ECT What is the Firmament in Genesis 1?

[JudgeRightly]

The meaning of the words do not change because you don't understand the reason why Moses used them.

I'M NOT SAYING THE MEANING SHOULD CHANGE!

I'm saying that there is MORE meaning that YOU ARE IGNORING in favor of your traditional view of the passage.

Genesis 1:20 CJB 20 God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open dome of the sky.”​

You are claiming that there is no reason for Moses to have stated, "birds fly above the earth in the open dome of the sky," instead of merely saying, "birds fly above the earth in the open dome."
To me, there seems to be a very valid reason to say, "birds fly in the open dome of the sky," instead of saying, "birds fly in the open dome."
What open dome?
The open dome of the sky, that open dome.

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” - Genesis 1:20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis1:20&version=NKJV

The words used are the same as in the other three verses, "firmament of the heavens."

Which is completely consistent with my position that the last four uses of "firmament," paired with the qualifier "of the heavens," is referring to the sky.

Right back at you. :thumb:

​

Not at all.
Accepting the vast majority of opinion of the translators and commentators throughout history is not "special" pleading.

This is both an argument from popularity AND an appeal to tradition.

BOTH are fallacies.

Twisting the word רָקִיעַ to mean something new

It's not a new meaning.

and contrary to the context

THIS is question begging.

I have shown that it is NOT contrary to the context.

it is found in because of an unprovable scientific theory is "special" pleading.

Rather, the theory comes from the meaning of the word, not the other way around, GO.

Actually, it doesn't do a thing for lending credibility to your position, since your position is that the expanse is the earth and not the sky.

WRONG. That is NOT my position.

My position is that there are TWO "firmament"s in Genesis 1.

The first is the "firmament called Heaven" (1:6-8), which refers to the crust of the earth.
The second is the "firmament of the heavens (1:14,15,17,20) which refers to the sky.

It appears as if you believe that רָקִיעַ raqiya` (expanse) is formed from the word רָקַע raqa` (beaten).

Because it is...

In that logic people were spreading out gold into a thin sheet before any people saw the sky spread out overhead.

Huh?

Maybe your source is completely illogical?

Or maybe you're the one who's misinformed?

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).

:think:

Strong's h7554 - Lexical: רָקַע - Transliteration: raqa - Part of Speech: Verb - Phonetic Spelling: raw-kah' - Definition: to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out. - Origin: A primitive root; to pound the earth (as a sign of passion); by analogy to expand (by hammering); by implication, to overlay (with thin sheets of metal). - Usage: beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch. - Translated as (count): and stamp (1), and stamped (1), And they beat (1), and they were hammered out (1), Have you spread out (1), I spread them out (1), is beaten into plates (1), overspreads it (1), To Him who laid out (1), who spread forth (1), who spreads abroad (1).

You are ignoring that "heaven" and "sky" mean the same thing.

No, rather, I am showing you that "heaven" means (not "should mean") MORE than just "sky."

All uses of רָקִיעַ raqiya` "firmament" in the Bible are referring to the same thing: the sky overhead.

Then why use a qualifier after the first 5 times in the same chapter?

If it ALWAYS means the same thing, then why not just leave out the 4 "of the heavens" words.

Ezekiel 1:22 22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.​

Your point? One verse is not "all uses," GO.

-----

God Raqa the EARTH! Firmament (raqia) is used "of the heavens" commonly and eleven times the Bible speaks of God stretching out the heavens. Then there is something not included in the above video. Another three times the Bible says that ]God raqa the earth itself. This shows, unlike as stressed on YouTube, that raqia very naturally also refers to the earth. Dr. Walt Brown's book lists these verses but I'll repeat them here for Mr. Palmer's consideration: To Him who laid out (raqa) the earth above the waters… Ps. 136:6 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… Isa. 42:5 “I am the Lord, who makes all things, who stretches out the heavens all alone, who spreads abroad (raqa) the earth by Myself;" Isa. 44:24​ The firmament (raqia) of the creation account was iconic in ancient Israel, as the Tyndale Bible Dictionary says, "the firmament is always related to Creation." So the repetition and by two authors shows that the wording is deliberate. Thus these verses show an ancient awareness in Scripture that God raqa the Earth, that is, that His stretching out of the raqia of Genesis 1:8 readily refers to terra firma, or as the King James translators coined the word from the Latin, the firmament.

kgov.com/firmament (some emphasis mine)

GO, how do you explain the fact that God raqa the earth?

 

[genuineoriginal]

I'M NOT SAYING THE MEANING SHOULD CHANGE!

I'm saying that there is MORE meaning that YOU ARE IGNORING in favor of your traditional view of the passage.

What hurts your argument is that there really is no more meaning to use without contradicting the passage itself.

I have shown that it is NOT contrary to the context.

You have refused to see that it is contrary to the context, but that seems to be your personal problem.

Rather, the theory comes from the meaning of the word, not the other way around, GO.

I don't see that.
From my reading of Dr. Walt Brown, he chose an obscure and never used potential meaning of the word רָקִיעַ (firmament) to support the theory he came up with about where the waters from the "fountains of the great deep" came from.

My position is that there are TWO "firmament"s in Genesis 1.

The first is the "firmament called Heaven" (1:6-8), which refers to the crust of the earth.
The second is the "firmament of the heavens (1:14,15,17,20) which refers to the sky.

You can choose to believe the wrong things, but that does not make it right.
There is only one firmament in Genesis 1, the sky.

Or maybe you're the one who's misinformed?

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).

:think:

Strong's h7554 - Lexical: רָקַע - Transliteration: raqa - Part of Speech: Verb - Phonetic Spelling: raw-kah' - Definition: to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out. - Origin: A primitive root; to pound the earth (as a sign of passion); by analogy to expand (by hammering); by implication, to overlay (with thin sheets of metal). - Usage: beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch. - Translated as (count): and stamp (1), and stamped (1), And they beat (1), and they were hammered out (1), Have you spread out (1), I spread them out (1), is beaten into plates (1), overspreads it (1), To Him who laid out (1), who spread forth (1), who spreads abroad (1).

Yes, I am aware that linguists like to decide which word is the "primitive root" based on the number of letters in the word.
But, when you look at which word would have logically come before another, it should be obvious that the word for the expanse of the sky came first and the word for spreading out metal by beating it came later.

No, rather, I am showing you that "heaven" means (not "should mean") MORE than just "sky."

Not in Genesis 1.

Then why use a qualifier after the first 5 times in the same chapter?

If it ALWAYS means the same thing, then why not just leave out the 4 "of the heavens" words.

I don't see any problem with the phrasing.
Maybe God had some other reason for the phrasings He used?

equidistant letter sequences Genesis 1:1 Starting with the first yod(י) in בראשית b’raisheet, In the beginning, counting every 521 letters, spells, ישוע יכול Y’shua yahkol, Y’shua is able (to have power). 521 is the gematria of אשכר eshkar, gift and יהונתןY’honatan, The Gift of YHWH. Genesis 1:14 Starting with the ayin (ע) in the word מועדים mo’adim, appointed times or seasons, counting every 172 letters from left to right, spells, ישוע Y’shua. (The mo’adim are the festivals that reveal Y’shua and the work of redemption). Genesis 1:14-19 Starting with the last yod (י) in the 19th verse, counting every 69 letters six times from left to right, spells, ישוע עזר Y’shua ahzar, Y’shua to succour or help. This yod is also in the 69th word of the fourth day of creation. (69 is just short of 70, a number of Perfection. Without Y’shua’s help, man will always fall short of Perfection).

​

GO, how do you explain the fact that God raqa the earth?

Those verses are referring to what happened in these verses from Genesis, since these verses are the first mention of earth appearing:

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.​

You are trying very hard to make the verses in Genesis say the firmament is the earth.
I don't have to try at all to see that God gave different names to different things.

Genesis 1:5,8,10 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 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.​

• Light is day
• Dark is night
• Firmament is sky (heaven)
• Dry land [not firmament] is earth
• Waters are seas

 

[JudgeRightly]

What hurts your argument is that there really is no more meaning to use without contradicting the passage itself.

Then let me ask you this:

Where is "the Deep"?

You have refused to see that it is contrary to the context, but that seems to be your personal problem.

Rather, you have yet to show how it IS contrary to the context, whereas I have been showing how my position not only fits within the context, but even explains where the flood waters came from, the origins of asteroids, comets, meteorites, why the moon is so beat up on only half of it's surface, the origin of radioactivity, etc.

If we take your reading, your position, NONE of those questions are/can be answered from a biblical perspective without appealing to miracles, and which only presents problems for what God created being "very good" when He finished creating, and that there was no death before the fall.

I don't see that.

Incredulity does not a logical argument make.

From my reading of Dr. Walt Brown, he chose an obscure and never used potential meaning of the word רָקִיעַ (firmament) to support the theory he came up with about where the waters from the "fountains of the great deep" came from.

You make it seem like that's the only piece he used to form his theory.

Yet in reality, it's more than that. See below.

You can choose to believe the wrong things, but that does not make it right.
There is only one firmament in Genesis 1, the sky.

Except that there are multiple (more than 2 - 3) evidences that there are TWO firmaments.

Yes, I am aware that linguists like to decide which word is the "primitive root" based on the number of letters in the word.

Denying the etymology of a word that challenges your position doesn't help you, GO.

But, when you look at which word would have logically come before another, it should be obvious that the word for the expanse of the sky came first and the word for spreading out metal by beating it came later.

This at the very least, question begging.

Consider the possibility that "spreading out by beating" might have come first, with the usage in Genesis 1:6-8.

Not in Genesis 1.

Yes, in Genesis 1:6-8.

I don't see any problem with the phrasing.

Why did Moses use simply "firmament" 5 times in a row, then suddenly switch to using "firmament" with a qualifier phrase, "of the heavens"? "The trunk is five feet wide." "The trunk holds lots of groceries." "The trunk has emergency supplies in it." "The trunk also holds the spare tire." "The trunk is at the back of the vehicle." "The trunk of the elephant is 4 feet long." "The trunk of the elephant is grey." "The trunk of the elephant . . ." etc.

This is what I'm getting at.

Maybe God had some other reason for the phrasings He used?

Like the one I'm showing you?

equidistant letter sequences Genesis 1:1 Starting with the first yod(י) in בראשית b’raisheet, In the beginning, counting every 521 letters, spells, ישוע יכול Y’shua yahkol, Y’shua is able (to have power). 521 is the gematria of אשכר eshkar, gift and יהונתןY’honatan, The Gift of YHWH. Genesis 1:14 Starting with the ayin (ע) in the word מועדים mo’adim, appointed times or seasons, counting every 172 letters from left to right, spells, ישוע Y’shua. (The mo’adim are the festivals that reveal Y’shua and the work of redemption). Genesis 1:14-19 Starting with the last yod (י) in the 19th verse, counting every 69 letters six times from left to right, spells, ישוע עזר Y’shua ahzar, Y’shua to succour or help. This yod is also in the 69th word of the fourth day of creation. (69 is just short of 70, a number of Perfection. Without Y’shua’s help, man will always fall short of Perfection).

​

I have no idea what you're trying to say with this...

What, you think that just because there's a pattern in how the passage was written means that it must mean... what?

The fact is, you don't use a qualifier unless you're trying to distinguish it from a previous usage of a word.

And you also seem to be rejecting the possibility that it's BECAUSE Moses described the passage in such a way that not only are we able to see a difference between the two firmaments, but it even results in patterns emerging from the text itself.

Moses wasn't stupid, you know.

Those verses are referring to what happened in these verses from Genesis, since these verses are the first mention of earth appearing:

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.​

So what, exactly, did God pound out in verses 9-10? What indication do you have that it was "Earth" that God pounded out?

Consider that you are looking at the wrong verses, or at the very least, not considering where "Earth" came from.

Try looking at verses 6-8 instead, where there's a word that means (even if it's an "obscure meaning") "something pounded out," and maybe you can make the connection between God RAQA (pounding out) the earth and God making the RAQIA in the midst of the waters," and then calling the resulting dry land that appeared by the firmament called Heaven settling and forming "pillars" of crust that hold up the earth...

Like this:

Raqa and Heaven both refer also to the Earth.

Compare:

Raqa the earth To Him who laid out [raqa] the earth above the waters,... - Psalm 136:6 Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth [raqa] the earth... - Isaiah 42:5 Thus says the Lord... Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad [raqa] the earth by Myself; - Isaiah 44:24

Heaven on earth He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters, At the boundary of light and darkness.The pillars of heaven tremble... He stirs up the sea... - Job 26:10-12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. - Matthew 11:12 ... [JESUS]“The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field;[/JESUS] [and] [JESUS]The field is the world...[/JESUS] - Matthew 13:24,38 [JESUS]And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”[/JESUS] - Matthew 16:19 [and 18:18]

You are trying very hard to make the verses in Genesis say the firmament is the earth.

Which firmament?

Firmament called heaven?

Or firmament of the heavens?

The former is the earth, or rather, the crust of the earth.

The latter is the sky.

I don't have to try at all to see that God gave different names to different things.

Where have I denied that?

Do you deny that God can give multiple names to things?

Genesis 1:5,8,10 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 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.​

• Light is day
• Dark is night

• 
  
  No disagreement here.
  
  

  [*]Firmament is sky (heaven)

  
  Heaven refers to the earth too.
  
  See the verses I listed above.
  
  Which means that firmament can ALSO refer to the earth.
  
  Which means that calling it "sky" by default is question begging.
  
  It doesn't say that God called the firmament "sky," it says that God called the firmament heaven, and heaven can mean sky, and it can also refer to the earth.
  
  

  [*]Dry land [not firmament] is earth

  
  Here's the problem with this assertion, the way I see it:
  
  According to my position, the dry land is a result of the firmament of 1:6-8 settling, going from this on day 2...
  
  
  
  
  To this on day 3...
  
  
  
  
  

  [*]Waters are seas

So the "waters" in 1:2 are seas?

Which brings me back to my earlier question...

Where is "the deep"?

 

[genuineoriginal]

you have yet to show how it IS contrary to the context

I have shown you.
Each of the meanings in Genesis 1 begin with God calling something by its synonym.
The meanings do not change after that, but remain the same throughout Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:5,8,10 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 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.​

• Light is day
• Dark is night
• Firmament is sky (heaven)
• Dry land [not firmament] is earth
• Waters are seas

there are multiple (more than 2 - 3) evidences that there are TWO firmaments.

A plain reading of the verses show that all the uses of firmament in Genesis 1 are talking about the exact same firmament, despite all your attempts to claim otherwise.

The fact is, you don't use a qualifier unless you're trying to distinguish it from a previous usage of a word.

You seem to be making up that rule to support your idea.
It is not a real linguistic rule.

And you also seem to be rejecting the possibility that it's BECAUSE Moses described the passage in such a way that not only are we able to see a difference between the two firmaments, but it even results in patterns emerging from the text itself.

Moses wasn't stupid, you know.

Moses wasn't stupid, I know.
But, what should I say about people that deliberately attempt to change the meaning of the words Moses used because they want it to say something different than it says?

Firmament called heaven?

Or firmament of the heavens?

The two are the same thing.
God called the firmament "heaven".
Since "firmament" is an obscure word compared to commonly used words like "light", "darkness", "dry land", and "waters", a qualifier was used to reinforce that the meaning of the word "firmament" is "heaven".

 

[Stripe]

I have shown you.
Each of the meanings in Genesis 1 begin with God calling something by its synonym.
The meanings do not change after that, but remain the same throughout Genesis 1.

Or they do change. :idunno:

For example:

Dry land ... is earth

V1 says God created the heavens and the erets, ie, the entire planet. That's a different use of the word than in this example.

Firmament is sky.

The firmament was created separating water from water and was named heaven.

Heaven can mean "space" or "abode of God."

If you've got water that space could have separated from the oceans, maybe "space" is a reasonable read. As it is, we've got scriptural and physical evidence that the crust of the Earth separated water from water, so "abode of God" seems reasonable. Moreover, God lived on Earth with Adam and Eve.

A plain reading of the verses show that all the uses of firmament in Genesis 1 are talking about the exact same firmament, despite all your attempts to claim otherwise.

This isn't very convincing. :idunno:

You seem to be making up that rule to support your idea.

It's a challenge to the traditional reading. Either the words mean things, or they don't.

Why do the early references say "firmament" only, while the latter ones modify it with "of the heavens."

Our explanation is that it is to distinguish separate meanings.

What should I say about people that deliberately attempt to change the meaning of the words Moses used because they want it to say something different than it says?

I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't changed any meanings. :idunno:

Since "firmament" is an obscure word compared to commonly used words like "light", "darkness", "dry land", and "waters", a qualifier was used to reinforce that the meaning of the word "firmament" is "heaven".

Are you citing a Hebrew-language authority to make this claim?

 

[genuineoriginal]

The firmament was created separating water from water and was named heaven.

Heaven can mean "space" or "abode of God."

If you've got water that space could have separated from the oceans, maybe "space" is a reasonable read. As it is, we've got scriptural and physical evidence that the crust of the Earth separated water from water, so "abode of God" seems reasonable. Moreover, God lived on Earth with Adam and Eve.

This isn't very convincing. :idunno:
You are having to change then normal meanings of both firmament (dome, expanse, air) and heaven (sky) in order to come up with an excuse for claiming that the later verse about God calling dry land by the name earth is just a repetition of God calling firmament by the name heaven, but that leaves the birds flying around in a sky that was never created in your narrative.

Either the words mean things, or they don't.

Yes, why don't you believe it?

Why do the early references say "firmament" only, while the latter ones modify it with "of the heavens."

Our explanation is that it is to distinguish separate meanings.

This isn't very convincing. :idunno:

What is convincing is God calling the firmament by the name heaven and then creating birds that fly around in that same firmament of heaven.

 

[Stripe]

By the way, you missed JR's pertinent question: Where is the deep?

 

[genuineoriginal]

By the way, you missed JR's pertinent question: Where is the deep?

It is not relevant to the discussion.

 

[Stripe]

You are having to change then normal meanings of both firmament (dome, expanse, air) and heaven (sky)

The "normal meaning" of firmament should be informed by the descriptions of it. It was created within the deep, separating water from water.

If we find out where the deep was, we constrain where the firmament was.

A normal meaning of heaven is "abode of God."

What is convincing is God calling the firmament by the name heaven and then creating birds that fly around in that same firmament of heaven.

They didn't fly "in" the firmament of the heavens; they flew "across the face of the firmament of the heavens."

From this, it seems clear that the firmament of the heavens is far more than just the atmosphere.

 

[Stripe]

It is not relevant to the discussion.

Of course it is. It's a powerful challenge to your understanding of the passage.

 

[genuineoriginal]

A normal meaning of heaven is "abode of God."

Not in the context of Genesis 1

Here are the relevant verses using The Expanded Bible, which shows alternate translations of many words.

Genesis 1:6-10,20 EXP 6 Then God said, “Let there be ·something to divide the water in two [L a firmament/dome/expanse in the midst of the waters to separate/divide the waters from the waters].” 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. 9 Then God said, “Let the water under the ·sky [heavens] be gathered together so the dry land will appear.” And it happened. 10 God ·named [called] the dry land “earth” and [L he called] the water that was gathered together “seas.” God saw that this was good. ... 20 Then God said, “Let the water ·be filled with living things [L swarm with living creatures], and let birds fly in the ·air [L firmament/dome/expanse] above the earth.”​

We have God making air and calling it sky.
We have God making dry land and calling it earth.
We have birds flying in the air above the earth.

All attempts to make the verses say something different are denying what the verses actually say.

By the way, you missed JR's pertinent question: Where is the deep?

It is not relevant to the discussion.

Of course it is. It's a powerful challenge to your understanding of the passage.

Not at all.

The only thing important is whether you can understand that the verses show that air (the firmament) is not the earth.

 

[Gary K]

The firmament was rock that covered water; and the heaven is a mistranslation of rock elevation. It isn't an expanse.

The Bible is its own best interpreter. The idea that the waters under the earth are "the deep" and the ocean is viewed as completely separate is not a Biblical idea.

Psalm 107:23 They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters;
[SIZE=+1]24[/SIZE] These see the works of the Lord, and his wonders in the deep.

Ancient mariners, and even modern man, cannot see through the bottom of the ocean to look at what lies beyond floor of the ocean so no one one of David's day had ever seen the whatever the wonders are contained in the waters under the earth. Even today, with all the sophisticated technology we have, no one has ever seen what wonders there are in the waters under the earth. So, the Bible uses the term "deep" interchangeably. It can refer to the waters under the earth, or to the ocean. It can refer to either in any place the word is used.

Second. During the creation week God created the fowls of the earth to fly in the firmament, and as no birds I've ever heard of can fly through rock, I'd say your assertion is pretty mind boggling.

Third. During the flood it rained over the entire earth for 40 consecutive days and nights. Where did that amount of water come from? The Bible makes it clear that these were no gentle showers or a light drizzle. This was heavy, heavy rain. There is evidence that before the flood there was a dome over the earth that consisted of water. It filtered out the ultraviolet rays and radiation coming from the sun which is at least partially responsible for the long lives of the antedeluvians. And it created a system of watering the earth with dew only even at the increased temperatures. It also created a heavier atmosphere than we now have with a higher oxygen content and a far more stable weather pattern without the extremes of summer and winter.

Some doctors now use similar atmospheres to heal people of some very nasty diseases and injuries. They are called hyperbaric chambers and some very amazing results have been achieved using them.

 

[Stripe]

Not in the context of Genesis 1

The context is the creation of the world. The narrower context is the development of land and seas. God wound up living on that land. Calling it His abode seems fine, in context.

We have God making air and calling it sky.

When there is disagreement, it pays to p please things in a fashion that both sides can agree to. The Bible says that God made a firmament that divided waters from waters.

All attempts to make the verses say something different are denying what the verses actually say.

Nobody has attempted to make the words say something that they don't mean.

The only thing important is whether you can understand that the verses show that air (the firmament) is not the earth.

When you show convincing reasons for such a change.

 

[Stripe]

During the creation week God created the fowls of the earth to fly in the firmament, and as no birds I've ever heard of can fly through rock, I'd say your assertion is pretty mind boggling.

Genesis says the birds flew across the face of the firmament of the heavens:

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”
Genesis 1:20 NKJV
​

So that kinda works regardless of whether the firmament is the crust of the Earth or outer space. It doesn't really work of the firmament is the atmosphere.

Where did that amount of water come from?

The "fountains of the great deep."

A more important question is: Where did the water go?

 

[genuineoriginal]

The context is the creation of the world. The narrower context is the development of land and seas.

You are missing the creation of the sky.

God wound up living on that land. Calling it His abode seems fine, in context.

God did not end up living on the land and He won't live on the earth until Revelation 21.

When there is disagreement, it pays to p please things in a fashion that both sides can agree to.

The disagreement is that you want to redefine "firmament" and "heaven" to mean "dry land" and "earth" when the creation of dry land takes place after the creation of the firmament.

The Bible says that God made a firmament that divided waters from waters.

Yes, and God called that firmament שָׁמַיִם shamayim

Heaven in Judaism Shamayim (שָׁמַיִם), the Hebrew word for "heaven" (literally heavens, plural), denotes one component of the three-part biblical cosmology, the other elements being erets (the earth) and sheol (the underworld). The Hebrew word shamayim is constructed of two parts: sham (שָׁמַ) derived from Akkadian samu meaning "sky" or "lofty", and Hebrew mayim (מַיִם) meaning "water". In Genesis 1:6 Elohim separated the "water from the water". The area above the earth was filled by sky-water (sham-mayim) and the earth below was covered by sea-water (yam-mayim). The Hebrew word for the sun is shemesh. It follows the same construction, where "shem" or "sham" (Akkadian: samu) means "sky" and esh (Akkadian: ish) means "fire", i.e., "sky-fire".

​

You seem to think שָׁמַיִם shamayim (heaven) does not mean sky-water.

 

[Gary K]

Genesis says the birds flew across the face of the firmament of the heavens:

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”
Genesis 1:20 NKJV
​

So that kinda works regardless of whether the firmament is the crust of the Earth or outer space. It doesn't really work of the firmament is the atmosphere.



The "fountains of the great deep."

A more important question is: Where did the water go?

Sure it works if the firmament is the atmosphere.

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 (gcide)
Face Face (f[=a]s), n. [F., from L. facies form, shape, face,
perh. from facere to make (see Fact); or perh. orig.
meaning appearance, and from a root meaning to shine, and
akin to E. fancy. Cf. Facetious.]
1. The exterior form or appearance of anything; that part
which presents itself to the view; especially, the front
or upper part or surface; that which particularly offers
itself to the view of a spectator.
[1913 Webster]

You're requiring a much too narrow definition of face. If a plane or bird flies above me it flies across the face of the heavens from my point of view. All it means in the context of Genesis 1:20 is the bird is flying through the atmosphere in such a way that it would be above the viewer of the activity. Did God give Moses a vision of that? I don't know, but from the word description that Moses uses it appears that way to me.

I think your water question is based upon an assumption that the earth was covered with oceans before and after the flood and that the surface of the earth was the same before and afterward. I don't think either assumption is logical or true. The flood was a massive upheaval on planet earth. I think there was massive geological upheaval that dramatically changed the landscape of planet earth. The erosion of soil that must have happened had to have been massive. And the amount of water gouging of both rock and soil in areas must have also been incredible.

There are studies that show that since the time of the flood earth's magnetic field has been collapsing at a rapid rate. That is evidence the crust of the earth itself was shattered as that would have a major effect on the earth's magnetic fields then and be responsible for the continuing degradation of the magnetic fields since that time. That would mean there were massive movements on the earth's crust from the rotation of the earth, and we still see those going on today with continental drift. That means massive holes had to have been created and also massive mountains created from the upthrust of rock from what we now call continents of one continent moving under or the collision of continents.

The water would simply move to the lowest areas by the force of gravity.

 

[Stripe]

You are missing the creation of the sky.

As I say: When there is disagreement, we should strive to phrase things in a manner that both sides can agree with. The Bible says that God created a firmament within the deep to divide water from water.

That's the tighter context.

God did not end up living on the land and He won't live on the earth until Revelation 21.

So you're saying He did plan to live on Earth?

Seems reasonable to call it heaven then. :up:

The disagreement is that you want to redefine "firmament" and "heaven" to mean "dry land" and "earth" when the creation of dry land takes place after the creation of the firmament.

Nope.

Don't attribute motive, just respond to what is said.

You seem to think שָׁמַיִם shamayim (heaven) does not mean sky-water.

It can mean that.

It can also mean something else.

 

[Stripe]

Sure it works if the firmament is the atmosphere.

You're requiring a much too narrow definition of face. If a plane or bird flies above me it flies across the face of the heavens from my point of view. All it means in the context of Genesis 1:20 is the bird is flying through the atmosphere in such a way that it would be above the viewer of the activity. Did God give Moses a vision of that? I don't know, but from the word description that Moses uses it appears that way to me.

"Across the face" makes a big difference from "in."

I think your water question is based upon an assumption that the earth was covered with oceans before and after the flood and that the surface of the earth was the same before and afterward. I don't think either assumption is logical or true.

You don't think the global flood covered the globe?

The flood was a massive upheaval on planet earth. I think there was massive geological upheaval that dramatically changed the landscape of planet earth.

How? Why?

From water falling from the sky?

 

[Gary K]

"Across the face" makes a big difference from "in."



You don't think the global flood covered the globe?



How? Why?

From water falling from the sky?

Some versions say "in" and some say "across". Either way I see no problem with my statement. A bird flying across the face of the heavens is flying in the firmament, i.e. atmosphere. No bird is going to fly without the atmosphere. For one it would be dead within a minute or so due to lack of oxygen, and for another, lack of an atmosphere means no aerodynamic forces applied to the wings/feathers thus the inability to fly. As birds cannot fly through stone, or without an atmosphere it's a given they were flying in the atmosphere when they flew across the face of the heavens.

Of course the flood covered the globe. Where would you get the idea that I wouldn't think it did? I was speaking to the effects of a world wide flood upon the land. The hydraulic forces of water can change a landscape so that it is unrecognizable even after a small flood, let alone one that covered the tops of all the mountains. Look what a tidal wave does. Then imagine a flood a couple of million times that large.

As to your last question I guess you've never read Genesis 7:11 and 8:2. A massive geological event would cause the "fountains of the deep" to "burst forth" as well as the other events I mentioned. I, personally, have a hard time accepting that God's perfect creation included destructive earthquakes caused by an earth with an unstable crust, i.e. continents drifting into each other. God's just way too wise and intelligent to create a system on day one that is already tearing itself apart. Would He allow that as a consequence of sin in His destruction of the antedeluvians? Yes, as mankind needs to learn just how destructive sin is and just how small we really are in the universe. Earthquakes show us just how little power we really have. It's humbling to have everything a person knows/owns to be destroyed in a minute or two with no ability to even begin to halt the forces at work. God uses every avenue possible to get our attention.

 

[Stripe]

Some versions say "in" and some say "across".

What would the Hebrew have meant of it said "in" the face?

:think:

:noid:

:chuckle:

Either way I see no problem with my statement. A bird flying across the face of the heavens is flying in the firmament.

It doesn't say flying in/across the face of the heaven. It's across the face of the firmament (of the heavens).

No bird is going to fly without the atmosphere. For one it would be dead within a minute or so due to lack of oxygen, and for another, lack of an atmosphere means no aerodynamic forces applied to the wings/feathers thus the inability to fly. As birds cannot fly through stone, or without an atmosphere it's a given they were flying in the atmosphere when they flew across the face of the heavens.

I'm pretty sure we're all in full agreement that there is an atmosphere. lain:

Of course the flood covered the globe. Where would you get the idea that I wouldn't think it did?

Sorry. I think I misread your analysis of my assumptions.

I was speaking to the effects of a world wide flood upon the land. The hydraulic forces of water can change a landscape so that it is unrecognizable even after a small flood, let alone one that covered the tops of all the mountains. Look what a tidal wave does. Then imagine a flood a couple of million times that large.

"Tidal waves," actually tsunami, do very little to the ground they run over. Some superficial erosion when they hit the shore. That's relative, of course. They can destroy towns, but they don't cause "massive geological upheaval."

As to your last question I guess you've never read Genesis 7:11 and 8:2. A massive geological event would cause the "fountains of the deep" to "burst forth" as well as the other events I mentioned. I, personally, have a hard time accepting that God's perfect creation included destructive earthquakes caused by an earth with an unstable crust, i.e. continents drifting into each other. God's just way too wise and intelligent to create a system on day one that is already tearing itself apart. Would He allow that as a consequence of sin in His destruction of the antedeluvians? Yes, as mankind needs to learn just how destructive sin is and just how small we really are in the universe. Earthquakes show us just how little power we really have. It's humbling to have everything a person knows/owns to be destroyed in a minute or two with no ability to even begin to halt the forces at work. God uses every avenue possible to get our attention.

I think we're mostly on the same page, except you seem to place a lot of stock in rainfall as a source of water and destruction, while I think the fountains provided all the water and led to all the destabilization of the planet.

Is that fair?