Mabbul - The Waters Above

A vapour canopy about the antediluvian earth has been proposed occasionally through the centuries. Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate (c. A.D. 400), described a canopy, 'compactae et densiores aquae'. White infers this to mean a canopy of ice. Immanuel Kant suggested more than two centuries ago that the Flood might have been caused by the collapse of a vapour "ring", an idea later proposed independently by Isaac N. Vail in 1874 Dillow recently hypothesised a forty-foot column of water vapour six miles above the earth.
Some proponents like a watery canopy; others prefer an icy model. But does the Bible suggest a canopy at all?
The following verses, when read together, particularly in a literal translation, are enough to cause one to suspect a canopy of some sort: GENESIS 1:6-7; 2:5-6,10; 3:8; 6:17; 7:6-12,17; 8:2; 9:11,15,28; 10:1,32; 11:10; PSALM 18:11; 29:10; and 2 PETER 3:5-6.
GENESIS 1:2 depicts a geoidal earth totally covered with water. Two Hebrew words, tehom, normally translated "the deep", and hamayim, "the waters", are both found in verse two. Driver says that tehom as used here does not mean what the deep, or the sea, would denote to the modern world, but rather "the primitive undivided waters; the huge watery mass which the writer conceived as enveloping the earth." These waters pictured in verse 2 completely covered our planet, forming a hydrosphere upon the earth and apparently a hot, steamy atmosphere for some miles above the earth - an utterly uninhabitable chaos. Such is the condition of the earth as the Spirit of God initiates His first creative act on Day One.
Following the creation of light, God deals with teom, the "bathic deep". Two acts are necessary for this: the separation of the waters above the earth from the waters below, and the raising of the land and the forcing of the oceans into their allotted areas. In verse 7, "God made the sky [firmament]" and He used the sky to "separate [i.e. establish order between] the waters under the sky from the waters above the sky." The words of verse 7 thus describe the establishment of the antediluvian vapour canopy. Without a perception of this canopy, Bible students are mystified about the significance of the second day's work.
"The waters above" were called mabbul, a specific Hebrew designation to distinguish the canopy from the waters below, teom, "the oceans". Although mabbul is not specifically used in chapter one, it does appear subsequently, particularly in the Flood narrative, as later biblical authors correctly recall the canopy's former existence. Von Rad exegetes the scripture brilliantly:
"An understanding... of the Flood depends materially on the correct translation of the word mabbul. Mabbul does not mean "flood", "inundation", or even "destruction", but it is a technical term for a part of the world structure, namely, the heavenly ocean. This heavenly sea, which is above the firmament (raqia), empties downward... We must understand the Flood, therefore, as a catastrophe involving the entire cosmos. When the heavenly ocean breaks forth upon the earth below, and the primeval sea beneath the earth, which is restrained by God, now freed from its bonds, gushes up through yawning chasms onto the earth, then there is a destruction of the entire cosmic system according to biblical cosmogony. The two halves of the chaotic primeval sea, separated - the one up, the other below - by God's creative government, are again united; creation begins to sink again into chaos. Here the catastrophe, therefore, concerns not only men and beasts... but the earth - indeed, the entire cosmos."
Mabbul then is the specific term for "the waters above", and our English versions should use the words "the canopy" or an appropriate synonym each time mabbul appears. Brown, Driver & Briggs, in their classic Hebrew lexicon, state that mabbul "seems... to be almost a proper name..." Indeed, twice it appears without the definite article, suggesting its use as a proper name. The word is found 13 times in the Old Testament, and it is commonly mistranslated, as Von Rad notes. Translating all the words except mabbul in these passages, we see as follows:
1."For behold, I will bring mabbul of waters upon the earth..." (GENESIS 6:17a).
2."Noah was six hundred years old when mabbul of waters came upon the earth" (GENESIS 7:6).
3."And Noah... went into the ark, to escape the waters of mabbul" (GENESIS 7:7).
4."And after seven days the waters of mabbul came upon the earth" (GENESIS 7:10).
5."Mabbul continued forty days upon the earth" (GENESIS 7:17a).
6."...[N]ever again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of mabbul..."
7."...and there is no longer mabbul to wipe out the earth" (GENESIS 9:11b,c).
8."...No longer shall there be the waters - namely, mabbul - to wipe out all flesh" (GENESIS 9:15b).
9."After mabbul Noah lived three hundred and fifty years" (GENESIS 9:28).
10."...[S]ons were born to them after mabbul" (GENESIS 10:1b).
11."...[A]nd from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after mabbul" (GENESIS 10:32b).
12."...[H]e became the father of Arphaxad two years after mabbul" (GENESIS 11:10c).
13."The LORD sat enthroned over mabbul, the LORD is enthroned as King forever" (PSALM 29:10).
2 PETER 3:5,13, which is such a helpful New Testament commentary on the Creation and the Flood, also confirms the two "waters" - Teom and mabbul.
"...[A]n earth formed out of water and by means of water, through which [Greek: di hon, plural] the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished." (2 PETER 3:5-6)
The writer's choice of the genitive plural "which", shows his astute perception of the actual conditions prior to the Flood.
As may be seen from GENESIS 9:11 and 9:15, mabbul no longer exists; it was condensed out during the Flood several millennia ago. Today the atmosphere scarcely contains even inches of water vapour. Yet even the psalmist correctly recalls - many centuries later - the canopy's earlier existence (PSALM 29:10).
Noah stepped out of the ark into a brand-new world - now with more water than land after 40 days of rain. The sons of Noah, no longer threatened by hostile "giants", found a new threat - an increasingly-severe climatic regime, without the protecting antediluvian canopy.
Von Rad has confirmed from his exegesis of Genesis that the Flood involved the entire cosmos. 2 PETER 3:5-6 likewise pictures both the heavens and the earth having been violently re-ordered during the Flood, and then verse 7 gives the most specific New Testament portrayal of the future universal destruction by fire.
Still we are given a glorious hope. God not only assures us in GENESIS 9:11 and 9:15 that "there will no longer be a mabbul to wipe out the earth," but He also promises in REVELATION 21:1 that even teom, the ever-threatening waters below, will one day be eliminated: "...and the sea was no more."
by R. Russell Bixler
Source: 'Bible Science Newsletter'
http://www.cai.org/bible-studies/does-bible-speak-vapour-canopy

The Secret Within Isis

http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/isis-bob-dylan-and-jacques-levy

Does Isis Understand The Spirit of God?

Nut, the sky goddess, was the spouse of Ra, the sun god, who begot Osiris. By dallying with Thoth, the divine messenger, she gave birth to Isis, and by dallying again with Seb, the earth-god, to Set. Isis and Osiris so instinctively loved each other that they had relations with each other, unwittingly in the divine mother’s womb. Osiris and Isis were therefore brother and sister but, after the fashion of the Pharaohs they married. Osiris became ruler of Egypt, which he civilized, and he then set out to civilize the world.

The loving pair annoyed the prince of darkness, Set, whose father, Seb, is the equivalent of the Roman Saturn. Osiris was murdered by Set, who enticed Osiris to enter a handsome chest, fastened it down with molten lead, and had it flung into the Nile. The desolated Isis sought her brother and lover high and low. This search for the missing god or goddess is a common feature, and was dramatically represented in all the old mysteries. The chest was washed up on the coast of Syria and became lodged in the trunk of a tree which grew to such proportions that it was eventually cut down and used in as a column of the palace at Byblos with the coffin inside the trunk. Isis eventually found it there. After an interlude that smacks of the Demeter and Brimos story, she took the chest and set the tree in a temple swathed in linen like the tree of Attis.

Back in Egypt, Isis lay in the form of a hawk upon the dead body of Osiris and thus miraculously conceived her son Horus. Or she left the coffin at a place in Egypt while she went to see Horus. The evil Set found the body of Osiris and tore it into fourteen pieces, and scatted them. Isis painstakingly sought the parts of Osiris’s body and Isis and Horus put them together. As the wings of Isis fluttered over the corpse, Ra then reanimated him, and Osiris was resurrected. But, to confuse Set, Isis effected to have each part buried where she found it, which is why there were fourteen graves of Osiris in Egypt. But she could not find a penis which the fishes had swallowed, and had to make a synthetic one to conceive, in this version, their child Horus. Osiris then reigned as the king of the dead while Horus reigned on earth. At the core of this myth is a doctrine of a beneficent god slain by the powers of darkness and rising again from the dead.

The search took Isis to Phoenicia where she met Queen Astarte. Astarte didn't recognize the goddess and hired her as a nursemaid to the infant prince.

Fond of the young boy, Isis decided to bestow immortality on him. As she was holding the royal infant over the fire as part of the ritual, the Queen entered the room. Seeing her son smoldering in the middle of the fire, Astarte instinctively (but naively) grabbed the child out of the flames, undoing the magic of Isis that would have made her son a god.

When the Queen demanded an explanation, Isis revealed her identity and told Astarte of her quest to recover her husband's body. As she listened to the story, Astarte realized that the body was hidden in the fragrant tree in the center of the palace and told Isis where to find it.

Sheltering his broken body in her arms, the goddess Isis carried the body of Osiris back to Egypt for proper burial. There she hid it in the swamps on the delta of the Nile river.

Unfortunately, Set came across the box one night when he was out hunting. Infuriated by this turn of events and determined not to be outdone, he murdered Osiris once again . . . this time hacking his body into 14 pieces and throwing them in different directions knowing that they would be eaten by the crocodiles.

The goddess Isis searched and searched, accompanied by seven scorpions who assisted and protected her. Each time she found new pieces she rejoined them to re-form his body.

But Isis could only recover thirteen of the pieces. The fourteenth, his penis, had been swallowed by a crab, so she fashioned one from gold and wax. Then inventing the rites of embalming, and speaking some words of magic, Isis brought her husband back to life.

Magically, Isis then conceived a child with Osiris, and gave birth to Horus, who later became the Sun God. Assured that having the infant would now relieve Isis' grief, Osiris was free to descend to become the King of the Underworld, ruling over the dead and the sleeping.

His spirit, however, frequently returned to be with Isis and the young Horus who both remained under his watchful and loving eye.

http://www.carnaval.com/isis/

The Spirit Of God Moves

The Sustainer of Life: The Role of the Spirit of God in Creation

Dr Scott A. Ellington
LecturerEmmanuel College, Franklin Springs, Georgia.

The Spirit remains aloof from the initial creation of the cosmos recorded in Genesis, having instead the responsibility for continually sustaining and redeeming life. The unusual participle used to describe the Spirit’s presence in Genesis 1:2c מרחפת (merachefet), best characterises the ongoing and unfinished nature of the Spirit’s creative activity. For the writer of Job, the Spirit of God works constantly to sustain life. In the Psalms the Spirit as creator comes to be identified both with the enduring presence of God and with the maintenance of spiritual and moral life.

The Unassuming Spirit :
The Bible opens with accounts of God’s creation of the cosmos that provide the theological underpinnings for all that follows, most particularly for understanding the scope of God’s sovereignty and the trajectory of his redemptive plan. Already in the second verse of Genesis we encounter God’s רוח (ruach), hovering over the face of the unformed chaos. Given their placement and prominent role in our understanding of the larger biblical narrative, it is surprising that the Old Testament has so little to say about God’s creation and even less about the role of God’s Spirit in that creation. Additionally, Israel’s understanding of the role of the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) or Spirit of God in creation is a late development. Direct references to the Spirit as creator are found only in Gen. 1:2 (a Priestly text), Job 27:3; 33:4; 34:14-15; Pss. 33:6; 51:10-12; and 104:29-301.
Letting the Text Speak :
In considering the person and action of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, two basic decisions need to be made with regard to the nature of biblical revelation and the understanding of the Spirit that we draw from it. The first is whether we should consider the biblical revelation of Spirit to be homogenous or contextual and unfolding. Should we expect each biblical writer to have a similar understanding of the identity and function of the Spirit of God or does that understanding evolve with the addition of new revelation and shift to reflect the unique context and concern of each writer?
A second and closely related decision concerning biblical revelation is whether we should regard it as essentially ontological or epistemological in nature. By this I mean, do biblical statements about the Spirit of God depict the essential nature of the Spirit, regardless of whether or not the biblical writer is aware of all that his or her revelation incorporates and implies, or do such statements reflect the understanding of the writer, so that what we are offered by the biblical writer is always shaped by context and limited by perspective? An ontological reading of the text allows the New Testament reader to look back from a “privileged” perspective and discern a meaning in the text that was denied its author. If, on the other hand, we read the text epistemologically, focusing on what the writer does and does not know, such surplus meanings are limited or excluded all together. Such an approach argues for answering the questions “What does this text say?” and “What does this author know?” before moving on to the question “How does this text fit with the larger biblical witness?”
It is also important to recognise that the matter of the identity of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament is not so much a question of what people thought regarding this member of the Godhead as it is what the intention was of God Himself who inspired the writers.
But this begs the question, how can we distinguish “what God intended” from “what people thought”? All we have to go on is the text and the perspective offered by its authors. To go behind the text and speculate on “what God intended” is, in fact, to read our own concerns into the text. Bolstered by his assumption, Wood draws a theological portrait of the Holy Spirit based on the New Testament and then looks for points of contact between that portrait and references to the Spirit of God in the Old Testament. “What God intended” is, for Wood, nothing more than the overlaying of one understanding of the Spirit onto another, so that the Old Testament’s unique contributions to our understanding of the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) are frequently blurred or passed over altogether.
In the Old Testament literature ruach is only used to express God’s activity as he relates himself to his world, his creation, his people. It was Israel’s way of describing God, not as he is in himself, but as he communicates to the world his power, his life, his anger, his will, his very presence.
Wind or Spirit? :
The Spirit of God appears already in the second verse of Genesis where she is remarkable for the ambiguity and open-endedness of her activity. One of the questions that has dominated the discussion of this first biblical reference to the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) is whether we should see in this phrase a reference to God’s Spirit, to the breath of God, or simply to a mighty wind sent by God. This question centers on the relationship between the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) in verse 2c with the “formless void” and the “covering darkness” that precede it. Both Gerhard von Rad and Claus Westermann understand the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) to be in a parallel relationship with the formless void of the earth and the darkness that covers the sea. Westermann suggests that verse 2 provides a three-part description of the uncreated state of the world in preparation for God’s first word of creation in verse 3, translating רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) as “God’s wind.”8 Westermann’s explanation, though, does not account for the reference being to God’s רוח (ruach), which suggests an adversative relationship to the void and the darkness. Von Rad points out that there is no further mention of the spirit taking an active role in the creation process, so that רוח (ruach) is unlikely to refer here to God’s spirit, and suggests the translation “storm of God.” While von Rad’s observation does not offer sufficient grounds for his understanding רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) to refer to God’s wind rather than his Spirit, it is nevertheless suggestive. There is a decided gap between the hovering רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) and the creative word that follows in verse 3. The hovering Spirit remains in the background as God speaks the word and initiates creation, but never alights to take a more active role.
The suggestion that אלהים (elohim) should be understood as a superlative, thus a “mighty wind,” has even less to commend it. As Hildebrandt points out, such an understanding of רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) would be unique in the Old Testament.
In the OT, the phrase ruah elohim occurs fifteen times in Hebrew and five times in Aramaic. It is never rendered “mighty wind” or “a wind of God” in these occurrences. If the writer intended to convey “mighty wind,” he would have used an adjective to make this clear (cf. Jonah 1:4; Job 1:19).
Hildebrandt’s assertion that the ו (waw) that precedes רוח (ruach) should be understood as an adversative provides the most probable reading11. Based on this adversative relationship of the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) to the pre-formed creation and the observation that the phrase is uniformly translated “Spirit of God” in each of its other appearances, Hildebrandt opts correctly for a translation of God’s Spirit, rather than a wind from God12. But what role, if any, does the רוח אלהים (ruach elohim) play in the creation that is initiated by God’s word in verse 3?
http://webjournals.alphacrucis.edu.au/journals/aps/issue-12/sustainer-life-role-spirit-god-creation/

The Breath of God

The work of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament
Julian Spriggs, M.A.

Through the centuries of history recorded in the Old Testament, we can see a progressive
development of understanding of the identity and work of God’s Spirit. This revelation leaves
room for the fuller doctrine of the Trinity that would be revealed in the N.T., where the Spirit
continues to perform the same activity and work as found in the O.T.

The Hebrew word for spirit

The Hebrew word for spirit, “ruach” is used nearly four hundred times in the O.T. It has a variety of meanings, which have a large measure of overlap. Sometimes the meaning can be determined with reasonable certainty by the context of the passage, but in other places the meaning is not so distinct.

(i) Wind
Over a quarter of the uses of “ruach” is to describe the wind, the powerful but invisible physical force of moving air. After the flood, God made a wind blow and the waters subsided (Gen 8:1). Also, during the plagues of Egypt, God sent the east wind which brought the locusts and the west wind removed them (Ex 10:13,19). Often it describes a strong, or even violent and frightening wind. God sent a strong east wind that divided the Red Sea (Ex 14:21), and Elijah witnessed the strong wind that broke rocks on Sinai (1 Kg 19:11). The Psalmist speaks about escaping from the raging wind (Ps 55:8). In many of these passages, the wind is described as coming from God, or being sent by God, so it can be understood as more than merely a physical wind. Jesus also drew a parallel between the wind and those born of the Spirit when he spoke to Nicodemus (Jn 3:8), as the Greek word for spirit, “pneuma”, also has a similar breadth of meanings.

(ii) Breath
Sometimes ruach describes the smaller quantity of moving air from human nostrils, or poetically, from God’s nostrils, like “the blast of the breath of God’s nostrils” (2 Sam 22:16), or “the breath of God’s mouth” (Ps 33:6). This can overlap with the following meaning, the breath of life.

(iii) Human life.
The spirit, meaning human or animal life. God sent the flood to destroy everything with the breath (ruach) of life (Gen 6:17). The Psalmist speaks of committing his spirit into the hands of God (Ps 31:5), thereby entrusting his life to God. Jesus quoted these words as his last words on the cross, when he gave up his life (Lk 23:46). Jeremiah stated that idols have no breath (ruach) in them (Jer 10:14). They have no life, especially when compared with the living God.

This spirit can be troubled, like Pharaoh after his dream (Gen 41:8), jealous (Num 5:14), angry (Ju 8:3), sullen (1 Kg 21:5), or stirred by God (1 Chr 5:26). In these cases, “ruach” is being used to describe an emotional response in a person.

(iv) The divine Spirit
In the O.T., this is often described as the Spirit of the LORD. In the N.T., he is the personal third member of the Trinity, together with the Father and the Son, Jesus.

Determining the meaning of “ruach”

In most cases it is not difficult to determine the intended meaning of ruach, whether it describes the wind, the human spirit or God’s Spirit. However, in some passages, the exact meaning can be debated. For example, in the creation account, the more familiar translation is of the Spirit of God hovering over the waters (Gen 1:2), as in the KJV or NIV. But some versions translate ruach as the wind of God (NRSV, NEB), which seems to reduce the supernatural aspect of the creation account.

In the earlier books of the O.T. revelation, little or no distinction is made between the divine and human spirit. Job states that as long as the spirit of God is in his nostrils he will not speak lies (Job 27:3), a poetic way of saying that while he was still alive he will speak the truth.

Ezekiel may have intentionally used all three meanings using a clever play on words in his vision of the dry bones (Ezek 37:1-14) . So the “ruach” was the Spirit of God who carried Ezekiel into the valley of dry bones (v1), and who will revive the house of Israel (v14). But it is also the breath that will enter the bones and give them life (v5, 10), as well as the four winds from where the breath will come from (v9).

The development in understanding of “ruach” through the O.T.

The doctrine and teaching of the Holy Spirit shows clearly the progressive nature of revelation through the Old Testament. In the early centuries, the Spirit was mostly seen as the power of God working in his creation and through his people. For example, the artistic and technical skills of Bezalel who made the tabernacle furnishings was described as him being “filled with the divine spirit” (Ex 31:3). This was because all wisdom and skill was understood to come from God. As the revelation through the O.T. progressed, God’s Spirit was described as being holy and having moral and even personal qualities.

When Ezra looked back over Israel’s history from the perspective of the return from exile, he referred twice to the working of the spirit of God. He stated that God gave his good spirit to instruct them in the wilderness (Neh 9:20), and that God had warned them by his spirit through his prophets (9:30). In the original account in the Pentateuch, there is no mention that the Spirit instructed the people. Normally it was Moses who instructed the people with the words that God had spoken to him (eg. Lev 18:1-2). This teaching role of the Spirit was not understood at the time. That revelation came later. This is similar to the role of the Spirit in the N.T. to teach and remind us of what Jesus said (John 14:26).

The Spirit’s work in creation

One important work of the Spirit in the O.T. was in creation (Gen 1:2). God’s spirit was active in the creation and in the sustaining of physical life. Elihu stated that if God should take back his Spirit then all flesh would perish and return to dust (Job 34:14-15). Without God’s spirit, there would be no life at all. The N.T. reveals that Jesus was also involved in creation (Col 1:16, Heb 1:2, Jn 1:3).

The picture in Genesis is of the Spirit of God hovering over the water (Gen 1:2), probably imparting God’s energy, order and design into the empty and formless world. This would indicate that Spirit did not create the world out of nothing, but worked with what the Son had already created, bringing order out of chaos and life from non-living matter. The creative role of the Spirit is also stated elsewhere in the O.T: The Psalmist states that “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath (ruach) of his mouth” (Ps 33:6).

The Spirit was particularly involved in the creation of mankind. After God formed Adam out of dust, he breathed into him the breath of life, and he became a living soul (Gen 2:7). Elihu said the same, “The spirit of God had made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life” (Job 33:4). When put together, the revelation is of all three persons of the Trinity being directly involved in the creation of the world and especially of mankind in God’s image.

Take a scientific approach to understanding the breath of God:

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/RelSci/Breath.pdf

Let There Be Light

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/j/jakob_dylan/something_good_this_way_comes.html

Filling The Gap: What About Dinosaurs in the timeline of Genesis

The Gap Theory, also known as the ruin-reconstruction theory, allows for a gap between Genesis verses 1 and 2 of the Creation process, in an effort to harmonize science with the Bible. It is basically an attempt to solve the geological evidence that science presents by making a place for the catastrophe and chaos developments that are seemingly witnessed in the earth's fossiliferous strata.

The theory has been advocated for centuries. The modern form originated with Thomas Chalmers of Edinburgh University in response to George Culver's scientific presentation of the evidence for these catastrophic changes. The wide circulation of the Gap Theory by George H. Pember in his book Earth's Earliest Ages, and by C.I. Scofield in the Scofield Reference Bible helped spread the ideas. Arthur C. Custance's Without Form and Void, was the most scholarly and lengthy defense of the gap theory, which was published in 1970.
http://www.guidedbiblestudies.com/worldview/gap_theory.html

Before getting into the Scriptural aspect of this discussion, one needs to first understand the background and history of the gap theory. Thomas Chalmers (1780-1847), a notable Scottish theologian and first moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, is credited with being the first proponent of the gap theory. His proposal of the theory was first recorded in 1814 in one of his lectures at Edinburgh University. Until 1814, no theologian had put forth the idea of a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Chalmer’s teaching to a great extent reflected what was happening in the late 1700s and early 1800s.

In 1795, James Hutton (1726-1797) introduced the scientific doctrine of uniformitarianism in his book Theory of the Earth. Hutton believed that the processes of the past (e.g. climate, sedimentation, decay, etc.) occurred at the same rate as those of the present--a way of thinking that was prophesied in II Peter 3:4 as a sign of the last days. Uniformitarianism is now summarized in the phrase, "the present is the key to the past." His questionable logic became the foundation for many of the "scientific" discoveries in the early 19th century. Hutton’s teachings most affected the field of geology, then in its infant stages.

Following in the footsteps of Hutton, Charles Lyell (1797-1875) became known as the"high priest of uniformitarianism "and "the father of modern geology." Lyell’s famous three-volume work, Principles of Geology, quickly became the catalyst for the geologic movement’s move to uniformitarian principles. Many early geologists, after studying the numerous layers of sediment existing in the earth’s crust, assumed the layers were a result of the flood of Noah, knowing that moving water causes many layers to be deposited. Others claimed they had no idea as to how they were deposited. A few thought the layers were deposited slowly over millions of years at the same rate layers are deposited today. This slow but steady accumulation was thought to be an example of uniformitarianism. For hundreds of years, scientists in all fields of study had worked within a 6,000-year time frame for the age of the earth, primarily drawn from the chronology of the Bible. With the introduction of uniformitarian principles into science, geologists felt they finally had the answer to the mystery.

Shortly after the publication of Hutton’s and Lyell’s books, Christians began to feel that they were under a scientific attack for their belief that the earth was only a few thousand years old. One has only to read the writings of Thomas Chalmers to understand how sharply he felt the attacks of science upon the Scriptures. Some geologists and theologians, knowing that the uniformitarian deposit of sediment layers would require millions of years, quickly rejected the Biblical age of the earth and moved to adjust the Bible’s time frame to coincide with their new theory. Chalmers, like many other Christians at this time, began to seek a way to harmonize the Genesis account of creation with the newly accepted teachings of geology. He attempted to do this with the gap theory.

Since 1814, many theologians have followed Chalmers’ example and attempted to accommodate both Scripture and the new supposed science. In 1859, Charles Darwin’s book The Orgin of Species introduced scientists and theologians to the possibility of an even longer time frame for the age of the earth. For example, G.H. Pember stated in his book Earth's Earliest Ages, "There is room for any length of time between the first and second verse of the Bible. "Statements such as these pressured many Christians to accept other dangerous theories under the guise of "science. "Theologians struggled to remain current with popular scientific findings.

The gap theory trend gained its greatest support in 1909 when C.I. Scofield first published his Scofield Study Bible. Dr. Scofield supported the gap theory in his explanation that "the first creative act refers to the dateless past, and gives scope for all the geologic ages." He commented that "no conflict of science with the Genesis cosmogony remains." Dr. Scofield also advocated the "Day-Age "theory--another "time-allowing" theory teaching that the six days of creation were not literal 24-hour days but actually long periods of time. The Scofield Study Bible, believed to be the most widely used study Bible of its kind, resulted in a widespread acceptance of the gap theory, which continues today.

About the same time the Scofield Study Bible began its circulation, another very popular theological work was published, Dispensational Truth by Clarence Larkin. In his book, Dr. Larkin detailed the existence of a "chaotic earth "between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. His willingness to"fall back then upon Science "allowed science to greatly infiltrate his theology [Note his capitalization of the word Science]. This influence can be seen in the way Dr. Larkin embraced the "Nebular Hypothesis, "a predecessor of the "Big Bang" theory.

Regardless of the reason, the gap theory has gained considerable support from several modern theologians. These theologians, such as Arthur C. Custance, author of Without Form and Void (1970), and well known preachers Billy Graham and John Hagee, have adopted the gap theory, in one form or another. For some, the gap theory is the only explanation they have to make the Bible fit their preconceived idea for the age of the earth. For others, it is the only way they can explain certain passages in Scripture.
http://www.beaconmbc.com/articles/thegaptheory.htm

A long explained definition of the Gap Theory and its marriage to evolution:
http://ncse.com/cej/8/3/formless-void-gap-theory-creationism

Did God kill a seamonster to create the human race?

The Enûma Eliš was recognized as bearing close relation to the Jewish creation in Genesis from its first publication (Smith 1876), and it was an important step in the recognition of the roots of the account found in the Bible, and in earlier Ancient Near Eastern (Canaanite and Mesopotamian) myth. Some contend that the Genesis account is true and that stories such as the Enuma Elish are a derivation of that account.
The ancient Mesopotamians believed that the earth was a flat circular disc surrounded by a saltwater sea. The habitable earth was a single giant continent inside this sea, and floated on a second sea, the freshwater apsu, which supplied the water in springs, wells and rivers and was connected with the saltwater sea. The sky was a solid disk above the earth, curved to touch the earth at its rim, with the dwelling of the gods above the sky or on top of the solid sky, and sometimes the gods were denizens of the heights between the earth and the sky. So far as can be deduced from clues in the creation story in the Bible and in the New Testament's Matthew 4:8, the ancient geography was identical with that of the Babylonians: a flat circular earth floating above a freshwater sea, surrounded by a saltwater sea, with a solid sky-dome (raqia, the "firmament") above. It is the creation of this world which Enûma Eliš and Genesis 1 describe.

Genesis 1:1-3 can be taken as describing the state of chaos immediately prior to God's creation: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. "

In both Enûma Eliš and Genesis, creation is an act of divine speech; the Enûma Eliš describes pre-creation as a time "when above, the sky or heights had not been named, and below the earth had not been called by name", while in Genesis each act of divine creation is introduced with the formula: "And God said, let there be...". The sequence of creation is similar: light, firmament, dry land, luminaries, and man. In both Enûma Eliš and Genesis the primordial world is formless and empty (the tohu wa bohu of Genesis 1:2), the only existing thing the watery abyss which exists prior to creation (the god of Tiamat in the Enûma Eliš, təhôm, the "deep", a linguistic cognate of tiamat[citation needed], in Genesis 1:2), as with the one of the Egyptian creation myths, the watery abyss being a deity named Nu. In both, the firmament, conceived as a solid inverted bowl, is created in the midst of the primeval waters to separate the sky or heights from the earth (Genesis 1:6–7, Enûma Eliš 4:137–40). Day and night precede the creation of the luminous bodies (Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, and 14ff.; Enûma Eliš 1:38), whose function is to yield light and regulate time (Gen. 1:14; Enûma Eliš 5:12–13). In Enûma Eliš, the gods consult before creating man (6:4), while Genesis has: "Let us make man in our own image..." (Genesis 1:26) – and in both, the creation of man is followed by divine rest.

In Babylonian mythology, Tiamat is a chaos monster, a primordial goddess of the ocean, mating with Abzû (the god of fresh water) to produce younger gods. In the Enûma Eliš she opposes when Abzû conspires to kill the younger gods, and she warns the most powerful of those, Ea, who puts Abzû under a spell and kills him.

Later when Ea's son Marduk creates problems for her yet sleeping god youngsters by playing with sand storms and tornadoes, she conspires to retaliate by creating eleven frightening monsters and erecting her son Kingu as their general, but this plot fails when Marduk slays them all including Tiamat herself. From Tiamat's body the world is formed, land and sea.

Tiamat was known as Thalattē (as variant of thalassa, the Greek word for "sea") in the Hellenistic Babylonian Berossus' first volume of universal history. It is thought that the name of Tiamat was dropped in secondary translations of the original religious texts because some Akkadian copyists of Enûma Elish substituted the ordinary word for "sea" for Tiamat, because the two names essentially were the same, due to association.

Though Tiamat is often described by modern authors as a sea serpent or dragon, no ancient texts exist in which there is a clear association with those kinds of creatures. The Enûma Elish specifically states that Tiamat did give birth to dragons and serpents, but they are included among a larger and more general list of monsters including scorpion men and merpeople, none of which imply that any of the children resemble the mother or are even limited to aquatic creatures.

Within the Enûma Elish her physical description includes a tail, a thigh, "lower parts" (which shake together), a belly, an udder, ribs, a neck, a head, a skull, eyes, nostrils, a mouth, and lips. She has insides (possibly "entrails"), a heart, arteries, and blood.

The Tiamat myth is one of the earliest recorded versions of the Chaoskampf, the battle between a culture hero and a chthonic or aquatic monster, serpent or dragon. Chaoskampf motives in other mythologies linked directly or indirectly to the Tiamat myth include the Hittite Illuyanka myth, and in Greek tradition Apollo's killing of the Python as a necessary action to take over the Delphic Oracle.

According to some analyses there are two parts to the Tiamat myth, the first in which Tiamat is creator goddess, through a "sacred marriage" between salt and fresh water, peacefully creating the cosmos through successive generations. In the second "Chaoskampf" Tiamat is considered the monstrous embodiment of primordial chaos.

Robert Graves (1955[page needed] considered Tiamat´s death by Marduk an outstanding example of how occurred the shift in power from matriarchy to patriarchy. Merlin Stone in When God Was a Woman (1976) follows Graves and also links the supposed rise of Patriarchal power structures and the assumption of power by the monarchial "lugal" (Lu = Man, Gal = Big), during the Early Dynastic period of Sumerian History, and the institutionalisation of warfare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat

Even though Tiamat and the chaos monsters do not appear in Gen 1, there is primordial chaos. The Bible begins midstream, the waters are there: the primeval cosmic soup, the ?tohu wavohu (Gen 1:2a). Creation begins when the ruakh elohim begins moving over tehom.

Eventually the chaos is bounded, and shaped into structures, into a cosmos. Tiamat in Genesis is not a personified serpent, but is instead tehom, the soupy cosmic abyss. The great sea dragons, the tanninim, are in Gen 1 — they show up on Day Five — but they are just another phylum within creation and are neither personified nor cast as opponents of order.

Jon Levenson in Creation and the Persistence of Evil writes that "the confinement of chaos rather than its elimination is the essence of creation." Creation in Gen 1 is not about making things out of nothing, it is about bringing definition and differentiation. The chaos was not obliterated. It was controlled, fenced in, held behind a firmament, and organized into structures — everything according to its kind.

A second observation of Levenson's is the biblical conjunction of creation and of covenant; namely, that humans assist in the stability of the created order through upholding these cosmic structures, through virtue. A third point follows closely from this, namely, that sin, trespass, inattention to the details, threaten to undo the structures of order.
http://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=623

To read the Enuma Elish, click here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/caog/caog08.htm

What is darkness?

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H2822

Choshek – the dark; literally darkness, night, obscurity; figuratively: misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness. This word is used in Genesis 1:2. Refers to Hades in Psalm 88:13; an underground prison in Isaiah 42:7; 47:5; 49:9;

And The Earth Was Formless And Void

Throughout the whole Bible, never appear again unless they happen to be quoted. It is obvious that the real meanings of such words must be found in the words themselves, or not at all. The words in Gen. I, v. 2, which are translated by “without form and void,” or “waste and void” are examples of such exceptional words.

Let us try to arrive at the true meaning of the Hebrew words: “Thohou wa bohou.” As has just been said, they are very unusual words, and none of the translators seem to have been able to satisfy themselves as to their meaning.

Let us see what the words themselves have to say. We wilt quote what one great Hebrew scholar, d’Olivet, has to say about them : “The Hebrew words ‘Thohou wa bohou’ are of the type That sages create in learned language, and that the vulgar never understand. We will examine their figurative and hieroglyphic meaning. We know that the sign ‘H’ is the sign of ‘life.’ We have seen also that when this sign is doubled, it forms the essential ‘living’ root ‘HH’ or ‘HoH’ which, by the insertion of the verbal sign ‘O’ becomes the verb ‘HoH’ ‘to be being.’ But suppose now that we wish to express, not an existence in actuality, but only in ‘potentiality,’ we reduce the verbal root to only one sign of life, and that we lower the luminous verbal sign ‘0’ to make it The ‘conversive’ sign ‘oo,’ we shall then have a contracted root in which ‘being’ will only be latent, or, so to speak, in germ. Such exactly is the root ‘boo.’ This root, composed of the sign of ‘life’ ‘H’ and the sign ‘oo’ which we know serves as a bond between ‘nothingness’ and ‘being,’ expresses marvellously well that incomprehensible state of a thing when it does not yet exist, but is none the less in potentiality of existing. Now Moses takes this root and, prefixing to it the sign of mutual reciprocity ‘th,’ makes it into the word ‘Tho – hoo’ by which he expresses ‘a contingent and potential existence.’ He then proceeds to modify the word by omitting the ‘Th’ and inflecting the root with the prepositional article ‘B’ – ‘in’ – ‘bo-hoo.’ Thus, by the combination of the two words, the phrase means ‘a contingent and potential existence.’ The above quotation may be rather technical for many readers, but it clearly gives an explanation of the two difficult words, which quite removes the absurdities and self – contradictions of the old renderings. It is also clearly in complete harmony with all we have said in previous pages, or that we shall have to say later.

What the author 0 the original meant was clearly that the “earth had been ‘created’ as a spiritual ideal, bat it was not yet existing in actual reality,” (By a curious coincidence, immediately after writing the above passage, the present writer picked up the “Daily Telegraph,” 8th May, 1943, and reading through the leading article, came upon The following sentence: “Though it” (the Dunkirk incident) “was a military disaster of the first order, There was a deliverance within the disaster, and . . a victory – that of the R.A.F. over the Luftwaffe – within the deliverance.” There we have an excellent illustration of “a contingent potential existence within another potential existence.”)
http://dreamhawk.com/inner-life/darkness-on-the-face-of-the-deep/


To see all of the Biblical references of the word "tohu" click here:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H8414&t=KJV

Om Mani Padme Hum

http://www.dharma-haven.org/tibetan/meaning-of-om-mani-padme-hung.htm

Is The Holy Spirit Feminine?

More Than Just a Controversy: All About The Holy Spirit
by R.P. Nettelhorst

The function of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament age is well known and several books have been written on the subject. Of more significant import is what the Spirit's job may have been prior to Pentecost. The only available book on the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament was done in 1976 by Leon J. Wood. It was entitled The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament and was published by Zondervan. It is a useful book, but not without its faults. Leon J. Wood writes:

The evidence that spiritual renewal, or regeneration, was true of such Old Testament people lies mainly in two directions. One is that these people lived in a way possible only for those who had experienced regeneration, and the other is the avenue of logical deduction that argues back from New Testament truth. For some reason, the Old Testament itself does not speak of the matter directly. Chafer is quite correct when he asserts: "The Old Testament will be searched in vain for record of Jews passing from an unsaved to a saved state, or for any declaration about the terms upon which such a change would be secured." Then, because this is true, he states "No positive declaration can be made" whether Old Testament people were regenerated or not. Chafer's conclusion, however, is unwarranted in view of the two lines of support mentioned....
So what did the Holy Spirit do in the Old Testament? Nine functions (at least) can be listed.

•The Holy Spirit came upon people to empower them for specific tasks (Judges 6:34; 1 Chron. 12:18; 2 Chron. 24:20).
◦interpretation of dreams (Gen. 41:38, Dan. 5:11)
◦special skills (Ex. 31:1-7)
◦prophesy (1 Sam. 10:6, 2 Sam. 23:23, Ezekiel 11:5, 24, Joel 2:28-29)
•The Spirit of God was involved in creating the universe (Gen. 1:2, Prov. 8:22-31, Ps. 33:6, Is. 40:12,13).
•The Spirit gave wisdom (Prov. 8, Is. 11:1-3). mind=ruah.
•The Spirit moved people geographically (Ezekiel 2:2, 3:12-15, 11:24, 37:1, 37:14, 43:5).
•Brings righteousness (Psalm 143:10; Isaiah 4:4).
•Gives life (Gen. 2:7, Job 33:4).
•Sustains life (Psalm 104:10-14, 30).
•Takes life (Is. 40:7; Psalm 104:29; Job 34:14-15).
•The Spirit is omnipresent (Ps. 139:7-10).
The question of the gender of the Holy Spirit is rarely if ever discussed for the simple reason that the Spirit's masculinity is naturally assumed from the masculinity of God: God is masculine and is always addressed as "he", so surely the same must be true of the Holy Spirit, a member of the Trinity. Like most theologians I had always assumed this to be true. I don't know that anyone ever formally taught me that "the Spirit is masculine"; it would hardly seem necessary.

Is There a Question About the Gender of the Holy Spirit?

In my graduate Semitics program at UCLA, one of the languages I had to study was Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic written with rounded letters reminiscent of modern Arabic. Syriac was the language of people living in northern Mesopotamia, from at least 300 BC until the time Arabic became dominant in the region, around 1000 AD. Most of the Syriac documents available today were produced by a Monophysite branch of Christianity, today known as the Syrian Orthodox Church (monophysitism is the belief that Christ had but one nature). One striking puzzlement of the texts, at least to me, was the constant reference to the Holy Spirit as "she". I was aware, of course, that in Aramaic (and hence in the dialect known as Syriac) the natural gender of the word "spirit" was feminine; however, I was surprised to discover that this accident of grammar had resulted in a whole theology constructed around the femininity of the third person of the Godhead.

I was teaching advanced Hebrew, and I had decided to take the class through the book of Judges. As we read along, I noticed something odd about Judges 3:10:


The Spirit of Yahweh came upon Caleb's younger brother...
In English, this passage from Judges doesn't appear startling, but in Hebrew something strange leapt out at me: "came upon" was a third person FEMININE verb, indicating it's subject "Spirit" was being understood as a feminine noun. Hebrew is not like Aramaic in its use of the word "spirit". While the word is exclusively feminine in Aramaic, in Hebrew it is sometimes masculine. Therefore, the question that came to mind was why had the author of Judges chosen here to make the Spirit of Yahweh feminine, when he could just as easily have made it masculine? Oh well.

I just shrugged my shoulders and went on, not overly concerned. Occasionally, I thought, one finds something inexplicable in the Bible: no big deal. But then came Judges 6:34. Again, "Spirit of Yahweh" was feminine.

At this point I decided to consult the concordance. Much to my surprise, every occurrence of "Spirit of Yahweh" in Judges is feminine. As I pondered that, I recalled Genesis 1:2, the first occurrence of "Spirit of God" in the Bible, and realized to my shock that it too is feminine.

Back to the concordance. Out of 84 OT uses of the word "spirit", in contexts traditionally assumed to be references to the Holy Spirit, 75 times it is either explicitly feminine or indeterminable (due to lack of a verb or adjective). Only nine times can "spirit" be construed as masculine, and in those cases it is unclear that it is a reference to God's Holy Spirit anyway. (Please see Appendix 3 for a complete list and detailed discussion of the usages.)

The New Testament references to the Holy Spirit are not helpful for conclusively deciding on the gender of the Holy Spirit, since "spirit" in Greek is neuter, and so is referred to as "it" by the New Testament writers.

The conclusion of all this is that our traditional assumption of a masculine Spirit is questionable; in fact, the evidence seems overwhelming that the Spirit should be viewed as "She", which does seem to make sense, since the other two members of the Godhead are labeled "Father" and "Son".

What are the theological implications of a feminine Holy Spirit? There are four:

•A feminine Holy Spirit clarifies how women can also be said to be created in the "image of God". It has long been recognized that he Godhead must include some feminine aspects, since Genesis 1:26-27 explicitly states that both men and women were created in God's image.
•A feminine Holy Spirit explains the identity of the personified wisdom in Proverbs 8:12-31

•The third benefit of recognizing the femininity of the Holy Spirit is that it explains the subservient role that the Spirit plays. The Bible seems to indicate that the Spirit does not speak for itself or about itself; rather the Spirit only speaks what it hears. The Spirit is said to have come into the world to glorify Christ (See John 16:13-14 and Acts 13:2). In contrast, it should be noted that the Scripture represents both the Father and Son speaking from and of themselves.
•Finally, a feminine Holy Spirit, with a Father and Son as the rest of the Trinity, may help explain why the family is the basic unit of human society.

The Female Spirit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/women/femininedivine_1.shtml

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume3/spirit.htm

The Postal Service - Such Great Heights

http://www.metrolyrics.com/such-great-heights-lyrics-the-postal-service.html

The Firmament of Genesis 1 is Solid but That’s Not the Point - Pete Enns

"Science and the Sacred" frequently features essays from The BioLogos Foundation's leaders and Senior Fellows. Today's entry was written by Pete Enns. Pete Enns is Senior Fellow of Biblical Studies for The BioLogos Foundation and author of several books and commentaries, including the popular Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, which looks at three questions raised by biblical scholars that seem to threaten traditional views of Scripture.

Genesis 1 and 2 tell the story of creation, and it says things that are at odds with what modern people know to be true of the world and universe around us.

One of those issue concerns the second day of creation (Genesis 1:6-8), where God made the “expanse” or the “firmament.” The Hebrew word for this is raqia (pronounced ra-KEE-ah). Biblical scholars understand the raqia to be a solid dome-like structure. It separates the water into two parts, so that there is water above the raqia and water below it (v. 7). The waters above are kept at bay so the world can become inhabitable. On the third day (vv. 9-10), the water below the raqia is “gathered to one place” to form the sea and allow the dry land to appear.

Ancient Israelites “saw” this barrier when they looked up. There were no telescopes, space exploration, or means of testing the atmosphere. They relied on what their senses told them. Even today, looking up at a clear sky in open country, the sky seems to “begin” at the horizons and reaches up far above. Ancient Israelites and others in that part of the world assumed the world was flat, and so it looked like the earth is covered by a dome, and the “blue sky” is the “water above” held back by the raqia. The translation “firmament” (i.e., firm) gets across this idea of a solid structure.

Biblical scholars agree on this understanding of raqia. For some Christians, however, this is troubling. How can the Bible, which is the inspired, revealed word of God, contain such an inaccurate piece of ancient nonsense? Hence, some invest a lot of time and energy to show that the raqia is not solid but more like the atmosphere. Often, the word “expanse” is the preferred translation because it does not necessarily imply something solid.

Arguing for a non-solid raqia in Genesis is extremely problematic, for two reasons. First, the biblical and extrabiblical data indicate that raqia means a solid structure of some sort. The second problem is a much larger theological issue, but is actually more foundational. Regardless of what one thinks of the raqia, why would anyone assume that the ancient cosmology in Genesis could be expected to be in harmony with modern science in the first place?

This second issue creates a conflict where they need not be one. The raqia “debate” is not the result of new evidence that has come to light. Our understanding of ancient perceptions of the cosmos has not been overturned by more information. The debate exists because of the assumption made by some Christians that the ancient biblical description of the world must be compatible on a scientific level with what we know today.

Genesis and modern science are neither enemies nor friends, but two different ways of describing the world according to the means available to the people living at these different times. To insist that the description of the sky in Genesis 1 must conform to contemporary scientific is a big theological problem. It is important to remember that God always speaks in ways that people can actually understand. In the ancient world, people held certain views about the world around them. Those views are also reflected in Genesis. If we keep this in mind, much of the conflict can subside.

Let me summarize some of the general arguments for why raqia is understood by contemporary biblical scholars as a solid structure1:

1.The other cosmologies from the ancient world depict some solid structure in the sky. The most natural explanation of the raqia is that it also reflects this understanding. There is no indication that Genesis is a novel description of the sky;

2.Virtually every description of raqia from antiquity to the Renaissance depicts it as solid. The non-solid interpretation of raqia is a novelty;

3.According to the flood story in Gen 7:11 and 8:2, the waters above were held back only to be released through the “floodgates of the heavens” (literally, “lattice windows”);

4.Other Old Testament passages are consistent with the raqia being solid (Ezekiel1:22; Job 37:18; Psalm 148:4);

5.According to Gen 1:20, the birds fly in front of the raqia (in the air), not in the raqia;

6.The noun raqia is derived form the verb that means to beat out or stamp out, as in hammering metal into thin plates (Exodus 39:3). This suggests that the noun form is likewise related to something solid;

7.Speaking of the sky as being stretched out like a canopy/tent (Isaiah 40:22) or that it will roll up like a scroll (34:4) are clearly similes and do not support the view that raqia in Genesis 1 is non-solid.

The solid nature of the raqia is well established. It is not the result of an anti-Christian conspiracy to find errors in the Bible, but the “solid” result of scholars doing their job. This does not mean that there can be no discussion or debate. But, to introduce a novel interpretation of raqia would require new evidence or at least a reconsideration of the evidence we have that would be compelling to those who do not have a vested religious interest in maintaining one view or another.

There is another approach that attempts to reconcile Genesis and modern science. This approach distinguishes between what ancient authors described and what they actually thought. This is sometimes referred to as the “phenomenological” view. It acknowledges that the raqia in Genesis 1 is solid, but the Israelites were only describing what they saw without necessarily believing that what they perceived was in fact real?

Modern figures of speech are often called upon to support this argument. For example, when modern people say “the sun rose” we are merely describing what we perceive without any of us actually thinking that the sun rises. We know it doesn’t, but we talk as if it does. Likewise, as the argument goes, Israelites were merely describing what they saw in the sky and not what they actually thought about what was up there.

To make a distinction between what ancient texts say and what it is presumed people actually thought is hard to justify. The only reason to argue this way is because it is already concluded that the biblical description of the sky and modern scientific observations cannot be fundamentally at odds.

But this logic cannot be pressed very far, even within Genesis 1. For example, are we to say that the Israelites actually knew better than to think that the moon was a “lesser light to govern the night” (v. 16) corresponding to the light-giving sun, the “greater light to govern the day”? Did they look up and think, “Well it looks like the moon is a light-producing body that gives off less light than the sun, but something else probably accounts for its light. Let’s just call the moon a ‘lesser light’ without committing ourselves to making any pronouncement on reality.”

It is unreasonable to suggest that Genesis 1 knowingly describes only what Israelites perceived, while holding back any commitment that what they saw was in fact reality. The meaning of raqia is likewise a description not only of what the Israelites saw but also of what they actually believed to be true. They were in good company, for their understanding of what was “up there” was in harmony with what ancient peoples believed in general. God spoke to the ancient Israelites in a way they would readily understand.


Understanding Heaven: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/firmament.asp
http://biologos.org/blog/the-firmament-of-genesis-1-is-solid-but-thats-not-the-point/

Misconception of "Heaven"

Heaven

(1.) Definitions., The phrase "heaven and earth" is used to indicate the whole universe (Gen 1:1; Jer 23:24; Act 17:24). According to the Jewish notion there were three heavens, (a) The firmament, as "fowls of the heaven" (Gen 2:19; Gen 7:3, Gen 7:23; Psa 8:8, etc.), "the eagles of heaven" (Lam 4:19), etc. (b) The starry heavens (Deu 17:3; Jer 8:2; Mat 24:29). (c) "The heaven of heavens," or "the third heaven" (Deu 10:14; Kg1 8:27; Psa 115:16; Psa 148:4; Co2 12:2).

(2.) Meaning of words in the original, (a) The usual Hebrew word for "heavens" is shamayim, a plural form meaning "heights," "elevations" (Gen 1:1; Gen 2:1). (b) The Hebrew word marom is also used (Psa 68:18; Psa 93:4; Psa 102:19, etc.) as equivalent to shamayim, "high places," "heights." (c) Heb. galgal , literally a "wheel," is rendered "heaven" in Psa 77:18 (R.V., "whirlwind"). (d) Heb. shahak , rendered "sky" (Deu 33:26; Job 37:18; Psa 18:11), plural "clouds" (Job 35:5; Job 36:28; Psa 68:34, marg. "heavens"), means probably the firmament. (e) Heb. rakia is closely connected with (d), and is rendered "firmamentum" in the Vulgate, whence our "firmament" (Gen 1:6; Deu 33:26, etc.), regarded as a solid expanse.

(3.) Metaphorical meaning of term. Isa 14:13, Isa 14:14; "doors of heaven" (Psa 78:23); heaven "shut" (Kg1 8:35); "opened" (Eze 1:1). (See Ch1 21:16.)

Easton's Bible Dictionary, 1897.

Heaven Revealed:

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/ebd/ebd170.htm

C-Van - Across The Universe

http://www.absolutelyrics.com/lyrics/view/the_beatles/across_the_universe/

Elohim - Singular or Plural

Elohim (אֱלהִים) is a plural formation of eloah, the latter being an expanded form of the Northwest Semitic noun il (אֱל, ʾēl). It is the usual word for "god" in the Hebrew Bible, referring with singular verbs both to the one God of Israel, and also in a few examples to other singular pagan deities. With plural verbs the word is also used as a true plural with the meaning "gods" .

In Hebrew the form of the word Elohim, with the ending -im, which normally indicates a masculine plural, however with Elohim the construction is usually grammatically singular, (i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective) when referring to the Hebrew God, but grammatically plural (i.e. taking a plural verb or adjective) when used of pagan divinities (Psalms 96:5; 97:7).

The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible defines "elohim" as a plural of eloah, an expanded form of the common Semitic noun "'il" (ʾēl). It contains an added heh as third radical to the biconsonantal root. Discussions of the etymology of elohim essentially concern this expansion. An exact cognate outside of Hebrew is found in Ugaritic ʾlhm, the family of El, the creator god and chief deity of the Canaanite pantheon, and in Arabic ʾilāh "god, deity" (or Allah as " The [single] God"). "El" (the basis for the extended root ʾlh) is usually derived from a root meaning "to be strong" and/or "to be in front".

The word Elohim' occurs more than 2500 times in the Hebrew Bible, with meanings ranging from "god" in a general sense (as in Exodus 12:12, where it describes "the gods of Egypt"), to a specific god (e.g., 1 Kings 11:33, where it describes Chemosh "the god of Moab", or the frequent references to Yahweh as the "elohim" of Israel), to demons, seraphim, and other supernatural beings, to the spirits of the dead brought up at the behest of King Saul in 1 Samuel 28:13, and even to kings and prophets (e.g., Exodus 4:16). The phrase bene elohim, usually translated "sons of God", has an exact parallel in Ugaritic and Phoenician texts, referring to the council of the gods.

The meaning of Elohim is further complicated by the fact that it is used to describe the spirit of the dead prophet Samuel, raised by Saul in 1 Samuel 28:13. The witch of Endor tells Saul that she sees 'gods' (elohim) coming up out of the earth; this seems to indicate that the term was indeed used simply to mean something like 'divine beings' in ancient Israel. The Elohim as a pantheon might also have been considered a singular in the sense of m a collective plural when the gods act in concert.

In the Hebrew Bible Elohim, when meaning the God of Israel, is mostly grammatically singular. Even in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said (singular verb), 'Let us make (plural verb) man in our image, after our likeness'." Elohim is singular. Gesenius and other Hebrew grammarians traditionally described this as the pluralis excellentiae (plural of excellence), which is similar to the pluralis majestatis (plural of majesty, or "Royal we").

Gesenius comments that Elohim singular is to be distinguished from elohim plural gods and remarks that:

"the supposition that elohim‎ is to be regarded as merely a remnant of earlier polytheistic views (i.e. as originally only a numerical plural) is at least highly improbable, and, moreover, would not explain the analogous plurals (below). To the same class (and probably formed on the analogy of elohim) belong the plurals kadoshim "the Most Holy" (only of Yahweh, Hosea 12:1, Proverbs 9:10, 30:3 (cf. El hiym kadoshim in Joshua 24:19 and the singular Aramaic "the Most High", Daniel 7:18, 22, 25); and probably teraphim (usually taken in the sense of penates) the image of a god, used especially for obtaining oracles. Certainly in 1 Samuel 19:13, 16 only one image is intended; in most other places a single image may be intended; in Zechariah 10:2 alone is it most naturally taken as a numerical plural.

There are a number of notable exceptions to the rule that Elohim is treated as singular when referring to the God of Israel, including Gen. 20:13, 35:7, 2 Sam. 7:23 and Ps. 58:11, and notably the epithet of the "Living God" (Deuteronomy 5:26 etc.), which is constructed with the plural adjective, Elohim Hayiym אלהים חיים but still takes singular verbs. In the Septuagint and New Testament translations of Elohim has the singular ὁ θεὸς even in these cases, and modern translations follow suit in giving "God" in the singular. The Samaritan Torah has edited out some of these exceptions.

In Gen 20:13 Abraham before Philistine king Abimelech says that "the gods (elohim) caused (plural verb) me to wander". The Greek Septuagint and most English versions usually translate this "God caused", possibly to avoid the implication of Abraham deferring to Abimelech's polytheistic beliefs.

Two similar elohim + plural verses are:

Gen. 35:7 "and there he built an altar and called the place El-bethel, because there God had revealed (plural) themselves to him when he fled from his brother."
2 Sam. 7:23 God went (plural halechu) to redeem his people.

From Wikipedia: Oct. 2010.

Original Site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

Bob Dylan - Shelter From The Storm

Who Is She?

http://www.pistissophia.org/The_Holy_Spirit/the_holy_spirit.html

http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/shelter-from-the-storm

Coming Face to "Face" With The Beginning

Face:

The front of a person's head। In the Bible several words are translated as “face.” In the Old Testament, panim is the most common and has the actual meaning of face. Aph (nose) and (eyes, aspect) are also at times translated as face. In the New Testament the words used are opsis and prosopon.

The word “face” has a variety of meanings। It is used literally to refer to the face of man or animals (Genesis 30:40), seraphim (Isaiah 6:2), and the face of Christ (Matthew 17:2). Figuratively, it is used in reference to the face of the earth (Genesis 1:29), waters (Genesis 1:2), sky (Matthew 16:3), and moon (Job 26:9). Also, the word “face” is used theologically with regard to the “presence of God” (Genesis 30:17-23). Face may be the physical “face” or the surface seen. Being “face to face” (literally, “eye to eye”) is being squared off with each other, front to front, and fully visible (Numbers 14:14). The face (eye) of the earth is the visible surface of the earth (Exodus 10:5, Exodus 10:15), and the face of the waters is that surface which is seen (Genesis 1:2).

The word “face” may stand for the entire countenance। It is in the face that the emotions are expressed. The face of the sky expresses the weather, stormy and red, or fair (Matthew 16:2-3). Bowing one's face (nose or face) expresses reverence or awe (Numbers 22:31; Luke 5:12). Bowing one's face (nose) toward the ground also includes the involvement of the entire person (1 Samuel 20:41; Matthew 26:39), indicating complete submission. When angry or sad, one's countenance (face) will fall (Genesis 4:5). “A merry heart maketh a cheerful countenance (face)” (Proverbs 15:13). To express displeasure or disgust, the face is averted or “hid” (Ezekiel 39:23; Psalms 102:2); to “seek his face” is to desire an audience (Psalms 105:4). To “set my face against” is to express hostility (Jeremiah 21:10), while turning away the face shows rejection (Psalms 132:10). To “set their faces to” indicates determination (Jeremiah 42:17; Luke 9:51). The wicked man “hardeneth his face”(Proverbs 21:29), and “covered his face with his fatness” (Job 15:27). When in mourning, the face is covered (2 Samuel 19:4).

Because the face reflects the personality and character of person, the word is frequently translated as “person” (Deuteronomy 28:50; 2 Samuel 17:11; 2 Corinthians 2:10), or “presence” (Exodus 10:11)। Sometimes it is translated merely as the indefinite pronoun “many” (2 Corinthians 1:11). Frequently, the word “face” is translated with the phrase “respect persons,” (KJV), or “being partial” (RSV), (Deuteronomy 1:17; Proverbs 24:23; Matthew 22:16; Galatians 2:6).

Many idioms and phrases also apply to “the face of God।” His face shines (Psalms 4:6), indicating good will and blessing। He sets His face against sinners (Leviticus 17:10), and hides His face (Psalms 13:1)। Frequently, the word “face” is used in a theological sense with regard to the person or presence of God. Sometimes “face” is translated as “presence” (Genesis 4:16; Exodus 33:14; 2 Thessalonians 1:9). In the tabernacle, the “shewbread” (KJV) or “Bread of the Presence” (RSV), was a local manifestation of the presence of God. The literal Hebrew reads “bread of the faces.” At other times, other words are substituted although the direct meaning is the “face of God.” Moses asked to see God's “glory” (Exodus 33:18), but God answered that “thou canst not see my face” (Exodus 33:20). The correlation indicates that in seeing God's face, one would experience His actual presence, and thereby be exposed to God's nature and character. Sinful and non-holy beings cannot survive being in God's holy presence without God's grace or merciful intervention (Exodus 33:17-23). Thus Moses (Exodus 3:6), Elijah (1 Kings 19:13), and the seraphim (Isaiah 6:2) hide their faces in God's presence. See Glory; Shewbread; Presence; Eye.

Darlene R. Gautsch

Bibliography Information
Fausset, Andrew Robert M.A., D.D., "Definition for 'Face' Fausset's Bible Dictionary".
bible-history.com - Fausset's; 1878.

Copyright Information
© Fausset's Bible Dictionary

http://www.bible-history.com/faussets/F/Face/

Pirkko Mannola - Adam & Eve

Who was Eve?

http://fairypage.webs.com/judaism.htm

http://www.dhushara.com/book/orsin/asherah.htm

http://www.lyricstime.com/paul-anka-adam-and-eve-lyrics.html