Derf
Well-known member
I'm saying that the firmament is outer space. JR can speak for himself just fine, but I believe he's saying that the firmament called "Heaven" (not "the heavens") is really the crust of the earth.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
A missing Link to Genesis 1:6 God said, “I command a dome to separate the water above it from the water below it.”
- Thread starter tieman55
- Start date
I'm saying that "the firmament," which is called "Heaven" in verse 8, and talked about in verses 6-10, is NOT the same thing as "the firmament of the heavens" in verses 14, 15, 17, and 20. This is what the Hydroplate Theory is based on.
Derf is the one saying that "the firmament" and "the firmament of the heavens" are the same thing.
Right Divider
Body part
The "firmament" that God called "heaven" is NOT the atmosphere.
The firmament that God called heaven was the one that divided the waters.
Gen 1:6 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:6) ¶ And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:8 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:8) And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
There was water above and below this firmament. The atmosphere is above the water and above this firmament. God calls what is above the water and above that first firmament, "the firmament of the heaven".
Derf
Well-known member
I'm still not finished replying to your other recent posts, but here's a question for you while you're waiting.
Are the following verses speaking of the heaven that is the crust of the earth or the firmament of the heavens (where stars are and on the surface of which birds fly)?
Genesis 6:17 KJV — And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
Genesis 7:11 KJV — In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
Genesis 7:19 KJV — And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
Last edited:
Bladerunner
Active member
well at the very lest, we can agree to disagree...
Right Divider
Body part
You should stop lying.
Bladerunner
Active member
sorry to burst your bubble. I will keep teaching the actual WORD of GOD, not other so called versions.
Right Divider
Body part
You have shown yourself to be a liar on multiple occasions.
You should stop.
Bladerunner
Active member
I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion...you are no exception...have a good day.
Bladerunner
Active member
With all respect, all verses you speak of are of the same Hebrew word (rāqîaʿ)...thus they are all the same.
Derf
Well-known member
Yes, but I'm making a different point. The word "eretz" in Hebrew means either "land" or "whole world" from what I understand. Maybe I should have said "whole world" instead of "globe earth" there. The narrative seems to be introduced as the creation of "the heavens and the earth". I'm not sure that that usage of "the earth" in verses 1 and 2 means "the whole world", but might be just "the dry land". That wouldn't have to mean that the whole world was excluded, but that you need the whole world--the globe earth--to have the dry land on which we live. It is interesting that the two things focused on are the place were man lives and the place where God lives.
Agreed! And perhaps not even that yet, if the globe earth is not intended in vs 1 and 2.
In vs 1? I'm not sure that vs 1 is part of the creation sequence. Rather it appears to be, as I mentioned in a previous post, merely an introduction to the more detailed sequence, because neither "the heavens" nor "the earth" is recognizable as in existence in vs 2. In other words, vs 1 is a whole creation account in itself. But I could be wrong. It might be that it includes all of the material and space needed.
I think I've answered this already, but if "the earth" is really "the dry land on which we live", then it isn't in existence yet...it is still "formless and void", but the materials and space are there.
It appears to be a mass of water. It could be something that behaves like water but isn't exactly the same, perhaps what all the mass in the universe would behave like if it were gathered into one area with no structure to hold things apart. Would that be a globe of water? I don't know. God doesn't define "the deep" in Gen 1.
I'm not sure how accurately I can answer. They were "here" in the place where our universe is today. But I don't know how much of the space they were taking up.
As I said above, I don't know. It might be, but without anything to hold it in, and without anything to hold it out, if all the material in the universe today were all in one place, it would look like a black hole. Maybe that's why "Let there be light" is important.
That seems like an overly broad question, but I'll try to answer and you clarify if I'm not getting your intent.
There is a progression from light to dark (evening) and from dark to light (morning). I think this means that, since the light and dark are separate, there's a rotation that has been started. Since the sun has not been created, there is likely a source of photons (assuming light only comes from photons, like we think today) or a glob of photons or something. This may have come from the "waters", if the waters is supposed to be inclusive of all the material in the universe, or it might have been a separate creation of material. Hard to say.
Yes, as far as I can tell, the waters in verse 6 are, for the most part, the same as the waters in vs 2. However, if the waters in vs 2 include all the material in the universe, and the light was created from those waters, then it seems like the vs 6 waters is less mass than the vs 2 waters.
I'm not sure I'm understanding the question. "The deep" and "the waters" in vs 2 are referring to the same thing, but "the waters" and "the waters" in vs 6 is referring to 2 separated masses of material (still not sure if these are actual "water" yet).
Good question. I'd guess that it's because they are more important to mankind, for whom He is forming and filling the earth (globe, but dry land works, too, I guess).
I don't know, but not all did. Some used "heavens" and some used "sky".
I think this is where God changed the material from whatever it was in vs 2 to regular waters and dirt/solid material. At the very least, the waters were saturated with non-H2O material that was pulled from the waters to make the dry land.
Everything above the lower waters until you get to the upper waters. This includes the sky and the universe that we know, but without any stars yet.
Probably in a large ocean, and probably surrounding a single large continent.
Probably in the midst of the single large ocean.
The dry land.
The single large ocean.
I think your questions are all good ones, and I don't have time to respond to the rest of your post right now, so see if what I've given is helpful to you. And if you'd like me to do respond further, just ask (with some kind of link so I know which posts you still think I need to respond to).
Speculation is fine so long as we keep the fact that its speculation firmly in mind. The Christian community can sometimes be a bit too eager to adopt new theories based on the slightest of "evidence".
As for this chunk of steel, why couldn't it simply have formed naturally in some underground chamber that happened to have some iron and a few other ingredients that got mixed in? That's a more boring explanation but it seems at least as plausible as the OP's explanation for it.
Last edited:
Silly argument.
Right Divider
Body part
Ok.
So you basically have conceded half the battle to me with this.
My position is that it was in fact the planet earth that was created in verse one, and all the matter that God used to create the other things in the universe.
To put it another way, God created matter ("the heavens"), and like a good potter would do for a small piece of pottery, instead of using a large chunk of "clay," He separated off a planet sized piece of it to create the planet we live on ("the earth").
Thus, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
Synecdoches, where a part or parts are referred to by the whole, or the reverse, where the whole is referred to by a part or parts, are common in the Bible, and there's no reason to think that this is not the case in Genesis 1.
Let me rephrase, because I think you misunderstood.
or that at that point it was anything but the mantle with water on it, ESPECIALLY GIVEN VERSE 2!
I don't see any indication in the text that says that the earth had been formed in any way other than it being made.
In other words, in verse 1, God made the heavens (that being the matter which He used to form the things made on day 4; synecdoches, remember?), and the earth (that being the matter which He used to form the earth into the paradise that He had yet to create), and then in verse 2, THE EARTH has no form, but was covered by deep waters, which the Spirit of God hovered over.
Getting a bit into the physics side of things, based on what we know today...
We know that large bodies of matter naturally pull themselves into a sphere in space, or as close to spherical as possible. an earth size lump of matter would, rather quickly, pull itself into a spherical shape, but not quite spherical.
PLEASE ANSWER: Is it possible that the earth being "formless" is referring to a primordial earth which has not been smoothed out into a proper sphere yet, being a formless lump of clay for God to start working with, but instead of it not having nothing around it, it's covered in water?
That is what I said, is it not?
----
I don't see why it couldn't be, especially given verse 2.
Why can't it be both an introduction and a statement of a specific event within the story?
The heavens, sure... unless you include verse 1.
But the earth is described as formless (not shaped) and void (without features), with water on its surface, and deep water at that.
Why? In other words, there's no need for it to be.
Supra.
The problem is that this contradicts what you said before (which I address below), that if an article is used, then it's referring to the first use of that word without the article.
I generally agree that if the verse mentions something, it's in all likelihood referring to the last usage of that something, even if there's no instance of the something without the article, unless otherwise indicated.
In other words, I would assert, based on the fact that there's no indication in the text to think otherwise, that "the earth" in verse 1 is the same "the earth" in verse 2.
Water yes.
"A mass of water," as in, "a glob of water in the void," no.
Why?
You have "the earth," then "the deep," then "the waters."
That's a structure, a depiction of the entirety of the earth in it's formless and void state.
Where are you getting the idea that it's not on the planet, but rather just a glob of water? That's not consistent even with your position.
Remember, the context so far of Genesis 1 is "God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was formless and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit was hovering over the face of the waters.
Why would it be a globe of (just) water, when the context is "the earth"?
Ok, that's fine.
So what does the rest of scripture say. If it wasn't for the fact that my question was specifically about Genesis 1:2, and the context of Genesis 1, I could almost accuse you of special pleading on this, but that would be unfair to you, and extremely dishonest of me. So then now:
PLEASE ANSWER: Does the Bible anywhere give any indication as to what "the deep" is?
Additionally:
PLEASE ANSWER: Could it be Genesis 1 DOES define "the deep, but because of your paradigm of beliefs regarding what the chapter says, you can't see it?
In other words, you don't know.
Might I suggest, as I have all along, and did just now, that the waters are on the earth, as per Genesis 1:2, the only known place in our universe where there is liquid water, and that the only reason you think it's not on the earth is because of your a priori interpretation of the formation of the universe?
You do realize that there are different words for "ice" and "air" in Hebrew, right?
Meaning, when the Bible says "the waters," you can trust that it is talking about water in it's liquid form.
Don't commit a historian's fallacy by assuming they understood that there are water molecules in the air, because I can assure you that they did not.
When the Bible says water, it means water.
What reason do you have to think otherwise?
Is it scripture? or is it an a priori assumption of your beliefs that tells you it's something else?
I reject your premise that Genesis 1:2 is talking about something other than the current (at that time) state of planet earth.
Agreed.
I don't disagree, but I don't quite agree, but that's a topic for a different discussion.
Honestly, Derf, it sounds like you're making a lot of this up on the fly (not saying you actually are), but the important point is that it's not very consistent with what the text says.
So far, you have water that isn't really water, the earth that isn't really the earth, the heavens which isn't quite the heavens, and the deep which you don't know what it is, but maybe it's water(?).
And we're not even done with day 1 yet, let alone days 2, 3, and 4!
It's not a very good theory if most of it is just guesswork!
On the other hand, with my position, I simply let the words mean what they say:
The heavens are the heavens. (Synecdoche: the matter that was used to make the heavens)
The earth is the earth. (Synecdoche: the matter that was used to make the earth)
The deep is just the depths of the waters.
The waters is the upper portion of the water that was on the earth.
And the evening and the morning is God setting the earth into motion, spinning it on its axis, after making light and causing the earth to be lit up only on one side, rather than it being omnidirectional (cf. Revelation 21:23, 22:5).
You have now conceded another quarter of the discussion to me with this.
I reject your premise that "the waters" in verse 6 is referring to anything other than water that is on the earth.
First, which waters in verse 6 are you referring to?
Second, what reason do you have to assert that the waters you are referring to in the above question, in verse 6 is less mass than in verse 2?
If the deep is "the waters," as in, the deepest parts of "the waters," then why could not "the waters" and "the waters" being divided not refer to the deep (which would no longer be as deep, yet still referred to as the deep elsewhere in scripture since it is still lower down) and the upper parts of "the waters"?
In other words:
In verse 2, you have the formless and void earth, with "the face of the deep" above that, and "the face of the waters" above that, yes?
Why could not the division be between "the deep" and "the waters" at "the face of the deep", instead of appealing to a structure other than the earth outside of the earth? (reminder: synecdoches) In other words, dividing "the waters" ("below the firmament") ("the deep" which is down anyways, hence "below") from "the waters" ("above the firmament") (above which is the Spirit of God, hovering "over" "the face of the waters")?
So you don't know.
Posit: Moses' describing "the waters below the firmament" first, in the sequence where God divides "the waters" from "the waters," is because he is tying the sequence back to "the waters" of verse two, where "the deep" is mentioned first...
AND
...that his describing "the waters above the firmament" second, in the sequence where God divides "the waters" from "the waters," is because he is tying the sequence back to "the waters" of verse two, where "the waters" (cf 1:6, "divide the waters from the waters") is referring to the waters above the deep, but below "the face of the waters."
In other words:
He's drawing a parallel back to verse 2 with verses 6-7, as follows (verse 2 first line, verse 6 second line, verse 7 third line):
"and darkness was on the face of the deep."
"divide the waters"
"divided the waters which were under the firmament"
"And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."
"from the waters"
"from the waters which were above the firmament"
A thought occurred to me as I was writing this, that God possibly used some of the material from His molding of the mantle closer to being that of a sphere to make the granitic crust. But I'm not beholden to that idea, so you don't have to respond to this bit.
Is there a reason it cannot be because the word used in verse 8 there is different in form than the rest of the uses in Genesis 1?
Your position isn't very strong here.
Why do you think that?
Why can't "the waters" here be referring to "the waters which were above the firmament"?
Remember, on my view, "the heavens" are still above everything that has been discussed so far since the end of day 1, untouched.
What reason do you have to say this?
Remember, on my view, "the waters which were above the firmament" are still below "the heavens" which have not been interacted with since day 1.
On this part, we agree.
So, on "the earth." Yes?
PLEASE ANSWER: Why can there be a "large ocean" here in verse 9, but not in verse 2?
PLEASE ANSWER: Why do you assume that there is a single large continent (this is not the point of contention here) surrounded on all sides by water?
You don't know?
Think of it rationally. Water flows downhill (Caveat: USUALLY, rule of thumb, generally speaking, etc).
If there is a surface with water above it, and God causes the water to gather together into a place, and dry land appears, would it not make sense that the surface is what rose up and caused the water to gather together in a different place than it was previously?
So it wasn't "the earth" which He named "Earth"?
Why do you assume it was a single large ocean?
That should be mostly everything, and I'm pretty sure I cover anything that was missed below.
Thank you.
Hence why I asked all the questions in post #72.
There are several problems with this, not the least of which being Psalm 136:6 and 2 Peter 3:5.
Or, you've completely missed them, and are, either intentionally or unconsciously, ignoring them.
Hence why I asked all the questions in post #72.
No, below the firmament of the heavens, we find birds flying.
The structure of the creation as per Genesis 1 is as follows, from top to bottom.
the firmament of the heavens
birds flying in the sky across the face of the above
the dry land called "Earth," and the gathered together waters called "Seas," formerly known as "the waters above the firmament"
the firmament
the deep, formerly known as "the waters below the firmament"
the foundations of the earth
You've taken the waters above the firmament and put them above the firmament of the heavens. The only reason is because you come to the text with the belief that there is only one firmament.
You've taken the deep and called it the gathered together waters, in direct contradiction of other scriptures, which distinguish the deep from the seas and the waters.
You've taken the earth and put it below the deep, in direct contradiction of Psalm 136:6, which says that the earth was spread out ABOVE the waters (a la the waters below the firmament of Genesis 1:6-10).
So where did the waters come from in this verse?
To Him who laid out the earth above the waters,For His mercy endures forever;
Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 136:6 - New King James Version
To Him who laid out the earth above the waters, For His mercy endures forever;
If you want to find out what a specific word was originally intended to convey, then you shouldn't go to the Latin. Not that there's anything wrong with the latin translations, but meaning can be lost when you go from Hebrew to Latin to English.
This is one of the best arguments we have against atheists who claim "well wouldn't your Bible have lost any of the original meaning, since it's been translated so many times?" because the claim begs the question that it has, when in fact it's only been translated ONCE, from Hebrew and Greek DIRECTLY into English.
Because of that, instead of trying to find out what the English transliteration of a Latin word means, like "firmamentum" or "expansum," we can go directly to the Hebrew word, to find out the meaning that was originally intended to convey, or as close to it as possible.
The Hebrew word that was used, that most English Bibles have as "firmament" or "expanse" is "raqia."
Raqia means:
| Strong's h7549 - Lexical: רָקִיעַ - Transliteration: raqia - Part of Speech: Noun Masculine - Phonetic Spelling: raw-kee'-ah - Definition: an extended surface, expanse. - Origin: From raqa'; properly, an expanse, i.e. The firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky. - Usage: firmament. - Translated as (count): the firmament (8), in the firmament (3), of the firmament (3), a firmament (1), from above the firmament (1), in firmament (1). |
| Raqia is the noun from the verb raqa meaning being hammered or spread out, as in working metal into a thin sheet or plate. "They beat (raqa) the gold into thin sheets" (Exodus 39:3). "The goldsmith overspreads (raqa) it with gold" (Isaiah 40:19; i.e., gold-plated). Similarly, God overspread the waters of the earth with the plates of the earth's crust, i.e., the firmament, what Walt Brown calls hydroplates. For "God made the firmament (raqia), and divided the waters which were under the firmament (raqia, the crustal plates) from the waters which were above the firmament" (Genesis 1:7). |
kgov.com/firmament
To reiterate: The "firmament of the heavens" is a figurative usage of "firmament" which describes the appearance of firmness which allows God to place stars in the sky, and give the appearance of them not moving. Thus, the birds can fly across "the face of the heavens" because it is something that has the appearance of a "firm surface" into which the stars were set, even if it's not ACTUALLY a surface at all.
This is why it's a bad idea to take scripture TOO literally, or TOO figuratively, and especially why it's a bad idea to read preconceived notions into the text!
Not when it's not a void, but a surface that is being described.
It's literally why the flat earth movement is taking over the minds of modern Christians, and why it's important to understand exactly what is being said in Scripture, to be able to combat both the atheists and the flat earth movement.
In other words, in addition to providing a mostly physics-based explanation for the flood of Noah, the Hydroplate Theory has the added benefit of being able to scripturally counter such nonsense movements like the flat earth.
The firmament wasn't called "good" yet because it wasn't finished being made yet, and then it WAS called good on DAY 3, NOT on Day 4!
Day 1: God made the heavens, the earth, and light, and starts the world spinning. "It was good."
Day 2-3: God started making the firmament, but didn't finish it until partway into day 3, which would make sense if the firmament is something that needs to be pounded out or beaten, to be spread out in the midst of the waters. And then...
Day 3: God started working on forming the firmament, to shape it into terrain that the thing he works on next can live upon. "It was good." and only then, later in the day, He started to make plant life. "It was good."
Day 4: While the plants are growing, having been "pulled" up from the ground (accelerated growth, most likely, as per scripture), He puts lights in the sky, stars, the sun, and the moon, and gives meaning to their movements, and sets them for seasons, day and night (likely attaching light to stars at this point). "It was good."
Day 5: God makes sea creatures and puts them into the Seas, and creates birds that fly across "the face of the firmament of the heavens" (supra). "It was good."
Day 6: God makes land animals. "It was good." God makes man, and gives him dominion over the earth He just created. "It was very good."
You want to tell me that the firmament wasn't "good," yet after everything God made in chapter 1, He saw that "it was good."
There is a "it was good" after making light, and additionally, the heavens and the earth, which was formless and void before God started creating.
There is a "it was good" after making the firmament.
There is a "it was good" after making plant life.
There is a "it was good" after making the lights in the heavens.
There is a "it was good" after making creatures that fly/swim through fluids.
There is a "it was good" after making land animals.
There is a "it was very good" after making man.
The only difference between the firmament and the rest is that it took longer than a day to complete.
Edit: And coming back through this, I think I see the problem.
You seem to think that God did not say "it was good" after making the firmament, and that the only time on day 3 that He said it was after making the plants. This is clearly not the case.
He saw that something was good TWICE on day 3, and 0 TIMES on Day 2.
I'm not sure how you missed that!
Because He hadn't started forming what He had created yet.
He started that in verse 6, on day 2.
In English, yes, they are synonyms.
But you're forgetting that ancient Hebrew had far fewer words (around 14,000 words) than modern English does (171,476 words in current use), and so what was said was said carefully.
"Void" in Genesis 1:2 is "bohu."
"Desolate" in Jeremiah 4:27 is "shemamah."
Also, Jeremiah 4:19-31 is a prophecy against Israel, not describing something and comparing it to the events of Genesis 1, like other passages do, though I do recognize the parallels.
No, because that's not what the Bible says.
It says that God made {the heavens} on day 1, and then on day 4 put the sun, moon, and stars in the firmament (figurative use comparing it to the raqia of days 2-3) of {the heavens}.
I'm saying what the Bible says, which is that God made a raqia on day 2, then formed that raqia on day 3, and called it Heaven, not {the heavens}. And then defined the "location" of what was made on day 1, {the heavens}, as "the firmament of the heavens."
Then why in Genesis 1 does the first usages of "shamayim" and "erets" both use the article?
Something doesn't line up with this claim.
And it's not until verse 10 that "erets" is used without the article.
Same as "shamayim."
This supports my position, in that something new is introduced with the non-article "erets" and "shamayim." Something other than "the heavens" and "the earth."
Yes, God can indeed bring forth grass from "the earth."
Just as God can put stars in the firmament of "the heavens."
This doesn't require there to be a literal "firmament" in the heavens.
I addressed this above, but here's a hint:
Seas are made of water. Where else in Genesis 1 is there water?
This is the second time now that you've falsely accused me of an appeal to authority.
You don't seem to understand what it is.
An appeal to authority is when you say "Because authority X says P, therefore P must be true."
I have NOT done this.
What I said was that there was a reason that the translators (the authority) used "Heaven" instead of "the heavens." And it was the fact that 1) there is no "the" article present in the Hebrew, and 2) God was NAMING SOMETHING!
THAT is PLENTY OF REASON to use "Heaven."
Note how NEITHER of those reasons for using "Heaven" are "because the translators used Heaven"!
YOU'RE now the one making an appeal to authority.
The reason (in other words, a reason beside "X said so") that "sky" was used is because that's literally what is being talked about.
I'm not saying that those instances of "shamayim" are talking about the crust of the earth. I'm saying a specific instance of "shamayim" is talking about the crust of the earth, the one which the context describes as "raqia."
Yes, but what we have is not perfect, and so therefore care must be taken when dealing with important passages (such as the creation week) so that we do not be misled into believing falsehoods based on what other men have said.
Which I have not once made!
I honestly don't care what they think. They aren't here to discuss it. You're more than welcome to invite them on, and then we can discuss. But until they do, all it is is anecdotes against the theory.
What I care about is what the Bible ACTUALLY says, not what some random people think about what the Bible says.
Then clearly neither you nor they understand the hydroplate theory.
The theory asserts that the firmament of day 2 IS the crust of the earth, and that the "waters above the firmament" are what were "gathered into one place," and that the waters below the firmament are the deep of verse 2, "laid up in storehouses" (Psalm 33:7) and covered by the earth (Psalm 136:6),
Based on what evidence, sir?
Because you it doesn't line up with your preferred interpretation of what it says?
Because it disagrees with your a priori beliefs about the text?
Because "the firmament" of day 2 is commonly understood as referring to the sky, rather than something which no one has considered yet?
None of those are valid reasons for the Hydroplate theory to "fall."
So what?
I don't care what you think.
I care about what the text ACTUALLY SAYS!
I care about the truth, not the opinions of a random stranger on the internet who thinks something isn't foundational.
Not what I said, nor is that what the HPT asserts.
This is why I said you clearly weren't paying attention to what I wrote in post #61, because I EVEN POSTED IMAGES DEPICTING A CUTAWAY VIEW OF WHAT THE EARTH WOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE!!!!
:blabla:
Except it isn't.
It's not the first use of the word, for either "erets" OR for "shamayim."
Guess where the first use is?
GENESIS 1:1!
"In the beginning God created.... THE HEAVENS and THE EARTH
"The heavens" is "hassamayim" (shamayim).
"The earth" is "haares" (erets).
THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT I WAS SAYING IN POST 61!!!
That's what Moses did.
Because you say so?
Genesis 1:1
READ. IT.
Moses did.
In. Verse. ONE.
Then Moses has some explaining to do.
The only time in Genesis 1 where there is no article used for EITHER "erets" or "shamayim" is in verse 8.
In BOTH instances, there has ALREADY BEEN a usage of BOTH WORDS WITH the article.
Your position is what doesn't make sense, unless verse 8 is introducing a new "heaven" and a new "earth" that hasn't already been described.
You're begging the question that your assumption that the firmament is space is true.
The HPT challenges that assumption. Therefore, you cannot just assume that your assumption is correct, and you have yet to establish that it IS correct.
This one could be argued either way.
[Bringing floodwaters from under heaven to destroy all flesh] certainly fits the HPT view.
But I think in all likelihood, the "from under heaven" is referring to all flesh, rather than the waters.
But certainly possible.
This is talking about rain falling. From the sky, in case that wasn't obvious.
Rain falling from the sky AFTER the fountains of the great deep breaking forth describes water going up then coming back down, causing flooding.
This is indeed referring to the sky.
...
And before you try to make the argument: No, using verses that are accounted for by my position does not work as an argument against my position, especially considering the possibility that one of the verses could have been influenced by the translators' view (which is why an appeal to authority is a fallacy) that the firmament of day 2 is talking about the heavens, rather than the crust of the earth, and thus translated to fit that view. Or, maybe my position is just influencing my reading of the text, which is why I'm not relying on my own understanding, but using scripture to interpret scripture.
I'm going to ignore your terrible grammar for the moment, and focus on the thrust of what you said here.
Yes, there are nine total uses of "raqia" in Genesis 1.
No, that's a non-sequitur, and is the entire point of contention of the discussion I'm having with Derf.
In other words, to say that they are all talking about the same thing is to make a begging the question fallacy.
My assertion, that there are actually TWO firmaments (two different "raqia"s being described) in Genesis 1, is based on multiple things, not the least of which is the fact that the first five times it's used, it's simply "the firmament," and then the last four times, it's "the firmament of the heavens."
See here:
Hello tieman55, Jumping in and going back to your original post. Very interesting read, but may I suggest my thoughts of Gen. 1:6?Conclusion: Hoba is an extant piece of God's "dome" and proof that the Genesis 1:6 is true.
Foot notes:
From deepai.com
4. **Micro-structure**: The Micro-CT analysis revealed that the top surface has a more compact and recrystallized microstructure compared to the bottom surface, which is more porous and has a more complex microstructure.
These differences suggest that the top and bottom surfaces of the Hoba meteorite have undergone different processes during its formation and history in space. The top surface may have been exposed to solar wind and radiation, which could have led to its smoother texture and altered chemical composition. The bottom surface, on the other hand, may have
been buried in regolith or debris, which could have contributed to its rougher texture and more complex microstructure.
The study provides valuable insights into the formation and evolution of the Hoba meteorite, and highlights the importance of analyzing multiple surfaces and samples from a single meteorite to gain a more comprehensive understanding of its history.
I read a KJV Bible and instead of dome it uses the word firmament. It's first meaning in the Strong's Concordance is "expanse." Siri told me it is "an area" ... presenting a wide continuous surface. If God created an expanse to separate two things then it would be for a boundary between them. God actually named the expanse/boundary/firmament which he spoke into existence - He called it Heaven
Now, we may not totally understand what this Heaven is but there are some hints in the Bible. First it is a place. Take a look at a bit of poetic figurative language for a moment. Gen. 1: 6 This firmament was to be in the midst/among the waters. It was to divide the waters from the waters. I have figured out that waters have to do with spiritual life. I also have learned that God, who is life and the giver of life, can associate measures of life to living creatures. I learned this from two scriptures.
1.) The Woman at the Well. John 4: Where Jesus told her he had an additional sort of water/life to give her from which she, as a mortal creature, would never thirst again. IOW,, an additional life that would lead to her immortality.
2.) John 3:34-35 John the Baptist answered a question from a group of his followers regarding who was Jesus. John the B explained: "For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." IOW, God does give things out in measures - just not to the Christ.
Now this firmament separates measures of waters/lives from measures of other lives and this "in-between boundary" is named Heaven. Now, I've concluded that the lives of creatures that were separated were angels from men. They each have their own realm/dwelling place, but there is an in between place as well.
Revelation 12: 7... And there was [in the future] a war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the Dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels; 8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. ... [paraphrased ... 10 Satan and his were cast out of heaven at that time and those who dwell in the heavenSSSS/plural should rejoice at that time ... 12 BUT woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you ...]
Conclusion: Heaven is a place not an object. I like to call Heaven a realm for the living even though it was originally established to separate life from life. IOW, it was created for a purpose - to separate created living beings from created living beings. It is a place which has rooms or storage areas for life... and there will be beings within those heavenSSSS at the end of time when Satan is finally cast down to earth having great wrath.
Now, I said all the things above to also share this idea with you. Gen. 1 is a totally different event from Gen. 2. There may be little or no over lapping of events between the two.
a. In Genesis 1 God is establishing all sort of things within his spiritual essence and just one of those things was a place for separating things within himself. In Gen. 1 not everything is manifested the way we know things here on earth at this time. The firmament was a place / an expanse for storing life. Most of us understand that these places in the realm of heaven may be at least three: The bosom of Abraham, the Pit, and Hell. The Saints versus lost souls versus lost angels.
b. Genesis 2 is a new event where God comes among mankind and works as the LORD God to bring forth, manifest, many of the things pertaining to mankind upon the earthly Garden. Earth is really just like another realm where mankind by God's design is separated from, say: the angels, the people who have passed on, and even from God ... unless God decides to visit us.
Last edited:
Bladerunner
Active member
do you believe that GOD is sovereign over all things in the heavens and on earth.
If you're going to jump to a different topic, start a new thread.
Here is another point of view. The firmament was a realm established to divide living creatures from living creatures. God was about to create humanity and most people believe that he had already created the angels. This firmament called Heaven was to be a realm where God could place or not place life. I believe he ultimately did use it for storing sentient created beings... such as the saved in Bosom of Abraham, the lost in Hell, and the demons destined for the Pit. There may be other things there by this time ... like - where is the war in Heaven taking place which an angel had to fight his way through to get to ??? was it Daniel???? I forget.
Gen 1 is a place where the Spirit, the invisible God was working within his Spiritual essence creating and establishing new things that were not. He may have even brought forth the heavens and the earth ... but he did not bring forth all things. Gen. 1 is very different from Genesis 2. In Gen. 1 the invisible Spirit was at work but in Genesis two God the Spirit stopped his work and allowed another to complete things.
Gen.2 tells us who was working. YHWY/LORD God. He was "Emmanuel/God appearing with Adam and Woman."He began to bring forth things God the Spirit had already prepared and to manifest them within a realm where things could be SEEN! Gen. 2 is a totally separate event. The LORD, who would talk and walk in the Garden, brought forth all sorts of things which the Spiritual God had already designed and established. I believe that Male/Female spiritually existed alive in Gen. 1 within God the Spirit, but it was The LORD who formed a visible body for them in Gen. 2
Now, once man had been created and angels existed then the firmament realm named Heaven was ready for use when needed.
Gen 1 is a place where the Spirit, the invisible God was working within his Spiritual essence creating and establishing new things that were not. He may have even brought forth the heavens and the earth ... but he did not bring forth all things. Gen. 1 is very different from Genesis 2. In Gen. 1 the invisible Spirit was at work but in Genesis two God the Spirit stopped his work and allowed another to complete things.
Gen.2 tells us who was working. YHWY/LORD God. He was "Emmanuel/God appearing with Adam and Woman."He began to bring forth things God the Spirit had already prepared and to manifest them within a realm where things could be SEEN! Gen. 2 is a totally separate event. The LORD, who would talk and walk in the Garden, brought forth all sorts of things which the Spiritual God had already designed and established. I believe that Male/Female spiritually existed alive in Gen. 1 within God the Spirit, but it was The LORD who formed a visible body for them in Gen. 2
Now, once man had been created and angels existed then the firmament realm named Heaven was ready for use when needed.
Last edited: