Where is the 3rd Heaven?

[Retrobyter]

19 hours ago, Kan said:

True, water is water. And what is water? but matter, and what is matter made of?

See what God says in Psalms 104:3. The Psalms begins in heaven with God's throne and comes down to earth and creation. Even before the angels are mentioned, we have the what? "waters." The same waters as in the first part of Genesis 1, before God calls the earth what it is. Psalms 148:4. The "waters" are above the stars. If you think it is H2O, that's alright, because it is a kind of water, except that matter is actually made up of it, (and another thing as well). But we're way off track as far as topic goes.

Again in Psalms 148, it begins with the high heavens and talks about earth later, and in between mentioning the "waters" which be above the heavens.

Psalms 136:6 the earth is stretched above the "waters"

God asks Job what the earth is founded on, in Job 38, here is the answer, upon the waters.

If you consider it to be H2O then the earth lies upon water. All possible of course. 

Psalms 18 is about the return of Christ, and shows that the foundations of the earth will be uncovered. It talks about dark waters around God. Interesting.

Read carefully about these waters, and the foundations, and the deep, and the shadow of death, and the face of the deep, darkness, dark waters, and how it acts like stones, and is frozen, and so forth, and how if matter comes into contact with it, that it dissolves all matter with heat, and how God uses them to cause the mountains to catch fire - volcanoes and earthquakes and even rain is caused by the same. Note the underlined are all found in scripture. So what are these waters which are openly mentioned in the first book of the Bible? Tap water?

Just a thought. 

Sorry, I am so off topic.

Shalom, Kan.

LOL! Don't worry about being "off topic"; let's be honest: the background philosophy, theology, and philology of the ancient, original languages of the Scriptures are FUNDAMENTAL to a good understanding of the words and wording that we rely upon for our understanding of "the third heaven," whatever we choose to believe.

WE MUST understand that, although the Bible is NOT a textbook on science, when it speaks about scientific matters, it is CORRECT because it IS God's Word.

That being said, one must also give CAREFUL heed to the meanings of the words behind that understanding. See, while it is true that context gives us the exact meaning of the word being used, there are fundamental, foundational meanings within those words that do not change with the context. These meanings can be discovered by the OVERLAPPING of the various definitions for a word such that we see what they all have in common, the INTERSECTION of those definitions! That INTERSECTION of the definitions gives us a fundamental etymology of that word that would ring true for that word regardless the context.

Prepositions are key to relationships between words. And, the prepositions, too, are fundamental in a proper understanding of a passage of Scripture.

I don't have enough time tonight to explore all the passages you quoted above, but let's just look at one verse, Psalm 104:3.

First, one should look at several versions of that whole psalm, if one doesn't understand the Hebrew, to see that this psalm is a poem/song about the FLOOD AND THE RECREATION OF THE EARTH AFTER THE FLOOD!

Here's a couple of the versions that most closely resemble the Hebrew:

Psalm 104:1-35
1 Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty.
2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:
3 Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:
4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:
5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
6 Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.
7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.
8 They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them.
9 Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth.
10 He sendeth the springs into the valleys, which run among the hills.
11 They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst.
12 By them shall the fowls of the heaven have their habitation, which sing among the branches.
13 He watereth the hills from his chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works.
14 He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth;
15 And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.
16 The trees of the LORD are full of sap; the cedars of Lebanon, which he hath planted;
17 Where the birds make their nests: as for the stork, the fir trees are her house.
18 The high hills are a refuge for the wild goats; and the rocks for the conies.
19 He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.
20 Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth.
21 The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God.
22 The sun ariseth, they gather themselves together, and lay them down in their dens.
23 Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening.
24 O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.
25 So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.
26 There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.
27 These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season.
28 That thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good.
29 Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.
30 Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.
31 The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works.
32 He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke.
33 I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.
34 My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the LORD.
35 Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD.
KJV

Psalm 104:1-35
1 Bless the LORD, O my soul!
O LORD my God, Thou art very great;
Thou art clothed with splendor and majesty,
2 Covering Thyself with light as with a cloak,
Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain.
3 He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters;
He makes the clouds His chariot;
He walks upon the wings of the wind;
4 He makes the winds His messengers,
Flaming fire (lightning) His ministers. 

5 He established the earth upon its foundations, (the land/soil in turmoil settles)
So that it will not totter forever and ever.
6 Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment;
The waters were standing above the mountains. (This reflects back to Gen. 7:19-20.)
7 At Thy rebuke they fled;
At the sound of Thy thunder they hurried away.
8 The mountains rose; the valleys sank down (mountains grew taller, valleys grew deeper)
To the place which Thou didst establish for them.
9 Thou didst set a boundary that they may not pass over; (this refers to the continental shelfs)
That they may not return to cover the earth. 

10 He sends forth springs in the valleys;
They flow between the mountains;
11 They give drink to every beast of the field;
The wild donkeys quench their thirst.
12 Beside them the birds of the heavens dwell;
They lift up their voices among the branches.
13 He waters the mountains from His upper chambers;
The earth is satisfied with the fruit of His works. 

14 He causes the grass to grow for the cattle,
And vegetation for the labor of man,
So that he may bring forth food from the earth,
15 And wine which makes man's heart glad,
So that he may make his face glisten with oil,
And food which sustains man's heart.
16 The trees of the LORD drink their fill,
The cedars of Lebanon which He planted,
17 Where the birds build their nests,
And the stork, whose home is the fir trees. 

18 The high mountains are for the wild goats;
The cliffs are a refuge for the rock badgers.
19 He made the moon for the seasons;
The sun knows the place of its setting.
20 Thou dost appoint darkness and it becomes night,
In which all the beasts of the forest prowl about.
21 The young lions roar after their prey, (Predators prove that this is after the Flood. See Gen. 9:3-6.)
And seek their food from God.
22 When the sun rises they withdraw,
And lie down in their dens.
23 Man goes forth to his work
And to his labor until evening. 

24 O LORD, how many are Thy works!
In wisdom Thou hast made them all;
The earth is full of Thy possessions.
25 There is the sea, great and broad,
In which are swarms without number,
Animals both small and great.
26 There the ships move along,
And Leviathan, which Thou hast formed to sport in it. 

27 They all wait for Thee,
To give them their food in due season.
28 Thou dost give to them, they gather it up;
Thou dost open Thy hand, they are satisfied with good.
29 Thou dost hide Thy face, they are dismayed;
Thou dost take away their spirit, they expire,
And return to their dust.
30 Thou dost send forth Thy Spirit, they are created;
And Thou dost renew the face of the ground. (These verses prove that this is at least after the Fall.)

31 Let the glory of the LORD endure forever;
Let the LORD be glad in His works;
32 He looks at the earth, and it trembles;
He touches the mountains, and they smoke.
33 I will sing to the LORD as long as I live;
I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.
34 Let my meditation be pleasing to Him;
As for me, I shall be glad in the Lord.
35 Let sinners be consumed from the earth,
And let the wicked be no more.
Bless the LORD, O my soul.
Praise the LORD! 
NASB

So, when verse 3 talks about...

He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters;
He makes the clouds His chariot;
He walks upon the wings of the wind;

...the author is talking about BEFORE the Flood and these "beams of His upper chambers in the waters" is talking about God IN THE WATER VAPOR ABOVE THE ATMOSPHERE preparing to bring the deluge! NONE of these verses are talking about the original Creation!

We can explore more later regarding the Hebrew, but for now this will have to do.

[Kan]

3 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, Kan.

LOL! Don't worry about being "off topic"; let's be honest: the background philosophy, theology, and philology of the ancient, original languages of the Scriptures are FUNDAMENTAL to a good understanding of the words and wording that we rely upon for our understanding of "the third heaven," whatever we choose to believe.

WE MUST understand that, although the Bible is NOT a textbook on science, when it speaks about scientific matters, it is CORRECT because it IS God's Word.

That being said, one must also give CAREFUL heed to the meanings of the words behind that understanding. See, while it is true that context gives us the exact meaning of the word being used, there are fundamental, foundational meanings within those words that do not change with the context. These meanings can be discovered by the OVERLAPPING of the various definitions for a word such that we see what they all have in common, the INTERSECTION of those definitions! That INTERSECTION of the definitions gives us a fundamental etymology of that word that would ring true for that word regardless the context.

Prepositions are key to relationships between words. And, the prepositions, too, are fundamental in a proper understanding of a passage of Scripture.

I don't have enough time tonight to explore all the passages you quoted above, but let's just look at one verse, Psalm 104:3.

First, one should look at several versions of that whole psalm, if one doesn't understand the Hebrew, to see that this psalm is a poem/song about the FLOOD AND THE RECREATION OF THE EARTH AFTER THE FLOOD!

Here's a couple of the versions that most closely resemble the Hebrew:

Psalm 104:1-35
...

...the author is talking about BEFORE the Flood and these "beams of His upper chambers in the waters" is talking about God IN THE WATER VAPOR ABOVE THE ATMOSPHERE preparing to bring the deluge! NONE of these verses are talking about the original Creation!

We can explore more later regarding the Hebrew, but for now this will have to do.

Here is the basic order of these texts as found in Psalms and Job - From His position as Creator on His throne, to the angels, to the stretching out of the heavens, to the laying of the foundations of the earth, (to the life on the earth), to the flood and to the activity after the flood.

Unless we want to apply the stretching out of the heavens and the laying of the foundations at the time of the flood? It doesn't quite work, does it? 

In Job 38, God speaks about His early work in creation, then moves onto the mysteries of the earth, and His divine agencies in creation - the "waters" and the "light." And He gives illustrations of where these invisible forces are demonstrated. Even reaching out to the stars of Orion, asking Job if he knows how they have "dominion" in the earth. Verse 33. 

Now if we are talking about tap water above the stars, then God is saying that it has an effect in our earth. But here Christians who don't understand, run because it sounds like astrology. Don't blame them really. But an understanding of what the waters really are, and how they operate in nature, makes all the questions asked by God plainer.

For example, "Hath the rain a father?" The answer is in the question, yes, God the Father causes it to rain. How it is done is also given in the Bible. See Job 37 It tell us precisely how God does it. Through His voice - he causes the following - verse 11. "...by watering He wearies the thick cloud." And again in verse 10, "...the breadth of the waters is straightened." How can you straighten the breadth of water? Why would you need to do that to cause it to rain? What's it all mean?

Now if that is tap water, then God is pouring a can of water over the cloud so that it falls through and "wearies the thick cloud." But then that's not the voice of God, that's a watering can. So what are these elements which immediately respond to the voice of God? Are they the same elements which caused the water of the Red sea to congeal?

Yes.

Are they the same elements that God used to cause the flood? Or will cause the mountains to catch fire? Yes.

How can this be proven? Romans 1:20 The invisible forces are understood by what they sustain (matter) and what they change in the things that are visible (matter). And further study shows that these are connected with the voice of God (the creative and all powerful word) "even His eternal power and Godhead..." 

So what are these invisible forces, and what do they do in nature and the universe? The answers are all in the Bible. Even Peter was aware of them. II Peter 3. The clues are all there - the noise (voice of the Lord shaking the heavens and earth) the heat melting (the mountains and even the base of some of the oceans - Psalms 18) and elements being dissolved.

What about the atmosphere rolling back open like a scroll, when Christ returns? Elements dissolving? What kind of forces in nature would do that? Check out the old testament wars, it tells us when and how God used these elements in nature. You already have one example of the waters turning into jelly. How? What? and Why? - all answered in the Bible.

How do you stop the world from turning, as with Joshua, or is that a myth, poetry perhaps? How do you create hail stones the size of gym balls in a matter of an hour? How do you bring on an earthquake within minutes? How do you cause a hole the size of a football field to appear, swallow what is above it and close up without so much as a furrow in the ground?

You are looking at things which science will never catch up on, and has been behind by thousands of years in knowledge. By the way, you are best to use the KJV.

 

 

[Retrobyter]

19 hours ago, Kan said:

Here is the basic order of these texts as found in Psalms and Job - From His position as Creator on His throne, to the angels, to the stretching out of the heavens, to the laying of the foundations of the earth, (to the life on the earth), to the flood and to the activity after the flood.

Unless we want to apply the stretching out of the heavens and the laying of the foundations at the time of the flood? It doesn't quite work, does it? 

...

Stop right there. YES, IT DOES! The aftermath of the Flood had to be stayed! God had to step in and RE-create the earth and its skies! They had just had a MAJOR UPHEAVAL (LITERALLY)! When the Scriptures say that "all the fountains of the great deep" were "broken up," (Gen. 7:11) we are talking about all the subterranean waters being released from the great pressure under which they were subjected! This was not just some local flood of water; we are talking about a MASSIVE WORLD-CHANGING CATACLYSM! Huge chunks of rock half the size of Montana were OVERTURNED! Ninety percent of the Grand Canyon was cut in a SINGLE YEAR! Temperature variations were so great that the areas around the equator produced DIAMONDS from heat and pressure while the areas in the tundras of the north flash-froze mammoths INSTANTLY with FRESH BUTTERCUPS STILL IN THEIR MOUTHS, and ENCASING THEM IN SITTING POSITIONS IN SOLID BLOCKS OF ICE! We are definitely NOT reading about some "tranquil flood!" Don't think for a moment that such violence didn't come with volcanism! Notice that verse 8 says, "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down," showing the tremendous terraforming of the weight of such volumes of water!

It's not "stretching the heavens" or "stretching the skies" horizontally; it's stretching them VERTICALLY! They were allowed to expand and normalize the pressure (and most of the temperatures) again!

What kept the ark (the "box") safe was trapping it within the northern jet stream in the temperate zone until it could land upon the newly uncovered peaks of Mount Ararat, which is currently 16,946 feet above sea-level!

If one's thinking about Genesis is not correct, one cannot HOPE to have the rest of the Bible correct!

[Retrobyter]

On January 11, 2016 at 1:45 AM, inchrist said:

I don’t know where you get the idea of evolution, when water was already created for the flood. The problem I’m having with you in this debate is your constantly trying to second guess me and trying to place words in my mouth, another example of your second guessing is the following:

This is not what I was implying. If your unclear about something perhaps just ask than trying to put words in my mouth.

Think again

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2015-14

http://news.discovery.com/space/astronomy/when-did-the-universe-flood-with-water-150428.htm

http://www.israel21c.org/water-may-have-flooded-universe-in-the-first-billion-years/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/07/110726-most-massive-water-cloud-quasar-black-hole-space-science/

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-05-plentiful-early-universe.html

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=204

 

Gen 1:2 the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Gen 1:6
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

It really is y'know

In the Solar System: Water, Water Everywhere, But Where to Drink?

http://m.space.com/30526-in-the-solar-system-water-water-everywhere-but-where-to-drink.html

 

Ok lets test that:

1.    Your theory rejects modern scientific observations into the text

Air can hold, at most, 55 grams of water vapor per cubic meter. In contrast, liquid water is at a density of 1,000,000 grams per cubic meter. The ratio of the two numbers is 1:18,000. Therefore, a flood of 1 mile thickness which by the way would cover only 1/5 of Mount Everest, given that Mount Everest is 8000 km high, would require 18,000 miles of canopy.

Gravity would bring the whole thing down immediately as soon as it was formed. With such a thick layer of water vapour would completely block any light from the Sun from reaching the earth. Photosynthesis would be completely impossible\

Even a canopy of the equivalent of only 40 feet of liquid water would double the earth's atmospheric pressure, which would kill many animals, including humans. This pressure would also increase the temperature on the earth to a scorching 220°F. Most animals and plants do not survive long at this temperature.

Nor does your theory leave any scope with our modern observations concerning our cosmos

2.    Your theory rejects the variant meanings of Shamayim and applies a strict one dimensional view of our sky

If your theory is correct, you are leading us to believe that Gods abode and God himself in his physical fullness dwells in our sky only, even though the inspired writers never had such a view

1 Kings 8:27
But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!

It further contradicts God, when God told Adam and Eve the following:

Genesis 1:28
Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Compared to Psalm 115:16

The highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind.

So according to your theory the sky belongs to God but that only the earth belongs to us, even though God clearly gives us rule over the sky
Further your theory must make me conclude that there are two cherubims standing under our sky according to Ezekiel 10:1

3.    You theory must reject Concordance definitions 

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
air, astrologer, heavens

Dual of an unused singular shameh {shaw-meh'}; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky (as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move, as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve) -- air, X astrologer, heaven(-s).

 

Shalom, inChrist.

I'm not "second-guessing" you, brother; I'm using what you are saying and the conclusions that you have drawn from the background that you yourself are suggesting. Even if you claim that you don't believe in Evolution, some of the conclusions you've drawn are from that theory hypothesis. Therefore, their teaching has influenced your thought-patterns.

Regarding "Hashamayim with a capital H," if that's not what you meant to say, then WHY SAY IT?! It is a MISLEADING thing to say to anyone who is reading along (and perhaps even to yourself)! There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between "hashaamaayim" in verses that you would count as "the skies" and in those that YOU would count as "the abode of God!"

Regarding all your sources about these theories, fantasies, and fiction of men, keep in mind Romans 3:4:

"Let God be true and EVERY man a liar!" STICK TO THE SCRIPTURES AS WRITTEN!

Now, let's look at your "facts":

You noted that "air can hold, at most, 55 grams of water vapor per cubic meter." That is at STP (Standard Temperature and Pressure, typically at sealevel). And, any good chemist or physicist can tell you that this figure will change with a change in either temperature or pressure. And, these values change with altitude. Also, this value assumes the presence of the other gases in the atmosphere, with nitrogen being the primary element of air. I'm talking about a LAYER of water vapor - a sphere - ABOVE the atmosphere that does not involve the other elements within our ground-level atmosphere! Water vapor is an invisible, colorless GAS that is absolutely NOT liquid water in any sense! In fact, if it is within a band of energy, such as in the Van Allen belts, it could be supercharged into plasma, the fourth state of matter, and the charged belts could act as a magnetic bottle! While it does have mass, it would also have less of a gravitational pull than the heavier elements and compounds in the lower atmosphere. So, CHECK YOUR "FACTS!"

[Kan]

4 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Stop right there. YES, IT DOES! The aftermath of the Flood had to be stayed! God had to step in and RE-create the earth and its skies! They had just had a MAJOR UPHEAVAL (LITERALLY)! When the Scriptures say that "all the fountains of the great deep" were "broken up," (Gen. 7:11) we are talking about all the subterranean waters being released from the great pressure under which they were subjected! This was not just some local flood of water; we are talking about a MASSIVE WORLD-CHANGING CATACLYSM! Huge chunks of rock half the size of Montana were OVERTURNED! Ninety percent of the Grand Canyon was cut in a SINGLE YEAR! Temperature variations were so great that the areas around the equator produced DIAMONDS from heat and pressure while the areas in the tundras of the north flash-froze mammoths INSTANTLY with FRESH BUTTERCUPS STILL IN THEIR MOUTHS, and ENCASING THEM IN SITTING POSITIONS IN SOLID BLOCKS OF ICE! We are definitely NOT reading about some "tranquil flood!" Don't think for a moment that such violence didn't come with volcanism! Notice that verse 8 says, "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down," showing the tremendous terraforming of the weight of such volumes of water!

It's not "stretching the heavens" or "stretching the skies" horizontally; it's stretching them VERTICALLY! They were allowed to expand and normalize the pressure (and most of the temperatures) again!

What kept the ark (the "box") safe was trapping it within the northern jet stream in the temperate zone until it could land upon the newly uncovered peaks of Mount Ararat, which is currently 16,946 feet above sea-level!

If one's thinking about Genesis is not correct, one cannot HOPE to have the rest of the Bible correct!

I thought that the stretching out of the heavens by the Lord refers to the process of creation and not to the flood, and that God did not recreate the earth and skies after the flood. He formed the mountains and valleys etc. But not the earth?

By the way, I love the way you described the flood, very realistic compared to what is commonly taken for granted.

[other one]

That would be a fallen angel, and they do inhabit the second heaven.

[Retrobyter]

15 hours ago, Kan said:

I thought that the stretching out of the heavens by the Lord refers to the process of creation and not to the flood, and that God did not recreate the earth and skies after the flood. He formed the mountains and valleys etc. But not the earth?

By the way, I love the way you described the flood, very realistic compared to what is commonly taken for granted.

Shalom, Kan.

Yes, the earth, too. See, the Hebrew word "erets" (sometimes written "eretz") has the definitions of "soil," "ground," "land," or the "earth" (in the sense of the COMBINED "lands" of all the land mass on this planet). This last definition will often include the word "kol" or "kaal" which means "all," as in "all the earth" or "all the lands."

Technically, it wasn't a "creation" because the Hebrew word "bara' " was not used; however, He did re-MAKE or re-FORM (Hebrew: asah) the earth as well as the skies (and the waters themselves) in that cataclysm. Only the sea creatures - animals that didn't breathe air - were left off the ark; however, even THEY were affected by the destruction, to the point that MILLIONS ... no, BILLIONS (perhaps more) of sea creatures were killed and buried in the turmoil! But, most of the species of sea creatures survived, however, because they were not deprived of oxygen as the air-breathers were.

[Retrobyter]

On January 14, 2016 at 4:22 AM, inchrist said:

Of cause you did, you went on some weird tangent of how I was going to refer to clouds, as the cause of the flood. You further go on some weird tangent of how I'm basing my model on evolution and lastly you go on some weird tangent of there being no capital letters in hebrew. You have been trying to second guess me and put words in my mouth at every chance.

This is some desperate stuff, firstly taking two Hydrogen's and one Oxygen to form water is not evolution lol, come one you can do better than this.

pay attention here

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

firmament/ Raqia  - beaten (1), hammered out (2) expanse (3)

so here we have an image of God beating out hammering out the waters, which causes the waters to be split into two, with a "flat plate" in the middle. Based on this, my model reflects this being the universe, which as shown scientist have  proven our universe is awash with water in all its forms like someone has beaten it out, further science is catching up to the fact water has been around a lot longer than they had realised.

So again where do you get evolution from what I've just stated?

Emphasis????? Like the Capital H in the HEAVEN, emphasising???? I wasn't trying to go into a debate about capital letters in Hebrew as per your statement:

Also, there's no such thing as a "Hashamayim with a capital H" because there's no such thing as a capital letter in Hebrew!

Like emphasising god to the God? like elohim to Elohim???

Like I said please stop trying to second guess me, just ask me if your a bit confused.

Job 22:12

Is not God in the height of heaven? and behold the height of the stars, how high they are!

so your rendering is as follows :

Is not God in the height of our atmosphere? and behold the height of the stars, how high they are?

Right so our atmosphere is as high as the stars, you seem to rather have the words dictate the context, than context dictating the words.

very similar to the words eretz, by your methodology eretz can never ever refer to the land of Israel, since you use the words to rather dictate the context, than the other way round.

You've already been proven wrong that there IS awash of water in our Solar System and Universe. But perhaps its best we just ignore findings to fit your model.

 

Once water vapor contacts the earths atmosphere it would condense bringing the whole thing down, it would never survive once it was formed all the way to noahs flood. you still have issues with gravity, you have issues with the sun light as that would reflect, refract, absorb, or scatter most light trying to pass through it. , heat problem, pressure problems. 

I don't see how anyone could take your model seriously sorry that is the facts its unscientific and unbiblical, to treat a word as only "sky" ignores the spiritual realm of God  and robs the text and places emphasis on words than context, which is unsound use of Exegesis.

Your theory is endanger of Sky Father mythology

...(picture)...

Zeus

 

Shalom, "inChrist."

I'm sorry, but your paranoia is getting in the way of your understanding. It is not a personal attack on you to attack your model. Using your own numbering, the first of these "weird tangents" - the reference to the clouds being the source of the Flood - is because of the "tranquil Flood" interpretation of the Scriptures that you were quoting.

The second - basing your model on Evolution - is because of the usage of the evolutionists' interpretation of those "discoveries," whether yours or theirs, I didn't care.

The third - no capital letters in Hebrew - is a fact. PERIOD. Therefore, don't make a statement like, "Hashamayim with a capital H." WHEN you do, I will call it to the light every time. See, whether you realize it or not, you ARE trying to make a distinction between "hashamayim" and "Hashamayim" when you make such a statement. But, since this is a HEBREW word, then we must use HEBREW facts of that language! To do otherwise is to be dishonest in our transliteration and may mislead others who are already so misled in other ways that they don't need further complications!

So, YES, it is likewise wrong to make a distinction between "elohiym" and "Elohiym" or "shaamaayim" and "Shaamaayim."
You CAN make such a distinction in our English translations, however, because we DO use capital letters, both out of respect for God and for proper nouns, such as names or titles. Just don't use that distinction in the Hebrew language. So, in English, we can make the distinction between "god" and "God" or "heaven" and "Heaven." That's logically valid and sound, regardless whether true or false.

OF COURSE, 2H₂ + O₂ -> 2H₂O is not representative of the theory of evolution; it's just simple chemistry. HOWEVER, when one surmises HOW the chemicals were formed in nature and on a grand scale, that supposition CAN be representative of the theory of evolution, and the articles that you cited DID smack of evolution!

No, the image is that God produced a horizontal plate between the waters and expanded that plate into the sky to separate the waters UNDER the plate/expanse from the waters ABOVE the plate/expanse. Two-dimensionally, this would look like a layer of water above the sky and a layer of water below the sky. Understanding that the earth is a globe, or a sphere, three-dimensionally enhances this image into an inner sphere of water inside a sphere of air/sky inside an outer sphere of water. It's just that simple. Why are you trying so desperately to expand this to the UNIVERSE?! It's not necessary nor was it implied in Scripture.

Finally, be careful in your logic. Just because the Scriptures say that God is in the sky doesn't mean that He is ONLY in the sky, nor does it mean that God is limited to influencing the sky. HOWEVER, if God is truly omnipresent (and He is), then He IS in the sky, too! He is in the heights of our atmosphere that we can see during the day, and He is in the heights of the stars that we can see at night! However, one should remember the words of Solomon in his prayer at the dedication of the Temple:

2 Chronicles 6:18
18 But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house which I have built!
KJV

"Heaven" refers to the "sky" or the "atmosphere," and the "heaven of heavens" refers to "space where the stars are." 

For "erets" or "eretz," please refer to what I just wrote to Kan.

Oh, and just for the record, "awash" is an adjective and should not be treated as "a wash" which is an indefinite article and a noun. And, there is a difference, too, between "endanger," a verb, and "in danger," a preposition and a noun. Sorry, but that sort of thing just bugs me and, if anything confuses me, trying to figure out what you are saying does.

[Retrobyter]

On January 15, 2016 at 4:54 AM, inchrist said:

This is your statement to JohnD:

On January 15, 2016 at 4:54 AM, inchrist said:

... Your statement, 'The term "third heaven" follows the ancient understanding that there is heaven the sky, heaven outer space beyond the sky, and heaven beyond space where God's throne is,' is UNSUPPORTED! Who even KNOWS how this nonsense got started?! THAT'S THE RHETORIC! THAT'S THE ASSUMPTION that I REJECT!! It makes absolutely no sense to jump on this bandwagon when we have Peter's better explanation of what the "third heaven" is!

Now watch this, again your statement

On January 15, 2016 at 4:54 AM, inchrist said:

Heaven" refers to the "sky" or the "atmosphere," and the "heaven of heavens" refers to "space where the stars are."

First heaven sky, second heaven (heaven of heavens) space….now for the third heaven…..

Now watch this, again your statement:

On January 15, 2016 at 4:54 AM, inchrist said:

The only verses that MIGHT be talking about something else are those 5 verses in Ezekiel:…………………………. Here, the word means "plate" or a "thinly beaten sheet of metal." It may even refer to a "dome," like the sky above us appears. It is NOT the same thing as presented in Genesis 1, nor is it referred to as "haShaamaayim."

See you admit to another type of firmament, now where is this type of firmament? Well lets look go back to Gen 1:1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Now clearly God had to be in his own heaven, his own eternal existence in order to create the heaven and the earth, as logic dictates God was around before material creation, his own abode as Ezekiel 1:4-28 describes the third heaven ( the eternal heaven)

Now what I find amusing, is you’ve spent 4 pages trying to disprove what you called nonsense, an “assumption” you reject, and biblically unsupported, yet you just proved these levels of heaven with your statement:

Heaven" refers to the "sky" or the "atmosphere," and the "heaven of heavens" refers to "space where the stars are."

Clearly somewhere within those 4 pages your “theory” has changed to something you initially rejected only to have you supporting it, what confusion you present.

Now that you support 'The term "third heaven" follows the ancient understanding that there is heaven the sky, heaven outer space beyond the sky, and heaven beyond space where God's throne is, its clear the only issues left is with application of hashamayim with which of these 3 levels of heaven is discussed in context.

Nice straw-man hypothesis. Sorry, but you didn't understand a THING! We were talking about the word "hashaamaayim" when talking about "the heavens" (or just "the heaven" in some translations), i.e., "the skies" (or just "the sky"). "Shmeey hashaamaayim" is totally other. That's why it, like "space," is totally other than "the skies!" Peter was talking about three "the heavens" (Greek: "hoi ouranoi") in 2 Pet. 3:5, 7, and 13. And, Paul was likewise talking about "(a) third heaven" or "a third sky" (Greek: "tritou ouranou") in 2 Cor. 12:2. (The definite article "tou" is not present.) Greek has a SEPARATE WORD for "above the skies," "epouranios" (1 Cor. 15:40-41), which is "space" where the sun, moon, and stars exist. "Shmeey hashaamaayim" is biblical Hebrew's SEPARATE WORDS for "above the skies." That's why "the sun" (Hebrew: "hashemesh") was not made in "the heavens"; the LIGHT associated with the sun, the "greater light" (Hebrew: "hamaa'owr hagaadol") was! That's why "the moon" (Hebrew: "hayaareeach") was not made in "the heavens"; the LIGHT associated with the moon, the "lesser light" (Hebrew: "hamaa'owr haqaaTon"), was!

So, whose "confusion" is it? C'mon, you know the RIGHT answer. And, if you say it's mine again, then we'll know that you're in denial.

The reason for the plural in the Greek is simply because they were an agrarian society: the LANDS between areas - say, Israel and Jordan (Moab and Ammon), for instance - are DIFFERENT and so are their SKIES! These two areas have different weather patterns and probably have a somewhat different bird population (although I'll admit that I didn't take the time to look it up)!

On January 15, 2016 at 4:54 AM, inchrist said:

A perfect example would be the word Eretz as you stated with Kan the following:

On January 15, 2016 at 4:54 AM, inchrist said:

the Hebrew word "erets" (sometimes written "eretz") has the definitions of "soil," "ground," "land," or the "earth" (in the sense of the COMBINED "lands" of all the land mass on this planet). This last definition will often include the word "kol" or "kaal" which means "all," as in "all the earth" or "all the lands."

Correct, clearly the word eretz is dependent on its context, as pointed out it can be translated as ground, earth, land, piece of ground, territory, country, region, earth, or underworld. In other words  it's a very common word.

In fact here is a graph showing its various usage,

The same is applied with Hashamayim, there is clearly three distinct hashamayim and does not teach they are all the same thing.

If you could only read Hebrew. <Sigh.> This is the Hebrew word "adaamaah," not "erets." While the two ARE similar, there is a difference: "erets" is most translated as "land," while "adaamaah" is most translated as the "ground." In particular, it's talking about "red soil." (The Hebrew word for "red" is "aadam.") That "red soil" is what Adam was made out of. (See the Hebrew for Gen. 2:7.)

On January 15, 2016 at 4:54 AM, inchrist said:

Firstly why must I be careful with my logic? Is this a joke?, it was YOUR logic that rejected the three levels of heaven in the first place, so how could I present God limited to influence ONLY one level of Heaven being the sky? Clearly me believing in the three levels of Heaven should have been a given as I see God as Omnipresent in ALL three Levels, which you initially rejected and limited God to only one level of heaven being the sky.

Nuts, you don't even know what you're talking about. By making it "three levels of Heaven," it is YOU who must show that "God [is] Omniresent in ALL three Levels." Since I don't ascribe to that viewpoint, I don't NEED to show that God is omnipresent in all three levels. He is omnipresent under the earth, on the earth, in the skies, and above the skies. Since I don't believe in some ethereal place called "God's Abode" somewhere else, I don't NEED to show that God is there, too! IF the Universe is finite, that is, limited to some unknown, huge number of light-years, THEN God would be outside the limits of the Universe, too. HOWEVER if not,

On January 15, 2016 at 4:54 AM, inchrist said:

Eish….. you bring such confusion….I don’t think you actually know where you stand on your model.

I know PRECISELY where I stand on my model. I'm not confused at all about it. It's YOU who has never taken the time with a clear, open mind to consider it. Tell me, why not? The more I study the Scriptures, the more I am confirmed in the model God has shown me; why should I GO BACK to your brand of confusion? It's not happening.

On January 15, 2016 at 4:54 AM, inchrist said:

Its not about desperation, its about consistency

Really? You can't even decide if "raqiya`" refers to the "waters" or to the "heavens!" Take the time to go back and look at the Hebrew of Genesis 1 and 2. Do it word for word, if you must, but get a better grip on the meaning of "hashaamaayim."

On January 15, 2016 at 4:54 AM, inchrist said:

This is not worth my time to debate about, If I wish to emphasis something, golly I think I shall.

Do what you want to do. (You will anyway.) Just know that there is a difference between the languages of English and Hebrew, right down to the capitalization of letters.

On January 15, 2016 at 4:54 AM, inchrist said:

Whatever hypotheses these scientists used for interpretation does not invalidate that these discoveries exist, which you [are] trying to sweep under the carpet and make these discoveries invalid.  The fact that these discoveries exist was clearly a surprise to you, as it was clear you were unaware of the amount of water in the universe.  Their methods and my methods are completely different in EXPLAINING these discoveries.

Whatever, dude. Even if your explanation is different than theirs, you've been reading them so often that you are still THINKING like they do! Yes, I'll admit that these discoveries were a surprise to me; however, my only answer is, "SO WHAT?" So what does that prove? NOTHING! It's in a whole different area of our galaxy and it is STILL confined to what YOU would call, the "Second Heaven." Even the water that they HYPOTHESIZE to exist on other planets and moons within our solar system are most often frozen, mixed with other deadly chemicals, or otherwise inaccessible. It should come as no surprise that a simple compound such as H₂O would be found elsewhere in the Universe. However, It has absolutely NO AFFECT on the earth! Remember: The Genesis account of Creation is about OUR OWN PLANET'S BIOSPHERE, as a farmer might see from his own land!

On January 15, 2016 at 4:54 AM, inchrist said:

The Bible clearly shows water was before the creation of the earth, heaven, sun, moon and stars. Science has found that water is a lot older than thought. They have clearly stated they have NO idea where it all came from….The Bible on the other hand clearly shows where all this water comes from.

No, it doesn't! That's (somehow) your OWN interpretation of Scripture!

On January 15, 2016 at 4:54 AM, inchrist said:

Again where is my method based on evolution? I use the bible to explain the discoveries. Completely two different methods to explain the discoveries.

Well, you had said, ...

Quote

 

Did you know  ‘waters/ "mayim"  scriptually were the originally-created, basic building blocks of matter that the earth was made from, and further became all that was created outside of our atmosphere and into our universe.

See have a look here: Astronomers Find Largest, Oldest Mass of Water in Universe 

http://m.space.com/12400-universe-biggest-oldest-cloud-water.html

Get this, they don't even know where it comes from...12-billion-year-old cloud harboring 140 trillion times more water than all of Earth's oceans combined.

Check this out what they had to say about water vapor

Scientists think water vapor was present even in the early universe. So finding this old cloud of the stuff doesn't come as a shock.

"It's another demonstration that water is pervasive throughout the universe, even at the very earliest times," said study lead author Matt Bradford of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.

You wouldnt expect the writer of Genesis to make distinctions between things like stellar matter, methane gas, asteroids, comets, etc. 

A simple elemental term, ‘waters,’ is more than sufficient and efficient. 

This water/ flood that came from above could have come from any point in the expanse.

Here you had implied that waters were the "originally-created basic building blocks of matter." You quoted the fact that the "biggest, oldest cloud water" was said to be a "12-billion-year-old cloud harboring 140 trillion times more water than all of Earth's oceans combined." You also quoted two other evolutionistic statements without contradicting them: "Scientists think water vapor was present even in the early universe." and '"It's another demonstration that water s pervasive throughout the universe, even at the very earliest times.", said study lead author Matt Bradford...' By quoting these scientists making evolutionary statements without denying the theory of evolution implied in their quotes, you had essentially agreed with them. That's how you've implied that your method is based on evolution. "12 billion years old"? REALLY?!

Quote

 

On January 15, 2016 at 4:54 AM, inchrist said:

Nope, wasn’t talking about a tranquil flood, please stop putting words in my mouth, I was talking about the sea under Gods throne as the upper sea, you are under the impression the upper sea was the canopy surrounding our planet….left in a daze you couldn’t understand then where the water would come from for the flood hence your tangent:

Well, I still say YOUR explanation for from where the water would come is all theory; God's Word suggests "waters above the skies" as a water vapor canopy.

On January 15, 2016 at 4:54 AM, inchrist said:

You were second guessing me, so please stop.

I guess since you still feel that is what I was doing, okay. I'll stop.

On January 15, 2016 at 4:54 AM, inchrist said:

Yes it is very simple, the very word expanse (space) makes this very clear, as the nature of the word is well, expand indefinitely  from the one face of the raqia to the other face of the raqia, in the midst of these two faces is well space fabric., bashed out or hammered out firmament.

So an upper face of the raqia ( upper seas) -  below that the firmament that was bashed out (space fabric) - lower face of the raqia ( Lower seas)

You do realize, don't you, that "space" is called that because it is practically EMPTY SPACE, right? It's a VACUUM! There's NOTHING to "bash out!" There is no "fabric!"

On January 15, 2016 at 4:54 AM, inchrist said:

The upper face of the raqia:

“He holdeth back the face of His throne, and spreadeth His [Shekinah glory] cloud upon it.”

Gods thronal expanse (Upper face of the raqia) being the sea of glass

“The likeness of the firmament above the heads of the living creatures" ( Ezek. 10:1)  was like the color of an awesome crystal, stretched out of a solid ‘face’ (upper face of the raqia),  over their heads.” (Ezek. 1:22/NKJV);

Hence why the writers still believed the waters is still up there

Ps.148:4

Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.

You really need to stick to your day job. Theorizing about the Scriptures is not your forte. First of all, "shekinah" (poorly transliterated) means "presence," not "glory." "Kaavowd" means "glory."

Second, neither of the words are in the verse (which is Job 26:9, by the way). Instead, backing up to verse 8, the wording is...

8 Tsoreer mayim b'aaVaayow vlo' niVqa` `aanaan tachtaam:
9 M'acheez pneey kicceeh parsheez `aalaayuw `anaanow:

8 He-crams waters in-his-dark-clouds and-not is-torn a-cloud under-them:
9 He-seizes [the]-face of-his-covered-[throne] expanding upon-it his-cloud:

8 He crams waters into His dark clouds, and not a cloud is torn under them:
9 He seizes the surface of His covered seat, billowing His cloud upon it:

Haven't you ever noticed how flat the bottom of clouds look? That's the dew point of the atmosphere, the point above which the clouds form. Below that point, the clouds do not condense. THAT'S what the verse is talking about! It's a NATURAL occurrence, not a supernatural one! Don't put all your eggs in one basket or in one verse! Make sure that you've looked at the REST of the context!

Job 26:8-14
8 He binds up the water in His thick clouds,
Yet the clouds are not broken under it. 
9 He covers the face of His throne,
And spreads His cloud over it. 
10 He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters,
At the boundary of light and darkness. 
11 The pillars of heaven tremble,
And are astonished at His rebuke. 
12 He stirs up the sea with His power,
And by His understanding He breaks up the storm. 
13 By His Spirit He adorned the heavens;
His hand pierced the fleeing serpent. 
14 Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways,
And how small a whisper we hear of Him!
But the thunder of His power who can understand?" 
NKJV

Regarding Ezekiel 1, one must remember where this took place:

Ezekiel 1:1-3
1 In the thirtieth year, on the fifth day of the fourth month, while I was among the exiles by the K’var River, the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. 2 On the fifth day of the month, which was during the fifth year of King Y’hoyakhin’s exile, 3 the word of Adonai came to the cohen Yechezk’el son of Buzi, in the land of the Kasdim by the K’var River; there the hand of Adonai was on him. 
CJB

Finally, Psalm 148 is another psalm with a mention about the Flood:

In Hebrew, verse 4 says:

4 Halluwhuw shmeey hashaamaayim v-hamayim asher mee`al hashaamaayim:

meaning,

4 Praise-Him, sky of-the-skies and-the-waters which [are] from-above the-skies.

While few (if any) translations show it, the Hebrew word for "above" or "over" or "upon" is " `al."

OT:5921 `al (al); properly, the same as OT:5920 used as a preposition (in the singular or plural often with prefix, or as conjunction with a particle following); above, over, upon, or against (yet always in this last relation with a downward aspect) in a great variety of applications (as follow):
KJV - above, according to (-ly), after, (as) against, among, and,  as, at, because of, beside (the rest of), between, beyond the time,  both and, by (reason of),  had the charge of, concerning for, in (that), (forth, out) of, (from) (off), (up-) on, over, than, through (-out), to, touching,  with.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

By attaching the "m-" prefix, short for "min," the author has attached the word "from" or the words "out of"

OT:4480 min (min); or minniy (min-nee'); or minneey (constructive plural) (min-nay'); (Isa 30:11); for OT:4482; properly, a part of; hence (prepositionally), from or out of in many senses (as follows):
KJV - above, after, among, at, because of, by (reason of), from (among), in,  neither,  nor, (out) of, over, since,  then, through,  whether, with.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

So, you see, the author of that psalm noted that the waters were NOT THERE ANYMORE!

See, if you want to be picky about the details of a verse, you absolutely MUST go back to the original language, which in this case is Hebrew.

 

[Retrobyter]

20 hours ago, inchrist said:

Nope it is still you. Will be shown below, but firstly let me address this

Well, obviously, then, you are in denial.

Quote

Again is this a joke? So know you even know what I think?

Let me explain something to you. Look here what you said

Quote

That's how you've implied that your method is based on evolution. "12 billion years old"? REALLY?!

No that's not what I've implied,  how many times have I told you now....If your unsure ask me. ...Instead you persist and persist in second guessing me. Why is it so hard for you to ask?

Have YOU ever tried to "ask" someone unreasonable a question? You don't get an answer; you get a LECTURE!

Quote

So I'm going to use your rationale...according to the Big bang theory, there was a massive explosion then a big light.

The bible states in the beginning there was light

Evolutionists need the big bang to explain the creation of light.

Christians need the bible to explain the light.

However BOTH are on common ground that the light is old and was in the beginning of creation , however the method  used to explain this discovery by both parties is completely different of the same observation.

Now you would have me reject that because the evolutionist agree the light is old. Come on man...wake up!!

The same applies to the water, they need to use their model to explain why the water was part of creation of our universe. Yet the bible explains that their observation of the universe was once flooded was due to how God formed the universe. My thinking is not in evolution at ALL. It's actually no surprise that they have discovered that the universe was once flooded with water. Duh right???

Nice try through.

It's really quite simple. The question is this: "Just how old IS the universe, in your opinion?" If your answer is "less than 10,000 years," then we're okay. If not, then your way of thinking has been influenced by the theory of evolution. We don't NEED to cowtow to their estimations for the age of the universe, the age of the earth, or the age of human life.

20 hours ago, inchrist said:

You do know, well actually you don't,  because you have been in denial of this....the sun's lights and moons lights could not be observed here on earth if there was a water vapour canopy around the planet as the nature of the water vapour canopy being miles and miles and miles thick would reflect, absorb and refract the sun's light.....this is a big problem for you. The heat of the planet would of been unbearable so would the pressure. On top of that the water vapour would of condensed as soon as it touched the atmosphere. 

No, that is a false assumption. Water vapor is a colorless, invisible GAS! It is not the same as the clouds, which are made of CONDENSED WATER DROPLETS! Can you see through miles and miles of nitrogen (N₂) and oxygen (O₂)? Of course you can! That's why we can see the stars at night! It's the same for gaseous water vapor, H₂O (g), as well. If you knew about refraction, you would know that it occurs at the boundaries between substances, such as that between the water and the air. That's why a pencil in a glass of water looks bent. The water in the glass doesn't refract the light, nor does the air above the water, but where the two fluids meet, refraction occurs. So, it's not as big a problem as you would like it to be. If it did any refraction, it only made the skies bluer and the sunrises and sunsets more colorful.

20 hours ago, inchrist said:

Quote

 It (the fact that H₂O is found elsewhere in the Universe) has absolutely NO AFFECT on the earth.

Well it does since the earth was formed from it and secondly the main point you missed is the necessary amount of water needed for the flood could of come from anywhere from the expanse. In fact there is a massive amount of water vapour surrounding our entire solar system.

The earth was NOT "formed from it [water]." The Bible doesn't say that; so, I'm wondering where you get this.

Just how long are we willing to say it took for this "necessary amount of water" to get to earth from ... wherever? If it came from this colorless, invisible layer of water vapor above the atmosphere of our planet, it would come FAR sooner and would not be required to be captured by our planet's gravity, since it was already within this gravity well. I don't have to REACH for a source!

20 hours ago, inchrist said:

Quote

and it is STILL confined to what YOU would call, the "Second Heaven."

Well early on you just agreed space is the second heaven....are you going to also back track here too again?

If you think I "agreed space is the second heaven," then you are delusional. I've already said that the second heaven - the second sky - is the atmosphere of our planet from the time of the Flood until the time of the Fire just before the Great White Throne Judgment. That has NEVER changed.

20 hours ago, inchrist said:

20 hours ago, inchrist said:

The Genesis account of Creation is about OUR OWN PLANET'S BIOSPHERE, as a farmer might see from his own land!

Nope if you would like I can go through Genesis very slowly for you.

No need. I've already been through Genesis, slowly and otherwise. Read through it at least once a year. It's the first of the five books of the Torah. I doubt your studies of it could compare.

20 hours ago, inchrist said:

20 hours ago, inchrist said:

I know PRECISELY where I stand on my model. I'm not confused at all about it. It's YOU who has never taken the time with a clear, open mind to consider it. Tell me, why not?

For the second time, please pay attention:  I DONT REJECT YOUR THEORY ABOUT PETER, what I reject is the way you have gone about it and that's to disprove the common believe of the three heavens, included in that is your nonsense of a water canopy...

Hence I don't need Peters third heaven to describe  the three levels of heaven....I have the tabernacle for this...as the tabernacle is a for shadow of the heavenly of God's abode and how he regulates himself with his entire creation.

Let me explain with this statement of yours:

Quote

He is omnipresent under the earth, on the earth, in the skies, and above the skies. Since I don't believe in some ethereal place called "God's Abode" somewhere else, I don't NEED to show that God is there, too!

See this is where you fail in understanding the nature of God, certainly God is very much omnipresent but that's not the point, God can not dwell among sin in his physical full self.

This is why God sent his Shekinah glory to dwell in the temple and tabernacle,  for those who believe in the trinity, this is why Jesus then emptied himself...this is also why Moses could not look upon the face of God when he manifested himself physically to Moses.

God can not physically dwell amongst sin.  The tabernacle confirms this in its entire layout and why we have sin dwelling in the first and second heaven, our earth and space and not in God's abode.

So your sky father mythology may do so...but I'm afraid the Hebrew God can't.  This is why the prophets received visions instead. 

Oh, but you DO "reject [my] theory about Peter." If you can come away from 2 Peter 3:3-13 and then be able to say "I don't need Peter's third heaven to describe the three levels of heaven," then you HAVE rejected my "theory." They are NOT "three LEVELS of heaven," but rather "three PERIODS of sky!"

Now, when you say, "God cannot dwell among sin in His PHYSICAL full self," to which denomination do you adhere? Mormonism?

John 4:24
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
KJV

And, if you're going to take offense over "second guessing" you, then you should drop the "sky father mythology" statements. THEY offend ME! I've already answered that nonsense, and you don't need to continually bring it up again!

20 hours ago, inchrist said:

Quote

Really? You can't even decide if "raqiya`" refers to the "waters" or to the "heavens!"

For someone who seems to be an expert and giving me such a lecture on Hebrew, I would have at least thought you knew there are two meanings to raqia: expanse (1) and face (2); again, context drives which one is being used in the scripture. Guess you didn't know.

Either (1) or (2), but certainly not BOTH in the same passage!

20 hours ago, inchrist said:

Quote

shekinah" (poorly transliterated) means "presence," not "glory." "Kaavowd" means "glory."

So God's presence wasn't hovering over the water? You really want to argue this? Because pray tell what glory was present over the water?

I don't know that ANY "glory" was "hovering over the water." The text says,

Genesis 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 
NIV

20 hours ago, inchrist said:

Quote

Regarding Ezekiel 1, one must remember where this took place:..... in the land of the Kasdim by the K’var River; there the hand of Adonai was on him.

So why did you say it's not the same firmament? 

Because the WORD may not be referring to the "firmament" as an "expanse" at all! It may be referring to a "PLATE" (or as you say, a "FACE"). But, if it does, then it no longer is referring to the "firmament" renamed "hashaamaayim" or "the heavens" or "the skies!"

20 hours ago, inchrist said:

Quote

He seizes the surface of His covered seat, billowing His cloud upon it:

God's covered seat is not in our skies as explained God can not dwell in his full physical presence with man and sin at this stage. However your sky father I'm sure can.

Yes, it IS!

Psalm 97:1-6
1 The LORD reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of isles be glad thereof.
2 Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne.
3 A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about.
4 His lightnings enlightened the world: the earth saw, and trembled.
5 The hills melted like wax at the presence of the LORD, at the presence of the LORD of the whole earth.
6 The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory.
KJV

And, again, clouds didn't exist before the Flood! This is a MESSIANIC Psalm talking about the "LORD reigneth" and "a fire ... burneth up his enemies!" You really shouldn't expect your theological assumptions to take precedence over the Scriptures.

Oh, and again, please drop the "sky father" junk. It's unbecoming.

20 hours ago, inchrist said:

Quote

So, you see, the author of that psalm noted that the waters were NOT THERE ANYMORE!

This is badly done....the prefix is  expressing the idea of separation, hence hence out of, from, on account of, off, on the side of, since, above, than, so that not.

It would be the verb that would drive the use of prefix....it is clear the author is calling for the waters above heavens to praise God, an impossible and illogical task if it no longer existed further supported by fact the Psalmist concludes 

6He hath also stablished them for ever and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass.

Hardly possible for the Psalmist to arrive at if the waters were no longer there. This is a butcher attempt at forcing thought onto the author another attempted second guessing.

Your opinion is noted. Technically, the waters are still extant, but they are no longer above the atmosphere. (You're beginning to sound like a broken record, though, with your accusations of "second guessing.")

20 hours ago, inchrist said:

Quote

If you could only read Hebrew. <Sigh.>

You missed the point, context drives the usage of the word.

And, you likewise missed my point. You had a diagram for the WRONG WORD! I agree that "context drives the usage of the word"; however, it's also true that the meaning of the words within the context determines the meaning of the context! You're not getting the big picture of this context!

On January 17, 2016 at 10:18 AM, inchrist said:

Quote

You do realize, don't you, that "space" is called that because it is practically EMPTY SPACE, right? It's a VACUUM! There's NOTHING to "bash out!" There is no "fabric!" 

Then you better write CERN a letter, since you're the expert once again in ... well ... everything.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/8857154/Worlds-most-powerful-laser-to-tear-apart-the-vacuum-of-space.htm

They're talking about separating matter and anti-matter IN space before the particles mutually annihilate so they can prove they even exist!

On January 17, 2016 at 10:18 AM, inchrist said:

Quote

 You really need to stick to your day job. Theorizing about the Scriptures is not your forte

Lastly this is unacceptable 

Now I am trying my level best to give you some respect...I am done, I have offically lost all respect for you.

You come in the false pretence of Shalom...I have asked you to stop addressing me in shalom as I find it insulting because you do not live up to the meaning of the word and seem far more interested in speaking arrogance over me.

I would suggest you tuck in your ego and learn how to present yourself in shalom. This debate is finished....I'm done with you until you can learn some manners actually .....apply the word shalom.

Yeah, since you can't take a little ribbing, then I guess it really is unacceptable. I'm sorry that I offended you. On the other hand, you've done the same. If you want to end the debate, that's fine with me. Just know that I've enjoyed our little exchange, even if it seems otherwise at times. I'm not mad at you, brother; I believe that we can learn from each other in such exchanges. SHALOM.