# The waters above the firmament..



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 28, 2010)

Where do you suppose these waters are?

*<SUP>6</SUP>* Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” <SUP id=en-NKJV-7 class=versenum>*7*</SUP> Thus 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. <SUP id=en-NKJV-8 class=versenum>*8*</SUP> And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. 

And according to this account, "space" as we know it, is Heaven.

*<SUP>14</SUP>* Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; <SUP id=en-NKJV-15 class=versenum>*15*</SUP> and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. <SUP id=en-NKJV-16 class=versenum>*16*</SUP> Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. _He made_ the stars also. <SUP id=en-NKJV-17 class=versenum>*17*</SUP> God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, <SUP id=en-NKJV-18 class=versenum>*18*</SUP> and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that _it was_ good. <SUP id=en-NKJV-19 class=versenum>*19*</SUP> So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 28, 2010)

The NLT reads this way.

 6 Then God said, “Let there be a space between the waters, to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth.” 7  And that is what happened. God made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens. 8 God called the space “sky.”
   And evening passed and morning came, marking the second day.

(not sure why you skipped day three)

 14 Then God said, “Let lights appear in the sky to separate the day from the night. Let them mark off the seasons, days, and years. 15 Let these lights in the sky shine down on the earth.” And that is what happened. 16  God made two great lights—the larger one to govern the day, and the smaller one to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set these lights in the sky to light the earth, 18 to govern the day and night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.
 19 And evening passed and morning came, marking the fourth day.

Seems that God caused some of the water to be suspended in the sky (clouds, water vapor), clearly a necessary step in creating weather. Then, day four, He put all the stars, planets, etc. a little further out.


----------



## earl (Apr 28, 2010)

Sounds like oceans and rain. If this were the case what happened to water in outer space ? Why does science look for water in space as a sign that life is possible ?


----------



## gtparts (Apr 28, 2010)

earl said:


> Sounds like oceans and rain. If this were the case what happened to water in outer space ? Why does science look for water in space as a sign that life is possible ?




Ask a scientist, to be sure why they look for water on heavenly bodies, but they apparently believe it is essential for life as we know it.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 28, 2010)

gtparts said:


> The NLT reads this way.
> 
> 6 Then God said, “Let there be a space between the waters, to separate the waters of the heavens from the waters of the earth.” 7 And that is what happened. God made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens. 8 God called the space “sky.”
> .


 
So we have a divergence between the KJV and the NLT, but, but, but, the Bible is the infallible Word of God. So is this error, divergence, difference in translations that of man?

I would say the KJV is closer in translation than the NLT based on the text it is taken from;

http://www.allabouttruth.org/Origin-Of-The-Bible.htm

*The Truth About Translations
*To many, the origin of the Bible can be summed-up as follows: "A mere translation of a translation of an interpretation of an oral tradition" - and therefore, a book with no credibility or connection to the original texts. Actually, the foregoing statement is a common misunderstanding of both Christians and non-christians alike. Translations such as the King James Version are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts such as the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Old Testament) and the Greek Textus Receptus (New Testament), and are not translations of texts translated from other interpretations. The primary differences between today's Bible translations are merely related to how translators interpret a word or sentence from the original language of the text source (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek).


----------



## gtparts (Apr 28, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So we have a divergence between the KJV and the NLT, but, but, but, the Bible is the infallible Word of God. So is this error, divergence, difference in translations that of man?
> 
> I would say the KJV is closer in translation than the NLT based on the text it is taken from;
> 
> ...



And I would say that the publishers of the NLT  used many of the same textual sources as the NKJV or the KJV. Many times the differences in translations is the specific focus of of the translators. 

Are they trying to replicate word for word? If this is strictly done, the resulting translation would make little sense with bizarre placement of subject and predicate, not to mention verbs, adverbs and adjectives. 

So to render an English translation requires the selection and arrangement of the English words to best convey the original meaning with clarity. Many of the more contemporary versions are far superior for the purpose of communicating to 21st century  English-literate readers than the 1611 KJV. The NKJV is a significant step forward. Two significant reason for the improvement are, 1) we now have many more copies of manuscripts that were unknown or unavailable in 1611 and 2) better understanding of what the original words meant when they were originally penned (thanks to the study of non-scriptural manuscripts contemporary to the period of the time that the books of the Bible were written).


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 28, 2010)

gtparts said:


> And I would say that the publishers of the NLT used many of the same textual sources as the NKJV or the KJV. Many times the differences in translations is the specific focus of of the translators.
> 
> Are they trying to replicate word for word? If this is strictly done, the resulting translation would make little sense with bizarre placement of subject and predicate, not to mention verbs, adverbs and adjectives.
> 
> So to render an English translation requires the selection and arrangement of the English words to best convey the original meaning with clarity. Many of the more contemporary versions are far superior for the purpose of communicating to 21st century English-literate readers than the 1611 KJV. The NKJV is a significant step forward. Two significant reason for the improvement are, 1) we now have many more copies of manuscripts that were unknown or unavailable in 1611 and 2) better understanding of what the original words meant when they were originally penned (thanks to the study of non-scriptural manuscripts contemporary to the period of the time that the books of the Bible were written).


 
While I concur, that flies in the face of the beliefs and statements made by many on this very forum, over and over and over...


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 28, 2010)

Psalm 148:4
    4Praise Him, highest heavens,
         And the waters that are above the heavens! 

2 Peter 3:5
 5For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 


I can only speculate, as everyone else, but the Geneva study bible offers this thought...........    
       "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.
As the sea and rivers, from those waters that are in the clouds, which are upheld by God's power, least they should overwhelm the world.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 28, 2010)

So at what point in time did interpretations of translations of the Bible become more prominant than the original translations themselves? We are talking of the manipulating of the Word here. What would Christians of the KJV era think of the Bible we now claim to be the infalible Word of God??


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 29, 2010)

Sparky1 said:


> So we have a divergence between the KJV and the NLT, but, but, but, the Bible is the infallible Word of God. So is this error, divergence, difference in translations that of man?
> 
> I would say the KJV is closer in translation than the NLT based on the text it is taken from;



Really?  They read the same to me...slightly different wording, but the same.

To the original question posed...there was no rain before the flood.  When the flood occurred, those firmaments came down and water came up from the earth as well.  Then, as the continents moved apart, the oceans were formed, the polar ice-caps were formed etc etc.



gtparts said:


> Many times the differences in translations is the specific focus of of the translators.



Very true...that is why people should pay more attention to what translation they are picking up and reading...and why I don't think that "ease of read" is a good pick over "original intent."



Sparky1 said:


> While I concur, that flies in the face of the beliefs and statements made by many on this very forum, over and over and over...



Really?



Sparky1 said:


> So at what point in time did interpretations of translations of the Bible become more prominant than the original translations themselves? We are talking of the manipulating of the Word here. What would Christians of the KJV era think of the Bible we now claim to be the infalible Word of God??



How is the Word being manipulated?  Now...I will say, the Word is manipulated in books such as "the Purpose Driven Life" when the author uses several different interpretations and hand picks versions/verses to portray an incomplete picture of what the scripture says.

How is the message any different between the Bible of the KJV era and 2010?


----------



## christianhunter (Apr 29, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So we have a divergence between the KJV and the NLT, but, but, but, the Bible is the infallible Word of God. So is this error, divergence, difference in translations that of man?
> 
> I would say the KJV is closer in translation than the NLT based on the text it is taken from;



Sparky,is that you?
Just when I get used to one you change it again.


----------



## earl (Apr 29, 2010)

To the original question posed...there was no rain before the flood. When the flood occurred, those firmaments came down and water came up from the earth as well. Then, as the continents moved apart, the oceans were formed, the polar ice-caps were formed etc etc.


Thats a rather bold statement. Where did you find that gem ?


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 29, 2010)

christianhunter said:


> Sparky,is that you?
> Just when I get used to one you change it again.



Michael, you're too too much.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 29, 2010)

earl said:


> Thats a rather bold statement. Where did you find that gem ?



From my secret Jewish society that I can't tell you about.

You'll probably hear about it in a couple of years though.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Apr 29, 2010)

rjcruiser said:


> From my secret Jewish society that I can't tell you about.
> 
> You'll probably hear about it in a couple of years though.




You part of the Illuminati or that new fangled world order


----------



## earl (Apr 29, 2010)

OK ,I know when I am out of my league.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 29, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Where do you suppose these waters are?
> 
> *<SUP>6</SUP>* Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” <SUP id=en-NKJV-7 class=versenum>*7*</SUP> Thus 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. <SUP id=en-NKJV-8 class=versenum>*8*</SUP> And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
> 
> ...



Hablas Español Señor Cervantes ?


----------



## crackerdave (Apr 29, 2010)

gtparts said:


> Ask a scientist, to be sure why they look for water on heavenly bodies, but they apparently believe it is essential for life as we know it.



I kinda tend to agree with 'em,on that.


----------



## crackerdave (Apr 29, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So at what point in time did interpretations of translations of the Bible become more prominant than the original translations themselves? We are talking of the manipulating of the Word here. What would Christians of the KJV era think of the Bible we now claim to be the infalible Word of God??



What would Portuguese think of King James English?

I can't believe we've slid into the "translation" mudhole,again.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 30, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> Hablas Español Señor Cervantes ?


 
So you found Google Translator, your point? or is this more business as usual? You would think someone of your alleged faith would be able to render more input into an Old Testament subject. Or are you only interested in the end times of the New Testament?


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 30, 2010)

http://www.idiocentrism.com/firmament.htm​
The Waters Above the Firmament







_(Above, Cosmas Indicopleustes' 550 AD drawing 
of the waters above and below the firmament)
_​ 
Evolution isn't the only problem for creation science. There are also some troublesome passages in Genesis relating to cosmology:

_"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."_

_Genesis 1:6-7_​ 
What are the "waters above the firmament"? For that matter, what is the firmament? It seems to mean the sky, and the idea seems to be that the firmament is something solid holding the stars in place, and that water was above the firmament, just as water surrounds the earth and is below it.

The problem is that this seems to have nothing to do with the astronomical system we know about and live in. Not only liberal Christians, but most Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians give this (and many other  passages in scripture) figurative or metaphorical rather than literal interpretations.

Unfortunately, the first principle of the majority of American conservative Christians is that every word of the Bible is literally true, and as a result fundamentalists are forced to come up with some kind of  explanation for "the waters above the firmament". Even a century ago (or as far as that goes, 1400 years ago at the time of Cosmas Indicopleustes) this concept was pretty far-fetched, but when men walked on the moon in 1969 the idea became ludicrous. But the fundamentalists soldier on, retranslating the Hebrew, postulating massive changes for which there is no evidence, and finding signs of water on Mars.  They might just as well try to prove that the earth is flat, too, while they're at it, but they never seem go quite that far any more -- God knows why.

(There's also the theory that the waters above the firmament are sentient beings, though few fundamentalists  seem to have involved themselves in this aspect of the question either: "Let the waters that are above the heavens praise the name of the Lord" -- Psalm 148:4; "Ye waters that are above the heavens, bless the Lord."-- Daniel 3:60)._Corrected_.

And then there's the seven-headed dragon rising from the sea.  A lot of our fundamentalist  friends not only believe that Armageddon is nigh, but they are praying that it will come soon, so that they can see their enemies (us) dying horrible deaths. 

Many of the fundamentalists I have known are kindly, decent people, but they are also terribly fearful people who live in a very small world, and the mandates of their belief essentially require them to reject most of science. It's not just evolution -- anything that goes against the literal word of the Bible must be rejected. Granted what we know about their approach to science, it's not hard to understand how they could believe George W. Bush on WMD and al Qaeda.  Essentially, they have made a principled rejection of all rational and critical thought, and for them Science is an enemy, an adversary of religion which must be resisted or destroyed.

The odious George Will and the egregious twit David Brooks have been happily explaining to us that our failure to respect the deeply-held religious beliefs of a big chunk of the Republican core constituency proves that we are elitists. You have to give these guys credit for not bursting out laughing when they make these pronouncements. Brooks and Will are plump, prosperous scam artists who make their living suckering the Republican core constituency, and nobody in the world has less respect for their victims than these two do.

All in all, while I recognize the political problem for the Democratic Party in trying to win elections when so many voters hold these irrational, cruel beliefs, it is hard for me to understand why why these voters *should* be respected. And (going a little further, and speaking a language that Christians can understand) it seems clear to me that the Armageddon Christians are doing harm, and that instead of relying on the mercy of Christ to rescue them from the consequences of their actions, they should stop, think, and change their behavior. For Christians will be judged too.


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 30, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So you found Google Translator, your point? or is this more business as usual? You would think someone of your alleged faith would be able to render more input into an Old Testament subject. Or are you only interested in the end times of the New Testament?



Yo no necesito el Google translator Señor , usted dice muchas basuras que no meritan respuesta alguna.

Why would I need a goodle Translator, I just thought your question is silly and some already debated in here.
OK Miguelito
But you might ant to look up the Word "Raqiyah"In the Torah and it might be surprising to you what firmament means or what was transliterated as firmament.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 30, 2010)

*http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1068.htm*



*Article 1. Whether the firmament was made on the second day?*


*Objection 1.* It would seem that the firmament was not made on the second day. For it is said (Genesis 1:8): "God called the firmament heaven." But the heaven existed before days, as is clear from the words, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." Therefore the firmament was not made on the second day. 

*Objection 2.* Further, the work of the six days is ordered conformably to the <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->order<!--k31--> of Divine wisdom. Now it would ill become the Divine wisdom to make afterwards that which is naturally first. But though the firmament naturally precedes the earth and the waters, these are mentioned before the formation of light, which was on the first day. Therefore the firmament was not made on the second day. 

*Objection 3.* Further, all that was made in the six days was formed out of matter created before days began. But the firmament cannot have been formed out of pre-existing matter, for if so it would be liable to generation and corruption. Therefore the firmament was not made on the second day. 

*On the contrary,* It is written (Genesis 1:6): "God said: let there be a firmament," and further on (verse 8); "And the evening and morning were the second day." 

*I answer that,* In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing. 

We say, therefore, that the words which speak of the firmament as made on the second day can be understood in two senses. They may be understood, first, of the starry firmament, on which point it is necessary to set forth the different opinions of philosophers. Some of these believed it to be composed of the elements; and this was the opinion of Empedocles, who, however, held further that the body of the firmament was not susceptible of dissolution, because its parts are, so to say, not in disunion, but in harmony. Others held the firmament to be of the nature of the four elements, not, indeed, compounded of them, but being as it were a simple element. Such was the opinion of Plato, who held that element to be fire. Others, again, have held that the heaven is not of the nature of the four elements, but is itself a fifth body, existing over and above these. This is the opinion of Aristotle (De Coel. i, text. 6,32). 

According to the first opinion, it may, strictly speaking, be granted that the firmament was made, even as to substance, on the second day. For it is part of the work of <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->creation<!--k31--> to produce the substance of the elements, while it belongs to the work of distinction and adornment to give <!--k03=06137b.htm-->forms<!--k31--> to the elements that pre-exist. 

But the belief that the firmament was made, as to its substance, on the second day is incompatible with the opinion of Plato, according to whom the making of the firmament implies the production of the element of fire. This production, however, belongs to the work of <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->creation<!--k31-->, at least, according to those who hold that formlessness of matter preceded in time its formation, since the first <!--k03=06137b.htm-->form<!--k31--> received by matter is the elemental. 
Still less compatible with the belief that the substance of the firmament was produced on the second day is the opinion of Aristotle, seeing that the mention of days denotes succession of <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->time<!--k31-->, whereas the firmament, being naturally incorruptible, is of a matter not susceptible of change of <!--k03=06137b.htm-->form<!--k31-->; wherefore it could not be made out of matter existing antecedently in time. 
Hence to produce the substance of the firmament belongs to the work of <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->creation<!--k31-->. But its formation, in some degree, belongs to the second day, according to both opinions: for as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv), the light of the sun was without <!--k03=06137b.htm-->form<!--k31--> during the first three days, and afterwards, on the fourth day, received its form. 

If, however, we take these days to denote merely sequence in the natural <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->order<!--k31-->, as Augustine holds (Gen. ad lit. iv, 22,24), and not succession in time, there is then nothing to prevent our saying, whilst holding any one of the opinions given above, that the substantial formation of the firmament belongs to the second day. 

Another possible explanation is to understand by the firmament that was made on the second day, not that in which the stars are set, but the part of the atmosphere where the clouds are collected, and which has received the name firmament from the firmness and density of the air. "For a body is called firm," that is dense and solid, "thereby differing from a mathematical body" as is remarked by Basil (Hom. iii in Hexaem.). If, then, this explanation is <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->adopted<!--k31--> none of these opinions will be found repugnant to reason. 

Augustine, in fact (Gen. ad lit. ii, 4), recommends it thus: "I consider this view of the question worthy of all commendation, as neither contrary to faith nor difficult to be proved and believed." 

*Reply to Objection 1.* According to Chrysostom (Hom. iii in Genes.), Moses prefaces his record by speaking of the works of God collectively, in the words, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," and then proceeds to explain them part by part; in somewhat the same way as one might say: "This house was constructed by that builder," and then add: "First, he laid the <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->foundations<!--k31-->, then built the walls, and thirdly, put on the roof." In accepting this explanation we are, therefore, not bound to hold that a different heaven is spoken of in the words: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth," and when we read that the firmament was made on the second day. 

We may also say that the heaven recorded as created in the beginning is not the same as that made on the second day; and there are several senses in which this may be understood. Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. i, 9) that the heaven recorded as made on the first day is the formless spiritual nature, and that the heaven of the second day is the corporeal heaven. According to Bede (Hexaem. i) and Strabus, the heaven made on the first day is the empyrean, and the firmament made on the second day, the starry heaven. According to Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii) that of the first day was spherical in form and without stars, the same, in fact, that the philosophers speak of, calling it the ninth sphere, and the primary movable body that moves with diurnal movement: while by the firmament made on the second day he understands the starry heaven. According to another theory, touched upon by Augustine [Gen. ad lit. ii, 1] the heaven made on the first day was the starry heaven, and the firmament made on the second day was that region of the air where the clouds are collected, which is also called heaven, but equivocally. And to show that the word is here used in an equivocal sense, it is expressly said that "God called the firmament heaven"; just as in a preceding verse it said that "God called the light <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->day<!--k31-->" (since the word "day" is also used to denote a space of twenty-four hours). Other instances of a similar use occur, as pointed out by Rabbi Moses. 

The second and third objections are sufficiently answered by what has been already said. *Article 2. Whether there are waters above the firmament?*


*Objection 1.* It would seem that there are not waters above the firmament. For water is heavy by nature, and heavy things tend naturally downwards, not upwards. Therefore there are not waters above the firmament. 

*Objection 2.* Further, water is fluid by nature, and fluids cannot rest on a sphere, as experience shows. Therefore, since the firmament is a sphere, there cannot be water above it. 

*Objection 3.* Further, water is an element, and appointed to the generation of composite bodies, according to the relation in which imperfect things stand towards <!--k03=11665b.htm-->perfect<!--k31-->. But bodies of composite nature have their place upon the earth, and not above the firmament, so that water would be useless there. But none of God's works are useless. Therefore there are not waters above the firmament.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 30, 2010)

*On the contrary,* It is written (Genesis 1:7): "(God) divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament." 

I answer with Augustine (Gen. ad lit. ii, 5) that, "These words of Scripture have more authority than the most exalted human intellect. Hence, whatever these waters are, and whatever their mode of existence, we cannot for a moment doubt that they are there." As to the nature of these waters, all are not agreed. 

Origen says (Hom. i in Gen.) that the waters that are above the firmament are "spiritual substances." Wherefore it is written (Psalm 148:4): "Let the waters that are above the heavens praise the name of the Lord," and (Daniel 3:60): "Ye waters that are above the heavens, bless the Lord."To this Basil answers (Hom. iii in Hexaem.) that these words do not mean that these waters are rational creatures, but that "the thoughtful contemplation of them by those who understand fulfils the glory of the Creator." Hence in the same context, fire, hail, and other like creatures, are invoked in the same way, though no one would <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->attribute<!--k31--> <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->reason<!--k31--> to these. 
We must hold, then, these waters to be material, but their exact nature will be differently <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->defined<!--k31--> according as opinions on the firmament differ. For if by the firmament we understand the starry heaven, and as being of the nature of the four elements, for the same reason it may be believed that the waters above the heaven are of the same nature as the elemental waters. But if by the firmament we understand the starry heaven, not, however, as being of the nature of the four elements then the waters above the firmament will not be of the same nature as the elemental waters, but just as, according to Strabus, one heaven is called empyrean, that is, fiery, solely on account of its splendor: so this other heaven will be called aqueous solely on account of its transparence; and this heaven is above the starry <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->heaven<!--k31-->. Again, if the firmament is held to be of other nature than the elements, it may still be said to divide the waters, if we understand by water not the element but formless matter. Augustine, in fact, says (Super Gen. cont. Manich. i, 5,7) that whatever divides bodies from bodies can be said to divide waters from waters. 

If, however, we understand by the firmament that part of the air in which the clouds are collected, then the waters above the firmament must rather be the vapors resolved from the waters which are <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->raised<!--k31--> above a part of the atmosphere, and from which the rain falls. But to say, as some writers alluded to by Augustine (Gen. ad lit. ii, 4), that waters resolved into vapor may be lifted above the starry heaven, is a mere absurdity. The solid nature of the firmament, the intervening region of fire, wherein all vapor must be consumed, the tendency in light and rarefied bodies to drift to one spot beneath the vault of the moon, as well as the fact that vapors are perceived not to <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->rise<!--k31--> even to the tops of the higher mountains, all to go to show the impossibility of this. Nor is it less absurd to say, in support of this opinion, that bodies may be rarefied infinitely, since natural bodies cannot be infinitely rarefied or divided, but up to a <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->certain<!--k31--> point only.


*Reply to Objection 1.* Some have attempted to solve this difficulty by supposing that in spite of the natural gravity of water, it is kept in its place above the firmament by the Divine power. 

Augustine (Gen. ad lit. ii, 1), however will not admit this solution, but says "It is our business here to inquire how God has constituted the natures of His creatures, not how far it may have pleased Him to work on them by way of miracle." We leave this view, then, and answer that according to the last two opinions on the firmament and the waters the solution appears from what has been said. According to the first opinion, an <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->order<!--k31--> of the elements must be supposed different from that given by Aristotle, that is to say, that the waters surrounding the earth are of a dense consistency, and those around the firmament of a rarer consistency, in proportion to the respective density of the earth and of the heaven. 

Or by the water, as stated, we may understand the matter of bodies to be signified. 

*Reply to Objection 2.* The solution is clear from what has been said, according to the last two opinions. But according to the first opinion, Basil gives two replies (Hom. iii in Hexaem.). He answers first, that a body seen as concave beneath need not necessarily be rounded, or convex, above. 
Secondly, that the waters above the firmament are not fluid, but exist outside it in a solid state, as a mass of ice, and that this is the crystalline heaven of some writers. 
*Reply to Objection 3.* According to the third opinion given, the waters above the firmament have been <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->raised<!--k31--> in the <!--k03=06137b.htm-->form<!--k31--> of vapors, and serve to give rain to the earth. But according to the second opinion, they are above the heaven that is wholly transparent and starless. This, according to some, is the primary mobile, the cause of the daily revolution of the entire heaven, whereby the continuance of generation is secured. In the same way the starry heaven, by the <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->zodiacal<!--k31--> movement, is the cause whereby different bodies are generated or corrupted, through the <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->rising<!--k31--> and setting of the stars, and their various influences. But according to the first opinion these waters are set there to temper the heat of the <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->celestial<!--k31--> bodies, as Basil supposes (Hom. iii in Hexaem.). And Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. ii, 5) that some have considered this to be proved by the extreme cold of Saturn owing to its nearness to the waters that are above the firmament. *Article 3. Whether the firmament divides waters from waters?*


*Objection 1.* It would seem that the firmament does not divide waters from waters. For bodies that are of one and the same species have naturally one and the same place. But the Philosopher says (Topic. i, 6): "All water is the same species." Water therefore cannot be distinct from water by place. 

*Objection 2.* Further, should it be said that the waters above the firmament differ in species from those under the firmament, it may be argued, on the contrary, that things distinct in species need nothing else to distinguish them. If then, these waters differ in species, it is not the firmament that distinguishes them. 
*Objection 3.* Further, it would appear that what distinguishes waters from waters must be something which is in contact with them on either side, as a wall standing in the midst of a river. But it is evident that the waters below do not reach up to the firmament. Therefore the firmament does not divide the waters from the waters. 
*On the contrary,* It is written (Genesis 1:6): "Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters; and let it divide the waters from the waters." 

*I answer that,* The text of <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->Genesis<!--k31-->, considered superficially, might lead to the <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->adoption<!--k31--> of a theory similar to that held by <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->certain<!--k31--> philosophers of antiquity, who taught that water was a body infinite in dimension, and the primary element of all bodies. Thus in the words, "Darkness was upon the face of the deep," the word "deep" might be taken to mean the infinite mass of water, understood as the principle of all other bodies. These philosophers also taught that not all corporeal things are confined beneath the heaven perceived by our senses, but that a body of water, infinite in extent, exists above that heaven. On this view the firmament of heaven might be said to divide the waters without from those within--that is to say, from all bodies under the heaven, since they took water to be the principle of them all. 

As, however, this theory can be shown to be false by solid reasons, it cannot be held to be the sense of Holy Scripture. It should rather be considered that Moses was speaking to ignorant people, and that out of condescension to their weakness he put before them only such things as are apparent to sense. Now even the most uneducated can perceive by their senses that earth and water are corporeal, whereas it is not evident to all that air also is corporeal, for there have even been philosophers who said that air is nothing, and called a space filled with air a vacuum. 

Moses, then, while he expressly mentions water and earth, makes no express mention of air by <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->name<!--k31-->, to avoid setting before ignorant persons something beyond their knowledge. In <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->order<!--k31-->, however, to express the truth to those capable of understanding it, he implies in the words: "Darkness was upon the face of the deep," the existence of air as attendant, so to say, upon the water. For it may be understood from these words that over the face of the water a transparent body was extended, the subject of light and darkness, which, in fact, is the air. 

Whether, then, we understand by the firmament the starry heaven, or the cloudy region of the air, it is true to say that it divides the waters from the waters, according as we take water to denote formless matter, or any kind of transparent body, as fittingly designated under the name of waters. For the starry heaven divides the lower transparent bodies from the higher, and the cloudy region divides that higher part of the air, where the rain and similar things are generated, from the lower part, which is connected with the water and included under that <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->name<!--k31-->. 
*Reply to Objection 1.* If by the firmament is understood the starry heaven, the waters above are not of the same species as those beneath. But if by the firmament is understood the cloudy region of the air, both these waters are of the same species, and two places are assigned to them, though not for the same purpose, the higher being the place of their begetting, the lower, the place of their repose. 

*Reply to Objection 2.* If the waters are held to differ in species, the firmament cannot be said to divide the waters, as the cause of their destruction, but only as the boundary of each. 

*Reply to Objection 3.* On account of the air and other similar bodies being invisible, Moses includes all such bodies under the name of water, and thus it is evident that waters are found on each side of the firmament, whatever be the sense in which the word is used. *Article 4. Whether there is only one heaven?*


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 30, 2010)

*Objection 1.* It would seem that there is only one heaven. For the heaven is contrasted with the earth, in the words, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth."But there is only one earth. Therefore there is only one heaven. 

*Objection 2.* Further, that which consists of the entire sum of its own matter, must be one; and such is the heaven, as the Philosopher proves (De Coel. i, text. 95). Therefore there is but one heaven. 

*Objection 3.* Further, whatever is predicated of many things univocally is predicated of them according to some common notion. But if there are more heavens than one, they are so called univocally, for if equivocally only, they could not properly be called many. If, then, they are many, there must be some common notion by reason of which each is called heaven, but this common notion cannot be assigned. Therefore there cannot be more than one heaven. 
*On the contrary,* It is said (Psalm 148:4): "Praise Him, ye heavens of heavens." 

*I answer that,* On this point there seems to be a diversity of opinion between Basil and Chrysostom. The latter says that there is only one heaven (Hom. iv in Gen.), and that the words 'heavens of heavens' are merely the translation of the <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->Hebrew<!--k31--> idiom according to which the word is always used in the plural, just as in Latin there are many nouns that are wanting in the singular. On the other hand, Basil (Hom. iii in Hexaem.), whom Damascene follows (De Fide Orth. ii), says that there are many heavens. The difference, however, is more nominal than real. For Chrysostom means by the one heaven the whole body that is above the earth and the water, for which reason the birds that fly in the air are called birds of heaven [Psalm 8:9. But since in this body there are many distinct parts, Basil said that there are more heavens than one. 
In <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->order<!--k31-->, then, to understand the distinction of heavens, it must be borne in mind that Scripture speaks of heaven in a <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->threefold<!--k31--> sense. Sometimes it uses the word in its proper and natural meaning, when it denotes that body on high which is luminous actually or potentially, and incorruptible by nature. In this body there are three heavens; the first is the empyrean, which is wholly luminous; the second is the aqueous or crystalline, wholly transparent; and the third is called the starry heaven, in part transparent, and in part actually luminous, and divided into eight spheres. One of these is the sphere of the fixed stars; the other seven, which may be called the seven heavens, are the spheres of the planets. 

In the second place, the name heaven is applied to a body that participates in any <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->property<!--k31--> of the heavenly body, as sublimity and luminosity, <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->actual<!--k31--> or potential. Thus Damascene (De Fide Orth. ii) holds as one heaven all the space between the waters and the moon's orb, calling it the aerial. According to him, then, there are three heavens, the aerial, the starry, and one higher than both these, of which the Apostle is understood to speak when he says of himself that he was "rapt to the third heaven." 

But since this space contains two elements, namely, fire and air, and in each of these there is what is called a higher and a lower region Rabanus subdivides this space into four distinct heavens. The higher region of fire he calls the fiery heaven; the lower, the <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->Olympian<!--k31--> heaven from a lofty mountain of that <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->name<!--k31-->: the higher region of air he calls, from its brightness, the ethereal heaven; the lower, the aerial. When, therefore, these four heavens are added to the three enumerated above, there are seven corporeal heavens in all, in the opinion of Rabanus.

Thirdly, there are metaphorical uses of the word heaven, as when this name is applied to the <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->Blessed<!--k31--> Trinity, Who is the Light and the Most <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->High<!--k31--> <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->Spirit<!--k31-->. It is explained by some, as thus applied, in the words, "I <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->will<!--k31--> <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->ascend<!--k31--> into heaven"; whereby the evil <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->spirit<!--k31--> is represented as seeking to make himself equal with God. Sometimes also spiritual <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->blessings<!--k31-->, the recompense of the <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->Saints<!--k31-->, from being the highest of all good gifts, are signified by the word heaven, and, in fact, are so signified, according to Augustine (De Serm. Dom. in Monte), in the words, "Your reward is very great in heaven" (Matthew 5:12). 

Again, three kinds of supernatural visions, bodily, <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->imaginative<!--k31-->, and intellectual, are called sometimes so many heavens, in reference to which Augustine (Gen. ad lit. xii) expounds Paul's rapture "to the third heaven." 

*Reply to Objection 1.* The earth stands in relation to the heaven as the centre of a circle to its circumference. But as one center may have many circumferences, so, though there is but one earth, there may be many heavens. 
*Reply to Objection 2.* The argument holds good as to the heaven, in so far as it denotes the entire sum of corporeal <!--k03=xxyyyk.htm-->creation<!--k31-->, for in that sense it is one. *Reply to Objection 3.* All the heavens have in common sublimity and some degree of luminosity, as appears from what has been said.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Apr 30, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> Yo no necesito el Google translator Señor , usted dice muchas basuras que no meritan respuesta alguna.
> 
> Why would I need a goodle Translator, I just thought your question is silly and some already debated in here.
> OK Miguelito
> But you might ant to look up the Word "Raqiyah"In the Torah and it might be surprising to you what firmament means or what was transliterated as firmament.


 
I am familiar with the word raqia, and the debates of many surrounding it, thanks for your input though.
​<SUP>[FONT=OOJNDG+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman][FONT=OOJNDG+TimesNewRoman,Times New Roman] 
</SUP>[/FONT][/FONT]

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted...s/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf


----------



## Lowjack (Apr 30, 2010)

Are you Familiar With Rashi ?

Rashi on Genesis 1:1 (1)
Bereshith -- In the beginning. Rabbi Isaac said: The Torah, which is the law book of Israel, should have commenced with the verse (Exodus 12:1) "This month shall be unto you the first of the months," which is the first commandment given to Israel. What is the reason, then, that it commences with the account of the creation? Because of the thought expressed in the text (Psalm 111:6) "He declared to his people the strength of his works (i.e. He gave an account of the work of creation) in order that he might give them the heritage of the nations." For should the peoples of the world say to Israel, "You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the seven nations of Canaan," Israel may reply to them, "All the earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whom he pleased. When he willed He gave it to them, and when He willed He took it from them and gave it to us." (Yalk. Exod. 12:2).

Bereshith bara. In the beginning God created. This verse calls aloud for explanation (2) in the manner that our Rabbis explained it: God created the world for the sake of the Torah, which is called (Proverbs 8:22) "the beginning (reshith) of His way," and for the sake of Israel, who are called (Jeremiah 2:3) "the beginning (reshith) of His increase." If, however, you wish to explain it in its plain sense, (3) explain it thus: At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth when the earth was without form and void and there was darkness, God said, Let there be light. The text does not intend to point out the order of the acts of Creation -- to state that these (heaven and earth) were created first; for if it intended to point this out, it should have been written Barishona bara, "At first God created..." Because wherever the word reshith occurs in Scripture, it is in the construct state. (4) For example, Jeremiah 26:1, "In the beginning of (reshith) the reign of Jehoiakim," Genesis 10:10, "The beginning of (reshith) his kingdom," Deuteronomy 18:4, "The firstfruit of (reshith) thy corn." Similarly here you must translate bereshith bara elohim as though it read bereshith bero, at the beginning of God's creating. A similar grammatical construction (of a noun in the construct followed by a verb) is in Hosea 1:2, tehillat dibber [yahweh] behosheah, which is as much to say, "At the beginning of God's speaking through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea." Should you, however, insist that it does actually intend to point out that these (heaven and earth) were created first, and that the meaning is, "At the beginning of everything He created these, admitting therefore that the word reshith is in the construct state and explaining the omission of a word signifying 'everything' by saying that you have texts which are elliptical, omitting a word, as for example Job 3:10, "Because it shut not up the doors of my mother's womb" where it does not explicitly explain who it was that closed the womb; and Isaiah 8:4 "He shall take away the spoil of Samaria" without explaining who shall take it away; and Amos 6:12 "Doth he plough with oxen," and it does not explicitly state, "Doth a man plough with oxen"; Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring from the beginning the end," and it does not explicitly state, "Declaring from the beginning of a thing the end of a thing" -- and if it is so (that you assert that this verse intends to point out that heaven and earth were created first), you should be astonished at yourself, because as a matter of fact the waters were created before heaven and earth, for lo, it is written, "The Spirit of God was hovering on the face of the waters," and Scripture had not yet disclosed when the creation of the waters took place -- consequently you must learn from this that the creation of the waters preceded that of the earth. And a further proof that the heavens and the earth were not the first thing created is that the heavens were created from fire (esh) and water (mayim), from which it follows that fire and water were in existence before the heavens. (5) Therefore you must needs admit that the text teaches nothing about the earlier or later sequence of the acts of creation.

*    *    *    *    * 

1. English translation from M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silberman, Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Prayers for Sabbath and Rashi's Commentary, Translated into English and Annotated (London: Shapiro, Vallentine and Co., 1946), vol. 1, pp. 2-3. The notes below are my own. --M.D.M.

2. Lit., "This verse says nothing but -- Expound me!" (darsheniy). Rashi means that the peculiarity of the grammar (noted below) calls for a derash interpretation from the midrash aside from the peshat or simple grammatical explanation given below. This is typical of Rashi's commentary. He mentions a midrashic interpretation with apparent approval before going on to a more sober grammatical explanation. The Rabbis of old held that any unusual feature of the text was a clue that some extraordinary meaning lay hidden in the text. For more information see my introductory article on Jewish interpretation. --M.D.M.

3. "According to its simple meaning" (kipshuto) or the peshat interpretation. Rashi's real contribution to Jewish exegesis was his ability to explain the text as a grammarian, according to its plain sense, without getting lost in the traditional derash interpretations. --M.D.M.

4. Rashi's interpretation is sensible and it has been adopted by many modern scholars and some recent versions of the Bible (see for example the New JPS translation at Genesis 1:1 -- "When God began to create heaven and earth..."). But it is by no means necessary. The traditional interpretation "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" can be maintained because in fact bereshith does not need to be understood as being in the construct state with "heavens and earth," and because the phrase "heavens and earth" may be understood as an idiom meaning "the universe." Verse 1 may therefore be seen as a title or summary for the chapter. For a good discussion of the matter see Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary vol. 1. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), pp. 11-13. --M.D.M.

5. In a comment on verse 8 Rashi asserts that "God mingled fire with water and of them made the heavens" on the basis of an etymological analysis of the Hebrew word for "heavens" (shamayim). He explains it as a compound of the words for fire (esh) and water (mayim). In traditional Jewish interpretation, speculative etymologies like this were often employed to draw conclusions. --M.D.M


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

English Editions of Rashi's Commentaries


----------



## earl (May 1, 2010)

English Editions of Rashi's Commentaries 

I thought you said hebrew and the Torah couldn't be made to understand in English .


----------



## Lowjack (May 1, 2010)

Never said that, I have always estated that Hebrew cannot be translated, it can only be transliterated.
Neither is old Greek translated but transliterated.
So todays Bibles are transliterations Not translations.

Read this and tell me , how do you translate such values of Hebrew letters into English or any other language ?

http://www.soul-guidance.com/houseofthesun/treeoflifeletters.htm


----------



## earl (May 1, 2010)

I didn't mention transliteration or translations . The word I used was understand.


----------



## Inthegarge (May 1, 2010)

Lets see  Mt 23:24 " Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. "   ..... Since it is impossible for either of these positions to be proven....To me it's a waste of time. Let discuss things we can find evidence of......RW


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 1, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> Never said that, I have always estated that Hebrew cannot be translated, it can only be transliterated.
> Neither is old Greek translated but transliterated.
> So todays Bibles are transliterations Not translations.
> 
> ...


 
So it is possible to send a man to the moon, or let them live on a space station in outer space for months on end, but we don't have the intelligence or technology to "translate" a particular language?? I have a hard time believing that one.

http://www.jewfaq.org/root.htm

<TABLE width="100%"><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD>*Hebrew Language: Root Words *

_*Level: Intermediate*_ 
</TD><TD>• Most Hebrew words are derived from three-letter root words 
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

The vast majority of words in the Hebrew language can be boiled down to a three-consonant root word that contains the essence of the word's meaning. Even if you cannot read Hebrew, you will find that you can get some insight into the meaning of the Bible by identifying the roots of words. If you see the same English word in two different places, but different Hebrew roots are used, this may indicate that there is a different shade of meaning. If the same Hebrew root is used in two different places, the words and their meanings are probably related. 





A substantial amount of rabbinical interpretation of the Bible is derived from the relation between root words. For example, the rabbis concluded that G-d created women with greater intuition and understanding than men, because man was "formed" (yitzer, Gen. 2:7) while woman was "built" (yiben, Gen. 2:22). The root of "built," Beit-Nun-Hei, is very similar to the word "binah" (Beit-Yod-Nun-Hei), meaning understanding, insight or intuition. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Similarly, a familiar Talmudic teaching notes the similarity of the words banayikh (your children) and bonayikh (your builders), and suggests that Isaiah 54:13 (and all your children/builders will be students of G-d, and great shall be the peace of your children/builders) indicates that those who study Torah are the builders of peace.


----------



## Lowjack (May 1, 2010)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> So it is possible to send a man to the moon, or let them live on a space station in outer space for months on end, but we don't have the intelligence or technology to "translate" a particular language?? I have a hard time believing that one.
> 
> http://www.jewfaq.org/root.htm
> 
> ...



Since you mak it so simple go ahead and translate the letter Aleph, it is only one letter.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (May 1, 2010)

Lowjack said:


> Since you mak it so simple go ahead and translate the letter Aleph, it is only one letter.


 
Gotta love the sarcasm when all other responses escape you.

Surely you are intelligent enough to understand the gist of my post.


















Or not...


----------

