I read it literally now

Calminian · Jul 24, 2012

Philis said:
Yes, in the heaven with waters above it

Yes, the "waters" not an ocean as you've been advocating. I fully admit there are some of those original waters somewhere beyond the cosmos. Dr. Russell Humphreys wrote a book called "Starlight and Time" in which he offers a similar exegesis. But the Psalmist confirms it for me.

Psa. 148:4 Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, And you waters above the heavens!

But this water is above the heavens, not in the heavens held up by a solid dome.

Philis said:
Why does that mean they didn't view it as a solid mass?

Because clouds very obviously to the naked eye are not attached to anything solid. There's nothing is scripture to indicate heaven is solid. This is why the word "expanse" is a much better translation than the latin firmament.

Philis said:
Yet, a lot of literalists use Genesis 1:1 as evidence that God made everything ex nihlo. Often if a someone calls that verse a title they are labeled as a liberal by the literalists. Yet here you are, literally interpreting it differently than other literalists. (FYI, I kind of agree with the title aspect to the verse but haven't made any conclusions yet.)

I'm also a believer in ex nihilo. I'm not sure where you think literalists disagree with me. And I'm not a literalist. I believe the bible is filled with figurative language. I just allow the authors to indicate where it is and not modern science.

And if you agree with me on the title aspect, then you probably should come with me the rest of the way. I don't see any other way you can align yourself with Seely.

Philis said:
I have a theory of 4 heavens? How did you get that idea? Why are you talking about two earths?

Think about it. Heavens (shamayim) is a plural. That's why it's translated the heavens. There is an implicit pluralism to the word. If the heaven of Gen. 1:1 is different than the heaven of verse 8 you have at least four heavens.

And to be consistent, earth is also mentioned in Gen. 1:1 and later in verse 9. If you're going to be consistent, then earth has to be separate as well. You can have it one way for earth and another for heaven in order to support your theory.

But if you side with me in the title aspect, the problem is solved.

Philis said:
He used the name "heaven" to describe the firmament. I don't understand what your question is. You described multiple heavens just as I had stated, we seem to agree on that. So what are you asking? Or better yet, what do you think I've been trying to say?

According to the text, the heavens of Genesis 1 is the firmament (the expanse). The expanse described in Gen. 1 is the heavens. They are the same. There is no distinction in the Bible. The gathered waters of Genesis 1 are the sea. The sea is the gathered waters. The dry ground is the land. The land is the dry ground created in verse 9. There is a 1 to 1 correspondence in all of these according to the text.

What you've been doing is forcing the text to be concordant with an ancient cosmology of a solid sky holding back a heavenly ocean. You're doing what you've accused others of doing. Your motive is to escape a straightforward reading of the Bible. Respectfully, I believe that's what Seely is doing.

Philis · Jul 24, 2012

Calminian said:
Because clouds very obviously to the naked eye are not attached to anything solid. There's nothing is scripture to indicate heaven is solid. This is why the word "expanse" is a much better translation than the latin firmament.

Clouds moving around in the firmament does not mean that the firmament is the atmosphere. For example, if we flip a bowl upside down and trap a mosquito in it, the mosquito is flying around "in" the bowl, and the bowl is solid.

In the same way, you can view the sky/firmament as a solid dome (upside down bowl) and have the clouds moving around "in" the firmament.

I'm also a believer in ex nihilo. I'm not sure where you think literalists disagree with me. And I'm not a literalist. I believe the bible is filled with figurative language. I just allow the authors to indicate where it is and not modern science.

How can any of it be modern science? How would the authors be able to indicate that if they were unaware of modern science?

And if you agree with me on the title aspect, then you probably should come with me the rest of the way. I don't see any other way you can align yourself with Seely.

All right I'll keep going with you to see where this takes us. You think there are waters out in the cosmos. Those waters were originally on earth right?

Sorry for cutting the rest of your post out, these conversation tend to balloon up pretty quick so I'll leave it at this for now.

Papias · Jul 24, 2012

mark wrote:

Papias wrote:

Philis wrote:
Strong's H7549 is:

<B>

1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
a) expanse (flat as base, support)
b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

Strong's is pretty clear on this issue.

</B>

Yep. Cal and I discussed this recently (Hi Cal - remember?). There is plenty of scripture to support the "hard dome" idea, and that's no doubt part of why it is supported by Biblical scholars. From that earlier discussion:

It's clear for a number of reasons, both the word itself and other verses in the Bible, as well as traditional Christian interpretation, that it is a solid dome. Heck, in Job it even explicitly says it is hard.

The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal flattened by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And again, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4UDTGXGRW-.../firmament.jpg

from :
http://www.christianforums.com/t7645.../#post60625295

In His name-

Papias
__________________

Click to expand...

The firmament are clouds (waters above) and the upper limits of the atmosphere, yea, it's described as a dome.

No, the firmament is not the clouds (if you think the firmament is the clouds, please supply scripture). It sounds like you are again reading in ideas into the scripture that aren't there. Remember, the waters above are above the firmament.

It sounds like a compromise with worldly rationalizations coming from a persistent and willful unbelief. I keep trying to tell you Papias, your being used.

mark, questioning the belief of a member is against site rules.

************************************************

Cal wrote:

Thought I did a pretty good job in thoroughly refuting all those ostensible proof texts. I'm surprised you cited them again.

No cal, you didn't. In fact, I think that when I pointed out that you seemed to be claiming that the firmament was twisted and convoluted (because you were saying that the firmament was only over the land, not water), you abandoned the discussion.

So now you are not only failing to counter all those proof texts, but as shown above, you won't even be convinced by Strong's. Maybe you'd prefer we go by "Cal's Concordance"?

Papias

Calminian · Jul 25, 2012

Papias said:
\
No cal, you didn't. In fact, I think that when I pointed out that you seemed to be claiming that the firmament was twisted and convoluted (because you were saying that the firmament was only over the land, not water), you abandoned the discussion.

I've written quite a few article about the firmament and hold no such view. You probably have me confused with someone else. I believe the firmament and heavens are the same thing. I have for years.

Papias said:
So now you are not only failing to counter all those proof texts, but as shown above, you won't even be convinced by Strong's. Maybe you'd prefer we go by "Cal's Concordance"?

yes i have the audacity to go against strongs. Then again, so does just about everyone else.

Calminian · Jul 25, 2012

Philis said:
Clouds moving around in the firmament does not mean that the firmament is the atmosphere. For example, if we flip a bowl upside down and trap a mosquito in it, the mosquito is flying around "in" the bowl, and the bowl is solid.

Yea, but your'e really getting into deep water now (pun intended). If that's the case than the earth would also by your logic be in the firmament. For it's in the bowl. I think you've just hit a dead end in your reasoning. The firmament/heaven is best described as that which is above the earth. Not that which is above the earth and below the sky and however you're trying to say this.

Again, I'm trying to read the text as literally as you are, but without preconceived ideas be it modern cosmology nor an ancient cosmology. Both would go against proper exegesis.

Philis said:
How can any of it be modern science? How would the authors be able to indicate that if they were unaware of modern science?

You tell me. I never made the claim.

Philis said:
All right I'll keep going with you to see where this takes us. You think there are waters out in the cosmos. Those waters were originally on earth right?

No not on earth. Earth was made of them. The earth was shapeless and void before given structure. The sea also was made of them. But God for some reason took half of these waters away somewhere vastly far away, and made the land and sea out of the remaining half.

The other waters we presume along with the Pslamist are still up there. Where? We just know they're up there. Why? Maybe just as be made the current earth out of water, he'll make the new earth out of that remaining half. Just a theory.

But that's all the text says. It never says anything about a solid dome, or a flat disc planet nor anything close. Those are man made ideas that came later.

Philis said:
Sorry for cutting the rest of your post out, these conversation tend to balloon up pretty quick so I'll leave it at this for now.

No problem. It's better to stay focused on a few issues.

Papias · Jul 25, 2012

Cal wrote:

There's nothing is scripture to indicate heaven is solid. This is why the word "expanse" is a much better translation than the latin firmament.

Sure there is Cal. I posted earlier, and again just now in post #123, about Job 37:18 which explicitly says the firmament is solid. You are ignoring the parts of the Bible you don't like instead of learning from God's word.

I've written quite a few article about the firmament and hold no such view. You probably have me confused with someone else. I believe the firmament and heavens are the same thing. I have for years.

Sure you did, Cal, post #234, on this thread, just the other day:http://www.christianforums.com/t7645452-24/, you were arguing that the firmament was only over the land, which would mean that it would have to be all twisted around and convoluted to avoid the water. Just read the thread there to see for yourself, or admit that the bible describes a flat earth. Or better describe your view.

yes i have the audacity to go against strongs.

well, at least you are honest about it.

Papias

Calminian · Jul 25, 2012

Papias said:
....Sure there is Cal. I posted earlier, and again just now in post #123, about Job 37:18 which explicitly says the firmament is solid. You are ignoring the parts of the Bible you don't like instead of learning from God's word.

Job 37:18. Perhaps my favorite passage brought up in reference to this issue. It's interesting how many people point out this verse without actually realizing who they are quoting. Many think mistakenly that God is talking here. But God answers this person just a few verses later.

Job 38: 1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said: 2 “Who is this who darkens counsel By words without knowledge? ...

Ouch! You see you're actually quoting someone that God Himself rebuked as speaking without knowledge. I think there's a bit of irony in solid-domers quoting this, don't you?

Okay, so now that I've addressed it, I'm curious. Would it be safe to say you probably won't be using this as a proof-text anymore?

Papias said:
Sure you did, Cal, post #234, on this thread, just the other day:http://www.christianforums.com/t7645452-24/, you were arguing that the firmament was only over the land, which would mean that it would have to be all twisted around and convoluted to avoid the water. Just read the thread there to see for yourself, or admit that the bible describes a flat earth. Or better describe your view.

I just looked at the post. I never stated I believed heaven was over only the land. I can only conclude you misunderstood. Perhaps you felt you backed me into a logical corner. But I can only tell you you are mistaken.

Philis · Jul 25, 2012

Calminian said:
Yea, but your'e really getting into deep water now (pun intended). If that's the case than the earth would also by your logic be in the firmament. For it's in the bowl. I think you've just hit a dead end in your reasoning.

How does the earth being under the firmament contradict what I've been saying?

The firmament/heaven is best described as that which is above the earth. Not that which is above the earth and below the sky and however you're trying to say this.

You're right, the firmament is above the earth. The firmament is not below the sky though, the sky is the firmament, they thought it was a blueish color. What you are saying doesn't contradict my view, it just makes it seem like you don't understand what ancient cosmology was.

Again, I'm trying to read the text as literally as you are, but without preconceived ideas be it modern cosmology nor an ancient cosmology. Both would go against proper exegesis.

It seems that you are fitting it to modern cosmology, but I suppose we can agree to disagree here, no point going in circles.

I just allow the authors to indicate where it is and not modern science.

Click to expand...

How can any of it be modern science? How would the authors be able to indicate that if they were unaware of modern science?

Click to expand...

You tell me. I never made the claim.

As you can see by what I quoted, it certainly seems that you are making that claim. Maybe you meant something else.

No not on earth. Earth was made of them. The earth was shapeless and void before given structure. The sea also was made of them. But God for some reason took half of these waters away somewhere vastly far away, and made the land and sea out of the remaining half.

Two follow up questions:

How far away are these waters now?

What was the point of making these waters here if they were just going to be zoomed far away?

But that's all the text says. It never says anything about a solid dome, or a flat disc planet nor anything close. Those are man made ideas that came later.

What do you mean those ideas came later? Isn't the description in the OP how the immediate audience would have read it?

Calminian · Jul 25, 2012

Philis said:
How does the earth being under the firmament contradict what I've been saying?

You mean "in" the firmament. Isn't that the point you just made? Anything under the upside down bowl is considered in the bowl? Isn't that how you explained the clouds issue?

Philis said:
You're right, the firmament is above the earth. The firmament is not below the sky though, the sky is the firmament, they thought it was a blueish color. What you are saying doesn't contradict my view, it just makes it seem like you don't understand what ancient cosmology was.

I think I understand your view, you're just running into to roadblocks connecting it all together.

Philis said:
It seems that you are fitting it to modern cosmology, but I suppose we can agree to disagree here, no point going in circles.

We are going a bit in circles. But I would only insist that I'm not bringing modern cosmology into the Bible. I'm taking what the Bible says about the heavens and then deducting from that. The Bible says the original primordial waters are above the heavens. Stars are in the heavens, therefore the waters are beyond the stars.

Philis said:
As you can see by what I quoted, it certainly seems that you are making that claim. Maybe you meant something else.

Not sure what to say. You'll have to be specific about where I'm doing this.

Philis said:
How far away are these waters now?

Somewhere beyond the heavens. We're not given a distance, we're only told they are above the heavens. If the heavens are the Cosmos, then they are beyond the cosmos.

What was the point of making these waters here if they were just going to be zoomed far away?

Philis said:
What do you mean those ideas came later? Isn't the description in the OP how the immediate audience would have read it?

That's the point. No it isn't. The Bible doesn't use terms like solid dome or heavenly ocean. You won't see the term flat earth either. Those concepts had to be developed. And even when the were, the ancients knew just how little they knew. I'm sure even full blown solid domers weren't as dogmatic as you are.

You see, when the book of Genesis was revealed, it spoke very little on the details of the structure of the universe.

JP Holding makes this point well. He wrote an article I highly recommend.

Is the Raqiya‘ (‘Firmament&#8217

a Solid Dome?

He makes the point that the Genesis author uses equivocal language that may be compatible with a variety of cosmologies. In fact, if one wanted to believe the moon was made of cheese, there's nothing in the Bible to contradict it. There are no statements in the Bible directly speaking about the physical makeup of the moon.

Now you may argue that Genesis is compatible with some ancient cosmologies. But that doesn't mean it's advocating them, no more than it's advocating a moon made of cheese. Now, I would make the case that Genesis actually contradicts many ancient notions about cosmology. In fact, the cheesy moon would probably do better than solid-domism. But hopefully you get my point.

Philis · Jul 26, 2012

Calminian said:
You mean "in" the firmament. Isn't that the point you just made? Anything under the upside down bowl is considered in the bowl? Isn't that how you explained the clouds issue?

No, if the "upside down bowl" is on a table, and the mosquito is inside it, that doesn't mean the table is inside it.

Even if the earth was inside it, how is that a problem?

I think I understand your view, you're just running into to roadblocks connecting it all together.

You haven't made these roadblocks clear to me, sorry.

Somewhere beyond the heavens. We're not given a distance, we're only told they are above the heavens. If the heavens are the Cosmos, then they are beyond the cosmos.

So since the width of the universe is about 156 billion light years (that's what google tells me) then that means the water was zoomed out to a distance of at least 80 billion light years, and this was done in a day? Why not just make the water out there to begin with? When applied to modern cosmology, there seems to be no rhyme or reason. When viewed through an ancient cosmology, it makes sense why it would talk about a firmament between the waters.

That's the point. No it isn't. The Bible doesn't use terms like solid dome

Yes, as Strong's cleary says, it is referring to a solid structure.

In addition to Strong's we can look at what early theologians thought it meant.

Basil the Great commenting on the nature of the firmament:
And surely we need not believe, because [the firmament] seems to have had its origin, according to the general understanding, from water, that it is like either frozen water or some such material that takes its origin from the percolation of moisture, such as is a crystalline rock.
Hexaemeron 3-8

Origen Commenting on Genesis 1:8 where the firmament is called Heaven:
Although God had already previously made heaven, now he makes the firmament. For he made heaven first, about shich he says, Heaven is my throne. But after that he makes the firmament, that is, the corporeal heaven. For every corporeal object is, without doubt, firm and solid; and it is this that divides the water which is above heaven from the water which is below heaven.
Homilies on Genesis 1.2

And more recently, Martin Luther:
It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire
How could they be fastened to something that isn't solid?

I'm sure even full blown solid domers weren't as dogmatic as you are.

Well now I've given the names of 3 solid domers that predate Darwin. Can you give me some references to early scholars that viewed the firmament as the atmosphere and space?

In what way am I being dogmatic? (And could your answer be applied to you?)

JP Holding makes this point well. He wrote an article I highly recommend.

Is the Raqiya (Firmament) a Solid Dome?

I'll have a look.

Now you may argue that Genesis is compatible with some ancient cosmologies. But that doesn't mean it's advocating them, no more than it's advocating a moon made of cheese. Now, I would make the case that Genesis actually contradicts many ancient notions about cosmology. In fact, the cheesy moon would probably do better than solid-domism. But hopefully you get my point.

I agree that Genesis is not advocating an ancient cosmology, it is advocating certain truths about God, mankind, our need for salvation, and other important theological matters, and it is using the ancient cosmology as a backdrop. In no way does it reflect a scientific account of what happened.

Greg1234 · Jul 26, 2012

Papias said:
Sure there is Cal. I posted earlier, and again just now in post #123, about Job 37:18 which explicitly says the firmament is solid. You are ignoring the parts of the Bible you don't like instead of learning from God's word.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7645452-23/#post60647124

gluadys · Jul 26, 2012

Calminian said:
You mean "in" the firmament. Isn't that the point you just made? Anything under the upside down bowl is considered in the bowl? Isn't that how you explained the clouds issue?

I know it can be difficult to keep up several conversations at once, but I wonder when I can expect a response to my post #96?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7673104-10/#post61025087

Papias · Jul 27, 2012

cal wrote:

Job 37:18. Perhaps my favorite passage brought up in reference to this issue. It's interesting how many people point out this verse without actually realizing who they are quoting. Many think mistakenly that God is talking here. But God answers this person just a few verses later.

Job 38: 1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said: 2 “Who is this who darkens counsel By words without knowledge? ...

Ouch! You see you're actually quoting someone that God Himself rebuked as speaking without knowledge. I think there's a bit of irony in solid-domers quoting this, don't you?

Okay, so now that I've addressed it, I'm curious. Would it be safe to say you probably won't be using this as a proof-text anymore?

First, it's good that you are checking whether or not God rebuked these words. However, you didn't read carefully enough. If you look at Job 31:40, you'll see that chapter 37 is not, in fact, by Job. 38:1, as you correctly pointed out, is God rebuking Job - thus rebuking chapters 26- 31. So no, this is not God rebuking the idea of a hard dome, which is in chapter 37.

Cal wrote:

I just looked at the post. I never stated I believed heaven was over only the land. I can only conclude you misunderstood. Perhaps you felt you backed me into a logical corner. But I can only tell you you are mistaken.

Look over the conversation leading up to that. Because you were claiming that the Bible only describes the dry land (not the region) as flat, and because the same word is used to describe the region and the dry land, that for your denial of the flat earth description to be true, then the firmament must only be over the dry land and not the region, which includes plenty of bodies of water. I see that you don't think that's true, but in that thread you never explained why your "land only" description didn't apply to the firmament, which used the same word.

Papias

Papias · Jul 27, 2012

Greg wrote:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7645452-23/#post60647124

http://www.christianforums.com/t7645.../#post60647124

http://www.christianforums.com/t7645452-23/#post60647124

Yes, you did respond there, thanks for pointing that out. So here are some responses to that.

Greg Wrote:

Papias wrote:

Plus, you position here eliminates any suggestion that Genesis describes a worldwide flood, instead showing that the flood was local. Do you, Cal, agree that the flood was only a local event?

Click to expand...

I see nothing in there to suggest to suggest a local flood per Darwinism. Everything points to a catastrophic international event.

Did you read our thread? Cal was saying that the flat "land" referred to in various places in the Bible was only the local dry land that you and see, implying a local flood (because the same word is used). To address your point, "Darwinism" says nothing about the flood, so you point doesn't make any sense. It is Geology that refutes the idea of an actual worldwide flood.

That's not what the Biblical scholars, who have studied this their whole lives, say. It's clear for a number of reasons, both the word itself and other verses in the Bible, as well as traditional Christian interpretation, that it is a solid dome. Heck, in Job it even explicitly says it is hard.

The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal flattened by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome,

Click to expand...

Nothing there. It's an expanse.

a non-answer.

like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2), that is arched over the surface of the earth.

Click to expand...

They're clearly similes.

Similies are used because they illustrate the point. These illustrate an arched, solid thing above a flat earth. Tents are solid, and you can't put a tent on a ball, but on the flat ground.

It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1).

Click to expand...

It's a figure of speech to relate other theological elements. The authors spoke about rain the following-

"He bindeth Up the water in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them." (Job 26:8).

As before, the reasons these illustrations are used is because they describe how things are really seen. If they didn't, they would have used other illustrations.

Ezekiel 1:22

Click to expand...

That is a vision. And the expanse above their heads is not the sky but something comparable to a halo.

A halo that is composed of hard material? That doesn't make sense. Ice is clear and hard - halo's aren't.

and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice,

Click to expand...

It says strong like bronze, not hard. Things can be strong without being solid, even something as abstract as determination.

Check your version. My NIV says "hard", so does my ESV. plus, that's reinforced by the rest of the passage - mirrors are hard.

and can be removed (Rev 6:14).

Click to expand...

Rev is recognized as a mystery.

non-answer.

Papias

Greg1234 · Jul 27, 2012

Papias said:
Similies are used because they illustrate the point.

I'll remember that next time I say strong like an ox.

Smidlee · Jul 27, 2012

Papias said:
cal wrote:

First, it's good that you are checking whether or not God rebuked these words. However, you didn't read carefully enough. If you look at Job 31:40, you'll see that chapter 37 is not, in fact, by Job. 38:1, as you correctly pointed out, is God rebuking Job - thus rebuking chapters 26- 31. So no, this is not God rebuking the idea of a hard dome, which is in chapter 37.

Then you know that chapter 37 was spoken by Elihu. Are you trying to imply everything Job's friends said was true? While God dealt with Job directly his friends were wrong about God.(Just because Job's wife said in Job 2:9 to "curse God and die" doesn't mean it's good advice.) Even though Elihu was a young man he seem to have a better view of God than the rest of Job's friends. Notice God spoke well of Job and not his friends or Elihu. Job were wrong about a lot of things which is why God rebuke him.

The whole thing about Elihu was he was not a wise old man just a young lad listening to the conversation between Job and his friends.

benelchi · Jul 27, 2012

Calminian said:
JP Holding makes this point well. He wrote an article I highly recommend.

Is the Raqiya (Firmament) a Solid Dome?

He makes the point that the Genesis author uses equivocal language that may be compatible with a variety of cosmologies. In fact, if one wanted to believe the moon was made of cheese, there's nothing in the Bible to contradict it. There are no statements in the Bible directly speaking about the physical makeup of the moon.

Now you may argue that Genesis is compatible with some ancient cosmologies. But that doesn't mean it's advocating them, no more than it's advocating a moon made of cheese. Now, I would make the case that Genesis actually contradicts many ancient notions about cosmology. In fact, the cheesy moon would probably do better than solid-domism. But hopefully you get my point.

While I commend the work of men like Seely and Walton who make good arguments for looking at the understanding of the ANE when interpreting Ge. 1, I cannot accept their conclusions because they have failed to recognize that a transcendent God (as described in Scripture) can provide new revelation that goes beyond the understanding of the people in the culture to whom he has spoken.

As far as their claim about raqia being understood as something "solid" and distinctly different than shamaim (heavens). I think the weight of the evidence stands against that claim. Here are some reasons I would reject that claim:

1) In Ge. 1:8 raqia is called shamaim. (the are equated)

2) In Ge. 1:14,15 the Sun, the Moon are said to be "in" the Raqia. Ge. 1:17 places the Sun, Moon, and stars in the raqia; Ge. 22:17, 26:4, Ex. 32:13, Duet. 1:10 all place the stars in the heavens (shamaim). In Duet. 4:19 the Sun, the Moon, and the starts are in the heavens (shamaim).

3) In Hebrew, synonyms are very common because Hebrew poetry is characterized by parallelism (using synonyms) or occasionally antithesis; it is not characterized by rhyme is it often is in English. In Ps. 19:1, this parallelism is clearly seen with raqia and shamaim being used as synonyms.

Calminian · Jul 27, 2012

benelchi said:
While I commend the work of men like Seely and Walton who make good arguments for looking at the understanding of the ANE when interpreting Ge. 1, I cannot accept their conclusions because they have failed to recognize that a transcendent God (as described in Scripture) can provide new revelation that goes beyond the understanding of the people in the culture to whom he has spoken.

As far as their claim about raqia being understood as something "solid" and distinctly different than shamaim (heavens). I think the weight of the evidence stands against that claim. Here are some reasons I would reject that claim:

1) In Ge. 1:8 raqia is called shamaim. (the are equated)

2) In Ge. 1:14,15 the Sun, the Moon are said to be "in" the Raqia. Ge. 1:17 places the Sun, Moon, and stars in the raqia; Ge. 22:17, 26:4, Ex. 32:13, Duet. 1:10 all place the stars in the heavens (shamaim). In Duet. 4:19 the Sun, the Moon, and the starts are in the heavens (shamaim).

3) In Hebrew, synonyms are very common because Hebrew poetry is characterized by parallelism (using synonyms) or occasionally antithesis; it is not characterized by rhyme is it often is in English. In Ps. 19:1, this parallelism is clearly seen with raqia and shamaim being used as synonyms.

Great points on hebrew parallelism. It's clear the author meant them to be parallel. It would be like saying, the Indians built an amazing building monumental palace. And they called the palace the Taj Mahal. The correspond. You can't separate the rayqia of Genesis 1 from the heavens anymore than you can separate the dry ground of genesis 1 from earth, nor the gathers waters of genesis 1 from the sea.

And who's to say the every single author living in ANE times clung to particular views of cosmology. I would think they were much more uncertain than we are today about the structure of the universe. And I would image some would have admitted to themselves we just don't know. In fact that's the position the bible writers seem to take. They didn't talk about a solid dome, or any other ancient cosmological ideas. Genesis uses such equivocal language it could be compatible with just about any structural theory of the heavens.

BobRyan · Jul 27, 2012

In Genesis 1 - 2:3 God makes all life on earth, forms the earth so that it functions, makes the Sun and the moon as the "Two great lights" of Day 4.

The "He made the stars also" identifies Him as their maker but does not make them one of the TWO lights made on Day 4.

In Ex 20:11 it is summarized this way "In SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth the seas and the springs of Water".

Paul speaks of 3 heavens.

In Genesis 1 - the birds fly in the midst of the first heaven.

yes it is literal - but let the Bible interpret itself.

progmonk said:
I don't think Paul means literally 3 heavens,

Indeed he does mean that.

The first heaven is the one where birds fly (you see this in Genesis 1)

The second heaven is the one where you find the stars and the sun and the moon. You see that all throughout scripture. No Bible writer claimed that the birds flew up to the stars or the moon.

The third heaven is where the throne of God is - as we see in Revelation 21.

Paul does not claim to know if he was taken there bodily or in spirit - in vision. He says he is unclear on that point. The only way that can be true - is if it is literally the 3rd heaven. A place.

in Christ,

Bob

Calminian · Jul 27, 2012

Philis said:
No, if the "upside down bowl" is on a table, and the mosquito is inside it, that doesn't mean the table is inside it....

You know Philis, we could go back and forth, but let me just use this to try to make a point about human nature and our natural drive to defend our views. I'm looking at this response and you've now made the assertion that the Bible authors viewed the structure of the universe as an upside down bowl on a table, in which the earth is now wider in diameter than the bowl.

But isn't this moving the goal posts? Is that really what the ancients believed? Did they view the earth as going beyond the heavenly dome? I've never heard this notion.

Now just from a visual inference I don't see this being visibly apparent. Yet, you've now injected this as your new model. Why? Because ANE evidence cultures suggests this is what Moses believed and other biblical authors believed? Or is it because you're defending a view?

Now mind you i'm susceptible to the same temptation. But I am mindful of it. I don't want to fall into the trap of defending a view. Rather I want to find the right view so it's easy to defend.

Have I accomplished this? I doubt it, but that's my goal.

I read it literally now

Senior Veteran

Philis

Guest

Listening to TW4

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Listening to TW4

Senior Veteran

Philis

Guest

Senior Veteran

Philis

Guest

In the beginning was El

Legend

Listening to TW4

Listening to TW4

In the beginning was El

Veteran

INACTIVE

Senior Veteran

Junior Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads