A lot of this is getting repetitive, so feel free to snip out the text you aren't immediately responding to.
Do you not understand what a synecdoche is?
Again, a synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa.
The heavens is indeed "the heavens," but it's using the whole to refer to the parts.
The earth is the earth. Earth is a part of the earth.
The heavens is the heavens. Heaven is a part of the earth.
This is sort of what I was getting at.
"Tohu" (formless) doesn't mean shapeless. A sphere is a shape, but a perfectly spherical ball bearing is "tohu." Its surface is desolate, lacking any meaningful worth, having been laid waste in the manufacturing process, a veritable desert of metal, empty of features.
So too, was the unformed "the earth."
HPT asserts that this was the mantle of the earth, that the crust of the earth had not been formed yet.
Again, that's a shape. Not what is referred to by "formless."
Because there was no crust. It was just the mantle (and everything below that).
No. Supra.
Not quite. Supra.
Yes.
Because you say so?
And yet, without it, there is no context for the rest of the chapter. It's not that it doesn't require the details. It's that the details require the introduction.
Again, I'm not saying that it can't be an introduction, only that if it's ONLY an introduction that stands alone, it introduces problems.
So "let me tell you how God created the heavens that you see and the void and formless earth that you stand on"?
You said "the first verse, and the first part of the second."
The first part of the second verse is where it says that the earth was without form and void.
Which, to the listener listening to you say "let me tell you..." wouldn't make sense, since clearly the earth is not without form and is not void. The listener could rightly dismiss what the speaker is saying without any further details.
Not quite.
"The Spirit of God was hovering
over the face of the waters.
There's no up or down in space. On the surface of a planet, however, up is away from the planet, and down is towards it.
The verse is not talking about "the very beginning," so that's out of the question.
The whole passage (verses 22-31) is literally a description of the creation week!
“The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
I have been established from everlasting,
From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
When there were no fountains abounding with water.
Before the mountains were settled,
Before the hills, I was brought forth;
While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields,
Or the primal dust of the world.
When He prepared the heavens, I was there,
When He drew a circle on the face of the deep,
When He established the clouds above,
When He strengthened the fountains of the deep,
When He assigned to the sea its limit,
So that the waters would not transgress His command,
When He marked out the foundations of the earth,
Then I was beside Him as a master craftsman;
And I was daily His delight,
Rejoicing always before Him,
Rejoicing in His inhabited world,
And my delight was with the sons of men. |
“The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old. I have been established from everlasting, From the beginning, before there was ever an earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were...
www.biblegateway.com
You could almost argue that Solomon is writing from the perspective of the mantle of the earth, the foundation on which everything else rests, as though he's describing what it was like before, during, and after (in sequence) the week of creation.
Verses 22-26 is from the perspective of "before" creation.
Verse 22: "possessed" here isn't talking about ownership, it's talking about what God was starting with.
23: "I have been established from everlasting" is a description of how strong the mantle is, conveying the image of being steadfast, immovable. Note that "an earth" here is the same word as in Genesis 1:10.
24: God made the mantle before He made the depths, and the latter half could either be referring to the spring in the Garden, or to the fountains of the great deep. Either way, confer with Psalm 33:7.
25: God made the mantle before the mountains had settled, and before the hills were made.
26: "Earth" (again, same word as Genesis 1:10) had not been made; neither had the "place separated by a wall," "chuts," the "outside" (think "outside the city walls"); the dirt, mud, etc had not been made yet.
Verses 27-31 is "during" creation.
Verse 27: "the heavens" here is incorrect. The word is "samayim" (cf Genesis 1:8), not "hassamayim" (cf 1:1, 14, etc). In other words, he's talking about preparing the firmament called heaven on day 2, and "when He drew a circle on the face of the deep" is just another way of saying that. Again: He made the firmament encircle the face of the deep. Thus, when the next verse says...
28: "When He established the clouds above," it does in fact mean that the clouds are above the firmament (and not the other way around), and then it speaks about "strengthening the fountains of the deep." Perhaps this refers to the downward pressure of the firmament on "the deep"? Perhaps God implemented gravity at this point? Food for thought.
29: "Assigning to the sea its limit," etc., is God forming the earth on Day 3. "When He marked out the foundations of earth," (again, no article "the" in the Hebrew text, mistranslation in English) is Solomon tying it all back to the mantle, the foundation on which the earth sits (cf Psalm 104:1-9)
30-31: Tying the above verses to the rest of the chapter with regards to wisdom.
Going through this passage makes me want to go through Psalm 104 now... but I'll hold off on that for now.
Surface? No.
A face? Yes. Slightly different meaning, but it's important.
The "earth" did not exist until after the raqia was made.
"The earth," however, did.
Ok, so you agree that "the deep" is referring to water (at least unless the context indicates something else.
Then based on that, would you agree that there are two "things" that are made of water in Genesis 1:2?
Obviously not, but calling something by it's description, and finding other uses of that description can help identify what that something is.
"Might I suggest"
And the text does not indicate that there is water in space, as opposed to being on earth, unless you intentionally start with the assumption that the firmament of day 2 is the sky.
Except it doesn't say "there's a layer of water surrounding the heavens," nor does it indicate that.
It says that a firmament divided the waters from the waters.
The fact that you have to appeal to a figurative and euphemistic usage of the word shows I'm right.
When the Bible says water, it means water.
If it said any of those other things, it's usually because of the context which prevents it from being water.
Thus, in those cases, it doesn't say "water," it says those things, either directly using “water” or indirectly by using “water” in a non-literal way.
The "dry land" had not yet been made. Therefore it could not have been the "dry land."
Watch from 00:35:35 to 1:08:48: (2x speed it's about 16.5 minutes
No.
It sounded like you were saying that one of the two masses were reduced somehow. Thank you for clarifying.
No. Not "already separated."
The firmament did not exist before day 2.
Genesis 1:2 (among other verses) is a grammatical separation, not describing a literal separation.
Ok, so the problem right there is that that's not what it says, regardless of our positions.
There is a distinction between the heavens where the stars are and the sky where birds fly. But your last sentence there is incorrect.
The distinction regarding "the heavens where the stars are" and "the sky where birds fly" is not "firmament of the heavens" (which is correct) and "face of the heavens" (this is the incorrect part). It's between the former and "the face of the firmament of the heavens."
But this isn't the point of contention with my position.
The point of contention is that "the firmament" and "the firmament of the heavens" are two different things.
The problem is that what I've been presenting should be convincing, simply based on the fact that it's literally what the scripture says, how it says it, and corroborating scripture that supports what it says.
So far, and pardon my standing on a soapbox for a moment, all I've gotten from you is wild (relatively speaking) postulations about what it might be. You say, "well the waters might be a blob of water in space," and, "when God created the firmament in the midst of the waters, he moved half of the water to a location above heaven," and "the waters might be inclusive of all material in the universe." None of these things are directly supported by scripture, and you have to assume that there must be some other meaning of the words used, that they must be figurative, in order to make those claims.
The premise of the HPT is that unless explicitly stated, or afforded by scripture, one should not assume a miraculous explanation of something described in either the flood account, especially with regards to Creation.
In addition, one should avoid trying to come up with explanations for things that aren't immediately clear in the text, but that might be defined or otherwise mentioned elsewhere in scripture.
Correct.
Yes.
My question is why can't "the waters" of verse 2 be part of the same body of water that was divided in verse 6, becoming "the waters above the firmament"?
Yes, that's your position. But then you're begging the question, both that "the heavens" are what 1:6 is speaking of, and that the "heaven" of verse 8 is where the stars will be placed.
What reason do you have to believe that?
I ask because the I'm presenting the case that it can be interpreted differently, which means you can't just assume that your position is correct.
Okay.
I'm not finding any definition of "ocean" that requires a landmass to define it.
A common trope in space exploration science fiction stories is an ocean world, a world that is covered in nothing but water.
Why could the planet earth in verse 2 not resemble an ocean world from science fiction (again, "resemble," not "be")?
But that's not what it says.
The verse does not say that the waters are moved into one place.
it says "let the waters under the heavens
be gathered together into one place, and
let the dry land appear."
That's not describing the creation of a landmass, that's an appearance of a landmass that already existed.
The Hydroplate's explanation is a far better fit, because the landmass that appears in verse 9 is the very thing that was just created in verse 8, the firmament in the midst of the waters.
Refer back to the GFHPT video I linked to above.
Do you agree or disagree with the current secular theory of "Pangea"?
If the firmament of day 2 is the crust of the earth, would it not make sense that parts of the crust sinking, causing other parts to rise, could potentially cause "dry land" to appear, via the "gathering together" of waters into the dips in the parts of the crust that sank?
Missing the point.
If the water is covering the earth, and it is caused to gather together so that dry land appears, regardless of where it appears, the water is in a different location than it was previously, yes?
We agree.
So then why do you say "the earth" and "Earth" (v10) are speaking of the same thing?
Yes, which is why I'm pointing out that they do, in fact, conflict.
A far more reasonable explanation is that "the earth" in this verse is actually above "the waters."
I mean, that's literally what it says.
That works for "standing out of water," but not "in the water." If you're standing with the water up to your knees just off the shore of an island, the island appears to come out of the water as you follow the slope of land from under the water up to the highest point.
But the only thing "standing in the water" would be you, no? Because before you stood there, where you stood was covered in water.
Your legs are pillars that have pushed the water out of the way of where you stand, and the water is below you, but the land reaches under the water, and eventually comes out of the water somewhere else.
"Standing out of water and in the water" makes far more sense if the firmament of day 2 is the crust of the earth, because it is LITERALLY "standing out of water" (dry land formed by the "arches" of the firmament) and "in the water" (the sunken parts of the crust, which the HPT calls "pillars," based on another verse, are surrounded by water, like a person standing in a shallow pool).
Birds are not below "the firmament." Water is below "the firmament.
They are below "the firmament of the heavens." They fly across "the face of the firmament of the heavens."
Darkness was on "the face of the deep."
"The face" in both cases is the figurative "surface" (in other words, NOT AN ACTUAL HARD SURFACE) which faces the one who is imagining themselves within the scenario being described.
That's just a long way of saying, "the deep" (which you have agreed is water) is below the reader, and "the firmament of the heavens" is above.
Also:
The Spirit of God hovered over "the face of the waters."
PLEASE ANSWER: Given the above, where are "the waters" relative to the reader? Are they "above" or "below"? Remember, the firmament that divides the waters has not been made yet.
Only if you assume that there is only one firmament in Genesis 1.
In other words, begging the question.
I've given you multiple reasons why Genesis 1 describes two firmaments.
- The first five uses of "firmament" are just "the firmament," and the last four uses of "firmament" are "the firmament of the heavens."
- Psalm 136:6 says the earth is above the waters.
- Psalm 33:7 says God lays up the deep in storehouses
- 1 Peter 3:5 says the earth was "standing out of water and in the water," and then directly ties that phrase to the Flood in the very next verse.
- Genesis 1:2 and 1:6-7, among other passages, describes two layers of water
- The fountains of the great deep broke forth, THEN the windows of heaven were opened, in Genesis 7:11 (indication that the water came up from below first, then fell back down), just like it does with a normal fountain
- In Genesis 1, there is a difference between "the heavens" of verses 1, 14, 15, 17, etc, and the "heaven" of verse 8 in the Hebrew text.
Something I haven't mentioned yet:
- Job 38:8 says that God "shut in the sea with doors" and that it "burst forth and issued from the womb" (from the womb is a figure of speech that often refers to "underground"
I know you're trying to be funny, but inconsistency is the mark of a failed belief.
If something contradicts something else, only one of those things can be true.
The Bible says that the water is above "the firmament."
It does not say that the water is above "the firmament of the heavens."
To assume that they are the same, and then claim that the water must be above "the firmament of the heavens" would be begging the question.
Again, you're begging the question that there is only one firmament.
That's what is in dispute.
You missed it.
You've taken the deep and called it the gathered together waters.
You've taken the earth and put it below the deep, because the earth is under the seas, no? Appearing out of the water?
Ok.
Except that's not what the verse says, ESPECIALLY the Hebrew word used for "laid out."
Guess what the word used is?
"Raqa."
God "raqa" the earth above the waters.
That word "raqa" sounds familiar.
Oh, that's right, it's where they get the noun "raqia," which we translate as "firmament."
You know, "the firmament" that God made in the midst of the waters?
Psalm 136:6a Hebrew:
"leroqa haares al hammayim"
raqa, erets, al, mayim
"Erets" is "Earth"
God "raqa"
the earth,
not "the heavens," above the waters.
Do you see the problem with your position yet?
You're saying the "raqia" of day 2 is "the firmament of the heavens," but Psalm 136:6 says that God "raqa"
the earth above the waters.
So, either the author of Psalm 136 was confused, or the firmament of day 2 isn't "the heavens" but is rather "the earth."
So, the Seas.
According to Psalm 136:6, are "the Seas" under "Earth" that God "raqa"?
The Biblical authors had no concept of what the vacuum of space was. They can't describe something that they have no concept of.
They could, however, see the stars in the sky, and understand that "wherever those stars are, it's like that "thing" was "pounded out" over the earth," thus across the face of "raqia hassamayim" is where the birds fly.
But that's not what is being described in Genesis 1:6-10. What's being described there is water. Water would have been known to be "down" from their position. Darkness was on the face of "The deep." The Spirit of God was "above" the face of "the waters." These things are "down." Thus, when it says "God made a firmament in the midst of "the waters," dividing the waters from the waters," the entire structure is "below" the reader, not above, and so...
God - above the waters
raqa - to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out
"[the] Earth" - what the dry land was called
above - over
"the waters" - the waters which were below the firmament.
So that:
The earth - What the dry land was called
was standing out of - dry land
water - seas
and in - subterranean pillars
the water - water laid up in storehouses, the waters below the firmament
Correct.
Incorrect. Supra.
This is you trying to read our modern understanding into the scriptures.
Again, the Biblical authors didn't think like this, they didn't think like this.
You missed it.
Read what I said again.
----
If that's what the text says, then yes.
But that's in dispute, and if Psalm 136:6 is talking about the firmament in Genesis 1:6-8, then my position is correct, and the firmament of day 2 is in fact the crust of the earth.
You're telling me Genesis 1:1-5 is not day 1?
"In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said let there be light, and it was so. And God saw the light, that it was good and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day"... All that is not talking about the first day?
God "raqa" the earth above the waters.
The earth was made on day 3.
Guess what else was made on day 3?
The FIRMAMENT, aka the "raqia," called "Heaven."
You're reaching.
That's not a good sign for your position.
WRONG.
God made the firmament on day 2, and on day 3, he FORMED the firmament that He made on day 2, and called the firmament that He made on day 2 "Heaven."
He made "the heavens," AKA "the firmament of the heavens" on day 1, just like Genesis 1:1 says.
Addressed.
And that's where you're failing.
Bob talked about this in the video above. See 00:48:30.
I mean "literal" as in, "the black surface we see is a solid object in which the stars are placed.
Not quite.
Seas are not
named until God has moved the waters which let the dry land
appear.
They are MENTIONED, however, just not by the name "Seas."
"Let
the waters under the heavens be gathered together..."
These "the waters under the heavens" are not the waters from Psalm 136:6, ABOVE which the "dry land" (erets) was "raqa" by God.
Supra, re: the video at 00:48:30
Supra.
No.
If you appeal to some English translators, and say "because these people said this, therefore it's correct," that's an appeal to authority.
If I appeal to some English translators, and say their translation of a certain word to be different from the rest is likely based on the way the word is present in the original language, then that is NOT an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to the Hebrew text (an appeal to evidence) to support the claim that those translators translated the word a certain way for that reason.
See the difference?
So what? I'm not smart enough to have come up with such a theory, let alone one as thoroughly detailed, let alone as Biblically and scientifically supported as one such as the HPT.
It usually takes the presentation of a paradigm different than yours to make you realize that your paradigm might be flawed.
So what? IF what he says is true, then you should accept it.
If what he says is false, then you should reject it.
But you can't just assume he's wrong, and that you're right.
And if the HPT is consistent with what the Bible says, then what?
Argument from silence, at best.
And I have given you evidence. So far, you've rejected it unreasonably.
Supra, re: video timestamp
Never said they were.
I was trying to demonstrate what the text says.
For the record, those images were drawn by Bryan Nickel, not by myself. I requested them from him a while back via email.
No one said the scriptures were perfectly describing the images.
I was using them as an illustration to help you understand my position.
Fine.
If the fountains of the great deep is water coming from below the surface of the earth, then the basic assertions of the Hydroplate Theory are true.
That's how confident I am that the HPT is true.
And if the HPT is true, then the firmament of Day 2 IS the crust of the earth.
I honestly wish you would!
It would make discussing your theory that much easier!
As proof of your position? Of course not.
But as a teaching tool for your position? Why WOULDN'T I want to see it?
Supra.
Supra.
Thank you.
Supra.
Yes.
Why is that a problem?
Refer back to the 00:48:30 point in the above video.
They're not.
Psalm 136:6 "raqa" (verb root of the noun "raqia") is done to "earth" not "the heavens," and the "earth" is above the waters.
Supra.
Again, if the fountains of the great deep originated from below the crust of the earth, then "heaven" (not "the heavens") being above doesn't make sense.
And additionally, if Psalm 136:6 is referring to Genesis 1, then again no.
"The heavens" is the "above-heaven." The firmament of the heavens.
But "Heaven" in verse 8, is the "below-heaven" (to use your terminology).
No.
Up from below, then down from above, in that order.
What matters is if the reading is consistent with the rest of scripture. If it's not, then you can safely discard that reading.
The HPT reading is far more consistent with scripture and with itself than what you've tried to explain so far.
Why would Heaven" refer to a place on earth after the fall?
Supra.
Ok.
