See https://kgov.com/peleg
Just because you disagree with his theory doesn't mean he rejects God or His word, BR.
Rather, the HPT gives us insight into what that passage might actually mean.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
A missing Link to Genesis 1:6 God said, “I command a dome to separate the water above it from the water below it.”
- Thread starter tieman55
- Start date
See https://kgov.com/peleg
Just because you disagree with his theory doesn't mean he rejects God or His word, BR.
Rather, the HPT gives us insight into what that passage might actually mean.
Right Divider
Body part
No, he does not. You seem to be completely misinformed.
Right Divider
Body part
I don't think that seismic readings from around the globe support that idea.
That seems very unlikely. The pressurized super-critical water below is what eventually caused the earth's granite crust to burst.
I don't accept AI as if it's the great and powerful Oz.
During the years preceding the flood, some heavy elements did settle to the bottom of the crust, particularly at the base pillars of the crust that were supporting most of the weight of the crust.
Derf
Well-known member
Yes, you're correct, and I didn't say that very well. You leave it out in the discussion about it being confusing.
The birds fly on the face of the firmament ("heavens"), which us contrasted by the firmament of the heavens. In other words, there is the bulk of the heavenly area (outer space) and the edge of it (sky).
The difference is that God made something and named it, then used that name for something else without telling anyone. The context of "picked up the trunk" and "trunk of my car" works great. But if you say, "I packed my clothes in the back of the car, which is called 'trunk', then I took the trunk to my hotel room," it is confusing.
Which allows for the firmament called "heaven" to be the place where stars are today...
You might, if you later call the whole thing "very good".
Please call it by its name, "heaven"...
Called "earth", vs 10.
In other words, God made heaven, and then made earth out of heaven, and called something else heaven. This is the epitome of confusion, and it gives the student a false idea that God made the earth out of something called heaven. And it is not necessary for Dr Brown's theory to work and make sense. As such, it is a red herring and an attempt at a false appeal to authority. Completely unnecessary.
Which is great and glorious a thing that He did..., but it is a non sequitur for the discussion about whether "heaven" is used for two different things.
Last edited:
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Yes, because hatchbacks don't really have trunks, and you did not back the car into your room:
Plus, maybe that's a motel, instead of a hotel.
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
A drive-thru hotel?
Bladerunner
Active member
an atheist is a non-believer...and because Walt Brown does not believe the WORD of GOD, He is a non-believer. By the way, Atheism is a religion all its own....they don't like to be told that but it is true
Bladerunner
Active member
HPT?
Bladerunner
Active member
We have not drilled past earth's crust yet. How can we understand it other than a guess...
Right Divider
Body part
Right Divider
Body part
You are lying about Dr. Brown.
Incorrect.
"Firmament" is used exactly nine times in Genesis 1:
The FIRST FIVE are simply "firmament."
- a "firmament" in the midst of the waters
- god made the "firmament"
- waters under the "firmament"
- waters above the "firmament"
- God called the "firmament" Heaven
The LAST FOUR uses are qualified with the phrase "of the heavens":
- lights in the "firmament of the heavens"
- lights in the "firmament of the heavens"
- God set the lights in the "firmament of the heavens"
- birds fly above the earth across the face of the "firmament of the heavens"
Note verse 9:
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.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:9 - New King James Version
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.
"Under the heavens" and "dry land" preclude the last few verses from talking about the sky, because dry land is "on top," not "underneath," and it introduces "the heavens" being above the dry land and the waters.
In other words:
The world was covered in water (vs 2)
God made a firmament in the midst of the waters, separating the waters above from "the deep" (vs 6; cf vs 2)
God caused some of the firmament that he created to rise above the waters above to form dry land and introduces the concept of the heavens (vs 9)
God then places lights in the heavens (called a firmament)
God then makes birds that fly across the face of the heavens (called a firmament)
Again:
The concept of "the heavens" is not introduced until verse 9, AFTER God is almost finished with the firmament CALLED Heaven, and since "earth" (the dry land) is now complete, He moves His attention to the things "above" (positionally) the firmament called heaven, creating plants, and creatures in the waters above the firmament, and that fly across the face of the firmament of the heavens.
Did you catch that?
God created creatures in the waters above the firmament, and other creatures that fly across the face of the firmament of the heavens.
Firmament.
Firmament of the heavens.
They are two different things.
Exactly, hence, "trunk OF THE CAR" is used to clarify the difference.
Just like "of the heavens" is used to differentiate between the "firmament" and the "firmament of the heavens"
So the lights in the firmament of the heavens are in the dry ground called earth?
Sorry, that doesn't work, for the reasons I showed above in this post.
You missed the point.
Day 1 - "and God saw the light, that it was good" (vs 4)
Day 2 - none
Day 3 - "and God saw that it was good" (vs 10); "and God saw that it was good" (vs 12)
Day 4 - "and God saw that it was good" (vs 18)
Day 5 - "and God saw that it was good" (vs 21)
Day 6 - "and God saw that it was good" (vs 25); "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good." (vs 31)
The chapter itself shows that there is a "God saw that it was good" after each thing that he makes (with the exception of man, which is the pinnacle of His creation).
What this ALSO shows us is that God started something on day 2, but did not finish it until partway through day 3.
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.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:6-10 - 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...
Note that ALL FIVE of the FIRST FIVE of the uses of "firmament" are in this passage, and like I said above, none of them have the clarifier "of the heavens." Grammatically speaking, there is no good reason to think that these five are all talking about something different than what the passage describes, and there is no good reason, based on the context of the next four usages that these five are talking about the same thing that the next four are talking about.
Sure. The God made the firmament called Heaven in the midst of the waters, dividing the waters above from the deep, like so:
And caused part of it to become dry land by making the waters above gather in dips in the firmament. Like so:
Yes. The dry land that appeared as a result of the waters above gathering together as a result of Heaven settling was called earth.
NO.
God made "Heaven" (the firmament in the midst of the waters", then made "Earth" (the dry land that appeared out of the waters which were gathered) and "Seas" (the waters under "the heavens").
Earth was heaven.
The place where God lived.
A paradise.
What we today would call "heaven on earth," but instead of it being a figure of speech, it was literally heaven!
The "firmament of the heavens" is itself a figure of speech, referring to the expansiveness of the sky, as though it had been stretched out (like "raqqa" would imply), an expanse.
Only because you're being intentionally obtuse, Derf! STOP IT!
THE FIRMAMENT is what was called Heaven, Derf!
NOT "the firmament of the heavens"!
If you cant distinguish between those two concepts mentally, then there's no possible way for me to help you understand this topic!
Saying it doesn't make it so!
Supra.
Bladerunner does not believe the WORD of GOD.
Bladerunner is an athiest.
....
See how easy that was? Anyone can make false claims as though they were true, but it doesn't make them true!
Dr. Walt Brown is most definitely NOT an athiest!
He literally based His entire theory ON THE BIBLE WHICH YOU CLAIM HE REJECTS!
No, he is not.
Off topic.
So you have no idea what we're talking about, but feel the need to libel the author of the theory which we're discussing? What do you have against Dr. Walt Brown? Is there some personal vendetta you have against him?
Shame on you. Keep this up, and I will personally ban you from the Creation Science forum, if not TOL as a whole.
Ever heard of seismology?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
That's what lots of people like to say, who refer to themselves by the word, "atheist". But the question is: a non-believer of what proposition? Since everyone, without exception, is a non-believer of countless propositions.
If that were true, then atheism would be Christianity*, since religion is worship of God, and since only Christianity is worship of God. Like Islamism, Satanism, anti-Trinitarianism, Mormonism, Russellism, Romanism, Hinduism, etc., atheism fails to be religion; all such things are war against God, rather than worship of Him. So, like Islamism, Satanism, anti-Trinitarianism, Mormonism, Russellism, Romanism, Hinduism, etc., atheism, too, is not (a) religion.
*And, of course, atheism is obviously not Christianity (though recently, at a thrift store, I happened to find a ridiculous paperback from the 60s or 70s titled by an oxymoron: The Gospel of Christian Atheism).
Derf
Well-known member
Early Christians were called "atheists", because they didn't acknowledge the Greek/Roman pantheon, or the particular Caesars, as true gods.
Bladerunner
Active member
you keep adding , changing GOD's Words to fit you view....It ok, but I were you I would really read Rev 22:18-19.Incorrect.
"Firmament" is used exactly nine times in Genesis 1:
The FIRST FIVE are simply "firmament."
- a "firmament" in the midst of the waters
- god made the "firmament"
- waters under the "firmament"
- waters above the "firmament"
- God called the "firmament" Heaven
The LAST FOUR uses are qualified with the phrase "of the heavens":
- lights in the "firmament of the heavens"
- lights in the "firmament of the heavens"
- God set the lights in the "firmament of the heavens"
- birds fly above the earth across the face of the "firmament of the heavens"
Note verse 9:
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.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:9 - New King James Version
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.www.biblegateway.com
"Under the heavens" and "dry land" preclude the last few verses from talking about the sky, because dry land is "on top," not "underneath," and it introduces "the heavens" being above the dry land and the waters.
In other words:
The world was covered in water (vs 2)
God made a firmament in the midst of the waters, separating the waters above from "the deep" (vs 6; cf vs 2)
God caused some of the firmament that he created to rise above the waters above to form dry land and introduces the concept of the heavens (vs 9)
God then places lights in the heavens (called a firmament)
God then makes birds that fly across the face of the heavens (called a firmament)
Again:
The concept of "the heavens" is not introduced until verse 9, AFTER God is almost finished with the firmament CALLED Heaven, and since "earth" (the dry land) is now complete, He moves His attention to the things "above" (positionally) the firmament called heaven, creating plants, and creatures in the waters above the firmament, and that fly across the face of the firmament of the heavens.
Did you catch that?
God created creatures in the waters above the firmament, and other creatures that fly across the face of the firmament of the heavens.
Firmament.
Firmament of the heavens.
They are two different things.
Exactly, hence, "trunk OF THE CAR" is used to clarify the difference.
Just like "of the heavens" is used to differentiate between the "firmament" and the "firmament of the heavens"
So the lights in the firmament of the heavens are in the dry ground called earth?
Sorry, that doesn't work, for the reasons I showed above in this post.
You missed the point.
Day 1 - "and God saw the light, that it was good" (vs 4)
Day 2 - none
Day 3 - "and God saw that it was good" (vs 10); "and God saw that it was good" (vs 12)
Day 4 - "and God saw that it was good" (vs 18)
Day 5 - "and God saw that it was good" (vs 21)
Day 6 - "and God saw that it was good" (vs 25); "Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good." (vs 31)
The chapter itself shows that there is a "God saw that it was good" after each thing that he makes (with the exception of man, which is the pinnacle of His creation).
What this ALSO shows us is that God started something on day 2, but did not finish it until partway through day 3.
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.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:6-10 - 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
Note that ALL FIVE of the FIRST FIVE of the uses of "firmament" are in this passage, and like I said above, none of them have the clarifier "of the heavens." Grammatically speaking, there is no good reason to think that these five are all talking about something different than what the passage describes, and there is no good reason, based on the context of the next four usages that these five are talking about the same thing that the next four are talking about.
Sure. The God made the firmament called Heaven in the midst of the waters, dividing the waters above from the deep, like so:
View attachment 11209
And caused part of it to become dry land by making the waters above gather in dips in the firmament. Like so:
View attachment 11207
Yes. The dry land that appeared as a result of the waters above gathering together as a result of Heaven settling was called earth.
NO.
God made "Heaven" (the firmament in the midst of the waters", then made "Earth" (the dry land that appeared out of the waters which were gathered) and "Seas" (the waters under "the heavens").
Earth was heaven.
The place where God lived.
A paradise.
What we today would call "heaven on earth," but instead of it being a figure of speech, it was literally heaven!
The "firmament of the heavens" is itself a figure of speech, referring to the expansiveness of the sky, as though it had been stretched out (like "raqqa" would imply), an expanse.
Only because you're being intentionally obtuse, Derf! STOP IT!
THE FIRMAMENT is what was called Heaven, Derf!
NOT "the firmament of the heavens"!
If you cant distinguish between those two concepts mentally, then there's no possible way for me to help you understand this topic!
Saying it doesn't make it so!
Supra.
Derf
Well-known member
This is where God first introduces the word "Heaven" (and it is always given in the plural: "Heavens"). Up until this time, the firmament was being formed (more from absence of material), and when He was done, He gave us the name for it. The same for the earth (dry), that was named when it appeared. Both of these were given in Gen 1:1 as goals of the creative process:
[Gen 1:1 NKJV] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Followed by how He made them, at which point He named them:
[Gen 1:8 NKJV] And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
[Gen 1:10 NKJV] And God called the dry [land] Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that [it was] good.
Between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:8, God didn't use the word "Heavens", because they (it?) didn't exist. Between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:10, God didn't use the word "Earth", because it didn't exist, Earth being the dry land, and Heavens being the space above the dry land.
After the term has been defined, God used it in accordance with the definition He had provided, as you show, here:
Note that there are two things the firmament has: an "in" characteristic and an "on" characteristic (same concept as "across the face". The "in" is used to for things like "stars", "sun", and "moon", and the "on" is used for birds, where they fly. The sky, where birds fly, is the part of the expanse that we can experience, but it isn't the expanse. It is merely the surface of it, from our point of view.
No, He introduces the concept when He made it, which all happened before he named it, in vs 8. To say God defines a word, then uses it for a completely different concept is the confusion factor I mentioned.Note verse 9:
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.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:9 - New King James Version
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.
"Under the heavens" and "dry land" preclude the last few verses from talking about the sky, because dry land is "on top," not "underneath," and it introduces "the heavens" being above the dry land and the waters.
In other words:
The world was covered in water (vs 2)
God made a firmament in the midst of the waters, separating the waters above from "the deep" (vs 6; cf vs 2)
God caused some of the firmament that he created to rise above the waters above to form dry land and introduces the concept of the heavens (vs 9)
I think you just reversed what you said before, that the firmament is called heavens, then the term changes to "firmament of the heavens". But now you are saying the the heavens is called a firmament. I don't see how you can get away from the idea that the heavens HAS a firmament, and it also has a surface. I'll try to remember to come back to this dichotomy.
Except the verses NEVER say God made any creatures "above" the firmament. (Prove me wrong on this, if you can!) That word combination doesn't exist in the passage, at all, ever. There is something introduced regarding "in" the firmament of the heavens and "on" (across the face of) the firmament of the heavens, as you rightly pointed out. But if the same firmament of the heavens is in view for both of those, neither can be talking about a firmament that is below where the birds fly (no stars could be there) or above where the stars are (no birds are there, as far as we can tell, and the bird part of the passage also deals with fish, which we can get access to--they aren't in some place above the firmament of the heavens. And they aren't in some firmament of the earth, called "heaven", because it isn't a concept spelled out that way.
Called "Heavens".
Let me offer an explanation that I think fits the scripture better. When God made the space between the waters, He made it firm. How did He do that, make "space" to be "firm"? According to our current theories of the structure of space, He used gravity and motion. Gravity to keep the system from blowing apart, and motion to keep the system from collapsing on itself. There could well be more to it, but that at least provides for a "firmament" of the heavens. And the surface of the firmament, the "face" of it, is the interface between the earth (dry land) and the firmament, called heavens (the space), or the firmament of the space. You can't have the space without a firmament, so the firmament is the space and is of the space.
Except God gave no other context. He literally talks about the trunk of the car, defining "trunk" as that space, then, in my scenario, He used the word immediately after for some un-introduced concept. It's possible, but confusing. And God isn't trying to be confusing, since He spends a fair amount of time defining words.
I don't understand your question here, except that you are reading my words from your presuppositions. I don't think that works for that part of my post.
Agreed. That's why I think you should reject the idea. God defined what "heavens" refers to, and He stuck with that definition. He didn't define a word, then never used the word in that same way again, as your view has Him doing. If you don't believe me, go back to your list of uses of "firmament". He makes a firmament by separating waters; He calls the firmament "heavens"; He then talks about a firmament that He associates with "heavens"; and He never again refers to the ground firmament as "heavens".
No, He absolutely did NOT provide a "God saw that it was good" after each thing he makes. For instance, He did not "see that it was good" after the Sun, or the moon, but only after the stars also, and when they were put in place. It wasn't enough, in the system of lights in the firmament, just to have a Sun. So He waited until He had also made the moon and the stars and set them in their places before He saw that it was good.
Agreed!
Disagree. You haven't established that the thing God didn't see as good was the thing He saw as good partway through day 3. It is just as possible that He left off with the firmament until later (as you agree), but the thing that wasn't good about it was that it was still empty. God doesn't like things that are "void"--they aren't "good"
Yes, there is a good reason--a word definition. When a word is specifically defined for use in a passage, then it would be strange to never use it for that use again, but instead to use it for something else where the usage was NOT defined. This is standard fare for literary structure.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.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:6-10 - 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...
Note that ALL FIVE of the FIRST FIVE of the uses of "firmament" are in this passage, and like I said above, none of them have the clarifier "of the heavens." Grammatically speaking, there is no good reason to think that these five are all talking about something different than what the passage describes, and there is no good reason, based on the context of the next four usages that these five are talking about the same thing that the next four are talking about.
It's a nice story, but it isn't a story that's in the first chapter of Genesis.
Let's go back to the first verse:
[Gen 1:1 NKJV] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
There are two main foci of the chapter: 1. the heavens, and 2. the earth. If the earth is called "the heavens", then vs 1 wasn't written correctly, it would only say "In the beginning God created the heavens." But it would be confusing, because the reader wouldn't be sure whether that verse was talking about the earth that is called "Heavens" or another thing that is called "Heavens."
Yes, that is what I mean by "the epitome of confusion". You can't help me understand the topic in the way you are explaining it, but not because of my obtuseness. It's because of the inconsistency in your explanation.
I've talked to two scientists that are familiar with and promote Dr. Brown's hydroplate theory, and both of them agree with me that calling the earth heaven is an unnecessary part of the theory. I won't give there names here in the public part of the forum, because I don't want to cause dissension. I can give their names on a private chat with you, if you like. One of them was in a conversation just this week at the homeschool conference in Denver, and I expect you will recognize his name.
Using that phrase doesn't make it NOT so, either.
One more point. I already stated that God first told us what He was going to explain in Gen 1:1, the creation of the heavens and the earth. He then gave the detailed version of the creation in Gen 1:2-31, wrapping it up in 6 days. Then He did (through Moses, of course) what any skilled presenter of information would do, and gave a recap of what He had just explained...a synopsis to make sure everyone got the point. This is what the military are told to do when giving a briefing: "First, tell them what you're going to tell them. Second, tell them what you want to tell them. Third, tell them what you just told them.
Here it is:
[Gen 1:1 NKJV] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
[Gen 1:2-31 is the full description]
[Gen 2:1 NKJV] Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.
There's the clincher in the last verse. "Heavens" is used of what here? Of the solid material between the deep and the surface of the globe? No, it is obviously talking about the "firmament of the the Heavens", because it includes the contents: "and all the host of them." This is repeated in the Sabbath commandment as "and all that is in them."
[Exo 20:11 NKJV] For [in] six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that [is] in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
We can tell, therefore, that the intention of the use of the word "Heavens", used these two places without "firmament of the" added to it, is on the place where God set the sun, moon, and stars, and not in the ground.
Right Divider
Body part
Again... you lie.
No one has added anything, BR.
No one has changed God's words.
And if we had done either, it WOULD NOT BE OKAY!
Revelation has nothing to do with this topic.
Last warning. If all you are going to do is hurl straw man arguments against people here in this thread and/or subforum, you will be removed from it.
Either substantiate your claims, or shut up.