- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Mike: Yes. When God created the raqia and named it heaven, it was the ONLY heaven. As time went by, God’s people started differentiating between the place where the clouds are (the first heaven), the raqia where the luminaries are (the second heaven – second in height, but still first in existence), and the dwelling place of God (the third and highest heaven).
The waters above are above THE RAQIA (the second heaven). They are not above the first heaven where clouds float and birds fly. They are not above the third heaven where God dwells. But they ARE above the second heaven (the original heaven), which has floodgates in it that God opened to let the waters above the raqia flood the earth, and then closed 40 days later.
I agree.
Mike: Yes. When God created the raqia and named it heaven, it was the ONLY heaven.
Me :you mean in the sight of men?
Don’t you believe that Adam and Eve had knowledge of God’s HEAVEN (HIS THRONE)?
🙏I think the best thing to do is not respond to him, and just see where he takes his new converts Berean and Danny to.
That would be handy. I prefer quality conversation than quantity any day.
To me the simplest way of saying it is, heaven is the sky above.
Agreed. Some translations agree too.
Mike’s doctrine is based on misunderstandings.
Raqia is Expanse
Mike:
I think you’re getting confused because God NAMED the firmament “heaven”. Raqia doesn’t actually MEAN “heaven”. That is a different Hebrew word.So when the Bible talks of three different heavens, it is not talking about three different raqias. There is still only one of those, and it is the second of the three different heavens.
Wrong on multiple accounts.
- God called the raqia – heaven. It is not a different Hebrew word. Accept it because this is reality.
- Paul was taken up to the third heaven. If not three heavens, but one, then it clearly has at least three parts to it. You do not make this distinction anywhere.
- You may not be aware, but raqia was mistranslated as firmament which as I am sure you know, relates to our word ‘firm’. But read on to learn the truth.
When Jerome translated the entire Bible into Latin (the Vulgate) in the late 4th century, he chose the Latin word firmamentum to translate raqia. As you may surmise, we get our English word firm from the same root that this Latin word comes from. Therefore, this is a good translation of the Greek word stereoma. But is it a good translation of the Hebrew word raqia? No, because raqia doesn’t mean something firm or hard. Rather, raqia means “expanse.” So, why did Jerome translate raqia as firmament? The cosmology of Jerome’s day was the same as it was 6-7 centuries earlier when the LXX was translated, so Jerome probably believed the hard, transparent celestial sphere model best fit the day four description of where the heavenly bodies were. Therefore, Jerome probably concurred with the LXX and chose the appropriate Latin word firmamentum to translate stereoma.
Gene: Proclaimer……To me the simplest way of saying it is, heaven is the sky above. The clouds are in the sky…
It’s like I’m talking to a brick wall. Gene, if heaven is “the sky above”, and clouds are IN the sky – as YOU just claimed – then why can’t you see that clouds can’t be the waters ABOVE “the sky above”?
How can you seriously say that clouds are IN the sky… but also the waters that are ABOVE the sky?
And where is your answer to Psalm 148? In verse 4, he tells the waters above heaven to praise God. And then in verse 8, he tells the clouds to praise God.
How then can clouds BE the waters above heaven?
Context is everything sometimes
How can you seriously say that clouds are IN the sky… but also the waters that are ABOVE the sky?
There are three layers of heaven or three heavens.
There is a separation of the waters and the top layer is above the raqia that exists between the waters. You can even observe this yourself. If there was a time to trust your senses, I think this is a good time to do that because no one really questions how the water cycle works. We can clearly observe it ourselves. Water on the ground often comes from water above. It’s doing this very thing right now where I live. Pretty sure rain is not CGI.
Expanse / Sky / Space
Water Above
Expanse / Sky / Space
Water Below
I’m not saying this is how it is, but that it is an explanation that works.
Further, when determining which heaven or raqia is being spoken of, you simply consider the context.
For example, I might call the space between the waters – space and the space beyond that as outer space. Both are space however, so context becomes important.
Same goes for sky. I can call the space between these waters as sky, but also call beyond the clouds as sky.
Context solves it Mike.
Mike: Yes. When God created the raqia and named it heaven, it was the ONLY heaven.
Berean: you mean in the sight of men?
Don’t you believe that Adam and Eve had knowledge of God’s HEAVEN (HIS THRONE)?
Adam and Eve must have known that God dwelt somewhere outside of their world. It’s hard to say what they knew about the world, since there are very few words attributed to them or their immediate children in the Bible.
I assume that God taught Adam about our world (and His dwelling place) just like He taught Moses about it many years later. But as far as I know, there just isn’t enough info in the Bible to definitively tell what they really did know about the world.
But as far as I know, there just isn’t enough info in the Bible to definitively tell what they really did know about the world.
Same goes for you Mike.
Proclaimer: Mike’s doctrine is based on misunderstandings.
Proclaimer, why did the psalmist tell the waters above heaven to praise Yahweh in verse four, and then later tell the clouds to praise Yahweh in verse 8?
What is your direct and honest answer? Thanks.
There are a number of explanations.
- The waters are above heaven can mean that they are above God because He dwells IN heaven. But not likely. So why are you not making that argument when you pretty much do it elsewhere. IN, ABOVE, BELOW is what you are touting. So be consistent and place your God BELOW the waters because God dwells IN heaven.
- The psalmist has a Babylonian understanding of the cosmos, thus is just speaking from his view point which is not scientifically sound. Yes, ancient man lacked knowledge Mike. But knowledge was prophesied to increase. So he thought rain came from above and clouds were not the source.
- There are clouds and there is water below the clouds that are approaching the waters below.
- The bible often repeats itself. Waters, clouds. You see this a lot in Revelations where it talks about something, moves on, then revisits the same topic in more detail.
- The waters above may be an idiom or expression for something indeed in or above heaven. There is a river of life in heaven. Jesus said he has access to water that once drank meant you would never thirst. Could this be spirit? A sea of glass? I had a vision of the river of life myself. It was nothing like a glass dome just above the land we stand on.
- There are probably many other possibilities here. But this minor point of yours changes nothing.
Mike: I think you’re getting confused because God NAMED the firmament “heaven”. Raqia doesn’t actually MEAN “heaven”. That is a different Hebrew word.
So when the Bible talks of three different heavens, it is not talking about three different raqias. There is still only one of those, and it is the second of the three different heavens.
Proclaimer: Wrong on multiple accounts.
Show me.
Proclaimer: God called the raqia – heaven. It is not a different Hebrew word. Accept it because this is reality.
The Hebrew word for firmament is “raqia”. The Hebrew word for heaven is “shamayim”. The “im” at the end signifies a plural word, just like the “im” at the end of “Elohim” makes it a plural word. The Hebrews used what’s know as “the plural of majesty/intensity/grandiosity” – which means that the same plural word “elohim” could refer to more than one god, or to one particularly grandiose/majestic god – and only context tells us which one.
Another example is “Behemoth” from the book of Job. The “oth” at the end is another Hebrew plural suffix (just like the suffix “im”). Behemoth is simply the plural form of the Hebrew word for “beast”. But since the context is filled with SINGULAR pronouns (“HE stands in the Jordan”, “HE has strong bones”, etc), we know from the context that the Behemoth in Job is one grandiose/majestic beast instead of multiple beasts.
Anyway, it’s the same with shamayim. Context dictates whether it is talking about one heaven, or multiple heavens. Unfortunately, there’s usually not enough context to make the call with this word, and so you’ll see some translations using the singular “heaven” in verses that other translations use the plural “heavens”.
But the bottom line is that “raqia” (firmament) is most certainly NOT the same Hebrew word as shamayim (heaven).
In Gen 1:14, 15, 17 and 20, we see the phrase “firmament OF heaven”. So while God named the raqia heaven, it is also the raqia OF heaven – the firm part of heaven that supports waters above it, and that was later considered the second heaven.
Maybe this will help… We know that the Hebrew word “earth” literally means “dry land”. But over time, we’ve come to consider the entire world (whether ball or domed pizza) as “earth”, right? So in that case, ALL dry land is “earth”, but not all “earth” is dry land… some of it is oceans.
Just like all thumbs are fingers, but not all fingers are thumbs.
Likewise, if there were more than one raqia, then all raqias would be heavens, but not all heavens would be raqias.
Does that help? The point is that the raqia IS heaven, but not all three heavens are the raqia. And the sun, moon and stars are IN the raqia, while the waters above are ABOVE the raqia itself.
It’s really not rocket science, guys. Just let the scriptures teach you instead of you trying to teach them…
Genesis 1:7… And God made the firmament (raqia), and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament.
Did the scripture above teach you that there are waters below the raqia AND ALSO waters above the raqia?
Genesis 1:16-17… And 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. And God set them in the firmament (raqia) of the heaven (shamayim)…
Can you see from those scriptures that there is something BELOW the raqia, something ABOVE the raqia, and something IN the raqia?
And do “below”, “above”, and “in” all mean the same thing… or different things?
So Proclaimer and Gene, according to those three easy-to-understand verses above…
1. Name the something that is BELOW the raqia.
2. Name the something that is IN the raqia.
3. Name the something that is ABOVE the raqia.
(Cheat Code: 1=Waters, 2=Luminaries, 3=Waters)
Hopefully that made it easy enough for you guys to see and understand that #2 is higher in the sky than #1, and – most importantly – that #3 is HIGHER IN THE SKY than #2.
See, the something that is ABOVE the raqia must necessarily, by very definition, be HIGHER than the something that is IN the raqia. The waters above MUST, BY VERY DEFINITION, be ABOVE the sun, moon and stars that are IN the raqia.
So what is the #3 in your worldview that is HIGHER THAN/ABOVE the #2?
Proclaimer: But this minor point of yours changes nothing.
Actually, you don’t know how major it was for me. But I’m out of time for tonight.
Actually, you don’t know how major it was for me. But I’m out of time for tonight.
Because it is all you have. That is why it is a camel for you and a gnat to me.
A plank for you and a spec for me.
The Hebrew word for firmament is “raqia”. The Hebrew word for heaven is “shamayim”.
Now for your next step.
And God called the raqia shamayim.
Funnily enough, you even pointed this out to me earlier in the discussion. Now it seems to be censored from you for some reason. Lol.
Let’s look at the facts though.
Genesis 1:8 is scripture, so we shouldn’t censor it.
But your decision to reject this truth doesn’t change the reality of it being scripture and it being true.
I accept it and have dealt with it and all you do is bury your head in the sand ↓
This is Mike ↑
2. Name the something that is IN the raqia.
God called the expanse – heaven, and God dwells in heaven.
BTW, when are you going to bring back the sun?
If I was a flattie, my inability to do that would make me seriously think about my belief.
Not you it seems.
Before creating the heaven and the earth on which we live, God WAS IN HIS HEAVEN, WITH HIS SON AND HIS HOLY ANGELS.
AND THEREFORE THE RAQIYA WHICH HE MADE MUCH LATER WHICH IS BETWEEN THE TWO WATERS CANNOT BE THE PLACE OF GOD’S PERSONAL DWELLING.
Let me help you @berean.
First, we need to let scripture speak.
God called the raqia / expanse – heaven, and God dwells in heaven.
Next, we already know that God is above all from many other scriptures.
So how do we reconcile?
Easy. We just need to find out what raqia really means.
If it becomes what most people and translators think it is , which is sky / expanse, etc, then of course God is above us. And if we understand that heaven has at least three levels or if there are three heavens, then God exists in the highest heaven. This then means there are lower levels of heaven perhaps the stars and below that, the place where birds fly.
So if we think about these levels or heavens, we can see that there is sky or space between the waters above and below in the first heaven, then further above that is another heaven – the realm of the stars etc, and above that again is a place called the highest heaven. So raqia could be all of this or just the part where birds fly and where the stars exist. Either way, we can understand the waters above and below in context now because that is simply the first heaven which is divided by waters and agrees with science and what we observe with our own eyes.
The confusion that Mike is trying espousing goes away and everything fits scripturally, and also scientifically in the sense that science has not disproved any of it and confirms some of it. Unlike Mike’s flawed scriptural understanding and flawed model of the cosmos which is based on the pagan Babylonian view, we can actually see our earth from space and it looks nothing like what Mike is teaching. But is harmonious with the view that most believers have which is a globe earth going around the sun which scripture doesn’t disagree with at all.
It’s no big deal. But some conspiracy theorists will blow it all up into a world wide conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth from humanity. Why? Because they are sensationalist and like the idea that they are one of a few who are awake to this conspiracy. of course conspiracies exist, but Mike’s one just distracts from where the real battle is. It is just another part of the world wide supermarket of deception.
Proclaimer : Let me help you berean.
First, we need to let scripture speak.
If we believe scripture, then we need to understand the truth that God called the raqia / expanse – heaven, and God dwells in heaven.
Me:
Do you believe that GOD WAS IN HIS HEAVEN “BEFORE” CREATING “THE RAQIYA”
YES OR NO?Thanks
Mike …..Heres one for you, Satan your mentor said, that they, Adam and Eve, wouldn’t die when they eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, right?, But God said they would die in “the day”, they ate of it, but you see they never died in a, 24 hour day, after they ate of it, now did they?, But they certanily did die within a thousand years after they ate of it, and so has all of mankind sense, no one has lived over a thousand years. A single day with God. So it is correct to say they died in “the day”, they ate of it? That proves God was speaking of “HIS” timming period, in Genesis, “a thousand years equals a day with God” , So, Proclaimer is right again, and your wrong again, “CHEERS”.
Peace and love to you and your Mike………gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
