Lets think about the firmament

[ChetSinger]

Do some of you guys really think that farmers of 3,000 years ago were so freaking stupid they couldn't figure out that it never rained on a sunny day???

Here, try this on:

He (God) loads the clouds with moisture;
he scatters his lightning through the clouds. - Job 37

Good grief.

 

[Strathos]

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".

I would tend to agree with this

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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!

Why don't we all agree that the 'interpretation' isn't a 'private' thing, as the bible says. Therefore it is a 'public' thing and we can interpret it as we see understand it. Eventually God will bring unity of understanding. The important thing is that we regard it as the actual word of God.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good grief.

Give it up, Chet.

His bible is Strong's Concordance, the official book of those who trample God's word.

This is why I'm a KJVO, and will stay a KJVO forever.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why don't we all agree that the 'interpretation' isn't a 'private' thing, as the bible says.

Some people like to hunt.

Some people like to bowl.

Some people like to trample.

 

[SkyWriting]

Today, we know that clouds are made of water. But this is scientific knowledge.

Only for today's smarty pants.....huh? We'll see.

Can you show that ancient Hebrews knew that clouds were made of water? Today, we know that vapor is another form of water. But can you show that ancient Hebrews knew that vapor is another form of water?

The picture below should cover it. I took this picture myself 2000
years ago. It shows clouds above, with with rain below below.
Back then the Bible was a Wiki so I wrote about it but religious
people copied my ideas and never gave me proper credit:



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

If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: Ecclesiastes 11:3a

He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; he makes lightnings for the rain; he brings the wind out of his treasuries. English: LightningPsalm 135:7

He that calls for the waters of the sea, and pours them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name. Amos 9:6b

When he utters his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; he makes lightnings with rain, and brings forth the wind out of his treasures. Jeremiah 10:13

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Only for today's smarty pants.....huh? We'll see.



The picture below should cover it. I took this picture myself 2000
years ago. It shows clouds above, with with rain below below.
Back then the Bible was a Wiki so I wrote about it but religious
people copied my ideas and never gave me proper credit:



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

If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: Ecclesiastes 11:3a

He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; he makes lightnings for the rain; he brings the wind out of his treasuries. English: LightningPsalm 135:7

He that calls for the waters of the sea, and pours them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name. Amos 9:6b

When he utters his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; he makes lightnings with rain, and brings forth the wind out of his treasures. Jeremiah 10:13

Hey, lets make a deal. I'll let you read your modern knowledge into the bible as you read it and you let me read my modern knowledge into the bible as I read it, and we'll each let the other read the bible that way.

And we won't go telling the other guy he can't be right, even if evolution and the great age of the earth are also involved.

 

[Papias]

Chet, I didn't see a response from our conversation about these four points from post #45. Did I just miss it?

Also - the Talk Genesis article, among other problems, is by those who have pledged to only allow a narrow range of options, as described in their "faith statement". This bias statement recuses them from a rational discussion.

Also - Doveman, I didn't see a response about whether a Bible with the offending Nahum text should be thrown out.

Here is post #45 for convenience:
************************************************************
Chetsinger wrote:

Papias wrote:

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_...mament-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.

 

[juvenissun]

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".

You do not see the criticality of it.

If the sun going back to east "above the firmament", then it says the firmament is opaque. That would be a very very critical nature of the firmament. Base on this very reason, I DON'T think that interpretation is correct, historically or now, fictional or not. It is never a right interpretation.

 

[ChetSinger]

Chet, I didn't see a response from our conversation about these four points from post #45. Did I just miss it?

No, I'm reluctant to engage you because I don't want to end up in your sig.

In the link below I've found enough information to persuade me that our modern Bibles are indeed correct to use the word "expanse" rather than "firmament".

Does Genesis teach solid-dome cosmology? - Talk Genesis

 

[Papias]

Chet wrote:

No, I'm reluctant to engage you because I don't want to end up in your sig.

Fair enough.

I guess if anyone doesn't want their ridiculous statements to be pointed out, then perhaps they should refrain from making ridiculous statements in the first place.

As for the link, did I not explain in my last post why that link is not a valid source of information?

For anyone else, several lines of examination all showing that hard dome is described in most Bibles are shown in Post #45.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[JacksBratt]

Nobody today accepts the Genesis narrative as literal except a few diehard flat earth believers, if such still exist today.

Wow, Do you have any evidence for this? First of all, how many people is "nobody" in your world? Secondly, how many "flat earth" people can say they take the Bible literally? Are you saying that all YEC are flat earth believers?

You need to get over your " I said it so it's true" complex.

The view of the heavens in the times of the Bible was that the heavens were a great bowl or firmament placed over the round flat disk that was the earth; the sun, Moon and Stars were in it, they would move along their appointed paths across the inner surface of the firmament. The universe was once all water; the firmament held open a space in the water for dry land to appear. The earth itself was pictured as having columns or pillars under it to hold it up; and all of that was over the waters that were beneath the earth; and these pillars, themselves, rested on nothing, they were just "there" in the waters below the earth.

So, you say "the view of heavens in the times of the Bible was" and we are all supposed to believe this is truth?

Again, get over yourself. You are lying.

In the original creation narrative, all that exists is just water; yet there is the proto-earth within that water, waiting:
In the creation narrative the earth is revealed by pushing back the water above it with the solid firmament, envisioned as an upside down bowl over the earth, creating a dry space above the earth.
Then, on the underneath side, where it would be useful for the inhabitants of the earth, God placed the Sun, Moon, and the stars.

All that exists is water? Does it say this? or does it say He was hovering over the waters? and then “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.”
Seems like the dry land was there and then when the water was moved you could see it. Doesn't matter, if God created the universe, He could have created the land at that time anyway.
Your point is mute.

That the sky above was considered to be a solid thing is verified when Job's friend Elihu spoke to Job about what God did in creating the firmament:
That the earth is spread out over water is also reported in the Psalms:
And that the waters remain up above the sky is also testified of in the psalms:
The waters above the heavens make their appearance also in the narrative of the great flood:
The firmament continued after the time of Noah, still fulfilling its job of holding the lights of the Sun, Moon and Stars for us all:

Firstly, Psalms are all songs and poetry much different than Genesis.
Job on the other hand was alive before the flood. At that time, the canopy of water was still in place and would, to them, appear as a solid mirror.

The cause of night and day is definately the movement of the sun, not the rotation of the earth, as shown by the the same psalm:

Are you saying that the sun doesn't orbit anything? It does. In fact our whole solar system is orbiting something in our galaxy and our galaxy is also orbiting something.. Also, again, this is a song and if you want to say that Davids song about the sun coming up in the morning and following it's course across the sky isn't scientific, well neither is a lot of Pink Floyd's.
If you want to say that this means that Bible believers have to believe that the sun orbits the earth in order to take it literal.... good luck.

And the image of the windows up in the firmament over our heads also appeared as a figure of speech:

You, being an intelligent person, must have heard phrases like "the window of my mind" , "a window of time".

Sorry, don't' see a point here.

Above the firmament was the abode of God. Ezekiel's mystic chariot is understood to be a miniature version of the earth and heavens, with the firmament and God's throne above the firmament shown in relative "miniature" version for him to see. The word "firmament" here is the same as the word "firmament" in Genesis One in the Hebrew.

The passage you quote here is a prophet delivering a commentary on his vision. He was describing things that even you and I have not seen.

Your point? Again.

Why is it that modern anti-science people accept some science in spite of the literal words of the Bible and deny other science on the grounds it is in conflict with the literal words of the Bible?

Who are these "anti-science" people? What is the science they don't accept?

It is not based on sound literal exegesis. Instead, it is based on what parts of science has personally convinced them and what parts of science has not personally convinced them. Their own disbelief in the literal words of scripture they tolerate, and then deny the rights of others to do exactly the same thing. In doing this, they leave themselves open to the charge of Jesus against the "lawyers":

Are you basing this on your pathetic examples of science that they don't accept or Bible passages that they do?

Here's a good picture:

Ya, seen that poor excuse of a "Biblical earth" according to Genesis. It's a joke but nice try. This and many variations of it permiate the internet.

Try this one....Not perfect but much better as the earth is a ball not a plate. Again, nice try.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You do not see the criticality of it.

If the sun going back to east "above the firmament", then it says the firmament is opaque. That would be a very very critical nature of the firmament. Base on this very reason, I DON'T think that interpretation is correct, historically or now, fictional or not. It is never a right interpretation.

I don't understand. Nobody thinks there really is a solid firmament out there, no matter what the Bible says about it. Why, then, are you worried about it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody thinks there really is a solid firmament out there, no matter what the Bible says about it.

Which is nothing.

Someone Arab-phoned "solid" in there.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Wow, Do you have any evidence for this? First of all, how many people is "nobody" in your world? Secondly, how many "flat earth" people can say they take the Bible literally? Are you saying that all YEC are flat earth believers?

Heh heh, you don't comprehend what you read very well, I see. I'm saying that of all the YEC, only those who are flat earthers are truly consistent with the literal words of the bible. Most are merely inconsistent.

You need to get over your " I said it so it's true" complex.

Classic Freudian projection.

So, you say "the view of heavens in the times of the Bible was" and we are all supposed to believe this is truth?

Again, get over yourself. You are lying.

Are you denying the history of what people believed? Too bad, they believed it. Are you thinking that just because people believed that about the sun's motion in ancient times I believe its true? Surely you aren't that naive. So what lie are you accusing me of here, exactly? You're a little quick on that trigger there, partner.

Firstly, Psalms are all songs and poetry much different than Genesis.
Job on the other hand was alive before the flood. At that time, the canopy of water was still in place and would, to them, appear as a solid mirror.

How did Job's night sky look compared to our night sky, in your opinion? This I gotta hear! Remember, they could see the sun, the moon, and the constellations. So how was this canopy making its appearance to them "as a solid mirror"?

I think you are uttering nonsense.

Are you saying that the sun doesn't orbit anything? It does. In fact our whole solar system is orbiting something in our galaxy and our galaxy is also orbiting something.. Also, again, this is a song and if you want to say that Davids song about the sun coming up in the morning and following it's course across the sky isn't scientific, well neither is a lot of Pink Floyd's.
If you want to say that this means that Bible believers have to believe that the sun orbits the earth in order to take it literal.... good luck.

Ho hum. There you go again, calling on your modern knowledge to guide you in how to intepret scripture, the very thing I want to be allowed to do as well, and I will, you can't stop me, and so I accept scripture and evolution.

You, being an intelligent person, must have heard phrases like "the window of my mind" , "a window of time".

Sorry, don't' see a point here.

Nothing stops you from re-interpreting scripture to agree with your modern knowledge, that part of modern knowledge you accept, that is.

Who are these "anti-science" people? What is the science they don't accept?

You are one of them, when you deny evolution and deny the great age of the earth.

Ya, seen that poor excuse of a "Biblical earth" according to Genesis. It's a joke but nice try. This and many variations of it permiate the internet.

There are many variations of it permeating the internet because it has been attested to as the opinions of the ancients over and over, in their own words, and there are those who wish to educate you as to what the ancients believed.

Try this one....Not perfect but much better as the earth is a ball not a plate. Again, nice try.

That . . . . . is astonishing. That a mind could actually believe that picture had any relation with reality.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Which is nothing.

Someone Arab-phoned "solid" in there.

Taking the "firm" out of firmament!

History is plain. That was the interpretation until science made it impossible.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't understand. Nobody thinks there really is a solid firmament out there, no matter what the Bible says about it. Why, then, are you worried about it?

YOU said people thought the sun goes back to east in the night on the back of the firmament. YOU SAID THAT AND SHOWED A PICTURE OF IT !!

OK, no need to argue. I know you want to say nobody ever said that. That is what I want to confirm.

Carry on.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

YOU said people thought the sun goes back to east in the night on the back of the firmament. YOU SAID THAT AND SHOWED A PICTURE OF IT !!

OK, no need to argue. I know you want to say nobody ever said that. That is what I want to confirm.

Carry on.

But I do confirm people at one time thought the sun goes back to east in the night on the back of the firmament. They wrote about it and we have their records. Of course, nobody believes that TODAY.

 

[JacksBratt]

Heh heh, you don't comprehend what you read very well, I see. I'm saying that of all the YEC, only those who are flat earthers are truly consistent with the literal words of the bible. Most are merely inconsistent.

Lets take a look.....

From what I read you say nobody accepts the narrative as literal except diehard flat earth believers. So, if someone, by your words, takes the literal narrative they have to be die hard flat earthers. It's plain English.

I am a YEC believer, I do not believe in the flat earth, I believe Genesis is literal....There are thousands, if not millions of us.. Therefore, your formula is false.

Originally Posted by Paul of Eugene OR

Nobody today accepts the Genesis narrative as literal except a few diehard flat earth believers, if such still exist today.




​

 

[JacksBratt]

Are you denying the history of what people believed? Too bad, they believed it. Are you thinking that just because people believed that about the sun's motion in ancient times I believe its true? Surely you aren't that naive. So what lie are you accusing me of here, exactly? You're a little quick on that trigger there, partner.

Eratosthenes of Alexandria (circa 276 to 194 or 192 B.C.) calculated the circumference of the earth “within 50 miles of the present estimate.
This is bible times. Some may have what you have said but this truth was known.

In Job, the word used for circle can also be translated as Sphere.

If they believed the earth was as you say, then they were like you, not taking the facts of the Bible as truth.