- Jan 7, 2024
- 7,599
- 980
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
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.
I don't understand.
You are not saying the firmament begins after the exosphere. So, you must mean the atmosphere ends before the exosphere begins, right?
Okay. What did you mean by "where the atmosphere meets space"?I'm not sure where the atmosphere ends.
I'm not sure where the atmosphere ends.
Answers to:
1. Yes
2. In
3. correct
4. Thin
5. Not sure
The ancient "three heavens" model of what is up there is still mostly the model we have today, though we think about it differently. The first heaven is the sky - the troposphere, where birds fly, leaves fall, clouds move, aerospace vehicles experience drag, and weather occurs. In the NT, there is some distinction of it by calling it aire (like our word air). The second heaven is where the stars (kowkob in Hebrew) are, and what we call outer space. A "star" in ancient reckoning is any point of light in the sky, though we distinguish between planets suns, moons, nebulae, comets and meteors. All are "stars" in both Hebrew and Greek (astra). In Hebrew, the second heaven is also called shamayim - the heavens. So shamayim can be either sky or outer space. Genesis 1:1 can read that the elohim created the "sky and land" (shamayim and eretz).I wasn't aware there was a difference.
Why do you see a difference?
Keep in mind the First Law of Bible study: do not assume that the translators have put the right sense of the passage into your mind with their translation.Other than item 1, that being the idea that the firmament is a solid barrier, everything rlse on that list is compatible with space as explored by astronauts, including the Lunar mission, and also fulfills the criteria set out in Genesis, in that the waters above are divided from those of the Earth by what we could call the Firmament.
The chief problem with your model is that it is incompatible with the known fact that the air becomes thin at higher elevations - if the world were covered by a solid shell, a[n]d gravity did not exist, the volume of air inside that shell would have a consistent pressure.
Thank you for sharing your interpretation/view.The ancient "three heavens" model of what is up there is still mostly the model we have today, though we think about it differently. The first heaven is the sky - the troposphere, where birds fly, leaves fall, clouds move, aerospace vehicles experience drag, and weather occurs. In the NT, there is some distinction of it by calling it aire (like our word air). The second heaven is where the stars (kowkob in Hebrew) are, and what we call outer space. A "star" in ancient reckoning is any point of light in the sky, though we distinguish between planets suns, moons, nebulae, comets and meteors. All are "stars" in both Hebrew and Greek (astra). In Hebrew, the second heaven is also called shamayim - the heavens. So shamayim can be either sky or outer space. Genesis 1:1 can read that the elohim created the "sky and land" (shamayim and eretz).
The apostle Paul refers to the third heaven, "where God lives". This is not known to us and is not part of the modern cosmological model. We do not know the scope of reality in which to consider this third heaven. Some think of it as eternity: beyond space-time. This is a completely abstract idea to us because we cannot envision anything outside of space-time. We can employ abstractions involving infinity yet cannot comprehend it in any direct sense. The many infinity-words that appear in Bible translations (usually as superlatives) simply are not there in the Hebrew language or worldview. Take a familiar example: Psalm 23. It ends in typical translations with "... and I shall live in the house of the Lord forever." Forever is an infinity-word, but the transliteration of the Hebrew is "for all the days". It doesn't say which days or how many of them.
Another example that low-level Bible-bashers are fond of involve the translated superlative all; all the cows in Egypt die in one plague, only to get boils in the next plague. Our English word all has a Greek logical meaning of "without exception". The Hebrew meaning is more statistical to mean "the preponderance of". The third heaven is where God lives and that can be anywhere from a nearby star to a different sector of the galaxy to another galaxy to ... somewhere beyond. We simply do not know.
What do you not believe is scriptural and what is, if I might change the logic of your statement a little, conflicts with science?Thank you for sharing your interpretation/view.
Many persons have this view, but I don't believe it is scriptural, and certainly, science does not agree with it.
It's true though that various views about the heavens existed in the past, as is true, even today.
The view that there are three heavens and the third heaven is where God lives, is an interpretation, and not scripture.What do you not believe is scriptural and what is, if I might change the logic of your statement a little, conflicts with science?
How do you understand the apostle Paul's reference to a "third heaven"? He was writing that in a civilization that would have understood it according to the widespread three-heavens view.The view that there are three heavens and the third heaven is where God lives, is an interpretation, and not scripture.
And today, even from a scientific standpoint, we distinguish between the earth's atmosphere (heaven # 1), outer space (heaven # 2) and whatever might be beyond space-time, multiverses, or whatever (heaven # 3). So the expression "third heaven" does not appear in scientific literature, but the concept does. Changing words or labels does not change concepts named by them.Science does not refer to the third heaven, and they certainly do not believe in a realm where a supernatural god lives.
It tells us that it was a part of Paul's thinking. And because the concept was developed elsewhere in the same civilization Paul lived in and where it was referred to, we can know something more about what was in his mind.2 Corinthians 12:2-4 does not tell us anything about this third heaven, as you know.
You're speaking for yourself, and not those who have done more research on the finer points of scriptural references. Perhaps you should take into account that others might know what you do not know that they know.It's easy for one to guess, but unless the scripture otherwise makes it clear, we cannot be certain of this vision.
Verse one says Paul had a vision, where in verse 2, a man was caught away to the third heaven - whether bodily or not, he does not know.How do you understand the apostle Paul's reference to a "third heaven"?
Why do you say that?He was writing that in a civilization that would have understood it according to the widespread three-heavens view.
No problem.And today, even from a scientific standpoint, we distinguish between the earth's atmosphere (heaven # 1), outer space (heaven # 2) and whatever might be beyond space-time, multiverses, or whatever (heaven # 3). So the expression "third heaven" does not appear in scientific literature, but the concept does. Changing words or labels does not change concepts named by them.
We disagree on that.It tells us that it was a part of Paul's thinking. And because the concept was developed elsewhere in the same civilization Paul lived in and where it was referred to, we can know something more about what was in his mind.
You're saying that you and these persons are not offering your interpretations?You're speaking for yourself, and not those who have done more research on the finer points of scriptural references. Perhaps you should take into account that others might know what you do not know that they know.
I don't follow this. Supernatural is a pagan and not a biblical idea in which nature is what the Fates control and the gods act supernaturally. This dualism is not in the biblical worldview; Yahweh is Lord of all, not supernatural. I have not raised the question of how or where Paul might have gone but addressed what he said. He used the expression "third heaven" which has a clear meaning in his setting.Verse one says Paul had a vision, where in verse 2, a man was caught away to the third heaven - whether bodily or not, he does not know.
So this vision is not where Paul goes anywhere, but is, like John, and Daniel, by spirit, shown something supernatural.
You are speculating about Paul's state of mind and purpose for saying what he did. I am not speculating but am addressing what he actually said: third heaven.Paul is boasting at this point, and his words are not to give information, but to let those opposes, know that he had a vision from God.
Thus, what Paul meant is not something we need to understand, or that he was teaching.
That's my understanding.
Why do you say that?He was writing that in a civilization that would have understood it according to the widespread three-heavens view.
No problem.And today, even from a scientific standpoint, we distinguish between the earth's atmosphere (heaven # 1), outer space (heaven # 2) and whatever might be beyond space-time, multiverses, or whatever (heaven # 3). So the expression "third heaven" does not appear in scientific literature, but the concept does. Changing words or labels does not change concepts named by them.
We disagree on that.It tells us that it was a part of Paul's thinking. And because the concept was developed elsewhere in the same civilization Paul lived in and where it was referred to, we can know something more about what was in his mind.
You're saying that you and these persons are not offering your interpretations?You're speaking for yourself, and not those who have done more research on the finer points of scriptural references. Perhaps you should take into account that others might know what you do not know that they know.
Are you speculating on where/what the third heaven is?I don't follow this. Supernatural is a pagan and not a biblical idea in which nature is what the Fates control and the gods act supernaturally. This dualism is not in the biblical worldview; Yahweh is Lord of all, not supernatural. I have not raised the question of how or where Paul might have gone but addressed what he said. He used the expression "third heaven" which has a clear meaning in his setting.
You are speculating about Paul's state of mind and purpose for saying what he did. I am not speculating but am addressing what he actually said: third heaven.
Why do you say that?
{Forum software has a fault. My response in bold.}
Because I know something about ancient history and the thinking of people in Paul's setting. I can read.
No problem.
We disagree on that.
Where do you get that this 'concept was developed elsewhere in the same civilization Paul lived in'?
All I can say is to refer you to the history literature of the time. Apparently, you do not know any to be raising this question. You need some background study on this. I am not your tutor.
You're saying that you and these persons are not offering your interpretations?
Some of us think that there is a difference between facts and speculations.
The forum software seems to be acting strangely. Yesterday I wroteAre you speculating on where/what the third heaven is?
That's not written, is it?
In that regard, I also do not know where the place that God lives would be.
The waters wouldn't run off the firmament, because the firmament and all of creation is completely submerged, kind of like a submarine.Okay. What did you mean by "where the atmosphere meets space"?
Hello? Are you still with me?
I took this image from this thread.
There is nothing keeping the waters above from running off the firmament. Is there?
Thanks for answering, but I don't understand.The waters wouldn't run off the firmament, because the firmament and all of creation is completely submerged, kind of like a submarine.
Now, obviously this isn't scientific. It's just a common way that ancient people described the cosmos.
In ancient times, before people had things like satellites and space shuttles, the sky was thought to have a watery nature or it was at least commonly described as such. That is what was thought to give it its blue color. Same with things like the solid sky. It was a common view in the Greco-Roman world that the sky consisted of crystalline spheres. The Old Testament is much older than the time of Copernicus and Ptolemy. But in the ancient world, perspectives of a solid sky were quite common. The Biblical authors, though inspired by God, still held to normal or common views of their day concerning cosmology.Thanks for answering, but I don't understand.
Are you saying it's just a fantasy?
In ancient times, before people had things like satellites and space shuttles, the sky was thought to have a watery nature or it was at least commonly described as such.
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?