In the Beginning....

Do you recognize the existence of a simile? If you do, you don't acknowledge it?

Do you know that God himself is described "AS" the same SOLID OBJECTS that are equally used to describe the New Jerusalem, heaven and other NON-MATERIAL and thus NON-SOILD objects???

Are you now going to claim that the Old Testament saints must have viewed God as a SOLID MATERIAL OBJECT?

 

Are you saying that the non-material, non-solid God sits upon a solid material throne? Did you know the pre-incarnate Christ in Daniel 10 is describe by the same solid materials? Was the pre-incarnate Christ a solid material substance? Did you know God's throne and the New Jersualem are described by the same kind of materials. Do you believe both Old and New Testament saints believed these things were actually solid materials as well as God's throne as well as God Himself? Do you know what a simile is? Can you recognize it if you saw it in writing? Do the words "as" and "like" ring any kind of bell?

Are you saying that "shamamu" is not the Hebrew term translated "heaven"? If that is what you are saying, you better check your ability to read Hebrew for it is that term used consistently for "heaven" in Genesis and by Isaiah in the quotes I gave.

If you are saying that "raqia" is not the Hebrew term translated "firmament" here and throughout with connection with "shamamu" in Genesis you better check your ability to read Hebrew for it is the same word.

If you are not saying either, then what in the world are you saying in response to my words:

If God calls it "heaven" then what does God define "heaven" to be? The Hebrew term heaven is a translation of the Hebrew plural "shamamu" and the Bible speaks of at least three different types- Dr. Walter

Ah...you know what you forgot? That God has already called "raqia" "shamamu"! He did not say that "shamamu" was UNDER, or OVER, or IN raqia but IS raquia. Now what IS shamamu according to Bible writers? It is a stretched out expanse of "open" space. The birds fly "IN" heaven/raqia just as the stars are "IN" heaven/raquia just as God is "IN" heaven/raqia. The term "open" modies "shamamu" which has already been identified as "raqia"

Gen. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven.

Gen. 1:14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven

The stars are "in" raquia WHICH IS SHAMAMU or "OF THE HEAVEN"

Gen. 1:20.....fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

The Hebrew term translated "open" is more often translated "before" and "face" and may be referring to the previous "heaven" mentioned in the context where the stars are located. Thus the idea would be that the fowls fly ABOVE the earth in the FACE or BEFORE/IN FRONT of the starry heaven which demands another layer of space or raqia between earth and where the stars are. However again, raqia is placed in apposition to "of heaven" or the idea "WHICH IS HEAVEN" as God has alreadyly previous defined - "And God called raqia shamamu"

The Theological Wordbook by Laird, Waltke and Archer has traced that idea through Egyptian mythology to ancient Babylonian mythology rather than to Hebrew belief.

YOUR belief that this is the view of INSPIRED BIBLICAL WRITERS in reality denies the inspiration of the Scriptures as such a charge is really an accusation against God as the author of Scriptures that God would inspire men to write mythological errors as truth.

YOUR belief that this is the view of INSPIRED BIBLICAL WRITERS in reality to be consistent must also attribute to them the belief that God Himself is a SOLID MATERIAL object as the very same kind of language using solid materials are attributed to His own person, His throne, New Jerusalem, to the person of angels in both the Old and New Testaments. In other words you ascribe to INSPIRED HEBREW WRITERS complete ignoranc of the use of similies.

False! God has already called "raqia" "shamuma" [shameya) in Genesis 1:8. Moses did not say that man called "raqia" this but God called it this and God does not change and does not INSPIRE men in the New Testament to contradict what he said in the Old Testament.

False! In the New Testament heaven is still described in the language of material solids (Rev. 21).

The only thing that is pretty clear are the following facts:

1. God not man called raqia "shameya" - v. 8

2. Shameya is put in apposition to raquia in every following use of raqia as would be expected since it is called shameya by God

3. Your theory denies the inspiration of the scriptures as it attributes to God the mythological error of a "dome" since scripture is given by inspiration by God rather than by wisdom of men.

4. Your theory ignores that Hebrew scholars can trace your theory to pagan mythology rather than to Hebrew understanding.

5. Your theory denies common sense recognition of the simile.

6. Your theory denies the faith once delivered as to be consistent your theory must equally define God Himself, his throne, the New Jerusalem, angelic beings all equally SOLID MATERIALS as the very same language you demand makes raqia such is equally applied to God's Person, his throne, the New Jerusalem, angelic beings.

7. Your argument does not have EQUAL weight Lexicographical weight with the terms "the evening and the morning" simply because there are no variant uses and definitions for that Hebrew phrase but there is for raquia (hammered out solid VS expanse) and so you cannot logically overthrow the unquestionable with a questionable interpretation and the issue stands or falls with the meaning of "the evening and the morning" being understood according to its constant meaning or reinterpreted figuratively based upon your questionable and chosen interpretation of raqia.

 

No I'm saying biblical authors suggested it. Also despite all your wrangling there is a major flaw in your view. The Waters are seperated "above" the firmament above the stars in the firmament. That discription alone belies what the author intended it to mean. You are still attempting to make the bible say something other than it did.

 

Why would he do that? As a biblical Christian, truth is one of the chief watchwords that we adhere to, as was explained to you above. God values truth enough to have crafted one of the Ten Commandments to deal specifically with that issue.

 

Does not Genesis one claim to be mouthed by God and represent what God Himself did? "And God said...And God called.....And God made..."???

Do you believe that Moses is giving a record in Genesis one that God not only suggested but is actually conveying false, inaccurate, pagan mytholocial lies straight from God's own mouth?

Does Genesis 1 ever say or imply that what is said is HUMAN SUGGESTIONS or IMPRESSIONS?

What is your view of inspiration of the Scriptures? Do you believe it is a collection of divine truth and human error? If so, then how can we tell which is what?

 

This thread has reached its limit of 30 + pages.
Please feel free to start or continue the conversation by starting a similar thread.