Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
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)
What specifically is different? Just the odds are higher?
Hold on, you are moving too fast and are assuming a lot more than you are saying.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.
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.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.
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 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.
When God created the firmament to divide the waters he called it heaven. Genesis doesn't differentiate between different firmaments.They are placed in the firmament of the Heaven sky between the waters above and the waters below.
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.
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.
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.
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 measurementssurely 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 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.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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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 seathe 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 heavenatmosphere, second heavenouter space, third heaven-spiritial realm of God and angels, should really be tossed. The heavens or sky is the expanse above. Simple as that.
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, firmamentRaqiya` - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - King James Version
- expanse (flat as base, support)
- firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
- considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above
But what would lexicographers know about how words are used, right?
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?
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.
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 seathe 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 heavenatmosphere, second heavenouter space, third heaven-spiritial realm of God and angels, should really be tossed. The heavens or sky is the expanse above. Simple as that.
Pet theories? Do you actually think we are making this up as we go along?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.
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 seathe 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 heavenatmosphere, second heavenouter 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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?