Question for the YECs

Merlin said:

7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water [above in amongst] it. And it was so

Click to expand...

philadiddle said:

There's nothing about the meaning of the word "above" that would imply that "amongst" is a reasonable substitution. Source

I said the following earlier but I don't blame you for not reading every single post in this thread.

From Genesis chapter 1:

7And 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.
...
16And 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. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

So basically, there are waters above the firmament (verse 7), and God set the sun, moon and stars (verse 16) in the firmament (verse 17). This would mean that there are waters above the sun, moon and stars.

Click to expand...

The preposition used in this case (ע&#1500 that you have translated "above", has a more literal definition of "upon." But as with all prepisitions in hebrew, it can take on a whole slew of renderings (what an odd phrase.... a whole slew). One of these is actually "in" and only 79 times is it used for "above". Of the 5421 times this preposition is used in the Bible, it is translated as "in" 335 times in the NASB. 18 times its translated, "within." 41 times its translated "into."

There is the possibility of "amongst", however it doesn't clear up the problem, because to say "amongst" would mean that the sun, moon, and stars are IN the water.

So I guess you could rephrase the question, "Do you believe the sun moon and stars are in water? or was God lying?"

philadiddle said:

The reason it's not good enough is that you are arbitrarily changing the meaning of the word "water" from verse to verse to suite your current scientific understanding of the universe. You are not actually considering the etymology of the word, the context it was written in, or any of the various interpretation techniques used to understand the bible. It's just a one off, ad hoc rationalization to suite your personal bias.

I would love to see you develop more of a desire to understand scripture for what it is. You'll get so much more out of it that way.

Click to expand...

It sounds like you can see more than I do on this issue. So, what do you see except that water is something that ancient people can understand. In fact, I do agree with that view. So, what else you know?

My interpretation is not an ad hoc rationalization. If it were, then I would tell you what does the water mean exactly. I did not, because I do not know. I am reasoning. If you want to convince me one way or another, you need to argue on my reason, not just dismiss it.

Let me ask you this: Why would anybody at anytime say there were water (liquid H2O) around the sun, moon, etc. This does not fit any experience/understanding by anyone at any time. This does not even qualified to be a lie.

You tell me why is this idea presented in the Genesis, by any way of explanation.

your Source
1) upon, on the ground of, according to, on account of, on behalf of, concerning, beside,
f) by, adjoining, next, at, over, around (of contiguity or proximity)

strong's
Properly the same as H5920 used as a preposition (in the singular or plural, often with prefix, or as conjugation with a particle following); above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect) in a great variety of applications: - above, according to (-ly), after, (as) against, among, and, X as, at, because of, beside (the rest of), between, beyond the time, X both and, by (reason of), X had the charge of, concerning for, in (that), (forth, out) of, (from) (off), (up-) on, over, than, through (-out), to, touching, X with.

shernren said:

Also, You Eat Cows.

Click to expand...

Yeah! They're quite tasty!

philadiddle said:

I included a picture of what it is describing. This is how the author would have understood the structure of the universe to be. This is how there can be water above the firmament, and the sun, moon, and stars can be in the firmament.

Click to expand...

I know this figure. It seems suggested that the "water above" is different from the water in the ocean. And the water above does not directly contribute to the rain (so they put it up there NOT to explain the direct rainfall). Do you recognize these two features?

Of course, there are several other interesting ideas represented by this diagram.

philadiddle said:

You'll have to explain why you think that your question hasn't been answered.

Click to expand...

Someone made the claim that "God said this" in reference to the bits about water being wherever it's supposed to be. I asked upon what basis they made the claim about God saying such a thing, and they answered by simply re-quoting the verse.

What I do not understand is how the quotation of the verse answers the question about God saying this or that about water being or not being here or there. The passage itself says nothing about these words being a quotation of God, and sections which are attributed to divine quotations are fairly clearly demarcated with "and God said..."

philadiddle said:

I'm not sure why you are quoting this. Which of these is a synonym for "amongst"?

Again, I'm not sure why you are quoting this, it seems to be an explanation for H5920 but the word "above" is H5921. Maybe you could clarify your point here.

Click to expand...

על
‛al
al
Properly the same as H5920 used as a preposition (in the singular or plural, often with prefix, or as conjugation with a particle following); above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect) in a great variety of applications: - above, according to (-ly), after, (as) against, among, and, X as, at, because of, beside (the rest of), between, beyond the time, X both and, by (reason of), X had the charge of, concerning for, in (that), (forth, out) of, (from) (off), (up-) on, over, than, through (-out), to, touching, X with.

I included a picture of what it is describing. This is how some people have assumed the author would have understood the structure of the universe to be. This is how there can be water above the firmament, and the sun, moon, and stars can be in the firmament.

philadiddle said:

Then why did you say that nobody at anytime would have described the waters above the sun, moon and stars? Do you retract that statement or do you still think it's true?

What do you mean by "different" and how does the diagram suggest this?


The waters above were let in when the windows of the firmament were opened to let them in as rain, so yes, the waters above not only contribute to the rain, but they are the source of the rain.

Click to expand...

The pattern that represents the waters are different. The water above is less dense than the ocean water.

Do you see the clouds in the drawing? The cloud is the direct source of rain, not the water above.

--------

And, this picture is only one of the possible descriptions. For example, the sun, moon and stars do not have to be "underneath" the water above. They could be "in" the water above.

The "windows" of the firmament are constantly open, but are not only open when it rains.

The same picture, different reading. It is exactly like literal or figurative reading on text.

philadiddle said:

I'm not sure how you can judge the perceived "density" of the water from a drawing. But anyways, in the bible God opens the windows of heaven to let in the rain (which means they were closed). I suppose I could continue to knitpick at what you say but it's obvious that you simply don't want Genesis 1 to be referring to an ancient cosmology. I'll stop going in circles with you now.

Click to expand...

I never try to waste my time by going anything in circles. I am quite serious on this talk. In fact, if I found you are going in circle, I might just stop.

The water above in the diagram used a lighter graphic pattern than that used for ocean water. It suggested a different type of water.

Now you are using description on the Noah's Flood in this argument. Nevertheless, the "window of heaven" (not the window of firmament) only opened ONCE. And I assume it remains opened ever since. So I don't think the window of heaven is the same as the window of firmament described in the drawing.

juvenissun said:

Now you are using description on the Noah's Flood in this argument. Nevertheless, the "window of heaven" (not the window of firmament) only opened ONCE. And I assume it remains opened ever since.

Click to expand...

Deuteronomy 11:17, 1 Kings 8:35, 2 Chronicles 6:26, Luke 4:25, Revelation 11:6

So I don't think the window of heaven is the same as the window of firmament described in the drawing.

Click to expand...

"God called the firmament 'heaven'" Gen. 1:8

(Your translation may say 'sky' but where English has two words, Hebrew--like many languages-- has only one in this case. So both 'heaven' and 'sky' are correct translations.)

gluadys said:

Deuteronomy 11:17, 1 Kings 8:35, 2 Chronicles 6:26, Luke 4:25, Revelation 11:6

"God called the firmament 'heaven'" Gen. 1:8

(Your translation may say 'sky' but where English has two words, Hebrew--like many languages-- has only one in this case. So both 'heaven' and 'sky' are correct translations.)

Click to expand...

Goodness, it is complicated.
I don't have time to think about it now. But I will do.

Thanks.