What are the "Waters"?

[Calminian]

Describe something that is "formless and void."

Water with no container to shape it, and nothing floating in its midst.

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.

Hmmm. Think I would disagree with you here. I like the idea of waters better. That's what the passages expressly says. The initial land, not yet solid and formed, was described as "waters." And your verse merely speaks about the issue of inhabitation (emptiness).

Now you had mentioned submerged chaos. What would that be? Regardless, the initial waters were said to be empty, not filled with chaos or anything else. If it was really filled with submerged chaos, that wouldn't be empty. It would be formless but not void. Where am I going wrong?

 

[dana b]

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

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.

and Cal wrote earlier in post #49:

What we do have is the clear testimony of scripture that God names the firmament heaven.

Ok, so now you are saying that there are a bunch of different heavens in the firmament (and that you meant "heavens" not "heaven" in post #49)? Seems a lot more clear and direct that the same word is being used for different things, as is often the case.

Originally Posted by Papias

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?
​

Because he speculates about whether or not it happened while "in the body."

Plus, if it is a physical place, then where is it? Halfway between the earth and the moon? It can't be too far, or it would have taken a long time to get there. Are you saying it is on another planet? This makes me think of the National Enquirer stories about Russian miners accidentally punching through into Hell when drilling under Siberia.

Originally Posted by Papias

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.
​

OK, do you seriously think that I came up with the idea that Genesis is based on ANE cosmologies? Again, this is something that the Bible scholars concluded, not something I came up with.

You wanted some of the details showing their parallel nature. Here are some:

All (sumerian, Babylonian, Eqyptian) start with water, later creating land and later separating the sky from the earth.

The days of creation in Genesis mirror the generations of Gods in the Babylonian story:

Day 1 Generation1 - God looks over the waters in Genesis, the water gods of Tiamat and Apsu are all that exist in the Babylonian.

Days 2& 3/Generations 2& 3:

In the Babylonian story, Tiamat (water) is sliced in half, with the top dome to make the sky. In Genesis God separates the waters above from the waters below with the firmament.

Then God mades the land in Genesis, in the Babylonian story, the land is made next with the gods of earth.

Day 4/Generation 4:
in day 4 God makes the stars and sky objects, in generation 4 of the Babylonian story the Gods of the sky and stars (Anu) come into being.

Day 5/Generation 5:
Ea, the God of the living things of the earth comes into being, in Genesis, God makes the living birds and sea creatures.

Day 6 /Generation 6:
man is created by Marduk in the Babylonian story, in Genesis, God makes man.

This isn't my idea Cal, it's the conclusions of the scholars and is taught not just in secular universities, but in many seminaries as well.

You've attached the two based on your belief in JEDP theory, which was born in the 1600s prior to any archeological enlightenment.

Are you so unaware of archeology that you think a literal readnig of the Old Testament is supported by archeology? If anything, archeology has done a lot to firmly establish the idea of multiple authorship and the non-literal nature of the early books of the Bible. Yes, archeology has confirmed some of the later events, but has also shown conclusively that the early one aren't literal. Even the conservative Jews recognize this.

Here is a summary of the latest archeology.
The Bible Unearthed (History Channel version 2009) - YouTube

That's the theory I want you to defend.

Biblical scholars agree that the pentateuch is a 5th century production of multiple authors. That's the core idea of the JEDP hypothesis, and one that is undisputed by serious scholars today. In fact, many who reject the details ofthe JEDP idea do so because they see more, not fewer, authors.

Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch - Jean Louis Ska - Google Books

​

Originally Posted by Papias

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

Where? I can't find any compatibilities!
​

Please see the Generations/Days explanation above, etc.


Originally Posted by Papias

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

It's flawed from the beginning. .... 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.

Cal, everyone in the field has known for a long time (from cuneiform) that writing is well over 3,000 years old. Writing before 1000 BC isn't some new revelation. The JEDP idea arose because scholars recognized that the writing is clearly by multiple authors.

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

"firmament" was a translation ot the latin, iself a translation of the hebrew, which means "solid dome". That's why the NIV (the main modern transaliton) makes it clear by using the world "vault" (a vault is a solid dome) in 1:7.

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.

Sure it is. All of them - Sumerian, Genesis, Egyptian, Bablonian, saw the earth as a flat disk under a hard dome of the sky. Early Christians and Jews saw it that way, just as the others did.

Originally Posted by Papias

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.

​

As has been pointed out by another poster, this is the "genetic fallacy", which means that you are trying to discount a view because you don't like what something says about some other topic.

While you were using the genetic fallacy, you also accused me of using the authority fallacy. However, anyone familiar with that fallacy knows it is saying that a point is right because it is supported by those in power. Referencing experts in a field that you are not an expert in is the right thing to do, and not a fallacy of any kind.

Originally Posted by Papias

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.

​

As I've pointed out before, and from your own posts, the context shows that more than just dry land is meant - unless you think the land of Israel doesn't have any lakes, streams or bodies of water.

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.

Originally Posted by Papias

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.

​

(sigh)

• The Genesis ones use the literal word for "hard dome" (raqia).
• The Isaiah one - tent. A tent is a solid object that is pitched on flat ground.
• Psa - two more mentioned of the firmament as a tent - A tent is a solid object that is pitched on flat ground.
• (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1) -All these mention the windows to let the rain or snow in - if the firmament wasn't firm, you wouldn't need windows.
• Ez 1 says the firmament sparkles like ice - which is hard
• Job 37 says the firmament is as hard as metal.
• Job 22 says that God walks on the vault. Vaults that you walk on must be hard.

Capeche?

Papias

 

[Calminian]

...Ok, so now you are saying that there are a bunch of different heavens in the firmament (and that you meant "heavens" not "heaven" in post #49)? Seems a lot more clear and direct that the same word is being used for different things, as is often the case.

You don't realize it yet, but you're proving my point. For it was you that claimed the firmament was one heaven of many heavens, while there were others that weren't the firmament. Now you're backtracking. At least scripture causes you to think twice.

But scripture is clear. the firmament became the heavens, not just one of heaven of many heavens. You've now completely cut yourself off from the ANE cosmologies you want to link Genesis to.

Because he speculates about whether or not it happened while "in the body."

That's your proof of a spiritual heaven? You just gave me a good belly laugh. We can put this one to rest now also.

OK, do you seriously think that I came up with the idea that Genesis is based on ANE cosmologies? Again, this is something that the Bible scholars concluded, not something I came up with.​

So now you think I said you came up with this thing originally? Of course you're following others off a cliff. I'm merely asking you to support the idea. Yes, I realize you're trusting other people smarter than you hoping they're right, I just want you to actually do the leg work, and see if their arguments check out.

All (sumerian, Babylonian, Eqyptian) start with water, later creating land and later separating the sky from the earth.

But you're claiming the writers of Genesis copied and based Genesis on ANE cosmologies. I'm showing you just how incompatible they are. In Genesis, God uses the waters to make the land and the sea. This is not the case in the cosmologies you are citing. And it Genesis, the dry land is created after the expansion of the heavens. This contradicts what you wrote above.

The days of creation in Genesis mirror the generations of Gods in the Babylonian story:

Day 1 Generation1 - God looks over the waters in Genesis, the water gods of Tiamat and Apsu are all that exist in the Babylonian.

Days 2& 3/Generations 2& 3:

In the Babylonian story, Tiamat (water) is sliced in half, with the top dome to make the sky. In Genesis God separates the waters above from the waters below with the firmament.

Then God mades the land in Genesis, in the Babylonian story, the land is made next with the gods of earth.

Day 4/Generation 4:
in day 4 God makes the stars and sky objects, in generation 4 of the Babylonian story the Gods of the sky and stars (Anu) come into being.

Day 5/Generation 5:
Ea, the God of the living things of the earth comes into being, in Genesis, God makes the living birds and sea creatures.

Day 6 /Generation 6:
man is created by Marduk in the Babylonian story, in Genesis, God makes man.

This isn't my idea Cal, it's the conclusions of the scholars and is taught not just in secular universities, but in many seminaries as well.

Just to be clear, I would never credit you of coming up with a theory on your own. But you have embraced it, without actually thinking it through, and testing it against scripture.

Now I have no idea where you got these stories and you don't cite your source. It looks like you're quoting something that has been edited for the purpose of making an argument.

But what you don't realize is, these parallels make my point, not yours. Genesis is obviously the more refined story. My thesis is that the babylonians copied and distorted the more ancient account of the heavens and the earth which Moses added to Genesis.

I'm introducing 2 arguments. 1 the parallels don't match well. 2 the parallels that do exist are distortions of the original account.

Your theory that Genesis copied these myths is based JEDP theory, is is obsolete in light of modern archeology.

Are you so unaware of archeology that you think a literal readnig of the Old Testament is supported by archeology? If anything, archeology has done a lot to firmly establish the idea of multiple authorship and the non-literal nature of the early books of the Bible. Yes, archeology has confirmed some of the later events, but has also shown conclusively that the early one aren't literal. Even the conservative Jews recognize this.

Archeology rejects the ideas of miracles, so yes it rejects all biblical accounts of miracles. Do you also reject miracles?

Other than that, archeology does't reject the Bible, but some things have not been discovered yet to verify some of the stories. The older the books, the harder it gets. But a lot has been discovered. Sodom and Gomorrah were thought to be mythical cities, until writings were uncovered with those names. The Exodus is an event where we lack archeological confirmation, but that does't prove it didn't happen.

But here's something we know for certain. There is not an ounce of proof for JEDP theory. At this time, it's a religious belief.

Biblical scholars agree that the pentateuch is a 5th century production of multiple authors. That's the core idea of the JEDP hypothesis, and one that is undisputed by serious scholars today. In fact, many who reject the details ofthe JEDP idea do so because they see more, not fewer, authors.

Fallacy
appeal to authority

I would refer you to Wiseman's book where he completely dismantles the JEDP model. I would also refer you to Mackey's article on the subject, where he does likewise.

THE FIRST BOOK OF MOSES AND THE 'TOLEDOTH' OF GENESIS

If you want to engage in this fallacy, my expert is smarter than yours, I'll take my guys all day long. They tie your guys into knots much like I'm doing to you.

Originally Posted by Papias Cal, everyone in the field has known for a long time (from cuneiform) that writing is well over 3,000 years old. Writing before 1000 BC isn't some new revelation. The JEDP idea arose because scholars recognized that the writing is clearly by multiple authors.

Wrong again. JEPD was born in the late 1600s. The ancient writings Wiseman wrote of weren't discovered until the early 1900s, or late 1800s.

"firmament" was a translation ot the latin, iself a translation of the hebrew, which means "solid dome". That's why the NIV (the main modern transaliton) makes it clear by using the world "vault" (a vault is a solid dome) in 1:7.

Okay, I'm sorry, but the NIV translates raqia expanse as to all other modern translations. I have no idea where you're getting this stuff. I don't think you're engaging in serious debate anymore.

Sure it is. All of them - Sumerian, Genesis, Egyptian, Bablonian, saw the earth as a flat disk under a hard dome of the sky. Early Christians and Jews saw it that way, just as the others did, and it is clear in their drawings of it as well.

But we're talking about Genesis and the Bible. It never use the term erets as a land sea unit. Never! That completely demolishes the flat disc planet theory. Check the references yourself in both testaments. Heaven earth and sea are individual separate components.

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them....” (Ex. 20:11, Neh. 9:6, Psa. 69:34, Psa. 96:11, Psa. 135:6, Psa. 146:6, Ezek. 38:20, Amos 9:6, Acts 4:24, Acts 14:15, Rev. 10:6, Rev. 12:12, Rev. 14:7, Rev. 21:1).

I realize this ruins your pet theory about scripture teaching a flat earth.

While you were using the genetic fallacy, you also accused me of using the authority fallacy. However, anyone familiar with that fallacy knows it is saying that a point is right because it is supported by those in power. Referencing experts in a field that you are not an expert in is the right thing to do, and not a fallacy of any kind.

But the problem is, you don't even understand the arguments of the experts you are citing. I know your sources better than you do, and can refute their premises and conclusions, and cite other experts that do. You just blindly believe what you are told.

As I've pointed out before, and from your own posts, the context shows that more than just dry land is meant....

I'm still waiting actually. Please show where erets is used as a land/sea unit. You're simply working off blind faith at this point. Yet Genesis says, God named the dry ground earth. I can lead you to waters, but can't make you drink.

(sigh)

• The Genesis ones use the literal word for "hard dome" (raqia).

• 
  
  God called the raqia (expanse) the heavens. Scripture proves you wrong.
  
  

  [*]The Isaiah one - tent. A tent is a solid object that is pitched on flat ground.

  
  Yes, and today we used terms like sunset and sunrise. In fact modern astrophysicists use those terms. Sometimes we called cloud coverage a canopy.
  
  But here's your biggest problem. God called the expanse, the heavens. That's the one that just drives you nuts. I'll probably quote it in every response just to torment you. You can keep quoting books of poetry. Why not break out some sunset passage as well?
  
  

  [*](Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1) -All these mention the windows to let the rain or snow in - if the firmament wasn't firm, you wouldn't need windows.

  
  Yes and scripture also refers to clouds as jars and doors. So let me get this straight. If the bible uses the term jar or door, that's okay and that can be a cloud. But if it uses the term window, that can't be a cloud?
  
  Please explain that logic to me?
  
  Also, I'm noticing you only paste references but never the entire quote. Why is that? Are you afraid to let everyone actually see your proof texts? I'd invite you from here out to actually past the entire verses rather than just the reference. I have a feeling many of the proof references are going to be dropped.

 

[inthec]

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.

Not to put much faith in "science", but I think " string theory" might be more appropriate to think of as the "waters".

Whatever it is, surely has to do with the underlying laws of matter and even time.

 

[super animator]

Fallacy
appeal to authority

It's not a fallacy when citing people who are an expert on a in specific field.

 

[Calminian]

It's not a fallacy when citing people who are an expert on a in specific field.

If you base a belief simply on the notion that some experts believe it, and ignore the arguments of any expert that disagrees, then yes, it is fallacious thinking.

My experts are more numerous than your experts is a fallacy. In galileo's time, this could have been used to support geocentrism.

Now you can put forth an argument from an expert, but then you'll want to listen to a critique of that argument. But to ignore the critique and simple step back and say, well, my source is an expert so you must be wrong, is indeed a fallacy.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

...Ok, so now you are saying that there are a bunch of different heavens in the firmament (and that you meant "heavens" not "heaven" in post #49)? Seems a lot more clear and direct that the same word is being used for different things, as is often the case.

But scripture is clear. the firmament became the heavens, not just one of heaven of many heavens. You've now completely cut yourself off from the ANE cosmologies you want to link Genesis to.


​

My point is fine. You haven't explained how and why you have several heavens in one heaven, especially after you first called it one heaven, then later admonished me for referring to it as heaven (your own term).

So, it says "heavens"- sounds like many heavens, right?

Plus, you claim heaven (or heavens) is/are a physical place, and you didn't answer my question of where you think that physical place is. Maybe the planet Kolob?

Originally Posted by Papias

OK, do you seriously think that I came up with the idea that Genesis is based on ANE cosmologies? Again, this is something that the Bible scholars concluded, not something I came up with.
​

So now you think I said you came up with this thing originally? Of course you're following others off a cliff. I'm merely asking you to support the idea.
​

You said it was 'my pet theory'. That means you said that I came up with it (as we saw, you first implied that the idea of multiple writers of Genesis was 'my pet theory', then backed up to the idea of ANE cosmology being reflected in Genesis). So now you are backtracking from both of your claims. Well thank you.

Yes, I realize you're trusting other people smarter than you hoping they're right, I just want you to actually do the leg work, and see if their arguments check out.

From the evidence we have and from Genesis itself, it's clear that they check out. What I'm doing is trusting experts who have done the legwork, which neither you nor I have done, because we aren't fluent readers, and writers of ancient hebrew, because we haven't spent decades studying these texts in their original hebrew, because we haven't spent decades learning the cultureal and historical settings from the experts in those fields, and haven't published books and articles on them. To pass oneself off as an expert when one isn't, is both hubris and arrogance. That's why it's not a fallacy to refer to experts - as other posters have pointed out to you.

Originally Posted by Papias

All (sumerian, Babylonian, Eqyptian) start with water, later creating land and later separating the sky from the earth.

And it Genesis, the dry land is created after the expansion of the heavens. This contradicts what you wrote above.
​

Sorry if that was sentence was unclear. The Genesis order follows the Babylonian order in creating the firmament first, then the land. The Egyptian story creates the land before the firmament.

In Genesis, God uses the waters to make the land and the sea. This is not the case in the cosmologies you are citing.

No. In Genesis, God creates through speaking, not by "using water". Yes, some details are different. THat's true of any two works. For instance, Luke is different from Mark, yet it's agreed that Luke used and was influenced by Mark.

But you're claiming the writers of Genesis copied and based Genesis on ANE cosmologies. I'm showing you just how incompatible they are.

No, I'm saying that Genesis was written after the others (something that is undisputed, since archeology has confirmed it), and that Genesis is a well crafted rebuttal of the earlier stories, to do so, Genesis of course incorporates the basic worldview of a hard dome over a flat disc earth, and follows many of the broad outlines (such as the "days" following the "generations.

Originally Posted by Papias

The days of creation in Genesis mirror the generations of Gods in the Babylonian story:

Day 1 Generation1 - God looks over the waters in Genesis, the water gods of Tiamat and Apsu are all that exist in the Babylonian.

Days 2& 3/Generations 2& 3:

In the Babylonian story, Tiamat (water) is sliced in half, with the top dome to make the sky. In Genesis God separates the waters above from the waters below with the firmament.

Then God mades the land in Genesis, in the Babylonian story, the land is made next with the gods of earth.

Day 4/Generation 4:
in day 4 God makes the stars and sky objects, in generation 4 of the Babylonian story the Gods of the sky and stars (Anu) come into being.

Day 5/Generation 5:
Ea, the God of the living things of the earth comes into being, in Genesis, God makes the living birds and sea creatures.

Day 6 /Generation 6:
man is created by Marduk in the Babylonian story, in Genesis, God makes man.

This isn't my idea Cal, it's the conclusions of the scholars and is taught not just in secular universities, but in many seminaries as well.

Just to be clear, I would never credit you of coming up with a theory on your own.
​

Of course you did, Cal. You said it was "my pet theory". I'm asking you to retract that.

But you have embraced it, without actually thinking it through, and testing it against scripture.

Of course I've thought it through and tested it against scripture, as have the Biblical scholars who teach it to many clergy.

Now I have no idea where you got these stories and you don't cite your source. It looks like you're quoting something that has been edited for the purpose of making an argument.

I encourage you to learn about Old Testament Scholarship. One good resource is the teaching company course:
Old Testament

Here is a syllabus for a seminary course
google professor jason gile ot301

or you could enroll at a seminary near you.

But what you don't realize is, these parallels make my point, not yours. Genesis is obviously the more refined story.

Refined? Genesis is indeed more refined. You would expect a later version to make improvements and be more refined, even though Genesis is shorter.

My thesis is that the babylonians copied and distorted the more ancient account of the heavens and the earth which Moses added to Genesis

.

Thesis? ROFL!!

Cal, that's not a thesis, that's Cal's uninformed kneejerk statement. A "thesis" invovles years of research, scholarship, understanding the basics (such as, in this case, speaking ancient hebrew), and so on. Experts write a "thesis", not blokes like you or I on internet chat boards.

I'm introducing 2 arguments. 1 the parallels don't match well.

What part of 6=6 do you not understand? IN addition to so many other details. If they didn't match well, then why do you propose your #2. Your proposal of #2 (below) refutes your own #1!

2 the parallels that do exist are distortions of the original account.

Your theory that Genesis copied these myths is based JEDP theory, is is obsolete in light of modern archeology.

First, it's not my theory. Second, it's not "copied" but "responded to, and was influenced by".

Third - Did you not see the evidence I gave that archeology supports the idea of multiple authors? Please cite archeological evidence that shows otherwise, or agree that archeology supports the idea of multiple authors.

Archeology rejects the ideas of miracles, so yes it rejects all biblical accounts of miracles. Do you also reject miracles?

Do you reject Jesus appearing on a tortilla last year? Some supposed miracles can be rejected without rejecting them all. Since we both accept some miracles (like those of Jesus), and reject others (like Jesus on a tortilla), you have no point here.

Originally Posted by Papias

Originally Posted by Papias Cal, everyone in the field has known for a long time (from cuneiform) that writing is well over 3,000 years old. Writing before 1000 BC isn't some new revelation. The JEDP idea arose because scholars recognized that the writing is clearly by multiple authors.
​

Wrong again. JEPD was born in the late 1600s. The ancient writings Wiseman wrote of weren't discovered until the early 1900s, or late 1800s.

OK, Cal, can you cite where the discovery of older writing supposedly refuted the idea of multiple authors?

btw - I'm amazed you are actually supporting the wiseman idea, which was never seen as a serious solution. Hint Cal, wiseman's been dead for a half century. Current ideas support multiple authors, and reject the idea that the pentateuch was written by moses or was in final form before 700 BC. You can read up on some current view here (2006)

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Originally Posted by Papias

"firmament" was a translation ot the latin, iself a translation of the hebrew, which means "solid dome". That's why the NIV (the main modern transaliton) makes it clear by using the world "vault" (a vault is a solid dome) in 1:7.
​

Okay, I'm sorry, but the NIV translates raqia expanse as to all other modern translations. I have no idea where you're getting this stuff. I don't think you're engaging in serious debate anymore.

Did you even bother to read Gen 1:7?

Originally Posted by Papias

Sure it is. All of them - Sumerian, Genesis, Egyptian, Bablonian, saw the earth as a flat disk under a hard dome of the sky. Early Christians and Jews saw it that way, just as the others did, and it is clear in their drawings of it as well.
​

But we're talking about Genesis and the Bible. It never use the term erets as a land sea unit. Never! That completely demolishes the flat disc planet theory. Check the references yourself in both testaments. Heaven earth and sea are individual separate components.

No it doesn't. You can see from the many tent passages, that water is included to, unless you are trying to say that the firmament comes back down to the ground at the edges of the water so as not to go over them. There is indeed sky over the sea, so the tent and other passages show that your idea makes no sense.

“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them....” (Ex. 20:11, Neh. 9:6, Psa. 69:34, Psa. 96:11, Psa. 135:6, Psa. 146:6, Ezek. 38:20, Amos 9:6, Acts 4:24, Acts 14:15, Rev. 10:6, Rev. 12:12, Rev. 14:7, Rev. 21:1).

I realize this ruins your pet theory about scripture teaching a flat earth.

I don't know how you "realize" something that's false.

Yes and scripture also refers to clouds as jars and doors. So let me get this straight. If the bible uses the term jar or door, that's okay and that can be a cloud. But if it uses the term window, that can't be a cloud?

Please explain that logic to me?

Because I recognzi that there is also figurative language, while you are wedded to always taking things literally, even when it means the Jews get flown out of Egypt on the backs of giant eagles.

Also, I'm noticing you only paste references but never the entire quote. Why is that? Are you afraid to let everyone actually see your proof texts?

I gave you resources in this post. I can't scan and post my class notes, after all.


Papias​

 

[mark kennedy]

Entirely of consciousness? That bears a striking resemblance to the Paul Tilich concept of 'being', he uses synonymously with 'God'. I like the poetic approach but some of the content is making me a little queasy to be honest.

 

[GenemZ]

There is a lot of stuff being said here. But, the Hebrew is describing not simply waters. But an ice pack that the Holy Spirit was warming and melted into raging waters covering the planet. This ice pack was the result of God judging the previous creation and then removing all light. The absence of light removed all heat. Then the icepack sat there until God was ready to renew the surface of this planet.

According to my pastor who taught from the Hebrew for over fifty years the following is to be found in Genesis 1.

The water was then frozen. We know this because the word for “water” is hamajim, which is “melted water.”
​

There was no light. Darkness covered the face of the earth. The raging waters that was used to destroy the previous (pre-historic) creation had become frozen.


Here is a little more from what my Pastor wrote..

God the Holy Spirit moved upon the earth, and grace changed chaos into blessing. What God did for the earth in restoration, the Holy Spirit does for the individual in regeneration!

The word “moved” is rachaph and literally means “to incubate.” Birds are said “to brood” over their eggs: when warmth from the mother’s body incubates the eg, out pops a baby whatever it is - sparrow, swan or buzzard! In Deuteronomy 32:11, rachaph is the verb used for a bird brooding over her young to warm them and to give them vitality. What this word really implies is this: remember, darkness covered the earth - no light, no heat! God the Holy Spirit didn’t “move,” but He “provided heat.” The best translation is: “He incubated the ice pack.” The Spirit of God radiated heat, producing melted water.” When the Spirit applied heat, the ice pack melted.


​

Grace and peace...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think people are reading more into these texts that is really there. I think waters is simply waters.
I have read the scripture many times and never saw the heavens as a solid dome. 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. If you have a modern knowledge of the heavens then you will not read "the solid dome" when studying the Bible.


I personally don't think the early writers were suggesting the heavens was a solid dome no more than God having hands,eyes going to and fro, feet,etc. Just because the scripture claims the clouds were the dust of God's feet doesn't mean the writer believed God had actually feet. Yet "God having feet" is something that can be understood throughout the ages.

Would be hilarious if the waters were something completely different than what everyone here was thinking - for we know what the text says and yet even with that we don't literally see what the author of Genesis was seeing and thus what he wrote to describe images may not necessarily be the exactness of what was actually present - for the scriptures were not meant to be a scientific textbook on all things nor were all facets of reality laid out within them.

It's possible the writer of Genesis (be it Moses or someone else ) wrote the term "waters" when talking on the Spirit of God and yet the image of what he saw was not exactly the same as it concerns the liquid H2O we see today...and the same thing with saying the Earth was shapeless/without form and dark - yet we ourselves have no idea what shapeless looks like in its fullness. We think of a big mass...but even with that, there are aspects of shape to it just like with claydoe if we think in terms of mass.....so we'll never get it fully until asking God directly.

Same thing goes for when God said "Let there be light!!!" and light was seperated from the Darkness throughout the entire universe. Thinking about the universe is overwhelming enough, seeing how vast it is and how little our planet is compared to other stars and worlds - and yet to see the entire universe be light on one side and darkness on another...that's beyond comprehension mentally.

The water thing is truly a guess in many ways...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

He is in and among all He has created.

If God is infinite and the universe is finite, then the universe must be "within" God. Michio Kaku (ironically, an atheist) wrote a book called Hyperspace that, quite unintentionally, described God's "physical" relationship with the universe from a purely scientific POV.

He claimed that Einstein's theory of general relativity worked with no need for quantum theory if you assumed 10 dimensions. At the big bang, it split into the 3Ds we inhabit and the other 7 expanded infinitely and contracted infinitesimally to both contain the universe and permeate it so completely that it literally held the universe together at the subatomic level.

The heavens are intricate enough..and for some examples:

Hubble Heritage Gallery of Images​

These are but a few, click on the link above to see dozens of them

Personally, when I consider the sheer vastness of the universe and how big it truly is, what amazes me even more is the entire concept of multiple heavens.....that there are levels and the Lord is truly outside of it all.

There's something to be said on how the classical model of how we see the universe isn't enough...for the Lord sustains it and is OUTSIDE of it entirely. The entire view behind what's known as Panentheism. Although I tend to favor other views, Panentheism has always seemed to be the most reasonable way of seeing things since the Lord is distinct from creation--sustaining it---and yet He is outside of it. Panentheism deals with how all there is not only emanates from God..but is experienced by Him as well. Its the idea that one’s not to worship an animal or a tree since it’s not the creator–but on the same token, as Chasidism ascribes to, the animal being abused is felt deeply by the Lord. He hurts with it as much as it does since that creation is directly connected to Him (As its being sustained by Him) and consequently He can feel it—just as he does with all suffering and pain in the world whenever injustice occurs (more shared here in #1, #91 and #92 ).

Its by His Grace that all men have rain....for in his Providential Grace, He shows grace/care for all his creatures...allowing others to survive by sending rain on the JUST and the Unjust (Matthew 5:45)....and Christ in the scriptures is portrayed as the INSTRUMENT of creation, "sustaining all things by His powerful word", (Colosians 1:16-7, John 1:3, Hebrews 1:3)---and whom by immanence is fully present in even the smallest atom....with all things connected to Him

Panentheism is the idea that the entire universe is part of God, But God is greater that the universe. God is omnipresent and transcendent – that is, God contains the entire cosmos but the entire cosmos does not and cannot contain God. He is omnipresent because his uncreated energies permeate all Creation, generating and sustaining it. And He is transcendent because his uncreated essence is inaccessible to us – it is wholly beyond Creation.

Kinda like my cells and molecules and blood and other things in my body are part of myself, but I am much greater than those…and I cannot be seen in them….yet I am omnipresent through them, as I created them at my conception and sustain them throughout my life. God transcends creation as I transcend my body. Intelligence is everywhere.

I personally see no issue with supporting Biblical Panentheism and the concept of God being outside of the world and yet connected deeply to it/all within

Panentheism does not begin soteriologically with God’s special presence to some but with the universal presence to all, moving from thence toward the theories of special presence. It seeks to give the right perspective & focus in the face of evil. For instead of pulling away from those things that do not now manifest the nature of God fully, panentheism suggests the picture of transforming and healing them, as a healthy body might heal itself from an injury.

In this line of thought, the rapist still is being sustained by the Lord’s power even though God may not approve of His actions/decide to dwell with him…with God’s heart being to see the rapists REDEEMED and trusting in Him since even the Rapists was made in the image of God/given as aspect of the Divine….and the message of repentence/forgiveness and grace is where that process of healing can begin for the rapist, the murderer or any other aspect where decline has begun.

Even though in some ways He chooses to be disconnected from it, he is still connected to it intimately. The same goes for what was noted earlier when it comes to decline in the natural world, especially in cases where the natural world has been raped. Panentheism would suggest that God desires for healing to occur rather than the world to be abandoned altogether/demolished….and thus, He keeps it all going so that the chance for healing/redeemption may occur.

Christ said that even the sparrows do not fall outside of God’s care—as well as why He made clear that even the Ravens look to God for food ( Psalm 104:18-22, Psalm 147:8-10, Matthew 6:25-27, Luke 12:23-25 etc )

This is why many Panentheist have noted that Paul made a point in Romans to discuss how its not just humankind that’s redeemed…but all of creation as well, described as “groaning” and “suffering” rather than being indifferent to it all. The Eastern Fathers and some medievals have written profoundly on the cosmic dimensions of the Incarnation and Redemption (as did St. Paul).

Classical theism views sin and the Fall as distinct from the basic structure of the world and the culmination of the kingdom of God as a gracious undertaking that is not a mere outcome of a natural process. Panentheism, however, typically views creation and the Fall as part of the cosmic process as are redemption and consummation.

Christian panentheists view the earthly existence of Jesus Christ as either the central cause of the outcome of the process or a primary symbol or example of the process. Each approach is at odds with classical theism. With Biblical Panentheism I tend to lean more so toward what’s known as weak panentheism or soteriological panentheism. That is more similar to the position found in Eastern Orthodox Christianity (As well as Eastern Christianity in general). For in that view, God is manifest in redeemed nature and panentheistic metaphors are used in an eschatological sense, a future expectation when all redeemed nature is reconciled with God (1 Cor 15:28).

Ultimate salvation is viewed in a Johannine fashion, as participating in the Divine community of the Trinity (John 14:20) and abiding in Gods love as God himself is love in that He is the eternal community between Father, Son and Holy Spirit (1 John 4:16). If remembering the Eastern Orthodox concept known as Theosis, it helps things make more sense..

If the universe is not, at least in some sense, within God, then wouldn't it exist, at least in some sense "beyond" or "outside" God? You have to keep that in mind..


I've always thought of it as the universe is vast...and yet, it is not bigger than the Lord--and the Lord is not in some heavenly room on the other side of the universe. Rather, he is outside of it guiding it....keeping nature going while also being personally involved with His creation--specifically in the form of His son.

• Panentheism, the other God of the philosophers: from Plato to the Present.. -

In many ways, in light of Psalm 139 where DAvid said "Where can I flee from your prescence?", one could see it like being in an Ocean. Every creature/object (i.e. coral reefs, rocks, etc) is consumed by the water of the seas.....and the sea fills everything, even though the animal/objects do not become the ocean itself and are still distinct from it. The ocean doesn't need them to survive since it was already there--and there's a level above the ocean which takes it to differing places that the sea creatures/objects can never go (if taking into account evaporation, rain and storms..the Hydrologic Cycle). The sea does not need anything in it to survive since it is seperate from them and the one that gives life..but all the creatures within it NEED the water in order to continue on.
__________________

In Christ were created all things in heaven and on earth
everything visible and everything invisible.... Before anything was created, he existed, and he holds all things in unity.—Col. 1-15-17

.the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him.
—2 Chr. 2:6 KJV

Where could I go to escape your spirit?
Where could I flee from your presence?
If I climb the heavens, you are there,
there too, if I lie in Sheol.
If I flew to the point of sunrise, or westward across the sea
your hand would still be guiding me, your right hand holding me.
—Ps. 139.7-10

Through him all things came to be, not one thing had its being but through him. All that came to be had life in him and that life was the light of men, a light that shines in the dark, a light that darkness could not overpower.
—John. 1.2-5



There is one God who is father of all, over all, through all and within all
—Eph. 4.6
​

The universe is extremely big - and yet God is totally outside of that...

If anyone here has ever heard of Louie Giglio, he actually had a video he made on the subject of just how vast the universe is...and how as incredible it is, it by itself cannot exist apart from the Lord and nothing can exist outside of Him. One of the reasons why men are foolish not to fear Him, seeing just how big He truly is:

Indescribable (Louie Giglio)
How Great is Our God: with Louie Giglio (full video) ​

In many ways, the Universe is akin to God's dream...for the only way it can exist is by the Lord WILLING it into existence. If he felt like thinking otherwise/choosing to not consider existence anymore, all in the universe would cease to exist.​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

waters is simply waters.

You never know...

 

[Calminian]

Would be hilarious if the waters were something completely different than what everyone here was thinking - for we know what the text says and yet even with that we don't literally see what the author of Genesis was seeing and thus what he wrote to describe images may not necessarily be the exactness of what was actually present - for the scriptures were not meant to be a scientific textbook on all things nor were all facets of reality laid out within them.

Nor do we know by what method the text was received. Rather than a vision, someone may have just received the narrative orally from God and wrote it down. It's possible it was given to Enoch, as he walked and talked with God. It could have been Adam.

The hebrew word for water in this instance had a larger range than the english word. It's used for urine twice in the old testament. If the initial particles of the universe were a shapeless mass, waters would be a good term to use. Water itself is formless, and therefore takes on the shape of its container in a gravity environment. In space I suppose it's pretty much changing all the time, like cloud formations, with no specific form.

Fluid may be a better term, but I don't think hebrew had a term for this, and therefore water would be used to describe that also. For certain, though, it cannot be linked to the sea, as the sea was not formed until the next day.

 

[Calminian]

C...
Of course you did, Cal. You said it was "my pet theory". ...
Thesis? ROFL!!

Cal, that's not a thesis, that's Cal's uninformed kneejerk statement. ....

Papias, this is turning into silliness. It's obvious you're not going to accept any point I make regardless of the substance. I'm going to move on to other posters.

 

[Smidlee]

Would be hilarious if the waters were something completely different than what everyone here was thinking - for we know what the text says and yet even with that we don't literally see what the author of Genesis was seeing and thus what he wrote to describe images may not necessarily be the exactness of what was actually present - for the scriptures were not meant to be a scientific textbook on all things nor were all facets of reality laid out within them.

It's possible the writer of Genesis (be it Moses or someone else ) wrote the term "waters" when talking on the Spirit of God and yet the image of what he saw was not exactly the same as it concerns the liquid H2O we see today...and the same thing with saying the Earth was shapeless/without form and dark - yet we ourselves have no idea what shapeless looks like in its fullness. We think of a big mass...but even with that, there are aspects of shape to it just like with claydoe if we think in terms of mass.....so we'll never get it fully until asking God directly.

Same thing goes for when God said "Let there be light!!!" and light was seperated from the Darkness throughout the entire universe. Thinking about the universe is overwhelming enough, seeing how vast it is and how little our planet is compared to other stars and worlds - and yet to see the entire universe be light on one side and darkness on another...that's beyond comprehension mentally.

The water thing is truly a guess in many ways...

I think you made some good points. For example "light" as we know it doesn't exist outside our mind/brain. "Light" is written in scriptures from our point of view. The universe by itself is in complete darkness. I'm sure glad it doesn't read "God said "Let there be electromagnetic waves"".

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

Papias, this is turning into silliness. It's obvious you're not going to accept any point I make regardless of the substance. I'm going to move on to other posters.

Substance? You haven't posted any substance. And Cal, it got silly earlier, like when you suggested that the crackpot wiseman idea was somehow comparable to actual scholarship, ignored dozens of verses of scripture, suggested that the sky didn't exist over lakes, and then presented your ideas as a "thesis".

If you want to come back and discuss the points we were discussing in post #68, feel free.

Papias

 

[Gxg (G²)]

 

[enlightened1]

The following may or may not be the 'way it is', but it is the way I believe it to be, for it is based solely upon the WORD of GOD.

Since GOD is Light and HE was all things before He created anything at all,then all was Light. But the first things HE created was the Heaven, where HE IS, and a dark 'blob' of 'waters' where HE was not, in which there was no forms or any other substance other than the 'waters'. Now, since the Spirit of GOD moved upon the waters, but not in them, then GOD encompassed the waters (panentheism). Therefore, we see an endless sea of white with a dark 'spot' within it.

After Light was introduced into the waters, GOD divided the blob into two regions, and separated them with a vast void (firmament). Thus we see the waters above the firmament as a shell around the void, which in turn surrounded the waters below the firmament, which were transformed into the planet earth after gravity (the gathering of the waters into one place) was introduced into the universe. Then we should see the planet earth surrounded by the vastness of space, surrounded by the waters above the firmament (the boundary of the universe), surrounded by Light (the Heaven of Heavens, the first heaven of GENESIS 1).

 

[ChetSinger]

Physicist Russell Humphreys, who reads the text very literally, has proposed a cosmology where the waters really are waters. He begins the cosmos with a ball of water containing the mass of the universe. It's about 2 light-years across, and begins to collapse under it's own weight. It then ignites and flies apart. In his model there remains ice at the edge of the cosmos (waters above the expanse).

Fascinating stuff, imo. I studied physics in college but not far enough to critique cosmologies.

His first model had holes in it, but he's been working to plug them here.