Evidence of age - 1. Ice Cores

[Saucy]

I am finding the evolutionist answers increasingly rude, calling my answers sad and such. Whatever. I don't care anymore. If you can't debate with more tact that than, I want nothing to do with it. Ta-ta.

 

[shernren]

Sorry for being rude. That was totally uncalled for. I mean, it's not like you would have said anything as insulting as evolution being an atheistic theory being guided by the Devil to lead people away from Jesus, would you?

I hope you don't find my simple examples condescending. I'm not actually assuming that you don't know what's in your fridge. I find in my experience that simple examples communicated in short sentences help people grasp physical concepts, and I believe that most theories can be explained with reference to everyday objects. If you thought I was talking down to you, I'm genuinely sorry. I can replace "frost" with "solidified precipitate produced by vapor liberated from the formation of depth hoar due to strong radiation-induced temperature gradients while maintaining a sub-zero surface temperature" any time you want. (But I suspect that isn't the issue.)

I also don't know why you find it so insulting that I found your answer saddening. We do things that make other people sad all the time, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not.

In my real-life job, I teach physics to 18- and 19-year-olds in a Christian college in Malaysia. I have many dedicated and hardworking students, and they enjoy my classes, even the ones who don't have much aptitude for physics and are barely passing with a lot of effort, because I put a lot of time and effort into explaining physics. They make me happy.

But some other students are in my physics class simply because their parents signed them up for it on a form, or because they need a science subject to look good on their certificates and they heard that physics was the easiest. They don't really want to learn physics, but they convince themselves that they have to anyway. The sad thing is that they're pleasant kids, gifted and talented in their own ways, whom I would love to sit with and chat with over lunch about anything but physics - but get them to do something they don't want to, and they become an utterly sorry sight.

Don't I have a right to feel sad when I see someone going through the motions, doing what they don't really want to do?

You claim to be open to having your beliefs challenged, and you claim to be open to discussing the evidence for and against what you believe, but when it comes down to even the simplest questions of interpretation (like the difference between the transparent stuff in your ice tray and the white stuff on your frozen meat) you are unwilling to sit down and actually observe what actually happens in the natural world around us. You are willing to quote sources in your favor at length, and discuss how to save them in great detail, but you are unwilling to understand even the simplest concepts in glaciology. Why waste your time?

You don't actually want to examine your beliefs, do you? You just want to confirm them. Which is actually fine by me. Like I said earlier, many of the recalcitrant students in my class make for great friends outside my class - as long as they're not forcing themselves to do something they don't want to do. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with wanting badly to see your beliefs confirmed, to the point of never considering conflicting evidence seriously. Plenty of my friends do that, and they're amazing friends whom I regularly share my life with.

Just don't pretend that you're being open about those beliefs when you're not.

 

[duordi]

It sounds like you Saucy, are close to the YBC (Young Biological Earth).
The basic idea is that life is only a few thousand years old but the Earth ( rocks water etc.) is not dated in scripture and existed before the first day.
This stand will get you criticism from both the evolutionist (because you don’t accept the idea that life is millions of years old) and from Young Earth Creationist (YEC) (because you will not accept that the age of the cosmos is only a few thousand years old.)
I am a YBC at this point becasuse I think it matches the Bible and Science.
By the way someone posted that science does not support miracles. I disagree. The laws of probability indicate that from time to time things will happen which are not probable. So science predicts miracles must exist. Science is limited in that it has no way to determine if there is a motive behind the miracle.

For Shernren
I think Saucy is really open to a changing of mind but the truth is this is not a cut and dry topic. I know this is a difficult concept for you but what if he is right?

I can show you scientific evidence that life has only been on Earth a few thousand years and I am sure you will not accept it now, but I do not think that means you will never change your mind. Its just that you have believed something for a long time and it will take time to change it. Besides I may be wrong. All I can do is keep learning.


Duordi

 

[Calminian]

It sounds like you Saucy, are close to the YBC (Young Biological Earth).
The basic idea is that life is only a few thousand years old but the Earth ( rocks water etc.) is not dated in scripture and existed before the first day.
This stand will get you criticism from both the evolutionist (because you don’t accept the idea that life is millions of years old) and from Young Earth Creationist (YEC) (because you will not accept that the age of the cosmos is only a few thousand years old.)
I am a YBC at this point becasuse I think it matches the Bible and Science.
By the way someone posted that science does not support miracles. I disagree. The laws of probability indicate that from time to time things will happen which are not probable. So science predicts miracles must exist. Science is limited in that it has no way to determine if there is a motive behind the miracle.

duordi, a YBC position will at least get you out of theological trouble, putting sin before death as it rightly belongs. So the damage is far less. I still can't get around Ex. 20:

Ex. 20:11 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.

But it's less of a big deal to me, once the theological barriers are removed.

And as far as miracles go, you've conflated two different things: the laws of probability, and the laws of nature. You've also misdefined a miracle as an improbable or unlikely event. This is way too simplistic and insufficient. They certainly are improbable, but not merely this. Of course now I'm using a very theological and philosophical definition of miracles. I realize in everyday language we use the term in all kinds of ways. "Traffic was so bad, it's a miracle I still made it here." But these are not in the same category as walking on water, and do not cause the same problems for scientific extrapolations.

You see, while statistics show that abnormal things do happen (albeit abnormally), this is not to say miracles do happen. It's improbable that lightning will strike anyone, yet it does happen. Does this mean every strike is a miracle? Of course not.

And as far as science being able ascribe a motive, yes you are correct. For the problem with miracles lies not in their supernatural immaterial origin, but rather their autonomous purposeful origin. This is where the unpredictability lies. It's not a simple matter of winning the lottery. It is statistically improbable that you will win, but a statistically certain that someone will win. There is no statistical certainty that water will ever be turned to wine again, nor is it theologically correct to say that the creation of this wine 2000 years ago was chance random happening.

 

[duordi]

duordi, a YBC position will at least get you out of theological trouble, putting sin before death as it rightly belongs. So the damage is far less. I still can't get around Ex. 20

Ex. 20:11 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.

The heaven and the Earth are the "sky" and the "land" and do not include the sun, moon and cosmos. In Gen 1:2 God is hovering over the waters. This is indicating where His attention is. Everything that is created in the following six days is at the surface of the Earth. The (Cosmos Sun and Moon) were created in Gen 1:1 along with the Earth rocks and water which were already there in Gen 1:2

The plural Heaven(s) is a translation choice as is the choice for (earth / land) which use the same Hebrew word. (Check the strong's number)

And as far as miracles go, you've conflated two different things: the laws of probability, and the laws of nature. You've also misdefined a miracle as an improbable or unlikely event. This is way too simplistic and insufficient. They certainly are improbable, but not merely this. Of course now I'm using a very theological and philosophical definition of miracles. I realize in everyday language we use the term in all kinds of ways. "Traffic was so bad, it's a miracle I still made it here." But these are not in the same category as walking on water, and do not cause the same problems for scientific extrapolations.

What specifically is different? Just the odds are higher?


Duordi

 

[Calminian]

The heaven and the Earth are the "sky" and the "land" and do not include the sun, moon and cosmos. In Gen 1:2 God is hovering over the waters. This is indicating where His attention is. Everything that is created in the following six days is at the surface of the Earth. The (Cosmos Sun and Moon) were created in Gen 1:1 along with the Earth rocks and water which were already there in Gen 1:2

Except when you look at the Torah as a whole, it's the same word used in Genesis 1, in the same context. The universe in biblical nomenclature is divided into 3 parts, land, sea, heavens. You see this trichotomy all throughout scripture even into the New Testament. And according to Genesis 1, the sun moon and stars are set in the heavens. Genesis 1 lays out the formation of land, sea and heavens very clearly and this theme remains remains throughout the Genesis books, into every other book in the Bible. If you allow scripture define it, heaven is basically everything that is up, above the earth and sea.

The plural Heaven(s) is a translation choice as is the choice for (earth / land) which use the same Hebrew word. (Check the strong's number)

Believe me I've studied and written extensively about it. Shamayim is the word used in Genesis in which the sun moon and stars are placed. The same word is used in Ex. 20.

What specifically is different? Just the odds are higher?

Again, you're confusing miracles with randomness. Your are conflating willful purposeful unpredictable acts, to random purposeless unpredictable effects. But randomness is predictably random. We can observe certain areas where this will consistently be the case. Quantum Physics would be a good example where we find areas of predictable randomness. Willful acts of the Creator, on the other hand, are not predictable in any sense and therefore science can neither predict them in the future, or detect them in the past.

But overriding all of this is a much bigger problem, and that is the denial of the limitations of science. There is a tendency for theologians to try to be in tune with science at all costs. It's constantly elevated to heights it can't possibly perform at. There are many attempts to even make it compatible with miracles so that it may explain them. It's a foundational philosophical mistake in my opinion.

 

[duordi]

Except when you look at the Torah as a whole, it's the same word used in Genesis 1, in the same context. The universe in biblical nomenclature is divided into 3 parts, land, sea, heavens. You see this trichotomy all throughout scripture even into the New Testament. And according to Genesis 1, the sun moon and stars are set in the heavens.

Hold on, you are moving too fast and are assuming a lot more than you are saying.

In Gen 1:6 there is water above and water below. In between the water above and the water below there is sky “ firmament of the Heaven”. The Hebrew differentiates between “Heaven Cosmos” and “Heaven Firmament” by putting a Hebrew word in front of he word for Heaven each time the sky is to be defined. The “Firmament Heaven” is defined as where the birds fly in verse 20 and it is not outer space.

The greater light and the lesser light are not the Sun and the Moon that is why they are not called the Sun and the Moon.

They are placed in the firmament of the Heaven “sky” between the waters above and the waters below.

The “greater light” may have been something fantastic or just a lighter portion of the sky with a continual cloud overcast / the moon likewise.

We can know this because after the flood the greater light and the lesser light are never mentioned again unless the text is referring to pre-flood Earth.

No where does it say something like “Abram looked and saw the “greater light” rising. Not even in a poetic book.

This is because the “greater light” and the “lesser light” were in the sky ( air) and were destroyed during the flood.

This should not be a surprise to you. Why do you think God called the sky “Heaven” after the cosmos “Heaven”? Because they were similar, they both had lights.

You may not like this but if you insist that the Sun is the greater light then you have plants created the day before the Sun is created.

Also you have light created in Gen 1:3 and separated into day and night in Gen 1:4. You have three day / night cycles before the Sun is created which is what causes the day night cycles.

You may want the greater light to be the Sun because that is what you were always taught but you really have to twist the words and rearrange the verses to get everything to fit. Are you willing to do that to the Bible?

Duordi

 

[philadiddle]

Hold on, you are moving too fast and are assuming a lot more than you are saying.

In Gen 1:6 there is water above and water below. In between the water above and the water below there is sky “ firmament of the Heaven”. The Hebrew differentiates between “Heaven Cosmos” and “Heaven Firmament” by putting a Hebrew word in front of he word for Heaven each time the sky is to be defined. The “Firmament Heaven” is defined as where the birds fly in verse 20 and it is not outer space.

The same word Raquia is also used to refer to a solid surface in other parts of the bible. The firmament was believed to be a solid blue dome that covered the flat earth.

The greater light and the lesser light are not the Sun and the Moon that is why they are not called the Sun and the Moon.

It also said that the stars were placed in the firmament. What do you make of that? It seems to be consistent with the ancient cosmology, not with modern astrophysics.

Also, the immediate audience was polytheistic and the Hebrew words for sun and moon also referred to gods, so the writer was making it clear that the sun and moon were merely creations by the one true God.

They are placed in the firmament of the Heaven “sky” between the waters above and the waters below.

When God created the firmament to divide the waters he called it heaven. Genesis doesn't differentiate between different firmaments.

 

[Calminian]

The same word Raquia is also used to refer to a solid surface in other parts of the bible. The firmament was believed to be a solid blue dome that covered the flat earth.

It also said that the stars were placed in the firmament. What do you make of that? It seems to be consistent with the ancient cosmology, not with modern astrophysics.

Also, the immediate audience was polytheistic and the Hebrew words for sun and moon also referred to gods, so the writer was making it clear that the sun and moon were merely creations by the one true God.

When God created the firmament to divide the waters he called it heaven. Genesis doesn't differentiate between different firmaments.

The points are well taken in response to duordi's claims, but your understanding of raqiya‘ is not accurate (nor is his, BTW). In the very place in scripture where it is explicitly defined, it is the heavens (plural). The heavens are simply the proper name of what the raqiya' is.

And God calleth to the expanse (firmament) ‘Heavens;’ and there is an evening, and there is a morning — day second.

It has always amazes me that people will go to great lengths to find obscure passages in an attempt to define raqiya' as something solid. Yet they completely ignore the most explicit verse in scripture that defines exactly what the raqiya' of Genesis 1 is!! I Marvel at this irony. Raqiya' is the heavens. It's as simple as that. Define heaven, and you have defined the raqiya'.

And God calleth to the expanse (firmament) ‘Heavens

IOW, just to lay it out in simpler terms, Earth in scripture is the proper name for the dry land. Sea is the proper name for the waters. Just follow the logic.

To make it even simpler, I could say, this pyramid is the Giza. What is Giza? Name of a pyramid. What are the heavens? Name of an expanse (the firmament).

You see, there's no need to look to the limited occurrences of the term raqiya' when you have such numerous occurrences of the term shamayim (heavens), the proper name of the raqiya'!! It's not a barrier separating heavens from earth. It is the heavens.

Guys, both of you, get back to the Bible. Just leave your pet theories aside for a while and let it speak. Let it formulate your theories. It's much easier that way.

 

[shernren]

IOW, just to lay it out in simpler terms, Earth in scripture is the proper name for the dry land. Sea is the proper name for the waters. Just follow the logic.

Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country ('eretz) and your kindred and your father's house to the land ('eretz) that I will show you. (Gen 12:1, ESV)
​

Every time I find out something about Earth ('eretz) in the Bible, I'll find out something about dry land, right? So here it says that Abraham left "Earth" - he left dry land! Did he become a mermaid? No, because it says he went to another "Earth" - another dry land? I hope you see the problem: special names can be reused. (In this case, "Earth" simply refers to a piece of dry land, not dry land in general.)

You can see this even with Jesus Christ. This is the special name of someone we Christians believe was God as man. However, let's say I try to learn more about Jesus Christ from Richard Dawkins. I will find out that "Jesus Christ" was in fact a really nice moral teacher who happened to get in the way of Jewish authorities and got nailed for it, and his disciples went totally loco afterwards and made up some crazy stories about him floating to heaven on a cloudmobile.

Do you see the problem? Both the Bible and Richard Dawkins use the same special name "Jesus Christ" to refer to two very different people (the latter, I believe, being entirely the figment of Dawkins' imagination - but that's another topic).

If even the special name of our Savior and Lord is open to such ambiguity, what more a concept like "heavens"? Perhaps what the Bible names as "heavens" is different from what Calminian names as "heavens". For that matter, perhaps what the Psalms, say, names as "heavens" might be different from what Genesis names as "heavens" - just as what Genesis 12 names as "Earth" is different from what Genesis 1 names as "Earth".

How can we find out what Genesis 1 names as "heavens"? Well, if I want to find out more about "the dance named chacha", I don't look up "chacha" on the internet and find out that the HTC ChaCha is a new low-end smartphone with a mini-keyboard and a dedicated Facebook button. I look up dance first, don't I? Dance determines the properties of chacha, while the name "chacha" doesn't determine the properties of dance in general.

As such, if I want to know what "the raqiya named shamayim" is, I should look up raqiya first, and then only shamayim. I leave it to duordi, phil, and you to figure out what ensues - but I think your logic of doggedly pursuing the special name is erroneous.

 

[duordi]

The same word Raquia is also used to refer to a solid surface in other parts of the bible. The firmament was believed to be a solid blue dome that covered the flat earth.

It can also mean “support”.
We know the “upper water” was a thick cloud.

Job 38:4-11[/font]
4"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
5Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
6On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
7when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
8"Or who shut in the sea with doors
when it burst out from the womb,
9when I made clouds its garment
and thick darkness its swaddling band,
10and prescribed limits for it
and set bars and doors,
11and said, 'Thus far shall you come, and no farther,
and here shall your proud waves be stayed'?

The Job text above is about the creation week.

It also said that the stars were placed in the firmament. What do you make of that? It seems to be consistent with the ancient cosmology, not with modern astrophysics.

The word for star is a very general term which can mean any bright object. Notice above in Job 38 verse 7 the stars are singing, which means that stars can refer to living beings also.

Also, the immediate audience was polytheistic and the Hebrew words for sun and moon also referred to gods, so the writer was making it clear that the sun and moon were merely creations by the one true God.

So why did Moses use the word for Sun and Moon in other places. He could have used the "greater light" and "lesser light" for the rest of the book but he did not.

You believe God created man because you can see man.
The same with plants fish etc.
What if God made something that does not exist anymore?
Will you only believe God if He gives you scientific proof?
Thomas required that he must stick his hands in Jesus’s wounds before he would believe.

Some of us are like Thomas.

When God created the firmament to divide the waters he called it heaven. Genesis doesn't differentiate between different firmaments.

Yes He does.
Get a Bible text with the strong numbers. The reason the King James Version says the “firmament” of the Heaven is because there is a Hebrew word for “firmament” which is placed before the word for heaven when God wishes to designate the sky heaven. In Gen 1:1 there is no word “firmament” before the word heaven because this is the cosmos heaven.

Duordi

 

[duordi]

I agree with everything you said about the word for "heaven" but there is a word rendered “firmament” KJV which is placed before heaven when the sky ( air ) is referred to. So when it says “Heaven” it is the cosmos.
When it says “firmament of heaven” in KJV it is the sky-atmosphere. Some Bible versions may take some liberties inserting their own ideas but the Strong’s numbers make it clear.

Duordi

 

[Calminian]

Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country ('eretz) and your kindred and your father's house to the land ('eretz) that I will show you. (Gen 12:1, ESV)
​

Every time I find out something about Earth ('eretz) in the Bible, I'll find out something about dry land, right? So here it says that Abraham left "Earth" - he left dry land! Did he become a mermaid? No, because it says he went to another "Earth" - another dry land? I hope you see the problem: special names can be reused. (In this case, "Earth" simply refers to a piece of dry land, not dry land in general.)

I'm in agreement with this. Earth, biblically speaking, can refer to a specific land, or land in general. Abram migrated to a land called Canaan. And Paul visited the 3rd heaven, called paradise. In fact I've argued that earth in scripture actually never refers to our planet as a whole (land sea, etc.) as the term in english implies.

You can see this even with Jesus Christ. This is the special name of someone we Christians believe was God as man. However, let's say I try to learn more about Jesus Christ from Richard Dawkins. I will find out that "Jesus Christ" was in fact a really nice moral teacher who happened to get in the way of Jewish authorities and got nailed for it, and his disciples went totally loco afterwards and made up some crazy stories about him floating to heaven on a cloudmobile.

Do you see the problem?​

No. What that names can be applied differently at different times? But that actually strengthens my case for using the context of Genesis to define what the firmament of genesis actually was. What others are doing (presumably you also), are looking at the term used in books thousands of years later and then trying to apply them to Genesis 1.

You've actually strengthened my point. I guess I should thank you.

As such, if I want to know what "the raqiya named shamayim" is, I should look up raqiya first, and then only shamayim. I leave it to duordi, phil, and you to figure out what ensues -

You've missed the point you made so well. If you want to define shamayim or reqiya in the context of Genesis, you look to definitions given in Genesis, not elsewhere. Especially when considering just how clear and explicit Genesis is.

but I think your logic of doggedly pursuing the special name is erroneous.

LOL! The irony here is pretty thick. But I do thank you again for strengthening my point. ​

 

[Calminian]

I agree with everything you said about the word for "heaven" but there is a word rendered “firmament” KJV which is placed before heaven when the sky ( air ) is referred to. So when it says “Heaven” it is the cosmos.
When it says “firmament of heaven” in KJV it is the sky-atmosphere. Some Bible versions may take some liberties inserting their own ideas but the Strong’s numbers make it clear.

Duordi

Here something to keep in mind with this interpretation. The biblical writers didn't have a concept of what the atmosphere is. In modern times, the atmosphere is a convenient division of the sky from outer space which we can clearly comprehend and define. In fact we often use the term atmosphere as sky, sky being distinct from outer space. Not so for the ancients. They had no clue what was up there. This is why they had one word (a plural word) for all that is above the earth and sea—the heavens (shamayim). But there is nothing making the heavens in which the birds flew in distinct from the heavens the stars were in. There is nothing making the heavens the clouds moved through, distinct from the heavens the Sun passed thorugh. Scripture never draws these distinctions, or implies any kind of a barrier. The birds flew in the shamayim, the stars were placed in the shamayim. This whole trichotomy that modern theologians have thought up, first heaven—atmosphere, second heaven—outer space, third heaven-spiritial realm of God and angels, should really be tossed. The heavens or sky is the expanse above. Simple as that.

 

[shernren]

No. What that names can be applied differently at different times? But that actually strengthens my case for using the context of Genesis to define what the firmament of genesis actually was. What others are doing (presumably you also), are looking at the term used in books thousands of years later and then trying to apply them to Genesis 1.

You've missed the point you made so well. If you want to define shamayim or reqiya in the context of Genesis, you look to definitions given in Genesis, not elsewhere. Especially when considering just how clear and explicit Genesis is.

I see your ironic "you shouldn't be referring to books written thousands of years after Genesis" and raise you an ironic "you shouldn't be referring to scientific knowledge obtained far, far later".

Here's what you say to duordi:

Here something to keep in mind with this interpretation. The biblical writers didn't have a concept of what the atmosphere is. In modern times, the atmosphere is a convenient division of the sky from outer space which we can clearly comprehend and define. In fact we often use the term atmosphere as sky, sky being distinct from outer space. Not so for the ancients. They had no clue what was up there.

Let's stop right there. Does Genesis 1 really sound like "they had no clue what was up there"? Actually the cosmogony is clear: waters under the shamayim (amongst which is dry land), a raqiya named shamayim, and then waters above the shamayim.

Now at this point you and I may not know what a raqiya is, but they knew perfectly well what they were trying to convey. What raqiya doesn't mean is "we have no clue" - remember the word manna? We are not at liberty to treat the word as an empty container into which we can pour all our modern scientific knowledge. If we had a hypothetical Hebrew dictionary we could look up the word raqiya and we wouldn't find a placeholder for the unknown, we'd find a definition right there with its own connotations and implications.

But wait! Hebrew dictionaries exist! And what do they say about raqiya?

extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament

1. expanse (flat as base, support)
2. firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
   1. considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

Raqiya` - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - King James Version

But what would lexicographers know about how words are used, right?

This is why they had one word (a plural word) for all that is above the earth and sea—the heavens (shamayim). But there is nothing making the heavens in which the birds flew in distinct from the heavens the stars were in. There is nothing making the heavens the clouds moved through, distinct from the heavens the Sun passed thorugh. Scripture never draws these distinctions, or implies any kind of a barrier. The birds flew in the shamayim, the stars were placed in the shamayim. This whole trichotomy that modern theologians have thought up, first heaven—atmosphere, second heaven—outer space, third heaven-spiritial realm of God and angels, should really be tossed. The heavens or sky is the expanse above. Simple as that.

Yes, simple as that. Which means that if in the rest of the Bible I find connotations of solidity in the word raqiya, there is nothing preventing me from thinking that in Genesis 1 raqiya does represent a sort of dome-over-our-heads perception of the sky.

After all, if I were to believe in such a perception, I would believe that the birds are flying inside the raqiya named shamayim - that is, inside the space marked out inside the raqiya - and also that the sun and moon and stars are moving inside the raqiya named shamayim. That is perfectly consistent with the passage.

Now, it may not be consistent with your view of the universe, but that's just too bad - we're trying to figure out what Genesis says, and why should we let your naturalistic scientific information about the atmosphere and outer space and gravity and all that interfere with the weighty job of exegesis?

 

[Calminian]

I see your ironic "you shouldn't be referring to books written thousands of years after Genesis" and raise you an ironic "you shouldn't be referring to scientific knowledge obtained far, far later".

Here's what you say to duordi:



Let's stop right there. Does Genesis 1 really sound like "they had no clue what was up there"? Actually the cosmogony is clear: waters under the shamayim (amongst which is dry land), a raqiya named shamayim, and then waters above the shamayim.

Now at this point you and I may not know what a raqiya is, but they knew perfectly well what they were trying to convey. What raqiya doesn't mean is "we have no clue" - remember the word manna? We are not at liberty to treat the word as an empty container into which we can pour all our modern scientific knowledge. If we had a hypothetical Hebrew dictionary we could look up the word raqiya and we wouldn't find a placeholder for the unknown, we'd find a definition right there with its own connotations and implications.

But wait! Hebrew dictionaries exist! And what do they say about raqiya?

extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament

1. expanse (flat as base, support)
2. firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
   1. considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

Raqiya` - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - King James Version

But what would lexicographers know about how words are used, right?

Wow I couldn't make heads of tales of this response. You were talking about the waters above, and then lexicons, and wow! I'm lost. Maybe you can simplify.

Yes, simple as that. Which means that if in the rest of the Bible I find connotations of solidity in the word raqiya, there is nothing preventing me from thinking that in Genesis 1 raqiya does represent a sort of dome-over-our-heads perception of the sky.

Again, no idea what you just said.

Let's hope 3rd time's the charm.

After all, if I were to believe in such a perception, I would believe that the birds are flying inside the raqiya named shamayim - that is, inside the space marked out inside the raqiya - and also that the sun and moon and stars are moving inside the raqiya named shamayim. That is perfectly consistent with the passage.

Now, it may not be consistent with your view of the universe, but that's just too bad - we're trying to figure out what Genesis says, and why should we let your naturalistic scientific information about the atmosphere and outer space and gravity and all that interfere with the weighty job of exegesis?

Eek. I hear a lot of anger, and maybe that affected your communication. Honestly, I didn't get your point on this. Or where you are disagreeing with me. Maybe someone else can translate.

I do believe that the waters above, is not merely H2O, if that helps, and that they are still out there beyond the heavens. This is what the Psalmist says.

Hope that helps. Don't know what else to say. Except try to relax, but I know you won't take that from someone of the likes of me.

 

[gluadys]

It has always amazes me that people will go to great lengths to find obscure passages in an attempt to define raqiya' as something solid. Yet they completely ignore the most explicit verse in scripture that defines exactly what the raqiya' of Genesis 1 is!! I Marvel at this irony. Raqiya' is the heavens. It's as simple as that. Define heaven, and you have defined the raqiya'.

And God calleth to the expanse (firmament) ‘Heavens

You see, there's no need to look to the limited occurrences of the term raqiya' when you have such numerous occurrences of the term shamayim (heavens), the proper name of the raqiya'!! It's not a barrier separating heavens from earth. It is the heavens.

Guys, both of you, get back to the Bible. Just leave your pet theories aside for a while and let it speak. Let it formulate your theories. It's much easier that way.

I agree, the raqiya' is the heavens (shamayim). It is true the raqiya' does not separate the heavens from the earth. What it separates are the waters above the raqiya' (shamayim) from the waters below the raqiya' (shamayim).


However, having identified the raqiya' with the shamayim does not tell us is that the shamayim are not solid. So it does not tell us that the raqiya' is not solid either.

 

[gluadys]

Here something to keep in mind with this interpretation. The biblical writers didn't have a concept of what the atmosphere is. In modern times, the atmosphere is a convenient division of the sky from outer space which we can clearly comprehend and define. In fact we often use the term atmosphere as sky, sky being distinct from outer space. Not so for the ancients. They had no clue what was up there. This is why they had one word (a plural word) for all that is above the earth and sea—the heavens (shamayim). But there is nothing making the heavens in which the birds flew in distinct from the heavens the stars were in. There is nothing making the heavens the clouds moved through, distinct from the heavens the Sun passed thorugh. Scripture never draws these distinctions, or implies any kind of a barrier. The birds flew in the shamayim, the stars were placed in the shamayim. This whole trichotomy that modern theologians have thought up, first heaven—atmosphere, second heaven—outer space, third heaven-spiritial realm of God and angels, should really be tossed. The heavens or sky is the expanse above. Simple as that.

This I agree with wholeheartedly.

We should also remember that Hebrew, like most languages, uses the same word for 'sky' and 'heaven', 'skies' and 'heavens'. So there is also none of the physical/spiritual differentiation that sometimes applies to these words in English.

 

[philadiddle]

Guys, both of you, get back to the Bible. Just leave your pet theories aside for a while and let it speak. Let it formulate your theories. It's much easier that way.

Pet theories? Do you actually think we are making this up as we go along?

 

[duordi]

Here something to keep in mind with this interpretation. The biblical writers didn't have a concept of what the atmosphere is.

No but God did. Of course I am assuming there is a God and He had something to do with the Bible.

In modern times, the atmosphere is a convenient division of the sky from outer space which we can clearly comprehend and define. In fact we often use the term atmosphere as sky, sky being distinct from outer space. Not so for the ancients. They had no clue what was up there. This is why they had one word (a plural word) for all that is above the earth and sea—the heavens (shamayim).

Which is why God separated the terms by identifying the difference with the word we translate as “firmament”.

Gen 1:1 is just “shamayim” which is the cosmos.
Gen 1: 8 Firmament Heaven is “raqiya`” “shamayim” This is the sky heaven, “firmament” means sky or atmosphere.

But there is nothing making the heavens in which the birds flew in distinct from the heavens the stars were in. There is nothing making the heavens the clouds moved through, distinct from the heavens the Sun passed thorugh. Scripture never draws these distinctions, or implies any kind of a barrier. The birds flew in the shamayim, the stars were placed in the shamayim. This whole trichotomy that modern theologians have thought up, first heaven—atmosphere, second heaven—outer space, third heaven-spiritial realm of God and angels, should really be tossed. The heavens or sky is the expanse above. Simple as that. [/font]

You must not have read it.

Gen:1: 6-8
6And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

Notice the sky has water above and below. The expanse-heaven does not include the water above or the water below it is in between them. If you want to put the Sun in the “expanse-heaven” it must be below the upper waters and above the lower waters. So you see this was not just made up, the text says this. So the birds are flying in the “raqiya`” “shamayim” and the greater light and the lesser light are in the “raqiya`” “shamayim” atmosphere. The Sun is outside the atmosphere in the “shamayim”.

This does not have to be so amazing. So there is a hazy cloud cover and the light from the Sun is filtered or colored like a rainbow and God calls it a "greater light” which we have never seen.

My gut feeling is that sky-heaven was amazing. I mean look at what God does before an afterward.

Do you really think God said "well the people from the 20th century won't see this part anyway so why put in the effort? I think I will just slack off today."


Duordi