Source of biblical flood water?

Which would be Genesis 1:5-7, correct? That's what is being discussed here, simple. The firmament - the hammered-out metal dome that seperates the waters above from those below. That's what Genesis is telling about. Your notion is obviously picked up from heretical preachers whose interpretation is influenced by the demonic teachings of Copernicus and Galileo. A dome - a firmament - is PRECISELY "just like the bible says."

quote:

---

. The firmament - the hammered-out metal dome that seperates the waters above from those below

---

No one claims any meteal dome anywhere, as you claim.
Here are some opinions, none of which conceive some litereal metal.
""1:8 And God called the firmament g Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.(g) That is, the region of the air, and all that is above us. "
Genesis 1 - Geneva Study Bible - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
"The creation of the earth's atmosphere was God's work on the second day of creation. Jamieson pointed out that the term "firmament" carries the meaning of "an expanse ... the beating out as of a plate of metal,"F5 suggesting the utility of a shield, an apt figure indeed when it is recalled that the earth would long ago have been destroyed by showers of meteorites (as upon the moon) had it not been for the protection of our atmosphere. ""The Hebrew word rakia, from raka, to spread out as the curtains of a tent or pavilion, simply signifies an expanse or space" Genesis 1 - Clarke's Commentary - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org"Expanse or Firmament (raqia). The key Hebrew word in Genesis 1:6 8a is raqia . It is translated firmament in the King James translation and expanse in most Hebrew dictionaries and modern translations. While its original meaning is uncertain, its root, raqa , means to spread out, beat out, or hammer as one would a malleable metal. It can also mean plate. This may explain why the Greek Septuagint translated raqia 16 out of 17 times with the Greek word stereoma , which means a firm or solid structure. The Latin Vulgate (A.D. 382) used the Latin term firmamentum, which also denotes solidness and firmness. So the King James translators in A.D. 1611 coined the word firmament. Today, firmament is usually used poetically to mean sky, atmosphere, or heavens. In modern Hebrew, raqia means sky or heavens. However, originally it probably meant something solid or firm that was spread out.Finally, if raqia were related to a canopy, it seems strange that other Hebrew words, often translated as canopy, were not used in Genesis: sukkah (Ps 18:11 and II Sam 22:12), chuppah (Is 4:5), and shaphrur (Jer 43:10). " In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - An Alternate Interpretation"Ancient extrabiblical writings, although not having the authority of biblical passages, also support the idea that earth was created with water under the crust.The First Book of Adam and Eve, states in verse 70:15 that God ... established the earth upon the waters. The Secrets of Enoch, another apocryphal book, also known as II Enoch, says in verse 47:5, The Lord ... fixed the earth upon the waters. [Rutherford H. Platt Jr., editor, The Forgotten Books of Eden (U.S.A.: Alpha House, 1927), pp. 50, 98.]II Esdras, which was part of most Christians’ Old Testaments until the Reformation, retells the same creation story found in Genesis 1. However, in II Esdras 6:41—42 the second and third days are described differently by Ezra.On the second day you created the angel of the firmament, and commanded him to make a dividing barrier between the waters, one part withdrawing upwards and the other remaining below. On the third day you ordered the waters to collect in a seventh part of the earth; the other six parts you made into dry land, ... [emphasis added]In other words, the earth’s waters immediately after the creation were divided into two parts, perhaps equal parts. One part was below a barrier, and the other part was above. The earth’s seas covered only 1/7th of the earth’s surface. Therefore, the volume of surface water was probably much less than the volume of today’s surface water which covers 70% of the earth. So considerable water would have been on the other side of the barrier much more than any canopy could have held. However, subterranean chambers could have held that amount.Most definitive is the word barrier. It hardly seems to describe the atmosphere, sky, heaven, or outer space. It aptly describes the earth’s crust that vertically divided the earth’s liquid water. II Esdras 16:58 reinforces this: He has shut up the sea in the midst of the waters, and by His command He has hung the earth upon the water.. A few people claim that raqia is the universe, and the waters above the expanse (raqia) surround the universe. This places all the heavenly bodies in the expanse of the heavens, which agrees with Genesis 1:14 17. [This was first proposed by Harold L. Armstrong, The Expanding Universe and Creation, Repossess the Land (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bible Science Association, 1979), pp. 22 27.]Surrounding the universe with water assumes the universe is finite, when its size may be infinite, or it may have an even more exotic geometry. Let us assume the edge of the universe is only 10 billion light-years away, and absolutely nothing is outside it, even empty space. Surrounding the universe with as much water as the earth contains (1.43 x 1024 grams), as just one example, would spread one gram over every 3 x 1022 square miles or place adjacent water molecules one mile apart!Pure water in the near vacuum of space would clearly be water vapor, not the liquid water the Bible describes above the expanse. What purpose would that water fulfill? Certainly, it would have played no role in the flood and could not be detected today. Why then mention it in the brief first chapter of Genesis?"
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Did the flood water come from above or below Earth’s surface? So there are different ideas on the precise meaning, none of which agree with you, aparently?!

quote:

---

Your notion is obviously picked up from heretical preachers whose interpretation is influenced by the demonic teachings of Copernicus and Galileo

---

Sorry, throwing out that those who don't agree with you are heretics is just plain cheap and knavish.

Oh? You quoted:
"However, originally it probably meant something solid or firm that was spread out."
"One part was below a barrier, and the other part was above."
"an expanse ... the beating out as of a plate of metal,"So thank you for digging out the scholarship that supports the "solid dome" view. And of course nobody claims that there's such a dome nowadays - Voyager would have hit it long ago. Science has shown the view of the writers of Genesis to be in error to the point that even Young-Earthers accept that there's not one: they merely claim that the plain words of Genesis mean something other than what they say.Why YEC's refuse to do the same for the age of the Earth or for evolution is a complete mystery to me.ABE: I failed to put a winky-face after the heretics comment. I'll try harder in the future.This message has been edited by Coragyps, 04-17-2005 06:42 PM

quote:

---

The fountains of the deep are probably geysers.
Heaven yeah; there is water underneath the ground.

---

I don't believe putting all the Earth's ground water above ground would even be possible. I assume the layers of Earth where the water pressure is no longer holding would collapse in most cases. On a grand scale such as would be needed to produce such a great amount of water (which still isn't enough), wouldn't the top layer of the Earth be drastically changed?I'm not just speaking of the Creationist claims that the flood somehow carved the Grand Canyon or other water erosion. I'm talking about global shifts of plates and massive sink holes. Certainly after such an event the ground water wouldn't just return to its place.Wouldn't there be evidence of this today? Am I crazy?This message has been edited by dsv, Sunday, April 17, 2005 06:45 PM

the bible says there's a hard object, shaped like a dome, that keeps the water above the sky out. this object is called "heaven"that's what the bible says. do you believe it, or not?

quote:

---

So thank you for digging out the scholarship that supports the "solid dome" view. And of course nobody claims that there's such a dome nowadays - Voyager would have hit it long ago. Science has shown the view of the writers of Genesis to be in error to the point that even Young-Earthers accept that there's not one

---

Well, apparently you believe some men actually thought we lived in a dome surrounded earth? I don't buy it, unless, perhaps, it was some pitiful pagan perception. Believers, I don't think would have swallowed that one any more than some little life form magically appearing for no apparent rhyme or reason, only to spring forth all life on earth eventually! Nobody does, I think you may be right there, and you haven't shown even the demented may have in history, so far either-just an absurd literist rendition of some translated word in the bible, which I already showed had no bearing on other than your imagination of how things were.

quote:

---

Why YEC's refuse to do the same for the age of the Earth or for evolution is a complete mystery to me.

---

The biblically documented age of creation, and the earth is cross checked, and verified by more than an evo preference of how to interpret some word in the bible! Jesus refered, for example to the time of the garden, and also to the flood. The mystery comes when one uses physical only evidences, to try to date things beyond their actual creation! When we add in the spiritual component, it changes everything, and the mystery becomes how men could have actually believe in granny, and the little creator speck!

quote:

---

the bible says there's a hard object, shaped like a dome, that keeps the water above the sky out. this object is called "heaven"

​

that's what the bible says. do you believe it, or not?

---

I could give my opinion, but I don't really know. As I understand it, there are at least 2 big trains of interpretation on this point. One has it that water might be outside the edge of the universe, the other, like Walt Brown's book leans to, where the barrier was between the lower earth water and the surface water. But it is a quite in depth subject. I think there was the canopy idea, which also was well accepted, and I think some had it kinda being part of this whole firmament thing?So there is more than one cut and dry legitimate interpertation.

like i said, i will give this debate to the first creationist who has the balls to say they honestly believe the world is flat, with a big glass dome overhead that keeps out the water, just like the bible says. that is what the bible says. only the universe here is very, very small. it's a circle of "earth" and a half-sphere of "heaven" which contains the stars and the planets and the sun and moon. and outside of that is water. granted, it does not say how THICK the heavens are, but the indication is that when you open a hole in them, water comes out. but that's not what the bible says. the bible says the firmament that separates water is HEAVEN. in the sky. not EARTH, in ground. a thin layer of water, other than being physically and logically impossible, is not the same as solid object that keeps water out. one is suspended by magic, and one is the structure doing the suspending. no, not really. the bible is pretty clear on what it means. it says there's a solid object called heaven that separates the waters above from the waters below, and under this is the earth. it's not a matter of interpretation. it's what it literally says.people who propose other ideas such was walt brown and his vapor canopy or subcrustal ocean ideas are perverting both science and the bible. it doesn't fit with either. they do this to justify the bible as a legitimate scientific record, validating their belief. the bible is simply not a science book. its view of the universe is not accurate.you either have enough faith where that doesn't matter to you, or enough faith that you really think it's accurate. depends on where you place that faith, i suppose. but to try to justify your faith with misreadings and misinterpretations matched with poor science and geology and physics... well.seems kind of like he's got something to prove to himself, right?

sure. for one, the egyptians did. if these object we were talking in the hebrew mythology were GODS, it might look a little like this: nope, seems to fit with the themes of the hebrew bible. for one, there's several important themes about god conquering leviathan, who is the chaotic water serpent -- the embodiment of these waters.and this is found in other places in the bible too. where do you think we got the flat circle bit?

quote:

---

Isa 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

---

and the glass bit?

quote:

---

Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, [which is] strong, [and] as a molten looking glass?

---

sure they did. how would they have known any better? they didn't have astronauts. they didn't even especially tall towers. heck, i've been offices taller that babel. this was a common perception of the universe at the time of the origin of the stories. (although it may have been outdated at the point of authorship) you mean creation ex-nihilo? that is more or less what the bible says.

quote:

---

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

---

god's not doing it. he's not even commanding it. he's letting it happen. and yet it is continually supported throughout the rest of the bible. remember, many of us here CHECK our translations. and look at other translations. this is not an absurd interpretation. it's what the bible actually says.saying any different -- THAT'S the interpretive part. and if it's absurd... well. i'm sorry. then the bible's absurd and you just have to accept that fact. we're just reporting what it says. if you don't believe it that's not my problem. really? i've heard everything from 6 to 10 thousand years. depending on how you count. see, the bible never explicitly SAYS how old the earth is.so do we go by the jewish count? they're actually just shy of 6000, at 5765 (2005). do we go by a known date like the exhile to babylon circa 600 bc? do we go by the genealogies of jesus, assuming his birth at 0? and if so, which one? and we're counting by those, do we count the generations they skip, that are included in chronicles?see, it's not exactly cut and dry here, is it? hey, you're the one with a chimp in a suit for their icon.

quote:

---

sure. for one, the egyptians did. if these object we were talking in the hebrew mythology were GODS, it might look a little like this:

---

Looking at the guy's right hand, I wonder if he had something else on his mind?

quote:

---

nope, seems to fit with the themes of the hebrew bible. for one, there's several important themes about god conquering leviathan, who is the chaotic water serpent -- the embodiment of these waters.

---

? Oh, and where are these several references found, you speak of? I know of one in Job, where an extinct water dino was spoken of, but go ahead, prove you know what you are talking about, and list the several right here!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

quote:

---

and this is found in other places in the bible too. where do you think we got the flat circle bit?

---

Oh right. The flat circle bit. Most circles I have seen were round. But do tell, you know of some flat ones?

quote:

---

sure they did. how would they have known any better? they didn't have astronauts.

---

Oh? Then where did Enoch walk? Where did Elijah go on a flaming chariot? How did God make His rounds of the entire universe, from one end to the other? etc, etc, etc.

quote:

---

you mean creation ex-nihilo? that is more or less what the bible says.

---

Witout God, the concept becomes as silly as stuffing the entire universe into a ball point pen tip.

quote:

---

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

god's not doing it. he's not even commanding it. he's letting it happen.

---

Look a little further. 'By Him were all things created, and without Him was nothing made, that was made'. No they didn't make their little selves.

quote:

---

and yet it is continually supported throughout the rest of the bible. remember, many of us here CHECK our translations. and look at other translations. this is not an absurd interpretation. it's what the bible actually says.

---

Nonsense. The bible doesn't talk of a God on a hot tin roof.

quote:

---

really? i've heard everything from 6 to 10 thousand years. depending on how you count. see, the bible never explicitly SAYS how old the earth is.

---

It tells us, within a narrow range of possible opinion, when Adam lived.

quote:

---

so do we go by the jewish count? they're actually just shy of 6000, at 5765 (2005). do we go by a known date like the exhile to babylon circa 600 bc? do we go by the genealogies of jesus, assuming his birth at 0? and if so, which one? and we're counting by those, do we count the generations they skip, that are included in chronicles?

---

It doesn't matter. Whether Jesus was born in 4 BC or 1 AD, the general age of the earth is not affected to ant substansial degree! Whether it was 5765, or 6000 ish, it does not matter a hill of beans. The issue here is millions and billions of years. Don't think you can cloud the matter.

quote:

---

see, it's not exactly cut and dry here, is it?

---

Creation to within a few centuries is cut and dry. Which hangs out evo dreamed up billions of years out to dry!

look up some egyptian mythology and get back to me.

quote:

---

Psa 74:13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.
Psa 74:14 Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, [and] gavest him [to be] meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

---

see that first bit? dividing the sea? now refer back to genesis 1.

quote:

---

Isa 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that [is] in the sea.

---

quote:

---

Gen 1:21 And God created great serpents, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

---

you're probably used to this verse saying "whales" but it says tanniyn, or serpents. it's the same word for the thing that moses's staff becomes when he casts it to the ground. i don't think it became a whale.leviathan is probably one specific great tanniyn. he is also represented in ugaritic mythology has the seven headed water dragon whom el (as in elowah, elohym, or el shaddai) the wind god slays. i know what i'm talking about. however, you do not. one, there is no such thing as an aquatic dinosaur. marine reptiles, yes, but dinosaurs are NOT reptiles, and only live on the land. (ask your local paleontologist if you don't believe me. i've only had a mild interest in it my entire life)and leviathan cannot fit the description of any earthly animal, let alone a dinosaur. for starters, he has seven heads (the inspiration for the great red dragon of revelation) and breaths fire. real animals just do not have those properties. draw one on a piece paper and see. with god. presumably on the earth, btw. but it's no matter, one of the verses above states that god sits on top of heavens in his throne. into heaven. the firmament. for the life of me, i don't know what you mean. there's a verse in matthew that says "one end of heaven to the other." how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? that's great, but that's not what genesis says, is it? haven't read the bible much, have we? i suggest you actually take some time and read it. it's an interest set of books. i would not call 4000 years difference a "narrow range" when we're only dealing with at most 10,000 years. that's 40% margin of error!and feel free to point out WHERE it says when adam lived? got a date? i can't find one. we're not dealing with 245 years here. we're dealing with a little more that 4000 years difference. which is it? why do some creationists assert 10k when some say only 6? and when the jews say 5 and 3/4?don't forget, i'm dealing with what the bible actually says. not stuff people made up about it. not the arithmetic of later scholars. the bible says there is a glass dome over teh sky that keeps out the water. the bible does not say the earth is 6000 years old. the bible, for all intents and purposes, starts with a universe of infinite age. it's not a few centuries. it's FOUR THOUSAND YEARS. in the scope of only SIX thousand years, that 2/3rd over, isn't it? that's a HUGE difference.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-18-2005 04:21 AM

I believe wormholes exist. I even wrote about them in my book. I can be sure I will see you later.

quote:

---

I could give my opinion, but I don't really know.

​

like i said, i will give this debate to the first creationist who has the balls to say they honestly believe the world is flat, with a big glass dome overhead that keeps out the water, just like the bible says.

---

When I say I don't know, I don't mean I don't know it's not something riddiculous like you seem to like to try to portray

quote:

---

that is what the bible says. only the universe here is very, very small. it's a circle of "earth" and a half-sphere of "heaven" which contains the stars and the planets and the sun and moon. and outside of that is water. granted, it does not say how THICK the heavens are, but the indication is that when you open a hole in them, water comes out.

---

Here again, you are negatively simplifying. Like someone saying we will play harps and float on clouds all day in heaven. I would go with either Walt's book, where it leans to the barrier being from waters under the earth from waters on the surface, or I could even see a possibility of water outside the universe, like his book thinks is so impossible. But some silly skydome, sorry, it is an unflattering, negetive, base interpretation attempt.

quote:

---

but that's not what the bible says. the bible says the firmament that separates water is HEAVEN. in the sky. not EARTH, in ground.

---

I already linked to a page or two where he fleshed that out. He presented a bonide case for that veiwpoint.

quote:

---

a thin layer of water, other than being physically and logically impossible, is not the same as solid object that keeps water out. one is suspended by magic, and one is the structure doing the suspending.

---

Impossible under today's world, maybe. Anyhow, I can live with the barrier or firmament between the waters being either of the 2 I touched on.

quote:

---

no, not really. the bible is pretty clear on what it means. it says there's a solid object called heaven

---

Heaven is used a few different ways in Genesis.

quote:

---

it's not a matter of interpretation. it's what it literally says.

---

It's what you chose to take it as meaning. It is a matter of not being cut and dry. There are different legitamate biblical opinions on the matter. This word means that, but comes from this, which sometimes can mean something else, especially when used wit...etc. Hey, these guys really dig it all up, and they do not all agree with you here, you will have to live with that.

quote:

---

people who propose other ideas such was walt brown and his vapor canopy or subcrustal ocean ideas are perverting both science and the bible. it doesn't fit with either.

---

Says you. People who propose some magically appearing first lifeform, or the universe fitting in a ball point pen tip sized soup, at one time, or not understanding the spiritual, when combined to the physical can change everything, are perverted, actually.As far as not fitting with either, bible or science, a lot of these things fit pretty good. Sometimes it is simply a matter of stopping trying make them not fit.

quote:

---

the bible is simply not a science book. its view of the universe is not accurate.

---

Not merely a science book would be more accurate. It also tells of the spiritual and it's effects on the physical, in the past, and in the present, and in the future. It is not limited to the box.

quote:

---

but to try to justify your faith with misreadings and misinterpretations matched with poor science and geology and physics... well.

---

My point also. Apply this to so called science of the physical only, and you may see it in a new light.

quote:

---

look up some egyptian mythology and get back to me

---

I can guarantee they had that on their minds. But as far as whether they had some notion of a metal skydome or something, it doesn't matter. At best it would have been based loosely on the hand me down tidbits they got from the children of the Living God, at worst, well, a pagan dream.

quote:

---

you're probably used to this verse saying "whales"

---

No I was thinking of a fire breathing dragon dino type thing. I didn't look it up, and I see you did find several references to our little beastie here.

quote:

---

and leviathan cannot fit the description of any earthly animal, let alone a dinosaur. for starters, he has seven heads

---

No. The beast in Revelation, or Daniel is a horse of a different color, not by any stretch a leviathan. But that's a long story, and wouldn't mix with a science forum.

quote:

---

there is no such thing as an aquatic dinosaur. marine reptiles, yes, but dinosaurs are NOT reptiles, and only live on the land

---

Fair enough. So when we think of those ocean swimming platawhateverasurasus', we should remember they are not dinos. You know the kind some people think Nelly may have been?

quote:

---

Oh right. The flat circle bit. Most circles I have seen were round. But do tell, you know of some flat ones?

​

draw one on a piece paper and see.

---

Oh, of course, make it one dimensional, and it looks flat. I wonder if our canopy may have been like a ring of saturn, only real thin? Anyhow, yes we could use an in box type interpretation to some of these things, and lose a few dimensions, if we are into that, what about it?

quote:

---

with god. presumably on the earth, btw. but it's no matter, one of the verses above states that god sits on top of heavens in his throne.

---

Here we go again with box interpretations! He is able and known to have been in many places, at once, even!

quote:

---

Where did Elijah go on a flaming chariot?

​

into heaven. the firmament.

---

Well, there you go, it couldn't have been a metal skydome, or we'd see him pasted up there, with a telescope!

quote:

---

Look a little further. 'By Him were all things created, and without Him was nothing made, that was made'. No they didn't make their little selves.

​

that's great, but that's not what genesis says, is it?

---

Don't keep regressing into one dimensionality on me here, I don't live in the box! There are other books in the bible, you know! Now I know it might be easier to try to poke fun, if we could only have Genesis, but we got plenty more, that was just the beginning.

quote:

---

Nonsense. The bible doesn't talk of a God on a hot tin roof.

​

haven't read the bible much, have we?

---

I haven't tried it with one dimensional glasses on, but, actually, I woudn't want to, science would be at least as interesting!

quote:

---

i would not call 4000 years difference a "narrow range" when we're only dealing with at most 10,000 years. that's 40% margin of error!

---

I understood there were only a few centuries one could play with there. Who claims 10,000 years, and tries to use the bible as well? If they do, they are out to lunch.

quote:

---

don't forget, i'm dealing with what the bible actually says.

---

So if it says "Jesus rose" it means He is a flower? I deal with what it really says and means, in correlation, and balance with all else.

it *IS* something ridiculous like i say. i am not assigning the ridiculous quality. i'm just reporting what the bible says. if you think it's silly, that's you're problem. i happen to think it's a very useful and interesting set of book and i rather enjoy studying it. it's not an interpretation, nor is it an attempt. if it's silly, unflattering, negative, and base, it's not my fault. i'm just reporting what the book says. it says there's a solid object that divides the water above from the water below, and that this object is called "heaven." we live under this object. you're not debating me, you're debating genesis.if you don't agree with it, i suggest you change your position on the bible. trust me, walt brown has been torn to shreds several times over on this board. the amount of water it would take to flood the planet being contained in the ground would saturate the rock so much that there would be no such thing as solid ground.and remember -- this water has to go somewhere when it's done. so this water has to still be here. and we don't have enough water on this planet to flood it all.walt brown is trying to justify some little bit of scripture with the real world because his belief, and the beliefs of others, depends on genesis being literally true. yet, he's willing to ignore that blatant statements in genesis that indicate the water came from the source of creation, above the heavens and below the earth: the great deep.i am NOT trying justify genesis with the real world. i'm just reporting what it says, so that you can see that this idea does not actually fit with reality. no, impossible in general. there'd be so much water in the atmosphere we'd all drown. unless adam and eve had gills, this would be a problem. but then -- that'd prove adaptation to environment: evolution. really? let's look. there's a couple of verses like this:

quote:

---

Gen 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

---

where god puts the sun and the moon in the heaven. here's a suspicious one:

quote:

---

Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

---

but since we're talking about a vault, this isn't suprising.

quote:

---

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.

---

there's a couple under heavens.

quote:

---

Gen 15:5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

---

and there's some stuff about the stars being in heaven. (even now, we treat the stars as if they were fixed to a solid sphere that cirles the earth for some purposes, because it's just easier. even if we know this is not the case)

quote:

---

Gen 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

---

quote:

---

Gen 22:11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here [am] I.

---

a few indications that god lives there. (el being a wind god, this is not suprising)

quote:

---

Gen 28:12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.

---

where's the other end of the ladder? most of these suggest a solid roof. no, there are not. there's a few metaphorical readings, and there's a few creationists who say different things because they can't justify something so patently silly or outdated or just plain don't know any better. the only legitimate reading is that a solid object, a firmament, separates the waters above the earth from the waters below the earth. that's not an interpretation, it's what genesis actually says. i'm not playing funny translation games. i'm reading the text. you're welcome to read along. god separates the waters. does this by placing something inbetween them, vertically. this makes a vault shape of the sky. so outside our atmosphere should be water. uh, you're the one proposing magic here. that is what god is -- magic. you can't use "magic" to condemn people for believing in natural occurances when your explanation is supernatural. that's like the pot calling the china black. no, actually they don't. they fit for people who just don't know any better. i know a lot about science. i know alot about the bible. and they don't fit with EITHER. i routine debate creationists on this board based on both natural sciences AND theology. which is what i have done. i don't care about it lining up with the real world. i don't care about it lining up with ITSELF. i'm interested in what the bible says. it goes in reverse too. to justify science with theology is even sillier.