Derf
Well-known member
Check the Hebrew words and the other translations.
-
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.
The biggest evidence of the Flood? The world ocean.
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
Nah.
We have metaphors and types and imagery throughout scripture that represent Christ.
I don't demand it has to be.
I don't need for it to have the exact word of "chaos".
I get the notion from the earth being without form and void.
Physical death was available as soon as plants and animals were created.
Unless you think no small plant or animal or insect could be stepped on and squished to death by a large critter.
And the fact that Adam & Eve were told to multiply.
Reproduction was necessary because animals, plants, and mankind were not immortal as the angels were.
OK by me if you see it that way.
I see other possibilities.
Right Divider
Body part
Would you care to provide some Biblical support for that?
The Bible says that there was no death before sin. At least for man:
Rom 5:12 (AKJV/PCE)
(5:12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
That is speculation based on the post-sin world.
Last edited:
Both are plural. In that, I acknowledge that there's at least a discrepancy between the Hebrew and the English translation, i.e., the Hebrew is plural, but the English is singular, but it's a distinction without a difference, because the meaning doesn't change whichever is used.
One firmament is called "Heaven/heavens."
The other firmament is "of the heavens."
That's where the difference lies, and is the difference that you have yet to address, at least as of me writing this.
If you're going to insist on going to the Hebrew, then there's not much point to go to other English translations.
I'm still waiting for you (or anyone) to address this link, which brings up key Hebrew words that are used that limit how the text can be interpreted.
Hopefully, you address it in your next post.
Right Divider
Body part
That was a very valuable post... NOT
Last edited:
It is grammatically plural but does not always denote a plurality.
The same with the word elohim. While it is grammatically plural it can be singular or plural.
English equivalent would be words like sheep, deer. They can be singular or plural.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Agreed. If you look at a globe, directly at, say, the Line Islands, from that vantage point, the world looks like it's still completely flooded.
nono. The biggest evidence for hell is the Resurrection of Christ, as it is the biggest evidence for God, and for the Gospel.
Very tangential evidence at best. And extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Half the world is still flooded
Half your brain is clouded.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
We could post dueling links and different meanings of Hebrew words till the cows come home.
Here's an example...
file:///C:/Users/16607/Downloads/CRSQ%202020%20(Winter)%20FA%20McGuire.pdf
"In modern translations, rāqî‘ is most often translated “expanse” which has the meaning of that which was spread out or stretched. It comes from the Hebrew word rq‘, which means to hammer out (HALOT) and by analogy to spread out like thin plate metal that is hammered. In this passage, God calls the expanse “Heaven,” i.e., He equates heaven with the expanse so that they can be considered interchangeable. Brown’s (2001) Hydroplate model (HPT) is not considered in this analysis, because he interpreted the “expanse” as a layer of the Earth’s crust; the “waters above” being the oceans and those below a subterranean reservoir. But the word firmament (rāqî‘) is used 17 times in the Bible. In all other cases outside of Genesis it refers to a heavenly expanse either connected with the heavens and the sun (Psalm 19), stars (Daniel 12:3), or the glory of God (Ezekiel 1:22–26, 10:1), but never with the crust. Brown argued that Psalm 24:2, 33:7, 104:3, 136:5–9, and II Peter 3:5 supported his theory, but these passages better fit the third day when God separated the oceans and dry land"
The theories in your link as well as the ones that are discussed in the link I provided are all based on a belief in the Copernican model having outer space.
This from your link I agree with...
"II Peter 3:5–6 also implies that this is liquid water. Peter used the same Greek word ( u#dwr) to describe both the liquid water that flooded the Earth and the water out of which the Earth formed, an obvious reference to Genesis 1: 6-7. Liquid water was both above and below the expanse, which contradicts the vapor or ice canopy ideas but is consistent with the “expanse = crust” interpretation.
Separate (badal). This word implies a sharp division. Furthermore, the generally untranslated preposition “ben,” associated with “badal,” means “between.” It suggests an ordering (water, expanse, water) with no overlapping or gaps. Interfaces are also implied on each side of the expanse.16 These meanings oppose a vapor, liquid, or ice particle canopy lying above the atmosphere, because atmospheric gases would mix with the canopy."
Like I asked earlier, since the Copernican model no longer has gravity as a force, what's keeping the gases here for us to breathe?
I'm still waiting...
Last edited:
Only one of us would be correct, though. And it wouldn't be you.
You realize that sharing links to files on your computer doesn't work, right?
Yes, that's what Dr. Brown agrees with.
And having the crust of the earth spread out as if pounded or hammered out, makes far more sense than having the sky pounded out, don't you think?
Do you think that's a problem?
That's not a good enough reason to not consider it. In fact, it's a valid position that SHOULD be considered.
There's more than just "raqia" in the Bible.
Your article mentions (in passing) Psalm 136:6.
However, the author seems to have missed what it says, or wasn't paying attention when he read it. Here's the verse in English:
To Him who laid out the earth above the waters, For His mercy endures forever; - Psalm 136:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm136:6&version=NKJV
What waters are David speaking of there?
And here's the Hebrew:
"raqa erets"
God "raqa"ed "the earth." What else could he have meant, other than what described, quite literally, as "raqia," something pounded out.
You need to get over your obsession with the flat earth nonsense.
That's nice.
No idea what you're talking about.
Gravity exists as a weak force.
Gravity, wouldn't you know it...
For?
LOL, I remember when I made that mistake one time, 24 years ago.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
You used the difference in your argument. We can presume that part of your argument is retracted, right?
I did address the difference, in saying that once it was named, the references to the firmament could now be further described with both words. Remember that God was creating things and establishing them where they belonged. The sun and moon and stars were established in the firmament of the heavens because they needed to be integrated into the structure--not just appear there for awhile-- and not like the birds that only fly on the surface ("face") of the heavens.
Except to show the variations in translation.
Can you tell me what of that you think applies to what I've posted? I read a few pages on from your link, and it mainly seems to be opposed to the canopy models, which aren't my focus. If outer space is the firmament, then the canopy model doesn't work.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
According to the theory of relativity gravity has zero force.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Showing me how you can have gas pressure without a container might gitter done.
Sho nuff.
But it leaves Brown and his hydro plate theory without a container.
Gravity.
I don't have any particular attachment to the theory of relativity. So what's your point?
Well, since you've outright rejected what would cause pressure, you probably wouldn't be able to comprehend the "why."
No, that's just your straw man.
Derf
Well-known member
Maybe the rest of us don't have as much problem with gasses as you do...just saying.
Last edited:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Due to experiments that show Newtons 3rd law of motion that relies on gravity is false, you have no other choice than to believe Einstein or come up with your own solution, which by default cannot be gravity.
Newtonian gravity was debunked over 100 years ago.
Last edited: