smugg

Strong's Concordance doesn't agree: shamayim seems to be the word most used for heaven(s) (as in Isaiah 40:22 and 42:5, both of which have been quoted often in this thread) -- <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1014451340.html" target="_blank">click here.</a>

Could you provide a source for your information?

TrueThinker

Yes, you are correct. But that agrees with what I am saying. Any use of shamayim and erets in the same sentence is taken to be speaking of things in terms of the entire universe, hence "heavens"- plural. That is how it is used in the verses from Isaiah. I believe if it is speaking specifically of the earth's sky the word raqiyah is used in conjunction with shamayim. Go to the site you quoted from and search for other similar verses and re-read those verses keeping in mind what I told you.

NOGO

I hope that you are true to your name.
Is it the whole universe being stretched out?
Before I answer this let me point out that students of ancient languages do not have dictionaries to go by so they very often rely on context to determine what a word means. This is the same technique which we all used in our early years to understand the babble which our parents subjected us to. So we are all experts on this technique. There is also word roots etc. which philologists use but we wont go into that.

You must have missed my two postings in this same thread on page 3. Please read them because I don`t want to repeat too much material here. Always keep in mind that in Genesis God called the expanse/firmament heaven. So heaven = expanse/firmament.

There is basically two reasons that it can't be the whole universe.

First
Genesis 1 says that the expanse or firmament seperates water below the expanse from water above it. What is this expanse?
If you read my first posting you will see that it is a solid surface (see Is 40:22, Rev 6:12-15, Ezekiel 1) which looks like a dome or tent over the earth. Now the whole universe DOES NOT look like a tent over the earth. It`s that simple.

Some minor sub-points
Note also that in Genesis it says that the sun, moon and stars were made to shine light unpon the earth. I relate this to the tent abover the earth (Is 40:22) because they both show a belief that the world is earth centred

In Mt 24 Jesus says that heaven and earth will pass away but his words will not pass away.
If heaven is the whole univers then it is placed in balance (in comparison) with little earth.
The universe and the earth will pass away ???
But the earth is part of the universe and the universe is huge and the earth is but a little spec.
Now if heaven is a tent-like dome above a flat earth then the expression "heaven and earth will pass away..." makes perfect sense. In this case the earth and the heaven are of comparable size.

Second
In my second posting in this thread I discussed the water connection. The exapanse seperates water from water so what is the water above the expanse. If you read this part you will see that the water above the expanse is used for rain.

So if the expanse/firmament (ie heaven) is the whole universe then the water above the expanse/firmament is above the whole universe. How then can it be used for rain? It can't!

The only conclusion possible is that the expanse/firmament is not the whole universe. It is a tent-like dome over a flat earth.

[ February 23, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

NOGO

Raqiyah is the firmament or expanse which is in Genesis. God calls this surface heaven.
Some sources show two surfaces a surface for the raqiyah and a surface for heavens. But this does not change much because in Genesis it is clearly stated that the sun, moon and stars are set IN the raqiyah (ie expanse) and not in the heavens as you are implying.

NOGO

You are making obvious mistakes here. Firstly, you assuming that these events actually took place. This is a deadly assumption which leads you to a wrong conclusion. You are right in saying that even if the earth was flat and someone was to climb a very high mountain they would not be able to see all the kingdoms of the world. From this you proceed down the wrong path to the wrong conclusion. You are trying in essense to make the story real when in fact it isn't.

What is important here is not whether it is possible to see all the kingdom of the world from a very high mountain. The important point here is that the gospel author believed it. He never tried it but still believed that if someone were to climb a very high mountain they would be able to see in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. This is much easier to believe than all of what you wrote to fix the story your way.

The word "instant" here refers to the fact that the kingdoms are all visible at once. It does not refer to the fact that Jesus went up the mountain in an instant.

So given that the gospel author believed that by going up a very high mountain all the kingdoms of the world would be visible at once then one can conclude that the gospel author believed that the earth was flat. On a flat earth this is theoretically possible while on a spherical earth is it theoretically impossible.

Let me use one of those apologetic tactics here which I am sure you will recognize. How many days, weeks, months went by between the 40 days in the desert and climb up the temple?
Simply stated, we don't know.
But again you are making the error of trying to make this story real (ie historical) You insert whatever is needed (miracles by the devil) to make it plausible.

This story never took place and need not make sense in every aspect. However, one can see the author's basic beliefs in the flat earth come through loud and clear.

This is what apologetics is all about. (ie how can we fix this?, mentality ...)
Let me play the game too. Put a few months between the 40 days in the desert and the temple climb and it becomes possible.

To show Jesus a vision there would have been no need to take him up a VERY high mountain even instantaneously as you suggest. If you stop trying to make this story real then you would see the light. The gospel author believed that a way to show a person all the kindoms of the world was to take him up a very high mountain. That is the reason he wrote it this way. And in doing so he shows us his flat-earth bias.

There is no mention of a vision. You are inserting this without any good reason.

You are misreading this text here as I indicated above.

The simple fact is that YOU have completely misinterpretted the passage. You need to add all sorts of miracles, ignore the very high mountain as if it has no function in the text, add visions where none are stated and misread words like "in an instant" in order to make it work as you want it.

But the gospel author
did not mention miracles by the devil,
did not mention visions,
but DID include the very high mountain and he did it for a good reason. This is what you want to sweep under the rug and that is why you can't see the flat-earth bias.

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

TrueThinker

NOGO, I think you are missing the point. Maybe I should explain step by step.

I am in agreement with you. But I'm not sure you're understanding where I'm coming from. I am not implying that Genesis 1 says the sun, moon and stars are set in the universe (in reference to day 4). Raqiyah is speaking of the sky. Hence you have birds created to fly in the expanse of the sky, and the sun, moon, and stars are commanded to appear in the sky. Now I don't want to drift too far off topic, but wouldn't you agree with me that from the earth the sun, moon, and stars appear to be in the sky?

What exactly do we understand the sky to be today? It would be okay to say that the clouds are in the sky, would it not? So what is the sky?

p.s. I hope you are understanding my argument- "heavens", "host of the heavens", etc. speak of the universe (specific combination of shamayim and erets. "Heaven" is usually speaking of the sky or expanse of the sky. It shouldn't be confusing.

NOGO

Are commanded to appear in the sky???
No, the bible says that God placed them ...

NASB Genesis 1:17 God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,

Notice also that the purpose was to give light on earth.


I am not interested in knowing what we mean by the sky today. The question is what does the bible say that the sky is. I understand that the concept is relative. If you are on a high mountain and see birds flying beneath you and you also see clouds you are not going to say that the clouds or birds are in the sky. The sky is always above you.

I understand what you are saying but I cannot agree because the bible says something totally different.
The expanse (sky) is a surface according to the bible. I will not repeat all the arguements here but you can revisit by previous posts. God called this surface heaven and placed (PLACED not appear to be as you suggested) the sun, moon and stars in the expanse. Everything the bibles ever says on this subject agrees with this view.

Now my arguement does not just hinge on the word "placed" in Gn 1:17 please read all my posts on the subject. The expanse separates water from water... and the water above the expanse is used for rain etc etc.
The expanse is a surface which opened up to Ezekiel and scrolled away in Revelation.

Now, there is a case for a two surface universe here as you suggest.
But this does not help your case because the sun moon and stars are placed in the expanse not in the other surface. Nowhere in the bible you will find even a hint that the other surface has anything to do with the sun, moon and stars.

The conclusion is inevitable.
You can read the book of Enoch which describes the universe as conceived by the Hebrew people around 2000 years ago.

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

TrueThinker

I think you still missunderstand what I am saying. Please tell me what you think I am saying that way I can respond better. Otherwise I think we will end up just going in circles.

NOGO

I am sorry if I misuderstood. Here is what I think that you are saying. Correct me if I am wrong.

The sun, moon and star appear to be in the heaven-sky. If you look up even today you can never guess that the universe is so immense. Therefore people back then may have believed and described what they saw and that is that the sun, moon and stars are in the heaven-sky. But this is just appearance and not reality.

The bible also speaks of another heaven, heaven-universe and this is the actual universe as we know it today.

Have I got it right?

NOGO

TrueThinker, DavidH

Where are all the answers???