****************************************************
3. Formation of a stable water cycle. (1:7)
Gen(1:6) God works on a "firmament" for the first time. He makes this firmament thing whatever it is, to "divide the waters from the waters". Up to now there is no"firmament", no atmosphere.
****************************************************
I absolutely agree with you that there was no advanced atmosphere up to this point. But if you are saying that there was not even a primitive atmosphere, then I must disagree with you scientifically and otherwise per my last message.
You really do need to read up on this stuff
I think I know what the problem is here. The problem is that I believe you are interpreting firmament as atmosphere. (Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what it seems like.) But to clarify, the Hebrews thought of the clouds as a boundary and the firmament was basically the expanse right at that boundary. Firmament ties to the idea of a piece of metal being hammered into a flat sheet. In other words, picture a sheet encircling the earth at the boundary of the clouds.
I said that firmament means "sky" but I should have said that "sky" is our closest English word to theirs.
So now if you consider the Hebrew definition of firmament, verses 6 and 7 will make much better sense.
Unfortunately not and hereâs why....
"Let there be a firmament (a dividing "sheet") ... and let it divide the waters (on the earth's surface) from the waters (in the clouds)" and "Thus God divided the waters (on the surface of the earth) from the waters which were above the firmament (in the clouds)."
I hope that helps...
It does not help one bit,. it makes little sense. I would remind you the topic here is a stable water cycle.!
(1:7) Vaya'as Elokim
et-harakia vayavdel bein hamayim asher mitachat
larakia uvein hamayim asher me'al
larakia vayehi-chen.
God made the
canopy, and divided the waters which were beneath the
canopy, from the waters which were above the
canopy, and it was so.
(1:8) Vayikra Elokim
la-rakia shamayim vayehi-erev vayehi-voker yom sheni.
God called
the canopy heaven.
The canopy is a sheet AND the canopy is the heavens??
All you seem to be doing is loosely re interpreting to form the idea that there is water on the earth and God now separates it into the clouds. Then why doesn't Genesis say that ?. There are five Hebrew words for clouds in the Bible. av, shachaq, chaziyz for clouds in the sky and . Shachaq means ââ¦to a fine powderâ (as mist) . Av expresses the idea of a thick covering of cloud..
You have just stated the firmament went no further than the clouds, but this only supports a notion that water went out into space, unless the stars and sun were at cloud level as Genesis states the sun moon and stars are in the same firmament !!
The evidence suggests the ancient writers of Genesis did not have a clue how stuff worked. They tried in ignorance and superstition to represent God as an answer to everything. and they didn't know how water came to be on earth, even less on how water (rain) got into the sky .
So they expand upon already previously established ideas of God and they hold water apart with a "Firmament" as something solid or firm , which they could try and argue to their contemporaries would hold the water in the sky.
The Hebrew word used is rakia which is unsuitable in this context, (certainly if it is to âmatch scientific recordâ), as it is formed from Hebrew raka, which is to beat out like a metal plate - or like a sheet of steel to which you refer. If they had a clue they could have used 'badal' which is to divide or separate. But then they probably couldn't agree how water could stay in the sky if there was only an un - firm space to kept it up there.
Ancient documents refer to 'oceans of two halves situated one above the other and religious scholars in the past stated the Firmament , or expanse, was written to be at the exact centre of the waters Which makes the thing even more absurd.
This description Firmament has long been discredited and you are only perpetuating the need for limitless non relative interpretation in order to contort it into mere absurdity. Just where do you start to draw the line from guesswork assumption and story telling .?
The problem is the rest of your response is also full of these unfounded statements
Hey, I forewarned everyone this stuff can get aggravating. Of course, I object to the "creative" part of it as I feel that I am taking it with the author's intended meaning
So it does not matter to you that this "intended meaning" can mean anything you want it to ?
The Science does not allow "intended meaning" to form part of conclusions based upon evidence. In this way alone your Log of Genesis fails the basic standards of usefulness and meaning.
and I wasn't sitting around saying, "How can I twist this to prove my point?".
No offence, but you are giving a very reasonable impression of doing exactly that
But, yes, I admit interpretation issues are much more subjective.
Interpretations can be analyzed They do not need to remain subjective.
It's the superficial incorrectness which you seem to be happy to accept as Scientific fact which is subjective (to say the least) and causes your Genesis Log and your attempt to âtake it with the authorâs meaningâ to fail so badly .
You want truth??? Then the first stop might be to resist making up such ridiculous nonsense and learn more about the science you want to use.
