Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is the Firmament in Genesis 1?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
    John 1:1-2 εν αρχη ην ο λογος At the beginning, it was a word; και ο λογος ην προς ο θεος and a word, it was unto a God; και θεος ην ο λογος and the God, it was.. A word 2 ουτος a-such... 2 ην εν αρχη προς ο θεος ... it was at the beginning unto a God.

    Yahweh is a word of God, not just Christ!

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Stripe View Post
      What are the skyists' challenges to the "crustists" starting from the same foundation of the text?
      The challenge is to provide the verses where God created the sky.
      Learn to read what is written.

      _____
      The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
      ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
        As God pronounced the firmament being heaven I think that pretty much eliminates the soil being in any way, shape, or form, from being the firmament. It must be the sky if we believe the Bible.
        Very true.
        Learn to read what is written.

        _____
        The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
        ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
          The challenge is to provide the verses where God created the sky.
          Question begging. You're assuming your position is true in order to assert your position as true.

          Your unstated assumption is that the Bible must say that God created the atmosphere or either the Bible is false or that He did not create it.

          You first need to establish that everything that was created by God needs to be described in the Bible as God having created it.

          If you can do that, then we have no argument, because there is no such verse (according to our position) that says that God created the atmosphere.

          But since you cannot and such is not a requirement for scripture, your challenge is invalid, because there are things that were created that the Bible does not describe that God did in fact create.

          In other words, you've assumed that the Bible must say that God created the atmosphere, where there are other possibilities for what the Bible actually says.

          And as a result of that, you look for verses that say things that line up with your position. This is called confirmation bias.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            Question begging. You're assuming your position is true in order to assert your position as true.
            If you think that is the wrong thing to do, then you should stop doing it yourself.

            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            Your unstated assumption is that the Bible must say that God created the atmosphere or either the Bible is false or that He did not create it.
            Strawman argument.

            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            there is no such verse (according to our position) that says that God created the atmosphere.
            Sure there is, it is right here and is found in every translation of the Bible:

            Genesis 1:7-8 EXB
            7 So God made the ·air [L firmament; dome; expanse; C rain clouds] and placed some of the water above the ·air [L firmament; dome; expanse] and some below it [C referring to the rain and the oceans, lakes, and rivers].
            8 God ·named [called] the ·air [L firmament/dome/expanse] “·sky [heaven].” Evening passed, and morning came [1:5]. This was the second day.

            Learn to read what is written.

            _____
            The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
            ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
              If you think that is the wrong thing to do, then you should stop doing it yourself.
              Good thing I'm not.

              Strawman argument.
              Then explain, please, why you would make such a challenge when it's only a problem that is brought up by your position, and not for our position.

              Sure there is,
              You missed it:

              Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
              If you can do that, then we have no argument, because there is no such verse (according to our position) that says that God created the atmosphere.
              You even quoted that highlighted part.

              Which is why I brought up the issue in the first place.

              I was giving you credit for coming up with a challenge that would, if unanswerable by our "side," completely invalidate our position.

              But I then went on and reminded you that there are things that God created that were not mentioned in the creation account that do, in fact, exist. Which causes me to challenge your challenge because there's no precedent for it.

              it is right here and is found in every translation of the Bible:

              Genesis 1:7-8 EXB
              7 So God made the ·air [L firmament; dome; expanse; C rain clouds] and placed some of the water above the ·air [L firmament; dome; expanse] and some below it [C referring to the rain and the oceans, lakes, and rivers].
              8 God ·named [called] the ·air [L firmament/dome/expanse] “·sky [heaven].” Evening passed, and morning came [1:5]. This was the second day.
              Well, no.

              Once again, you're question begging/special pleading.

              Yes, that version uses "air" instead of "firmament".

              But that's one version.

              And it's not a direct translation, but more of an interpretation according to the translator's bias.

              This is why using versions that do not use formal equivalence are not as good as those that do (such as the NKJV).

              The NKJV says (and I believe it's far more accurate than the EXB in this instance):

              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. - Genesis 1:6-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...8&version=NKJV

              Which is why [MENTION=4167]Stripe[/MENTION] said the following:

              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
              The word raqia is most useful when translated as "firmament," because that keeps the guesswork in the game for a thing we are grappling over anyway. Or we could just use the Hebrew placeholder for a to-be-determined proper English translation.

              Either way, one side claims the thing created was the crust of the Earth, while the other says it is the sky.

              Looking at the text, we need to agree that the central features of that created item are:

              1. It was formed in the water.
              2. It separated water above from water below.

              We ask, as challenges to the "skyists": Where was the water? What powered the fountains of the deep? How could water falling as rain account for a global flood? Where did that water go?

              What are the skyists' challenges to the "crustists" starting from the same foundation of the text?



              I'm working from the assumption that Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory is the best model we have.

              That said, I'm trying not to let that assumption color my analysis of the text of Genesis. The text says that the birds flew across the face of the firmament of the heavens. This to me works whether the firmament is the crust or outer space, but does not work for "atmosphere."

              I'm willing to listen to a breakdown of the Hebrew that might explain why my stance can't be so, but the English — which is pretty much all I can go on — seems to back up what I say.
              If you're constantly assuming that it only means "air" or "sky," and not willing to consider the possibility that you're wrong, then this conversation is already over with, because it would be a waste of our time to try to convince you that it means something else in addition to those meanings, as you're not willing to consider them.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                Yes, that version uses "air" instead of "firmament".
                Look again, the version uses both air and firmament, as well as dome, expanse, and even rain clouds.

                Genesis 1:7-8 EXB
                7 So God made the ·air [L firmament; dome; expanse; C rain clouds] and placed some of the water above the ·air [L firmament; dome; expanse] and some below it [C referring to the rain and the oceans, lakes, and rivers].
                8 God ·named [called] the ·air [L firmament/dome/expanse] “·sky [heaven].” Evening passed, and morning came [1:5]. This was the second day.



                EXPANDED BIBLE

                The Bible was originally written in Hebrew (the Old Testament) and Greek (the New Testament), with parts in Aramaic. As the most important book of all time, the Bible has been translated into hundreds of other languages, including, in the case of The Expanded Bible, English.

                No translation is ever completely successful, however, whether of the Bible or any other text. All translations fall short for a variety of reasons. First, no two languages are equivalent in their vocabulary, sounds, rhythms, idioms, or underlying structure. Nor are any two cultures out of which languages arise equivalent in their way of understanding and expressing reality, their value systems, or their social and political organization, among other factors. Second, the meaning of a text includes much more than its abstract thought. The sounds and rhythms of words, word play and puns, emotional overtones, metaphor, figurative language, and tone are just some of the other devices that carry meaning. No translation can transfer all these things from one language to another. Third, all translation requires interpretation. One cannot convey meaning in a second language without first deciding what it means in the original. This step of interpretation in translation is unavoidable and imperfect; equally skilled and well-meaning scholars will interpret differently. Fourth, a traditional translation requires one to choose a single possibility—whether of a word or an interpretation—when in fact two or more may be plausible.

                The Expanded Bible, while also imperfect, helps with all of these problems inherent in translation. It allows the reader to see multiple possibilities for words, phrases, and interpretations. Rather than opting for one choice, it shows many. It can, for instance, show both an original metaphor and a more prosaic understanding of that metaphor. It can show a second or third way of understanding the meaning of a word, phrase, verse, or passage. It can provide comments that give the historical, cultural, linguistic, or theological background that an English-language reader may lack. When helpful, it provides the most literal renderings to show what a translator has to work with.


                Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                If you're constantly assuming that it only means "air" or "sky," and not willing to consider the possibility that you're wrong, then this conversation is already over with, because it would be a waste of our time to try to convince you that it means something else in addition to those meanings, as you're not willing to consider them.
                You are trying to claim God created dry land on day 2 and then did it again on day 3 instead of creating the sky on day 2 and the earth and seas on day 3.
                You are trying to claim that God created the earth and the earth instead of creating the heaven and the earth.
                I can't see any reason for making the arguments that you are making except to try to use it to support the hydroplate theory.
                Nobody will buy into your arguments unless they want to believe in the hydroplate theory and think the hydroplate theory doesn't work without changing the meaning of רָקִיעַ raqiya` from expanse and שָׁמַיִם shamayim from sky.
                Learn to read what is written.

                _____
                The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
                ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
                  Look again, the version uses both air and firmament, as well as dome, expanse, and even rain clouds.
                  Yeah, in brackets, but the word they choose to represent "raqia" is air, not firmament.

                  Genesis 1:7-8 EXB
                  7 So God made the ·air [L firmament; dome; expanse; C rain clouds] and placed some of the water above the ·air [L firmament; dome; expanse] and some below it [C referring to the rain and the oceans, lakes, and rivers].
                  8 God ·named [called] the ·air [L firmament/dome/expanse] “·sky [heaven].” Evening passed, and morning came [1:5]. This was the second day.



                  EXPANDED BIBLE

                  The Bible was originally written in Hebrew (the Old Testament) and Greek (the New Testament), with parts in Aramaic. As the most important book of all time, the Bible has been translated into hundreds of other languages, including, in the case of The Expanded Bible, English.

                  No translation is ever completely successful, however, whether of the Bible or any other text. All translations fall short for a variety of reasons. First, no two languages are equivalent in their vocabulary, sounds, rhythms, idioms, or underlying structure. Nor are any two cultures out of which languages arise equivalent in their way of understanding and expressing reality, their value systems, or their social and political organization, among other factors. Second, the meaning of a text includes much more than its abstract thought. The sounds and rhythms of words, word play and puns, emotional overtones, metaphor, figurative language, and tone are just some of the other devices that carry meaning. No translation can transfer all these things from one language to another. Third, all translation requires interpretation. One cannot convey meaning in a second language without first deciding what it means in the original. This step of interpretation in translation is unavoidable and imperfect; equally skilled and well-meaning scholars will interpret differently. Fourth, a traditional translation requires one to choose a single possibility—whether of a word or an interpretation—when in fact two or more may be plausible.




                  I completely agree with ALL of that.

                  The Expanded Bible, while also imperfect, helps with all of these problems inherent in translation. It allows the reader to see multiple possibilities for words, phrases, and interpretations. Rather than opting for one choice, it shows many. It can, for instance, show both an original metaphor and a more prosaic understanding of that metaphor. It can show a second or third way of understanding the meaning of a word, phrase, verse, or passage. It can provide comments that give the historical, cultural, linguistic, or theological background that an English-language reader may lack. When helpful, it provides the most literal renderings to show what a translator has to work with.

                  I'm not saying the EXB is inherently wrong.

                  I'm saying it's the wrong tool for the task we're trying to accomplish, which is to determine the intended meaning of Genesis 1 regarding Days 2 and 3.

                  Using highly interpretive translations only skews the meaning to one side or the other, which is why I try to stick to the NKJV, which tries to get as close as possible to the original meaning while still staying relevant to modern readers.

                  I could use the YLT, which says this:

                  And God saith, `Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.'And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so.And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day second. - Genesis 1:6-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...-8&version=YLT

                  Or the OJB:

                  And Elohim said, Let there be a raki’a (expanse, dome, firmament) in the midst of the mayim (waters), and let it divide the mayim from the mayim.And Elohim made the raki’a, and divided the waters under the raki’a from the waters which were above the raki’a; and it was so.And Elohim called the raki’a Shomayim (Heaven). And the erev and the boker were Yom Sheni (Day Two, the Second Day). - Bereshis 1:6-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...-8&version=OJB

                  You are trying to claim God created dry land on day 2
                  Where have any of us HPTers ever claimed such?

                  Which of us said "Heaven" was dry?

                  I've shown you now multiple times a cross-section of what our position claims the earth would have looked like at the end of day 2. It does not show dry land at all.

                  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. - Genesis 1:6-8 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...8&version=NKJV


                  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 1:9-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...0&version=NKJV

                  Cross section

                  And overview:


                  and then did it again on day 3 instead of creating the sky on day 2 and the earth and seas on day 3.
                  Nope. Not our position. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion about our position.

                  You are trying to claim that God created the earth and the earth instead of creating the heaven and the earth.
                  No, that is not what we are claiming.

                  We are claiming that on Day 1, God made the universe and the mantle with the deep on top, that on Day 2 God STARTED to make the crust of the earth (firmament called "Heaven") in the midst of the waters, dividing the waters above (which God would use to form the seas on day 3) from the waters below (the deep, which God held in reserve for judgment, as the source of the "fountains of the great deep" (I mean, it's even in the name...)), and that on Day 3 God FINISHED making the crust of the earth (Day 2 is the only day of creation that God did not finish the day by calling what He had made "good") by having it settle onto the mantle, forming "pillars" that are described elsewhere in scripture, and called the resulting dry land (which was originally "Heaven") "Earth."

                  I can't see any reason for making the arguments that you are making
                  Because you don't actually understand the argument we're making, that much is obvious.

                  except to try to use it to support the hydroplate theory.
                  Don't confuse yourself.

                  The Hydroplate theory is simply an attempt to explain the source of the "fountains of the great deep." That it can explain more than that is simply icing on the cake.

                  To do that, one needs to know where "the Deep" actually is.

                  To determine that, one needs only to look at the first two verses in the Bible:

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

                  GO, what is "the Deep"? And where is it?




                  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).



                  Nobody will buy into your arguments unless they want to believe in the hydroplate theory and think the hydroplate theory doesn't work without changing the meaning of רָקִיעַ raqiya` from expanse and שָׁמַיִם shamayim from sky.
                  The HPT doesn't change the meanings of words, GO. It only uses the actual meanings.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
                    The challenge is to provide the verses where God created the sky.
                    There are no specific sky creation verses, although it might be included in the "heavens" of V1.

                    Can you explain how this shows that our ideas cannot be correct?
                    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                    E≈mc2
                    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                    -Bob B.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      I'm not saying the EXB is inherently wrong.

                      I'm saying it's the wrong tool for the task we're trying to accomplish, which is to determine the intended meaning of Genesis 1 regarding Days 2 and 3.
                      The EXB works perfectly for determining the intended meaning of the words in Genesis 1.
                      You don't like it because it makes clear that the firmament is the sky, just as God said.

                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      Using highly interpretive translations only skews the meaning to one side or the other, which is why I try to stick to the NKJV, which tries to get as close as possible to the original meaning while still staying relevant to modern readers.
                      You only like the NKJV because it allows you to reinterpret the definition to something other than the intended meaning.

                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      you don't actually understand the argument we're making, that much is obvious.
                      I understand the argument you are making very well, thank you.
                      I just think it is completely wrong on all levels because you are redefining the words used in Genesis 1 in ways that were never intended.

                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      The Hydroplate theory is simply an attempt to explain the source of the "fountains of the great deep."
                      There are much better ways to explain the fountains of the deep without trying to change the definitions of the words in Genesis 1.

                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      The HPT doesn't change the meanings of words, GO. It only uses the actual meanings.
                      You refuse to see the truth that you are changing the meanings of words in order to fit your theory.
                      Learn to read what is written.

                      _____
                      The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
                      ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
                        The EXB works perfectly for determining the intended meaning of the words in Genesis 1.
                        You don't like it because it makes clear that the firmament is the sky, just as God said.


                        You only like the NKJV because it allows you to reinterpret the definition to something other than the intended meaning.


                        I understand the argument you are making very well, thank you.
                        I just think it is completely wrong on all levels because you are redefining the words used in Genesis 1 in ways that were never intended.


                        There are much better ways to explain the fountains of the deep without trying to change the definitions of the words in Genesis 1.


                        You refuse to see the truth that you are changing the meanings of words in order to fit your theory.
                        You need to stop with the false accusations, buddy.

                        Genesis says that the firmament was created within the deep, separating waters from waters. There is no redefining going on; we advocate using words that allow both sides fair access to the text.
                        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                        E≈mc2
                        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                        -Bob B.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                          There are no specific sky creation verses, although it might be included in the "heavens" of V1.
                          There are specific sky creation verses as shown in every translation of the Bible available.
                          God created the sky on day 2.

                          Genesis 1:7-8 EXB
                          7 So God made the ·air [L firmament; dome; expanse; C rain clouds] and placed some of the water above the ·air [L firmament; dome; expanse] and some below it [C referring to the rain and the oceans, lakes, and rivers].
                          8 God ·named [called] the ·air [L firmament/dome/expanse] “·sky [heaven].” Evening passed, and morning came [1:5]. This was the second day.


                          Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                          Can you explain how this shows that our ideas cannot be correct?
                          If you can't even see that Genesis 1:7-8 is about the creation of the sky then it is more than likely that the rest of the Hydroplate theory is just as false as your interpretation of those verses.
                          Learn to read what is written.

                          _____
                          The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
                          ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                            You need to stop with the false accusations, buddy.
                            I do not believe I made any false accusations.
                            Please help me by showing which accusations were false.

                            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                            Genesis says that the firmament was created within the deep, separating waters from waters. There is no redefining going on;
                            You are redefining רָקִיעַ raqiya` and שָׁמַיִם shamayim.
                            That is very obvious.

                            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                            we advocate using words that allow both sides fair access to the text.
                            You advocate using words that obscure the meaning of the text?
                            Learn to read what is written.

                            _____
                            The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
                            ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
                              You are redefining רָקִיעַ raqiya` and שָׁמַיִם shamayim.
                              That is very obvious.
                              Those we translate as "firmament" and "heavens" or "Heaven."

                              You advocate using words that obscure the meaning of the text?
                              The meaning of the text is what we are discussing. The way to do that is to not assert the primacy of a preferred meaning, but to look at a placeholder and test whether it holds up.

                              It's the textual analysis equivalent of using a variable in algebra and it allows both sides to speak on the same terms without compromising what we believe.

                              By the way, you asked a question a few posts back and I answered it and added a request for clarity.
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                              -Bob B.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                                The meaning of the text is what we are discussing. The way to do that is to not assert the primacy of a preferred meaning, but to look at a placeholder and test whether it holds up.
                                I am not asserting the primacy of a preferred meaning, I am asserting the overwhelming evidence of multiple translations and commentaries about the meaning that all show that the verses are speaking about the creation of the sky.
                                Because of the overwhelming evidence, your attempts to redefine the meanings of the words is easily dismissed.

                                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                                By the way, you asked a question a few posts back and I answered it and added a request for clarity.
                                I am not sure what your request was.
                                Is it this one?
                                Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
                                The challenge is to provide the verses where God created the sky.
                                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                                There are no specific sky creation verses, although it might be included in the "heavens" of V1.

                                Can you explain how this shows that our ideas cannot be correct?
                                It is a challenge to see if you can accept what the verses actually say instead of trying to find ways to make the verses say something different.
                                Learn to read what is written.

                                _____
                                The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
                                ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X