Flat or round earth -The final experiment.

[prodromos]

Thank you for explaining this, but can you tell me, when did God create the earth to rotate ? Or was it already rotating in order to receive night & day ?

God has not revealed that to us, so I could only speculate. However there are many things about God's creation that are perfectly balanced, such that if just one thing was off by a little bit then there could be no life on earth. The earth's orbit is just the right distance from the sun. Any closer and our oceans would boil away, any further and they would freeze. The earth's magnetic field protects the earth from being bombarded by charged particles from the sun. Not every planet has a magnetic field. The daily rotation of the earth in 24 hours likewise prevents extremes that would make life difficult, as does the tilt of the earth's axis which causes the seasons. The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is also perfect. Any less and we would suffocate, any more and fires would be impossible to put out. The size of the moon and its distance and orbit are perfect for creating the tides which are super important for the ocean ecology. If it was bigger or closer then it would cause constant earthquakes and volcanoes which would destroy settlements. The sizes and orbits of Saturn and Jupiter act like a gravitational vacuum cleaner, keeping the inner planets free from being bombarded by asteroids which would otherwise be devastating.
All of this is powerful evidence that the earth and everything else was created by an intelligent God. If it were just by chance then the probability of every single parameter being just right for the earth to be habitable is so infinitesimally small that it might as well be zero. Everything science teaches us about the sun, the earth and moon, and all the other planets, speaks powerfully for the existence of God, one who is all powerful.

And why do the scriptures say that the earth is unmovable ?

"Unmovable" means incapable of being moved or not able to be changed or influenced. It describes something that is fixed, stationary, or steadfast.

Your own definition allows for multiple interpretations, so it doesn't necessarily mean what you keep claiming it means. If it meant as you have been claiming up till now then how would you explain earthquakes? The earth moves so much at times that buildings collapse.

 

[Phil G]

I guess I will have to learn to look at the Bible differently like what is poetic & what is not.

Yes, I very much encourage you to do that. But as has been pointed out to you before, you’re not on your own. And ultimately it’s with God’s help that you can do this.

 

[pastorwaris]

Oh but it does.

Psalm 19:6
His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.

Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.



The word "raqia" is derived from the verb "raqa," which means to spread out, stretch out, or hammer out.
The clue is in the word 'Firm -ament'.

God doesn't lie or confuse.

Thank you for bringing up the Hebrew word “raqia” and its connection to the verb “raqa” this is a thoughtful point and shows you're engaging deeply with the text. Let's dig into it together, because there's a lot more going on than meets the eye.

---

1. Yes, “Raqia” Comes from “Raqa” But What Does That Really Mean?​

You're correct: “raqa” means to spread out, stretch, or beat out like metal being hammered into a thin sheet. The word “raqia” (often translated as “firmament” or “expanse”) carries the idea of something extended or stretched out.


But here’s the catch: that doesn't automatically mean it's a hard, solid dome. Language evolves in context, and the word “raqia” in Genesis 1 is used to describe where the birds fly and where the sun, moon, and stars are placed clearly not something rigid like a metal ceiling.


So while the etymology may give us a picture of spreading or hammering, the actual use in Genesis and the contextual meaning point toward a spacious expanse, not necessarily a solid dome structure.

---

2. “Firmament” is a Translation Choice Not a Literal Proof​

The word “firmament” comes from the Latin firmamentum used in the Vulgate translation, which reflected the scientific assumptions of that time (based on Greco-Roman cosmology). That Latin choice has colored the English understanding, but it's not necessarily what the Hebrew text implies.


In modern translations such as the ESV or NIV you’ll often find “expanse” instead of “firmament,” because scholars now recognize that raqia is likely referring to the open sky or heavens, not a hard structure.


So the “firm” in “firmament” is more of a historical artifact than a biblical assertion.

---

3. God Doesn’t Lie or Confuse Exactly!​

I completely agree with your statement: God doesn’t lie or confuse. That’s exactly why we must interpret His Word carefully in context, with humility, and without forcing modern or ancient scientific theories into the text.


The purpose of Genesis 1 is not to give us a scientific schematic of the universe, but to show us that:

• God created everything with intention and order.
• The universe is not a cosmic accident.
• Everything in the heavens and the earth exists under God’s sovereign command.

So when God “separates the waters” or “places lights in the expanse,” it’s poetic, theological language conveying His authority over creation, not a physics lecture or Iron Age cosmology.

---

4. Let’s Be Honest About Ancient Cosmology vs. Divine Revelation​

Yes, the ancient Hebrews probably imagined the sky differently than we do today. But the beauty of Scripture is that God chose to reveal eternal truths using language and ideas His people could understand, without endorsing every part of their worldview.


If we judge the Bible solely by scientific precision, we miss its theological depth. And if we assume that descriptive ancient language = doctrinal endorsement, we risk misrepresenting both God’s intent and the text’s purpose.

---

God Speaks Clearly, But Not Always Literally Dear Brother,​

We shouldn’t confuse clarity with literalism. When Jesus said, “I am the door,” He wasn’t claiming to be made of wood and hinges. Likewise, when Genesis says God created a raqia, it's not forcing us to believe in a metal dome but inviting us to marvel at a structured, intentional universe governed by a Creator.


Let’s not reduce God’s eternal Word to outdated cosmology. Let’s elevate it for what it truly is:

A timeless revelation of the God who stretches out the heavens like a curtain (Isaiah 40:22) not to confuse us, but to call us into awe and worship.

 

[Apple Sky]

In modern translations such as the ESV or NIV you’ll often find “expanse” instead of “firmament,” because scholars now recognize that raqia is likely referring to the open sky or heavens, not a hard structure.

I only read the KJV.

But here’s the catch: that doesn't automatically mean it's a hard, solid dome. Language evolves in context, and the word “raqia” in Genesis 1 is used to describe where the birds fly and where the sun, moon, and stars are placed clearly not something rigid like a metal ceiling.

I think the firmament may be be made out of a kind of aerogel. Aerogel can crumble but scientist have over come this problem.

Aerogel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[trophy33]

I think the firmament may be be made out of a kind of aerogel. Aerogel can crumble but scientist have over come this problem.

No matter if somebody thinks it was supposed to be solid, atmosphere/expanse or a gel, it does not work. Stars are not placed in it and there are no waters above it. There are no gates or vents through which the rain falls and it is not supported in place by high mountains.

Ancient Israelites simply did not understand the Universe from a technical perspective and no matter how one translates raqia, it is not working.

 

[Strong in Him]

I only read the KJV.

That's a shame.
There have been discoveries of Biblical scrolls etc since the KJV was written. It's not even always the closest to the original Greek/Hebrew.

As a Bible of choice, it's fine. As the only accurate and reliable translation, it isn't.

 

[Apple Sky]

There are no gates or vents through which the rain falls and it is not supported in place by high mountains.

Who ever claimed that it was supported by high mountain's ?

 

[Apple Sky]

That's a shame.
There have been discoveries of Biblical scrolls etc since the KJV was written. It's not even always the closest to the original Greek/Hebrew.

As a Bible of choice, it's fine. As the only accurate and reliable translation, it isn't.

What is ? The Ethiopian, I'll hold with that.

 

[trophy33]

Who ever claimed that it was supported by high mountain's ?

Above it was stretched the hemispherical sky [heavens Pr 8,27n] like a tent canvas [Ps 104,2; Isaiah 40:22].

It rests on the highest mountains [2S 22.8 »foundations of the heavens«; Jb 26,11 "heavenly pillars"], has gates [Gn 28,17] and vents through which the rain falls [Gn 7,11; 2 Kings 7:2; Ps 78,23n], kept according to Jb 38,37 in sacks, while hail, snow, wind and manna are stored in special chambers [Jb 37,8; 38.22n; Ps 135,7n].

Bible Dictionary, Novotný

 

[Strong in Him]

What is ? The Ethiopian, I'll hold with that.

What do you mean, what is, and what Ethiopian??

 

[trophy33]

What do you mean, what is, and what Ethiopian??

What is - probably "what is shame".

What Ethiopian - she probably means the Ethiopian canon, she was talking about it before.

But I have a suspicion she talks about the Ethiopian canon only because of the book of Enoch. I do not think she reads the rest of the books.

 

[Apple Sky]

But I have a suspicion she talks about the Ethiopian canon only because of the book of Enoch. I do not think she reads the rest of the books.

I have read them all - Thank you.

 

[Apple Sky]

What do you mean, what is, and what Ethiopian??

The Ethiopian Bible.

 

[trophy33]

I have read them all - Thank you.

Where? For example 4 Baruch and the Ethiopic Clement.

 

[Apple Sky]

Where? For example 4 Baruch and the Ethiopic Clement.

All.

 

[trophy33]

All.

Where? If you read only KJV as you stated before.

 

[Apple Sky]

Where? If you read only KJV as you stated before.

When it comes to the Bible I read the KJV. The Ethiopian Bible is notable for its extensive canon, containing between 81 and 88 books, which is far more than the KJV which I have also read.

 

[trophy33]

When it comes to the Bible I read the KJV. The Ethiopian Bible is notable for its extensive canon, containing between 81 and 88 books, which is far more than the KJV which I have also read.

What Ethiopian bible? In what translation? That is my question the whole time.

 

[Apple Sky]

What Ethiopian bible? In what translation? That is my question the whole time.

 

[Strong in Him]

When it comes to the Bible I read the KJV. The Ethiopian Bible is notable for its extensive canon, containing between 81 and 88 books, which is far more than the KJV which I have also read.

So you won't read translations such as the NIV or ESV, even though they also are God's holy word and contain the same books as the KJV.
You have read the KJV, but you didn't realise that Titus was a book in the Bible.

You have also read a Bible which contains books that are not in the canon of Scripture - most likely because they were not considered to be authentic, of faithful to the teachings of the apostles?

Let me guess, the Ethiopian Bible contains the book of Enoch?