Lets think about the firmament

[Papias]

Doveman wrote:

The water above the firmament is the clouds. The water under the firmament is the one we swim in.

False - the firmament is also called the sky - they saw it as the hard dome keeping back the water - which is why the sky is blue. Thus, the clouds are not above the firmament - they under the arch of the firmament ("in" the firmament, since it is arched), just like the sun,moon and stars.

Paul asked you for a verse saying the clouds are made of water. I'd be interested in that too. My Catholic Bible, in the book of Nahum (1:3), specifically says that the clouds are made of the dust kicked up by Gods feet as he walks around, not made of water.

The Lord is very patient but great in power
the Lord punishes.
His way is in whirlwind and storm;
clouds are the dust of his feet.​

In Christ-

Papias

 

[AV1611VET]

Paul asked you for a verse saying the clouds are made of water. I'd be interested in that too.

Here, trample this:

Job 36:26 Behold, God is great, and we know him not, neither can the number of his years be searched out.
Job 36:27 For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:
Job 36:28 Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It has been scientifically demonstrated that the earth is flat.

The early writers were describing what was apparent to them. The science of it would only have been confusing, not only to them, but to us today if it were part of the bible. They could not have used the terms 'sunrise' and 'sunset', even though that would be the most practical way to describe the transition from night to day and day to night. Curiously, we still use those terms today.

 

[Doveaman]

False - the firmament is also called the sky

Yeah, and birds fly in the firmament of the sky under the clouds.

My Catholic Bible, in the book of Nahum (1:3), specifically says that the clouds are made of the dust kicked up by Gods feet as he walks around, not made of water.

I suggests you get a new Bible.

 

[Papias]

Chetsinger wrote:

Papias wrote:

The word, in Hebrew, means "solid bowl". It's the same word used for, say a metal bowl.

I've found a good number of other relevant verses in scripture. Even if we didn't already know that the word meant "solid bowl", these make it pretty clear.

The Bible describes the sky (firmament -- literally "metal bowl made by a hammer"- Gen 1:6-8, 1:14-17) as a solid dome, like a tent (Isa 40:22, Psa 19:4, 104:2, Pr 8:27-29), that is arched over the surface of the earth. It also has windows to let rain/snow in (Gen 7:11, 8:2, Deut 28:12, 2 Kings 7:2, Job 37:18, Mal 3:10, Rev 4:1). Ezekiel 1:22 and Job 37:18 even tell us that it's hard like bronze and sparkles like ice, that God walks on it (Job 22:14) and can be removed (Rev 6:14). Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, these verses show a solid sky above us. And unsurprisingly, many Christians in history have interpreted it as such.
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Firmament - Wikisource, the free online library

In Christ-

Papias

That's all interesting, yet I'm going to stick with the bulk of the modern translators and their choice of the word "expanse".

First of all, "expanse" is far from universal. "expanse" itself is still consistent with a hard dome, since an "expanse" can be a hard expanse. It's in the NIV, ESB, and NASB. Others include "vault" in the TJIB and NJB, "firmament" in the ASV, and perhaps the most clear, "dome" in the CEB, NABR, CEB, NRSV (which is version considered most accurate by scholars who read the original Hebrew), etc.

Secondly - The many supporting verses listed above confirm that it is a solid dome. To disregard them just by your own preference makes it look like scripture is not of much importance to you.

Thirdly - this also fits additional confirmation, such as the birth narrative in Mt 2, which has:

and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary....
​

Obviously, if a star is to designate a specific place in a neighborhood or city, it can't be more than 100 to 200 feet above the ground. So stars were clearly seen as small things, not balls of gas much larger than the whole earth. This story makes perfect sense under a hard dome with little lights stuck to it - it makes no sense otherwise.

Fourthly - Scholars have recognized this for a long time. It's nothing new. Here is just one paper - in a peer reviewed Bible Scholar's Journal - on this.

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

And so on.

From this and so many similar points, it's clear that a hard dome is shown by the word itself, by the use of the word in the OT, by the other references that don't use the same word (such as that in Mt), and that this is nothing new.

With all the clear scriptural, etc, support for a hard dome, and nothing suggesting air, one has to wonder why some people treat it as "air, now prove me wrong" - and then reject the evidence - instead of looking at where the balance of the evidence leads. I hope that some of it, for some people is not them deciding what their Bible says based on what they want it to say, as in "it says what I want it to say, now prove me wrong". I mean, if that's the case, then why bother with the scripture itself? They could just write down what they want, and call it their scripture.

In Christ -

Papias

***************************************

Doveman wrote:

I suggests you get a new Bible.

So you are saying that a Bible which contains book/text I mentioned is not holy scripture?

AV -
Thanks, that verse is useful. It shows that they recognized that clouds can contain water/rain. The verses such as those in Job show God storing the rain/snow someplace else for later delivery. Perhaps they saw clouds as dust from God's feet, which God could use to transport things? I wonder about this verse, because the NRSV has it with no mention of clouds:
...rain, which the skies pour down
and drop upon mortals abundantly.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Chetsinger wrote:


First of all, "expanse" is far from universal. "expanse" itself is still consistent with a hard dome, since an "expanse" can be a hard expanse. It's in the NIV, ESB, and NASB. Others include "vault" in the TJIB and NJB, "firmament" in the ASV, and perhaps the most clear, "dome" in the CEB, NABR, CEB, NRSV (which is version considered most accurate by scholars who read the original Hebrew), etc.

Secondly - The many supporting verses listed above confirm that it is a solid dome. To disregard them just by your own preference makes it look like scripture is not of much importance to you.

Thirdly - this also fits additional confirmation, such as the birth narrative in Mt 2, which has:

and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary....
​

Obviously, if a star is to designate a specific place in a neighborhood or city, it can't be more than 100 to 200 feet above the ground. So stars were clearly seen as small things, not balls of gas much larger than the whole earth. This story makes perfect sense under a hard dome with little lights stuck to it - it makes no sense otherwise.

Fourthly - Scholars have recognized this for a long time. It's nothing new. Here is just one paper - in a peer reviewed Bible Scholar's Journal - on this.

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

And so on.

From this and so many similar points, it's clear that a hard dome is shown by the word itself, by the use of the word in the OT, by the other references that don't use the same word (such as that in Mt), and that this is nothing new.

With all the clear scriptural, etc, support for a hard dome, and nothing suggesting air, one has to wonder why some people treat it as "air, now prove me wrong" - and then reject the evidence - instead of looking at where the balance of the evidence leads. I hope that some of it, for some people is not them deciding what their Bible says based on what they want it to say, as in "it says what I want it to say, now prove me wrong". I mean, if that's the case, then why bother with the scripture itself? They could just write down what they want, and call it their scripture.

In Christ -

Papias

***************************************

Doveman wrote:



So you are saying that a Bible which contains book/text I mentioned is not holy scripture?

AV -
Thanks, that verse is useful. It shows that they recognized that clouds can contain water/rain. The verses such as those in Job show God storing the rain/snow someplace else for later delivery. Perhaps they saw clouds as dust from God's feet, which God could use to transport things? I wonder about this verse, because the NRSV has it with no mention of clouds:
...rain, which the skies pour down
and drop upon mortals abundantly.

According to science the atmosphere is a protective cover (dome?) over the earth.

Why would poetry, metaphor, allegory, and other literary devices be excluded from the greatest work of literature in history? Example,

Leviticus 26:18-20

18 "And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.

19 And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass:

20 And your strength shall be spent in vain: for your land shall not yield her increase, neither shall the trees of the land yield their fruits."

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Sure. For one thing, the garden in Eden was watered by it. Also, I think a farmer would have to be pretty dense to not realize that the morning mist condensed on his crops.

The Garden of Eden passage about a mist going and watering the earth doesn't use the same word for water. It uses a word meaning to "irrigate". So the mist caused the water, but you didn't establish that they knew the mist was water.

Don't make guesses about what ancient Hebrew farmers knew, without examples.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Why would poetry, metaphor, allegory, and other literary devices be excluded from the greatest work of literature in history? Example,

Ask those who refuse to let us interpret Genesis to be consistent with the facts of evolution and the facts of the great age of the earth. They are the ones who deny poetic, allegorical interpretations and insist on literal interpretations, while at the same time doing away with the literal interpretations that the words describe concerning a solid firmament over our heads that holds back the water and the crawling of the sun on that firmament as the cause of day and night.

Personally, I'm quite willing to go along with you and accept poetic, metaphoric, allegorical, and other literary devices in interpreting Genesis. Some people around here say I'm wrong to do that.

 

[juvenissun]

Don't make guesses about what ancient Hebrew farmers knew, without examples.

Please answer my question, or say that you do not know. This question is critical to your OP.

Originally Posted by Paul of Eugene OR View Post
If you do an internet search for TALMUD FIRMAMENT you will find this in lots of places. Here is one such search result:

Rationalist Judaism: The Big Picture of the Firmament

I read this:

"The Torah had always been understood as describing the firmament as in the following illustration:"

(can't attach the picture. See that link)

I just wonder WHERE did the Torah say that? I actually know where the verse is. But I do not read that it makes ANY hint that the sun is going back "behind the firmament". Somebody simply made this up, and YOU quote the fictional interpretation.
__________________

 

[ChetSinger]

The Garden of Eden passage about a mist going and watering the earth doesn't use the same word for water. It uses a word meaning to "irrigate". So the mist caused the water, but you didn't establish that they knew the mist was water.

Don't make guesses about what ancient Hebrew farmers knew, without examples.

So we disagree. I'm OK with it.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Please answer my question, or say that you do not know. This question is critical to your OP.



I read this:

"The Torah had always been understood as describing the firmament as in the following illustration:"

(can't attach the picture. See that link)

I just wonder WHERE did the Torah say that? I actually know where the verse is. But I do not read that it makes ANY hint that the sun is going back "behind the firmament". Somebody simply made this up, and YOU quote the fictional interpretation.
__________________

Well, I quoted that interpretation in order to show what people were thinking the Bible said before the rise of modern science. That's a matter of history; people really thought along those lines.

The Genesis account states the firmament was created to seperate the waters above from the waters below.

Gen 1:6-8
6 Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
NKJV

Nobody . . . absolutely nobody . . . ever thought this wasn't a solid dome until astronomical knowledge came along to rule that out.

Then the translators started calling it an "expanse".

That's the history of it.

The firmament is said to have "windows". A region of space (i. e. an expanse) cannot have windows, its already open to stuff moving through it.

The firmament actually seperates water . . . pushing it up and away from the earth. A region of space (i.e. an expanse) cannot push water up away from the earth.

The very etimology of the word expresses the concept of a solid thing.

Your objections are merely typical "rescue interpretations".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, I quoted that interpretation in order to show what people were thinking the Bible said before the rise of modern science. That's a matter of history; people really thought along those lines.

The Genesis account states the firmament was created to seperate the waters above from the waters below.

Gen 1:6-8
6 Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
NKJV

Nobody . . . absolutely nobody . . . ever thought this wasn't a solid dome until astronomical knowledge came along to rule that out.

Then the translators started calling it an "expanse".




That's the history of it.

The firmament is said to have "windows". A region of space (i. e. an expanse) cannot have windows, its already open to stuff moving through it.

The firmament actually seperates water . . . pushing it up and away from the earth. A region of space (i.e. an expanse) cannot push water up away from the earth.

The very etimology of the word expresses the concept of a solid thing.

Your objections are merely typical "rescue interpretations".

Regardless of what many thought the bible said it is clear to us now that it didn't say the separating firmament was solid, but that it merely separated the waters. The best clue is that birds fly in the open firmament of heaven. It is this open space, normally clear of clouds, just above the earth, that is the separating firmament, or heaven.

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."

It is also this space where the mist, or 'vapor', goes up from the earth, forming clouds higher up as it cools, to return as rain. Thus the whole water cycle is accurately described.

 

[ChetSinger]

From a tip received on a different thread I found what I think is a quite relevant link.

Here it is: Does Genesis teach solid-dome cosmology? - Talk Genesis.

The author argues that the "firmament" is clearly defined in Gen 1:8 and its usage later in scriptures precludes a solid dome. I've read it once through, quickly, but intend to read it again with more attention to detail.

Food for thought, I think.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Regardless of what many thought the bible said it is clear to us now that it didn't say the separating firmament was solid, but that it merely separated the waters. The best clue is that birds fly in the open firmament of heaven. It is this open space, normally clear of clouds, just above the earth, that is the separating firmament, or heaven.

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."

It is also this space where the mist, or 'vapor', goes up from the earth, forming clouds higher up as it cools, to return as rain. Thus the whole water cycle is accurately described.

That's what evaporation after a catastrophe does. Separates the water above from the waters below, so that dry land appears. The earth "became" desolate and waste. Hence the dinosaurs died and new life was created "after" the darkness from this catastrophe was lifted and light could once again warm the earth.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Regardless of what many thought the bible said it is clear to us now that it didn't say the separating firmament was solid, but that it merely separated the waters. The best clue is that birds fly in the open firmament of heaven. It is this open space, normally clear of clouds, just above the earth, that is the separating firmament, or heaven.

Hah. Place a glass bowl over a fly, and the fly will be said to be buzzing about in the bowl. Its the same thing with birds flying in the firmament.

It is also this space where the mist, or 'vapor', goes up from the earth, forming clouds higher up as it cools, to return as rain. Thus the whole water cycle is accurately described.

You won't find a reference saying the water goes up to form clouds. You are reading your modern knowledge into what the bible says, again!

Transparent rationalizing into making the scriptures be what you want instead of the literal wording.

Ah, but when it comes to re-interpreting YOM as epochs instead of days, you're all against it. Selective rights to reinterpret ancient words to reconcile with scientific reality.

Of course you feel the scripture has to say that the separation wasn't a solid dome. Since today we know there isn't a solid dome, and we want the bible to be correct, that is the interpretation to which we are drawn.

Well, some of us have formed the opinion in our minds that evolution is true, as true as the fact there is no dome over our heads.

Given that we have that opinion, and suppose . . . just suppose . . . .we are no longer able to get rid of that notion . . .(we think the evidence is compelling) . . . what is your suggestion about how we should treat scripture?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You won't find a reference saying the water goes up to form clouds. You are reading your modern knowledge into what the bible says, again!

If you say so.

Psalms 135:7 He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries.

Jeremiah 10:13 When he uttereth his voice, [there is] a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures.

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. Ecclesiastes 1:7

Genesis 2:6: "and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground"

 

[ChetSinger]

Regardless of what many thought the bible said it is clear to us now that it didn't say the separating firmament was solid, but that it merely separated the waters. The best clue is that birds fly in the open firmament of heaven. It is this open space, normally clear of clouds, just above the earth, that is the separating firmament, or heaven.

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."

It is also this space where the mist, or 'vapor', goes up from the earth, forming clouds higher up as it cools, to return as rain. Thus the whole water cycle is accurately described.

Furthermore, the raqiya (firmament or expanse) is explicitly defined as "heaven" (shamayim) by God himself in Gen 1:8.

And the clouds are in heaven (Dan 7:13). Ergo, since the heaven the clouds reside in is an open space, the raqiya is, too.

Even more reason, in my view, that modern Bibles are correct to use the word "expanse".

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If you say so.

Psalms 135:7 He causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings for the rain; he bringeth the wind out of his treasuries.

Doesn't say vapour = water

Jeremiah 10:13 When he uttereth his voice, [there is] a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures.

Says the water comes from the voice of God, not from vapours.

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. Ecclesiastes 1:7

Deduces the water gets back somehow, but doesn't deduce how.

Genesis 2:6: "

and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground"

THe mist is said to perform the act of irritating the ground, but it does not say the mist is the water.

Look we could play this game all day. Why bother?

Bottom line, you are willing to re-interpret the bible into modern science you accept and unwilling to let me re-interpret the bible into modern science I accept and that is wrong.

Let us interpret the yoms as epochs instead of 24 hour cycles . . . let us understand that God's creative act in making the species involved evolution . . . and all is settled!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Yeah, and birds fly in the firmament of the sky under the clouds.
I suggests you get a new Bible.

There you go, if you don't like the translation, change it until you like it. Doesn't that make your own ideas become the bible, instead of the bible teaching you?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Doveman wrote:



False - the firmament is also called the sky - they saw it as the hard dome keeping back the water - which is why the sky is blue. Thus, the clouds are not above the firmament - they under the arch of the firmament ("in" the firmament, since it is arched), just like the sun,moon and stars.

Paul asked you for a verse saying the clouds are made of water. I'd be interested in that too. My Catholic Bible, in the book of Nahum (1:3), specifically says that the clouds are made of the dust kicked up by Gods feet as he walks around, not made of water.

The Lord is very patient but great in power
the Lord punishes.
His way is in whirlwind and storm;
clouds are the dust of his feet.​

In Christ-

Papias

Other translations agree with that.

Nah 1:3
In whirlwind and storm is His way,
And clouds are the dust beneath His feet.
NASU


Nah 1:3
His way is in the whirlwind and the storm,
and clouds are the dust of his feet.
NIV

Nah 1:3
n the whirlwind and in the storm,
And the clouds are the dust of His feet.
NKJV

Nah 1:3
he LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.
KJV

Even the King James version!