So if I drop an apple, it will not fall?
-
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
I conceded your point about the word used being singular or plural. Then I pointed out that it is a distinction without a difference, and pointed out that it doesn't change the fact that regardless of number, one firmament is called "heavens," the other firmament is "of the heavens."
Except that it's not "further described with both words."
The first five are simply "firmament."
The second four are "firmament of the heavens." There are no more uses of just "firmament" after the fifth use.
Moses was making a clear distinction between the two.
Correct.
And from the beginning of Day 2, to partway through Day 3, God was creating the firmament and establishing where it belonged. Then He called it good, and started working on something else, grasses, herbs, and fruit trees. Moses didn't even mention a firmament again until Day 4, when God started working on the sun, moon, and stars, and placed them in "the firmament of the heavens."
In other words, there's not just a usage distinction between "firmament" and "firmament of the heavens," but the grammatical presentation of what happened during the creation week clearly delineates between what God created and worked on, and when He finished working on it.
Day 1, God creates the heavens and the earth, and light, and hovers over the face of the waters, with darkness over the face of the deep, both of which are on the earth. And God saw that it was good.
Day 2, God creates a firmament to divide the waters above from the waters below, and calls the firmament heaven.
Day 3, God causes the waters above the firmament to form "Seas, and calls the dry firmament "Earth. And God saw that it was good. He then creates grasses, herbs, and fruit trees. And God saw that it was good.
Day 4, God creates stars, sets them for signs (Consider watching this: ) and for seasons, and days and years, then He created the Sun and the Moon, and set the Sun for day and the Moon for night. And God saw that it was good.
Day 5, God creates aquatic creatures and birds that fly. And God saw that it was good.
Day 6, God created the creatures that dwell on land. And God saw that it was good. And finally, He created man and gave him dominion over the creatures of the earth. And God saw that it was very good.
Day 7, God rested (ceased from making).
The phrase, "And God saw it was good" (and even the phrase "And God saw that it was very good") tells us that God finished what he was making, and that He moved onto something else.
This CRUCIAL detail, which you can only get by getting the big picture of the creation week, is the key in determining what the firmament of Day 2 is.
Again, I point out, that God did not finish what He had started on day 2, until partway through day 3. And then, as indicated by Moses' writing of "And God saw that it was good," He was finished with what he started on day three, and began on working on something else, and it wasn't until day 4 when He started working on what Moses called "the firmament of the heavens."
So if God started working on the firmament on day 2 and finished working on it on day 3, and then called it good, the question you and anyone else who says that the firmament of day 2 and day 4 are the same thing have to answer is this:
Why did God start working on something He already saw was good?
What structure? You and I both know (and correct me if I'm wrong) that stars do move and are, like the earth, "hung on nothing" far from the earth and from each other.
Which brings me to my second point, that the first "firmament" is literal, while the second "firmament of the heavens" is a figurative usage of "firmament" describing, as you call it, "the surface of the heavens," and cannot therefore be the same thing due to that.
It's called the "firmament of the heavens" because, from our perspective here on earth, it's as if the stars are set firmly like jewels into an inky black surface. And certainly, they don't appear to move much to the casual observer, which adds to that illusion of lack of movement, that "firmness." (And no, 1M1S, I'm not calling the sky an illusion.)
However, what is described on day 2, while certainly a "firm" object, is not what is described on day 4, but rather the firm ground beneath our feet, that "firmness" being used figuratively to describe the "setting" (like something is set in stone) of the stars in the sky.
Again, it raises the question, if it's the same firmament, "why did God start working on something He already saw was good?"
Grammatically, they're different, one is called Heaven, the other is "of the heavens."
Literal-ly, they're different, as in, the story places them in different sections of the creation week. God finished the first one (called Heaven) at least a few hours more than an evening and morning before He started working on the second.
Which is mostly irrelevant to this discussion, as far as I can tell.
Did you read the stuff on the page I linked to?
Yes, some of it is made as an argument against the vapor and ice canopy theories. But it's also FOR the HPT:
| Waters (mayim). This word means a liquid water, not a vapor or solid.15 Had the water in Genesis 1: 6-8 been a vapor, cloud, mist, or ice, other Hebrew words would have been more appropriate. For example, ancient Hebrew had six words for “cloud.” 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. In the Midst of (tavek). This word means between, within, among, inside, etc. Sometimes it means “to bisect” or “in the center of.” The respected Jewish scholar, Cassuto, in commenting on Genesis 1: 6–7, stated, “It is true that in the Pentateuch, too, reference is made to the division of the primeval world-ocean into two halves, situated one above the other, ...” 17 [See also Genesis 15:10.] Rabbi Solomon Yitzchaki, in his famous eleventh century Rashi Commentary, stated that the expanse was “in the exact center of the waters.”18 As we have seen, canopy theories place less than one-half of 1% of the Earth’s water above the expanse and the rest below. (This is necessary to reduce the problems associated with heat, light, and pressure mentioned earlier.) Would it not seem strange to say that your scalp is “in the midst of” your body? According to the hydroplate theory, the crust of the preflood Earth approximately bisects Earth’s liquid waters. Heaven (shamayim). “Heaven” had a variety of meanings in ancient Hebrew, as it does in modern languages. Moses used shamayim to describe outer space (Genesis 26:4), the atmosphere (Genesis 27:28), where God dwells (Deuteronomy 26:15), where angels dwell (Genesis 28:12), and the source of blessings (Genesis 49:25). The context in which shamayim is used is important to understanding its specific meaning. Expanse or Firmament (raqia). The key Hebrew word in Genesis 1: 6–8a is raqia ((ayqirf). It is translated “firmament” in the King James Version and “expanse” in most Hebrew dictionaries and modern translations. While its original meaning is uncertain, its root, raqa ((qarf), means to spread out, beat out, or hammer as one would a malleable metal. It can also mean “plate.” This may explain why the Greek Septuagint translated raqia 16 out of 17 times with the Greek word stereoma (stere&wma), which means “a firm or solid structure.” The Latin Vulgate (A.D. 382) used the Latin term “firmamentum,” which also denotes solidness and firmness. So, the King James translators in A.D. 1611 coined the word “firmament.” Today, “firmament” is usually used poetically to mean sky, atmosphere, or heavens. In modern Hebrew, raqia means sky or heavens. However, originally it probably meant something solid or firm that was spread out. Indeed, Isaiah 42:5 says the earth was “spread out.” |
The above highlighted sections are directly relevant to this conversation.
First you need to show that I am.
What experiments?
The earth is in motion, relative to the sun.
Last I checked, Newton's theory hasn't been killed, nor does it require gravity to make things move. It simply says that gravity is what causes certain things to move in certain ways.
I'm with you.
Einstein had to get things moving again. (protect the heliocentric model)
He did it by saying objects at rest are accelerating as well as warping space and time.
Purdy stupid right?
You keep ragging on Einstein (one of the most brilliant men to ever live who ultimately rejected his Creator) and his theory of relativity as if it should convince me that my entire worldview is wrong, yet twice now (this being the third) I have stated that I have no particular attachment to the ToR.
Your arguments are against straw men that have little to nothing to do with my position. I ask that you try to actually make an argument relative (pun not intended) to my position.
So what?
Except that he didn't say that, which does indeed make you a dimwit.
Saying it doesn't make it so, and Scripture says otherwise:
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.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.And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. - Genesis 1:6-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:6-10&version=NKJV
The same firmament He called Heaven, the dry portion of which He called Earth, and the waters above it He gathered together He called Seas.
If you're having a hard time visualizing this, watch from this point (linked below), up until 23:41 in the following video:
And more importantly, "will it not fall in a predictable and easily repeatable, consistent manner?"
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Non sequitur.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Non sequitur.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Since certain things don't move, gravity is debunked.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Your position is a spinning flying ball in the heliocentric model.
Problem is that you don't know it as well as I do.
Hence you call it a strawman.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Earth.
What part of the earth doesn't move makes you think you can still have attraction?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Yep.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
So to try to understand you, you're saying before continents or at least if we just imagined the earth without the continents, that there was a single basically uniformly dense crust. Then, the order is important here, then parts of the uniformly dense crust changed to become less dense. Then, the crust began to 'bunch up' where it had become less dense, and that's why there are continents now.
How far off am I?
And I know that the Flood happened in all of this somewhere. I don't know yet how the continents, the different crust densities, the 'fountains of the deep' and the world ocean all go together yet, but I'm working as hard as I can on it.
Appreciate your help.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
You do it every time you make a statement about gravity that's been proven defunct.
Says the one calling it a "spinning flying ball in the heliocentric model."
Except that it does move, relative to the Sun, even in your position.
Attraction isn't based on motion or lack thereof. Motion is just a result of attraction (for example, magnets will move because of their attraction to each other).
You don't agree with me. I can tell because you cut out the rest of what I said, which showed clearly that God did indeed call Heaven "Earth."
Hypocrite.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I couldn't have said it better myself. And I mean for me.
Well that's what I was trying to find out.
Yeah, I think so. Different rocks are different in part because of their mineral content, like % this or that atom or metal or whatever. If two rocks are different densities then that has to do with atomic content and maybe how those atoms form crystal lattices with other atoms, and how dense the whole conglomerate rock is different when the 'mix' of atoms is different, because of 'packing density' in the crystal structures that all rocks and minerals and metals form naturally when they solidify.
I have no idea.
Could be.
lol you're right. Peace to you.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
No, it doesn't.
King James Bible
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
King James Bible
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Last edited:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Yep, lack of motion shows there is no attraction.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
You really have no clue about my position.
Ignoring what I said won't make it go away.
Words have a sphere of meanings, and some meanings only apply to certain time periods.
When you force a meaning of a word from one context into another instance where it doesn't fit, it will only result in confusion. You are a prime example of this.
Your premise that there is no motion is wrong, therefore your conclusion is invalid.
The earth moves relative to the sun, even in your position.
False.