http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamayim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search

Shamayim (literally "sky" in Hebrew), "the heights", was an important concept in the religions and cosmology of the ancient Levant.

Contents
1 Canaanite views of Shamayim
2 Shamayim in the Bible
3 Later views of the Shamayim
4 References


Canaanite views of Shamayim

Shamayim (the heights) was the husband of Eretz (the Earth) and was the father of El, was a Canaanite divinity, equivalent to the Mesopotamian Anu, pre-existing the creation by El, the Father of the Gods or the Elohim. Called the Epigeius or Autochthon by Sanchuniathon[1], meaning the "self-creating", in Greek myth he equated with Uranus husband of Gaia. In later Phoenician and to a certain extent Hebrew mythology he was believed to have originally existed as an androgynous being and the first part of the creation was the separation of him from the Earth as the "upper firmament", in which the space between the two was that which was filled (i.e. the later Gnostic "Pleroma") by Elohim. As the pre-existing androgynous being he was considered to have been "the God most High" (El Elyon). In Hittite belief El Elyon was known as Alalu. This divinity is believed to have taken as spouse Beruth (Bereshit, = "the Beginning"), and through entering time in this way his nature split. In some ways he is considered to have housed "the Hosts of sky", the divine family of El, known as the Elohim. In other texts he was seen as descending from time to time to the divine mountain which supported the firmament, which is how the Elohim or Gods came to descend to mortal realms. In this way, the creation by the Elohim was seen as filling the heights. Thus in this way Shamayim comprised the "God Beyond God".

Not much is known of his character or personality, as he was superseded and displaced from his authority by his son, El, whose personality fused with El Elyon, and in the Phoenician area Ba'al Hadad syncretised with Shamayim to become known as Ba'al Shamayim ("Lord of heights")[2], chief God of 10th century Byblos[3], and in this form is widely known in the Phoenician world. Nevertheless, the opening verse of Genesis 1.1 suggests that he pre-existed the Elohim, and that creation by the Elohim consisted in filling, or of fattening him and his wife.

Shamayim in the Bible

"Shamayim" or the vault of heaven is a crucial concept in the Bible. The word “firmament” appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word "raqiya", which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”

Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:

Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”

Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”

Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”

Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”

Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”

Shamayim comes from shameh, a root meaning to be lofty. It literally means the sky. Other passages complete the picture of the sky as a lofty, physical dome. God “sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth [chuwg], whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the skies [shamayim] like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to live in...[Isaiah 40:22].” Chuwg literally means “circle” or “encompassed.” By extension, it can mean roundness, as in a rounded dome or vault. Job 22:14 says God “walks to and fro on the vault of heaven [chuwg].” In both verses, the use of chuwg implies a physical object, on which one can sit and walk. Likewise, the context in both cases requires elevation. In Isaiah, the elevation causes the people below to look small as grasshoppers. In Job, God's eyes must penetrate the clouds to view the doings of humans below. Elevation is also implied by Job 22:12: “Surely God is at the zenith of the heavens [shamayim] and looks down on all the stars, high as they are.”

This picture of the cosmos is reinforced by Ezekiel's vision. The Hebrew word raqiya appears five times in Ezekiel, four times in Ezekiel 1:22-26 and once in Ezekiel 10:1. In each case the context requires a literal vault or dome. The vault appears above the “living creatures” and glitters “like a sheet of ice.” Above the vault is a throne of sapphire (or lapis lazuli). Seated on the throne is “a form in human likeness,” which is radiant and “like the appearance of the glory of the Lord.” In short, Ezekiel saw a vision of God sitting throned on the vault of heaven, as described in Isaiah 40:22.

With modern astronomical understanding, this ancient portrayal of Shamayim, Heaven, and the furthest or highest sky is drawn out as an object. The only remaining scientific and theoretical approach to these passages is simple and straightforward: the whole of the universe stretches out as a finite (spherical) object according to Biblical context combined with a limited understanding of the cosmos and physical laws. The alleged case is that the outermost sky ends beneath a literal "sheet" of what appears to be water, (mayim: Hebrew for water) above which is the throne of God and a literal place known in the Bible as Heaven. Therefore, the universe would remain the dark place below Shamayim (Heaven), and a literal and distant barrier would separate mankind from that place.

The Book of Genesis records that immediately when creation commenced, light and dark were separated. On the second day, the waters were divided by an expanse. These two concepts are important in considerations of the many passages that refer to waters beneath Heaven and the many other division between good and evil, light and dark, and life and death. This of course, is all based upon the words written in the Bible in line with a modern perspective, as opposed to the idea of a flat earth where objects such as the sun, moon, and stars were thought to make their orbit around the earth. The notion of Heaven encompassing the universe all around is a very solid Biblical matter.

Later views of the Shamayim

Some of this primordial character coloured later Gnostic beliefs. Marcion, for example asserted that the all-good creator was incapable of allowing suffering into the world, and so there must be two different Gods[4]. For example, "On the Origin of the World" texts found at Nag Hammadi state that when the creator said "I am God and there is no other God than me", he was answered "You are mistaken, Samael (i.e. God of the blind)", as he had sinned against the immortal ones (the Elohim). The jealousy of this God of Eden was then seen as the coming of the first sin of the jealous master (permitting the fall), against whose tyranny the serpent (based upon an Aramaic pun, hewya "serpent"; hawa "instruct"; and Eve, Hawah) rebelled.

Mythology portal

Ancient Near East portal

[edit] References
^ Attridge, Harold. W., and R. A. Oden, Jr. (1981), Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History: Introduction, Critical Text, Translation, Notes, CBQMS 9 (Washington: D. C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America).
^ Moscatti, Sabatino (1968), "The World of the Phoenicians" (Phoenix Giant)
^ Ribichini, Sergio "Beliefs and Religious Life" in Maoscati Sabatino (1997), "The Phoenicians" (Rissoli)
^ Pagels, Elaine "The Gnostic Gosples" (Vintage) p.33-35
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamayim"
Categories: Levantine mythology

So basically the idea that modern apologist have set forward to make it seem as if the sun, moon, and stars were created in Genesis 1:1, and so they existed before the earth just like modern science now understands, it a false assertion! The heaven and earth created in Genesis 1:1 was devoid of any sun, moon, or stars and was still simply an expanse of unseparated water according to the creation myth. In verse 2 the earth is dark and void with no sun. In verse 3 light is created but still no mention of the sun, moon, or stars and the firmament region of the sky had not yet been hollowed out to where the sun, moon, and stars could exist yet. Then on the second day the waters were separated to form a hollowed out firmament region of the sky. Still no sun, moon, or stars yet. It isn't until the fourth day of creation that the sun, moon, and stars enter the narrative. The first three days are not solar says and therefore not literal evenings and mornings at all. A literal evening and morning is simply when you facr towards and away from the sun. There was no sun. And the light must be used in a spiritual sense, not a literal one. The order of creation does not accord with the universe we now know. It just a mythological creation story, evidently taken in large part from this Canaanite cosmological model of a multi-level universe.

tat tvam asi wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamayim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation, search

Shamayim (literally "sky" in Hebrew), "the heights", was an important concept in the religions and cosmology of the ancient Levant.

Contents
1 Canaanite views of Shamayim
2 Shamayim in the Bible
3 Later views of the Shamayim
4 References


Canaanite views of Shamayim

Shamayim (the heights) was the husband of Eretz (the Earth) and was the father of El, was a Canaanite divinity, equivalent to the Mesopotamian Anu, pre-existing the creation by El, the Father of the Gods or the Elohim. Called the Epigeius or Autochthon by Sanchuniathon[1], meaning the "self-creating", in Greek myth he equated with Uranus husband of Gaia. In later Phoenician and to a certain extent Hebrew mythology he was believed to have originally existed as an androgynous being and the first part of the creation was the separation of him from the Earth as the "upper firmament", in which the space between the two was that which was filled (i.e. the later Gnostic "Pleroma") by Elohim. As the pre-existing androgynous being he was considered to have been "the God most High" (El Elyon). In Hittite belief El Elyon was known as Alalu. This divinity is believed to have taken as spouse Beruth (Bereshit, = "the Beginning"), and through entering time in this way his nature split. In some ways he is considered to have housed "the Hosts of sky", the divine family of El, known as the Elohim. In other texts he was seen as descending from time to time to the divine mountain which supported the firmament, which is how the Elohim or Gods came to descend to mortal realms. In this way, the creation by the Elohim was seen as filling the heights. Thus in this way Shamayim comprised the "God Beyond God".

Not much is known of his character or personality, as he was superseded and displaced from his authority by his son, El, whose personality fused with El Elyon, and in the Phoenician area Ba'al Hadad syncretised with Shamayim to become known as Ba'al Shamayim ("Lord of heights")[2], chief God of 10th century Byblos[3], and in this form is widely known in the Phoenician world. Nevertheless, the opening verse of Genesis 1.1 suggests that he pre-existed the Elohim, and that creation by the Elohim consisted in filling, or of fattening him and his wife.

Shamayim in the Bible

"Shamayim" or the vault of heaven is a crucial concept in the Bible. The word “firmament” appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word "raqiya", which meant the visible vault of the sky. The word raqiya comes from riqqua, meaning “beaten out.” In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl. Thus, Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?”

Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:

Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”

Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”

Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”

Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”

Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim]...”

Shamayim comes from shameh, a root meaning to be lofty. It literally means the sky. Other passages complete the picture of the sky as a lofty, physical dome. God “sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth [chuwg], whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the skies [shamayim] like a curtain, he spreads them out like a tent to live in...[Isaiah 40:22].” Chuwg literally means “circle” or “encompassed.” By extension, it can mean roundness, as in a rounded dome or vault. Job 22:14 says God “walks to and fro on the vault of heaven [chuwg].” In both verses, the use of chuwg implies a physical object, on which one can sit and walk. Likewise, the context in both cases requires elevation. In Isaiah, the elevation causes the people below to look small as grasshoppers. In Job, God's eyes must penetrate the clouds to view the doings of humans below. Elevation is also implied by Job 22:12: “Surely God is at the zenith of the heavens [shamayim] and looks down on all the stars, high as they are.”

This picture of the cosmos is reinforced by Ezekiel's vision. The Hebrew word raqiya appears five times in Ezekiel, four times in Ezekiel 1:22-26 and once in Ezekiel 10:1. In each case the context requires a literal vault or dome. The vault appears above the “living creatures” and glitters “like a sheet of ice.” Above the vault is a throne of sapphire (or lapis lazuli). Seated on the throne is “a form in human likeness,” which is radiant and “like the appearance of the glory of the Lord.” In short, Ezekiel saw a vision of God sitting throned on the vault of heaven, as described in Isaiah 40:22.

With modern astronomical understanding, this ancient portrayal of Shamayim, Heaven, and the furthest or highest sky is drawn out as an object. The only remaining scientific and theoretical approach to these passages is simple and straightforward: the whole of the universe stretches out as a finite (spherical) object according to Biblical context combined with a limited understanding of the cosmos and physical laws. The alleged case is that the outermost sky ends beneath a literal "sheet" of what appears to be water, (mayim: Hebrew for water) above which is the throne of God and a literal place known in the Bible as Heaven. Therefore, the universe would remain the dark place below Shamayim (Heaven), and a literal and distant barrier would separate mankind from that place.

The Book of Genesis records that immediately when creation commenced, light and dark were separated. On the second day, the waters were divided by an expanse. These two concepts are important in considerations of the many passages that refer to waters beneath Heaven and the many other division between good and evil, light and dark, and life and death. This of course, is all based upon the words written in the Bible in line with a modern perspective, as opposed to the idea of a flat earth where objects such as the sun, moon, and stars were thought to make their orbit around the earth. The notion of Heaven encompassing the universe all around is a very solid Biblical matter.

Later views of the Shamayim

Some of this primordial character coloured later Gnostic beliefs. Marcion, for example asserted that the all-good creator was incapable of allowing suffering into the world, and so there must be two different Gods[4]. For example, "On the Origin of the World" texts found at Nag Hammadi state that when the creator said "I am God and there is no other God than me", he was answered "You are mistaken, Samael (i.e. God of the blind)", as he had sinned against the immortal ones (the Elohim). The jealousy of this God of Eden was then seen as the coming of the first sin of the jealous master (permitting the fall), against whose tyranny the serpent (based upon an Aramaic pun, hewya "serpent"; hawa "instruct"; and Eve, Hawah) rebelled.

Mythology portal

Ancient Near East portal

[edit] References
^ Attridge, Harold. W., and R. A. Oden, Jr. (1981), Philo of Byblos: The Phoenician History: Introduction, Critical Text, Translation, Notes, CBQMS 9 (Washington: D. C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America).
^ Moscatti, Sabatino (1968), "The World of the Phoenicians" (Phoenix Giant)
^ Ribichini, Sergio "Beliefs and Religious Life" in Maoscati Sabatino (1997), "The Phoenicians" (Rissoli)
^ Pagels, Elaine "The Gnostic Gosples" (Vintage) p.33-35
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamayim"
Categories: Levantine mythology

So in the beginning Elohim "bara" the "Shamayim" and the earth. It would appear that this is largely Cannanite based material. The area just below "Shamayim" (heaven) is where the sun, moon, and stars occupy, which, hasn't entered the narrative as of Genesis 1:1 yet. At least not in any literal sense. Only this distant "Shamayim" of Cannanite mythology is there, it would seem. In the beginning the heaven and earth are created, then the waters are separated to clear space for the celestial orbs to inhabit just below the outer heaven. Then, eventually, the celestial orbs - sun, moon, and stars - enter the narrative behind the outer heaven "shamayim" and the separation between waters which opens up a place where the sun, moon, and stars can come into existence and inhabit.

There's clearly no creation or mention of the physical sun inhabiting the lower region of sky underneath the "Shamayim" (heaven) as of Genesis 1:1 because the waters had not yet been separated in order to clear a space below the "shamayim" for the luminaries to inhabit. So the first day of creation in Genesis comes before the physical sun made which is made later on in the narrative in order to inhabit the lower region of "Shamayim" (sky) - just under the greater "Shamayim" (heaven) - on the fourth day of creation. According to the old mythic format the greater "shamayim" (heaven) existed before the sun, moon, and stars were made below it, in a place cleared out at a later time.

It also seems that since "shamayim" can be used to describe the whole sky, the area above the middle sky as well as the area above and beyond the middle sky, people try and assert that the sun, moon, and stars must have been created along with the greater "shamayim" and earth, when the verse is clearly referring to the area of "shamayim" above and beyond the middle sky which is cleared out on the second day of creation. That's seems to be the proper context of the usage of the word "shamayim" in Genesis 1:1. Other usages that apply to the fully created sky as "shamayim" - both the middle and beyond regions together as one - don't apply to the context of introducing the outer expanse beyond the middle sky (shamayim) and the earth. Two extreme points are delineated by setting out first with the heaven and earth and then these two extreme points are later filled in as the narrative continues. This creation mythology seems to be coming directly from an ancient multi-leveled heaven, from that specific region of the world! In this way the sun, moon, and stars do not exist at all until the fourth day of creation in this account as the process of filling in the regions between the two extremes of the greater heaven "shamayim" and earth is under way in the narrative.

You continue to amuse me.
Something which starts out: "Shamayim (the heights) was the husband of Eretz (the Earth) and was the father of El, was a Canaanite divinity," is supposed to impress me?

I looked at the sky today and saw the Sun.
What is visible in tonight's sky?
The other night I say Venus and I think Mars in the Western sky just after sunset.
Look for the ISS on 5/18/10 in the SW sky. It will move to nearly overhead and then set in the eastern sky after 3 minutes.
I used to have a subsrciption to Sky and Telescope magazine.


raqa' <2217>
Hebrew Word: raqa'
Strong's Cross Reference: 7554,
Derivative Definition: expansion (Num 17:3).
The basic concept in raqa' is stamping, as with the foot, and what results, i.e. a spreading out or stretching forth. In the OT the foot-stamping connotation of raqa' may be understood literally, indicating either a malicious glee (Eze 25:6) or a threatening excitement (Eze 6:11). It may be used figuratively to describe beaten and crushed enemies (2Sa 22:43). In the Piel and Pual stems, the verb raqa' acquires the sense of beating out precious metals, and of the spreading that results, e.g. to spread over (ASV, "overlay") an image (Isa 40:19). For the gold of Exo 39:3 riqqa', "hammer out" (RSV), is rendered "beat thin"; for the silver in Jer 10:9, "spread into plates"; and for the bronze in Num 16:39 [H 17.4], "make broad" (plates). raqa' then comes to denote God's spreading forth the tangible earth (Isa 42:5; Isa 44:24), stretching out its land above the water (Psa 136:6), or spreading out the intangible sky (Job 37:18).

raqia'. Firmament. (NASB renders more correctly as "expanse"; cf. riqque pahim (Num 16:38 [H 17.3]), literally "an expansion of plates, " i.e. broad plates, beaten out (BDB, p. 956). raqia' may refer to a limited space, such as that of the canopy over the cherubim, under the throne in Ezekiel's vision (Eze 1:22, Eze 1:26). Or it may refer to the broad "expanse of heaven" (Dan 12:3, NASB), as it does in thirteen of its seventeen occurrences.

raqia' is the most important derivative of raqa'. It identifies God's heavenly expanse. The Mosaic account of creation uses raqia' interchangeably for the "open expanse of the heavens" in which birds fly (Gen 1:20 NASB), i.e. the atmosphere (H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, 1, p. 59), and that farther expanse of sky in which God placed "the lights... for signs and for seasons" (vv. 14,17, referring apparently to their becoming visible through the cloud cover; the stars, sun, and moon presumably having been created already in v. 3), i.e. empty space (ISBE, I, p. 315), over which, as Job said, "He stretches out the north" (Job 26:7). The former receives greater emphasis, particularly during that period before the second day, when the earth cooled sufficiently (?) to permit surface waters, separated from what must still have been a massive cloud-bank above, by the atmospheric expanse (Gen 1:6-8). Such circumstances serve to explain the OT'S poetic references to "doors" or "windows" for the phenomenon of rainfall, e.g., "He commanded the clouds above, and opened the doors of heaven" (Psa 78:23). That the Hebrews knew rain came from clouds is clear from Isa 5:6, etc.

In pre-Christian Egypt confusion was introduced into biblical cosmology when the LXX, perhaps under the influence of Alexandrian theories of a "stone vault" of heaven, rendered raqia' by stereoma, suggesting some firm, solid structure. This Greek concept was then reflected by the Latin firmamentum, hence KJV "firmament." To this day negative criticism speaks of the "vault, or 'firmament, ' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it" (BDB, p. 956); cf. the rendering of Job 37:18, "The skies, strong (hazaqim) as a molten mirror (cf Psa 150:1, their "mighty expanse"), changed by the RSV to read, "the skies, hard." Babylonian mythology recounts how Marduk used half of Tiamat's carcass to from the heavens (shamamu) held in place by a crossbar (!). In the OT, however, Isaiah insists that God "stretches out the heavens [lit.] like gauze (doq, Isa 40:22); and even Ezekiel's limited canopy (raqia') is "as the [lit.] eye of awesome ice" (Eze 1:22), i.e. transparent, "shining like crystal" (RSV), though so dazzling as to be terrifying (KD; cf. Dan 12:3 "brightness").

Bibliography: Brockington, L. H., "Height, " in RTWB, pp. 105-106. Leupold, H.C., Exposition of Genesis, vol. 1, Baker, 1950, pp. 59-61. Lorizyner, H., "The Firmament and the Clouds, " Studia Theologia 1:188-96. Skinner, J., Genesis, ICC, pp. 41-50. Harris, R. L., "The Bible and Cosmology" JETS 5:11-17. J.B.P.



shmh <2407>
Hebrew Word: shmh
Strong's Cross Reference: None
Definition: Assumed root of the following.
Derivative TWOT Number: 2407a
Derivative Transliteration: shamayim
Derivative Strong's Cross Reference: 8064,
Derivative Definition: heaven, heavens, sky. (ASV and RSV similar).
Cognates are found in Ugaritic shmm, Akkadian shamu (singular, "rain"; plural, "heaven"), Aramaic, Arabic, and South Arabic.

The usage of shamayim falls into two broad categories, 1) the physical heavens, and 2) the heavens as the abode of God. Under the first category, heaven includes all that is above the earth, and any given passage may include all or merely a part of the whole. Heaven and earth together constitute the universe (Gen 1:1). They yield rain (Gen 8:2), snow (Isa 55:10), frost (Job 38:29), fire (2Ki 1:10), dew (Deu 33:13), and thunder (1Sa 2:10). They hold the sun, moon, planets, and stars (Gen 1:14; Gen 15:5; Isa 14:12; Amo 5:26). Zec 2:6 [H 10] speaks of the four winds of the heavens, and Psa 135:7 says that God brings forth the wind from his storehouses.

The heavens are frequently described in figurative language as having windows (Gen 7:11; 2Ki 7:2; Mal 3:10, though the word bere is more likely sluice-gates such as are used in irrigation, see 'arubba), gates (Gen 28:7), doors (Psa 78:23), pillars (Job 26:11), and foundations (2Sa 22:8). They are stretched out and spread out like a tent or a curtain (Isa 40:22).

The use of such figurative language no more necessitates the adoption of a pagan cosmology than does the modern use of the term "sunrise" imply astronomical ignorance. The imagery is often phenomenological, and is both convenient and vividly forceful. Thus a disobedient Israel would find the heavens to be like iron (Lev 26:19) or like bronze (Deu 28:23), not yielding the much-needed rain. Note that if the heavens were conceived of as a metallic vault, as is commonly suggested from Gen 1:8, Gen 1:14etc., the above passages would be meaningless, since the skies would already be metal. The word raqia' (q.v.) comes from the verb meaning "to hammer out" and "stretch (a piece of metal) out" as an overlay. It is the idea of spreading out that carries over to the noun, not the idea of a metallic substance. "Expartse" is an acceptable translation.

Heaven is, secondly, the abode of God (Deu 26:15; 1Ki 8:30), and it is from there that he reaches down to do his will on earth. As the heavens are infinitely high above the earth, so are God's thoughts and ways infinitely above man's ability to comprehend (Isa 55:8-9). God is in sovereign control (Psa 2:4). He is able to reach out in judgment (Gen 19:24ff) and in salvation alike (Psa 57:3 [H 4]; Deu 33:26). Jer 23:24 states that God fills heaven and earth, and Solomon recognizes that all of heaven and the highest heavens themselves ("heaven of heavens") cannot contain the Almighty God. As vast as the heavens are, they are merely part of God's creation, and he stands above it all. Therefore Solomon has no illusions that God has need of his temple or that it can contain him. Yet God has graciously condescended to dwell there and to be approached by sinful man. Isaiah states (Isa 57:15) that though God dwells in the high and lofty place, he will also dwell with those of a contrite and humble spirit.

The heavens tell of the glory of God (Psa 19:1 [H 2]), declare his righteousness (Psa 50:6), and praise him (Psa 69:34 [H 35]). As grand as they are, they merely point to the Creator and are not to be worshipped (Exo 20:4; Jer 44:17-25). Though the heavens are his throne, they will one day van- ish like smoke (Isa 51:6) and be rolled up like a scroll (Isa 34:4). Then God will create a new heaven and a new earth, unmarred by the effects of sin (Isa 65:17; Isa 66:22). The joy and glory of completed redemption will be reflected in all of creation.
Bibliography: Gaster, T. H., "Heaven, " I IDB. Innes, D. K., "Heaven and Sky in the Old Testament, " EQ 43:131-43. Morris, L. L. "Heaven, " in NBD. von Rad, G., in TDNT, V pp. 502-9. Rayburn, R. G. "Heaven, " in WBE. Rosmarin, Trude, W., "The Term for 'Air' in the Bible, " J BL 51:71-72. Smith, W. M., "Heaven, " in ZPEB. THAT, II, pp. 965-69. H.J.A.

Hebrew Word: shamma
Strong's Cross Reference: None
Definition: See no. 2409d.
Hebrew Word: shemu'a
Strong's Cross Reference: None
Definition: See no. 2412d."


Here, trying making mud pies with a recognized authoritative source for Hebrew. There is a very interesting little tidbit here. See if you can catch it. I left you a hint.

Regardless of the metallic issue, the point here is that the waters above the earth and under the earth are separated in Genesis making for an expanse of sky above the earth but below the "highest heaven" which is the "shamayim" of Genesis 1:1. The above pasted apology comes from what I had brought up previously concerning OEC ideas where they like to assert that the sun was created in verse 1 but only became visible through the clouds on the fourth day. That's what people trying to combine the standard model with the book of Genesis tend to push as an interpretation. Do you believe them? This sun showing through the clouds on the fourth day apology serves to assert that the earth really is old as science shows but that the bible is in accord with an old earth and the YEC interpreters are essentially incorrect and unbiblical.

The probelm with either a YEC or OEC apology that asserts the sun in existence as of Genesis 1:1 is that the waters above the earth and below the earth had not yet been separated in the narrative. The expanse where the sun would come to dwell wasn't provided yet. This is common sense issue really, or it should be. It looks like the bible doesn't have the sun coming into existence before the fourth day because it really doesn't have the sun coming into existence until the fourth day. Every attempt to place it early finds it's snags.

Stahrwe wrote:The Mosaic account of creation uses raqia' interchangeably for the "open expanse of the heavens" in which birds fly (Gen 1:20 NASB), i.e. the atmosphere (H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, 1, p. 59), and that farther expanse of sky in which God placed "the lights... for signs and for seasons" (vv. 14,17, referring apparently to their becoming visible through the cloud cover; the stars, sun, and moon presumably having been created already in v. 3), i.e. empty space (ISBE, I, p. 315), over which, as Job said, "He stretches out the north" (Job 26:7). The former receives greater emphasis, particularly during that period before the second day, when the earth cooled sufficiently (?) to permit surface waters, separated from what must still have been a massive cloud-bank above, by the atmospheric expanse (Gen 1:6-8).

This is very clearly an assumption based issue Stahrwe. One has to assume that the sun is already in existence because in order to make this story out to be literal such an assumption is necessary, but it's just an assumption, not something spelled out by the bible. The bible spells out a multi-level "heavens" that is layered. The birds are flying around and the sun is moving above them and the abode of Yahweh is yet even higher, infinitely high as it goes. This is a multi-level conceptualization given out, just as it is with the Canaanite mythology where the sun and the whole universe is surrounded by the greater expanse of this greater heaven ("shamayim").

Stellar vault "firmament"
Main articles: Raqiya and Shamayim
The stellar vault, conceived to be situated above the firmanent, is compared by Isaias to a tent stretched out by the Most High.

The sky, the abode of the stars, is described as a "raqiya'" (rä·kē'·ah, Hebrew for an extended solid surface or flat expanse, considered to be a solid layer above the Earth,[15] from raqa, Strong's 7554. "properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky").[16]

According to Genesis 1:6-7, this raqiya was "in the midst of the waters" and "separated the waters which were below the raqiya from the waters which were above the raqiya". There were also lights placed in the raqiya, or firmament (expanse), to give light upon the earth (Genesis 1:14-17), being the Sun, Moon, and stars.

In the poetic phrasing of the Psalms, Psalm 19:1 states the raqiya "is declaring the work of His [God's] hands" and Psalm 150:1 uses raqiya as a location for God's power. In the prophecy of Daniel 12:3, raqiya ("expanse of heaven") is compared to those who have insight, both shining brightly.

In Ezekiel's vision (Ezekiel 1), the raqiya, representing the sky, resembled ice or crystal (Ezekiel 1:22).

According to the Bible (Job 26:11[17]), the heavens have pillars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology

We have the "shamayim" in verse 1, not the "raqiya" of Genesis 1:6-7 which enters the narrative later. The sun, moon, and stars come into the narrative as spoken into existence ("let there be") after the "raqiya" of Genesis 1:6-7 is already established, not before hand like the context of verse 1 when this region had not yet been established. This is just like Genesis first establishing the sea and atmosphere and land first, and then inhabiting the sea, atmosphere, and land with inhabitants. There must first be an environment to inhabit followed by that which will inhabit the environment. And so "Shamayin" and earth are created in verse one and then the "raqiya" region of "shamayim" is established by verses 6-7 and then by verses 14-17 the sun, moon, and stars are placed in the "raqiya" firmament to inhabit the expanse of sky above the earth but below the highest heaven. One, two, three bada bing bada boom. That's why the "heavens" are given as plural so often. They believed that there were these separate "heavens" above the earth, one for the sun, moon, and stars and one above and beyond.

But in any case, this is all very unscientific for one thing, as we know all too well in this day and age, and also the days given out in Genesis 1 are not literal days caused by the earth orbiting the sun while spinning on it's own axis either. The creation account doesn't relay an accurate eye witnessed or divinely inspired account of our universal origins and it's rather silly that fully grown adults would be going around suggesting that it does. It's silly! I don't know how else to describe it. I think that every Christian needs to really investigate this issue in-depth and see what comes of it. In most cases what comes of it is a blend of evolution and creationism in an attempt to try and not seem too silly. OEC is such an attempt. Without getting too nasty or out of line about it, I must stand by my disagreement with interpreting Genesis 1:1 as referring to the expanse of sky inhabited by the sun, moon, and stars. It just doesn't fit into the context of the bible nor the regional creation ideas from where the bible has arisen. The ancients weren't thinking like we are today. They didn't have a problem with bringing in the sun on the fourth day because they were constructing mythological creation narratives which were symbolic in nature, not to be scrutinized as literal accounts which is something that came much later by future generations seeking to make political oriented moves based on literalistic interpretation and divine inspiration status of the bible.

tat tvam asi wrote:Regardless of the metallic issue, the point here is that the waters above the earth and under the earth are separated in Genesis making for an expanse of sky above the earth but below the "highest heaven" which is the "shamayim" of Genesis 1:1. The above pasted apology comes from what I had brought up previously concerning OEC ideas where they like to assert that the sun was created in verse 1 but only became visible through the clouds on the fourth day. That's what people trying to combine the standard model with the book of Genesis tend to push as an interpretation. Do you believe them? This sun showing through the clouds on the fourth day apology serves to assert that the earth really is old as science shows but that the bible is in accord with an old earth and the YEC interpreters are essentially incorrect and unbiblical.

For argument's sake, you may claim that I am wrong, but as demonstrated multiple times, you may not claim that my argument is unbiblical.

tat tvam asi wrote:The probelm with either a YEC or OEC apology that asserts the sun in existence as of Genesis 1:1 is that the waters above the earth and below the earth had not yet been separated in the narrative. The expanse where the sun would come to dwell wasn't provided yet. This is common sense issue really, or it should be. It looks like the bible doesn't have the sun coming into existence before the fourth day because it really doesn't have the sun coming into existence until the fourth day. Every attempt to place it early finds it's snags.

Objection, reference prior agrument.

Stahrwe wrote:The Mosaic account of creation uses raqia' interchangeably for the "open expanse of the heavens" in which birds fly (Gen 1:20 NASB), i.e. the atmosphere (H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, 1, p. 59), and that farther expanse of sky in which God placed "the lights... for signs and for seasons" (vv. 14,17, referring apparently to their becoming visible through the cloud cover; the stars, sun, and moon presumably having been created already in v. 3), i.e. empty space (ISBE, I, p. 315), over which, as Job said, "He stretches out the north" (Job 26:7). The former receives greater emphasis, particularly during that period before the second day, when the earth cooled sufficiently (?) to permit surface waters, separated from what must still have been a massive cloud-bank above, by the atmospheric expanse (Gen 1:6-8).

This is very clearly an assumption based issue Stahrwe. One has to assume that the sun is already in existence because in order to make this story out to be literal such an assumption is necessary, but it's just an assumption, not something spelled out by the bible. The bible spells out a multi-level "heavens" that is layered. The birds are flying around and the sun is moving above them and the abode of Yahweh is yet even higher, infinitely high as it goes. This is a multi-level conceptualization given out, just as it is with the Canaanite mythology where the sun and the whole universe is surrounded by the greater expanse of this greater heaven ("shamayim"). [/quote]

Objection, reference prior agrument.

tat tvam asi wrote:

Stellar vault "firmament"
Main articles: Raqiya and Shamayim
The stellar vault, conceived to be situated above the firmanent, is compared by Isaias to a tent stretched out by the Most High.

The sky, the abode of the stars, is described as a "raqiya'" (rä·kē'·ah, Hebrew for an extended solid surface or flat expanse, considered to be a solid layer above the Earth,[15] from raqa, Strong's 7554. "properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky").[16]

According to Genesis 1:6-7, this raqiya was "in the midst of the waters" and "separated the waters which were below the raqiya from the waters which were above the raqiya". There were also lights placed in the raqiya, or firmament (expanse), to give light upon the earth (Genesis 1:14-17), being the Sun, Moon, and stars.

In the poetic phrasing of the Psalms, Psalm 19:1 states the raqiya "is declaring the work of His [God's] hands" and Psalm 150:1 uses raqiya as a location for God's power. In the prophecy of Daniel 12:3, raqiya ("expanse of heaven") is compared to those who have insight, both shining brightly.

In Ezekiel's vision (Ezekiel 1), the raqiya, representing the sky, resembled ice or crystal (Ezekiel 1:22).

According to the Bible (Job 26:11[17]), the heavens have pillars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_cosmology

We have the "shamayim" in verse 1, not the "raqiya" of Genesis 1:6-7 which enters the narrative later. The sun, moon, and stars come into the narrative as spoken into existence ("let there be") after the "raqiya" of Genesis 1:6-7 is already established, not before hand like the context of verse 1 when this region had not yet been established. This is just like Genesis first establishing the sea and atmosphere and land first, and then inhabiting the sea, atmosphere, and land with inhabitants. There must first be an environment to inhabit followed by that which will inhabit the environment. And so "Shamayin" and earth are created in verse one and then the "raqiya" region of "shamayim" is established by verses 6-7 and then by verses 14-17 the sun, moon, and stars are placed in the "raqiya" firmament to inhabit the expanse of sky above the earth but below the highest heaven. One, two, three bada bing bada boom. That's why the "heavens" are given as plural so often. They believed that there were these separate "heavens" above the earth, one for the sun, moon, and stars and one above and beyond.

But in any case, this is all very unscientific for one thing, as we know all too well in this day and age, and also the days given out in Genesis 1 are not literal days caused by the earth orbiting the sun while spinning on it's own axis either.

Objection, the witness is making an assertion which has not been established.


[quote="tat tvam asi}The creation account doesn't relay an accurate eye witnessed or divinely inspired account of our universal origins and it's rather silly that fully grown adults would be going around suggesting that it does. It's silly![/quote]

Objection, the witness is now behaving irrationally.

tat tvam asi wrote:I don't know how else to describe it. I think that every Christian needs to really investigate this issue in-depth and see what comes of it. In most cases what comes of it is a blend of evolution and creationism in an attempt to try and not seem too silly. OEC is such an attempt. Without getting too nasty or out of line about it, I must stand by my disagreement with interpreting Genesis 1:1 as referring to the expanse of sky inhabited by the sun, moon, and stars. It just doesn't fit into the context of the bible nor the regional creation ideas from where the bible has arisen. The ancients weren't thinking like we are today. They didn't have a problem with bringing in the sun on the fourth day because they were constructing mythological creation narratives which were symbolic in nature, not to be scrutinized as literal accounts which is something that came much later by future generations seeking to make political oriented moves based on literalistic interpretation and divine inspiration status of the bible.

I don't understand what you are having difficulty with. You reject my explanation of the sequence of creation. Fine, you can disagree with me if you wish, but don't claim you don't understand what I am saying or that the definitions I have provided are wrong.

Here is an illustration of the biblical "heaven" (shamayim) which is above the middle firmament region where the sun, moon, and stars inhabit the sky:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl2.htm

As you can see, the greater heaven of Genesis 1:1 is above the middle firmament realm of the sun, moon, and stars even though these celestial bodies are above where the birds fly.

In the beginning God created (bara) the heaven (shamayim) and the earth. The middle heaven which is the firmament where the sun, moon, and stars would later inhabit has not entered the narrative as of Genesis 1:1. From this greater heaven ("shamayim") of unseparated waters, there was darkness on the face of the deep and the earth was void and without form. There is no firmament yet nor sun made and set in the firmament yet at this point in the narrative. The darkness on the face of the deep is literally darkness on the unseparated waters around the earth which is clearly described. These unseparated waters are dark at that point, not solar illuminated. There's no place (firmament) for the physical sun to illuminate anything yet at this point in the narrative. Then, on the second day the waters are eventually separated and the firmament region of the sky / heaven is established, but still not inhabited with the sun, moon, or stars yet in the narrative. Now we have the greater heaven above, the firmament in the middle, and the earth. Only now the sun comes into the narrative as being made and set in the firmament which is below the highest heaven in the middle region of the what has now gone from the singular "heaven" of Genesis 1:1 to the plural "heavens" after the second day of creation, after the heaven had be separated into layers and therefore became the "heavens".

I see exactly what you're trying to do by grabbing references from elsewhere in the bible where the plural "heavens" represent the whole universe, each layer combined together as the "heavens" after the second day of creation:

Highest Heaven
Middle Firmament
Earth

But that's not the context of the singular "heaven" of Genesis 1:1 which comes before the separation of the waters above and below of the earth into the multiple levels of plural heavens (shamayim), where the sun, moon, and stars will later come to inhabit in the narrative. That's not the context of Genesis 1:1 which is before the separation of the waters to form a middle firmamant:

Highest Heaven
Earth

Stahrwe, you're argument is unbiblical because Genesis 1:1 is not referring to the multiple layered "heavens" (shamayim) which have not yet been separated into multiple layers yet in the narrative. King James kept "the heaven" singular in translation for a reason: "...the heaven and the earth". Your interpretation and the interpretation of the apologist you're quoting, is based on assuming apriori that the creation account in Genesis is "literal" and so then you must have the sun existing in Genesis 1:1 in order to try and interpret the narrative "literally". And so you find ways of saying that the heavens is one of the possible translations for the term "shamayim" (refering to the whole universe and beyond) and therefore the bible says that the sun was created right along with the "shamayim" of Genesis 1:1 because the sun is a part of the whole universe which is created when God created "the heaven and the earth".

But that's not the context of the pre multi-layered heaven ("shamayim") of Genesis 1:1 however, and so even though you're referring to the bible to try and explain and interpret the bible you're so out of context with the bibles linear progress in the creation account itself that your interpretation is actually unbibical in reality. You can use the bible to interpret the bible and yet still come out unbiblical in the end because you've butchered the context of the bible in the process. Do you comprehend that much yet in this discussion or elsewhere? I reject your interpretation of the bible as an unbiblical interpretation because it actually is unbiblical, I'm not saying it just for the heck of saying it. It's a FACT to face here in this discussion.

tat tvam asi wrote:Here is an illustration of the biblical "heaven" (shamayim) which is above the middle firmament region where the sun, moon, and stars inhabit the sky:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl2.htm

As you can see, the greater heaven of Genesis 1:1 is above the middle firmament realm of the sun, moon, and stars even though these celestial bodies are above where the birds fly.

In the beginning God created (bara) the heaven (shamayim) and the earth. The middle heaven which is the firmament where the sun, moon, and stars would later inhabit has not entered the narrative as of Genesis 1:1. From this greater heaven ("shamayim") of unseparated waters, there was darkness on the face of the deep and the earth was void and without form. There is no firmament yet nor sun made and set in the firmament yet at this point in the narrative. The darkness on the face of the deep is literally darkness on the unseparated waters around the earth which is clearly described. These unseparated waters are dark at that point, not solar illuminated. There's no place (firmament) for the physical sun to illuminate anything yet at this point in the narrative. Then, on the second day the waters are eventually separated and the firmament region of the sky / heaven is established, but still not inhabited with the sun, moon, or stars yet in the narrative. Now we have the greater heaven above, the firmament in the middle, and the earth. Only now the sun comes into the narrative as being made and set in the firmament which is below the highest heaven in the middle region of the what has now gone from the singular "heaven" of Genesis 1:1 to the plural "heavens" after the second day of creation, after the heaven had be separated into layers and therefore became the "heavens".

I see exactly what you're trying to do by grabbing references from elsewhere in the bible where the plural "heavens" represent the whole universe, each layer combined together as the "heavens". But that's not the context of the singular "heaven" of Genesis 1:1 which comes before the separation of the waters above and below of the heaven (shamayim) into the multiple levels of plural heavens (shamayim), where the sun, moon, and stars will later come to inhabit in the narrative. Stahrwe, you're argument is unbiblical because Genesis 1:1 is not referring to the multiple layered "heavens" (shamayim) which have not yet been separated into multiple layers yet. King James kept it singular, "the heaven and the earth". Your interpretation, and the interpretation of the apologist you're quoting, is based on assuming apriori that the creation account is "literal" and so then you must have the sun existing in Genesis 1:1 to have it all "literal". And so you find ways of saying that it's one of the possible translations for the term "shamayim" (refering to the whole universe and beyond) and therefore the bible says that the sun was created right along with the "shamayim" of Genesis 1:1 because the sun is a part of the whole universe.

But that's not the context of the pre multi-layered heaven ("shamayim") of Genesis 1:1 however, and so even though you're referring to the bible to try and explain and interpret the bible you're so out of context with the bibles linear progress of creation that your interpretation is unbibical in reality. You can use the bible to interpret the bible and yet come out unbiblical in the end because you've butchered the context of the bible in the process. Do you comprehend that much yet in this discussion or elsewhere? I reject your interpretation of the bible as an unbiblical interpretation because it actually is unbiblical, I'm not saying it just for the heck of saying it. It's a FACT to face here in this discussion.

All I am doing is taking definitions by experts in Hebrew and applying those to the text. You are the one who is flailing around in a panicked attempt to come up with some 'middle' heaven explanation. Doesn't the 'razor' rule come into play at some point in your mind?

Let's just take a look at what's going on here shall we. You think I'm wrong and you're trying to help me see why I'm wrong. I think you're wrong and I'm trying to help you see why you're wrong. You started out as an evolutionary science believer until you became a young earth creationist later in life. I was a young earth creation believer until I became an evolutionary science believer later in life. We're exactly the polar opposite of one another and we're trying to emphasize the details of our final conclusions in life to one another concerning why we've come to these final conclusions about reality. I think my childhood beliefs were basically bunk and you think you're childhood beliefs were basically bunk, to really hit the nail on the head here, psychologically.

Stahrwe wrote:All I am doing is taking definitions by experts in Hebrew and applying those to the text. You are the one who is flailing around in a panicked attempt to come up with some 'middle' heaven explanation. Doesn't the 'razor' rule come into play at some point in your mind?

These definitions that you've pulled from whoever the authority on the bible, are out of context with the cosmology given to us by the bible. Plain and simple. They come from apologists just like you who have the same agenda to try and twist the meaning of words to try and shore up the faith at all costs, just like you, if I may be so bold as to point that out to you. Genesis 1:1 refers to "the heaven and earth", not the heaven already separated with a firmament region of the heaven for the sun, moon, stars and flying fowl such as I've shown in the above link to the literal biblical cosmology illustration.

The context of the definitions of "shamayim" the you have been referring to is:

shamayim
Highest Heaven (above the firmament)
Firmament (sun, moon, and stars)
Earth (below the firmament)

That's not the state of the unseparated shamayim of Genesis 1:1

The razor has to do with the complexity of the biblical narrative cosmology, which consists of a multi-level universe. I'm not the one coming up with this mulit-level and complex cosmology myself, the biblical writers were. So if the razor cuts anyone it's the biblical writers and their complex multi-level cosmology. I'm arguing on the side of simplicity myself, in full accord with the razor. The Genesis creation account is a mythological narrative - that's the simplest explanation. Why? Because it gives us a mutli-level heavens conceptualization where the middle firmament doesn't exist at first and neither does the sun, moon, and stars. That's not the "literal" universe of empirical science now is it.

You're just mad because you're unfamiliar with defending yourself against this line of rebuttle. You've run around pointing at "shamayim" as the reason for asserting that the bible says the whole universe, sun and all, was created in Genesis 1:1. You didn't have the insight to realize that the only heaven (shamayim) at that point in the narrative was an unseparated celestial waters, not the "shamayim" of Psalms or any other text later on in the bible which refers to the heavens (shamayim) well after the multi-level universe was established during the second day of creation. Of course "shamayim" can refer to the whole universe, sun and all, in some or even most places in the bible. But not in the context of Genesis 1:1! That remains an unbiblical assumption at best on the part of whoever and whatever apologetic authority is making the claim. Credentials mean nothing here aside from showing that a highly credentialed apologist can take the bible out of context to try and assert the superiority of there own "literalistic" belief system.

We're going to find out which one of the two of us have left behind "truth" in exchange for a fantasy Stahrwe. So far you've left behind an old earth world view for a young earth world view, which hinges on the "literalism" of the bible starting with Genesis 1:1. It's cleary not "literal" at all in reality and I know that. So I see that you've left the "truth" of well documented empirical data for the fantasy of interpreting the creation story in Genesis "literally" in order to get off thinking the earth is young and trying to twist scientific data make it seem as if the earth is young, when it isn't. The universe is not multi-leveled as described in the bible, as modern telescopes reveal, and days do not take place before the existence of the sun, or the existence of a place for the sun to shine either. Not in this universe any how.

The bible itself actually disproves the literal interpretation of the bible Stahrwe. It has the sun coming into the narrative on day four for the purpose of marking season, days, and years:

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

In verse 1 there is only an unseparated celestial waters, not a multi-level plural "heavens" as becomes the case in verses 6-8 when when God's word says "let there be..." God's (Elohim) word is bringing forth the separation of the celestical waters to form a firmament region between the waters below and above the earth. In verses 6-8 the celestial waters of the "shamayim" from verse 1 are clearly separated according to the bible, not before.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

This is clearly a case of the sun, moon, and stars being made on the fourth day and set in the firmament of heaven and not any sooner, not according to bible anyways. This is not written as a "literal" account to begin with. Literally, it contradicts itself as of the first day. And so now we see why your so-called authorities on the Hebrew bible seek to try and pull the meaning of the "shamayim" of Genesis 1:1 from elsewhere in the bible from the context of verses where it can refer to the whole post separated and post populated heavens - every layer of the heavens altogether at once. You and they are grasping at straws in order to avoid this major self contradiction made in the biblical narrative that occurs if one starts off by reading the bible "literally". You've taken an apriori assumption and tried to force it to work somehow, when it actaully doesn't work out at all when a critically thinking mind contemplates the narrative in context. I don't think that the original writers even took the narrative literally themselves to honest with you. They were clearly using symbolic mythology here, not live eye witness CCN type coverage from the dawn of creation...

tat tvam asi wrote:You think I'm wrong and you're trying to help me see where I'm wrong. I think you're wrong and I'm trying to help you see where you're wrong.

You started out as an evolutionary science believer until you became a young earth creationist. I was a young earth creationist believer until I became an evolutionary science believer. We're exactly the polar opposite of one another trying to emphasize the details of our final conclusions to one another why we've come to these conclusions. I think my childhood beliefs were basically bunk and you think you're childhood beliefs were basically bunk.

Stahrwe wrote:All I am doing is taking definitions by experts in Hebrew and applying those to the text. You are the one who is flailing around in a panicked attempt to come up with some 'middle' heaven explanation. Doesn't the 'razor' rule come into play at some point in your mind?

These definitions that you've pulled from whoever the authority on the bible, are out of context with the cosmology given to us by the bible. Plain and simple. They come from apologist just like you who have the same agenda to try and twist the meaning of words just like you. Genesis 1:1 refers to the heaven and earth, not the heavenly waters already separated with a firmament region for the sun, moon, stars and fowl such as I've shown in the above link to the literal biblical cosmology illustrated for contemplation.

Highest Heaven (above the firmament)
Firmament (sun, moon, and stars)
Earth (below the firmament)

The razor has to do with the complexity of the biblical narrative cosmology, which consists of a multi-level universe. I'm not the one coming up with this mulit-level and complex cosmology, the biblical writers were. So if the razor cuts anyone it's the biblical writers and their multi-level cosmology. I'm arguing on the side of simplicity myself, in full accord with the razor. The Genesis creation account is a mythological narrative - that's the simplest explanation. Why? Because it gives us a mutli-level heavens where the firmament doesn't exist at first and neither do the sun, moon, and stars. That's not the "literal" universe of empirical science. You're mad because you're unfamiliar with defending yourself against this rebuttle. You've run around pointing at "shamayim" as the reason for asserting that the bible says the whole universe, sun and all, was created in Genesis 1:1. You didn't have the insight to realize that the only heaven at that point in the narrative was an unseparated celestial waters, not the "shamayim" of Psalms or any other text which refer to the heavens "shamayim" well after the multi-level universe was established. Of course it can refer to the whole universe, sun and all, but not in the context of Genesis 1:1. That remains an unbiblical assumption at best on the part of whoever and whatever apologetic authority is making the claim. Credentials means nothing here aside from showing that a highly credentialed apologist can take the bible out of context to try and assert the superiority of there own cultish belief system.

We're going to find out which one of us left behind "truth" in exchange for a fantasy. So far you've left behind an old earth believe for a young earth belief, which hinges on the "literalism" of the bible starting with Genesis 1:1. It's cleary not "literal" at all, in reality. So I see that you've left the truth of well documented empirical data for the fantasy of interpreting the creation story in Genesis "literally". The universe is not multi-leveled as described in the bible and days do not take place before the existence of the sun, or a place for the sun to shine either. The bible itself disproves the literal interpretation of the bible Stahrwe. It has the sun coming in on day four for the purpose of marking season, days, and years:

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

In verse 1 there is only an unseparated celestial waters, not a multi-level plural "heavens" as becomes the case in verses 6-8 when when God's word says "let there be...". God's (elohim) word is bringing forth the separation of the celestical waters to form a firmament between the water below and the waters above. In verses 6-8 the celestial waters of the "shamayim" of verse 1 are clearly separated according to the bible.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

This is clearly a case of the sun, moon, and stars being made on the fourth day and not sooner, not according to bible anyways...

The point is that from the beginning of this discussion you anticipated a creation chronology with the Sun and Moon appearing on day 4. Your entilre argument against the Genesis narrative is based on attacking at that point. I should probably not say 'your' because I suspect there is nothing unique to TTA in the attack. You're pretty much a conduit for what others have trained you to say. Well, that chronology is not and never has been my belief and you are stymied. You might be able to beat bubba at the bar-b-que but I am not bubba.

And yet you remain here beaten on this thread. I started off thinking, apriori, that the bible is the literal and infallible word of God, not a creation of man. That was my starting point in life Stahrwe. I was dead wrong! I had to face that fact eventually and it was a tough pill to swallow at first. But I got through it. Now I'm here talking to a guy who went the opposite direction. I haven't been trained by any one except for myself in this line of refutation. I've never heard any one take the multi-level cosmos of the bible and throw it in the face of creationists who like to assert that the sun was created in Genesis 1:1 in order to try and avoid the biggest contradiction at the very beginning of the bible.

That's the problem with most of the assumptions you make Stahrwe, they tend to turn out incorrect more often than not. You assumed that the sun must have been created in Genesis 1:1 along with the "shamayim" and you assumed incorrectly. You assumed that I'm merely parroting the work of others and you've assumed incorrectly yet again. You're obviously posting nothing more than bits and pieces you've copied and pasted from a variety of apologists yourself, without putting them in quotations all the time, so that it's difficult to see what you're writing and what has been copied and pasted. Please post all quotations in quotation from now on Stahrwe, so that your own personal words are separated from the apologists that you're copying and pasting. The sun created in Genesis 1:1 apology is not even your own apology, you've parroted it. I've had to counter your parroting with an immediate realization I've had based on turning my focus to the biblical based multi-level "heavens" cosmology which clarifies the context of the order of the creation account very clearly.

tat tvam asi wrote:And yet you remain here beaten on this thread. I started off thinking, apriori, that the bible is the literal and infallible word of God, not a creation of man. That was my starting point Stahrwe. I was dead wrong! I had to face that fact eventually and it was a tough pill to swallow at first. But I got through it. Now I'm here talking to a guy who went the opposite direction. I haven't been trained by any one except for myself in this line of refutation. I've never heard any one take the multi-level cosmos of the bible and throw it in the face of creationists who like to assert that the sun was created in Genesis 1:1 in order to try and avoid the biggest contradiction at the very beginning of the bible. That's problem with most of the assumptions you make Stahrwe, they tend to turn out incorrect more often than not. You assumed that the sun must have been created in Genesis 1:1 along with the "shamayim" and you assumed incorrectly. You assumed that I'm parroting the work of others and you've assumed incorrectly yet again. You're obvious posting nothing more than bits and pieces you've copied and pasted from a variety of apologists, without putting them quotations all the time, so that it's difficult to see what you're writing and what has been copied and pasted. Please post all quotations in quotation from now on Stahrwe, so that your words are separated from the apologists that you're copying and pasting. The sun created in Genesis 1:1 apology is not even your own apology, you've parroted it. I've had to counter your parroting with an immediate realization I've had based on turning my focus to the biblical based cosmology which clarifies the context of the order of the creation account very clearly.

Where I am quoting people the context is clear and I provide 'valid' links so that you can verify them.

I am afraid that your claim of originality is not defensible. I did your homework for you and provide not only a couple of valid links to your 'wall of abuses list' by Christians but also provided the orginal source, some Greek, or was he a Creetin?