|
Marion here, At this point I will leave Chapter Four and enter into Chapter Five. I will, for the time being, leave the points that my adversaries have not answered and see if they can answer some new points. However, I will have replies to any past posts that they see fit to bring up. I will halt the discussion of Chapter Five to go back if my adversaries want to discuss earlier matters. Chapter Five (pages 59-84) deals with my hypothesis of the meaning of the expression "the waters above the firmament" (Genesis 1:6-8). Genesis 1:6-8 (ASV) And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And 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. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. Genesis 1:6-8 (Young's Literal Translation) And God saith, 'Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.' 7 And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so. 8 And God calleth to the expanse 'Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning--day second. First, I defined the Hebrew word translated "firmament" on page 59 of my book. The ASV footnote reads "expanse" which I deem to probably be the best rendering of this Hebrew word. The reader should note that the text says there were waters above and waters below the firmament. God called the firmament (or expanse) "heaven" (Genesis 1:8). The Scriptures speak of at least three heavens (II Corinthians 12:2). The sky is referred to as "heaven" (Genesis 7:23 etc.). The only reasonable interpretation of the "firmament" is that it refers to the sky. Let us consider the physical nature of water. Water exists in all three accepted states of matter: solid (ice), liquid (water), and gas or vapor (water vapor). My hypothesis is that water vapor, which has a density about 53% of the density of the normal oxygen molecule and about 58:7% of the density of an average air molecule existed in the atmosphere in much larger amounts than the present atmosphere has. Water vapor would be located in two different places. First, the water vapor would tend to rise in the atmosphere because of its lower density (and consequent weight). Second, the water vapor would increase the barometric pressure of the atmosphere and thereby increase the partial pressure for all gases in the atmosphere. This would mean that a cubic inch (or any volume) of air would contain more nitrogen, more oxygen, more water vapor, etc. molecules than an equal volume of air at a lower barometric pressure. Therefore there would be more water vapor in the air from ground level to the stratosphere. The forty days of rainfall (Genesis 7:12) removed most of this water vapor from the atmosphere. Once the rainfall started it would reduce the barometric pressure and the partial pressures thereby. This would cause more of the water vapor to condense out of the atmosphere and lower the partial pressure more and cause more rainfall until most of the water vapor was removed from the atmosphere. There is scientific evidence that will be introduced later (in this Chapter) that the antediluvian atmosphere had between 35% and 40% oxygen instead of the 21% we now have in the atmosphere. We shall be considering how this would affect organisms in the coming studies. Noah was warned of things he had not yet seen (Hebrews 11:7). Note the plural "things" that he had not seen. It is evident from the Scriptures (the foundation of my epistemology) that there were at least two things that were different between the antediluvian and the postdiluvian worlds. There might have been more than two things that were different, but we know from Hebrews 11:7 that there were at least two things. Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned [of God] concerning things not seen as yet, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. I am convinced that there were at least four things that were different in the postdiluvian world. First, it did not rain in the antediluvian world (Genesis 2:5). Second, man had not seen a rainbow since it was the token of God's covenant (Genesis 9:13-15). Third, mankind had not seen clouds because there are related to the rainbow (Genesis 9:14). Fourth, the longevity of mankind was greater in the antediluvian world than in the postdiluvian world. Yours in His service, Marion R. Fox |
Dear Marion Fox, In post #49602 in your discussion of chapter 5 I did not find any discussion of Genesis 1:14-19. I don't believe you discuss Genesis 1:14-19 in chapter 5 of your book, either. Here are the related texts on the firmament (the discussion here is from my post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/36820):
Genesis 1:6-10, 14-19
And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
Verse 7 states that "God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament." Verse 17 states that God set the sun, moon, and stars "in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." There is no plausible interpretation of this picture as some kind of scientific, technical description of ocean, sky, clouds, and sun, moon, and stars. Indeed, it is in these passages that we can see where the medieval interpreters got their celestial sphere stuff (which we know is entirely incorrect) by interpreting this as being a technically literal description of the cosmos, which is not what it is at all. Such an interpretation is completely implausible. The metaphor is God constructing the earth and the heavens, in metaphorical language similar to that used elsewhere in the Bible (see, for example, Amos 9:6, Job 22:14, Job 26:11, Job 37:9-18, Psalm 104:2-3).
And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. ... And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. And from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/40973:
I've been asking those who promote a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 to give us the literal interpretation of "the waters which were above the firmament," and so far all have refused to provide any explanation of this. I personally believe that they don't want to discuss this because they do in fact understand that the text demands a figurative interpretation, because the literal interpretation of this would have the Bible teaching complete nonsense, which is exactly the point that we've been explaining all along.
Here is the literal interpretation of this text, from someone who was willing to give it:
Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters.... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding.
Luther here expresses exactly the same sentiment that others have been expressing frequently the last couple of days: "We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding." We have repeatedly exposed the false premises that statements like these are based on, yet we keep hearing these same statements over and over again, regardless of the fact that they are based on false premises. We aren't supposed to interpret scripture "in conformity with our understanding," yet that is exactly what all of us do do because all of us are human beings and none of us are inspired by God, so our biblical interpretations are fallible by the nature of who we are.
(Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43.) I always find it troubling when Christians seriously advocate this truth-defying argument that we are supposed to ignore factual information about our world. (Of course, the fact that some are stating this is explicit proof that Al Maxey's criticism about the young earth creationist approach being one of "checking our brains at the gate" is absolutely correct.) I will say very forthrightly here that anyone who seriously argues that we are supposed to ignore factual information, from any source, has abandoned seeking the truth, at least with respect to the context of the subject within which they make such an argument. This is simply the defiant nature of what it means to argue that "I don't care what the factual information is." (Compare: "Don't bother me with the data, my mind is already made up.") This is unabashed human pride masking itself as seeking the truth while denying the substance of truth. Marion, please explain how the water above the moon, sun, and stars fits into your scheme. Sincerely, Steve Heiden |
Marion here, Steve posted the following:
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: FFB 5 SH/MF, waters above the firmament Dear Marion Fox, In post #49602 in your discussion of chapter 5 I did not find any discussion of Genesis 1:14-19. I don't believe you discuss Genesis 1:14-19 in chapter 5 of your book, either. Marion here, Steve neglects to tell the readers that there are different prepositions on the word "firmament" in Genesis 1:7 and Genesis 1:14. In Genesis 1:7 the inseparable preposition "le" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "to, for, at" (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'to' or 'for'" (page 26) Weingreen states that it is the essential element in the preposition translated "unto" (page 27) In Genesis 1:14 the inseparable preposition "be" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "in, by, with." (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'in', 'with', or 'by.'" (page 26) Yates, Kyle M.; Owens, John Joseph. (1954). The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew. New York: Harper & Row Pub. Weingreen, J. (1975). A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Steve continued:
...
Marion, please explain how the water above the moon, sun, and stars fits into your scheme. Marion here, I see no need to respond to Martin Luther. Steve obviously did not check out his prepositions in these two verses. I have only taken the first year of Hebrew but I know enough to know that Steve "missed the boat here" as he did in Genesis 6-9. Pun intended. For the benefit of the readers on the Berean Spirit List. The word translated "firmament" in the KJV is always translated "firmament" in the KJV. It is found in the following passages: Genesis 1:6, 7 (three times), 8, 14, 15, 17, 20, Psalm 19:1, 150:1, Ezekiel 1:22, 23, 25, 26, 10:1, and Daniel 12:3. I have allowed the Scriptures to define the word for us in my book and in my post. In several of these passages it obviously does not refer to the sky or to space (where the stars, planets, etc. exist). We must allow the context to define this word as I have done. I admit that this is hermeneutics, but it is sound hermeneutics to allow the context to define the word. God defined this word for us in Genesis 1:8. Now allow me to point out that I defined this properly from the Scriptures in my book in more detail than in my post (cf. pages 59-60). If Steve needs to discuss this more, I am willing to do so. Yours in His service, Marion R. Fox |
Dear Marion, I don't really know if you've answered my question or not, which was, please explain how the water above the moon, sun, and stars fits into your scheme. I'm still wondering how the water above the sun and above the stars got involved with Noah's flood. If your explanation is that the firmament of Genesis 1:6-10 and the firmament of Genesis 1:14-19 are not the same firmament but are two different firmaments, then please just say so. Sincerely, Steve Heiden --- In BereanSpirit, Marion R. Fox wrote (post #49625):
[snip]
Steve neglects to tell the readers that there are different prepositions on the word "firmament" in Genesis 1:7 and Genesis 1:14. In Genesis 1:7 the inseparable preposition "le" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "to, for, at" (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'to' or 'for'" (page 26) Weingreen states that it is the essential element in the preposition translated "unto" (page 27) In Genesis 1:14 the inseparable preposition "be" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "in, by, with." (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'in', 'with', or 'by.'" (page 26) Yates, Kyle M.; Owens, John Joseph. (1954). The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew. New York: Harper & Row Pub. Weingreen, J. (1975). A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Steve continued:
...
Marion here,
Marion, please explain how the water above the moon, sun, and stars fits into your scheme. I see no need to respond to Martin Luther. Steve obviously did not check out his prepositions in these two verses. I have only taken the first year of Hebrew but I know enough to know that Steve "missed the boat here" as he did in Genesis 6-9. Pun intended. For the benefit of the readers on the Berean Spirit List. The word translated "firmament" in the KJV is always translated "firmament" in the KJV. It is found in the following passages: Genesis 1:6, 7 (three times), 8, 14, 15, 17, 20, Psalm 19:1, 150:1, Ezekiel 1:22, 23, 25, 26, 10:1, and Daniel 12:3. I have allowed the Scriptures to define the word for us in my book and in my post. In several of these passages it obviously does not refer to the sky or to space (where the stars, planets, etc. exist). We must allow the context to define this word as I have done. I admit that this is hermeneutics, but it is sound hermeneutics to allow the context to define the word. God defined this word for us in Genesis 1:8. Now allow me to point out that I defined this properly from the Scriptures in my book in more detail than in my post (cf. pages 59-60). If Steve needs to discuss this more, I am willing to do so. |
Marion here, Steve posted the following:
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: FFB 5 SH/MF, waters above the firmament Dear Marion, I don't really know if you've answered my question or not, which was, please explain how the water above the moon, sun, and stars fits into your scheme. I'm still wondering how the water above the sun and above the stars got involved with Noah's flood. If your explanation is that the firmament of Genesis 1:6-10 and the firmament of Genesis 1:14-19 are not the same firmament but are two different firmaments, then please just say so. Marion here, Here is part of my former post:
Steve neglects to tell the readers that there are different prepositions on the word "firmament" in Genesis 1:7 and Genesis 1:14. In Genesis 1:7 the inseparable preposition "le" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "to, for, at" (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'to' or 'for'" (page 26) Weingreen states that it is the essential element in the preposition translated "unto" (page 27) In Genesis 1:14 the inseparable preposition "be" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "in, by, with." (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'in', 'with', or 'by.'" (page 26)
Yates, Kyle M.; Owens, John Joseph. (1954). The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew. New York: Harper & Row Pub. Weingreen, J. (1975). A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Steve, my point is that there are different prepositions used here and your interpretation is that the prepositions are the same. You have the waters being above the firmament, that is in space somewhere but that is not what the Hebrew text says. The waters are toward the firmament (Genesis 1:7), not in the firmament as we find in Genesis 1:14. How do you distinguish these different prepositions? Yours in His service, Marion R. Fox |
Dear Marion, I still don't know if you've answer my question or not, which was, please explain how the water above the moon, sun, and stars fits into your scheme. Yes, I'm still wondering how the water above the sun and above the stars got involved with Noah's flood. I realize that, as usual, you are engaging in some kind of bizarre straw man discussion about what I have or haven't pointed out, but your straw man misrepresentation of what I have or haven't done is really very silly. When and where have I ever said anything about prepositions being the same? Where did you get this crazy notion about me? Here is Genesis 1:6-7, from a variety of versions:
[RSV]
[NIV] [NASB] [ASV] [KJV] [Young's Literal Translation] Now compare this to Genesis 1:14-17. Again, I'm asking for you to explain how the water above the sun and above the stars got involved with Noah's flood. I have never said one word about prepositions being the same. I would appreciate it if you could bring yourself to actually address this point rather then engaging in more silly misrepresentation of me on this. Sincerely, Steve Heiden --- In BereanSpirit, Marion R. Fox wrote (post #49685):
Marion here,
Steve posted the following:
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:39 PM
Marion here,
Subject: Re: FFB 5 SH/MF, waters above the firmament Dear Marion, I don't really know if you've answered my question or not, which was, please explain how the water above the moon, sun, and stars fits into your scheme. I'm still wondering how the water above the sun and above the stars got involved with Noah's flood. If your explanation is that the firmament of Genesis 1:6-10 and the firmament of Genesis 1:14-19 are not the same firmament but are two different firmaments, then please just say so. Here is part of my former post:
Steve neglects to tell the readers that there are different prepositions on the word "firmament" in Genesis 1:7 and Genesis 1:14. In Genesis 1:7 the inseparable preposition "le" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "to, for, at" (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'to' or 'for'" (page 26) Weingreen states that it is the essential element in the preposition translated "unto" (page 27) In Genesis 1:14 the inseparable preposition "be" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "in, by, with." (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'in', 'with', or 'by.'" (page 26)
Steve, my point is that there are different prepositions used here and your interpretation is that the prepositions are the same. You have the waters being above the firmament, that is in space somewhere but that is not what the Hebrew text says. The waters are toward the firmament (Genesis 1:7), not in the firmament as we find in Genesis 1:14. How do you distinguish these different prepositions?
Yates, Kyle M.; Owens, John Joseph. (1954). The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew. New York: Harper & Row Pub. Weingreen, J. (1975). A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. |
Marion here, Steve posted the following:
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: FFB 5 SH/MF, waters above the firmament Dear Marion, I still don't know if you've answer my question or not, which was, please explain how the water above the moon, sun, and stars fits into your scheme. Yes, I'm still wondering how the water above the sun and above the stars got involved with Noah's flood. Marion here, I assumed that you could read and draw the conclusion yourself. There are two different prepositions used in these verses. The first preposition has the waters toward but not above the firmament. That is the simple answer to your question. Steve continued:
I realize that, as usual, you are engaging in some kind of bizarre straw man discussion about what I have or haven't pointed out, but your straw man misrepresentation of what I have or haven't done is really very silly. When and where have I ever said anything about prepositions being the same? Where did you get this crazy notion about me?
Here is Genesis 1:6-7, from a variety of versions:
[RSV]
Now compare this to Genesis 1:14-17.
[NIV] [NASB] [ASV] [KJV] [Young's Literal Translation] Again, I'm asking for you to explain how the water above the sun and above the stars got involved with Noah's flood. I have never said one word about prepositions being the same. I would appreciate it if you could bring yourself to actually address this point rather then engaging in more silly misrepresentation of me on this. Sincerely, Steve Heiden Marion here, The waters were not above the firmament as you suppose. These translations are accurate if it is understood that something could be "in" something else but at the bottom of it. For example, God tells us that the birds fly in the open firmament of heaven (Genesis 1:20) and they are not a flying "above the moon, sun, and stars." You do not have to know Hebrew to see this. Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. Now then, let me argue from the Lord's definition of the word "firmament." God said: Genesis 1:6-8 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And 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. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. Note that God defines the firmament as "heaven." in verse 8. Now what does the word "heaven" mean throughout the Scriptures? We shall allow the Scriptures to define this word for us. First, let us note in Genesis 1:20 (quoted above) that the birds are flying in the open firmament (the expanse) of heaven. This defines it for us. The firmament must be the sky. Remember the definition of this word is "expanse." Second, the word "heaven" does refer to the sky in some other passages (Genesis 7:23 etc.). The word "heaven" is usually plural. Paul speaks of at least three heavens (II Corinthians 12:2). He calls the third heaven "paradise" in this passage. It is evident that paradise must mean the spirit realm (Hades). The first heaven is, no doubt, where the birds fly. The second heaven is where the Sun, Moon, Stars, etc. are. The waters were toward or unto the expanse of the first heaven and not in the second heaven. He should have used a different preposition to describe it in Genesis 1:7 to fit your interpretation. Yours in His service, Marion R. Fox --- In BereanSpirit, Marion R. Fox wrote (post #49685):
Marion here,
Steve posted the following:
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 4:39 PM
Marion here,
Subject: Re: FFB 5 SH/MF, waters above the firmament Dear Marion, I don't really know if you've answered my question or not, which was, please explain how the water above the moon, sun, and stars fits into your scheme. I'm still wondering how the water above the sun and above the stars got involved with Noah's flood. If your explanation is that the firmament of Genesis 1:6-10 and the firmament of Genesis 1:14-19 are not the same firmament but are two different firmaments, then please just say so. Here is part of my former post:
Steve neglects to tell the readers that there are different prepositions on the word "firmament" in Genesis 1:7 and Genesis 1:14. In Genesis 1:7 the inseparable preposition "le" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "to, for, at" (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'to' or 'for'" (page 26) Weingreen states that it is the essential element in the preposition translated "unto" (page 27) In Genesis 1:14 the inseparable preposition "be" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "in, by, with." (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'in', 'with', or 'by.'" (page 26)
Steve, my point is that there are different prepositions used here and your interpretation is that the prepositions are the same. You have the waters being above the firmament, that is in space somewhere but that is not what the Hebrew text says. The waters are toward the firmament (Genesis 1:7), not in the firmament as we find in Genesis 1:14. How do you distinguish these different prepositions?
Yates, Kyle M.; Owens, John Joseph. (1954). The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew. New York: Harper & Row Pub. Weingreen, J. (1975). A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. |
Dear BereanSpirit readers, Please note that even though God's Word plainly states in Genesis 1:6-7 that the water is "above" the firmament, Marion Fox denies that the water was "above" the firmament. So it turns out that while Marion was attempting to misrepresent me on this, it is Marion himself who denies the meaning of the preposition that is used here. Sincerely, Steve Heiden --- In BereanSpirit, Marion R. Fox wrote (post #49729):
Steve posted the following:
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 9:06 AM
[snip]
Subject: Re: FFB 5 SH/MF, waters above the firmament
Here is Genesis 1:6-7, from a variety of versions:
[snip]
[RSV]
Now compare this to Genesis 1:14-17.
[NIV] [NASB] [ASV] [KJV] [Young's Literal Translation] The waters were not above the firmament as you suppose. [snip] |
Marion here, Steve posted the following:
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: FFB 5, waters above the firmament, Marion's denial of Scripture Dear BereanSpirit readers, Please note that even though God's Word plainly states in Genesis 1:6-7 that the water is "above" the firmament, Marion Fox denies that the water was "above" the firmament. So it turns out that while Marion was attempting to misrepresent me on this, it is Marion himself who denies the meaning of the preposition that is used here. Sincerely, Steve Heiden Marion here, There is no denial of Scripture. I am the only one in this debate that is elevating Scripture. My opponents wish to use science to trump or veto their interpretations of the word of almighty God! If the firmament is the sky, then the waters could be above the sky (at the top of the atmosphere). But I pointed out that the Hebrew does not say what Steve claims it says. Here is part of my first post where I responded to Steve.
Steve neglects to tell the readers that there are different prepositions on the word "firmament" in Genesis 1:7 and Genesis 1:14. In Genesis 1:7 the inseparable preposition "le" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "to, for, at" (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'to' or 'for'" (page 26) Weingreen states that it is the essential element in the preposition translated "unto" (page 27) In Genesis 1:14 the inseparable preposition "be" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "in, by, with." (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'in', 'with', or 'by.'" (page 26)
Yates, Kyle M.; Owens, John Joseph. (1954). The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew. New York: Harper & Row Pub. Weingreen, J. (1975). A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Steve persists in ignoring this information. I see no need to discuss if further until he replies to it and to my other arguments. Here is part of the same post as above.
Steve obviously did not check out his prepositions in these two verses. I have only taken the first year of Hebrew but I know enough to know that Steve "missed the boat here" as he did in Genesis 6-9. Pun intended.
For the benefit of the readers on the Berean Spirit List. The word translated "firmament" in the KJV is always translated "firmament" in the KJV. It is found in the following passages: Genesis 1:6, 7 (three times), 8, 14, 15, 17, 20, Psalm 19:1, 150:1, Ezekiel 1:22, 23, 25, 26, 10:1, and Daniel 12:3. I have allowed the Scriptures to define the word for us in my book and in my post. In several of these passages it obviously does not refer to the sky or to space (where the stars, planets, etc. exist). We must allow the context to define this word as I have done. I admit that this is hermeneutics, but it is sound hermeneutics to allow the context to define the word. God defined this word for us in Genesis 1:8. The Lord defined the word "firmament" as I pointed out in my last post and Steve ignored my argument. I see no need to respond to him on this until he replies to my arguments. There are two arguments to be answered by Steve: First, I argued from the Hebrew and he ignored my appeal to the original Hebrew. Second, I argued from the Scriptures themselves that God has defined the word for us and that I am using God's definition of the word "firmament" in the context. (Genesis 1:7-8). Now I will add an additional clarification of why I gave the readers all of the passages where the Hebrew word translated "firmament" are found. A study of these passages reveals that the word "firmament" just means an "expanse." The context must tell us what that expanse is. For example, in Psalm 150:1 it does not refer to a physical realm at all. In Ezekiel 1:22, 23, 25, 26, and 10:1 this word does not appear to refer to a physical realm either. The context must define this word and I have used the context to define it. Remember that the Hebrew may not be accurately translated but whether it is or not is not important because it is defined for us by God Himself in Genesis 1:8. My main argument, in my book, was not from the Hebrew but from the definition in the context. I have sufficiently proven my case from the definition in the context. Yours in His service, Marion R. Fox |
--- In BereanSpirit, Steve Heiden wrote:
Dear BereanSpirit readers,
Please note that even though God's Word plainly states in Genesis 1:6-7 that the water is "above" the firmament, Marion Fox denies that the water was "above" the firmament. Dale responds: Dear BereanSpirit readers, Please note that even though God's Word plainly states in Genesis 1:6-8 that "the evening and the morning were the second day", Steve Heiden denies that the second day was a "day". In Him, Dale Watson |
Dear Dale, You haven't explained how the waters above the sun and above the stars got involved with Noah's flood either, so let's not get ahead of ourselves! In fact, I'm not the one teaching that Genesis 1 is supposed to be interpreted in a technical, scientific fashion, so please don't try to present me as having some kind of problem because I don't follow the hermeneutical approach that you use. This hermeneutical approach of young earth creationists is wrong, and an aspect of this is what is being demonstrated right now. Sincerely, Steve Heiden --- In BereanSpirit, Dale Watson wrote (post #49740):
--- In BereanSpirit, Steve Heiden wrote:
Dear BereanSpirit readers,
Dale responds:
Please note that even though God's Word plainly states in Genesis 1:6-7 that the water is "above" the firmament, Marion Fox denies that the water was "above" the firmament. Dear BereanSpirit readers, Please note that even though God's Word plainly states in Genesis 1:6-8 that "the evening and the morning were the second day", Steve Heiden denies that the second day was a "day". |
Dear BereanSpirit readers, I note that Marion's pedestal is in clear view -- in post #49738, Marion Fox wrote:
I am the only one in this debate that is elevating Scripture.
Yes. The only one! For some unfathomable reason, Marion wants everyone to think that I teach that the sun, moon, and stars are not "in" the firmament. As usual, we observe Marion's addiction to misrepresentation. In fact, I have stated all along that Genesis 1:14-17 states that God placed the sun, moon, and stars "in" the firmament:
[RSV]
Genesis 1:6-8 states that God separated the water with the firmament, and there were waters "under" the firmament" and waters "above the firmament." In Psalm 148:4, the psalmist asks the "waters above the heavens" to praise God. I am mystified as to why Marion is denying what the Scripture states about this. And I am still waiting for Marion's explanation of how the water above the sun and above the stars got involved with Noah's flood. Sincerely, Steve Heiden --- In BereanSpirit, Marion R. Fox wrote (post #49738):
Marion here,
Steve posted the following:
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 12:27 PM
Marion here,
Subject: Re: FFB 5, waters above the firmament, Marion's denial of Scripture Dear BereanSpirit readers, Please note that even though God's Word plainly states in Genesis 1:6-7 that the water is "above" the firmament, Marion Fox denies that the water was "above" the firmament. So it turns out that while Marion was attempting to misrepresent me on this, it is Marion himself who denies the meaning of the preposition that is used here. Sincerely, Steve Heiden There is no denial of Scripture. I am the only one in this debate that is elevating Scripture. My opponents wish to use science to trump or veto their interpretations of the word of almighty God! If the firmament is the sky, then the waters could be above the sky (at the top of the atmosphere). But I pointed out that the Hebrew does not say what Steve claims it says. Here is part of my first post where I responded to Steve.
Steve neglects to tell the readers that there are different prepositions on the word "firmament" in Genesis 1:7 and Genesis 1:14. In Genesis 1:7 the inseparable preposition "le" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "to, for, at" (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'to' or 'for'" (page 26) Weingreen states that it is the essential element in the preposition translated "unto" (page 27) In Genesis 1:14 the inseparable preposition "be" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "in, by, with." (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'in', 'with', or 'by.'" (page 26)
Steve persists in ignoring this information. I see no need to discuss if further until he replies to it and to my other arguments.
Yates, Kyle M.; Owens, John Joseph. (1954). The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew. New York: Harper & Row Pub. Weingreen, J. (1975). A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Here is part of the same post as above.
Steve obviously did not check out his prepositions in these two verses. I have only taken the first year of Hebrew but I know enough to know that Steve "missed the boat here" as he did in Genesis 6-9. Pun intended.
The Lord defined the word "firmament" as I pointed out in my last post and Steve ignored my argument. I see no need to respond to him on this until he replies to my arguments.
For the benefit of the readers on the Berean Spirit List. The word translated "firmament" in the KJV is always translated "firmament" in the KJV. It is found in the following passages: Genesis 1:6, 7 (three times), 8, 14, 15, 17, 20, Psalm 19:1, 150:1, Ezekiel 1:22, 23, 25, 26, 10:1, and Daniel 12:3. I have allowed the Scriptures to define the word for us in my book and in my post. In several of these passages it obviously does not refer to the sky or to space (where the stars, planets, etc. exist). We must allow the context to define this word as I have done. I admit that this is hermeneutics, but it is sound hermeneutics to allow the context to define the word. God defined this word for us in Genesis 1:8. There are two arguments to be answered by Steve: First, I argued from the Hebrew and he ignored my appeal to the original Hebrew. Second, I argued from the Scriptures themselves that God has defined the word for us and that I am using God's definition of the word "firmament" in the context. (Genesis 1:7-8). Now I will add an additional clarification of why I gave the readers all of the passages where the Hebrew word translated "firmament" are found. A study of these passages reveals that the word "firmament" just means an "expanse." The context must tell us what that expanse is. For example, in Psalm 150:1 it does not refer to a physical realm at all. In Ezekiel 1:22, 23, 25, 26, and 10:1 this word does not appear to refer to a physical realm either. The context must define this word and I have used the context to define it. Remember that the Hebrew may not be accurately translated but whether it is or not is not important because it is defined for us by God Himself in Genesis 1:8. My main argument, in my book, was not from the Hebrew but from the definition in the context. I have sufficiently proven my case from the definition in the context. |
--- In BereanSpirit, Steve Heiden wrote:
In fact, I'm not the one teaching that Genesis 1 is supposed to be interpreted in a technical, scientific fashion, so please don't try to present me as having some kind of problem because I don't follow the hermeneutical approach that you use.
Dale responds: That ain't gonna fly around folks with common sense, Steve. YOU are the one who said "Please note that even though God's Word plainly states...". So please don't try to pretend you are using some high-falutin, new fangled "hermeneutical approach" so far above and beyond those of us who use the same exact terminology to defend God's precious Word against your socalled intellectual attacks. Did that register on at least some level of your consciousness? In Him, Dale Watson
This hermeneutical approach of young earth creationists is wrong, and an aspect of this is what is being demonstrated right now.
Sincerely, Steve Heiden --- In BereanSpirit, Dale Watson wrote (post #49740):
--- In BereanSpirit, Steve Heiden wrote:
Dear BereanSpirit readers,
Dale responds:
Please note that even though God's Word plainly states in Genesis 1:6-7 that the water is "above" the firmament, Marion Fox denies that the water was "above" the firmament. Dear BereanSpirit readers, Please note that even though God's Word plainly states in Genesis 1:6-8 that "the evening and the morning were the second day", Steve Heiden denies that the second day was a "day". |
Dear Dale, Your diversionary rhetoric is not going to work here. It is quite obvious that I do not advocate your hermeneutical approach to Genesis 1. It is quite obvious that I am trying to get Marion (or you) to explain how your interpretation of this text makes any sense using your hermeneutical approach. If your interpretation of the text using your hermeneutical approach leads to nonsense, this is evidence that there is a problem with your hermeneutical approach. I have asked you, as well as Marion, to explain how the water above the sun and above the stars became involved with Noah's flood. You have not addressed this point. Perhaps you understand intuitively that your hermeneutical approach leads to a nonsensical interpretation of this, so you refrain from addressing the point because this would bring the nonsense of your interpretive approach out in the open. Unlike you, I do not teach that Genesis 1 is supposed to be interpreted in a technical, scientific fashion. The description of creation in Genesis is a metaphorical one, not a technical, scientific description. Therefore, the statement in Genesis 1 regarding the waters being "above" the firmament, and regarding God setting the sun, moon, and stars "in" the firmament, is not something that is any kind of problem for my interpretive approach. Apparently you and I have very different conceptions of what constitutes common sense. Sincerely, Steve Heiden --- In BereanSpirit, Dale Watson wrote (post #49750):
--- In BereanSpirit, Steve Heiden wrote:
In fact, I'm not the one teaching that Genesis 1 is supposed to be interpreted in a technical, scientific fashion, so please don't try to present me as having some kind of problem because I don't follow the hermeneutical approach that you use.
Dale responds: That ain't gonna fly around folks with common sense, Steve. YOU are the one who said "Please note that even though God's Word plainly states...". So please don't try to pretend you are using some high-falutin, new fangled "hermeneutical approach" so far above and beyond those of us who use the same exact terminology to defend God's precious Word against your socalled intellectual attacks.
Did that register on at least some level of your consciousness? In Him, Dale Watson
This hermeneutical approach of young earth creationists is wrong, and an aspect of this is what is being demonstrated right now.
Sincerely, Steve Heiden --- In BereanSpirit, Dale Watson wrote (post #49740):
--- In BereanSpirit, Steve Heiden wrote:
Dear BereanSpirit readers,
Dale responds:
Please note that even though God's Word plainly states in Genesis 1:6-7 that the water is "above" the firmament, Marion Fox denies that the water was "above" the firmament. Dear BereanSpirit readers, Please note that even though God's Word plainly states in Genesis 1:6-8 that "the evening and the morning were the second day", Steve Heiden denies that the second day was a "day". |
Marion here, Steve posted the following:
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: FFB 5, waters above the firmament, Marion denies Scripture Dear BereanSpirit readers, I note that Marion's pedestal is in clear view -- in post #49738, Marion Fox wrote:
I am the only one in this debate that is elevating Scripture.
Yes. The only one!
Marion here, Thanks for the admission. :):) However, Steve did not quote the whole paragraph. Here is the paragraph he should have quoted:
"There is no denial of Scripture. I am the only one in this debate that is elevating Scripture. My opponents wish to use science to trump or veto their interpretations of the word of almighty God!"
Note how these fellows take me out of context and then falsely accuse me of taking scientists out of context. Well, what do you expect from ones who allow science to override, trump, or veto their interpretation of the Scriptures? What do you think about someone who will go to science before he interprets the Scriptures. Here is my proof of this assertion:
Major Premise: All those who allow science to trump their interpretation of the Scriptures are those who fail to elevate the Scriptures.
Minor Premise: My adversaries are those who allow science to trump their interpretation of the Scriptures. Conclusion: My adversaries are those who fail to elevate the Scriptures. Assertion proven! Steve continued:
For some unfathomable reason, Marion wants everyone to think that I teach that the sun, moon, and stars are not "in" the firmament. As usual, we observe Marion's addiction to misrepresentation. In fact, I have stated all along that Genesis 1:14-17 states that God placed the sun, moon, and stars "in" the firmament:
Marion here, I am unable to find where I claimed you "teach that the sun, moon, and stars are not "in" the firmament." Perhaps you can tell me what post I said this in, please give the date and time of the post so I can find it. Does God use the same prepositions in verse 14 that He used in verse 8? Steve, tell us the difference in these prepositions? Is the preposition in verse 7 properly translated "above?" At this point I reintroduce the quote of part of my first response. Here is part of my first post where I responded to Steve.
Steve neglects to tell the readers that there are different prepositions on the word "firmament" in Genesis 1:7 and Genesis 1:14. In Genesis 1:7 the inseparable preposition "le" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "to, for, at" (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'to' or 'for'" (page 26) Weingreen states that it is the essential element in the preposition translated "unto" (page 27) In Genesis 1:14 the inseparable preposition "be" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "in, by, with." (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'in', 'with', or 'by.'" (page 26)
Yates, Kyle M.; Owens, John Joseph. (1954). The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew. New York: Harper & Row Pub. Weingreen, J. (1975). A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Now I add an additional point to the above information. "The dative case is shown by the preposition 'le'." (Yates and Owens, page 29) This is not the locative case in Hebrew but the dative case. The dative case denotes "toward." Gesenius defines 'le' as "towards, (belonging to) to, for, Latin ad." (page 298) Gesenius (as edited by Kautzsch, E.; Cowley, A. E.) 1988. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press. I wish to add the following quote to this discussion:
"The preposition l, like the other monographic prepositions b and k, serves a wide variety of functions (cf. 11.2.10). It marks location 'to, toward,' and 'at, near,' as well as analogous time references; it is the preposition of transformation 'into' and belonging 'to,' ..." (Waltke & O Conner, pages 183-184)
"A variety of its senses are often rendered by English 'to' in its diverse meanings. Since a number of the senses of l are represented by the dative case in Latin or Greek or both, many grammars and dictionaries refer to, for example, the lamed of the ethical dative; such terminology is only acceptable if it be remembered that Hebrew (like English) has no distinct and interrelated set of datival functions." (Waltke & O Conner, page 205) Waltke, Bruce K; O'Conner, M. (1990) An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Now then, I ask Steve a question that will help to clarify this matter further. Why did not the Holy Spirit use the Hebrew preposition "gal" that is found in Genesis 1:20 (translated "above")? Surely the Holy Spirit, by using a different preposition, intended that we draw some kind of distinction between these words. Oh, yes, I forgot that you fellows do not believe in verbal-plenary inspiration. In now go back to my earlier argument that Steve totally overlooked. I refer the readers to the fact that I claimed that God defined the word "firmament" for us. I went to God's definition of the firmament and Steve ignored it. I will now quote what I wrote in my earlier posts.
There is no denial of Scripture. I am the only one in this debate that is elevating Scripture. My opponents wish to use science to trump or veto their interpretations of the word of almighty God!
If the firmament is the sky, then the waters could be above the sky (at the top of the atmosphere). But I pointed out that the Hebrew does not say what Steve claims it says. Here is part of my first post where I responded to Steve.
Steve neglects to tell the readers that there are different prepositions on the word "firmament" in Genesis 1:7 and Genesis 1:14. In Genesis 1:7 the inseparable preposition "le" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "to, for, at" (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'to' or 'for'" (page 26) Weingreen states that it is the essential element in the preposition translated "unto" (page 27) In Genesis 1:14 the inseparable preposition "be" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "in, by, with." (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'in', 'with', or 'by.'" (page 26)
Yates, Kyle M.; Owens, John Joseph. (1954). The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew. New York: Harper & Row Pub. Weingreen, J. (1975). A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Steve persists in ignoring this information. I see no need to discuss if further until he replies to it and to my other arguments. Here is part of the same post as above.
Steve obviously did not check out his prepositions in these two verses. I have only taken the first year of Hebrew but I know enough to know that Steve "missed the boat here" as he did in Genesis 6-9. Pun intended.
The Lord defined the word "firmament" as I pointed out in my last post and Steve ignored my argument. I see no need to respond to him on this until he replies to my arguments.
For the benefit of the readers on the Berean Spirit List. The word translated "firmament" in the KJV is always translated "firmament" in the KJV. It is found in the following passages: Genesis 1:6, 7 (three times), 8, 14, 15, 17, 20, Psalm 19:1, 150:1, Ezekiel 1:22, 23, 25, 26, 10:1, and Daniel 12:3. I have allowed the Scriptures to define the word for us in my book and in my post. In several of these passages it obviously does not refer to the sky or to space (where the stars, planets, etc. exist). We must allow the context to define this word as I have done. I admit that this is hermeneutics, but it is sound hermeneutics to allow the context to define the word. God defined this word for us in Genesis 1:8. There are two arguments to be answered by Steve: First, I argued from the Hebrew and he ignored my appeal to the original Hebrew. Second, I argued from the Scriptures themselves that God has defined the word for us and that I am using God's definition of the word "firmament" in the context. (Genesis 1:7-8). Now I will add an additional clarification of why I gave the readers all of the passages where the Hebrew word translated "firmament" are found. A study of these passages reveals that the word "firmament" just means an "expanse." The context must tell us what that expanse is. For example, in Psalm 150:1 it does not refer to a physical realm at all. In Ezekiel 1:22, 23, 25, 26, and 10:1 this word does not appear to refer to a physical realm either. The context must define this word and I have used the context to define it. Remember that the Hebrew may not be accurately translated but whether it is or not is not important because it is defined for us by God Himself in Genesis 1:8. My main argument, in my book, was not from the Hebrew but from the definition in the context. I have sufficiently proven my case from the definition in the context. Steve continued:
[RSV]
Genesis 1:6-8 states that God separated the water with the firmament, and there were waters "under" the firmament" and waters "above the firmament."
In Psalm 148:4, the psalmist asks the "waters above the heavens" to praise God. I am mystified as to why Marion is denying what the Scripture states about this. And I am still waiting for Marion's explanation of how the water above the sun and above the stars got involved with Noah's flood. Sincerely, Steve Heiden Marion here, Steve has not answered my arguments on this matter. The firmament is the place where the birds fly and the water is in the upper atmosphere. That is a rational interpretation of this passage of Scripture. I defined the word "expanse" or "firmament" from the context but Steve ignores my definition. He has not even mentioned my arguments. That is the way old Earth creationists deal with arguments from the Scriptures. Is it because they elevate science so much that he would spend so great a time on scientific arguments and so little time dealing with biblical arguments? I find that to be quite illuminating. Steve are you a Jew? You observed the "passover" when you came to my two arguments. I have also been mystified that Steve would deny what the Scriptures say in Genesis 6-9 about the extent of the flood. Yours in His service, Marion R. Fox
--- In BereanSpirit, Marion R. Fox wrote (post #49738):
Marion here,
Steve posted the following:
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 12:27 PM
Marion here,
Subject: Re: FFB 5, waters above the firmament, Marion's denial of Scripture Dear BereanSpirit readers, Please note that even though God's Word plainly states in Genesis 1:6-7 that the water is "above" the firmament, Marion Fox denies that the water was "above" the firmament. So it turns out that while Marion was attempting to misrepresent me on this, it is Marion himself who denies the meaning of the preposition that is used here. Sincerely, Steve Heiden There is no denial of Scripture. I am the only one in this debate that is elevating Scripture. My opponents wish to use science to trump or veto their interpretations of the word of almighty God! If the firmament is the sky, then the waters could be above the sky (at the top of the atmosphere). But I pointed out that the Hebrew does not say what Steve claims it says. Here is part of my first post where I responded to Steve.
Steve neglects to tell the readers that there are different prepositions on the word "firmament" in Genesis 1:7 and Genesis 1:14. In Genesis 1:7 the inseparable preposition "le" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "to, for, at" (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'to' or 'for'" (page 26) Weingreen states that it is the essential element in the preposition translated "unto" (page 27) In Genesis 1:14 the inseparable preposition "be" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "in, by, with." (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'in', 'with', or 'by.'" (page 26)
Steve persists in ignoring this information. I see no need to discuss if further until he replies to it and to my other arguments.
Yates, Kyle M.; Owens, John Joseph. (1954). The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew. New York: Harper & Row Pub. Weingreen, J. (1975). A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Here is part of the same post as above.
Steve obviously did not check out his prepositions in these two verses. I have only taken the first year of Hebrew but I know enough to know that Steve "missed the boat here" as he did in Genesis 6-9. Pun intended.
The Lord defined the word "firmament" as I pointed out in my last post and Steve ignored my argument. I see no need to respond to him on this until he replies to my arguments.
For the benefit of the readers on the Berean Spirit List. The word translated "firmament" in the KJV is always translated "firmament" in the KJV. It is found in the following passages: Genesis 1:6, 7 (three times), 8, 14, 15, 17, 20, Psalm 19:1, 150:1, Ezekiel 1:22, 23, 25, 26, 10:1, and Daniel 12:3. I have allowed the Scriptures to define the word for us in my book and in my post. In several of these passages it obviously does not refer to the sky or to space (where the stars, planets, etc. exist). We must allow the context to define this word as I have done. I admit that this is hermeneutics, but it is sound hermeneutics to allow the context to define the word. God defined this word for us in Genesis 1:8. There are two arguments to be answered by Steve: First, I argued from the Hebrew and he ignored my appeal to the original Hebrew. Second, I argued from the Scriptures themselves that God has defined the word for us and that I am using God's definition of the word "firmament" in the context. (Genesis 1:7-8). Now I will add an additional clarification of why I gave the readers all of the passages where the Hebrew word translated "firmament" are found. A study of these passages reveals that the word "firmament" just means an "expanse." The context must tell us what that expanse is. For example, in Psalm 150:1 it does not refer to a physical realm at all. In Ezekiel 1:22, 23, 25, 26, and 10:1 this word does not appear to refer to a physical realm either. The context must define this word and I have used the context to define it. Remember that the Hebrew may not be accurately translated but whether it is or not is not important because it is defined for us by God Himself in Genesis 1:8. My main argument, in my book, was not from the Hebrew but from the definition in the context. I have sufficiently proven my case from the definition in the context. |
Dear BereanSpirit readers, Yet again Marion chooses to lead us down a trail into his jungle of word games. In post #49781, he now seems to be pretending that he has not tried to misrepresent me as saying that the preposition used in Genesis 1:6-8 ("above") is the same as in Genesis 1:14-17 ("in"), and then he immediately asks:
Does God use the same prepositions in verse 14 that He used in verse 8?
It is obvious that the prepositions are two different prepositions ("above" and "in"). This is what I have pointed out starting with my very first post to Marion on this matter. His obtuseness on this has descended to the bizarre. In my posts I have stated that the two prepositions are different, both implicitly and explicitly, and it is exceedingly strange how Marion keeps asking this question as if I have never answered it. The only reason that I can come up with is that he is still attempting to give everyone the impression that somehow I think the two prepositions are the same. Here are the relevant posts on this:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/49616
In post #49625 Marion wrote about me:
Steve neglects to tell the readers that there are different prepositions on the word "firmament" in Genesis 1:7 and Genesis 1:14.
Marion was implying that for some odd reason I thought the two prepositions were the same. But if you look at post #49616, I had directly quoted all of the cited verses from Genesis 1, and then written:
Verse 7 states that "God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament." Verse 17 states that God set the sun, moon, and stars "in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth."
And after this I even quoted Martin Luther's literal interpretation of this text, I wrote:
Here is the literal interpretation of this text, from someone [Luther] who was willing to give it:
Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters....
My last sentence in that post was, "Marion, please explain how the water above the moon, sun, and stars fits into your scheme." Note that I wrote about the water being above the moon, sun, and stars and not with the moon, sun, and stars. When Marion wrote "Steve neglects to tell the readers that there are different prepositions on the word "firmament" in Genesis 1:7 and Genesis 1:14" he made a false statement about me. When Marion wrote "Steve obviously did not check out his prepositions in these two verses" he made a false statement about me. In post #49685, Marion wrote "Steve, my point is that there are different prepositions used here and your interpretation is that the prepositions are the same." Again, his statement about my interpretation is entirely false. In my post #49717, I very explicitly wrote to Marion:
When and where have I ever said anything about prepositions being the same? Where did you get this crazy notion about me?
In that post, I also wrote:
I have never said one word about prepositions being the same. I would appreciate it if you could bring yourself to actually address this point rather than engaging in more silly misrepresentation of me on this.
Why is Marion so strongly addicted to misrepresentation of me on this matter? In his latest post on this, #49781, Marion writes:
I am unable to find where I claimed you "teach that the sun, moon, and stars are not "in" the firmament." Perhaps you can tell me what post I said this in, please give the date and time of the post so I can find it.
Does God use the same prepositions in verse 14 that He used in verse 8? Steve, tell us the difference in these prepositions? Is the preposition in verse 7 properly translated "above?" Can Marion spell "obtuse"? Again, I see that Keith is merely a shadow of his hero. We also note here that Marion has completely ignored the words of Psalm 148:4. What we are observing right before our eyes, Bereans, is a man trying to bury in a thicket of misrepresentation and confusion a question about scripture asked of him, rather than give us a straight answer. Here are the relevant verses again, all together: Genesis 1:6-7:
[RSV]
[NIV] [NASB] [ASV] [KJV] [Young's Literal Translation] Genesis 1:14-17:
[RSV]
Psalm 148:1-4:
[RSV]
Praise the LORD from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host! Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars! Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens! So at this point, we are still waiting for Marion's explanation of how the water above the sun and above the stars got involved with Noah's flood, and I'm actually quite amazed at Marion's denial of scripture on this. Sincerely, Steve Heiden |
Marion here, Steve posted the following:
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: FFB 5, waters above the firmament, Marion's denial of Scripture Dear BereanSpirit readers, Yet again Marion chooses to lead us down a trail into his jungle of word games. In post #49781, he now seems to be pretending that he has not tried to misrepresent me as saying that the preposition used in Genesis 1:6-8 ("above") is the same as in Genesis 1:14-17 ("in"), and then he immediately asks:
Does God use the same prepositions in verse 14 that He used in verse 8?
It is obvious that the prepositions are two different prepositions ("above" and "in"). This is what I have pointed out starting with my very first post to Marion on this matter. His obtuseness on this has descended to the bizarre. In my posts I have stated that the two prepositions are different, both implicitly and explicitly, and it is exceedingly strange how Marion keeps asking this question as if I have never answered it. The only reason that I can come up with is that he is still attempting to give everyone the impression that somehow I think the two prepositions are the same.
Here are the relevant posts on this:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/49616
In post #49625 Marion wrote about me:
Steve neglects to tell the readers that there are different prepositions on the word "firmament" in Genesis 1:7 and Genesis 1:14.
Marion was implying that for some odd reason I thought the two prepositions were the same. But if you look at post #49616, I had directly quoted all of the cited verses from Genesis 1, and then written:
Marion here, Steve is correct on this one point. I should have said that he was implying that the preposition of Genesis 1:7 was the same as the preposition in Genesis 1:20. I apologize for the mistake. I just picked up the post and modified it without looking back at the verses. I will try to be more careful next time. Steve continued:
Verse 7 states that "God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament." Verse 17 states that God set the sun, moon, and stars "in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth."
And after this I even quoted Martin Luther's literal interpretation of this text, I wrote:
Here is the literal interpretation of this text, from someone [Luther] who was willing to give it:
My last sentence in that post was, "Marion, please explain how the water above the moon, sun, and stars fits into your scheme." Note that I wrote about the water being above the moon, sun, and stars and not with the moon, sun, and stars.
Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters....
Marion here, First of all I do not agree with Martin Luther's interpretation and see absolutely no need to defend it. Second, I have point out that the word translated "above" in Genesis 1:7 is not the same word as the word translated "above" in Genesis 1:20. Since the Holy Spirit used different words here, there must be some difference in the meaning of the two prepositions. Third, I pointed out in my former post that the word "firmament" was defined by God in Genesis 1:8 as "heaven." I now insert my former post on this matter for the readers (with some modifications).
There is no denial of Scripture. I am the only one in this debate that is elevating Scripture. My opponents wish to use science to trump or veto their interpretations of the word of almighty God!
If the firmament is the sky, then the waters could be above the sky (at the top of the atmosphere). But I pointed out that the Hebrew does not say what Steve's doctrine implies that it says (Steve would have to equate the preposition of Genesis 1:7 to the preposition of Genesis 1:20). Steve interprets the preposition of Genesis 1:7 as if it has the same meaning as the preposition of Genesis 1:20. In Genesis 1:7 the inseparable preposition "le" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "to, for, at" (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'to' or 'for'" (page 26) Weingreen states that it is the essential element in the preposition translated "unto" (page 27) In Genesis 1:14 the inseparable preposition "be" is found. Yates and Owens define this word as "in, by, with." (page 23) Weingreen defines this word as "'in', 'with', or 'by.'" (page 26) In Genesis 1:20 the preposition "'l" is found. "The relation 'at or near the top' is basic for this preposition." (Waltke and O'Conner, pages 216). Note that the birds are flying above the Earth (Genesis 1:20). If this preposition had been used by the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1:7, Steve would have a good case for his claim that the water must be "above the moon, sun, and stars." The preposition "le" gives him absolutely no support. This is particularly true in light of the meaning of the preposition "le" of verse 7. Yates, Kyle M.; Owens, John Joseph. (1954). The Essentials of Biblical Hebrew. New York: Harper & Row Pub. Weingreen, J. (1975). A Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Waltke, Bruce K.; O'Conner, M. (1990) An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. For the benefit of the readers on the Berean Spirit List. The word translated "firmament" in the KJV is always translated "firmament" in the KJV. It is found in the following passages: Genesis 1:6, 7 (three times), 8, 14, 15, 17, 20, Psalm 19:1, 150:1, Ezekiel 1:22, 23, 25, 26, 10:1, and Daniel 12:3. I have allowed the Scriptures to define the word for us in my book and in my post. In several of these passages it obviously does not refer to the sky or to space (where the stars, planets, etc. exist). We must allow the context to define this word as I have done. I admit that this is hermeneutics, but it is sound hermeneutics to allow the context to define the word. God defined this word for us in Genesis 1:8. There are two arguments to be answered by Steve: First, I argued from the Hebrew (above) that there are different words translated "above" in Genesis 1:7 and 1:20. I argued that the word translated "above" in Genesis 1:7 does not normally mean "above" like the word of Genesis 1:20. Second, I argued from the Scriptures themselves that God has defined the word for us and that I am using God's definition of the word "firmament" in the context. (Genesis 1:7-8). Now I will add an additional clarification of why I gave the readers all of the passages where the Hebrew word translated "firmament" are found. A study of these passages reveals that the word "firmament" just means an "expanse." The context must tell us what that expanse is. For example, in Psalm 150:1 it does not refer to a physical realm at all. In Ezekiel 1:22, 23, 25, 26, and 10:1 this word does not appear to refer to a physical realm either. The context must define this word and I have used the context to define it. Remember that the Hebrew may not be accurately translated but whether it is or not is not important because it is defined for us by God Himself in Genesis 1:8. My main argument, in my book, was not from the Hebrew but from the definition in the context. I have sufficiently proven my case from the definition in the context. Yours in His service, Marion R. Fox |