Evidence of age - 1. Ice Cores

[Calminian]

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”.

Exactly, and this is where we have read very carefully. I don't believe the waters of Gen. 1:2 were H2O. Most creationists now admit that the waters above were not a vapor canopy which burst during the flood. There may have been a vapor canopy, but the waters of Genesis 1:2 should not be associated with it.

In fact, if you look at Russell Humphreys model, he has these initial waters somewhere on the other side of the cosmos. The waters of Genesis 1:2 should not be confused with the type of water we find in the sea. Why? The sea didn't exist yet! Many theologians are starting to come to this conclusion. The sea was not created until vs. 9. The division of the waters happened prior to this.

If we follow the text carefully, the waters in Genesis 1:2 were not sea waters, they were actually earth waters. IOW, they were the formless liquid earth. Or if you will, the formless shapeless structureless land. The implication is that the land at that time was not yet solid. I used to picture the initial earth as a solid mass of land with no mountains covered by the sea. But that's not what the text conveys.

The earth (land) was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

And then this liquid earth mass was divided into two parts. Half was thrust to the other side of the heavens, and the rest was used to make the planet we live on today.

Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

The sea and dry land, were made from this formless mass that was left behind. Is that not what the text says? Thus those waters of Genesis 1:2 were very different than sea water.

Here's an article with an interesting theory on what those waters were.

And, those waters are still out there, somewhere.

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

Whatever they are, they're still up there, beyond the sun moon and stars. It's not that the psalmist could see them. But he knows they're there. He must have read his Torah.

 

[philadiddle]

Even though I had been trying to keep this on the topic of ice cores, I guess this is what we are talking about now.

Raqiya' means solid dome. It was understood to be a solid dome by the immediate authors and it has been understood to be a solid dome by theologians since that time. Those of us who are defending that view didn't make it up, we are looking at what Christians have understood since it was written.

Strong's Concordance:

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

Source: Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon

Wikipedia also has a well referenced article on the meaning of the word: Firmament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And of course there is Paul Seely's 18 page paper that also looks in detail at the meaning of the word (published in the Westminster Theological Journal): http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted...s/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf

And we also have the plain reading of the passage as well. The ancient Hebrews understood there to be a solid dome over the earth that held back the waters above. In that dome was the sun, moon and stars. Genesis 1 describes the sun, moon and stars as being placed in the firmament that held back the waters above. That description matches the ancient cosmology but it doesn't match our cosmology. It's just common sense as to what it is describing, no need to make up other great lights or anything else to try to get a scientific meaning out of it, it's not a science book. (Though Seely does a much more thorough job of explaining it, and I'm not even scared to tell you that AiG has a criticism of Seely's paper, but their criticism doesn't actually address what he says.)

Don't be fooled into thinking that understanding Genesis in its context is special pleading, while your "plain literal" reading is obviously true. The plain literal reading of Genesis has caused some Christians to say things like this:

Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament..... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night..... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.
​

- Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis

 

[duordi]

Well, I would say there is only one thing worse then being wrong.
That is not trying at all.
Although it is safe, it is very cowardly.

Duordi

 

[duordi]

Actually, I have heard this before.

It fits the text and only changes the definition of one word "water".

It does not seem to fit with the day/night cycles described if the sun was created on the fourth day. That is why I did not consider it.

But, go for it.
I am interested in what the finial results are if you reach some conclusions.

Does it give any unique predictions or understandings?


Duordi

 

[philadiddle]

Actually, I have heard this before.

It fits the text and only changes the definition of one word "water".

It does not seem to fit with the day/night cycles described if the sun was created on the fourth day. That is why I did not consider it.

But, go for it.
I am interested in what the finial results are if you reach some conclusions.

Does it give any unique predictions or understandings?


Duordi

Who are you responding to? You really need to quote what you are responding to, or at least say a name.

 

[duordi]

If you change to the "display mode" to "threaded mode" (on the upper right blue bar) you will see that my post is linked to Calminian.

But for you I will make sure that I specify from now on.

Duordi

 

[duordi]

I looked for any information about what was below the ice cores.
I mean, what did they hit after they ran out of ice?
It would seem they woudl get at lease a few foot of dirt or something.
I could not find anything about what was there or if it could be dated.

Any ideas where I can look?

Duordi

 

[philadiddle]

If you change to the "display mode" to "threaded mode" (on the upper right blue bar) you will see that my post is linked to Calminian.

But for you I will make sure that I specify from now on.

Duordi

Oh yes! I don't use that mode, I prefer the chronological order.

 

[Calminian]

Actually, I have heard this before.

It fits the text and only changes the definition of one word "water".

It does not seem to fit with the day/night cycles described if the sun was created on the fourth day. That is why I did not consider it.

But, go for it.
I am interested in what the finial results are if you reach some conclusions.

Does it give any unique predictions or understandings?


Duordi

I think one of the biggest hurdles in interpreting Genesis is modern nomenclature. There are several words that are decent translations, but not perfect. Many of our modern words have modern discoveries infused into them. We often times then infuse those meanings back into the text and cause quite a confusing mess.

Stars
Modern nomenclature—giant nuclear balls of fusion in outerspace
Ancient nomenclature—any luminous body visible in the sky especially at night (apart from the sun and moon). Would include wandering stars (known as planets today), shooting stars (known as meteors today), and anything else luminous in the sky—even an angelic being.

Earth
Modern—third planet from the sun
Ancient—dry land. 'Ends of the earth' would merely be referring to coastlines. The sea is not a part of earth, in ancient nomenclature.

Heaven
Modern—a dreamworld. A spiritual place in another dimension, where God and angels reside. (modern theology hasn't helped in this area)
Ancient—all the space (or the open expanse) that is above the earth and sea.

Birds
Modern—warm-blooded vertebrates covered with feathers and the forelimbs modified as wings
Ancient—flying animals (including bats, even some insects)

Water
Modern—H2O
Ancient—Any formless liquid. The same word was even used for urine.

There are others, but those are major stumbling blocks.

And true, the genesis text says there were mornings and evenings before the creation of the the sun. But light was created on day 1. We're not told the nature of this light source, but it worked fine for 4 days. Could have been an angel.

Predictions? IMO, are going to be very difficult, as we're talking about a series of miraculous events such as described in Genesis. Miracles in general are not detectable by the scientific method. Christ's miracles are only known though historical evidence and testimony. Had modern-like scientists had the opportunity to examine the fish bread and wine Christ created, they would have deemed them older than the testimonies' proclaimed. Indeed TE's would have pontificated that God would not deceive us by making them look old, and move the miracle back in time in order make them compatible with science.

And the miracles of creation, are much more complex than any of Christ's miracles. We're talking about hundreds maybe thousands of interventions. Natural laws had very little to do with our origin, and therefore a strict methodology assuming the absence of miracles will turn up all kinds of wildly mistaken theories—including the idea that the world started out as a singularity of zero volume, and infinite mass, which then expanded for no reason uncaused over billions of years. But that's what happens when you remove God from all reasoning.

 

[duordi]

Paul said
Acts 17:28
“for in him we live and move and have our being; as even some of your own poets have said”.

I have always assumed this to mean we are in Gods dream or Gods imagination. Once you accept that, walking on water is no big deal.

The most amazing revolution in understanding reality is Einstein’s theory.

It did not make much difference in what we should expect if we observe our surroundings but it really changed our understanding of what is constant and what was not.

If someone questioned the consistency of time before Einstein they would have been thought to be mad.

I am sure Einstein did not come up with his theory the first try.

It took a lot of imagination and thinking before he came up with something that worked and was able to make a prediction that could be proven to be correct.

So I say, go ahead and take all of the wrong paths in the maze and don’t get disappointed if you hit a dead end.

You will always learn something. Sooner or later you will stumble on something awesome. ( You may have already.)

Duordi

 

[Calminian]

The most amazing revolution in understanding reality is Einstein’s theory. [/SIZE]

It did not make much difference in what we should expect if we observe our surroundings but it really changed our understanding of what is constant and what was not.

If someone questioned the consistency of time before Einstein they would have been thought to be mad.

Just out of curiosity, duordi, have you checked out Russell Humphreys theories about Starlight and Time? My guess is you probably already have, but if not, I think you'll find them interesting. It's quite an old work, though. Could probably use some updating.

 

[duordi]

I have no problem believing that God could have created the Earth and expanded the universe from that point and changed time and whatever else He wanted to do.
I believe in an old cosmos and a young biological life because of my understanding of the Bible not just because of science.

Consider this:
Satan was the choir director in heaven before he let himself be overcome with pride.
I do not know how long this lasted.
Then Satan let pride overcome him.
In Satan’s fallen state he convinced one third of the angles to follow him in rebellion against God.

On Earth Adam and Eve are created.
Adam is head over heels in love with Eve.
They are both perfectly healthy and commanded to multiply (have children).

Before Eve conceives (I will assume less than 30 days) they are tempted by Satan and booted from the Garden of Eden.

This means that Satan has less than a month to be the leader of praise in heaven, fall into sin and tempt Eve while he is convincing as many angles to follow him as possible. Sounds like a busy schedule.

When Daniel was praying to God for understanding of the Bible prophesy concerning Israel the angle Gabriel was sent immediately but was held up for 21 days in a little encounter of a few angles.

Daniel 10
12 Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. 14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come.”

It does not seem that angelic affairs process quickly.
Also consider that the angles existed before the recreation of Earth.

Job 38
[FONT=&quot] 1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
2"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? 3 Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me. [/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?
[FONT=&quot]
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,
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]Verse 9 is when the Earth started the Genesis recreation process a liquid surface in darkness.

If the liquid was molten lava it would have had light but it was in darkness.

Notice the angles existed in verse 7 before the first day.

The word for Earth is “land” and it is odd that a water planet would be called “land” but the Earth was covered in water and according to verse 8 it had been flooded.

The point I would like to make is that there is a history which indicates time has passed, events have happened.

This is not a question of science verses the Bible is it a question about what the Bible says happened.

The Bible does not say the Earth rocks and water are dated unless you change the words. Changing the word “greater light” to “sun” is a dangerous action if you do not know why God decided to use the word “greater light” in the first place.

You should consider all options, however changing a word meaning in the Bible is a serious matter and should never be taken lightly or without checking it with respect to the rest of the Bible.


Duordi

 

[philadiddle]

So nobody has a response to post #102?

 

[Calminian]

I have no problem believing that God could have created the Earth and expanded the universe from that point and changed time and whatever else He wanted to do.
I believe in an old cosmos and a young biological life because of my understanding of the Bible not just because of science.

Keep in mind, though, technically, young earthers also hold to an old universe, per Humphreys' model. It may not be universal, but it's with the boundries of young earth.

Consider this:
Satan was the choir director in heaven before he let himself be overcome with pride.
I do not know how long this lasted.
Then Satan let pride overcome him.
In Satan’s fallen state he convinced one third of the angles to follow him in rebellion against God.

On Earth Adam and Eve are created.
Adam is head over heels in love with Eve.
They are both perfectly healthy and commanded to multiply (have children).

Before Eve conceives (I will assume less than 30 days) they are tempted by Satan and booted from the Garden of Eden.

This means that Satan has less than a month to be the leader of praise in heaven, fall into sin and tempt Eve while he is convincing as many angles to follow him as possible. Sounds like a busy schedule.

You have a point. It does seem like a quick fall.

3 things though.

1) Adam and Eve also fell quite quickly, so it's seems that was the pattern initially. It also doesn't seem plausible God would give beings millions of years to fall. Seems there is an initial choice that confronted beings relatively early in their lives. IOW, I don't think had Adam resisted the initial temptation, he would have had to deal with temptations for millions of years afterward, or even an eternity afterward. The holy angels of today are said to be "elect." This implies they are no longer facing temptation.
2) Time may be experienced differently by heavenly beings.
3) Time may have elapsed differently in the universe in different places at its early stages. Thus, the heavens may be relatively older than the earth in an experiential sense.

Though I would say #1 answers this issue best.

When Daniel was praying to God for understanding of the Bible prophesy concerning Israel the angle Gabriel was sent immediately but was held up for 21 days in a little encounter of a few angles.


Daniel 10
12 Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia. 14 Now I have come to explain to you what will happen to your people in the future, for the vision concerns a time yet to come.”


It does not seem that angelic affairs process quickly.
Also consider that the angles existed before the recreation of Earth.
[FONT=&quot]

Yes, but in fairness, Gabriel was being purposefully detained. Had the freeways been clear, the implication is, he would have been there quite quickly. And do you really think it's plausible that angelic beings move slower and make decisions slower the earthly beings?

[/FONT]Verse 9 is when the Earth started the Genesis recreation process a liquid surface in darkness.

If the liquid was molten lava it would have had light but it was in darkness.

I don't think the formless earth waters were lava, though. I honestly think that God hadn't quite put together the various molecules yet, that were to makeup the solid land, or the liquid seas. It was still just sort of a primordial soup, with no form yet. Waters would have been a perfect description for that. As Peter said,

2Pet. 3:5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth (the land) was formed out of water and by water.

Notice the angles existed in verse 7 before the first day.

Correct. Angels were likely created on day 1, when light was created. Light seems to be a very important part of their nature. Would seem logical they came to exist when light came to exist. It's also likely the first light source, causing the first mornings and evenings, was angelic.

Then later, when God was building the foundations of the land, the angels witnessed it and were in awe. Imagine witnessing such an artistic event of the dry land and sea being formed.

The word for Earth is “land” and it is odd that a water planet would be called “land” but the Earth was covered in water and according to verse 8 it had been flooded.

I don't think you're reading this carefully enough. The initial land (’Erets) is said to be "formless" and "empty" and "dark" and "deep" and "watery." No mention of the word "sea" yet. Land became foundational and dry in verse 9. The waters are gathered to one place as well. Seems almost like a dehydration process, separating mud into 2 parts, dirt and water. It's as if it were initially together as a big mud ball, and then Voilà! God started his masterpiece sculpture. Then He named it's components land and sea. It doesn't seem a stretch at all, that the writer is trying to say that the land was initially formless and wet, and then became dry and hard.

The point I would like to make is that there is a history which indicates time has passed, events have happened.

This is not a question of science verses the Bible is it a question about what the Bible says happened.

The Bible does not say the Earth rocks and water are dated unless you change the words. Changing the word “greater light” to “sun” is a dangerous action if you do not know why God decided to use the word “greater light” in the first place.

But no one has changed those words in the Bible. We merely say, what those words obviously mean. It is clear, the greater light is the sun, and the weaker light is the moon. There's no need to change the words, as they are implicit and obvious. In fact, sun moon and stars are almost always grouped together when mentioned in the Bible. You see it over and over, in both old and new testaments. The mere mention of the stars in this passage solidifies without questions what those other two lights are.

Not only this, Moses clearly says, "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and earth, the sea, and all that is in them,"

It's clear the stars, sun and moon are in the heavens, and thus made within the six days, since everything that is in the heavens was made within six days.

In some ways, I wish there were a way a round this. My first creation position was the Gap Theory. I then moved to the day/age and then to straightforward 6 day view. The text was just too specific. So I definitely have considered several options.

 

[duordi]

If the sun is the "greater light" as you have proposed.
Then there should be a referance to the "greater light" after the flood in the rest of the Bibie somewhere where the sun is referred to as the "greater light".

"Something like", Abram looked up and saw the "greater light" (the Hebrew word of course).

But if the "greater light" was in the atmosphere and destroied durring the flood then it should not be found in the remainder of scripture unless the text is talking about the pre-flood condition.

So, find me a verse that contains the Hebrew word(s) "greater light" in which the text is clearly talking about an after the flood condition.

Duordi

 

[Calminian]

If the sun is the "greater light" as you have proposed.
Then there should be a referance to the "greater light" after the flood in the rest of the Bibie somewhere where the sun is referred to as the "greater light".

Greater light is simply the initial description of the sun. Inductively we infer this due to the fact it is grouped with the stars.

"Something like", Abram looked up and saw the "greater light" (the Hebrew word of course).

But if the "greater light" was in the atmosphere and destroied durring the flood then it should not be found in the remainder of scripture unless the text is talking about the pre-flood condition.

Which the text does often. Many texts speak of the flood and you would think (just to use the same logic), it would be mentioned somewhere. But it's not.

So, find me a verse that contains the Hebrew word(s) "greater light" in which the text is clearly talking about an after the flood condition.

Show me the texts that show the "greater light" was actually a different light than the sun. If what you say is true, there should be countless examples. Again, this is not my logic but yours (yes it is poor logic).

BTW, the psalmist confirms my belief that the waters above are still up there and weren't destroyed in the flood.

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

To borrow a phrase I think it's dangerous to do what you're doing, making up theories from silence. The logical case you're trying to make is actually a logical fallacy in the order of "affirming the consequent."

If the greater light is different than the sun, we'd expect it to never be mentioned again. It's never mentioned again. Therefore it must be different from the sun.

If A then B
B therefore A

If you've ever studied logic, you know the above is a well known logical fallacy.

If that animal is a cat, we'd expect it to have 4 legs. It has four legs. Therefore, it must be a cat.

 

[duordi]

BTW, the psalmist confirms my belief that the waters above are still up there and weren't destroyed in the flood.

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

You took it out of context.

1Praise the LORD!Praise the LORD from the heavens;
praise him in the heights!
2Praise him, all his angels;
praise him, all his hosts!
3Praise him, sun and moon,
praise him, all you shining stars!
4Praise him, you highest heavens,
and you waters above the heavens!
5Let them praise the name of the LORD!
For he commanded and they were created.
6And he established them forever and ever;
he gave a decree, and it shall not pass away.
7Praise the LORD from the earth,
you great sea creatures and all deeps,

Notice we start at the highest point and end in the bottom of the ocean.
The waters above the heavens are below the sun, moon and stars.

The waters are still above the earth and below the sun they are called clouds. Only the greater light and lesser light are ruined by the flood. The sky is still there and so are clouds.


How about this.

In Genesis chapter 1 verse 1

"In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth."

This statement is either a Title or an Action.

If I gave you a paper and it started out with this.

"Tom made a new hat."
You may say that Tom really made a new hat and the hat exists or you may say that the first sentence is a title and a story will follow telling how Tom made a hat.

The second sentence will determine if “Tom made a new hat” or if it is just a title there will be no existing hat yet. The paper will then define how Tom made the hat.
If the hat exists already then the first sentence was an action and anything the first sentence said will have already happened.


We can use the same reasoning for Genesis Chapter 1 verse 1 and 2.

Genesis Chapter 1 verse 1 and 2
1. In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.
2. And the Earth was formless and void and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters.

The Earth exists in verse 2 so verse 1 was an action and not a title.

If the Earth exists in verse 2 then the Heavens must also exist because the
Heavens existed before the Earth as they are listed first.

It does not say “God created the Earth and the Heavens.” But it says God created the “Heavens and the Earth”.



The cosmos existed before the creation week (days of cration).


Look close at the second part of verse 2.


Gods attention is on the surface of the waters. This is where the recreation takes place. Not in space and not in the center of the Earth. The rest of creation exists already.

This is why the creation of the angels are not indicated in the creation week. They were created with the Heavens in verse 1.

I understand that you have an opinion but you must agree that the intrepretation I have given is much simpler and I do not have to assign the words for "greater light" a definition they were not given.

They are named something other then the sun and the moon because they are something different than the sun and moon.

I am curious why you would go through all the backflips to reject the idea that the atmosphere had lights and then accept that there was an additional light created in Gen 1:3 which caused a day night cycle and was apparently in the atmosphere.

For me it is very simple. The clouds started to clear giving and overcast first day and night and as the sky continued to clear there was a reflected image of the sun of some sort but it never cleared enough to give direct sunlight. The reflected image is called the greater light. The flood removed this protective layer and now we get direct sunlight. The greater light image no longer exists.

I do not believe there was bilogical like on Earth before the creation week becasue the fossil record does not support it.


Duordi

 

[Calminian]

duordi, I noticed you didn't address the logical fallacy I pointed out. I wasn't pointing it out to be antagonistic, but to encourage you to refine your theory so that it followed better logical rules. And then unfortunately you doubled down and made the same logical error over and over.

By the way, if I seem short, forgive me. I'm battling a mean stomach flu along with the rest of my family. But that's also why I get to spend so much time on this.

I think we're all susceptible to pet theories and after a while see proof of them in everything. But following the rules of logic can snap us back to reality and keep up from going over the ideological cliff. Sometimes our theories just need a little tweaking, and sometimes they need a complete overhaul.

You took it out of context.

Notice we start at the highest point and end in the bottom of the ocean.
The waters above the heavens are below the sun, moon and stars.

The waters are still above the earth and below the sun they are called clouds. Only the greater light and lesser light are ruined by the flood. The sky is still there and so are clouds.

Yet there's nothing in the passage that actually says these are arranged from a physical highest point to a physical lowest point.

But what's really telling is the explicit part of the "waters above" passage giving an actual relative hight.

4Praise him, you highest heavens,
and you waters above the heavens!

The waters that are still up there are above the highest heavens, not some lower portion of heaven. How can I ignore something so explicit?

So again, you noticed a succession of height because it supported your theory. But you missed the explicit passage putting those initial waters even higher up than the highest heavens. This fits perfectly with Genesis 1:6 which has the waters separated by the heavens which contained the stars. Yes it's awkward and doesn't fit with previous flood models by famous creationists. But it's so clear it's hard to get around.

How about this.

In Genesis chapter 1 verse 1

This statement is either a Title or an Action.

If I gave you a paper and it started out with this.

"Tom made a new hat."
You may say that Tom really made a new hat and the hat exists or you may say that the first sentence is a title and a story will follow telling how Tom made a hat.

The second sentence will determine if “Tom made a new hat” or if it is just a title there will be no existing hat yet. The paper will then define how Tom made the hat.
If the hat exists already then the first sentence was an action and anything the first sentence said will have already happened.

We can use the same reasoning for Genesis Chapter 1 verse 1 and 2.

The Earth exists in verse 2 so verse 1 was an action and not a title.

If the Earth exists in verse 2 then the Heavens must also exist because the
Heavens existed before the Earth as they are listed first.

It does not say “God created the Earth and the Heavens.” But it says God created the “Heavens and the Earth”.

The cosmos existed before the creation week (days of cration).

Look close at the second part of verse 2.

Gods attention is on the surface of the waters. This is where the recreation takes place. Not in space and not in the center of the Earth. The rest of creation exists already.

This is why the creation of the angels are not indicated in the creation week. They were created with the Heavens in verse 1.

I'm not sure I have have a solid opinion on the nature of verse 1. Originally I did consider that it was a summary statement. Some hebrew experts have actually changed my mind somewhat, but not totally. I'm at least open to it.

And I have no problem accepting the heavens in their rudimentary form, were prior to the earth in its rudimentary form. If angels did exist in verse 3, then it makes sense their domain was created prior—just as the finished sea and land were prior to their inhabitants. What we do know is, heaven wasn't filled with stars until verse 14. That's explicit in the text, and I can't throw that out for a pet theory.

I understand that you have an opinion but you must agree that the intrepretation I have given is much simpler and I do not have to assign the words for "greater light" a definition they were not given.

They are named something other then the sun and the moon because they are something different than the sun and moon.

I am curious why you would go through all the backflips to reject the idea that the atmosphere had lights and then accept that there was an additional light created in Gen 1:3 which caused a day night cycle and was apparently in the atmosphere.

For me it is very simple. The clouds started to clear giving and overcast first day and night and as the sky continued to clear there was a reflected image of the sun of some sort but it never cleared enough to give direct sunlight. The reflected image is called the greater light. The flood removed this protective layer and now we get direct sunlight. The greater light image no longer exists.

I do not believe there was bilogical like on Earth before the creation week becasue the fossil record does not support it.

Duordi

I do have opinions. I'd like to think I also put them through logical tests to make sure I'm not going from point A to point C, without any evidence of a connective point B. I'd like to also think I give other theories a good listen. But again, pet theories can be intoxicating. I'm as susceptible as anyone else. But I'm looking at the deductions you're making (very carefully I might add) and the inductions you're making and they just don't follow. You're asking me to reinterpret too many explicit passages.

That's not to say your basic theory is not correct, BTW.

 

[duordi]

If the greater light is different than the sun, we'd expect it to never be mentioned again. It's never mentioned again. Therefore it must be different from the sun.

If A then B
B therefore A

If you've ever studied logic, you know the above is a well known logical fallacy.

Let me correct your math.

If the greater light is the sun than we'd expect to see the word greater light again in the Bible because the sun exists.
It's never mensioned again therefore it must not be the sun.

If A then B
Not B therefore Not A.

Of course this is not proof because there is always a chance however small it might be that the word was not used for another reason.

I am not sure what that reason might be.

So again, you noticed a succession of height because it supported your theory.

I do not deney this and I looked at the context because I expected it to support my opinion, and it did.

But you missed the explicit passage putting those initial waters even higher up than the highest heavens. This fits perfectly with Genesis 1:6 which has the waters separated by the heavens which contained the stars. Yes it's awkward and doesn't fit with previous flood models by famous creationists. But it's so clear it's hard to get around.

Well if you insist in taking the words out of context.

The proble I have with this text is that you can assign any meaning to heaven or highest heaven.

Is highest heaven space or the upper atmosphere?
Is the heaven the waters are above the atmosphere (it is not called highest heaven here) or is it referring to the highest heaven mentioned eariler?

I am not saying I can prove you wrong, or right for that matter becase there is no indication what the terms refer to so you are free to assign them as you wish.

For this reason you can make this passage say just about anything you want to. There is nothing wrong with this as long as you realize you defined what the passage said based on your opinion and word definitions you used.

When I pointed out a logical sequence from highest to lowest you rejected it because it did not place the waters where you wanted them. I can not say the highest to lowest is a fact, they may be random and just landed this way by chance but you must at least consider that highest to lowest may not be a chance condition. It should give you reason to question your intrepretation in this passage.

I do not have a problem with this text at all because when taken in context the waters are below the sun and above portions of he sky.

I am guessing you did not find this passage yourself but read an article which was in favor of a young cosmos and they only showed you this one line, out of context.

Am I correct?

You don't have to answer, this last part was for your benefit.


Duordi

 

[Calminian]

Let me correct your math.

If the greater light is the sun than we'd expect to see the word greater light again in the Bible because the sun exists.
It's never mensioned again therefore it must not be the sun.

If A then B
Not B therefore Not A.

Okay, so this is at least a valid argument in that the conclusion follows the premises. denying the consequent. But my question is, per your premise, why would we expect to see the term greater light again, if indeed it was the sun?

I could turn around and make the argument, if the greater light was not the sun, we would expect it to be mentioned again somewhere in scripture where it talks about the pre-flood world. But we don't see that. Therefore it must have merely been the sun.

Is that a valid argument? Yes! It's a good argument. Only if I can support my premise. I haven't yet seen a good argument for your premise.

I would point out that if there was really a different type of light that was grouped with the stars, that no longer exists today, there would be some mention of it is scripture, particularly explaining why it was destroyed.

Also, by definition, the sun is a greater light to us which rules the day, and the moon a lesser light to us which rules the night. So they fit the description perfectly. And they are grouped with the stars everywhere else in scripture.

Furthermore, I think the stars are the key. If there was some kind of vapor canopy (which I kind of reject at this point), the stars would not have been visible yet. So why mention them? But since it does, why not also mention making the sun and moon in addition to the greater and lesser light? Seems odd if that were really the case.

I do not deney this and I looked at the context because I expected it to support my opinion, and it did.

Well if you insist in taking the words out of context.

The proble I have with this text is that you can assign any meaning to heaven or highest heaven.

Is highest heaven space or the upper atmosphere?

If you go by the text of Genesis, the highest heaven is further out than the stars. What else could the author have meant? It's the highest! The ancients did not know how far away the stars were, but they knew they were higher than the clouds, which they knew were the source of rain. This is easily inferred by the naked eye. And the stars are visible to the naked eye, so it's at least fair to say the psalmist thought the waters above the heavens were way out there beyond the stars. And I don't think they associated these waters with rain or clouds. I think it was a mystery to them. In many ways it's still a mystery to us.

Plus I think the straightforward reading of scripture supports my premise better than it does yours. Moses said explicitly. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them. All that was made in the heavens was made is six days. This includes sun, moon stars.

Is the heaven the waters are above the atmosphere (it is not called highest heaven here) or is it referring to the highest heaven mentioned eariler?

Actually if you understand hebrew parallelism, it is. The second line in Hebrew parallelism is always complements the first. The psalmist is using hebrew poetry to say that all things no matter how high should praise the Lord. To paraphrase: The highest heavens should praise the Lord. In fact, even the waters above the heavens should praise the Lord! Now that's pretty high and that's precisely the point the psalmist is making.

I am not saying I can prove you wrong, or right for that matter becase there is no indication what the terms refer to so you are free to assign them as you wish.

I'm sorry but the passage is crystal clear. There is every indication, that the passage is building upward to build on the point that all things no matter how high should praise God. Thus, even the highest heavens, even the waters that are above all the heavens.

For this reason you can make this passage say just about anything you want to.

Actually, no you can't. You can't make it say what you tried to make it say, that the waters are below the heavens and that the passage somehow is going from higher places to lower. The opposite is true. The passages is building from high to highest and then to even above highest. It's beautiful poetry.

When I pointed out a logical sequence from highest to lowest you rejected it because it did not place the waters where you wanted them.

No, absolutely not, and there's somewhat of an interesting story there, which I'll get into below. I'm merely looking at the passage in its literal context, understanding how hebrew poetry works.

I am guessing you did not find this passage yourself but read an article which was in favor of a young cosmos and they only showed you this one line, out of context.

Am I correct?

Actually no, and here's the interesting story. I was researching the issue of the flood and vapor canopy. Many creationists were rejecting the canopy theory, and I wanted out find out why. I came across this passage doing a word search for 'heavens' and 'waters' mainly because I was trying to understand Gen. 1:6. Bingo, there it was! When I first looked at this passage I had a view closer to yours, and older flood models, though I wasn't a gap theorist anymore at that point. But I did hold to the Henry Morris flood vapor canopy model. This passage forced me out of that view, because it explicitly says the waters were above the highest heavens, and more importantly still up there. I didn't want to accept what it said, because it made things very difficult me. But I also wanted to accept scripture at face value, and allow it to drive my theories. Thus, I'm where I'm at today.