Where does the Bible teach that the earth is billions of years old?

[Right Divider]

I have read all that many times. No need to post it all.

So you've read it many time and still do not understand it or believe it.... bad job.

It was never meant to be read literally.

So says you. I'll believe the Bible over you any day.

I am not going to argue with you. You get frustrated and then take it out on people using your mod tools. I am done here.

Good... you should have stayed out to begin with.

 

[Right Divider]

Nah, I had to point out your mistakes first.

Well... you failed and only pointed out your wrong opinion.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I have read all that many times.

But you don't believe it.

You have "... exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." - Romans 1:25 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans1:25&version=NKJV

The lie being "billions of years" and "Genesis isn't literal."

No need to post it all.

It is never NOT necessary to post scripture.

Are you embarrassed by Genesis 1 or something?

It was never meant to be read literally.

So are you asserting that God did not, literally, in Genesis 1:1, create the Heavens and the Earth?

I am not going to argue with you.

Because you're a coward.

You run and hide from what the Bible says because it disagrees with your beliefs.

You get frustrated

I get frustrated when people reject the plain reading of scripture in favor of their own beliefs.

Wouldn't you?

If you wrote a history book that was meant to be taken as it was written, using figurative and literal language, and then someone came along and said, "I was never meant to be read literally," even though the book was about actual events in history, do you think that person should be regarded as an authority? or can they be dismissed as a fool?

and then take it out on people using your mod tools.

Well, no, I don't.

I am done here.

:wave2:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Whatever. Lot's of people adhere to the dopey literal interpretation.

In Genesis 1:1, did God literally create the heavens and the earth?

I can't fix all the illiterates.

When everyone else besides you is illiterate, maybe you're the one reading the book wrong?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Actually, sky and land are more literal translations of you are looking for literal interpretations.

Because you say so?

To be sure, yes, the word shamayim can and does in certain places refer to the sky or the air, but is most often used when referring to the heavens, and yes, erets can also be used to mean land.

The problem is that, based on the context, we can know that Moses wasn't just referring to the sky or a small portion of land, but the expanse of the heavens, and the entirety of the earth. For in the very next verse, he writes that God hovered over the waters, the Deep. Question for you (I expect an answer to this one): where else in the Bible does it refer to the Deep?

Strong's h8064 - Lexical: שָׁמַיִם - Transliteration: shamayim - Part of Speech: Noun Masculine - Phonetic Spelling: shaw-mah'-yim - Definition: heaven, sky. - Origin: Dual of an unused singular shameh {shaw-meh'}; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve). - Usage: air, X astrologer, heaven(-s). - Translated as (count): the heavens (82), heaven (73), of heaven (65), in heaven (29), of the air (23), of the heavens (23), from heaven (20), of the heaven (16), to heaven (11), in the heavens (10), the heaven (10), heavens (6), into heaven (6), toward heaven (6), of heavens (5), to the heavens (4), your heavens (4), and the heaven (3), and the heavens (3), and heaven (2), in the air (2), in the sky (2), sky (2), you heavens (2), against the heavens (1), and heavens (1), His heavens (1), in the very heavens (1), of the sky (1), on the heavens (1), than heaven (1), that the sky (1), the astrologers (1), the highest (1), the toward heavens (1), up to heaven (1).

Strong's h776 - Lexical: אֶרֶץ - Transliteration: erets - Part of Speech: Noun Feminine - Phonetic Spelling: eh'-rets - Definition: earth, land. - Origin: From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land). - Usage: X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X natins, way, + wilderness, world. - Translated as (count): the land (482), the earth (301), in the land (275), of the land (202), of the earth (184), land (60), out of the land (57), to the ground (57), a land (56), from the land (52), Earth (36), on the earth (34), in the earth (33), the ground (24), to the land (24), the country (22), and the land (21), in land (20), to the earth (20), on the ground (19), their land (17), your land (17), his land (16), And the earth (15), in your land (15), of the country (12), and earth (11), countries (11), from a country (11), into the land (11), lands (11), through the land (11), of land (10), the countries (10), in a land (9), my land (9), of your land (9), in their land (8), of the lands (8), for the land (7), throughout the countries (7), and from the land (5), country (5), from the earth (5), her land (5), in the country (5), of lands (5), of the countries (5), of their land (5), on earth (5), on the land (5), out of his land (5), throughout the earth (5), to land (5), and in the land (4), and land (4), from the country (4), of his land (4), their lands (4), Through a land (4), through your land (4), to his own land (4), a country (3), an land (3), and your land (3), his own land (3), its land (3), of the world (3), the lands (3), throughout the land (3), whose land (3), and in earth (2), and in the earth (2), and the ground (2), but the earth (2), Ever since the land (2), for His land (2), for your land (2), from a land (2), from the ground (2), in (2), in his own land (2), in my land (2), in my own land (2), in our land (2), in the lands (2), in their lands (2), into our land (2), into the ground (2), like a land (2), like the land (2), like your own land (2), of earth (2), or on earth (2), out of the earth (2), out of the ground (2), over the earth (2), than the earth (2), the countryside (2), then the land (2), to her own country (2), to his land (2), to your land (2), toward the ground (2), Your country (2), a land as (1), a land for (1), a short distance (1), against land (1), against the countries (1), Against the land (1), among the countries (1), an earth (1), and a earth (1), and a land (1), and as well as from the land (1), and in the country (1), And in your land (1), and of the land (1), and our land (1), and out of His land (1), and out of the lands (1), and right to the earth (1), and the from ground (1), and their land (1), and to my country (1), as the earth (1), at the country (1), but the land (1), but the the land (1), by the land (1), common (1), distance (1), escaped (1), for the earth (1), from (1), from off the earth (1), From the floor (1), from the ground up (1), from your land (1), his own country (1), His world (1), in his land (1), in lands (1), in the countries (1), in the ground (1), in the land of (1), in whose land (1), Into a land (1), into their lands (1), is in their land (1), Like the earth (1), like the ground (1), my country (1), my own country (1), No shall have (1), of a land (1), of countries (1), of his own land (1), of our country (1), of our land (1), of the field (1), of the ground (1), of the nations (1), of those countries (1), of those lands (1), of your country (1), on (1), on the floor (1), Or in land (1), out of a land (1), out of ground (1), out of lands (1), out of the country (1), over the land (1), that land (1), the about land (1), the common (1), the distance (1), the land for (1), the nations (1), the shore (1), the territories (1), the world (1), their countries (1), through the countries (1), through the country (1), through the earth (1), through your country (1), thus the land (1), to (1), to a land (1), to his own country (1), to their own land (1), to your country (1), toward the earth (1), under the earth (1), upon earth (1), upon the earth (1), you lands (1), your earth (1), your own country (1).

Well, you've solved the riddle . . .

If you're just here to troll the thread, please leave now.

Open theism is not right because it isn't the majority.
Mid-Acts is wrong because it isn't the majority.
People were are not Papists are wrong because they are aren't the majority.

Using logical fallacies to not only go off topic from the thread, but to try to win an argument isn't going to bode well for you, Hill.

The fallacies you used:
Argumentum ad populum (in the same way that being in the majority doesn't make something right, so too being in the minority doesn't make something wrong)
Red Herring (this thread is about what the Bible says about origins, not open theism nor Mid-Acts Dispensationalism)
Poisoning the Well (in your attempt to discredit me because I hold to OT and MAD)
Appeal to ridicule

Hill, can you promise not to use logical fallacies anymore?

By the way, did you have a seizure or something when typing out the highlighted portion?

So, are you on your way to beg forgiveness from your nearest Papist priest?

No?!

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...

Maybe it is because your statement is beyond silly.

Another appeal to ridicule, or at the very least, an appeal to the stone.

Hill, you need to stop using logical fallacies to defend your beliefs. It might help you see clearer.

 

[Hilltrot]

Because you say so?

To be sure, yes, the word shamayim can and does in certain places refer to the sky or the air, but is most often used when referring to the heavens, and yes, erets can also be used to mean land.

The problem is that, based on the context, we can know that Moses wasn't just referring to the sky or a small portion of land, but the expanse of the heavens, and the entirety of the earth. For in the very next verse, he writes that God hovered over the waters, the Deep. Question for you (I expect an answer to this one): where else in the Bible does it refer to the Deep?

If you're just here to troll the thread, please leave now.

Using logical fallacies to not only go off topic from the thread, but to try to win an argument isn't going to bode well for you, Hill.

The fallacies you used:
Argumentum ad populum (in the same way that being in the majority doesn't make something right, so too being in the minority doesn't make something wrong)
Red Herring (this thread is about what the Bible says about origins, not open theism nor Mid-Acts Dispensationalism)
Poisoning the Well (in your attempt to discredit me because I hold to OT and MAD)
Appeal to ridicule

Hill, can you promise not to use logical fallacies anymore?

By the way, did you have a seizure or something when typing out the highlighted portion?



I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about...



Another appeal to ridicule, or at the very least, an appeal to the stone.

Hill, you need to stop using logical fallacies to defend your beliefs. It might help you see clearer.

And this is why I deleted my post. . . I felt that it would be taken the wrong way and reacted to emotionally.

You were the one using "Argumentum ad populum" when you stated that

When everyone else besides you is illiterate, maybe you're the one reading the book wrong?

I was simply pointing out that this was a logical fallacy.

(in your attempt to discredit me because I hold to OT and MAD)

You took it personally. I myself am open theist so why would I ridicule you over that? Once again I was trying to point out the same logical fallacy you accuse me of.

Just because TG felt that everyone around her was "illiterate" does not make her wrong simply because she was the minority on this forum. In fact, in California, she is likely the majority opinion. I was at the First Baptist Church in Auburn, Alabama in 1997 and the pastor there declared in a sermon that anyone who believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis is a moron - and that's a pretty big congregation. So, I thought it was mighty ballsy of you to present the argument that the majority must be right.

I think, in the end, TG had resorted to name-calling and so I really shouldn't have come to her defense.

Some of your questions are simply insults so I won't answer them. I realize I hurt your feelings and I apologize.

But you really wanted me to answer the question about where else the deep is located in the Bible. And so, lets look at the very next place - the flood. Once again, the deep is the expanse of endless water. I think you want the answer to be Hell. It's not Hell and the entire Genesis narrative makes no sense with that interpretation.

Sky and land are the best translations because that is what fits best in the passage and creates the best consistency.

After creating day and night, God creates the sky by separating the waters. From a 2000 AD perspective, this may make no sense, but from a 2000 BC perspective, this makes perfect sense. The sky is blue like water is during the day and black like water is at night. Water commonly falls from the sky. So the idea of the sky being water would make perfect sense from the 2000 BC perspective. Separating the waters created an endless ocean below and the sky above. So, sky makes more sense than heaven, especially capital Heaven.

Land makes more sense than the earth. On the next day, God told the water's beneath the sky - not the waters of the sky - to flow to one place so that dry land would appear. God does not create the Earth or earth in that passage, it was already there. God was creating land. Land makes the best sense and creates the best consistency within the passage, so land is the best translation.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You were the one using "Argumentum ad populum" when you stated that

I was simply pointing out that this was a logical fallacy.

Except I wasn't using the argumentum ad populum.

Read what I said again.

"If everyone around you is illiterate, maybe you're the one reading the book wrong."

Had I said "If everyone around you is illiterate, then you're the one reading the book wrong" it would be a logical fallacy, and you would be right to call me out on it.

However, the point I was trying to make is to point out the possibility that TG might be wrong in her theology, and I was trying to point that out to her.

You took it personally. I myself am open theist so why would I ridicule you over that? Once again I was trying to point out the same logical fallacy you accuse me of.

Just because TG felt that everyone around her was "illiterate" does not make her wrong simply because she was the minority on this forum.

I completely agree!

I was simply pointing out that just because she thinks everyone else here is illiterate (when she even claims that posting scripture (on a Biblical theology board, no less) isn't needed, yet won't refer to scriptures when discussing the scriptures) doesn't make her correct.

In fact, in California, she is likely the majority opinion. I was at the First Baptist Church in Auburn, Alabama in 1997 and the pastor there declared in a sermon that anyone who believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis is a moron - and that's a pretty big congregation.

Because he said so? (Not saying you believe him.) I understand the point your making, but my point is:

Saying it doesn't make it so.

If you (TG in particular) cannot back up your beliefs with evidence (including scripture) then don't make such bald assertions.

So, I thought it was mighty ballsy of you to present the argument that the majority must be right.

Good thing I didn't then.

I think, in the end, TG had resorted to name-calling and so I really shouldn't have come to her defense.

Some of your questions are simply insults so I won't answer them. I realize I hurt your feelings and I apologize.

Ok.

I will address the rest of your post in another post. It seems I hit the character limit in my response...

 

[JudgeRightly]

But you really wanted me to answer the question about where else the deep is located in the Bible. And so, lets look at the very next place - the flood.

Correct. This is but one of the many places in scripture it is referred to.

Once again, the deep is the expanse of endless water.

DING DING DING!

We have a winner!

Yes, the Deep refers to WATER, particularly the deepest parts of it.

I think you want the answer to be Hell. It's not Hell and the entire Genesis narrative makes no sense with that interpretation.

How in the world did you get THAT from my post?

Nowhere have I ever thought that the Deep means or refers to Hell.

The deep refers to water.

Sky and land are the best translations because that is what fits best in the passage and creates the best consistency.

Again, Because you say so?

Remember, we're still (sort of) talking about Genesis 1:1.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

After creating day and night, God creates the sky by separating the waters.

Here's the problem. You're begging the question that "firmament" ONLY means "sky."

However, the latin word "firmamentum" in the passage is where we get the word "terra firma," which refers to the very ground beneath our feet, and not the sky.

But that's the latin. More on that in a moment, but first...

Sure, I agree that "firmament of the heavens" is referring to the expanse of the sky.

But of the nine times the word "firmament" is used in Genesis 1, only 4 of them are phrased "firmament of the heavens," whereas the first five times it simply refers to the "firmament."

That's quite a distinction to be made by Moses.

Why would he use "firmament five times, and then distinguish it another four times by using the phrase "of the heavens" if "firmament" means the sky anyways?

The answer is that no one would, in the same way that someone talking about an elephant's trunk, and then switching to talking about the "trunk of the car,"

Two different "trunks", distinguished by the phrase "of the car." They are qualifying phrases to make it clear which "trunk" one is referring to, so that the other person does not get confused.

So, getting back to what I was saying above, firmamentum is latin.

What's the Hebrew word used?

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).

I hate using Wikipedia for this topic, but I think it accurately describes the meaning of the word raqia:

Rāqîa derives from the root raqqəʿ (רָקַע), meaning "to beat or spread out thinly", e.g., the process of making a dish by hammering thin a lump of metal.

Firmament - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Sure, you could (figuratively only) describe the sky as being spread out thinly, and could certainly use it to argue that the ancients believed in a solid dome over the earth.

But that's jumping to conclusions without considering other possibilities.

You see, God is also described three times in the Bible as having "'raqa' (pounded out, spread thinly) the earth."

To Him who laid out (raqa) the earth above the waters, For His mercy endures forever; - Psalm 136:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm136:6&version=NKJV

Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth (raqa) the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it: - Isaiah 42:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah42:5&version=NKJV

Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: “I am the Lord , who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad (raqa) the earth by Myself; - Isaiah 44:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah44:24&version=NKJV

Hill, how do you explain the fact that God raqa the earth, if raqia (latin firmamentum, english firmament) ONLY means/refers to the sky?

From a 2000 AD perspective, this may make no sense, but from a 2000 BC perspective, this makes perfect sense. The sky is blue like water is during the day and black like water is at night. Water commonly falls from the sky. So the idea of the sky being water would make perfect sense from the 2000 BC perspective.

Allow me to be blunt:

That is an absolutely terrible line of reasoning, and the ancients were much smarter than that, because it COMPLETELY ignores the meanings of the words used, as I explained above.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Separating the waters created an endless ocean below and the sky above. So, sky makes more sense than heaven, especially capital Heaven.

This is what happens when you beg the question.

Again, the fact that God raqa the earth along with the fact that Moses used "firmament" five times before using the qualifying phrase "of the heavens" is very strong evidence that "firmament" and "firmament of the heavens" (which clearly refers to the sky) in Genesis 1 are two separate things.

Consider:
1. God is not the author of confusion.
2. Descriptions of things in the Bible are generally accurate, even by today's standards of scientific descriptions. (For example, "God hung the earth on nothing" is a good description of how the earth is sitting in the vacuum of space, even though it was not as clearly understood back then as it was today.) In other words, just because the way we understand things today probably wasn't understood clearly and in the same way as back then DOES NOT MEAN that the descriptions are in any way inaccurate or that they do not convey the same meaning as we understand them today.
3. Words mean things. You can't just exclude a meaning of a word simply because you assert that it wouldn't fit, or because, according to you, it wouldn't make sense (which is an appeal to incredulity).

Because God is not the author of confusion, and because God gives accurate descriptions of reality using normal human language, and because words mean certain things depending on the context they are used, all one has to do is simply read a passage to understand it, no special interpretation needed, no need to force certain words to mean things because the other meaning is confusing.

So let's look at how Genesis 1 describes days 1-3:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.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.Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.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.Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.So the evening and the morning were the third day. - Genesis 1:1-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:1-13&version=NKJV

Simple right? So why is it so hard for people to understand what is being said when they get to verse 8?

It's because they are coming to the text with the a priori belief that "firmament" only refers to the sky.

However, when you recognize that it can also mean the earth (based on the three verses I quoted above), then things do indeed become more clear, and you aren't left with something that contradicts reality.

But lets read it the way most people read it first, to see what that leads to:

In the beginning God created the [sky] and the [land].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.Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness.God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.Then God said, “Let there be a [sky] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”Thus God made the [sky], and divided the waters which were under the [sky] from the waters which were above the [sky]; and it was so.And God called the [sky] Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.Then God said, “Let the waters under the [sky] 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.Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so.And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.So the evening and the morning were the third day. - Genesis 1:1-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:1-13&version=NKJV

Immediately in verse 1 we have a problem. When we translate heaven and firmament as sky, we get two instances of God creating the sky, the first being in verse 1, and the second being in verse 8.

In addition, it completely ignores the fact that reality follows the laws of physics, and the Bible, aside from describing miracles, never describes the universe as being above the laws of physics. Which means that while God could have put an atmosphere between the waters below and the waters above, keeping the waters above "above" would not be easily maintained. This is where we get the vapor canopy theory, which has largely been shown to be not feasible for one, and unless you want to incorporate a rescue device (which only takes away the credibility of your position) where the water was put in the heaven we consider to be where God resides, you still have to deal with the fact that it doesn't fit the rest of the narrative a few chapters later, where it describes "fountains of the deep." Considering that God is above the deep AND the waters in verse 2, that deep is generally considered "down" from the surface waters, and not up towards "heaven," it introduces a contradiction there as well, unless you want to define "the deep" as something other than deep water, which ignores the meaning of the word used, particularly this:

Strong's h8415 - Lexical: תְּהוֹם - Transliteration: tehom - Part of Speech: Noun - Phonetic Spelling: teh-home' - Definition: deep, sea, abyss. - Origin: Or thom {teh-home'}; (usually feminine) from huwm; an abyss (as a surging mass of water), especially the deep (the main sea or the subterranean water-supply). - Usage: deep (place), depth. - Translated as (count): of the deep (8), The deep (7), The depths (5), Deep (2), a deep (1), and from the depths (1), and springs (1), and the deep (1), depths (1), in deep places (1), like the depths (1), of the depths (1), the deep had (1), through the deep (1), through the depths (1), to the depths (1), Underground waters (1), With the deep (1). (continued in the next post)

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes, that's right, the Hebrew word thom can also refer to a subterranean water supply. But more on that later.

So if we ignore, for a moment, the physical impossibility of large amounts of water above the sky, and we avoid using rescue devices such as the water being stored in heaven to get around that physical impossibility, that leaves us with a significant amount of water above the sky... and EVEN IF the amount of water in this globe encircling shell was only 4 inches deep, it would literally boil alive everything on earth, due the the heat and pressure generated by the sun. That's not very good, and it's for that very reason the vct doesn't work.

The option that we are left with is the one you are rejecting out of hand, that perhaps "firmament" (and "Heaven" for that matter) doesn't necessarily mean "sky."

In fact, using the definitions I've shown above, we could easily show that when God made a firmament in the midst of the waters, dividing the waters above from the waters below, it could have looked a little something like this:

View attachment 18

That's day 2, and then by the end of day 3, where God told the dry land to appear and the seas to form, it would have looked something like this:

View attachment 19
View attachment 20

One more important thing to note:

There are only five times where God says "it was good/very good" in Genesis 1.

First, on which day did God NOT say it, and second, why?

Land makes more sense than the earth.

For Genesis 1:1?

Because that's the verse I was talking about when I asked TG if God literally created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1. Unless I missed something, I think you responded to the wrong portion of that post.

On the next day, God told the water's beneath the sky - not the waters of the sky - to flow to one place so that dry land would appear.

This is where your confusion lies.

What does the text say?

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

Starting on day 2, God made a firmament to dived "the waters above" from "the waters below."

Then, God named the "firmament," whatever it is, "Heaven" (capitalized in English because it's the name of a place).

End of day 2, beginning of day 3.

God then commands "the waters under the heavens" to be gathered to form seas. And this is what I'm referring to (re: your confusion): You're reading "waters under the heavens" as synonymous with "the waters below the firmament," but there is NO SUCH CONNECTION in the passage, and since you assert that "firmament" means sky, a priori, that is why you do so.

Step back for a moment to verse 2. Let me highlight the relevant portion:

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. - Genesis 1:2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:2&version=NKJV

"... and darkness was over the face of the deep . . . the face of the waters"

This defines the deep as the portion of water "below the firmament" (and "thom" can mean subterranean chamber of water). So again, instead of "firmament" meaning "sky," allow me to formally assert that "firmament" in verses 6-8 is referring to the crust of the earth (as shown in the images above).

So when God divides the waters above from the waters below, he's putting the crust of the earth in the midst of the waters, and on day 3, the crust settles, and dry land appears while the waters gather into one place. God then calls the firmament, the crust in the midst of the waters "Heaven," and after the dry land appears, He names the dry land Earth, and the gathered together waters Seas.

Everything in these three verses (where the first 5 uses of the word "firmament" are) is referring to the ground beneath our feet, which was created on days 2 AND 3.

On day 4, the first time we see "firmament of the heavens" is in verse 14 completely separated from verses 6-8 both by the starting of a new day and by the fact that Moses uses the qualifying phrase "of the heavens" to distinguish it from "firmament." This "firmament of the heavens" does in fact refer to the sky, and space in general, as Moses writes that God put the stars in the firmament of the heavens. This "firmament of the heavens" is a figure of speech referring to the fact that the stars in the sky appear motionless to the casual observer, "firmly set" in their positions in the heavens.

Essentially, there are not one, but TWO firmaments described in Genesis 1. In order, the "firmament called Heaven," and the "firmament of the heavens."

You're conflating these two firmaments, and that's what is causing your confusion.

God does not create the Earth or earth in that passage, it was already there.

Correct, God did not create "the earth" (the planet we call Earth) in that verse.

God did not even create the dry land that God called Earth in verse 9/on day 3.

God created the planet we call Earth on day 1. He created the land, which on day 3 He named Earth, on day 2, also named Heaven. In other words, if you arrange the things in hierarchy of Planet Earth, it would look like this:

- sky/space (the heavens)
- dry land (Earth), and waters above the firmament (Seas)
- the crust of the earth (the firmament, Heaven)
- the deep (subterranean chambers of water)
- the mantle (which is typically where the location of Hell is described, probably below the "Crossover Depth" of magma)
- the core

God was creating land.

No, God simply formed the dry land from the crust that He made on day 2 (see above images).

Land makes the best sense and creates the best consistency within the passage, so land is the best translation.

Because you say so? And for which verse? Certainly not 1:1...

Because according to my explanation above, what makes more sense is that God started creating and forming the crust (called Heaven) on day 2, and didn't finish until day 3, which is when He told the dry land to appear which He then called Earth.

The Deep is a subterranean chamber of water (as evidenced by "the fountains of the great deep broke forth"; fountains typically rise out of the ground, not come down out of the sky). The "firmament called Heaven" is the crust of the earth. The waters below the firmament is the deep, the waters above the firmament is the Seas, and the firmament of the heavens is the sky/space.

It's as simple as that, and it matches what we see today.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Definitely going to need to see if I can up the character limit for these posts...

 

[JudgeRightly]

Just post a link to the Bible and be done with it.

And how would that address the point of contention, TG?

 

[Caino]

The authors of the scripture didn't know about evolution or the age of the earth. We have since discovered that life evolved over hundreds of millions of years and the earth is over 4 billion years old.

 

[Right Divider]

The authors of the scripture didn't know about evolution or the age of the earth. We have since discovered that life evolved over hundreds of millions of years and the earth is over 4 billion years old.

We have not, but some people have been fooled into believing that.

 

[Caino]

Science has the facts, religion has belief.

 

[Right Divider]

Science has the facts, religion has belief.

You don't know science.

Please show how billions of years is proven SCIENTIFICALLY.

 

[Caino]

You don't know science.

Please show how billions of years is proven SCIENTIFICALLY.

This link will provide a comprehensive explanation from a Christian Physicist. Radiometric dating, a Christian perspective

 

[Right Divider]

This link will provide a comprehensive explanation from a Christian Physicist. Radiometric dating, a Christian perspective

That is a very long article, but even in the 'Overview' there is an unstated ASSUMPTION that assumes knowledge of the starting conditions. THAT is the primary reason that radiometric dating is invalid. The starting conditions are not known and are typically ASSUMED based on the big bang cosmological model (that model is FULL of problems).

The last sentence of the Overview is classic:

Similarly, when all the atoms of the radioactive element are gone, the rock will no longer keep time (unless it receives a new batch of radioactive atoms).

This begs the question... where did the parent elements come from and when?

This is THE fundamental problem with radiometric dating.

 

[Omniskeptical]

@Right Divider Actually radiometric dating is based on thermodynamic models. It has very little to do with atomic bombs, and atomic energy.

 

[Right Divider]

@Right Divider Actually radiometric dating is based on thermodynamic models. It has very little to do with atomic bombs, and atomic energy.

Who said anything about atomic bombs, and atomic energy?

Attempts to use radiometric dating to "prove" that the earth is billions of years old are based on a bogus model of creation; i.e., the big bang.