Did you even bother reading the thread up to this point?
-
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
Did you even bother reading the thread up to this point?
No.
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day.
That includes the angels. Before the creation week, God was all that existed.
Define the word "sovereign"?
I have to admit that I do not know a lot about angels and when they were created. I just know that waters refers to spiritual life and that Heaven is a place... a realm within the infinite God.
You might find it enlightening or at least interesting to think outside the box for a few minutes regarding Gen 1 and 2. In Gen. 1 God is described as an elohim/elohiym ... and the beginning sentences describe where he is and how he is. He is moving denoting life. He is creating denoting knowledge and power BUT he in deep darkness. A word which may describe deep darkness is invisible infinity!
God/Elohiym is working as a Spirit in Genesis 1 and he establishes all sorts of things and I figure manifested some of them - like sun moon stars and probably we might add planets like earth, BUT at some point the invisible spiritual God stops HIS WORKS.
So, who takes over?
Answer: The LORD God of course begins his generations of work with a more hands on approach.
So who is the LORD who worked in Genesis 2?
Answer: God explained to Moses who he was/is.
I'll share one time when God made it clear who The LORD was. You see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not know of any chosen name of God in their day. Exodus 6:2-3 and Exodus 3:2,6.They thought of him as God Almighty.
The chosen name of LORD was revealed to Moses and he inserted it correctly when he wrote his five books of history.
Here is the official event: Exodus 3:14-16 [The Burning Bush visitation] Verses 15 and 16 being key to my point.
15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shall thou say unto the children of Israel, "THE LORD God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you." [God says:] "This is MY NAME FOR EVER, and this is my memorial unto all generations.
16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, "THE LORD GOD of your fathers ... appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you ..."
Do you get it Clete?
Conclusion: The presence within the burning bush was God in an angelic form which could be seen. The invisible Spirit had an image and when he appeared with it God had chosen a NAME. That name is: The LORD. Moses knew him face to face; so, when Moses wrote Gen. 1 and 2 he knew when to change the name of God from Elohiym to The LORD/YHWH.
God the Spirit rested on the 7th Day but The LORD began working and Adam ultimately saw God Face to face in the Garden.
Conclusion: Gen. 1 and 2 are two separate events ... you do not have to try to fit chapter two into chapter one. I like to describe it for myself like this: The Spirit established things within him and manifested some things as well, but God as The LORD began to bring things forth and worked more face to face hands on.
Bladerunner
Active member
the Bible tells us of three heavens....two of them were made at creation...the first Heaven, (God's own home) was already there prior to this event.
Bladerunner
Active member
He is in control of over everything and all things in the entire universe. NOT one molecule is outside of His control. If it is, then He is not GOD and we can never be assured of what the Bible tells us. I
Right Divider
Body part
Where do you get your bizarre ideas?
Gen 2:1-3 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:1) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. (2:2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (2:3) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
No, they are NOT. They are two separate ACCOUNTS of the SAME events.
No, you don't. Because they are two separate ACCOUNTS of the SAME events.
Support your bizarre claims.
Derf
Well-known member
Meaning that God controls the sinner's thoughts? That the most evil intentions of man's heart are God's intentions? That His will is already done on earth, and it includes murder, rape, adultery, witchcraft, sodomy, etc.? If so, then we already can't be assured of what the Bible tells us, because it tells us "God is love, just, righteous."
[/QUOTE]
The sea is actually paralleled with death and condemnation and sin. This is why (well, one of the reasons anyway) there will be no oceans on the New Earth.
In what way is any of that thinking outside of the box?
God wasn't blind before He created light. He is light! (Note that light is NOT God, by the way. Yet another example of where the axiom if A=B then B=A does not hold true.) The darkness existed within the physical, created universe not throughout God's entire existence.
Again, I see nothing here that is outside the box. God is a Spirit, He created, then He stop creating. What's so clever about that?
This might very well be blasphemy, it is certainly heresy!
Him who became Jesus and died - dead - on the cross is the self same person who created EVERYTHING that exists besides Himself. Jesus IS Yahweh in the flesh! Believe it or die in your sin.
I'm sorry, Ps82, I'm not trying to be insulting here but this is just flatly silly.
Elohiym is the plural for "God". It's nothing at all but the Hebrew word for "Gods".
I strongly caution you against this sort of "theology". This sort of thing is how cults are created. That's literally the truth. This sort of yanking pithy sounding doctrines out of thin air based on practically nothing at all is precisely how David Koresh managed to convince his followers the he was a "sinning messiah" and how that murderous lunatic in Florida figured out his real name was "Yahweh Ben Yahweh". Imagine "God, the Son of God" dying of prostate cancer and people still worshiping that lunatic.
Anyway, you really should leave the bible to say what it says and not what sounds interesting.
No.
Definitely not!
God stopped creating things on day six, Ps82!
What possible motive could there be that is sufficient to completely toss the plain reading of the single most important book of the entire bible in favor of what I can only describe as a form mysticism that is totally foreign to anything that any sect of Christianity or Judaism has ever believed or taught. I don't get it. Maybe I'm just totally not understanding your point.
The bible seems to say otherwise.
That is not what the term "sovereign" means to anyone other than Augustinians (i.e. Catholics and Calvinists mostly). The word simply does not mean "control freak". It means "highest authority".
God is the highest authority that exists. He has delegated authority to many creatures for several reasons. Those creatures have the real ability to exercise that authority independent of God's direct input. God, of course, retains both the ability and the absolute right to recall that authority at His own sole discretion. He is therefore, the Sovereign of all existence.
Anything beyond that is unbiblical nonsense that was spawned by Augustine of Hippo through his veritable worship of Aristotle and Plato.
.
I call my ideas 'out of the usual box' which I've been fed. I read scripture carefully and compare scripture with scripture.
I'll try to explain quickly where I get the idea Gen. 1 and 2 are two separate events. Taking Mother in law to doctor appointment soon.
Gen. 1:1-2 The Strong's concordance explains that the English word God is taken from the Hebrew word #430 and 433. It is a plural word used to describe the supremacy of the ONE true creator. Moses tells us that it is the Spirit at work from Gen. 1 - six... "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. No doubt that the Creator is working as a Spirit while establishing things and forming the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 2:1-2
A serious question for you: Do you believe that The LORD God is God?
Now about Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Which Day? ... the Seventh Day. Did you notice a name change from Elohiym to YHWH or God to The LORD God? Consider how important name changes are in scripture. Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, Saul to Paul. It meant something significant had occurred. So, Who was The LORD of Genesis 2 who did work on the seventh day.
Well, Moses saw him in a burning bush. Moses saw him face to face as one friend sees another. 74 men of Israel saw his body of heaven clearly and ate a meal in his presence. Jonah thought he could run from his presence. Adam and Woman heard the foot steps of the WORD of God walking toward them and thought they could hide from his presence. Scripture is NOT talking about an invisible Spirit in Gen. 2. It was God appearing with the image he created for himself before he ever created mankind and shared its likeness with Adam!
This first mention of God's visible form ultimately became known as The Father LORD God. This was who went to work on the seventh day working in a much more hands on face to face labor. He manifested mankind, manifested the plants and such, manifested animals and brought them to Adam to name. He was a visible God who even Adam and Eve, like Jonah, thought they could hide from his finite glorious presence.
Read Gen. 1 and 2 carefully. In Gen. 1 Elohiym had established all things and brought forth a number of things in our realm of heaven like sun moon and stars and earth ... but in Gen 2. God came within his creation as The LORD and manifested many things already created into the dwelling place of humanity. See two events with Gen. 2 following Gen. 1.
Shoot! I had almost finished my reply to your questions, my husband walked in to ask me somethings, and I accidentally touched something and my reply vanished!!!! His fault - LOL!
I call my ideas 'out of the usual box' which I've been fed. I read scripture carefully and compare scripture with scripture.
I'll try to explain quickly where I get the idea Gen. 1 and 2 are two separate events. Taking Mother in law to doctor appointment soon.
Gen. 1:1-2 The Strong's concordance explains that the English word God is taken from the Hebrew word #430 and 433. It is a plural word used to describe the supremacy of the ONE true creator. Moses tells us that it is the Spirit at work from Gen. 1 - six... "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. No doubt that the Creator is working as a Spirit while establishing things and forming the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:31 and Genesis 2:1-2
A serious question for you: Do you believe that The LORD God is God?
Now about Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Which Day? ... the Seventh Day. Did you notice a name change from Elohiym to YHWH or God to The LORD God? Consider how important name changes are in scripture. Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, Saul to Paul. It meant something significant had occurred. So, Who was The LORD of Genesis 2 who did work on the seventh day.
Well, Moses saw him in a burning bush. Moses saw him face to face as one friend sees another. 74 men of Israel saw his body of heaven clearly and ate a meal in his presence. Jonah thought he could run from his presence. Adam and Woman heard the foot steps of the WORD of God walking toward them and thought they could hide from his presence. Scripture is NOT talking about an invisible Spirit in Gen. 2. It was God appearing with the image he created for himself before he ever created mankind and shared its likeness with Adam!
This first mention of God's visible form ultimately became known as The Father LORD God. This was who went to work on the seventh day working in a much more hands on face to face labor. He manifested mankind, manifested the plants and such, manifested animals and brought them to Adam to name. He was a visible God who even Adam and Eve, like Jonah, thought they could hide from his finite glorious presence.
Read Gen. 1 and 2 carefully. In Gen. 1 Elohiym had established all things and brought forth a number of things in our realm of heaven like sun moon and stars and earth ... but in Gen 2. God came within his creation as The LORD and manifested many things already created into the dwelling place of humanity. See two events with Gen. 2 following Gen. 1.
Right Divider
Body part
It seems more like you are reading things into the scripture.
Compare this scripture with scripture:
John 4:24 (AKJV/PCE)
(4:24) God [is] a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship [him] in spirit and in truth.
I can only respond by saying DUH!
IN THE DAY is a figure of speech. It is NOT talking about an individual specific day of creation.
Saul was NOT "changed" to Paul. Please read the scripture more carefully!
Acts 13:9 (AKJV/PCE)
(13:9) Then Saul, (who also [is called] Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,
Paul was his Greek name. Saul was his Hebrew name. They were BOTH his names.
Regarding the names of God ... they are ALL His names. You are reading your ideas into the scripture.
The Bible clearly says that He RESTED on the seventh day.
Gen 2:2-3 (AKJV/PCE)
(2:2) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. (2:3) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Genesis 1 provides a sequential (day by day) description of God's creation of all things.
Genesis 2 provides details regarding the creation of MAN and WOMAN in the garden (it is all specifically focused on SOME of day 6 of creation).
They are NOT two separate events. They are two different ACCOUNTS of the SAME events (the second account being more narrowly focused).
It's just that simple.
Last edited:
The Bible tells us when the angels were created.
They were created on Day 1.
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements?Surely you know!Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened?Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together,And all the sons of God shouted for joy? “Or who shut in the sea with doors,When it burst forth and issued from the womb; When I made the clouds its garment,And thick darkness its swaddling band; When I fixed My limit for it,And set bars and doors; When I said,‘This far you may come, but no farther,And here your proud waves must stop!’
Bible Gateway passage: Job 38:4-11 - New King James Version
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone, When the morning stars sang together, And all the...
Now you know.
Because you say so?
Duh.
Sounds like new-age nonsense.
Genesis 2 is not a separate account. It's a going into detail about a specific event from chapter 1.
Normal history textbooks do this too, where they'll provide an overview of a period of history, then afterwards, go into detail about a specific part of that period.
Genesis 1-2 is no different.
No, they're not separate events.
Chapter 2 is going into detail about day 6, when God made man.
God is the Creator.
God the Son is the Person who did the creating, not the Spirit.
Someone else who hasn't bothered to read the thread all the way through...
That's not the definition of "sovereign," as Clete pointed out.
A king is sovereign over his nation.
It doesn't mean he is in absolute control of every single thing and person and atom and molecule He rules over. It means He's the highest authority OVER them.
If a king is analogous to God, then a good king is not a control freak, who has to be in control of every little thing. A good king lets his subjects live their lives and punishes wrongdoers.
Johann Kepler looked at what is and then explained what he read in the Bible.
I am just looking at Hoba and then explaining what I read in Genesis 1:6 and elsewhere.
Hoba is what it is, and it was never in space.
Hoba is an alloy, an alloy that is today found in the mid latitudes in the form of massive amounts of Pentlandite ((Fe,Ni)9S8) and Pyrrhotite (Fe1-xS) that is easily explained due to, a breaking up of the fountains of the deep and the presents of sulfur form water life.
Pentlandite and Pyrrhotite that will NEVER be an alloy of iron nickel. Hoba is a very small part of God's infrastructure for? I say fountains of the deep.
This is copied and pasted from deepai.org
Conclusion:
If the Hoba meteorite were pulverized and subjected to the conditions you described (contact with sulfur-rich deep waters, heat, and pressure), it is highly likely that Pentlandite and Pyrrhotite would form. The process would be similar to the natural formation of these minerals in certain geological settings.
This scenario actually provides an interesting model for understanding how some nickel-iron sulfide deposits might form, especially those associated with meteorite impacts or deep crustal processes involving metal-rich materials.
The unique composition of Hoba (particularly its high nickel content) would likely result in a significant amount of Pentlandite, possibly more than what's typically found in many natural terrestrial deposits. The resulting mineral assemblage would be an interesting subject for study, potentially providing insights into both meteoritic materials and terrestrial ore-forming processes.
Right Divider
Body part
Actually, I'm going to correct something here.
The phrase in Hebrew is "mittahat hassamayim," and in Genesis 1, "hassamayim" is "the heavens, not "heaven."
In other words, it is most likely NOT referring to "Heaven," here, but is instead an English mistranslation that should read "from under the heavens[/U]," to be more consistent with the text.
Derf
Well-known member
So, I think you are saying we have the earth that isn't really the earth, the heavens which is more than the heavens. Sound familiar?
The "not quite spherical" is due to other bodies that can exert forces or other motion that can affect the shape. If the original earth-size lump has no other forces, or if the forces act evenly, and the earth hasn't started spinning, there's no reason to think it wasn't a sphere...except if the matter was made in such a way that it hadn't yet had time to form the sphere. I can certainly see that a water-covered planet would be spherical. We would say that is a "form", like a "circle of the earth" (Is 40:22), as seen from a distance. So if it has the same form (circle/sphere) later as it does in vs 2, why would the text say "formless"?
Yes, but it requires something more than reading just what the text says. We can suppose some things, or assume some things, but it requires more than the text gives us.
My guess is that "formless" would have to refer both to "not shaped" and "without features", and "void" would refer to "no contents" (like trees, animals, people).
It stands on its own. It doesn't require any of the details that follow to be a complete statement about the whole of creation.
Not if the first verse, and the first part of the second is an introduction. As an introduction, the definite articles refer to things recognized by the reader, like "the earth" and "the heavens". These are things he can view around him while reading (or listening to someone read) the text. Kind of like saying "Let me tell you how God created the heavens that you see and the earth that you stand on." Then the creative narrative starts in the 2nd half of vs 2, where the Spirit of God is at work.
I think you're wrong. If the text is sharing something about the things the audience is experiencing (earth under feet and sky overhead including the sun or moon and stars), then the second verse would describe a "no earth under feet" situation that had to be rectified to get to where things become like the audience is seeing.
Maybe, at the very beginning:
[Pro 8:27 NKJV] When He prepared the heavens, I [was] there, When He drew a circle on the face of the deep,
You have the earth, which isn't recognizable (formless and void), and the deep which has a surface.
I'm suggesting things. I'm ok with having to alter my position.
Because, when God specifically called the dry land "Earth", it was because that was the first time it was discernable. And just prior to that, it was all water. Even in your view, the "earth" was not solid until God made the raqia.
Yes. Most of the time, it is the ocean/sea, as in Jonah.
[Jon 2:3 NKJV] For You cast me into the deep, Into the heart of the seas, And the floods surrounded me; All Your billows and Your waves passed over me.
[Jon 2:5 NKJV] The waters surrounded me, [even] to my soul; The deep closed around me; Weeds were wrapped around my head.
Other times it might be something else, but usually involving water, I think.
Not in the same way. It uses the word to describe something, but it doesn't say "And God called xyz 'Deep'".
A priori? I'm reading the text for what it says! I would never have guessed there's a layer of water surrounding the heavens if the text didn't clearly state it.
From Strongs:
mayim, mah'-yim; dual of a primitive noun (but used in a singular sense); water; figuratively, juice; by euphemism, urine, semen:— piss, wasting, water(-ing, (-course, -flood, -spring)).
You might be correct, but because the terms is specifically defined later, it casts some doubt over whether 1:2 is talking about anything except "the dry" God called "Earth".
I'm reading the passage over and over. I'm trying to read it for what it says, which you repeatedly say to do. I don't mind finding out new information as I'm doing so, and if that makes it seem like I'm making up something on the fly, then so be it. But after all of the re-reading, I still have a hard time with God calling the unrevealed "Earth" "Heaven", then calling it "Earth" when it is revealed and dry, when that's not what the text actually says.
Sounds like I'm in good company (supra).
Your first question answers the second. If there was at one time a single mass of waters, then if later there are two masses of waters made from the first, be definition (without additional miracle), either of the second two would be less mass than the first.
Am I understanding you correctly as saying that vs 2 refers to an already separated waters? That "the deep" is the waters below the firmament that already exists, and "the waters" refers to the waters above the firmament that already exists?
Ok
There is a distinction between the heavens where the stars are and the sky where birds fly. I think some translators are trying to treat them the same, and in some instances that might be correct. But Gen 1 seems to distinguish between the "firmament of the heavens" (where stars are) and "face of the heavens" where birds fly.
I'm trying to make sense out of the passage just as you are. I think there are likely deeper things to glean from it than just a surface-level reading would provide, just as you do. But those things are tricky, and need to be re-evaluated often. Sometimes we can try to view them from a lens of what science thinks it knows today, but sometimes we can't.
Because the firmament wasn't in existence yet in vs 2. Did I misunderstand your question? It seems like you are saying the firmament existed in vs 2, with waters above and below, but the waters weren't divided that way until vs 6, when God said "Let there be a firmament..."
It is what vs 6 speaks of: a firmament that separated the waters called "Heaven(s)" that will later be filled with stars and such.
On the globe earth, yes. On the "dry" that is called earth, no.
Because the ocean is defined by the land that didn't exist in vs 2. "Defined" here meaning "marking the borders of". When the text says the waters are moved into one place, it is using the land to mark the waters, not the other way around.
[Gen 1:9 NKJV] Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry [land] appear"; and it was so.
[Gen 1:10 NKJV] And God called the dry [land] Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that [it was] good.
Implied by the text, but probably more from the way God only had to confuse languages after the flood, before the landmasses were too separate to be bridged (by ice or lower oceans).
I'm not too hard on this point.
"Different" is different than "one".
It was "the dry", according to vs 10. I don't think it was the globe we call Earth there. Read it again and see.
Supra.
Thank you, too. These kinds of back and forth are helpful, even if the posts get long.
I don't see these as conflicting with my view.
[Psa 136:6 NKJV] To Him who laid out the earth above the waters, For His mercy [endures] forever;--
Could mean just that the land that we see is always higher than the waters it touches.
[2Pe 3:5 NKJV] For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,--
Could mean that the dry land was dry (not covered by water) and was above the water at the shoreline.
That's what I said...below the firmament. The first chapter of genesis, and as far as I can tell all of the rest of scripture, speaks of only one firmament. You've suggested two in Gen 1, but I don't think you've given other scripture that supports a firmament that is the crust of the earth (I may not be remembering).
Well, I didn't put them there. I would hardly know how.
No, I come to the text and it calls the first firmament "Heaven", then it never suggests another one, anywhere in scripture.
Below the firmament, not the deep.
Yes, because the waters were gathered into one place when the dry land appeared, and, as you said, water flows downhill. So the land is usually above the waters in altitude.
The are the waters that were below the firmament that were gathered into one place when dry land, called "Earth" appeared.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;www.biblegateway.com
It is a type of surface...it is the outer layer of the vacuum of space when compared to the dry land (earth).
The stars are put into the firmament of the heavens, but the birds fly on the face (surface) of the heavens. I think you need both descriptions to get the idea that it is a volume, not a surface only.
All of which is good and laudable about the HPT.
No, what was called "good" on Day 3 was the dry land and the seas separated (then the plants).
Then you agree that He can create something on one day, like the firmament, that He later calls good after making it less void like putting stars in it.
I'm not so sure it says that, since it clearly says "Earth" was not made until day 3, yet it is mentioned in vs 1. I.e., Vs 1 may not be talking about day 1 only, but all the days of creation, just like Gen 2:1
I think you are saying that God made a firmament on Day 1, then made another one on Day 2, then called the 2nd one "Heavens", after He had already called the first one "the Heavens".
Supra, but I'll repeat. If Vs 1 is speaking to a bunch of people that are standing out on dry land, looking up at the heavens, then the article is appropriate, even if later the narrative explains HOW those things were made and then named.
I disagree. The new things are called what they are today, but they had just been made.
Depends on what you mean by "literal". If the "firmament" means the stars are fixed in place, or in their paths, then it might be literal in that way.
"Seas" are not referred to until land exists.
Not to use it for something that isn't ever elsewhere called "Heaven".
And He wasn't naming "something"! He was naming "Heaven".
So if I appeal to some English translators, I'm appealing to authority, but if you appeal to other English translators, you're not? How does that work?
Yet I doubt you would be reading the bible this way if Walt Brown had not suggested to do so. Walt Brown is not "some random person" to you, but to me and others he certainly is. So having never heard of anyone coming to the same conclusion as Walt brown or those that have read and agree with his theory, my response is the same as yours--I care about what the bible ACTUALLY says, not what some random people think the bible says.
Based on a lack of evidence. Based on what I've said before, that having to conjure up a weird use of "heaven" that is probably not supportable in other parts of scripture.
The pictures you gave are not in the text. That's not what I think, that's factual. Don't use the pictures as evidence. (This is not to say I don't appreciate the pictures, nor even the theory they describe, but just because you can draw a picture of what you think they looked like doesn't mean the scriptures are perfectly describing your pictures.
I wasn't trying to assert the HPT assertions there. I'm suggesting an alternative.
I'm not talking about the theory's pictures of the earth. Those are...theoretical. They don't carry weight UNLESS the theory proves to be true in all aspects (with regard to Gen 1). I could just as easily draw you a picture of what I'm proposing and use it as evidence for my view. Of course you wouldn't accept it, and neither do I accept your picture as some kind of evidence, only as a speculation.
No, I don't think he does. He uses the definite article in vs 1 because he is introducing the topic to the reader, who knows what heaven and earth are. But the creation narrative doesn't use the definite article when the introductions are made in vss 8 and 10.
(vs 10 for "erets")
Or, as I said before, the introduction verses are merely introduction, and the topic is being fully detailed after Vs 2. That would, indeed, make vs 8 introduce a new heaven and 9 a new earth not already described. In other words, even vs 2, telling of a "formless and void" earth aren't describing the earth--the earth (dry land) doesn't really exist if it has neither form (shape) or filling: there's just "waters". So vs 9 explains what Earth is and how it got there, and vs 10 names it.
But let's take it as you say, that vs 8 introduces a new heaven not introduced and vs 9-10 introduces a new earth not introduced. But didn't you say that "heaven" in vs 8 is referring to "earth" that wasn't finished yet? So now you have two names for the same creation. Or, if "heaven" refers to the earth before it becomes "earth", then "heaven" is only ever used for that purpose in that one verse in the whole bible. Of course, I think that's where you are anyway, that all other uses of "raqia" and "heaven" in the whole bible after Gen 1:8 are speaking of the above-heaven. The number of "raqia" uses are easily searched, and I think I'm correct. The number of "heaven" (shamayim) uses are numerous, so I'm making the assertion that I'm right and leaving it to you to prove me wrong.
Then the formulation of "heaven" not "the heavens" can be referring to the above-heaven, right?
So again, the formulation of "heaven" without the definite article, can apply to the above-heaven.
Yeah, I'm not sure why I included that one, although it does seem to help understand the previous one.
But if the scripture you are using allows a different reading of the scripture you're trying to understand, you should allow for different reading in the one you're trying to understand.
My three examples (only two good ones) were intended to try to understand if there are any other verses where "heaven" (no definite article) refers to the earth. So since we are in agreement on those, can you offer one or more where "heaven" means something on earth?
(I did some of the above in reverse order. My apologies if it seems like I'm referring to something below as something above.)
We are getting off topic and it is probably my fault, but I am glad that you are interested.
However, God told Moses he had chosen one name to be his name forever. Exodus 3:2,13,14-15 [The event at the burning bush when God informed Moses he was to go to the Pharaoh to gain the release of the children of Israel. Moses asked God, If they want to know your name what should I tell them?
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Now, I AM THAT I AM is the definition of the name God has chosen; so, what is the proper noun/name?
Watch.
15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of A, the God of I, and the God of J, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever. unto all generations.
Now, I know The LORD God is KJ English. I think Jewish people like YHWH/Yahweh but no matter the language barriers we humans face we can see that God chose a special name for himself ... forever to all generations. I looked up several definitions various people give ... but basically it means: I Am I Am The One who is The one who will be. I guess - the eternal one. Anyway Moses knew after that exactly when to use that name in a meaningful way. He chose to first use it in Genesis 2. Elohiym rested on the 7th day, but YHWY began his work.
Who is YHWH? He was the one that formed a body for Adam out of the ground. He breathed into Adam's nostrils. He walked in the Garden and talked with Adam and Woman. He sent them out of the Garden and out of his presence. He was God who was seen within his own creation having a personal relationship with mankind. He was still God but was beheld as the second person of the trinity. That's pretty significant.
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And ... God ended his work which he HAD made. He rested.
Now, this verse shows that God was establishing much. Sometimes he was establishing the potential of things yet to be manifested. Like male and female were established in the Spirit but they did not become a living soul until the LORD scooped up the ground and formed them a body and breathed life into that body. Even then only Adam was manifested. Female was still not to be seen. In fact, animals were brought forth before the female. Sometimes the Spirit was separating things from one another. Other times he brought forth things like Light, the moon, the stars, the sun, the earth... but other things were not yet manifested. Watch
Gen. 2:4-5 [somewhat paraphrased] These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, IN THE DAY [a time period] that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
5 And every plant of the field BEFORE it grew; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain ... and there was not a man to till the ground.
18 - 19 And the LORD God said, It is not good for man to be alone... out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field,... and brought the animals unto Adam to see what he would call them ...
Back to Genesis 1:24 God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his own kind... That does not insinuate that it came forth at that instance but simply commanded that this process happen. In fact, they were brought forth after God rested and when the LORD brought them to Adam to be named. In Gen. 1, people, who think ch 1 and 2 are the same event, have to deal with a conundrum.
It is obvious according to Gen. 2 that the LORD brought forth Adam before there were any plants and animals on the earth! But Genesis 1 shows that animals were established before God created male female in verses26-28. You see The Spirit had established them within himself but the LORD manifested them on the 7th day within the creation.
Conclusion: Gen. 1 and 2 two events. God working as Spirit and presence of the LORD. Yet, don't forget God the WORD was there the whole time with the Spirit and the Father. John the Baptist declared it so.
Not sure what 'reading into scripture' means to you. To me it means finding keys to unlock truth. Like learning that waters refer to life God has to share ... and that he shares life in measures to created beings but shared it without measure to Christ. He has another measure of life to share with the saints which will give them immortality in the kingdom of our Risen Lord.
I agree totally that God is a Spirit. I believe God the Spirit was working in Genesis1 until Moses describes that he rested from his work. No one has ever seen God the Spirit for we weren't give the eyes that could behold Spirit. Here are scriptures I conclude tell us that God is a Spirit. Genesis 1:2 [God the Spirit moved upon the waters]; Gen.6:3 [My Spirit will not always put up with mankind]; John 4:24 [God is a Spirit]; Ephesians 5:30 [grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto redemption].
I'm glad you believe The LORD God is God. I do also. Something you had written made me wonder if you were trying to leave him out of the group of Spirit, Father, and Son.
It means a time period. The length could vary. In the day my mother-in-law lived happens to be 100 going on 101years ... The seventh day ... is called the generations the LORD worked. The specific seventh day/the Sabbath was set aside to honor the one who began to work on the generations of the seventh day. People were to rest that day for the LORD worked that day. Jesus often explained that he had a right to work on that day for as God come among men to work he was one with the Father. As the WORD of God he was with the Father working in his day. Is it any wonder Jesus scooped up dust from the ground, added a measure of divine water from his mouth and formed eyeballs for a man who had none from birth? Is it any wonder he could reshape the legs of the lame, or that he could bring life to a dead body? These were works performed on the 7th day time period when The LORD created the body for Adam ... and brought forth a living soul. The learned teachers still didn't grasp the meaning behind the works he did nor the words he spoke. I and the Father are ONE.
Well, he went by the Gentile name of Paul after his experience with the LORD... and as he was sent to the Gentiles to share the gospel. There must have been a significant reason. And you can't deny the meanings behind the changes of Abram to Abraham, or Jacob to Israel. And Moses knew what he was talking about when he wrote God/Elohiym for Gen.1 and then YHWH for LORD God in Gen. 2. A significant thing had happened. Elohiym rested from his work and The LORD/YHWH began his generations of work. Name changes mean something in scripture.
What are names? They are nouns and they have definitions. Even today. I was given a name on my birth certificate but my family rejected that name and chose another one for me. No matter how many times over the years I've suggested that I be called by my real name none of my family and friends would agree to call me by my legal name. My siblings don't even remember why they gave me a new name but it seems they all liked it. It means pretty and beautiful... well, guess they thought I was a pretty baby. So it is with the list of names given to God by men.They are proper nouns which tell us he is The Lord who rewards, The Lord will Provide, The Lord my Shepherd, The LORD our Righteousness, The Lord who heals ...
However, God told Moses he had chosen one name to be his name forever. Exodus 3:2,13,14-15 [The event at the burning bush when God informed Moses he was to go to the Pharaoh to gain the release of the children of Israel. Moses asked God, If they want to know your name what should I tell them?
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
Now, I AM THAT I AM is the definition of the name God has chosen; so, what is the proper noun/name?
Watch.
15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of A, the God of I, and the God of J, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever. unto all generations.
Now, I know The LORD God is KJ English. I think Jewish people like YHWH/Yahweh but no matter the language barriers we humans face we can see that God chose a special name for himself ... forever to all generations. I looked up several definitions various people give ... but basically it means: I Am I Am The One who is The one who will be. I guess - the eternal one. Anyway Moses knew after that exactly when to use that name in a meaningful way. He chose to first use it in Genesis 2. Elohiym rested on the 7th day, but YHWY began his work.
Who is YHWH? He was the one that formed a body for Adam out of the ground. He breathed into Adam's nostrils. He walked in the Garden and talked with Adam and Woman. He sent them out of the Garden and out of his presence. He was God who was seen within his own creation having a personal relationship with mankind. He was still God but was beheld as the second person of the trinity. That's pretty significant.
Well, I agree, but Genesis 1 tells us it was the Spirit who was working ... therefore, it was the Spirit who stopped his work and rested. Next came The LORD/YHWH who began his work among mankind within the creation.
I totally disagree. The Spirit established things in Genesis 1 but the LORD manifested many of the things when he came within the creation. Read chapter 2 carefully. Watch
Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And ... God ended his work which he HAD made. He rested.
Now, this verse shows that God was establishing much. Sometimes he was establishing the potential of things yet to be manifested. Like male and female were established in the Spirit but they did not become a living soul until the LORD scooped up the ground and formed them a body and breathed life into that body. Even then only Adam was manifested. Female was still not to be seen. In fact, animals were brought forth before the female. Sometimes the Spirit was separating things from one another. Other times he brought forth things like Light, the moon, the stars, the sun, the earth... but other things were not yet manifested. Watch
Gen. 2:4-5 [somewhat paraphrased] These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, IN THE DAY [a time period] that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
5 And every plant of the field BEFORE it grew; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain ... and there was not a man to till the ground.
18 - 19 And the LORD God said, It is not good for man to be alone... out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field,... and brought the animals unto Adam to see what he would call them ...
Back to Genesis 1:24 God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his own kind... That does not insinuate that it came forth at that instance but simply commanded that this process happen. In fact, they were brought forth after God rested and when the LORD brought them to Adam to be named. In Gen. 1, people, who think ch 1 and 2 are the same event, have to deal with a conundrum.
It is obvious according to Gen. 2 that the LORD brought forth Adam before there were any plants and animals on the earth! But Genesis 1 shows that animals were established before God created male female in verses26-28. You see The Spirit had established them within himself but the LORD manifested them on the 7th day within the creation.
Conclusion: Gen. 1 and 2 two events. God working as Spirit and presence of the LORD. Yet, don't forget God the WORD was there the whole time with the Spirit and the Father. John the Baptist declared it so.