passages to become ununderstandable (not a typo), or to lose any sort of meaning, and causes confusion when trying to understand some of them.

(not to be confused with the "3rd heaven" Paul refers to, because that might or might not be included in "the heavens").

Ok.

Sorry, I'm not seeing that I'm wrong there.

Appeal to incredulity.

You're asking, "Where did the water come from that was released in the fountains of the great deep?" It seems like it came from under the great deep.

Again, there is no "under the great deep" unless you're referring to the mantle, and there is no physical evidence that water ever came up from the mantle itself. In fact, the evidence is against this idea.

If what I said is true above, regarding Psalm 104, at least as far as verses 5 and 6a are concerned, the great deep is what covers the mantle. Currently, the crust of the earth is what covers the mantle, for the most part, at least, but the author of Psalm 104 wouldn't have known that.

Do you see the problem with your answer?

HPT's answer to that is sufficient, as far as I can tell. But it doesn't fit scripture to say that the great deep is above the firmament and below the firmament, and wherever else you are trying to say that it is.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think that the (great) deep is both above the firmament and below the firmament.

All I've said is that "the deep" of verse 2 is "the deep" of Genesis 7:11, 8:2, Job 28:14, Psalm 33:7, figuratively in 69:15, 104:6a, Proverbs 8:27-28, Ezekiel 26:19-20, and 31:15.

"The deep" of verse 2 is not above the firmament. It's below it.

"The great deep" is used of deep waters. Depth of waters is measured from a surface. Some great deep under another great deep might work, but the bible never talks about multiple "great deeps" stacked on top of each other.

Nor do I.

Because there's a "heaven" in between,

No.

There is not a "heaven" in between.

There is a raqia, something spread thin, like a sheet of metal that's been pounded out. This raqia is NAMED "heaven."

That's a HUGE difference.

and heaven is defined and used in Gen 1 as the space/expanse/firmament/solid thing that stars are put in.

There's nothing wrong with this...

Except the part where you make the unstated assertion that it must also be the same "heaven" of verse 8.

That's the part I'm disagreeing with.

From britannica.com (italics mine)
Ocean, continuous body of salt water held in enormous basins on Earth's surface.
Such language talks about oceans from a land-dwelling perspective, which would not be possible without some land to dwell on, fictional ocean worlds notwithstanding.

I'm saying that the fictional worlds weren't originally a fiction.

I'm saying that the starting conditions given in verse 1 have God creating an ocean world (which God used as the starting point of Earth) and all the matter of the universe (the heavens).

According to Josephus, Moses was a great captain of the Eqyptian armies against other nations, so he might have.

A captain doesn't necessarily require a ship.

He certainly saw the Red Sea in additional to the Med Sea. Note that Gen 1 doesn't, nor the translators, use the word "oceans", but rather "seas". So I'm not sure of your point about oceans.

Just that the starting condition of Earth after it was created in verse 1 is that it was an ocean world, awaiting refinement into a paradise.

Not really very different. Haven't you heard of sailors speaking of "the seven seas"?

Of course.

I'm not prepared to go through that right now.

Please do. It provides important context for this dicussion.

I'm ready to concede, for this discussion, the whole hydroplate theory to you, except where it tries to manufacture data from scripture that just isn't there.

It doesn't do that.

It's a glaring inconsistency,

There's no inconsistency.

that should be dropped, and dropping it will not hurt the theory at all, just some of the supposed support that isn't really there.

Dropping the position that the fountains of the great deep came from below the crust of the earth is the same as dropping the HPT: the crust of the earth is the "Heaven" of verse 8, while "the earth" is the dry land formed by the rising of a significant portion of the crust of the earth as Psalm 104:5-9 describes.

So the firmament is now the primary thing called "Heaven" and the sky/space is more of a figurative "Heaven"? That's just weird.

Just because you think it's weird doesn't mean it's wrong.

Consider also that the Seas also had life in them that was part of the paradise God created, and thus naming the crust of the earth "Heaven" makes sense, since it would not only include the things on "Earth" but also in "Seas."

Water at great pressure can support great weights that don't float at lower pressures. Just like some ships are made of concrete. It depends on the displacement. the large continental mass might displace enough water to float it.

Supra.

The sides of a water bed are not what supports the weight of the person in the bed, though the body is heavier than the water. The displacement of the body is enough to float the body, comparing the weights of the displaced water with the body. The sides merely keep the water from leaving the bed.

Now consider instead of there being walls which keep the water from leaving the bed, it's a planet-covering shell of rock that keeps the water inside of it. That's the HPT.

Potentially ONLY room in between. Remember that other words used for it are "expanse" and "space". These are not my words only.

Again, you're forgetting that "raqia" comes from the word "raqa" which means "to beat, stampe, beat out, spread out"; its usage is beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.

You know, just like He did to "the earth" above "the waters"...

So your "mayim" are UNDER the crust as well?

That's what the "hydro" in "Hydroplate theory" means, Derf!

Do you not even know what the Hydroplate theory says?

I This is getting weirder.

What's getting weirder is the apparent misunderstandings you have about the HPT which shouldn't exist if you knew what it was the HPT says!

GO WATCH THE VIDEO I LINKED TO ABOVE! It is THE quickest way to get a "basic" overview of the theory.

Your constant misrepresentation of what I'm stating, along with your insistence that one could remove the "heaven is the crust" portion and it not negatively affect the rest of the theory lately should have been the first clue to me that you don't even know what the hydroplate theory says, let alone that you could have a good argument against any given part of it!

Right, AFTER it called the raqia "Heavens".

You're not getting it.

According to the Bible and reason:

1) The Mantle is the foundation (Psalm 104:5)
2) The Deep is on top of the Mantle (Psalm 104:6)
3) The earth is spread out over the Deep (Psalm 136:6) and it sits on pillars (1 Samuel 2:8), the Deep is laid up in storehouses
4) The pillars the earth sits on are the pillars of heaven (Job 26:11)
5) Thus "Earth," AKA "the dry land" (Genesis 1:9-10) is part of, or at least, on top of, "Heaven" (Genesis 1:8), which is the firmament of Day 2 (Genesis 1:6)
6) Thus, the first part of Day 3 (Genesis 1:9-10) must be talking about Heaven, because Earth is physically located above Heaven (Job 26:11)
7) Thus, the firmament of Day 2 can only be something below "Earth" and "Seas," not above.
8) God created life to live on Earth and in Seas and in the sky. (Genesis 1:11-12, 20, 24-30)
9) The sky is above the earth, res ipsa loquitur.
10) God put lights in the sky, namely, the sun, moon, and stars (Genesis 1:14-18)
11) "The firmament of the heavens" (Genesis 1:14-15, 17, 20) is the sky, prima facie, since the sun, moon, and stars are above us.
12) Therefore, "the firmament of the heavens" (Genesis 1:14, etc) CANNOT BE "Heaven" (Genesis 1:8), because the sun, moon, and stars (Genesis 1:14, etc) are not below us in the ground (see 3-7), they are above in the sky (see 9-11)

Do you understand now?

I'm not "just assuming". I'm reading the text and letting it speak. It defines "Heavens" then uses "Heavens" with the definite article.

Supra.

No.

Yes.

Yes, outside the glob of water. "Above" fits, but is ambiguous if the waters haven't been pulled into a sphere yet. Not saying they haven't, but we don't know.

As opposed to Psalm 104:6b-9 which likely describes Genesis 1:6-10, which seems downright reasonable compared to what you're proposing.

Seas below the earth's crust is already an odd thing to a reader of the text.

"Seas" in this verse is figurative. It's talking about water.

See points 1, 3, 4, and 5 above.

Rather, "upon the waters" is a relative expression that refers to dry land being above the water, including where it seeps up if you dig near the water. No need for a new concept of "seas" below the crust in the text.

Strong's h5921 - Lexical: עַל - Transliteration: al - Part of Speech: Preposition - Phonetic Spelling: al - Definition: upon, above, over. - Origin: Properly, the same as al used as a preposition (in the singular or plural often with prefix, or as conjunction with a particle following); above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect) in a great variety of applications (as follow). - Usage: above, according to(-ly), after, (as) against, among, and, X as, at, because of, beside (the rest of), between, beyond the time, X both and, by (reason of), X had the charge of, concerning for, in (that), (forth, out) of, (from) (off), (up-)on, over, than, through(-out), to, touching, X with. - Translated as (count): ...

It literally means "above, over." As in, directly above.

It's not talking about relative altitudes of two things that aren't vertically aligned.

It's talking about "this thing is below, and the other thing is on top of it."

Ok, so you found a verse saying the heavens can be raqa'ed, but you didn't find a verse calling the earth a raqia. 1 point for each of us.

You missed it.

The earth is a raqia simply by the fact that God "raqa"-ed the earth.

And He did so ABOVE the waters. Same word as above.

And part of that 'easily understandable' stuff is that when you name something, and then you use the name afterward, it usually refers to the same thing. Even a 3rd grader would understand that.

Even a 3rd grader would recognize that the sky is where the stars are at, and the crust of the earth is what is called heaven, as per the above.

A crack in the proverbial dike?

No.

I said what I meant, and meant what I said.

The dry land, which He named "Earth". We might call them continents today, or maybe a single continent. I'm open to either.

Agreed, God formed the dry land on the beginning of Day 3.

This dry land/Earth is under the firmament,

No, it's not.

Not when:
God "raqa"ed the earth above the waters.
He founded it upon the seas.
He established it upon the waters.

And:
Job 26:11
Psalm 104:7

called "the heavens".

"The heavens" cannot be the firmament named "Heaven," as shown above.

It is certainly not dry land under the crust of the earth, right? (Please answer this question, it's not rhetorical.)

There is no dry land under the crust of the earth.

There is water, though.

Sky is the surface of the firmament,

Which one?

and space is the firmament.

Which one?

Then there is no way to see the part that is under the waters and under the crust.

Unless you're God, of course...

If you aren't suggesting otherwise, then you must disavow all the stuff that is out of view of the viewer.

Why?

"Seas" isn't used after verse 8? Are we reading different passages?

I was talking about "Heavens" not being used.

Then you agree that you can't have seas under the crust?

In the sense of Genesis 1:9-10? Yes.

But if you mean "seas" in a figurative sense to refer to large bodies of water, then no, I don't agree that you can't have seas under the crust.

And because of that, you must be saying that the seas are above the crust only, and therefore if they are said to be "under the heavens", those heavens must be space and not the crust of the earth.

Supra.

Yet, if God defines/names a particular thing "Seas", then we should be careful calling other things in that passage "Seas", don't you think?

Indeed.

And if God creates something early on, then later gives it a new name after changing it in some way, then there's nothing wrong with referring to that thing early on by it's new name.

Was it? Isn't this an example of begging the question, since your evidence is the passage in question?

Considering what the phrase, "Heaven on Earth" implies, do you not agree that Pre-Fall Earth was, at least from our perspective today, "Heaven on Earth"?

Nope, since He defined what He meant by the word and was consistent with His definition.

You're still looking at the hanging junk plastic. Come over to where I am, so you can see the smiling woman.

I hope you can see that calling the earth "heaven" has nothing to do with whether there might be water below the crust of the earth.

It does if the earth sits on pillars, and is above the waters, and the pillars are a part of heaven...

It's a good effort, but the white circle is all of space, rather than encircling space, ending in the atmosphere of the globe earth.

Supra.

Not really.

You don't see the difference between those two phrases?

A fountain is defined by its spray into the air.

Yes.

The ones I usually see are piped from somewhere below the water I can see, but I never here anyone saying "the fountain from below the water in the basin."

The fountains of the great deep come from below the crust of the earth, not from below the great deep. Supra.

Never said they were (except possibly the "windows of heaven" part).

The "windows of heaven" is about the strongest point you have for your position, so far, something that is easily explained by physics alone, and not an appeal to the miraculous.

The fountains of the great deep were visible above the surface of the water in the seas,

That says nothing about where the water was coming from.

but I doubt Noah could tell that anything was coming from under the bottom of the sea.

Agreed, but step back and look at the big picture.

That's a phrase that recognizes heaven as somewhere besides earth before it can be on earth.

The point I'm trying to make is that Earth was a paradise, not the heavens.

Heaven includes both the dry land and the seas.

It would fit that God called the crust which He formed those two places out of, "Heaven."

And the phrase is extra-biblical.

Yes. And?

So, you're saying heaven on earth still exists today???

The paradise that existed before the Fall is long gone, destroyed by the Flood.

The Flood ALSO destroyed what God called Heaven, the crust of the earth, so in one sense, that too is gone, but in another sense, it's still "Heaven," since that's the name it was originally given.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Ping @Derf.

What's confusing about the very first verse in the Bible being about God literally creating that which He is about to be described as forming, AS WELL AS being the introduction to the whole creation week?

Why is that confusing?

You keep saying it’s confusing, but you refuse to explain WHY!



Not in dispute.



The first problem with this sentence is that you've started with the assumption that something like "calling something heaven, that isn't "the heavens," is by its very nature confusing.

The second problem is that you wrongly assume that, in general, just because something is named once, then never mentioned again, therefore it's confusing, and all I'm trying to say is that maybe it's confusing because you're looking at it from the wrong perspective.

Consider: You're walking along and come across a structure that, when viewed head-on from the direction whence you came, looks like a bunch of odd shapes and lines made up of plastic, and you think, "Well, that's confusing, what's the point of this sculpture?" So you start to walk around it. As you walk around it, the odd shapes and lines shift, and you continue to think that there isn't much point to this sculpture, then BOOM, suddenly there's a woman's face smiling back at you from what you now see is a sculpture.

Had you not walked around the sculpture, and viewed it from the direction you ended up in, you would have been justified in going on with your life thinking that it was just a weird sculpture that had no meaning or purpose.

All I'm doing is standing where you can see the woman's face, and waving at you, and saying, "Hey! Come and stand over here!"

Your response to me right now is, "But all I see is a bunch of junk plastic pieces held up by some string! Why should I give my attention to this mass of confusion?"



You're viewing the sculpture as just some junk plastic that someone decided to hang up on some string, and declaring that there's no other way to look at it.

I'm rejecting that it's just junk, and that it's actually something rather amazingly put together sculpture, and asking that you move from your position to try to see this mass of plastic from another perspective.

Or, if we use this video as a reference instead:

I'm telling you to take a step back, and stop looking at the garbage through a magnifying glass up close, so that you can fully appreciate the whole image that the garbage forms, you know, to get the big picture!



Take a step back for a moment. You're looking too closely at the details.

God created SOMETHING (the whole), and there was water (part of the whole), and in the midst of that water (part of that whole), God made something else (part of the part of the whole). He called that 'something else' one thing, and then called '>part of that 'something else'<' (a part of the part of the whole) another thing.

Does that make sense?

He then uses the "part of the part of the whole" descriptively to describe something else in a figurative sense.

Does THAT make sense?



Yes, which is why I said "parallel."

Look, with the term "Heaven" (1:8), I'm only using the term that the translators use, because it's easy enough for everyone to understand, and looking at the exact definition of the word doesn't really provide any insight into the reason why they did so. I would imagine they used "Heaven" because they looked at the context of the chapter and realized that God was creating a paradise, and so the term "Heaven" just fits. Of course, that's just my layman's understanding, and I could be completely wrong, but you have to remember, both you and I, and the translators, are viewing the creation week through the lens of fallen humans, reading something that before it had been painstakingly transcribed hundreds if not thousands of times, was the perfect account of what God did during that first week.

We are, and more importantly, God is, calling the city "New York" before it was known as "New York," so to speak.



As I said, I was drawing a parallel between "Heaven" where God lives, and the pre-Fall Earth, where God lived.



Supra.



That's the part of the theory we've been discussing this ENTIRE TIME, Derf!

Please answer the question that I asked!:





Have you not considered the possibility that the only one confusing it with something else here is you.

Again, come stand over here where you can see the woman smiling, instead of remaining where you are and being unable to see anything other than junk.

Take a step back, and consider the big picture!



"Still"?

There WAS NO DISTINCTION to begin with. And yes, I mean that literally.

The distinction came after the Fall, when God moved "Heaven" (iow, the concept of "where God lives"), or removed, to be more precise, from the earth, and thus created the distinction between the two.

Again, the Earth (the planet) was a paradise. It was what we today would call "Heaven on Earth."

Can you at least grasp that concept?



So someone writing a history book cannot start with the formation of New Amsterdam, and then once he gets to the point in history where it's given the name "New York," he must continue to refer to New York as "New Amsterdam" instead?



You're saying, "I want to see something other than junk pieces of plastic hanging from the ceiling," but then refusing to come stand over where I'm at so that you can see the woman's smile.



I want you to be more confident in what you believe.

I and others on here have constantly pointed out to people who post on TOL that "We don't care about your opinions on a given matter. We want to know the reasoning behind it, WHY you believe what you believe. You're welcome to your beliefs, but unless you can back them up, they're just opinions that have no relevance to any sort of meaningful discussion.

Thus, if you aren't confident in your belief of something, DIG INTO IT! Find out WHY you believe what you believe, and find out if that belief is consistent with the evidence.

As Peter stated, which I referenced, "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you," and last I checked, Genesis 1 is pretty foundational to the belief that Christ came to save the world.



Or, my reasoning has led me to a particular belief, and thus, you might have evidence that shows what I believe is wrong, or at least incorrect.

Don't assume malicious intent.



Thank you.

But as I stated above, unless you can give a valid reason for me to reconsider what I believe, then I have no reason to stop believing it.

Your opinions aren't enough for me to reconsider. I will consider your opinions, but unless and until you show your reasoning for them, I won't be able to comprehend WHY.



Which is the point of me telling you to stop being so wishy-washy about your wording.

If my house is built upon the sand, you aren't going to knock it over by tickling it with a feather, let alone if the foundation it's built upon isn't sand, but rather stone.



Saying it doesn't make it so.

Hence the above.



If there is no earth, then you can't call it "the earth."

And that is simply NOT what those words imply anyways.

Both words imply something exists, but has no form, and is undistinguishable.



So the waters (at least part of which were on the face of the earth) that the Spirit of God was hovering over were not yet created?

Your position contradicts scripture.



But God did.

He's the One who inspired Moses to write in Job that the Cluster of the Pleiades is bound together, and that the Belt of Orion is loosening.

They may not have understood exactly what those descriptions meant, but that doesn't mean that they aren't true.

Mankind just wouldn't discover HOW true they were until much, MUCH later.

The shape of the earth is no different.

And I argue that the same holds true with regards to the HPT and Genesis 1 and 6.



In BOTH cases, both in Genesis 1:2 and elsewhere in scripture, "the deep" is clearly referring to the depths of water. We agree on this. Yes?

All I, and the HPT for that matter, am saying is that what is later referred to in scripture as "the deep" is just the deeper parts of what was "the waters above the firmament," except in specific verses such as Psalm 33:7 where it indicates the possibility of a larger structure that water is stored in, which the HPT claims is interconnected subterannean chambers of "the waters below the firmament."



Sure, I'm not committed to this text being speaking of the underground chambers of water.

For now, I'll concede this point.



Ice isn't as dense as water, and when an ice cube in your glass of water melts, the amount of water you have in your glass doesn't change.

We're not talking about ice though.

We're talking about water and rock, and at that, a rock shell that is estimated to have been 60 miles thick on average prior to the flood, according to Dr. Brown.

Rock is only buoyant to the extent that the forces exerted upon it are such that they prevent it from sinking.

That includes the upwards pressure from the water below, and the downwards pressure of the weight of the rock.

You could have a cylinder of water, and have a plug made of rock that fits almost perfectly into the cylinder, and push it down on top of the water, and then eventually, barring any water escaping around the outer edges of the rock plug, that rock WILL NOT SINK, because the forces being exerted onto the rock prevent it from doing so.

The only difference between that and what the HPT describes is the scale, and the fact that the rock is a complete shell that covers the entire mantle, then flexes like putty (that's physics for you at that scale) so that the forces exerted upon on the water, and the forces exerted on the rock shell, are balanced out.



Yes.



The inconsistency is in the use of "raqia."

If it were consistent with your position, then there wouldn't be any reason to use "raqia" five times as a noun, then another four times, not as a noun, but as part of a prepositional phrase.

TWO DIFFERENT USES.

One use being an interaction with water, the second use being an interaction with the sky.

Water is Down. Sky is Up.



The problem with this is that the Bible uses a qualifier for that instance (among 3 other instances) of "firmament" that you're ignoring, or perhaps forgetting.

It's not, they fly across "the face of the firmament."

It's, they fly across "the face of the firmament of the heavens" (In Hebrew: N-CPC:[face] N-MSC:[firmament] Art|N-MP:[the heavens]).

Spoiler

Morphology: N-CPC Part of Speech: - N: Noun Grammatical Categories: - Gender C: Common - Number P: Plural - State C: Genitival Pronoun

Morphology: N-MSC Part of Speech: - N: Noun Grammatical Categories: - Gender M: Masculine - Number S: Singular - State C: Genitival Pronoun

Morphology: Art Part of Speech: - Art: Article Morphology: N-MP Part of Speech: - N: Noun Grammatical Categories: - Gender M: Masculine - Number P: Plural

All of that is part of ONE prepositional phrase in Hebrew.



Correct. And then in verse 20, the birds fly above the face of "the earth" across the face [of] "firmament the heavens."



The mantle is below the firmament. Heaven is the name given to the firmament. Earth is the name given to part of the firmament, specifically, the dry land. The birds fly above the face of the part of the firmament called "Earth," AKA "the dry land."



Doesn't exist.



Doesn't exist, because, as I explained above, the phrase "Heaven on earth" is a phrase that comes from our modern day ("modern" as in, as far as the translation of the Bible into English is modern) understanding of what Heaven and Earth are.



The thing expressly named "heaven" is mentioned in Job 26:11.

Look at the context:

“The dead tremble,Those under the waters and those inhabiting them. Sheol is naked before Him,And Destruction has no covering. He stretches out the north over empty space;He hangs the earth on nothing. He binds up the water in His thick clouds,Yet the clouds are not broken under it. He covers the face of His throne,And spreads His cloud over it. He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,At the boundary of light and darkness. The pillars of heaven tremble,And are astonished at His rebuke. He stirs up the sea with His power,And by His understanding He breaks up the storm. By His Spirit He adorned the heavens;His hand pierced the fleeing serpent. Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways,And how small a whisper we hear of Him!But the thunder of His power who can understand?”

Bible Gateway passage: Job 26:5-14 - New King James Version

“The dead tremble, Those under the waters and those inhabiting them. Sheol is naked before Him, And Destruction has no covering. He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing. He binds up the water in His thick clouds, Yet the clouds are not broken under it. He...

www.biblegateway.com

As for the second half of your sentence, "under the sea for a short time":

"Under the sea": 2 Peter 3:5
"for a short time" but not specifically referring to being under the sea: 2 Peter 3:6



Supra.



Something we haven't gotten to yet is the physical evidence, which I assert is in strong support of the HPT being true.

As I stated above, if the fountains of the "great" deep (something else I haven't had the opportunity to address yet) refers to subterannean chambers of water, then the HPT is true, and the firmament of day 2 IS the crust of the earth, whether you agree or not.



I don't recall mentioning Psalm 104... not saying you're wrong, just that I don't remember.

However, verse 3 isn't a verse I would particularly say is talking about the HPT...

If anything, I would point to 104:5-9:

You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever,
You covered it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters stood above the mountains.
At Your rebuke they fled;
At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.
They went up over the mountains;
They went down into the valleys,
To the place which You founded for them.
You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,
That they may not return to cover the earth.​

Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 104:5-9 - New King James Version

You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever, You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters stood above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled; At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away. They went up over the mountains; They went down into...

www.biblegateway.com

If I might do a bit of eisegesis here, just to show you how I interpret the text...
"You who laid the foundations of the earth..." = the mantle, which cannot be moved
"You covered [the mantle] with the deep as with a garment" = above the mantle is the deep, AKA water, but not "the waters under the heavens"; the deep being water
"the waters stood above the mountains" = creation of the firmament in the midst of the waters; in this phrase, "mountains" don't exist yet, but the author is referring to the parts that would become the “mountains”
"At Your rebuke they fled..." = perhaps a reference to God implementing gravity, but certainly the formation of the firmament, causing the heavier parts to sink, which causes the lighter, more flexible parts to rise, which causes the water to "flee"; confer with Job 26:11
"They went up over the mountains, They went doen into the valleys, to the place which you founded for them" = The NKJV has a footnote here with an alternate translation, that being: "The mountains rose up; the valleys sank down," and while I think what the NKJV has as the main text is a better translation, I think the footnote text is important. "The waters went up over the mountains" and "the waters went down into the valleys" is a beautiful way of saying that the firmament (iow, the crust of the earth) was shaped so that the "mountains" rose up, and the "valleys" sank down, but not "mountains" and "valleys" like we think of them, but rather these refer to the peaks and dips of the crust itself, where the water was gathered together to form seas in the valleys, and the dry land appeared.
"...to the place which You founded for them" = the "founding" here refers to the crust settling onto the foundation of the earth, the mantle. (cf Job 9:6; Psalm 75:3) The HPT calls the parts of the firmament that rest on the mantle and support the rest of it "pillars," and above these "pillars" are the Seas of Genesis 1:9, which are in the valleys formed by the sunken parts of the crust
"You have set a boundary..." = gravity prevents the waters from leveling out and covering the (pre-flood) earth again



I think you forgot to finish this part... happens to me too.



That's all well and good.... until you get to verse 14, 15, 17, and 20, where there is NO ARTICLE for ANY of those four instances.

Are these all different firmaments then?



The point I'm making is that, when you take a step back, and get the big picture, like that second video I linked to in this post with the murals made with garbage, you can see that clearly something is different between the last four and the first five instances of "firmament."



You're missing the thrust of the question.

I'm not saying there is a second raqia, or that one is intended, with what I said. I probably shouldn't have used "first" in my statement. Can you agree that the "raqia" in vs 6 was named "Heaven," and that "the heavens" are a ""raqia"" in which the stars are placed and across which the birds fly, based simply on what the text says, even conceding for the sake of the argument that they are the same "raqia"?



"More likely" because you say so?



Using "early" vs "later" concedes the point I make below



Again, you can assume for the sake of the argument I'm making that it's the same "raqia." Can you see the grammatical separation in the text for the first 5 instances and the last 4 instances?



There's no bluff to be called.



Right, that's my position.

The point I'm trying to make is that the text distinguishes between the first 5 uses, and the last 4 uses, even if it's the same "raqia" throughout.

Can you at least admit that the text makes the distinction between those two groups of uses?



Right, that's the eventual point I'm going to make, but I'm trying to find common ground, to find where exactly we differ in our perceptions of the text.



It's not that I suddenly conclude "there are two of each."

It's that it causes other passages to become ununderstandable (not a typo), or to lose any sort of meaning, and causes confusion when trying to understand some of them.



Ok.



Appeal to incredulity.



Again, there is no "under the great deep" unless you're referring to the mantle, and there is no physical evidence that water ever came up from the mantle itself. In fact, the evidence is against this idea.

If what I said is true above, regarding Psalm 104, at least as far as verses 5 and 6a are concerned, the great deep is what covers the mantle. Currently, the crust of the earth is what covers the mantle, for the most part, at least, but the author of Psalm 104 wouldn't have known that.

Do you see the problem with your answer?



I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think that the (great) deep is both above the firmament and below the firmament.

All I've said is that "the deep" of verse 2 is "the deep" of Genesis 7:11, 8:2, Job 28:14, Psalm 33:7, figuratively in 69:15, 104:6a, Proverbs 8:27-28, Ezekiel 26:19-20, and 31:15.

"The deep" of verse 2 is not above the firmament. It's below it.



Nor do I.



No.

There is not a "heaven" in between.

There is a raqia, something spread thin, like a sheet of metal that's been pounded out. This raqia is NAMED "heaven."

That's a HUGE difference.



There's nothing wrong with this...

Except the part where you make the unstated assertion that it must also be the same "heaven" of verse 8.

That's the part I'm disagreeing with.



I'm saying that the fictional worlds weren't originally a fiction.

I'm saying that the starting conditions given in verse 1 have God creating an ocean world (which God used as the starting point of Earth) and all the matter of the universe (the heavens).



A captain doesn't necessarily require a ship.



Just that the starting condition of Earth after it was created in verse 1 is that it was an ocean world, awaiting refinement into a paradise.



Of course.



Please do. It provides important context for this dicussion.



It doesn't do that.



There's no inconsistency.



Dropping the position that the fountains of the great deep came from below the crust of the earth is the same as dropping the HPT: the crust of the earth is the "Heaven" of verse 8, while "the earth" is the dry land formed by the rising of a significant portion of the crust of the earth as Psalm 104:5-9 describes.



Just because you think it's weird doesn't mean it's wrong.

Consider also that the Seas also had life in them that was part of the paradise God created, and thus naming the crust of the earth "Heaven" makes sense, since it would not only include the things on "Earth" but also in "Seas."



Supra.



Now consider instead of there being walls which keep the water from leaving the bed, it's a planet-covering shell of rock that keeps the water inside of it. That's the HPT.



Again, you're forgetting that "raqia" comes from the word "raqa" which means "to beat, stampe, beat out, spread out"; its usage is beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.

You know, just like He did to "the earth" above "the waters"...



That's what the "hydro" in "Hydroplate theory" means, Derf!

Do you not even know what the Hydroplate theory says?



What's getting weirder is the apparent misunderstandings you have about the HPT which shouldn't exist if you knew what it was the HPT says!

GO WATCH THE VIDEO I LINKED TO ABOVE! It is THE quickest way to get a "basic" overview of the theory.

Your constant misrepresentation of what I'm stating, along with your insistence that one could remove the "heaven is the crust" portion and it not negatively affect the rest of the theory lately should have been the first clue to me that you don't even know what the hydroplate theory says, let alone that you could have a good argument against any given part of it!



You're not getting it.

According to the Bible and reason:

1) The Mantle is the foundation (Psalm 104:5)
2) The Deep is on top of the Mantle (Psalm 104:6)
3) The earth is spread out over the Deep (Psalm 136:6) and it sits on pillars (1 Samuel 2:8), the Deep is laid up in storehouses
4) The pillars the earth sits on are the pillars of heaven (Job 26:11)
5) Thus "Earth," AKA "the dry land" (Genesis 1:9-10) is part of, or at least, on top of, "Heaven" (Genesis 1:8), which is the firmament of Day 2 (Genesis 1:6)
6) Thus, the first part of Day 3 (Genesis 1:9-10) must be talking about Heaven, because Earth is physically located above Heaven (Job 26:11)
7) Thus, the firmament of Day 2 can only be something below "Earth" and "Seas," not above.
8) God created life to live on Earth and in Seas and in the sky. (Genesis 1:11-12, 20, 24-30)
9) The sky is above the earth, res ipsa loquitur.
10) God put lights in the sky, namely, the sun, moon, and stars (Genesis 1:14-18)
11) "The firmament of the heavens" (Genesis 1:14-15, 17, 20) is the sky, prima facie, since the sun, moon, and stars are above us.
12) Therefore, "the firmament of the heavens" (Genesis 1:14, etc) CANNOT BE "Heaven" (Genesis 1:8), because the sun, moon, and stars (Genesis 1:14, etc) are not below us in the ground (see 3-7), they are above in the sky (see 9-11)

Do you understand now?



Supra.



Yes.



As opposed to Psalm 104:6b-9 which likely describes Genesis 1:6-10, which seems downright reasonable compared to what you're proposing.



"Seas" in this verse is figurative. It's talking about water.

See points 1, 3, 4, and 5 above.

Strong's h5921 - Lexical: עַל - Transliteration: al - Part of Speech: Preposition - Phonetic Spelling: al - Definition: upon, above, over. - Origin: Properly, the same as al used as a preposition (in the singular or plural often with prefix, or as conjunction with a particle following); above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect) in a great variety of applications (as follow). - Usage: above, according to(-ly), after, (as) against, among, and, X as, at, because of, beside (the rest of), between, beyond the time, X both and, by (reason of), X had the charge of, concerning for, in (that), (forth, out) of, (from) (off), (up-)on, over, than, through(-out), to, touching, X with. - Translated as (count): ...

It literally means "above, over." As in, directly above.

It's not talking about relative altitudes of two things that aren't vertically aligned.

It's talking about "this thing is below, and the other thing is on top of it."



You missed it.

The earth is a raqia simply by the fact that God "raqa"-ed the earth.

And He did so ABOVE the waters. Same word as above.



Even a 3rd grader would recognize that the sky is where the stars are at, and the crust of the earth is what is called heaven, as per the above.



No.

I said what I meant, and meant what I said.



Agreed, God formed the dry land on the beginning of Day 3.



No, it's not.

Not when:
God "raqa"ed the earth above the waters.
He founded it upon the seas.
He established it upon the waters.

And:
Job 26:11
Psalm 104:7



"The heavens" cannot be the firmament named "Heaven," as shown above.



There is no dry land under the crust of the earth.

There is water, though.



Which one?



Which one?



Unless you're God, of course...



Why?



I was talking about "Heavens" not being used.



In the sense of Genesis 1:9-10? Yes.

But if you mean "seas" in a figurative sense to refer to large bodies of water, then no, I don't agree that you can't have seas under the crust.



Supra.



Indeed.

And if God creates something early on, then later gives it a new name after changing it in some way, then there's nothing wrong with referring to that thing early on by it's new name.



Considering what the phrase, "Heaven on Earth" implies, do you not agree that Pre-Fall Earth was, at least from our perspective today, "Heaven on Earth"?



You're still looking at the hanging junk plastic. Come over to where I am, so you can see the smiling woman.



It does if the earth sits on pillars, and is above the waters, and the pillars are a part of heaven...



Supra.



You don't see the difference between those two phrases?



Yes.



The fountains of the great deep come from below the crust of the earth, not from below the great deep. Supra.



The "windows of heaven" is about the strongest point you have for your position, so far, something that is easily explained by physics alone, and not an appeal to the miraculous.



That says nothing about where the water was coming from.



Agreed, but step back and look at the big picture.



The point I'm trying to make is that Earth was a paradise, not the heavens.

Heaven includes both the dry land and the seas.

It would fit that God called the crust which He formed those two places out of, "Heaven."



Yes. And?



The paradise that existed before the Fall is long gone, destroyed by the Flood.

The Flood ALSO destroyed what God called Heaven, the crust of the earth, so in one sense, that too is gone, but in another sense, it's still "Heaven," since that's the name it was originally given.

 

[Derf]

Ping @Derf.

Thanks. I haven't forgotten, but I've only had time for drive-by posting lately.

 

[Derf]

What's confusing about the very first verse in the Bible being about God literally creating that which He is about to be described as forming, AS WELL AS being the introduction to the whole creation week?

It could be. But couldn't it also be that the heavens and the earth did not exist before God said, "Let there be light"?

Why is that confusing?

You keep saying it’s confusing, but you refuse to explain WHY!

I have, but you don't agree. I get that, but it's not the same as NOT explaining why.

The first problem with this sentence is that you've started with the assumption that something like "calling something heaven, that isn't "the heavens," is by its very nature confusing.

The second problem is that you wrongly assume that, in general, just because something is named once, then never mentioned again, therefore it's confusing, and all I'm trying to say is that maybe it's confusing because you're looking at it from the wrong perspective.

not only not named again, but the same exact name is used, with the determinative "the", but it is referring to something else. In the same narrative.

Take a step back for a moment. You're looking too closely at the details.

God created SOMETHING (the whole), and there was water (part of the whole), and in the midst of that water (part of that whole), God made something else (part of the part of the whole). He called that 'something else' one thing, and then called '>part of that 'something else'<' (a part of the part of the whole) another thing.

Does that make sense?

He then uses the "part of the part of the whole" descriptively to describe something else in a figurative sense.

Does THAT make sense?

Maybe. I'm not opposed to the idea, and it is the one I have ascribed to before. But can't it also make sense for the heavens to be created in the narrative where God said He created something called "Heavens"? And might it not also make sense for the earth to be created at the time when God said He created something called "Earth"?

Yes, which is why I said "parallel."

Look, with the term "Heaven" (1:8), I'm only using the term that the translators use, because it's easy enough for everyone to understand, and looking at the exact definition of the word doesn't really provide any insight into the reason why they did so. I would imagine they used "Heaven" because they looked at the context of the chapter and realized that God was creating a paradise, and so the term "Heaven" just fits.

You might be biased a bit by reading the NKJV here. It uses "Heavens" elsewhere, but "Heaven" in vs 8. The KJV doesn't do that. It maintains the word "heaven" throughout. Nevertheless, as I point out below, the crust of the earth wasn't in any kind of shape to be called "heaven" based on it being a paradise. There were no plants (grass, fruit and nut trees, bushes, conifers, or whatever). It would have been considered a wasteland. If the translators are acting on some idea that it was a paradise, it was an idea not supported by the text.

Of course, that's just my layman's understanding, and I could be completely wrong, but you have to remember, both you and I, and the translators, are viewing the creation week through the lens of fallen humans, reading something that before it had been painstakingly transcribed hundreds if not thousands of times, was the perfect account of what God did during that first week.

Are you suggesting that we lost a lot of pertinent details in the transcribing? I think that may be giving too much ammunition to those who seek to undermine the veracity of the text.

We are, and more importantly, God is, calling the city "New York" before it was known as "New York," so to speak.

I may be losing track of where we've already gone with this, so I apologize beforehand. But isn't this like saying "God spoke of a city that wasn't yet called New York, then God made a skyscraper in Texas and called it 'New York', and then He never spoke of the skyscraper again by that name, but returned to calling the city New York, and somewhere along the way, the city actually began to be called 'New York'."

As I said, I was drawing a parallel between "Heaven" where God lives, and the pre-Fall Earth, where God lived.

It wasn't the pre-Fall Earth...it was the pre-Earth crust of the Earth, which was barren of life.

Supra.



That's the part of the theory we've been discussing this ENTIRE TIME, Derf!

Please answer the question that I asked!:

I think my answer is that such a thing is not fit to be called "heaven", if it's because it is supposed to be like a beautiful garden where God lives.

Have you not considered the possibility that the only one confusing it with something else here is you.

Again, come stand over here where you can see the woman smiling, instead of remaining where you are and being unable to see anything other than junk.

Take a step back, and consider the big picture!

I hope you realize that such an argument works just as well from any other point of view. I.e., if you don't agree with me, it's merely because you don't see all the details from the right angle...like I do. As such, it's a begging the question argument.

"Still"?

There WAS NO DISTINCTION to begin with. And yes, I mean that literally.

The distinction came after the Fall, when God moved "Heaven" (iow, the concept of "where God lives"), or removed, to be more precise, from the earth, and thus created the distinction between the two.

Again, the Earth (the planet) was a paradise. It was what we today would call "Heaven on Earth."

The Earth BECAME a paradise. Go look up what "paradise" means. It would not apply to a wasteland, and especially not to a band of dirt between two bands of water, which is what it was when God called it "Heaven".

Can you at least grasp that concept?



So someone writing a history book cannot start with the formation of New Amsterdam, and then once he gets to the point in history where it's given the name "New York," he must continue to refer to New York as "New Amsterdam" instead?

Supra

You're saying, "I want to see something other than junk pieces of plastic hanging from the ceiling," but then refusing to come stand over where I'm at so that you can see the woman's smile.

Supra

I want you to be more confident in what you believe.

I and others on here have constantly pointed out to people who post on TOL that "We don't care about your opinions on a given matter. We want to know the reasoning behind it, WHY you believe what you believe. You're welcome to your beliefs, but unless you can back them up, they're just opinions that have no relevance to any sort of meaningful discussion.

Thus, if you aren't confident in your belief of something, DIG INTO IT! Find out WHY you believe what you believe, and find out if that belief is consistent with the evidence.

As Peter stated, which I referenced, "always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you," and last I checked, Genesis 1 is pretty foundational to the belief that Christ came to save the world.

For sure! And therefore, when someone suggests a way to understand the text that has serious flaws in it, I confidently assert that it can't be the right way to read the text. But that doesn't mean there are multiple ways to read the text that don't have such flaws. I would be arrogant in the extreme to say that I have figured out exactly how to understand Gen 1 and 2 in light of the centuries of disagreement about it between those who have studied it more deeply than I ever will.

Or, my reasoning has led me to a particular belief, and thus, you might have evidence that shows what I believe is wrong, or at least incorrect.

Don't assume malicious intent.

Ok.

Thank you.

But as I stated above, unless you can give a valid reason for me to reconsider what I believe, then I have no reason to stop believing it.

Your opinions aren't enough for me to reconsider. I will consider your opinions, but unless and until you show your reasoning for them, I won't be able to comprehend WHY.

Still trying to...

Which is the point of me telling you to stop being so wishy-washy about your wording.

If my house is built upon the sand, you aren't going to knock it over by tickling it with a feather, let alone if the foundation it's built upon isn't sand, but rather stone.



Saying it doesn't make it so.

Hence the above.



If there is no earth, then you can't call it "the earth."

Hmmm. I just got through reading about how God might call a city "New York" when it wasn't really New York yet. Are you retracting all of that?

And that is simply NOT what those words imply anyways.

Both words imply something exists, but has no form, and is undistinguishable.

Ok. How is that opposed to an earth that doesn't exist yet?

So the waters (at least part of which were on the face of the earth) that the Spirit of God was hovering over were not yet created?

Your position contradicts scripture.

When did God say He created "the waters"? I must have missed it.

But God did.

He's the One who inspired Moses to write in Job

Moses???

that the Cluster of the Pleiades is bound together, and that the Belt of Orion is loosening.

They may not have understood exactly what those descriptions meant, but that doesn't mean that they aren't true.

But they knew what God was talking about when He said those things. He didn't say "Pleiades" and they thought "that's a city my Aunt Gertrude lives in." When God mentions "Pleiades" in Ch 38, and Job mentions them in Ch 9, they both know what each other is referring to--because the names are consistent.

Mankind just wouldn't discover HOW true they were until much, MUCH later.

The shape of the earth is no different.

And I argue that the same holds true with regards to the HPT and Genesis 1 and 6.



In BOTH cases, both in Genesis 1:2 and elsewhere in scripture, "the deep" is clearly referring to the depths of water. We agree on this. Yes?

"Depths of water", yes. "The depths of water", not necessarily. Iow, you are proposing two different "depths of water", one above the crust and one below, and I don't know which one you are talking about.

All I, and the HPT for that matter, am saying is that what is later referred to in scripture as "the deep" is just the deeper parts of what was "the waters above the firmament," except in specific verses such as Psalm 33:7 where it indicates the possibility of a larger structure that water is stored in, which the HPT claims is interconnected subterannean chambers of "the waters below the firmament."



Sure, I'm not committed to this text being speaking of the underground chambers of water.

For now, I'll concede this point.



Ice isn't as dense as water, and when an ice cube in your glass of water melts, the amount of water you have in your glass doesn't change.

We're not talking about ice though.

We're talking about water and rock, and at that, a rock shell that is estimated to have been 60 miles thick on average prior to the flood, according to Dr. Brown.

Rock is only buoyant to the extent that the forces exerted upon it are such that they prevent it from sinking.

That includes the upwards pressure from the water below, and the downwards pressure of the weight of the rock.

You could have a cylinder of water, and have a plug made of rock that fits almost perfectly into the cylinder, and push it down on top of the water, and then eventually, barring any water escaping around the outer edges of the rock plug, that rock WILL NOT SINK, because the forces being exerted onto the rock prevent it from doing so.

The only difference between that and what the HPT describes is the scale, and the fact that the rock is a complete shell that covers the entire mantle, then flexes like putty (that's physics for you at that scale) so that the forces exerted upon on the water, and the forces exerted on the rock shell, are balanced out.



Yes.



The inconsistency is in the use of "raqia."

If it were consistent with your position, then there wouldn't be any reason to use "raqia" five times as a noun, then another four times, not as a noun, but as part of a prepositional phrase.

TWO DIFFERENT USES.

One use being an interaction with water, the second use being an interaction with the sky.
Water is Down. Sky is Up.

Neither of us believes that. With respect to the firmament, the water is both up and down from it when it is first formed. In your case, some of the firmament reaches heights above the upper water, but not all of it.

The problem with this is that the Bible uses a qualifier for that instance (among 3 other instances) of "firmament" that you're ignoring, or perhaps forgetting.

It's not, they fly across "the face of the firmament."

It's, they fly across "the face of the firmament of the heavens"

Which, according to you, is something that is previously unknown and undefined. Why, according to you, does heaven suddenly have a "raqia" associated with it?

All of that is part of ONE prepositional phrase in Hebrew.



Correct. And then in verse 20, the birds fly above the face of "the earth" across the face [of] "firmament the heavens."



The mantle is below the firmament. Heaven is the name given to the firmament. Earth is the name given to part of the firmament, specifically, the dry land. The birds fly above the face of the part of the firmament called "Earth," AKA "the dry land."



Doesn't exist.

Doesn't exist,

Right.

because, as I explained above, the phrase "Heaven on earth" is a phrase that comes from our modern day ("modern" as in, as far as the translation of the Bible into English is modern) understanding of what Heaven and Earth are.

If from our modern day understanding, then why is it retrofitted into the text?

The thing expressly named "heaven" is mentioned in Job 26:11.

Look at the context:

“The dead tremble,Those under the waters and those inhabiting them. Sheol is naked before Him,And Destruction has no covering. He stretches out the north over empty space;He hangs the earth on nothing. He binds up the water in His thick clouds,Yet the clouds are not broken under it. He covers the face of His throne,And spreads His cloud over it. He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,At the boundary of light and darkness. The pillars of heaven tremble,And are astonished at His rebuke. He stirs up the sea with His power,And by His understanding He breaks up the storm. By His Spirit He adorned the heavens;His hand pierced the fleeing serpent. Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways,And how small a whisper we hear of Him!But the thunder of His power who can understand?”

Bible Gateway passage: Job 26:5-14 - New King James Version

“The dead tremble, Those under the waters and those inhabiting them. Sheol is naked before Him, And Destruction has no covering. He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing. He binds up the water in His thick clouds, Yet the clouds are not broken under it. He...

www.biblegateway.com

I'm not really prepared to defend one translation over another right now, but the KJV has a significantly different take on it:
[Job 26:10 KJV] He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
[Job 26:11 KJV] The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

The underlined might give context for these two verses--when God finally destroys the earth, since He said before that daya and night would not come to an end, except at the destruction of the earth:
[Gen 8:22 KJV] While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
And if the destruction of the earth and the heavens are coincident, the pillars of the heavens will indeed be trembling.

As for the second half of your sentence, "under the sea for a short time":

"Under the sea": 2 Peter 3:5
"for a short time" but not specifically referring to being under the sea: 2 Peter 3:6

Yes, during Noah's flood. Surely you aren't thinking vs 6 applies to the pre-fall crust.

Supra.



Something we haven't gotten to yet is the physical evidence, which I assert is in strong support of the HPT being true.

You have physical evidence that God called the crust of the earth "heaven"???

As I stated above, if the fountains of the "great" deep (something else I haven't had the opportunity to address yet) refers to subterannean chambers of water, then the HPT is true, and the firmament of day 2 IS the crust of the earth, whether you agree or not.

Just because subterranean chambers exist (or existed) doesn't mean the firmament of day 2 is the crust of the earth.

I don't recall mentioning Psalm 104... not saying you're wrong, just that I don't remember.

However, verse 3 isn't a verse I would particularly say is talking about the HPT...

If anything, I would point to 104:5-9:

You who laid the foundations of the earth,​

So that it should not be moved forever,​

You covered it with the deep as with a garment;​

The waters stood above the mountains.​

At Your rebuke they fled;​

At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away.​

They went up over the mountains;​

They went down into the valleys,​

To the place which You founded for them.​

You have set a boundary that they may not pass over,​

That they may not return to cover the earth.​

Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 104:5-9 - New King James Version

You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever, You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters stood above the mountains. At Your rebuke they fled; At the voice of Your thunder they hastened away. They went up over the mountains; They went down into...

www.biblegateway.com

If I might do a bit of eisegesis here, just to show you how I interpret the text...
"You who laid the foundations of the earth..." = the mantle, which cannot be moved
"You covered [the mantle] with the deep as with a garment" = above the mantle is the deep, AKA water, but not "the waters under the heavens"; the deep being water
"the waters stood above the mountains" = creation of the firmament in the midst of the waters; in this phrase, "mountains" don't exist yet, but the author is referring to the parts that would become the “mountains”
"At Your rebuke they fled..." = perhaps a reference to God implementing gravity, but certainly the formation of the firmament, causing the heavier parts to sink, which causes the lighter, more flexible parts to rise, which causes the water to "flee"; confer with Job 26:11
"They went up over the mountains, They went doen into the valleys, to the place which you founded for them" = The NKJV has a footnote here with an alternate translation, that being: "The mountains rose up; the valleys sank down," and while I think what the NKJV has as the main text is a better translation, I think the footnote text is important. "The waters went up over the mountains" and "the waters went down into the valleys" is a beautiful way of saying that the firmament (iow, the crust of the earth) was shaped so that the "mountains" rose up, and the "valleys" sank down, but not "mountains" and "valleys" like we think of them, but rather these refer to the peaks and dips of the crust itself, where the water was gathered together to form seas in the valleys, and the dry land appeared.
"...to the place which You founded for them" = the "founding" here refers to the crust settling onto the foundation of the earth, the mantle. (cf Job 9:6; Psalm 75:3) The HPT calls the parts of the firmament that rest on the mantle and support the rest of it "pillars," and above these "pillars" are the Seas of Genesis 1:9, which are in the valleys formed by the sunken parts of the crust
"You have set a boundary..." = gravity prevents the waters from leveling out and covering the (pre-flood) earth again



I think you forgot to finish this part... happens to me too.



That's all well and good.... until you get to verse 14, 15, 17, and 20, where there is NO ARTICLE for ANY of those four instances.

Are these all different firmaments then?

I don't have the knowledge to pick out the article, but here are two instances of "raqia" with a preposition, one from Gen 1:14 and one from Ps 150:1. The latter does not have "in the heavens" to help clarify, but it still looks the same to me. (I'm looking at the KJV for both--not sure how the NKJV treats it).
בִּרְקִיעַ
בִּרְקִיעַ
My point is that the translators seemed to think the article belonged in the English in Gen 1:14--including the NKJV translators. I'll let you argue your point with them.

The point I'm making is that, when you take a step back, and get the big picture, like that second video I linked to in this post with the murals made with garbage, you can see that clearly something is different between the last four and the first five instances of "firmament."

I don't disagree that there is some difference in usage. The text allows for there to be other firmaments, but I don't see how any others could be named "heaven" (or "the heavens"). The addition of "the firmament" to "the heavens" appears to be needed to distinguish between the place where birds fly and the place where stars are set, though "the heavens" applies to both.

You're missing the thrust of the question.

I'm not saying there is a second raqia, or that one is intended, with what I said. I probably shouldn't have used "first" in my statement. Can you agree that the "raqia" in vs 6 was named "Heaven," and that "the heavens" are a ""raqia"" in which the stars are placed and across which the birds fly, based simply on what the text says, even conceding for the sake of the argument that they are the same "raqia"?

Yes.

"More likely" because you say so?



Using "early" vs "later" concedes the point I make below



Again, you can assume for the sake of the argument I'm making that it's the same "raqia." Can you see the grammatical separation in the text for the first 5 instances and the last 4 instances?



There's no bluff to be called.



Right, that's my position.

The point I'm trying to make is that the text distinguishes between the first 5 uses, and the last 4 uses, even if it's the same "raqia" throughout.

Can you at least admit that the text makes the distinction between those two groups of uses?

Yes, for the reason I gave above.

Right, that's the eventual point I'm going to make, but I'm trying to find common ground, to find where exactly we differ in our perceptions of the text.



It's not that I suddenly conclude "there are two of each."

It's that it causes other passages to become ununderstandable (not a typo), or to lose any sort of meaning, and causes confusion when trying to understand some of them.



Ok.



Appeal to incredulity.



Again, there is no "under the great deep" unless you're referring to the mantle, and there is no physical evidence that water ever came up from the mantle itself. In fact, the evidence is against this idea.

If what I said is true above, regarding Psalm 104, at least as far as verses 5 and 6a are concerned, the great deep is what covers the mantle. Currently, the crust of the earth is what covers the mantle, for the most part, at least, but the author of Psalm 104 wouldn't have known that.

Do you see the problem with your answer?

I don't think the authors would be able to tell the difference between something that spews up from the surface of the sea, whether it came from above or below the bottom of the sea. They couldn't see the source.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I think that the (great) deep is both above the firmament and below the firmament.

I get that you think it is below, but I'm pointing out that the biblical authors spoke of it as above in some places at least. That's where you would have to acknowledge a great deep both above and below.

All I've said is that "the deep" of verse 2 is "the deep" of Genesis 7:11, 8:2, Job 28:14, Psalm 33:7, figuratively in 69:15, 104:6a, Proverbs 8:27-28, Ezekiel 26:19-20, and 31:15.

"The deep" of verse 2 is not above the firmament. It's below it.

Is "the deep" of Jonah above or below the firmament?
[Jon 2:3 KJV] For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me.

Nor do I.



No.

There is not a "heaven" in between.

There is a raqia, something spread thin, like a sheet of metal that's been pounded out. This raqia is NAMED "heaven."

That's a HUGE difference.

It's named "Heaven" but it's not a heaven? So God called it something that it wasn't?

There's nothing wrong with this...

Except the part where you make the unstated assertion that it must also be the same "heaven" of verse 8.

That's the part I'm disagreeing with.



I'm saying that the fictional worlds weren't originally a fiction.

I'm saying that the starting conditions given in verse 1 have God creating an ocean world (which God used as the starting point of Earth) and all the matter of the universe (the heavens).



A captain doesn't necessarily require a ship.



Just that the starting condition of Earth after it was created in verse 1 is that it was an ocean world, awaiting refinement into a paradise.



Of course.



Please do. It provides important context for this dicussion.



It doesn't do that.



There's no inconsistency.



Dropping the position that the fountains of the great deep came from below the crust of the earth is the same as dropping the HPT: the crust of the earth is the "Heaven" of verse 8, while "the earth" is the dry land formed by the rising of a significant portion of the crust of the earth as Psalm 104:5-9 describes.



Just because you think it's weird doesn't mean it's wrong.

Consider also that the Seas also had life in them that was part of the paradise God created, and thus naming the crust of the earth "Heaven" makes sense, since it would not only include the things on "Earth" but also in "Seas."



Supra.



Now consider instead of there being walls which keep the water from leaving the bed, it's a planet-covering shell of rock that keeps the water inside of it. That's the HPT.



Again, you're forgetting that "raqia" comes from the word "raqa" which means "to beat, stampe, beat out, spread out"; its usage is beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.

You know, just like He did to "the earth" above "the waters"...



That's what the "hydro" in "Hydroplate theory" means, Derf!

Do you not even know what the Hydroplate theory says?



What's getting weirder is the apparent misunderstandings you have about the HPT which shouldn't exist if you knew what it was the HPT says!

GO WATCH THE VIDEO I LINKED TO ABOVE! It is THE quickest way to get a "basic" overview of the theory.

Your constant misrepresentation of what I'm stating, along with your insistence that one could remove the "heaven is the crust" portion and it not negatively affect the rest of the theory lately should have been the first clue to me that you don't even know what the hydroplate theory says, let alone that you could have a good argument against any given part of it!



You're not getting it.

According to the Bible and reason:

1) The Mantle is the foundation (Psalm 104:5)
2) The Deep is on top of the Mantle (Psalm 104:6)
3) The earth is spread out over the Deep (Psalm 136:6) and it sits on pillars (1 Samuel 2:8), the Deep is laid up in storehouses
4) The pillars the earth sits on are the pillars of heaven (Job 26:11)
5) Thus "Earth," AKA "the dry land" (Genesis 1:9-10) is part of, or at least, on top of, "Heaven" (Genesis 1:8), which is the firmament of Day 2 (Genesis 1:6)
6) Thus, the first part of Day 3 (Genesis 1:9-10) must be talking about Heaven, because Earth is physically located above Heaven (Job 26:11)
7) Thus, the firmament of Day 2 can only be something below "Earth" and "Seas," not above.
8) God created life to live on Earth and in Seas and in the sky. (Genesis 1:11-12, 20, 24-30)
9) The sky is above the earth, res ipsa loquitur.
10) God put lights in the sky, namely, the sun, moon, and stars (Genesis 1:14-18)
11) "The firmament of the heavens" (Genesis 1:14-15, 17, 20) is the sky, prima facie, since the sun, moon, and stars are above us.
12) Therefore, "the firmament of the heavens" (Genesis 1:14, etc) CANNOT BE "Heaven" (Genesis 1:8), because the sun, moon, and stars (Genesis 1:14, etc) are not below us in the ground (see 3-7), they are above in the sky (see 9-11)

Do you understand now?



Supra.



Yes.



As opposed to Psalm 104:6b-9 which likely describes Genesis 1:6-10, which seems downright reasonable compared to what you're proposing.



"Seas" in this verse is figurative. It's talking about water.

See points 1, 3, 4, and 5 above.

Strong's h5921 - Lexical: עַל - Transliteration: al - Part of Speech: Preposition - Phonetic Spelling: al - Definition: upon, above, over. - Origin: Properly, the same as al used as a preposition (in the singular or plural often with prefix, or as conjunction with a particle following); above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect) in a great variety of applications (as follow). - Usage: above, according to(-ly), after, (as) against, among, and, X as, at, because of, beside (the rest of), between, beyond the time, X both and, by (reason of), X had the charge of, concerning for, in (that), (forth, out) of, (from) (off), (up-)on, over, than, through(-out), to, touching, X with. - Translated as (count): ...

It literally means "above, over." As in, directly above.

It's not talking about relative altitudes of two things that aren't vertically aligned.

It's talking about "this thing is below, and the other thing is on top of it."



You missed it.

The earth is a raqia simply by the fact that God "raqa"-ed the earth.

And He did so ABOVE the waters. Same word as above.



Even a 3rd grader would recognize that the sky is where the stars are at, and the crust of the earth is what is called heaven, as per the above.



No.

I said what I meant, and meant what I said.



Agreed, God formed the dry land on the beginning of Day 3.



No, it's not.

Not when:
God "raqa"ed the earth above the waters.
He founded it upon the seas.
He established it upon the waters.

And:
Job 26:11
Psalm 104:7



"The heavens" cannot be the firmament named "Heaven," as shown above.



There is no dry land under the crust of the earth.

There is water, though.



Which one?



Which one?



Unless you're God, of course...



Why?



I was talking about "Heavens" not being used.



In the sense of Genesis 1:9-10? Yes.

But if you mean "seas" in a figurative sense to refer to large bodies of water, then no, I don't agree that you can't have seas under the crust.



Supra.



Indeed.

And if God creates something early on, then later gives it a new name after changing it in some way, then there's nothing wrong with referring to that thing early on by it's new name.



Considering what the phrase, "Heaven on Earth" implies, do you not agree that Pre-Fall Earth was, at least from our perspective today, "Heaven on Earth"?



You're still looking at the hanging junk plastic. Come over to where I am, so you can see the smiling woman.



It does if the earth sits on pillars, and is above the waters, and the pillars are a part of heaven...

What if the earth sits on pillars like it sits on a foundation, and like it us hung on nothing? If all those refer to the same thing, then it is talking about something the acts like something solid, but isn't. Just as God set the stars in place, that "place" is not (as far as we understand today) a location in space, but a location in the sky as one sees from the earth. Because even you would admit that the earth doesn't sit on pillars like the flat earthers portray, yet that is the most woodenly literal way to take it.

Supra.



You don't see the difference between those two phrases?

My point is that the two phrases could describe the same thing, despite the minor differences. Thinking they could only be describing different things is forcing a particular understanding into the text when it isn't necessary/required by the text (your text in this case, but the same concept applies to the biblical text). I tend to think that the description of the flood is mostly from the point of view of Noah, or possibly a later observer that God showed the events to in a vision, but in either case, a human observer that is limited in his perspective. I might be wrong in that, but I don't really have strong reasons to change my mind yet. So if an observer saw fountains of water coming out of the sea, he would say "the fountains of the great deep", and it might mean "fountains from below the great deep."

Yes.



The fountains of the great deep come from below the crust of the earth, not from below the great deep. Supra.

That assumes that the great deep in Genesis is not what the great deep is elsewhere. Like here: [Isa 51:10 KJV] [Art] thou not it which hath dried the sea, the waters of the great deep; that hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?
This appears to be talking about the Red Sea crossing, where "sea" and "great deep" both refer to the same thing--waters that are above the crust of the earth. Thus, if they are speaking of the same thing, the fountains could indeed have come from below the sea, below the crust of the earth, but up through the sea/great deep.

The "windows of heaven" is about the strongest point you have for your position, so far, something that is easily explained by physics alone, and not an appeal to the miraculous.

I'm not proposing anything miraculous relating the the windows of heaven. Why do you bring it up?

That says nothing about where the water was coming from.

That's why I mention it. The bible doesn't say where the water came from, except "the great deep". If the account is an eyewitness account, it would be spouting up from the sea, which is commonly called "the great deep". Nothing in that would give the added information that the water came from below the sea, but it wouldn't prevent it either. I think the same thing could be said of the windows of heaven. The waters might be coming from a source that is above the atmosphere, or it might be coming from a source that is below the sea that gets shot up above the atmosphere. Either could fit the text.

Agreed, but step back and look at the big picture.

Trying to.

The point I'm trying to make is that Earth was a paradise, not the heavens.

So, you don't call the heavens "Heaven" until it looks like the Earth? This is backwards from where you say the "heaven on earth" term came from.

Heaven includes both the dry land and the seas.

It would fit that God called the crust which He formed those two places out of, "Heaven."

Only if "heaven" were recognizable as a paradise already. But you just said it wasn't.

Yes. And?

Then it makes it suspect as even a literary device but more importantly as an actual place name given by God.

The paradise that existed before the Fall is long gone, destroyed by the Flood.

But it wasn't paradise yet, so if it doesn't need to be an actual paradise (a garden planted by God in this case), but only a wasteland of dirt/earth with water above and below, then why can't we say that any old wasteland on earth today is paradise? Do you understand my point? You say He called it Heaven because it would become a paradise like Heaven would become. Neither deserved the name "heaven" (meaning paradise) yet, because they weren't completed yet.

The Flood ALSO destroyed what God called Heaven, the crust of the earth, so in one sense, that too is gone, but in another sense, it's still "Heaven," since that's the name it was originally given.

But it isn't still "Heaven" in any sense that the bible recognizes afterward. It seems to only work in your imagination.


I'm going to post this, even though there are some things I didn't respond to in the middle. If you need me to, I will need to minimize the number of different points to respond to each time somehow.

 

[Ps82]

Hello every one. I love symbolism. Since water, waters, to me have to do with measures of life. Just as Jesus told the woman at the well that he had an additional measure of "water" to give her from which she would never thirst again. He was talking about eternal life/waters.

So when God created a firmament to separate the waters from the waters ... that means to me the living from the living. I conclude angels from mankind. The two sentient beings HE created and who are the main ones discuss in our written Word of God. There may have been many sentient super-natural beings but mankind was to be separated from them. To me God was establishing boundaries where life could and would not exist.

 

[Clete]

Hello every one. I love symbolism. Since water, waters, to me have to do with measures of life. Just as Jesus told the woman at the well that he had an additional measure of "water" to give her from which she would never thirst again. He was talking about eternal life/waters.

So when God created a firmament to separate the waters from the waters ... that means to me the living from the living. I conclude angels from mankind. The two sentient beings HE created and who are the main ones discuss in our written Word of God. There may have been many sentient super-natural beings but mankind was to be separated from them. To me God was establishing boundaries where life could and would not exist.

October 2nd. Sam Adam's birthday and "Make up your own doctrine out of whole clothe!" day.

Who knew?!

 

[Ps82]

God called this firmament boundary - Heaven.

My thoughts and questions about the possibilities of the firmament / Heaven are these:

• That firmament named Heaven is a boundary between men and angels but it is also a place - a realm - where things could exist.
• Perhaps a place for The LORD God's own throne between men and angels.
• A place where he could meet with men or angels.
• Jacob said he saw the door way into the House of God. What did he perceive?
• There were angels ascending and descending up and down that stairway.
• Could it have been the Garden of Eden where the presence of the was heard walking? The place where Adam and Woman hid from his presence? The place where God came to ask Adam and Woman about what they had done?
• The place where The LORD formed a body for the male female Spirit of humanity?
• It seems the angel Satan had to take on a body or form of some sort to enter there and tempt the Woman. ???
• After that both Satan and mankind were kicked out and Satan became the prince of the air in this world and a powerful spiritual being among men ... and mankind became destined to die ... with the potential of a way out.

Obviously I do not know the answers to these but some seem plausible. It goes back to what I see in Ps 82 ... where The LORD was holding court and Satan was standing before Him on trial pleading his own defense in a heavenly realm.

• God, You are being an unfair judge.
• How long will you put up with and favor these pitiful PERSONS?
• They are a mess and clueless and they are the reason the whole world is out of sorts.
• Of course God cuts him short and reveals the sentence.

 

[Clete]

All kidding aside, I think speculating about the layout and functionality of Heaven is a perfectly fine thing to do, but I'm always reminded of I Corinthians 2:9

I Corinthians 2:9 But as it is written:​

“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”​

​

I'm pretty sure that any conception we have about what Heaven is like currently, never mind what the New Heaven will be like, is so far from the reality of it that we might as well have just been totally wrong. The fact is that the heavenly realm is sufficiently outside of our frame of reference that we really don't even have what it takes to conceptualize such things. It would be like a Chimpanzee trying to figure out how to describe the Amber Room.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It could be. But couldn't it also be that the heavens and the earth did not exist before God said, "Let there be light"?

Not according to a plain reading of the first three verses.

I have, but you don't agree. I get that, but it's not the same as NOT explaining why.

Please explain again.

Maybe. I'm not opposed to the idea, and it is the one I have ascribed to before. But can't it also make sense for the heavens to be created in the narrative where God said He created something called "Heavens"? And might it not also make sense for the earth to be created at the time when God said He created something called "Earth"?

Not when "the heavens" and "Heaven", and, "the earth" and "Earth" are both distinguished from the other.

ESPECIALLY and in particular, when "the heavens" is used in two distinct ways throughout the chapter, the first five in one way, and then the last four in another.

You might be biased a bit by reading the NKJV here. It uses "Heavens" elsewhere, but "Heaven" in vs 8. The KJV doesn't do that.

A lot of what I'm basing my position on is the Hebrew text, and the NKJV reads a lot closer to the Hebrew than the KJV does. The Hebrew "shamayim" is used in verse 8. The KJV translates that word as "sky." The NKJV translates the word as "Heaven."

Hassamayim (same word, with the "the" article) is used throughout chapter 1 to refer to "the heavens," which I agree is referring to the sky, or any combination of its parts.

It maintains the word "heaven" throughout.

Which is far more consistent with the Hebrew than alternating between "heavens" and "sky."

Nevertheless, as I point out below, the crust of the earth wasn't in any kind of shape to be called "heaven" based on it being a paradise. There were no plants (grass, fruit and nut trees, bushes, conifers, or whatever). It would have been considered a wasteland. If the translators are acting on some idea that it was a paradise, it was an idea not supported by the text.

Rather, the reason is that Heaven is a paradise because it's where God lives.

Last I checked, God was living on Earth with Adam and Eve, and even before He created them.

Are you suggesting that we lost a lot of pertinent details in the transcribing?

I'm saying that there might be SOME minor details that have possibly been lost through such transcriptions, and certainly, whenever you translate something from any language to another, there will always be a loss of information. Consider translating the English phrase, "Let's hit the road" to, say, Japanese. If you translate it literally, the Japanese speaker will think you want to go out to the road and hit it with a fist or a hammer. If you translate the meaning of the phrase, rather than translating it word for word, you lose the original phrasing, despite translating the meaning correctly. (By the way, there's an instance of this occurring in the Septuagint that serves as good evidence that the Torah came first, and the Septuagint is the translation, where the Greek translators translated the original phrase directly into Hebrew, instead of translating the meaning into Greek. Learn more here:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Such transcription errors are certainly few and far in-between, but just go to any site where atheists have composed lists of discrepancies between any two given passages and you'll probably find at least one or two.

Some errors are intentional, to be sure, to be used as checks against more egregious errors creeping in.

I think that may be giving too much ammunition to those who seek to undermine the veracity of the text.

I'm simply pointing out that our current Bibles are not divinely inspired texts, simply mere copies of the originals, and we should recognize them as such.

I may be losing track of where we've already gone with this, so I apologize beforehand. But isn't this like saying "God spoke of a city that wasn't yet called New York, then God made a skyscraper in Texas and called it 'New York', and then He never spoke of the skyscraper again by that name, but returned to calling the city New York, and somewhere along the way, the city actually began to be called 'New York'."

Not quite.

New York was founded in 1624. But it wasn't called New York until 1664.

Heaven was (quite literally) founded on day 2, but wouldn't become a paradise akin to what we today call "Heaven" until after day 3.

It wasn't the pre-Fall Earth...it was the pre-Earth crust of the Earth, which was barren of life.

Only for little more than a day. By the end of day 3, there was plant life growing in the soil, if not already sprouting.

I think my answer is that such a thing is not fit to be called "heaven", if it's because it is supposed to be like a beautiful garden where God lives.

Again, it's not Heaven because it's a garden.

It's Heaven because it's where God lives, and where God lives is a paradise.

I hope you realize that such an argument works just as well from any other point of view. I.e., if you don't agree with me, it's merely because you don't see all the details from the right angle...like I do. As such, it's a begging the question argument.

Yes.

Even so.

The Earth BECAME a paradise.

Because God started living there.

Not because it was a garden.

Go look up what "paradise" means. It would not apply to a wasteland, and especially not to a band of dirt between two bands of water, which is what it was when God called it "Heaven".

Supra.

Hmmm. I just got through reading about how God might call a city "New York" when it wasn't really New York yet. Are you retracting all of that?

No.

Ok. How is that opposed to an earth that doesn't exist yet?

One exists without form, and the other doesn't exist, period.

I'm not sure why that's hard to understand...

When did God say He created "the waters"? I must have missed it.

It doesn't. The implication is that the waters were created along with the earth in verse 1, since without the waters, there is nothing for the Spirit of God to hover over, and without the earth, there is nothing to rotate to begin the day/night cycle.

Moses???

Yes.

But they knew what God was talking about when He said those things. He didn't say "Pleiades" and they thought "that's a city my Aunt Gertrude lives in." When God mentions "Pleiades" in Ch 38, and Job mentions them in Ch 9, they both know what each other is referring to--because the names are consistent.

There's a difference between knowing about something, and knowing how it's constructed.

Obviously, they knew ABOUT them.

But they certainly didn't know how they were created. This is what I was referring to.

"Depths of water", yes. "The depths of water", not necessarily. Iow, you are proposing two different "depths of water", one above the crust and one below, and I don't know which one you are talking about.

At least within the context of Genesis 1 (AFTER the beginning of day 2) and before the Flood in general, I am referring to the one below the crust.

After the Flood, above.

Before day 2, there was no crust. But the same meaning applies to "the deep" of verse 2 as it does to the rest of scripture, that being, deep water.

Neither of us believes that.

Huh?

With respect to the firmament, the water is both up and down from it when it is first formed.

Correct.

In your case, some of the firmament reaches heights above the upper water, but not all of it.

Correct.

And still, the water, from the perspective of someone standing on the firmament, the water is still down, and the sky is up.

On your view, from the perspective of someone on the firmament, water would be up and down, but sky would be down.

No?

Which, according to you, is something that is previously unknown and undefined. Why, according to you, does heaven suddenly have a "raqia" associated with it?

Because it's a metaphor.

Raqia is solid. That which is inset into it does not move.

The heavens are, metaphorically, solid, the stars set in them do not (appear to) move.

That is how Moses was using it when He wrote of "the firmament of the heavens."

If from our modern day understanding, then why is it retrofitted into the text?

Do you have a better term to use for translating "shamayim" that works both for a name and for a structure?

Heaven seems quite apt, to me.

I'm not really prepared to defend one translation over another right now, but the KJV has a significantly different take on it:
[Job 26:10 KJV] He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

The Hebrew interlinear I use has, "at the boundary of light and darkness." "ad taklit owr im- hosek"

Like I said, the NKJV is generally speaking closer to the Hebrew than the KJV.

[Job 26:11 KJV] The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

The underlined might give context for these two verses--when God finally destroys the earth, since He said before that day and night would not come to an end, except at the destruction of the earth:
[Gen 8:22 KJV] While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.
And if the destruction of the earth and the heavens are coincident, the pillars of the heavens will indeed be trembling.

An interesting observation, to be sure, but I don't think that's what it's talking about there.

Yes, during Noah's flood.

Correct.

Surely you aren't thinking vs 6 applies to the pre-fall crust.

No.

The point was that the "pillars of heaven" are talking about locations where the crust of the earth rests upon the mantle.

You have physical evidence that God called the crust of the earth "heaven"???

I said evidence for the HPT.

The same HPT that asserts that the crust of the earth post day 3 and prior to the Flood is the "Heaven" of Genesis 1:8.

Just because subterranean chambers exist (or existed) doesn't mean the firmament of day 2 is the crust of the earth.

Yes, it would mean precisely that, because it would demonstrate that there is no need for the "firmament" of day 2 to be the sky.

I don't have the knowledge to pick out the article, but here are two instances of "raqia" with a preposition, one from Gen 1:14

"in the firmament of the heavens"
birqia hassamayim
[in firmament] [the heavens]

and one from Ps 150:1.

"in His mighty firmament"
birqia uzzow
[in firmament] [His mighty]

The latter does not have "in the heavens" to help clarify, but it still looks the same to me. (I'm looking at the KJV for both--not sure how the NKJV treats it).
בִּרְקִיעַ
בִּרְקִיעַ

One thing you should keep in mind (not that it makes any difference here) is that there were no accent markings (the tiny dots and dashes) with the original Hebrew letters.

My point is that the translators seemed to think the article belonged in the English in Gen 1:14--including the NKJV translators. I'll let you argue your point with them.

For which word? Raqia?

Because that's how we English speakers talk.

We use articles where Hebrew and Greek might not have them, because without them, the sentences would be awkward to read.

Simple as that.

As for comparing Psalm 150:1 here, I agree that it is not referring to the crust of the earth, but rather describing God's dwelling place with figurative language.

Just like how Moses used figurative language to describe "the heavens" as being "firm."

I don't disagree that there is some difference in usage. The text allows for there to be other firmaments,

You've conceded half the remaining battle to me now.

If I recall correctly, that makes 3/4 of the battle that you've conceded, unless I'm thinking of a different discussion...

but I don't see how any others could be named "heaven" (or "the heavens").

They're not named "the heavens."

They ARE "the heavens."

The addition of "the firmament" to "the heavens" appears to be needed to distinguish between the place where birds fly and the place where stars are set, though "the heavens" applies to both.

Except "the heavens" are not used with the first five uses of "the firmament." Rather, "Heaven(s)" is used, once, at the end of those five uses.

The association of "the heavens" with "the firmament" doesn't come until later in verse 14, which is after day 3 has ended and day 4 has begun, separating it even further with the ending of one day and the beginning of another, along with the "And God saw that it was good," TWICE!

I don't think the authors would be able to tell the difference between something that spews up from the surface of the sea, whether it came from above or below the bottom of the sea. They couldn't see the source.

That would only apply if Scripture was not divinely inspired.

But because God was involved in the writing of Scripture, I'm sure He could have provided details that mortal men would not have been able to know.

I get that you think it is below, but I'm pointing out that the biblical authors spoke of it as above in some places at least.That's where you would have to acknowledge a great deep both above and below.

Fair.

Is "the deep" of Jonah above or below the firmament?
[Jon 2:3 KJV] For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me.

Assuming HPT, mostly above.

It's named "Heaven" but it's not a heaven? So God called it something that it wasn't?

God called it the place where He lived, "Heaven," at least for a time.

I would hazard a guess and say that it is no longer called Heaven, for various reasons.

What if the earth sits on pillars like it sits on a foundation,

Yes, that's what I believe.

and like it is hung on nothing?

Yes, that is also what I believe, albeit the context is a bit different than the former, the earth in this context being the entire planet, rather than just the crust.

If all those refer to the same thing,

They don't.

then it is talking about something that acts like something solid, but isn't. Just as God set the stars in place, that "place" is not (as far as we understand today) a location in space, but a location in the sky as one sees from the earth. Because even you would admit that the earth doesn't sit on pillars like the flat earthers portray, yet that is the most woodenly literal way to take it.

Supra.

My point is that the two phrases could describe the same thing, despite the minor differences.

No, they couldn't.

That's just not how grammar works in any language.

Again, I point to the trunk analogy.

If I used trunk 5 times within a few sentences, referring to the trunk of an elephant, then another 4 times I used trunk with a clarifying phrase, "the trunk of the car," ABSOLUTELY NO ONE would think that I was originally referring to the trunk of the car ALL 9 TIMES.

That's exactly the same thing happening in Genesis 1.

5 times raqia (trunk) is used, with no clarifying phrase every time. Then another 4 times, every time, it's used with the clarifying phrase hassamayim (of the car).

It would absolutely be absurd to think that all 9 times raqia is used it's talking about hassamayim, for the exact same reason it would be absurd to think that all 9 times I used the word trunk I was referring to the trunk of the car, and not to the trunk of an elephant for the first 5!

Thinking they could only be describing different things is forcing a particular understanding into the text when it isn't necessary/required by the text (your text in this case, but the same concept applies to the biblical text).

No, it's not, Derf, it's simply following the rules of grammar and syntax.

I tend to think that the description of the flood is mostly from the point of view of Noah, or possibly a later observer that God showed the events to in a vision,

You mean like Moses, ya know, the one who wrote Genesis?

but in either case, a human observer that is limited in his perspective.

Which completely ignores the possibility that God might have also shared His perspective...

I might be wrong in that, but I don't really have strong reasons to change my mind yet. So if an observer saw fountains of water coming out of the sea, he would say "the fountains of the great deep", and it might mean "fountains from below the great deep."

Except the only "great deep" that's been introduced so far in the story of Genesis is "the deep" of 1:2, is it not?

That assumes that the great deep in Genesis is not what the great deep is elsewhere.

Rather, it doesn't assume that it's the same "the deep" everywhere.

Like here: [Isa 51:10 KJV] [Art] thou not it which hath dried the sea, the waters of the great deep; that hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?
This appears to be talking about the Red Sea crossing, where "sea" and "great deep" both refer to the same thing--waters that are above the crust of the earth. Thus, if they are speaking of the same thing, the fountains could indeed have come from below the sea, below the crust of the earth, but up through the sea/great deep.

Agreed.

I'm not proposing anything miraculous relating to the windows of heaven. Why do you bring it up?

Do you not purport that the firmament is the sky, and that there is therefore water above the sky?

Would not the water being held above the firmament and/or coming down from it be a miraculous event?

That's why I mention it. The bible doesn't say where the water came from, except "the great deep".

This ignores Genesis 1:2, which tells us where the water was...

If the account is an eyewitness account, it would be spouting up from the sea, which is commonly called "the great deep". Nothing in that would give the added information that the water came from below the sea, but it wouldn't prevent it either. I think the same thing could be said of the windows of heaven. The waters might be coming from a source that is above the atmosphere, or it might be coming from a source that is below the sea that gets shot up above the atmosphere. Either could fit the text.

7/8th's of the way there, now.

Trying to.

Thank you.

So, you don't call the heavens "Heaven" until it looks like the Earth? This is backwards from where you say the "heaven on earth" term came from.

I don't call "the heavens" "Heaven" until God dwells there.

I seem to have confused you with my "heaven on earth" comment, for that I apologize.

The point was that wherever God lives, THAT is heaven, because it will be a paradise simply by God being there.

Only if "heaven" were recognizable as a paradise already. But you just said it wasn't.

Supra.

Then it makes it suspect as even a literary device but more importantly as an actual place name given by God.

Supra.

But it wasn't paradise yet,

God wasn't living there?

so if it doesn't need to be an actual paradise (a garden planted by God in this case),

The fact that it's a garden is besides the point, and I should have made that clear earlier.

but only a wasteland of dirt/earth with water above and below, then why can't we say that any old wasteland on earth today is paradise? Do you understand my point?

I understand the point you're making.

It does not apply to what I'm saying.

You say He called it Heaven because it would become a paradise like Heaven would become. Neither deserved the name "heaven" (meaning paradise) yet, because they weren't completed yet.

Supra.

But it isn't still "Heaven" in any sense that the bible recognizes afterward. It seems to only work in your imagination.

Supra.

I'm going to post this, even though there are some things I didn't respond to in the middle. If you need me to, I will need to minimize the number of different points to respond to each time somehow.

Good enough for now, I suppose.

 

[Derf]

Please explain again.

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

Humankind has dug deeply into the earth in many locations. Nowhere have they hit a "metal liner". We've never gotten near the bottom of the granite crust, but it would sure seem like any metal liner would have been disintegrated like the tissue it would be (relative to the crust it was lining)...

theologyonline.com

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

Humankind has dug deeply into the earth in many locations. Nowhere have they hit a "metal liner". We've never gotten near the bottom of the granite crust, but it would sure seem like any metal liner would have been disintegrated like the tissue it would be (relative to the crust it was lining)...

theologyonline.com

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

Gen 10:25.."And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." The flood happened in Gen 7. yet the earth was not divided up until Peleg. See https://kgov.com/peleg Just because you disagree with his theory...

theologyonline.com

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

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. I have, some time ago. It is the confusion factor...and God is not the author of confusion. Rather, He takes confusing things and makes sense of them, or chaotic...

theologyonline.com

And

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

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

Edit: I'm not looking for a particular response to any of these, just reiterating, like you asked me to, why I think it is confusing, even if you don't agree with me.

 

[JudgeRightly]

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

Humankind has dug deeply into the earth in many locations. Nowhere have they hit a "metal liner". We've never gotten near the bottom of the granite crust, but it would sure seem like any metal liner would have been disintegrated like the tissue it would be (relative to the crust it was lining)...

theologyonline.com

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

Humankind has dug deeply into the earth in many locations. Nowhere have they hit a "metal liner". We've never gotten near the bottom of the granite crust, but it would sure seem like any metal liner would have been disintegrated like the tissue it would be (relative to the crust it was lining)...

theologyonline.com

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

Gen 10:25.."And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." The flood happened in Gen 7. yet the earth was not divided up until Peleg. See https://kgov.com/peleg Just because you disagree with his theory...

theologyonline.com

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

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. I have, some time ago. It is the confusion factor...and God is not the author of confusion. Rather, He takes confusing things and makes sense of them, or chaotic...

theologyonline.com

And



Edit: I'm not looking for a particular response to any of these, just reiterating, like you asked me to, why I think it is confusing, even if you don't agree with me.

Okay, the first two seem to be your attempt at explaining WHY it's confusing, and thank you for directing me to those. But the rest are you just saying "because it's confusing" and not explaining why.

Just an observation.

Yeah, it's pretty confusing that the crust of the earth is called "heavens", and the firmament of the heavens is not the one under those heavens.

It's a matter of figurative language.

Using one literal thing as a metaphor for another.

That's not confusing. It's beautiful.

The first verse is indeed an introduction, but also telling us what God made on Day 1.

Days 2-3 are God making the crust of the earth, pounding it out flat in the midst of the waters, and then letting gravity form it into peaks and valleys to form Seas and dry land, which He named Earth.

The crust itself He called Heaven, because 1) it's where He would reside and 2) because it was to become a paradise.

Then the next day, He sets the stars in a metaphorical firmament, drawing attention to it with a clarifying phrase that calls back to what He called the literal firmament.

That's not confusing at all!

It's the most brilliant use of figurative language ever!

The firmament CALLED heaven is the earth.

No, it's the crust of the earth.

PART of the crust becomes the dry land, which is named "Earth."

The story is about the creation of 2 things, the heavens and the earth.

Indeed it is!

But somehow the firmament called heaven is really the earth, and the firmament that is not called heaven is the firmament of heaven.

"The firmament called Heaven" is used figuratively to describe "the firmament of the heavens."

"The firmament of the heavens" is a metaphorical use of "the firmament" because the sky appears to be solid, and things in the sky appear to be immovable, despite not actually being so.

And you don't think that's confusing?

No, I don't think it's confusing at all. Because it isn't, once you look at it from the right viewpoint.

Viewed from the correct paradigm, the chapter becomes amazingly beautiful.

 

[JudgeRightly]

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

Humankind has dug deeply into the earth in many locations. Nowhere have they hit a "metal liner". We've never gotten near the bottom of the granite crust, but it would sure seem like any metal liner would have been disintegrated like the tissue it would be (relative to the crust it was lining)...

theologyonline.com

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

Humankind has dug deeply into the earth in many locations. Nowhere have they hit a "metal liner". We've never gotten near the bottom of the granite crust, but it would sure seem like any metal liner would have been disintegrated like the tissue it would be (relative to the crust it was lining)...

theologyonline.com

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

Gen 10:25.."And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan." The flood happened in Gen 7. yet the earth was not divided up until Peleg. See https://kgov.com/peleg Just because you disagree with his theory...

theologyonline.com

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

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. I have, some time ago. It is the confusion factor...and God is not the author of confusion. Rather, He takes confusing things and makes sense of them, or chaotic...

theologyonline.com

And



Edit: I'm not looking for a particular response to any of these, just reiterating, like you asked me to, why I think it is confusing, even if you don't agree with me.

Okay, the first two seem to be your attempt at explaining WHY it's confusing, and thank you for directing me to those. But the rest are you just saying "because it's confusing" and not explaining why.

Just an observation.



It's a matter of figurative language.

Using one literal thing as a metaphor for another.

That's not confusing. It's beautiful.

The first verse is indeed an introduction, but also telling us what God made on Day 1.

Days 2-3 are God making the crust of the earth, pounding it out flat in the midst of the waters, and then letting gravity form it into peaks and valleys to form Seas and dry land, which He named Earth.

The crust itself He called Heaven, because 1) it's where He would reside and 2) because it was to become a paradise.

Then the next day, He sets the stars in a metaphorical firmament, drawing attention to it with a clarifying phrase that calls back to what He called the literal firmament.

That's not confusing at all!

It's the most brilliant use of figurative language ever!



No, it's the crust of the earth.

PART of the crust becomes the dry land, which is named "Earth."



Indeed it is!



"The firmament called Heaven" is used figuratively to describe "the firmament of the heavens."

"The firmament of the heavens" is a metaphorical use of "the firmament" because the sky appears to be solid, and things in the sky appear to be immovable, despite not actually being so.



No, I don't think it's confusing at all. Because it isn't, once you look at it from the right viewpoint.

Viewed from the correct paradigm, the chapter becomes amazingly beautiful.

The other half of this, Derf, is that He uses the term for the loftiest of heights... for His new dwelling place on the planet He is in the midst of creating.

 

[Clete]

I have, some time ago. It is the confusion factor...and God is not the author of confusion. Rather, He takes confusing things and makes sense of them, or chaotic things and makes orderly things of them. Thus, when He introduces a confusing thing, like calling something "heaven" that isn't "the heavens", and then NEVER calls it that again, it is confusing. I know you've rejected that reason, but it is both valid and compelling for those who aren't already settled on their interpretation.

So, I've seen you say this on more than one occasion and I don't think it as valid or as compelling as you want to pretend it to be.

If your use of 1 Corinthians 14:33 was proper then it would mean that Occam's Razor wasn't merely a good lens to use when looking at a particular hypothesis but that it is the ONLY valid lens to use, and that the simplest answer is ALWAYS the right answer, so says God Himself.

That is clearly not the intent of what Paul is teaching the Corinthians and it's a good thing too because the simplest answer very often isn't the correct answer. Not to mention the fact that what constitutes "simplicity" vs "confusion" is something of a subjective issue to begin with.

 

[Derf]

Not according to a plain reading of the first three verses.

Plain reading works against you for the "Heaven" vs "the heavens" discussion. we're both still trying to figure out how it makes the best sense, and "plain reading" isn't sufficient.

Not when "the heavens" and "Heaven", and, "the earth" and "Earth" are both distinguished from the other.

I know that you distinguish "the heavens" and "Heaven", but can you really say that about "the earth" and "Earth"?
[Gen 1:10 KJV] And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.
[Gen 1:11 KJV] And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, [and] the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed [is] in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Or are you suggesting that perhaps some of that grass and herb and fruit tree tried to grow out of the seas that are part of the planet earth?

ESPECIALLY and in particular, when "the heavens" is used in two distinct ways throughout the chapter, the first five in one way, and then the last four in another.

So now you are saying "the heavens" DOES apply to the crust??

A lot of what I'm basing my position on is the Hebrew text, and the NKJV reads a lot closer to the Hebrew than the KJV does. The Hebrew "shamayim" is used in verse 8. The KJV translates that word as "sky." The NKJV translates the word as "Heaven."

Hassamayim (same word, with the "the" article) is used throughout chapter 1 to refer to "the heavens," which I agree is referring to the sky, or any combination of its parts.



Which is far more consistent with the Hebrew than alternating between "heavens" and "sky."



Rather, the reason is that Heaven is a paradise because it's where God lives.

Last I checked, God was living on Earth with Adam and Eve, and even before He created them.

Please provide such scripture that you "checked".

I'm saying that there might be SOME minor details that have possibly been lost through such transcriptions, and certainly, whenever you translate something from any language to another, there will always be a loss of information. Consider translating the English phrase, "Let's hit the road" to, say, Japanese. If you translate it literally, the Japanese speaker will think you want to go out to the road and hit it with a fist or a hammer. If you translate the meaning of the phrase, rather than translating it word for word, you lose the original phrasing, despite translating the meaning correctly. (By the way, there's an instance of this occurring in the Septuagint that serves as good evidence that the Torah came first, and the Septuagint is the translation, where the Greek translators translated the original phrase directly into Hebrew, instead of translating the meaning into Greek. Learn more here:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Such transcription errors are certainly few and far in-between, but just go to any site where atheists have composed lists of discrepancies between any two given passages and you'll probably find at least one or two.

Some errors are intentional, to be sure, to be used as checks against more egregious errors creeping in.



I'm simply pointing out that our current Bibles are not divinely inspired texts, simply mere copies of the originals, and we should recognize them as such.



Not quite.

New York was founded in 1624. But it wasn't called New York until 1664.

Heaven was (quite literally) founded on day 2, but wouldn't become a paradise akin to what we today call "Heaven" until after day 3.



Only for little more than a day. By the end of day 3, there was plant life growing in the soil, if not already sprouting.



Again, it's not Heaven because it's a garden.

It's Heaven because it's where God lives, and where God lives is a paradise.

Look up the source of "paradise".

Yes.

Even so.



Because God started living there.

Not because it was a garden.

Supra

One exists without form, and the other doesn't exist, period.

Without form and empty (void) suggests that it has neither a discernible shape or contents. If a tree or an animal had no discernible shape (body) or contents (organs), what is there of it. It would be like it didn't exist. Go outside and look at a tree and imagine what you would see if there were no inside nor outside of the tree.

It doesn't. The implication is that the waters were created along with the earth in verse 1, since without the waters, there is nothing for the Spirit of God to hover over, and without the earth, there is nothing to rotate to begin the day/night cycle.

Waters might rotate. They do when going down the drain. I'm speculating here. The other option is that the original creation was of something that was at the center and the light went around it. Some of that set up might change once the firmament was established, and then the earth might go around the sun.

Yes.



There's a difference between knowing about something, and knowing how it's constructed.

Obviously, they knew ABOUT them.

But they certainly didn't know how they were created. This is what I was referring to.

But our science today has determined the things mentioned in scripture by observation (what binding or loosing might apply to the different constellations), even without knowing or needing to know how they were created. Could be the same for Job's time. Harder to imagine, yes, but not outside of the possibility that they were able to make similar observations and understand what they meant for the stars involved.

At least within the context of Genesis 1 (AFTER the beginning of day 2) and before the Flood in general, I am referring to the one below the crust.

After the Flood, above.

Before day 2, there was no crust. But the same meaning applies to "the deep" of verse 2 as it does to the rest of scripture, that being, deep water.

Again, I don't think any of the scriptures require it to be so. Now, adding the term "fountains of" might require something below the bottom of the deep (the sea that was observable to Noah). No issue with that.

Huh?



Correct.



Correct.

And still, the water, from the perspective of someone standing on the firmament, the water is still down, and the sky is up.

Not if one is standing on the firmament at the bottom of the sea (in your view). Water is up to him.

On your view, from the perspective of someone on the firmament, water would be up and down, but sky would be down.

No?

I don't recognize what being "on the firmament" would entail (remember that stars are "in the firmament"). Is there anywhere anyone uses such a term in scripture? But let's say one were at the outer edge of the firmament in my view (which would be on the outer edge of the universe). I suppose you are right that water would be both up and down and sky would be down.

Because it's a metaphor.

Raqia is solid. That which is inset into it does not move.

The heavens are, metaphorically, solid, the stars set in them do not (appear to) move.

That is how Moses was using it when He wrote of "the firmament of the heavens."



Do you have a better term to use for translating "shamayim" that works both for a name and for a structure?

Heaven seems quite apt, to me.



The Hebrew interlinear I use has, "at the boundary of light and darkness." "ad taklit owr im- hosek"

Like I said, the NKJV is generally speaking closer to the Hebrew than the KJV.



An interesting observation, to be sure, but I don't think that's what it's talking about there.



Correct.



No.

The point was that the "pillars of heaven" are talking about locations where the crust of the earth rests upon the mantle.

I'm starting to lose track of what we're talking about here. I think you are saying that 2 Pet 3:5 is referencing the effect of the pillars as HPT envisions them, when it talks about "the earth standing out of water and in the water", right? It's weak, at the very best. And it points out that adding the article doesn't make it a different entity, since Peter refers to "the heavens" and "the earth", where God had named "Heaven(s)" and "Earth" without the article. If "Earth" is "the Earth" (obvious in both Peter and Gen 1), then it is equally likely to work with "Heavens" and "the Heavens".

AND it reinforces the idea that "the Earth", to Peter, meant the crust or dry land, and not the planet.

I said evidence for the HPT.

The same HPT that asserts that the crust of the earth post day 3 and prior to the Flood is the "Heaven" of Genesis 1:8.



Yes, it would mean precisely that, because it would demonstrate that there is no need for the "firmament" of day 2 to be the sky.

So you are asserting here that if my understanding is correct, there is no possibility for any subterranean chambers of water to exist?? Subterranean chambers can exist in either model. God didn't describe everything inside the earth in Gen 1 (either model).

"in the firmament of the heavens"
birqia hassamayim
[in firmament] [the heavens]



"in His mighty firmament"
birqia uzzow
[in firmament] [His mighty]



One thing you should keep in mind (not that it makes any difference here) is that there were no accent markings (the tiny dots and dashes) with the original Hebrew letters.



For which word? Raqia?

Because that's how we English speakers talk.

We use articles where Hebrew and Greek might not have them, because without them, the sentences would be awkward to read.

Simple as that.

As for comparing Psalm 150:1 here, I agree that it is not referring to the crust of the earth, but rather describing God's dwelling place with figurative language.

Just like how Moses used figurative language to describe "the heavens" as being "firm."

Good.

You've conceded half the remaining battle to me now.

By suggesting there could be other firmaments named "Heaven" or called "the Heavens"? I just don't see how that is the case.

If I recall correctly, that makes 3/4 of the battle that you've conceded, unless I'm thinking of a different discussion...

You may be thinking of a battle I'm not try to win. I'm ok with the Hydroplate Theory in general (I'm not saying I ascribe to it, but I acknowledge it has some excellent points and it should be considered among the top possibilities). I'm only arguing that it shouldn't try to conflate Heaven with the crust of the earth and that it doesn't need to do so to be among the top possibilities.

They're not named "the heavens."

They ARE "the heavens."



Except "the heavens" are not used with the first five uses of "the firmament." Rather, "Heaven(s)" is used, once, at the end of those five uses.

Of course. That's because He hadn't named it "Heaven(s)" yet.

The association of "the heavens" with "the firmament" doesn't come until later in verse 14, which is after day 3 has ended and day 4 has begun, separating it even further with the ending of one day and the beginning of another, along with the "And God saw that it was good," TWICE!



That would only apply if Scripture was not divinely inspired.

But because God was involved in the writing of Scripture, I'm sure He could have provided details that mortal men would not have been able to know.

Of course He could. He would have had to in Gen 1 and much of Gen 2, although one of the ways He does that is that He "shows" people things in visions. And if showing them things, sometimes He takes the time to explain what they are seeing, and sometimes not. But if Moses (maybe Adam) was given a vision, it was likely that the vision was from a particular point of view. Maybe out away from the (planet) earth, since the (dry ground) earth was not formed.

Fair.



Assuming HPT, mostly above.

Since you acknowledge that there was something that could be called "the great deep" both above and below the crust, how can you tell which one your fountains originated from (use scripture, please, not just HPT)?

God called it the place where He lived, "Heaven," at least for a time.

I would hazard a guess and say that it is no longer called Heaven, for various reasons.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, God called it "Heaven" because it was where He lived, even though it was unlivable. Then He called something else Heaven, even though He was living on/in the unlivable Heaven and not in the Heaven we have today.

Yes, that's what I believe.

View attachment 12822



Yes, that is also what I believe, albeit the context is a bit different than the former, the earth in this context being the entire planet, rather than just the crust.



They don't.



Supra.



No, they couldn't.

That's just not how grammar works in any language.

Again, I point to the trunk analogy.

If I used trunk 5 times within a few sentences, referring to the trunk of an elephant, then another 4 times I used trunk with a clarifying phrase, "the trunk of the car," ABSOLUTELY NO ONE would think that I was originally referring to the trunk of the car ALL 9 TIMES.

That's exactly the same thing happening in Genesis 1.

5 times raqia (trunk) is used, with no clarifying phrase every time. Then another 4 times, every time, it's used with the clarifying phrase hassamayim (of the car).

It would absolutely be absurd to think that all 9 times raqia is used it's talking about hassamayim, for the exact same reason it would be absurd to think that all 9 times I used the word trunk I was referring to the trunk of the car, and not to the trunk of an elephant for the first 5!



No, it's not, Derf, it's simply following the rules of grammar and syntax.

I disagree, because in your example, to be consistent with Gen 1, it wouldn't be defined as "the trunk of an elephant". It would be just called "trunk". Then, after a car is recognized as part of the story, "the trunk of the car" would be used to give more specificity, whereas the "the trunk" is less clear (though necessary before the car is acknowledge or introduced to the story). I appreciate the analogy, but I hope you can see where it breaks down.

You mean like Moses, ya know, the one who wrote Genesis?



Which completely ignores the possibility that God might have also shared His perspective...



Except the only "great deep" that's been introduced so far in the story of Genesis is "the deep" of 1:2, is it not?

Yes, but if the later "great deep" references (outside of Gen 1-8) are only referring to the upper waters, and Gen 1:2 is only referring to the combined waters, nowhere is there an uncontested reference to the lower water (under the crust) as "the great deep". So you are assuming the reference is to the lower waters. Your assumption doesn't have the power to make the claim authoritative.

Rather, it doesn't assume that it's the same "the deep" everywhere.

Nor do I, since I acknowledge that Gen 1:2 is talking about a deep that is not the same as later references to the deep. I.e., Gen 1:2 is all the waters that later were both above and below the firmament, and later references are only the waters that are below the heavens.

Agreed.



Do you not purport that the firmament is the sky, and that there is therefore water above the sky?

The sky is merely the "face" of the firmament of the heavens. The firmament of the heavens is between the dry earth and seas (under the firmament, remember) and some water that was above the firmament that we either can't see or haven't been able to see...because it is beyond the part of the firmament that contains the stars. It's also possible that the water that was "above the firmament" was somewhat distributed throughout the firmament during the separation, giving material by which God made the sun, moon, planet and stars.

Would not the water being held above the firmament and/or coming down from it be a miraculous event?

Water falling from the sky is a miraculous event? But no, if there is indeed a watery upper boundary to the firmament, it is unlikely that the water from the "windows of heaven" came from that, unless, as noted above, some of that water was dispersed throughout the universe and used in the making of celestial objects. So, if there happened to be some water (material the stars and moon were made of, possibly) left over or stashed away somewhere, it could be loosed during the flood onto the earth.

This ignores Genesis 1:2, which tells us where the water was...

which only applied until Gen 1:6, even in your view. There was then water both above AND below the crust. Some of that above the crust was deep (we can tell because of the types of fossils found from before the flood). So if there is a "deep" above the crust and another "deep" below the fountains, the text does not explicitly say which one it came from. Gen 7:11 hints at there being something called "the great deep", which at first glance might support your position (I'm trying to see if I can support it, anyway), but the same term appears to be applied to the Red Sea where the Israelites crossed over from Egypt in Is 51:10. If the Red Sea is deep enough to be called "the great deep", then I don't see any reason why the seas of Noah's day couldn't also be called "the great deep".

7/8th's of the way there, now.



Thank you.



I don't call "the heavens" "Heaven" until God dwells there.

But God called it "Heaven" when it was still covered with water, a state of chaos or destruction, at least in the Noahic flood. And He ceased calling it "Heaven" when He started calling it "Earth" from what I read, which was still before it was very livable, not to mention like a paradise.

I seem to have confused you with my "heaven on earth" comment, for that I apologize.

I don't think I'm confused about the topic, but thanks for acknowledging that conflating heaven with earth is confusing. You're 7/8ths the way there.

The point was that wherever God lives, THAT is heaven, because it will be a paradise simply by God being there.

But wasn't God there when He talked to Cain? Wasn't God there in "the wilderness" when God talked to Moses and led the Israelites by cloud and pillar of fire? Wilderness doesn't suddenly get called "paradise" just because God is there.

Supra.



Supra.



God wasn't living there?

Was God ever "living" on the earth? I don't see it expressed in Scripture. The paradise of Eden was a place God would "visit" in the cool of the evening. Adam and Eve "lived" there (God "placed" them there), which makes sense. But God was only with them part of the time. If God was "living" there, then it doesn't seem like they would only see Him in the "cool of the evening" (not even in all of the evening). So even if "heaven" is supposed to only refer to the place God lives, it isn't apparent that's what is being referred to in Gen 1:8, especially since it wasn't very much of a paradise while still covered with water (when He named it "Heaven".

The fact that it's a garden is besides the point, and I should have made that clear earlier.

Have you looked up what the word "paradise" meant (focus more on the derivation/etymology to get closer to the original meaning)? From my research, it appears to mean "a walled garden".

 

[Derf]

So, I've seen you say this on more than one occasion and I don't think it as valid or as compelling as you want to pretend it to be.

If your use of 1 Corinthians 14:33 was proper then it would mean that Occam's Razor wasn't merely a good lens to use when looking at a particular hypothesis but that it is the ONLY valid lens to use, and that the simplest answer is ALWAYS the right answer, so says God Himself.

That is clearly not the intent of what Paul is teaching the Corinthians and it's a good thing too because the simplest answer very often isn't the correct answer. Not to mention the fact that what constitutes "simplicity" vs "confusion" is something of a subjective issue to begin with.

I don't think your appeal to Occam's Razor works that way in creation. We don't really know what simpler vs more complex means when creating something from nothing and setting up the universe.

My point is that God is creating a world that works, not one that doesn't. And it works specifically for His intended creation of man. So I think God setting up a universe or an earth that is chaotic is not something any of us would suggest He is trying to do. With or without 1 Cor 14:33.

 

[Clete]

I don't think your appeal to Occam's Razor works that way in creation. We don't really know what simpler vs more complex means when creating something from nothing and setting up the universe.

Well, that's just exactly the point I just made, isn't it?

How did you not just undermine your own use of 1 Corinthians 14:33?

Have I been misunderstanding your use of this argument? Have you not been basically using it as a way of saying that your position is superior because your position is simpler, less complicated and/or less confusing?

My point is that God is creating a world that works, not one that doesn't. And it works specifically for His intended creation of man.

And who is it, exactly, that's disputing that?

So I think God setting up a universe or an earth that is chaotic is not something any of us would suggest He is trying to do. With or without 1 Cor 14:33.

That depends on your use of the word chaotic, but generally this is clearly so. Once again, however, I don't see anyone disputing this and so I'm not sure how your use of God not being the author of confusion works in your favor here.

 

[Derf]

Well, that's just exactly the point I just made, isn't it?

How did you not just undermine your own use of 1 Corinthians 14:33?

Have I been misunderstanding your use of this argument? Have you not been basically using it as a way of saying that your position is superior because your position is simpler, less complicated and/or less confusing?

No. I'm talking about God's description of His creative work, that if He calls earth "heaven" then calls the sky and outerspace "heaven", and the calls the dry land "earth", it's confusing to the reader.

And who is it, exactly, that's disputing that?

That depends on your use of the word chaotic, but generally this is clearly so. Once again, however, I don't see anyone disputing this and so I'm not sure how your use of God not being the author of confusion works in your favor here.

I'm not using "author" here as "creator of physical things" but as "giver of the word".

 

[Right Divider]

No. I'm talking about God's description of His creative work, that if He calls earth "heaven" then calls the sky and outerspace "heaven", and the calls the dry land "earth", it's confusing to the reader.

That's simply false.

Gen 1:8 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.​

​

Gen 1:14 (AKJV/PCE)​

(1:14) ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:​

Clearly two unique definitions.

 

[Clete]

No. I'm talking about God's description of His creative work, that if He calls earth "heaven" then calls the sky and outerspace "heaven", and the calls the dry land "earth", it's confusing to the reader.

You say, "No" and then make the exact argument that you just denied that you were making. Talking about confusing.

You're saying "it's confusing to the reader" and therefore that isn't the way to understand it because God is not the author of confusion.

Are you not?

Well, just because you're confused doesn't prove that your simpler interpretation is true, both Occham's Razor and I Corinthians 14:33 not withstanding.

If no one is disputing it, why did you bring it up?

I'm not using "author" here as "creator of physical things" but as "giver of the word".

The two are the same, are they not? I'm really not following you here at all. Sorry.