What are the "Waters"?

[granpa]

here is how modern cosmologists understand it.

Balloon Analogy in Cosmology

 

[Papias]

Smidlee wrote:

I think people are reading more into these texts that is really there. I think waters is simply waters.

Sure it is. "waters" is simply "waters", not "comets", "interstellar gas" or such. That's what the pictures on this thread show - real water above the firmament, just like the real water under the firmament in the ocean.

I have read the scripture many times and never saw the heavens as a solid dome........ If you have a modern knowledge of the heavens then you will not read "the solid dome" when studying the Bible.

Sure, because you start with your pre-conceived notion of the heavens that we all learned in elementary school.

This is the beauty of the scriptures as it has to be written simple enough to be understood through time and different languages. ......
If you think the heaven as a solid dome then you will read that in scripture.

But that's the point - the literal word means "solid dome". Raquiya literally means "hard metal bowl stretched and beaten by hammering". Translations usually change this meaning.

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

Assyrian -

Yes, I agree. The ancient Hebrews knew of freshwater springs, and must have thought that that water had to be coming from somewhere. Maybe a more complete image would be better, showing the freshwater. I didn't see one looking around.

Have a good day-

Papias

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The implication seems to be the waters are the raw unformed unorganized elements the Spirit used to create the organized world. Specifically Peter says the land was formed out of the water, and he most certainly was referring to Genesis 1:9-10.

I agree; the waters are the raw unformed unorganized elements, (water) out of which the Spirit made everything. I get the feeling that there was originally no night, only day, and twilight, that’s just a hunch I suppose. I have a book by Robert Sungenis, it’s about the scientific evidence for a geocentric universe. The theory goes that space is no empty, it is actually a solid, (invisible) and other materials like planets are less dense objects, sitting within a solid space, a bit like the idea of ‘space-time’ but with rejecting the theory of relativity altogether. Gravity is caused by the displacement of the either, by a less dense object than the either, attracting less dense material, to fill the displaced space.

About the darkness. It is a general feeling that there is more going on in the text than just a description of light and day. More like some sort of cosmic conspiracy; that there was a deal struck, perhaps with the darkness, in order for the material creation to go ahead. The darkness is where al the rubbish ends up, excluded from the light, at the end of time. 2 Peter also says that the universe will disintegrate with the elements, causing heat. Perhaps this happens because the will of God is l lifted, and everything disintegrates because there is nothing remaining to hold anything together in any order.

Good points

 

[Gxg (G²)]

This article on the Firmament as a dome holding back the celestial waters is pertinent:

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted...s/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf

A diagram of the Near-Eastern cosmology utilized in Genesis:

 

[dana b]

We first read of them in Genesis, before the Earth was even made. Also notice that the "heavens" were created in this same chapter as the "waters" are being organized. Sometimes I think the term "waters" has another meaning, maybe something like strings or the Higgs-boson. Something that all matter has in common. If we glean information from the rest of the bible, we see the elements will be destroyed with fervent heat and dissolve, if this is the case, then there must be something common throughout the heavens that can be effected at once.

I know scientists are looking for the "God particle", but that only explains a "unified theory", not necessarily a "common denominator" throughout the universe.

 

[Calminian]

That is, however, how the Hebrews understood it.

Perhaps latter day hebrews, but not those in Moses' time and not the writer of Genesis 1:1-2:4. For starters, raquia (firmament) and heaven are one on the same. Some have suggested the hebrews believed the firmament was a barrier between the sky and heaven, but the text of Gen. is clear that heaven is the name of the firmament. The firmament is what God named heaven. IOW's heaven is merely the formal name of the firmament. God named the dry ground "land" the gathered waters "the seas" and the firmament or expanse "heaven". Later solid dome cosmologies are not compatible with this.

When it comes to the account of the heavens and earth (Gen. 2:4), we are likely looking at perhaps the oldest writing in the world, passed down through the generations to Moses, who compiled early writings to compose Genesis. As we would expect, there would be spinoff stories which slightly changed and altered the original revelation, and it is from these the idea of a barrier between heaven and earth arose. Later on some in ANE cultures may have named this barrier the raquia, but when looking at the original text, it's clear this was not the original intent. The firmament in scripture is heaven, and heaven is the firmament. A 1 to 1 correspondence is intended.

Myths about the structure of the cosmos likely came from distortions of the original text, but those distortions don't hold up next to the original text.

 

[lucaspa]

We first read of them in Genesis, before the Earth was even made. Also notice that the "heavens" were created in this same chapter as the "waters" are being organized. Sometimes I think the term "waters" has another meaning, maybe something like strings or the Higgs-boson. Something that all matter has in common. If we glean information from the rest of the bible, we see the elements will be destroyed with fervent heat and dissolve, if this is the case, then there must be something common throughout the heavens that can be effected at once.

I know scientists are looking for the "God particle", but that only explains a "unified theory", not necessarily a "common denominator" throughout the universe.

Inthec, instead of trying to read modern science into Genesis 1, let's try looking at how the people of the time would have heard this and what it meant then. Remember, they don't know modern science, so the text isn't talking about strings, or the Higgs boson, or anything we know today. None of that would have made sense to them.

Look instead at the religions of Israel's neighbors. Specifically, look at the Enuma Elish -- you can find it online -- which is the creation story of the Babylonians. Creation for them starts out with the gods Apsu and Tiamet. They are the god and goddess of freshwater and saltwater, respectively. Their son is earth or dry land.

What Genesis 1 does is destroy the Babylonian gods, in sequence, by making the things they are physically associated with be creations of Yahweh (God). So, God "divides" the waters. For the listeners of the time, that is not a geographical separation, but instead a separation into salt water we can't drink and freshwater we can. Since Yahweh creates freshwater and saltwater, Apsu and Tiamet cannot exist; there is nothing for them to be gods of. When Yahweh gathers the water so that dry land can emerge, that destroys the offspring as a god.

Genesis 1-3 was never meant to be science. As it turns out, Genesis 1 did such a good job of destroying the Babylonian religion that we don't even remember anymore that that was its goal. Instead, we waste lots of time and energy trying to make it science. It was NEVER supposed to be either science or literal history. It's theology. As a theological monograph for monotheism, Genesis 1 is magnificent. As science, it is fertilizer.

But we don't need it for science. God left us His Creation for science.

 

[lucaspa]

Perhaps latter day hebrews, but not those in Moses' time and not the writer of Genesis 1:1-2:4. For starters, raquia (firmament) and heaven are one on the same.

That's not what the various references in the OT say. Instead, the firmament is a solid crystal dome that separates the earth from "the heavens". The heavens include the sun, moon, stars, and storehouses of water, snow, hail, etc. Rain happens when openings are made in the firmament and water above the firmament falls thru the opening to earth. You can see this in Genesis 7:11:
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened."

I suggest the book Genesis by Nahum Sarna.

Basically, the cosmology of the OT is the cosmology of the Babylonians. They had the most advanced "science" of the day, and the Hebrews simply borrowed it.

When it comes to the account of the heavens and earth (Gen. 2:4), we are likely looking at perhaps the oldest writing in the world, passed down through the generations to Moses, who compiled early writings to compose Genesis.

Sorry, but the Genesis 2 creation story is older. Genesis 1 was written toward the end or just after the Babylonian Captivity. Its purpose is to keep the Hebrews from defecting to the Babylonian religion.

 

[Calminian]

That's not what the various references in the OT say. Instead, the firmament is a solid crystal dome that separates the earth from "the heavens". The heavens include the sun, moon, stars, and storehouses of water, snow, hail, etc. Rain happens when openings are made in the firmament and water above the firmament falls thru the opening to earth. You can see this in Genesis 7:11:
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened."

There is nothing in any reference here saying the firmament is a solid dome separating the heavens from the earth. What we do have is the clear testimony of scripture that God names the firmament heaven.

"And God called the firmament, the heavens."

It's a crystal clear reference. There's no other way to slice it.

I suggest the book Genesis by Nahum Sarna.

I suggest the book of Genesis.

Basically, the cosmology of the OT is the cosmology of the Babylonians. They had the most advanced "science" of the day, and the Hebrews simply borrowed it.

The babylonians copied their creation and flood stories from the original tablets preserved and passed down through Noah's family. When the great dispersion happened, these writings were talked about and spread around. But God preserved the ones that made it to Moses, who compiled the entire book of Genesis likely from 7 or so clay tablets, and perhaps some papyrus scrolls which were penned during Joseph's time. We can tell by the structure of Genesis that its early contents were originally on clay tablets like those found in babylon in the early 1900s.

Sorry, but the Genesis 2 creation story is older. Genesis 1 was written toward the end or just after the Babylonian Captivity. Its purpose is to keep the Hebrews from defecting to the Babylonian religion.

That's according to the JEDP theory which was conceived long before the age of archeological enlightenment in the early 1900s. These early Genesis critics did not form their theories from knowledge of ancient writing structures, in fact they believed that writing didn't exist prior to 1000 BC. Archeology completely blew that myth out of the water. Just in the last 100 years ancients writings have been discovered to not only pre-date Moses, but even Abraham. The truth is, writing likely went back to the beginning of time. In Genesis 5:1 we see the signature of Adam himself. "This is the written account of Adam’s family line."

 

[Calminian]

Inthec, instead of trying to read modern science into Genesis 1, let's try looking at how the people of the time would have heard this and what it meant then. Remember, they don't know modern science, so the text isn't talking about strings, or the Higgs boson, or anything we know today. None of that would have made sense to them......

You're right to point out the error of reading modern science into Genesis, though I don't think the poster you addressed was doing this per se. But you have to realize it's also equally wrong to read in ancient cosmologies into Genesis. Both practices are eisegesis. You're making the mistake of assuming Moses wrote Genesis from scratch without using prior writings, or even worse, that Genesis was written by post-mosaic authors.

You should instead look at the archeological literary evidence which reveals Genesis to be written in a very ancient structure. It should become evident to you that ANE cosmological myths popped up later on, after the early texts of Genesis were written. This would explain why ancient cosmologies don't quite fit with Genesis.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

Perhaps latter day hebrews,

Whoa, Cal, I hope we aren't going to have another post filled with unsupported statements. At least it's good to see that Lucaspa wrote such a complete and well supported response to it already.

but not those in Moses' time and not the writer of Genesis 1:1-2:4.

Unsupported statement #1

For starters, raquia (firmament) and heaven are one on the same.

Unsupported statement #2

Some have suggested the hebrews believed the firmament was a barrier between the sky and heaven, but the text of Gen. is clear that heaven is the name of the firmament. The firmament is what God named heaven.

Different things can have the same name, Cal. Many places refer to a heaven other than calling the firmament heaven, such as Paul being taken up to the 3rd heaven (are you proposing 3 nested domes?), and so on.

Later solid dome cosmologies are not compatible with this.

Unsupported statement #3

When it comes to the account of the heavens and earth (Gen. 2:4), we are likely looking at perhaps the oldest writing in the world,

Unsupported statement #4

passed down through the generations to Moses,

Unsupported statement #5

who compiled early writings to compose Genesis.

Unsupported statement #6

As we would expect, there would be spinoff stories which slightly changed and altered the original revelation, and it is from these the idea of a barrier between heaven and earth arose.

Unsupported statement #7

Later on some in ANE cultures may have named this barrier the raquia,

Unsupported statement #8

but when looking at the original text, it's clear this was not the original intent.

Of course raquiya was the "original intent". Now you are questioning the very word of God, saying that the text of Genesis is not what God intended.

Myths about the structure of the cosmos likely came from distortions of the original text, but those distortions don't hold up next to the original text.

Unsupported statement #9

Wow Cal, from your "ancient tablet" myths to your suggesting that our scripture isn't what God intended, I don't know where to start.

The flat earth under a hard dome model is clear throughout most Bibles, and the last time I posted a list of over a dozen verses showing it, you focused only on one, and still ignored the fact that the discussion led us to yet another verse describing this, a verse that was God himself speaking about the flat earth. I can post that list again if you'd like.


Papias

 

[Calminian]

....Whoa, Cal, I hope we aren't going to have another post filled with unsupported statements. At least it's good to see that Lucaspa wrote such a complete and well supported response to it already.......]

As is your custom, when someone challenges your pet theories you get extremely defensive. There's not much to respond to here, as it's generally an emotional response. But the irony is, you have yet to make a link from Genesis 1:1-2:4 to ANE cosmology. You keep claiming Genesis is based on a post mosaic cosmology that has a firmament dividing heaven and earth. Yet Genesis contradicts this and says that the firmament and heavens are one in the same. You made some strange speculations about they could have been different, but refuse to back it up. Perhaps this is part of the JEDP myth you're blindly embracing.

In essence you're admitting you have no evidence for the link you are implying. You just want to believe it perhaps. Not really sure your motive.

But my post stands. I've backed it up with the text which shows raqia and shamayim are one in the same. "And God called the firmament the heavens." You say, "well, maybe it also meant something different" or something like that and then ran for the hills. I would just challenge to open your mind, and read the text without any bias. If there is a link there, you should be able to support it with the text.

Thanks for posting this diagram BTW. It locks you into your view and exposes why it can't be reconciled with Genesis 1:8 "And God called the firmament Heavens."

Where's that text in the Bible that says, God made a firmament to divide heaven and earth??? Ball's in your court (or perhaps someone else can pull you out of this corner).

BTW, even the 3 tiered universe that Seely proposes doesn't stand up to scripture. The Bible writers did divide the world into 3 components, heaven, land and sea (this can be supported throughout the old and new testaments), but never what Seely proposes. The guy pretty much was wrong about everything.

Even the issue with the waters above the firmament doesn't hold up to scripture. Scriptures says the waters are above the heavens, not the heavens above the waters as your diagram shows. But please defend your diagram if you can.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

There's not much to respond to here

maybe start by explaining what Paul means by the "third heaven", instead of ignoring my question in that post. If heaven is just the firmament, doesn't that mean there are three (or more) firmaments in your view?

You can see that Paul is talking about a non-physical heaven. Since that's the heaven usually referenced in the Bible, it's obvious that the word "heaven" is being used to mean more than one thing - like many words in most languages.

You do know that a word can mean more than one thing, right? Like if I bought a baseball team, and named them the "pirates", that I might later talk about seeing some pirates and not mean baseball players, right?

As is your custom, when someone challenges your pet theories you get extremely defensive.

my pet theories? Cal, do you seriously think I came up with the ancient hebrew cosmology (AHC) as a flat earth under a hard dome? Have you never heard of that except from me? Since you don't seem to know, the realization that the AHC is a flat earth under a hard dome is from Biblical and historical scholars - it's not "my pet theory".

. But the irony is, you have yet to make a link from Genesis 1:1-2:4 to ANE cosmology.

The link is that Genesis describes, step by step, the same ANE cosmology. That's why we start out with water, before even the sun is made, etc. Again, it's not my idea, it's the conclusion of the biblical scholars.

Perhaps this is part of the JEDP myth you're blindly embracing.

The idea of JEDP may or may not be exactly correct in detail, but that's not the point. The point of JEDP was that the pentateuch wasn't written by one person (Moses) at one point over 3000 years ago. Instead, the pentateuch was written over time, by multiple people. That idea has become virtually unopposed, with models today often being more complicated than just JEDP, and so to claim mosaic authorship today is without much support in the scholarly community. Again, it's not me, it's the scholarly community that you seem to have a problem with.

But my post stands.

I showed your post was nearly all unsupported statements.

I've backed it up with the text which shows raqia and shamayim are one in the same.

And I showed why that is irrelevant. God's word directly, clearly, and repeatedly says that the earth is covered by a hard dome. That's what "raqiya" literally means, regardless of what name it is given.

You can even see this in the english - "firmament". Tell me, isn't something that is "firm" something that is hard, rigid, and solid?

If there is a link there, you should be able to support it with the text.

I did previously, and I can post them again (in addition to Genesis itself, which makes it clear enough for the scholars). Last time, you ignored practically all of them, and instead argued that one wasn't valid because God wasn't said to be directly speaking (even though it was followed up immediately by God reaffirming the flat-earth/dome AHC).

***********
Flat Earth-
Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear.

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

You keep claiming Genesis is based on a post mosaic cosmology that has a firmament dividing heaven and earth. Yet Genesis contradicts this and says that the firmament and heavens are one in the same.

No, as you pointed out, the text says that God "Called the firmament heaven", that's not the same as saying that all things called heaven are firmaments, or vice versa. You can also see this in that many translations (including the NIV) have "God called the firmament the Sky", showing that the scholars doing the translation recognized this distinction.

Where's that text in the Bible that says, God made a firmament to divide heaven and earth??? Ball's in your court (or perhaps someone else can pull you out of this corner).

Genesis 1:7 says that God made the firmament to divide the ocean from the waters above the firmament. That's something you have yet to admit - that Genesis describes an ocean above our heads, literally held up by a solid dome.

Even the issue with the waters above the firmament doesn't hold up to scripture. Scriptures says the waters are above the heavens, not the heavens above the waters as your diagram shows. But please defend your diagram if you can.

Sounds like you prefer the Sumerian verision, which doesn't have the realm of God above the water:

But seriously, there are two possibilities here. One possibilty is that the diagram should have the water above both the realm of God as well as the firmament. If that's that case, then that's a minor change that doesn't change the fact that Genesis describes a flat earth covered by a solid dome.

You can see dozens of other drawings of it here if you don't like the one I posted:
ancient hebrew cosmology - Google Search


The other is that you are simply being confused by the fact that one word is being used to mean two different things, again something that is common, both in and out of scripture. I think that's more likely of the two, but have no problem if you'd rather look at the diagram with the water and the realm of God switched.

More importantly, those are both models that show a flat earth covered by a hard dome. Your tangent about the water being above or below the realm of God is a red herring to the real thing I think you are objecting to, and that is the AHC model of a flat earth covered by a hard dome, as supported by modern biblical scholars.

Papias

 

[Calminian]

...maybe start by explaining what Paul means by the "third heaven", instead of ignoring my question in that post. If heaven is just the firmament, doesn't that mean there are three (or more) firmaments in your view?

Again, I would direct you back to the text. "And God called the firmament the heavens." The word is shamayim (plural). So the raqia = the plural heavens. That's what Genesis says.

You can see that Paul is talking about a non-physical heaven....

Where does it say heaven is non-physical. Where does it imply it?

my pet theories? Cal, do you seriously think I came up with the ancient hebrew cosmology (AHC) as a flat earth under a hard dome? Have you never heard of that except from me? Since you don't seem to know, the realization that the AHC is a flat earth under a hard dome is from Biblical and historical scholars - it's not "my pet theory".

No no no. You didn't read my post. Your pet theory is that Genesis was based on ANE cosmologies. You've attached the two based on your belief in JEDP theory, which was born in the 1600s prior to any archeological enlightenment. That's the theory I want you to defend.

The link is that Genesis describes, step by step, the same ANE cosmology....

Where? I can't find any compatibilities!

The idea of JEDP may or may not be exactly correct in detail, .....

It's flawed from the beginning. To their credit they did at least notice Genesis wasn't conceived by one writer, but failed to recognize the ancient traits of its structure. Therefore, they took Moses out of the equation, especially since Moses lived earlier than 1000 BC, prior to when they believed writing existed. Problem is, archeology now has proven writing predated Moses and Abraham.

You can even see this in the english - "firmament". Tell me, isn't something that is "firm" something that is hard, rigid, and solid?

Firmament is a transliteration of a latin word. It's not even a transliteration from hebrew. All modern translations translate raqia expanse.

But the issue is the context. The heavens are what God named the raqia according to Genesis. That is not compatible with the ancient cosmologies you are trying to link it to.

I did previously, and I can post them again (in addition to Genesis itself, which makes it clear enough for the scholars).

These scholars also reject the resurrection in many cases. If your sole goal is to be inline with scholars, then christianity may not be for you.

Flat Earth-
Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear.

Earth is the hebrew word erets, which means land. What you're doing is trying to import modern nomenclature into the term and then use it to prove a scriptural flat earth. Yet scripture says, "God called the dry land earth." When you let scripture define earth as land, all the flat earth texts suddenly don't work anymore.

All throughout the old and new testaments, earth is never a land sea unit as in planet earth, or as in ancient flat earth models that show land and sea contained on a flat disc. Earth and sea are always distinct in the Bible. Earth merely means land. Again, the key is allowing Genesis to speak. Before one can defend it or try to tear it down, one has to know what it says.

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

Interestingly, all the texts you provided militate against a sold dome, or don't speak to it at all. Can you please quote which ones you think prove your case? Merely citing references doesn't help us. As it stands, these passage prove my point.

No, as you pointed out, the text says that God "Called the firmament heaven",...

Wrong! God called the firmament "the heavens." The hebrew word is plural.

Genesis 1:7 says that God made the firmament to divide the ocean....

Wrong! The ocean wasn't created yet in this passage. The seas aren't formed until verses 9-10, the next day. This was the whole point of the OP.

Again, you still have the task of showing Genesis to be compatible with these cosmologies you are espousing. So far you're not allowing Genesis to define its own terms— the heavens, the earth, the sea.

 

[super animator]

These scholars also reject the resurrection in many cases. If you sole goal is to be inline with scholars, then christianity may not be for you.

genertic fallacy

 

[Calminian]

genertic fallacy

You probably meant generic fallacy?? Genetic? I hope I didn't commit a genetic fallacy. But in actuality it was Papias that was committing this fallacy. I was correcting him. In fact he was committing the authoritative fallacy, arguing that scholars were on his side. I simply showed why that was a bad argument. It's not a fallacy to point out fallacies.

 

[super animator]

You probably meant generic fallacy?? Genetic? I hope I didn't commit a genetic fallacy. But in actuality it was Papias that was committing this fallacy. I was correcting him. In fact he was committing the authoritative fallacy, arguing that scholars were on his side. I simply showed why that was a bad argument. It's not a fallacy to point out fallacies.

Your attempting to discredit it by poisoning the sources that he is using. I.E. "You can't trust that source when they clam x, because they reject y."

 

[dana b]

The "firmament" enclosing water is what causes it to become droplets. Inside these tiny droplets are carried elemental earth particles up the stems of plants which were created on the third Genesis day.

 

[funtimes]

Describe something that is "formless and void." There is no such thing. The way this verse was translated makes no sense at all. Let's try it again...

CLV Gn 1:2 Yet the earth became a chaos and vacant, and darkness was on the surface of the submerged chaos. Yet the spirit of the Elohim is vibrating over the surface of the water.

That this is the correct rendering, is confirmed by Isaiah 45:18, as given by the American Standard Revised Version, which speaks of the primal creation before the earth “became a chaos and vacant.”

ASV Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith Jehovah that created the heavens, the God that formed the earth, and made it, that established it and created it not a waste, that formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah and there is none else!

CLV Isa 45:18 For thus says Yahweh, Creator of the heavens; He is the Elohim, and Former of the earth, and its Maker, and He, He established it. He did not create it a chaos. He formed it to be indwelt. "I am Yahweh, and there is none else.

This Scripture confirms the truth that the earth was created “not a waste” in the first verse of Genesis, but “to be inhabited,” and at a later date, through some cataclysmic judgment, is disrupted—“becomes waste and sterile, and darkness is on the surface of the abyss.” Compare Jeremiah 4:23-26 and 2 Peter 3:5,6.
by Adlai Loudy

from
HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE
biblical studies: HOW WE GOT OUR BIBLE


This is in perfect harmony with what our Science tells us of the Earth's early years.

 

[Calminian]

Your attempting to discredit it by poisoning the sources that he is using. I.E. "You can't trust that source when they clam x, because they reject y."

True, except I never made that argument. I was merely saying that experts don't prove you right.