God is one.

[JudgeRightly]

Oh, I read it. It is clear what it states.

Genesis 1:9-10

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

The waters under the heaven were gathered together into

a. multiple places?

b. one place

Both.

Because "echad" is not a singular "one," but a "one" of unity.

This should give you an idea as to what the earth looked like by the end of the third day of creation:




As you can see, the "one" place was at ALL of the bottoms of the dips made by the pillars of the earth (the parts of the crust that dip down in the second image and rest on the mantle).

One united place.

Echad.

The word echad is one, singular

Wrong.

The NUMBER is singular, but it refers to a UNIFIED "one," not an absolute singularity.

Yes, God calls it "seas" plural here, as I already pointed out, but in other places, God refers to these "seas" as "sea" singular. Why? to distinguish the dry from the wet. Fish live in the sea, not dry land. Thus sea is singular, because only the sea is wet, the dry land is dry.

I addressed this already, but you never answered my question.

Was there one sea, total? or more than one sea, Oatmeal?

Context reveals the proper understanding.

AMEN!

Yes, it was day one. It was the only day one in all eternity in that context. There is no other day one in that context. It is the only day one that had those specific events take place. God spoke and the light appeared and God saw the light, and God considered it good and God divided the light from the darkness and God called the light day and the darkness He called night. That is the only day in scripture that those specific events took place. It is a singular day in God's plan and in history. There is no other day one that is remotely similar.

You still seem to be missing the point I'm making.

Again, echad was used, rather than rishon (the other Hebrew ordinal for "first").

Echad means BOTH "first" (as an ordinal) and "one" (a plural unity).

Thus there is no unity of multiple days in that day one.

I never said there was. You keep making straw man arguments. Focus!

Second is ordinal because it was the second day.

So why not use "rishon" for "first"? It would have fit with "sheni" better...

Dream on.

Throwing a tantrum doesn't make you right, Oatmeal.

Echad means both "first" (as an ordinal) and "one" (a plural unity).

"One rib" ("ahat missalotaw"), as you so succinctly pointed out, is just two "half ribs." A plural unity of one rib, made up of two halves.

When we look at the depth of what is represented by the singular word rib, we can see that is appropriately singular.

Singular, in that there is one rib, but not one of singularity because it's one singular item, rather, a plural unity of one rib, made up of two halves.

God clearly did not literally refer to a rib but the life blood of Adam.

Because you say so?

I may address the rest of your post later.

Please do.

 

[Right Divider]

Because the Lord God is superior and antecedent to His son.

The Father/Son relationship in the Godhead is a METAPHOR.

Firstly, superior does NOT imply a different NATURE.

Second, the Father is NOT "antecedent to His son". You seem to be confusing their relationship with a BIOLOGICAL one.

The son of the Lord God, ie. the Father, is the lord Jesus Christ, the son is derived, inferior and subordinate to the Lord God.

No, the Son is not "derived" from the Father.

Again, Jesus subordinated Himself. That does not mean that He is not God.

 

[Derf]

This should give you an idea as to what the earth looked like by the end of the third day of creation:

How about..."This gives an idea of what earth might have looked like..."

As you can see, the "one" place was at ALL of the bottoms of the dips made by the pillars of the earth (the parts of the crust that dip down in the second image and rest on the mantle).

Another possible view that might align better with the text is that all the continents were together in a single continent and all the oceans ("seas") connected surrounded it.

Genesis 1:9-10 KJV — And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto 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 called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

 

[JudgeRightly]

How about..."This gives an idea of what earth might have looked like..."

Another possible view that might align better with the text is that all the continents were together in a single continent and all the oceans ("seas") connected surrounded it.

Genesis 1:9-10 KJV — And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto 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 called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

The images I posted were done by Bryan Nickel, as an illustration of the Hydroplate Theory's depiction of Earth during the Creation week.

Seas, not oceans.

I don't remember which video it is specifically, but probably the first one of the series (second in this playlist):

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpl6E8stJTiIi8wdLgYj1eXpp-4o1UUkZ&si=zlGniHF4mMisMfUJ

 

[Derf]

The images I posted were done by Bryan Nickel, as an illustration of the Hydroplate Theory's depiction of Earth during the Creation week.

Right, I like the idea, but it's one possible way to explain the scriptures.

Seas, not oceans.

Like "the seven seas", a term that refers to the connected oceans? "Oceans" isn't used in most English translations of the old testament, because it's a Greek word. But it would fit:



Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

o·cean



Origin
Middle English: from Old French occean, via Latin from Greek ōkeanos ‘great stream encircling the earth's disk’. ‘The ocean’ originally denoted the whole body of water regarded as encompassing the earth's single land mass.

I don't remember which video it is specifically, but probably the first one of the series (second in this playlist):

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpl6E8stJTiIi8wdLgYj1eXpp-4o1UUkZ&si=zlGniHF4mMisMfUJ

I think I've watched it. I have some definite reservations, but I like his work. But saying that the water was gathered together separately does not fit well with the text.

 

[JudgeRightly]

But saying that the water was gathered together separately does not fit well with the text.

Sure it does.

As you can see, the "one" place was at ALL of the bottoms of the dips made by the pillars of the earth (the parts of the crust that dip down in the second image and rest on the mantle).

One united place.

Echad.

Because echad means (in addition to "first" as an ordinal) a unified plurality, "one."

 

[Derf]

Sure it does.



Because echad means (in addition to "first" as an ordinal) a unified plurality, "one."

You're using your model to attempt to confirm your definition, but you should be using the definition to support your model, which it doesn't do. Multiple, small, separate seas isn't a unified plurality, unless the water is connected under the land mass, as a sort of water table. Is that what you are proposing? That all the water is connected under ground?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Multiple, small, separate seas isn't a unified plurality,

You don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying.

What does the passage 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. 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.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:6-13 - New King James Version

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...

www.biblegateway.com

The process of gathering the waters together and the land to appear was a process that took two days from start to finish, as evidenced by the fact that at the end of day two, "and God saw that it was good" was never used.

A suspended crust in the midst of the waters above and below would not remain suspended. it would naturally sink in some areas and rise in others, due to physics.

"Let the waters under the heavens" (iow, the waters above the firmament) "be gathered together into one place."

As Oatmeal pointed out, there are only two places the water could be, "Dry land," or "Not dry land"

It doesn't mean that it was all together. It means that it was separated from the "Dry land" place, and moved to the "Not dry land" place. Multiple Seas, in a plural unity of a place.