Derf, this post is REALLY REALLY LONG. So please, read completely through it first before responding. Otherwise you may not get to the crucial points.
Again, the firmament, NOT "of the heavens," but the one in the midst of the waters, was called heaven.
You can't form something from an absence of material, Derf!
ESPECIALLY not in the midst of the waters, to divide the waters above from the waters below!
That's all well and good, until you realize that you've completely ignored the location of what was called "heaven."
Which you continue to do even after I have pointed it out MULTIPLE TIMES in this thread alone.
The "firmament" God called "Heaven" was "in the midst of the waters.
The VERY SAME WATERS that the Spirit of God was hovering over IN VERSE 2.
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.
www.biblegateway.com
Derf, question 1:
Do you agree that the earth was covered in water in verse two?
Question 2:
If so, where was the firmament God started to create on day 2?
And yes, I expect an answer to AT LEAST the first question.
Yes, this is true for both our positions.
No, Derf!
Naming something "Heaven" (and I see no reason to use the plural, since it's a noun, not an article) does not mean God is introducing the concept of "heavens"!
HE IS NAMING SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN INTRODUCED!
My position has not changed in the slightest.
There is a firmament, called "Heaven," which is the firmament God created in the midst of the waters of day 2.
There is a firmament of the heavens, which is not the "firmament called Heaven," across the face of which birds fly, and in which God placed the stars, the sun, and the moon.
How do birds fly across the face of a firmament that is sandwiched between two layers of water, even given that dry land has appeared on one side of it, THAT ALSO has stars and the sun and the moon within that firmament?
It's not possible.
There must be, because it is the only rational conclusion, two different firmaments being described in Genesis 1.
I showed you the distinction. You tried to explain it away, and failed.
We get the word "firmament" from the latin word firmamentum.
It means, not surprisingly, "a firm object."
In a figurative sense, the heavens (not "Heaven," v6, but "the heavens," vs 1, 9, 14, etc.) are a firm object in which God placed the stars, because upon casual observation, they do not appear to move, same with the Sun and moon, though to a noticeably lesser extent.
So yes, the heavens are indeed firm... In a sense.
Hence "firmament of the heavens."
But the latin word "firmamentum" doesn't quite convey the same meaning as the hebrew word used, which is "raqia."
"Raqia" (a noun) comes from the root word "raqqa," a verb that means to pound/beat out, like with metals, to expand them.
What?
The firmament called heaven has a surface. Where it's dry, it's called Earth. Where it's covered in water, it was called Seas.
The firmament of the heavens does not have a surface. It's a figure of speech that refers to the sky as though it were something firm.
Your assertion is that there is only one firmament, from my understanding, and that it is both "Heaven" and "the heavens."
If so, then these three verses cannot coexist.
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;
www.biblegateway.com
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.”
www.biblegateway.com
To Him who laid out the earth above the waters,For His mercy endures forever;
www.biblegateway.com
Why?
Because, according to your position, and using scripture, this would be the structure of the creation (in order from top to bottom):
The spirit of God hovering over…
The earth (Psalm 136:6)
The waters above the firmament of the heavens, and the earth (2 Peter 3:5)
The firmament of the heavens
The birds flying across the face of the firmament of the heavens, and also the waters below the firmament of the heavens (apparently the birds are swimming sometimes, not flying?)
Seas and dry land (which is also apparently the earth?)
You either have to concede that God put the lights in ground, or that God not only made a layer of water underneath the sky, but that somehow dry land appeared in the sky, which of course neither scenario matches reality!
Good grief, that made my head hurt trying explain that.
And you think MY position is confusing!
No, the far more, and I insist the only, rational position is that there are two firmaments, one literal, one figurative, and that the figurative one refers to the sky and to space in general, and the literal one refers to the crust of the earth.
So what?
You're not describing problems with my position, Derf.
You're describing the problems with yours, and trying to pass them off as problems with mine, and that is the cause of your confusion. My position is not the cause of it.
Again!
There are TWO firmaments.
The first one is referred to with the FIRST FIVE of nine usages in Genesis 1, all contained within Day 2, and part of Day 3. ALL FIVE refer to something "in the midst of the waters," which divide the waters above from the waters below," the same waters that are mentioned in verse two, and these waters were, according to verse 2, on the earth.
The LAST FOUR of nine are all qualified with "of the heavens," in order to distinguish them from the first five, and they ALL make sense when talking about things "above" us, like the birds flying in the sky or the sun, moon, and stars in space.
You can't have one firmament in both places, because they're two different places, and one thing cannot exist in two different locations simultaneously.
ONLY WITH TWO FIRMAMENTS can you make sense of the chapter, and of plenty of other verses in the Bible as well!
I see absolutely no reason to call the firmament of verse 6 anything other than "Heaven," as translated.
Yes, the Hebrew word used is plural. But for the sake of this conversation, and boy do you need it, I'm trying to make as much of a distinction between the firmament of day 2 and part of day 3, and the firmament of the heavens found throughout the rest of the chapter.
Don't make this harder than it has to be.
There's your first mistake.
Why do you assume it's "space"?
Space does not divide water on earth (verse 2). Space is FILLED IN BY WATER on earth.
So it can't be space.
Your premise is false, therefore the rest of your "explanation" is utter nonsense.
WRONG!
God gave the context of verse 2.
Here it is again:
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.
www.biblegateway.com
The context is the earth (the planet, not the dry ground, which doesn't yet exist yet).
Not the heavens. Not the sky.
The earth.
God is focusing on the earth, and thus, His Spirit is over the face of.....
The waters.
God then makes light, and gets the earth turning.
Day 2, BACK TO THE WATERS: God makes something IN THE MIDST of THE WATERS.
The WATERS ON EARTH.
Not in space.
Not underground.
Not in heaven.
ON. EARTH.
Like this:
They are the reason we call the large storage space in modern day vehicles "trunks," because people used to strap them TO THE BACKS OF AUTOMOBILES! Modern vehicles replaced the large bulky boxes with built-in storage, but kept the name "trunk."
Or maybe you knew that, and THAT is what was confusing you.
Here! Let me make this easier for you!
Instead of referring to a trunk box, let's switch the analogy to an elephant trunk instead!
God spends five verses talking about the "trunk", and it's understood by the context that he's talking about an elephants trunk.
He then starts talking in 4 other verses about two different things and puts one of those things in "the trunk of the car" and the other in front of "the trunk of the car".
Question, and I really hope this is an easy one for you!:
Is the "trunk" He spoke about in the first five verse the same object as the "trunk" in the last four verses?
If you answer "yes, they're the same trunk," then you need to get your head checked out, because there is clearly something wrong with it!
NO! OF COURSE THEY'RE NOT THE SAME TRUNK!
One is an elephant's trunk, and the other is the trunk of the car!
Derf! The EXACT SAME PHRASING IS USED IN GENESIS 1!
God talks about a "raqia" (firmament) for five verses and calls it "samayim" (Heaven), then for four more verses, talks about two other things in reference to a raqia hassamayim (firmament of the heavens). The answer is the same as above! The two "raqia"s ARE NOT THE SAME THING! Just like the two "trunk"s are not the same thing!
Derf. This may seem off topic, but I assure you, I'm going somewhere with this.
Are you aware that Hebrew often has a certain pattern to it? (particularly in poetry, but even in other forms of writing)
Psalm 19 is one of the most beautiful Psalms in the book, because of the way it is structured.
To give you a glimpse at it, go read it real quick, then come back here.
...
Done yet?
Good. A beautiful psalm, isn't it?
Now, read it again, this time taking note of how in the first 6 verses, David is describing the physical universe with literary terms; and take note of how in the last 8 verses, it is describing Scripture with astronomical terms.
. . .
Done reading?
Did I just blow your mind? It really makes the psalm become so much more vivid!
So where am I going with this, you ask?
Consider that God, in Genesis 1:6-10 describes the firmament of the earth (the crust) as something pounded out (raqia), and then in verses 14, 15, 17, and 20, God reverses it, and literally spreads out the heavens (ie, the sky, space) as though it were a metal being pounded out, that birds can fly across the face of, and that he can set lights into, as though the sky is something physical though it is not!
How beautiful the passage becomes when you realize that Moses (via inspiration of God) wrote a masterpiece of literature for the very first chapter of the Bible, by first describing a physical firmament as the foundation for life on earth, then by describing other things as they relate to a figurative firmament that holds those things in place, or serve as a backdrop for other life.
And that sounded a lot better in my head, but surely you get the idea? (I reiterate this below a lot better after getting some sleep.)
God makes the firmament of the earth (the crust), and calls it heaven, then uses "the heavens" in relation to the opposite of the first "firmament," to denote the sky and what would eventually become known as outer space, to serve as a firmament of sorts to "hold" the lights in the heavens in place (through something unseen).
If you are confused, it's not because of God.
My question is about the logical conclusion of your position.
IF THERE IS ONLY ONE FIRMAMENT:
Then that firmament which was made on earth (cf verse 2; verse 6; 2 Peter 3:4-6; Psalm 136:6) is the same firmament in which God put the sun, moon, and stars.
Supra.
Wrong. And I showed you why that was the case.
All three of those things are "lights in the sky."
Just read the passage!
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
www.biblegateway.com
Those lights were:
- to divide the day from the night
- for signs and seasons
- for days and years
- to be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth
The first two lights God made were the sun and the moon, and then He made the stars.
All of that, God saw it was good.
So what?
Just read the passage, Derf! I'm really not sure why you're being so stubborn on this! It's literally what is being said!
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day.
www.biblegateway.com
You have:
- verse 5 (not quoted) ending with the end of the first day
- verse 6 starts with God creating a firmament in the midst of the waters (cf 1:2), dividing the waters from the waters (again, cf 1:2)
- verse 7 which describes God's creation of that firmament, which divided the waters below the firmament (the "deep") from the waters above the firmament (note the band of material between the "waters above" and the "waters below")
- verse 8 which has God calling the firmament (that same band of material) "Heaven", and then day 2 ends with no "and God saw it was good, as with day 1
- verse 9 has the waters under "the heavens" gather into one place, and to cause the dry land to appear (note that the firmament called "Heaven," that band of material, has now sunk down in places)
- verse 10 God calls the dry land Earth and the gathered together waters He calls Seas; only NOW does God recognize His work as good, as Moses moves onto plant life, rather than talking about the firmament
- verse 11-12 is God making plant life, and at the end He calls the plant life good
- verse 13 end of day 3
If it was as you described it, the waters below the firmament (the band of material in the first and second image in this segment), AKA "the deep," would have been the water that was gathered together into one place.
You're the one asserting that the firmament of verse 6 is the "heavens" of verse 9 and "firmament of the heavens" of verse 14 and onwards.
That means that there would be dry land appearing below this firmament called heaven, this firmament of the heavens.
That's a HUGE problem for your position.
The only way to resolve it is to say that the the firmament is in the sky, but that contradicts (yes, contradicts) the fact that the water is on the earth.
There is no void in verses 6-8.
There is nothing "void" in verses 6-8.
What does that even mean, anyways, that "God doesn't like things that are 'void'--they aren't 'good.'"?
If God made a massive shell of granite and dirt, ~60 miles, in the midst of the waters, then it would take time for that shell to settle, because it isn't going to stay afloat, and rock at that scale acts is not a rigid material. It would take time for the rock to settle once it had been created, especially for it to settle without cracking which would be caused by rapid movement, which would be counterproductive.
One thing you should take note of, Derf, is that God likes using tools to accomplish His will. Rather than directly affecting His creation, God will use things that He made to affect the universe He created, and even the people He made. For example, rather than trying to convince Pharaoh directly, He attacked their gods using plagues that show His power over the things those gods were supposed to rule over. And He used a flood to wipe out all of mankind, rather than just killing them directly. And he used fish and bread to feed 5000 people, rather than putting food directly into their stomachs.
In the same way, God used gravity along with the bed of water under the crust to form the crust without breaking it, a process that took roughly a day and a half, and once finished, He had just enough time to put something on that canvas before the end of the first day.
So in the beginning, God created the firmament and the earth, is what you're saying?
Please explain how that makes sense.
Otherwise, I'll stick to using the context of what is being said to understand the meaning of words, especially for a language that has relatively few words compared to others, where some words have a multitude of definitions, and can be used in multiple ways even within the same passage.
The base word for "the heavens" and "Heaven" in Genesis 1 is "shamayim."
Strong's:
In Genesis 1, it is used in two different ways.
1:1 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:8 - šā·mā·yim
1:9 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:14 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:15 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:17 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:20 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:26 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:28 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:30 - haš·šā·ma·yim
Notice anything?
The ONE TIME in Genesis 1 where it is NOT used as an article is in verse 8!
Meaning it's not "the heavens" but "heaven(s)."
Hebrew only has one article, "ה" ("ha") which corresponds to the English "the."
The fact that it is NOT used in verse 8, but is used in every other place in Genesis 1 where shamayim is used, should give you a hint that the "šā·mā·yim" in verse 8 is NOT THE SAME THING as the other "haš·šā·ma·yim" in all the other verses.
In other words!
There's a reason the English translators used "Heaven" rather than "the heavens."
It's because Moses was trying to make a distinction between the "heaven" of verse 8 and the "the heavens" of the rest of the chapter.
To reiterate: Moses is using a term for the sky and the things that are in it to describe a geological formation, and then uses a geological term, "raqia" to describe the sky, just like with Psalm 19.
Yes it is. Supra.
Correct.
It wasn't, nor is that what I've been saying.
Supra.
There us nothing wrong with the consistency of my position. You have repeatedly misrepresented things that I said (just a few paragraphs up for one example) and then base the rest of your confusion off of that misrepresentation.
So what? Many people have disagreed with Dr. Brown. Nothing new under the sun.
Doesn't make them right and him wrong.
Doesn't make them wrong and him right.
Don't make appeals to authority, Derf.
It's irrelevant who they are.
You cannot remove one of the foundations of a theory and have the theory remain viable.
The firmament of day 2 being part of the earth is FOUNDATIONAL (pun not intended) to the HPT, because it's part of where the water came from during the flood, the very source of the fountains of the great deep.
Agreed!
Yes, we agree on that.
The problem is that now you're special pleading.
Verse 8 "heaven" does not have a "ha" article, just as the rest of the usages do.
All I've been saying this entire time is that THAT SPECIFIC "shamayim" is different than the rest.
Supra.
AMEN!
Only in every verse where it's used OTHER than verse 8.
Which is what I've been saying all along!
Verses 6-10 are NOT talking about "the heavens." Otherwise you have gathered together Seas and dry land Earth in the sky, which doesn't make sense at all.
Again, the firmament, NOT "of the heavens," but the one in the midst of the waters, was called heaven.
You can't form something from an absence of material, Derf!
ESPECIALLY not in the midst of the waters, to divide the waters above from the waters below!
That's all well and good, until you realize that you've completely ignored the location of what was called "heaven."
Which you continue to do even after I have pointed it out MULTIPLE TIMES in this thread alone.
The "firmament" God called "Heaven" was "in the midst of the waters.
The VERY SAME WATERS that the Spirit of God was hovering over IN VERSE 2.
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.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:2 - New King James Version
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.
Derf, question 1:
Do you agree that the earth was covered in water in verse two?
Question 2:
If so, where was the firmament God started to create on day 2?
And yes, I expect an answer to AT LEAST the first question.
Yes, this is true for both our positions.
No, Derf!
Naming something "Heaven" (and I see no reason to use the plural, since it's a noun, not an article) does not mean God is introducing the concept of "heavens"!
HE IS NAMING SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN INTRODUCED!
My position has not changed in the slightest.
There is a firmament, called "Heaven," which is the firmament God created in the midst of the waters of day 2.
There is a firmament of the heavens, which is not the "firmament called Heaven," across the face of which birds fly, and in which God placed the stars, the sun, and the moon.
How do birds fly across the face of a firmament that is sandwiched between two layers of water, even given that dry land has appeared on one side of it, THAT ALSO has stars and the sun and the moon within that firmament?
It's not possible.
There must be, because it is the only rational conclusion, two different firmaments being described in Genesis 1.
I showed you the distinction. You tried to explain it away, and failed.
We get the word "firmament" from the latin word firmamentum.
It means, not surprisingly, "a firm object."
In a figurative sense, the heavens (not "Heaven," v6, but "the heavens," vs 1, 9, 14, etc.) are a firm object in which God placed the stars, because upon casual observation, they do not appear to move, same with the Sun and moon, though to a noticeably lesser extent.
So yes, the heavens are indeed firm... In a sense.
Hence "firmament of the heavens."
But the latin word "firmamentum" doesn't quite convey the same meaning as the hebrew word used, which is "raqia."
"Raqia" (a noun) comes from the root word "raqqa," a verb that means to pound/beat out, like with metals, to expand them.
| Moses Qualified His Last Four Uses of Firmament: Moses used the word firmament nine times in the creation account. He intentionally distinguished the last four occurrences from the first four, which all pivot around the central instance where God called the earth's firmament Heaven. Each of the four in the second grouping (Genesis 1:14, 15, 17, 20) is qualified separately by an exceptional repetition. The prepositional phrase "of the heavens" makes a distinction between the first firmament of the earth, and the second "firmament of the heavens." And if firmament means the "heavens," the very term "firmament of the heavens" would seem unnecessarily redundant, especially when repeated four times. However, the qualifier "of the heavens" is added so that the reader will not confuse this firmament of sky and space with the previous firmament of earth. Thus, readers alien to the notion of "heaven" on earth should nonetheless be able to separate the two firmaments, and understand God's meaning. Now, millennia after the Fall, God's own record of creation notwithstanding, sin has almost completely obscured the original perspective of the earth's surface as "heaven." |
What?
The firmament called heaven has a surface. Where it's dry, it's called Earth. Where it's covered in water, it was called Seas.
The firmament of the heavens does not have a surface. It's a figure of speech that refers to the sky as though it were something firm.
Your assertion is that there is only one firmament, from my understanding, and that it is both "Heaven" and "the heavens."
If so, then these three verses cannot coexist.
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:14 - New King James Version
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;
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.”
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:20 - New King James Version
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.”
To Him who laid out the earth above the waters,For His mercy endures forever;
Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 136:6 - New King James Version
To Him who laid out the earth above the waters, For His mercy endures forever;
Why?
Because, according to your position, and using scripture, this would be the structure of the creation (in order from top to bottom):
The spirit of God hovering over…
The earth (Psalm 136:6)
The waters above the firmament of the heavens, and the earth (2 Peter 3:5)
The firmament of the heavens
The birds flying across the face of the firmament of the heavens, and also the waters below the firmament of the heavens (apparently the birds are swimming sometimes, not flying?)
Seas and dry land (which is also apparently the earth?)
You either have to concede that God put the lights in ground, or that God not only made a layer of water underneath the sky, but that somehow dry land appeared in the sky, which of course neither scenario matches reality!
Good grief, that made my head hurt trying explain that.
And you think MY position is confusing!
No, the far more, and I insist the only, rational position is that there are two firmaments, one literal, one figurative, and that the figurative one refers to the sky and to space in general, and the literal one refers to the crust of the earth.
So what?
You're not describing problems with my position, Derf.
You're describing the problems with yours, and trying to pass them off as problems with mine, and that is the cause of your confusion. My position is not the cause of it.
Again!
There are TWO firmaments.
The first one is referred to with the FIRST FIVE of nine usages in Genesis 1, all contained within Day 2, and part of Day 3. ALL FIVE refer to something "in the midst of the waters," which divide the waters above from the waters below," the same waters that are mentioned in verse two, and these waters were, according to verse 2, on the earth.
The LAST FOUR of nine are all qualified with "of the heavens," in order to distinguish them from the first five, and they ALL make sense when talking about things "above" us, like the birds flying in the sky or the sun, moon, and stars in space.
You can't have one firmament in both places, because they're two different places, and one thing cannot exist in two different locations simultaneously.
ONLY WITH TWO FIRMAMENTS can you make sense of the chapter, and of plenty of other verses in the Bible as well!
I see absolutely no reason to call the firmament of verse 6 anything other than "Heaven," as translated.
Yes, the Hebrew word used is plural. But for the sake of this conversation, and boy do you need it, I'm trying to make as much of a distinction between the firmament of day 2 and part of day 3, and the firmament of the heavens found throughout the rest of the chapter.
Don't make this harder than it has to be.
There's your first mistake.
Why do you assume it's "space"?
Space does not divide water on earth (verse 2). Space is FILLED IN BY WATER on earth.
So it can't be space.
Your premise is false, therefore the rest of your "explanation" is utter nonsense.
WRONG!
God gave the context of verse 2.
Here it is again:
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.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:2 - New King James Version
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.
The context is the earth (the planet, not the dry ground, which doesn't yet exist yet).
Not the heavens. Not the sky.
The earth.
God is focusing on the earth, and thus, His Spirit is over the face of.....
The waters.
God then makes light, and gets the earth turning.
Day 2, BACK TO THE WATERS: God makes something IN THE MIDST of THE WATERS.
The WATERS ON EARTH.
Not in space.
Not underground.
Not in heaven.
ON. EARTH.
Like this:
They are the reason we call the large storage space in modern day vehicles "trunks," because people used to strap them TO THE BACKS OF AUTOMOBILES! Modern vehicles replaced the large bulky boxes with built-in storage, but kept the name "trunk."
Or maybe you knew that, and THAT is what was confusing you.
Here! Let me make this easier for you!
Instead of referring to a trunk box, let's switch the analogy to an elephant trunk instead!
God spends five verses talking about the "trunk", and it's understood by the context that he's talking about an elephants trunk.
He then starts talking in 4 other verses about two different things and puts one of those things in "the trunk of the car" and the other in front of "the trunk of the car".
Question, and I really hope this is an easy one for you!:
Is the "trunk" He spoke about in the first five verse the same object as the "trunk" in the last four verses?
If you answer "yes, they're the same trunk," then you need to get your head checked out, because there is clearly something wrong with it!
NO! OF COURSE THEY'RE NOT THE SAME TRUNK!
One is an elephant's trunk, and the other is the trunk of the car!
Derf! The EXACT SAME PHRASING IS USED IN GENESIS 1!
God talks about a "raqia" (firmament) for five verses and calls it "samayim" (Heaven), then for four more verses, talks about two other things in reference to a raqia hassamayim (firmament of the heavens). The answer is the same as above! The two "raqia"s ARE NOT THE SAME THING! Just like the two "trunk"s are not the same thing!
Derf. This may seem off topic, but I assure you, I'm going somewhere with this.
Are you aware that Hebrew often has a certain pattern to it? (particularly in poetry, but even in other forms of writing)
Psalm 19 is one of the most beautiful Psalms in the book, because of the way it is structured.
To give you a glimpse at it, go read it real quick, then come back here.
...
Done yet?
Good. A beautiful psalm, isn't it?
Now, read it again, this time taking note of how in the first 6 verses, David is describing the physical universe with literary terms; and take note of how in the last 8 verses, it is describing Scripture with astronomical terms.
. . .
Done reading?
Did I just blow your mind? It really makes the psalm become so much more vivid!
So where am I going with this, you ask?
Consider that God, in Genesis 1:6-10 describes the firmament of the earth (the crust) as something pounded out (raqia), and then in verses 14, 15, 17, and 20, God reverses it, and literally spreads out the heavens (ie, the sky, space) as though it were a metal being pounded out, that birds can fly across the face of, and that he can set lights into, as though the sky is something physical though it is not!
How beautiful the passage becomes when you realize that Moses (via inspiration of God) wrote a masterpiece of literature for the very first chapter of the Bible, by first describing a physical firmament as the foundation for life on earth, then by describing other things as they relate to a figurative firmament that holds those things in place, or serve as a backdrop for other life.
And that sounded a lot better in my head, but surely you get the idea? (I reiterate this below a lot better after getting some sleep.)
God makes the firmament of the earth (the crust), and calls it heaven, then uses "the heavens" in relation to the opposite of the first "firmament," to denote the sky and what would eventually become known as outer space, to serve as a firmament of sorts to "hold" the lights in the heavens in place (through something unseen).
If you are confused, it's not because of God.
My question is about the logical conclusion of your position.
IF THERE IS ONLY ONE FIRMAMENT:
Then that firmament which was made on earth (cf verse 2; verse 6; 2 Peter 3:4-6; Psalm 136:6) is the same firmament in which God put the sun, moon, and stars.
Supra.
Wrong. And I showed you why that was the case.
All three of those things are "lights in the sky."
Just read the passage!
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:14-18 - New King James Version
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great...
Those lights were:
- to divide the day from the night
- for signs and seasons
- for days and years
- to be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth
The first two lights God made were the sun and the moon, and then He made the stars.
All of that, God saw it was good.
So what?
Just read the passage, Derf! I'm really not sure why you're being so stubborn on this! It's literally what is being said!
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day.
Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:6-13 - New King James Version
Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament...
You have:
- verse 5 (not quoted) ending with the end of the first day
- verse 6 starts with God creating a firmament in the midst of the waters (cf 1:2), dividing the waters from the waters (again, cf 1:2)
- verse 7 which describes God's creation of that firmament, which divided the waters below the firmament (the "deep") from the waters above the firmament (note the band of material between the "waters above" and the "waters below")
- verse 8 which has God calling the firmament (that same band of material) "Heaven", and then day 2 ends with no "and God saw it was good, as with day 1
- verse 9 has the waters under "the heavens" gather into one place, and to cause the dry land to appear (note that the firmament called "Heaven," that band of material, has now sunk down in places)
- verse 10 God calls the dry land Earth and the gathered together waters He calls Seas; only NOW does God recognize His work as good, as Moses moves onto plant life, rather than talking about the firmament
- verse 11-12 is God making plant life, and at the end He calls the plant life good
- verse 13 end of day 3
If it was as you described it, the waters below the firmament (the band of material in the first and second image in this segment), AKA "the deep," would have been the water that was gathered together into one place.
You're the one asserting that the firmament of verse 6 is the "heavens" of verse 9 and "firmament of the heavens" of verse 14 and onwards.
That means that there would be dry land appearing below this firmament called heaven, this firmament of the heavens.
That's a HUGE problem for your position.
The only way to resolve it is to say that the the firmament is in the sky, but that contradicts (yes, contradicts) the fact that the water is on the earth.
There is no void in verses 6-8.
There is nothing "void" in verses 6-8.
What does that even mean, anyways, that "God doesn't like things that are 'void'--they aren't 'good.'"?
If God made a massive shell of granite and dirt, ~60 miles, in the midst of the waters, then it would take time for that shell to settle, because it isn't going to stay afloat, and rock at that scale acts is not a rigid material. It would take time for the rock to settle once it had been created, especially for it to settle without cracking which would be caused by rapid movement, which would be counterproductive.
One thing you should take note of, Derf, is that God likes using tools to accomplish His will. Rather than directly affecting His creation, God will use things that He made to affect the universe He created, and even the people He made. For example, rather than trying to convince Pharaoh directly, He attacked their gods using plagues that show His power over the things those gods were supposed to rule over. And He used a flood to wipe out all of mankind, rather than just killing them directly. And he used fish and bread to feed 5000 people, rather than putting food directly into their stomachs.
In the same way, God used gravity along with the bed of water under the crust to form the crust without breaking it, a process that took roughly a day and a half, and once finished, He had just enough time to put something on that canvas before the end of the first day.
So in the beginning, God created the firmament and the earth, is what you're saying?
Please explain how that makes sense.
Otherwise, I'll stick to using the context of what is being said to understand the meaning of words, especially for a language that has relatively few words compared to others, where some words have a multitude of definitions, and can be used in multiple ways even within the same passage.
The base word for "the heavens" and "Heaven" in Genesis 1 is "shamayim."
Strong's:
| Strong's h8064 - Lexical: שָׁמַיִם - Transliteration: shamayim - Part of Speech: Noun Masculine - Phonetic Spelling: shaw-mah'-yim - Definition: heaven, sky. - Origin: Dual of an unused singular shameh {shaw-meh'}; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve). - Usage: air, X astrologer, heaven(-s). - Translated as (count): the heavens (82), heaven (73), of heaven (65), in heaven (29), of the air (23), of the heavens (23), from heaven (20), of the heaven (16), to heaven (11), in the heavens (10), the heaven (10), heavens (6), into heaven (6), toward heaven (6), of heavens (5), to the heavens (4), your heavens (4), and the heaven (3), and the heavens (3), and heaven (2), in the air (2), in the sky (2), sky (2), you heavens (2), against the heavens (1), and heavens (1), His heavens (1), in the very heavens (1), of the sky (1), on the heavens (1), than heaven (1), that the sky (1), the astrologers (1), the highest (1), the toward heavens (1), up to heaven (1). |
In Genesis 1, it is used in two different ways.
1:1 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:8 - šā·mā·yim
1:9 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:14 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:15 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:17 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:20 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:26 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:28 - haš·šā·ma·yim
1:30 - haš·šā·ma·yim
Notice anything?
The ONE TIME in Genesis 1 where it is NOT used as an article is in verse 8!
Meaning it's not "the heavens" but "heaven(s)."
Hebrew only has one article, "ה" ("ha") which corresponds to the English "the."
The fact that it is NOT used in verse 8, but is used in every other place in Genesis 1 where shamayim is used, should give you a hint that the "šā·mā·yim" in verse 8 is NOT THE SAME THING as the other "haš·šā·ma·yim" in all the other verses.
In other words!
There's a reason the English translators used "Heaven" rather than "the heavens."
It's because Moses was trying to make a distinction between the "heaven" of verse 8 and the "the heavens" of the rest of the chapter.
To reiterate: Moses is using a term for the sky and the things that are in it to describe a geological formation, and then uses a geological term, "raqia" to describe the sky, just like with Psalm 19.
Yes it is. Supra.
Correct.
It wasn't, nor is that what I've been saying.
Supra.
There us nothing wrong with the consistency of my position. You have repeatedly misrepresented things that I said (just a few paragraphs up for one example) and then base the rest of your confusion off of that misrepresentation.
So what? Many people have disagreed with Dr. Brown. Nothing new under the sun.
Doesn't make them right and him wrong.
Doesn't make them wrong and him right.
Don't make appeals to authority, Derf.
It's irrelevant who they are.
You cannot remove one of the foundations of a theory and have the theory remain viable.
The firmament of day 2 being part of the earth is FOUNDATIONAL (pun not intended) to the HPT, because it's part of where the water came from during the flood, the very source of the fountains of the great deep.
Agreed!
Yes, we agree on that.
The problem is that now you're special pleading.
Verse 8 "heaven" does not have a "ha" article, just as the rest of the usages do.
All I've been saying this entire time is that THAT SPECIFIC "shamayim" is different than the rest.
Supra.
AMEN!
Only in every verse where it's used OTHER than verse 8.
Which is what I've been saying all along!
Verses 6-10 are NOT talking about "the heavens." Otherwise you have gathered together Seas and dry land Earth in the sky, which doesn't make sense at all.
