The Firmament

[Apple Sky]

I don't understand.
You are not saying the firmament begins after the exosphere. So, you must mean the atmosphere ends before the exosphere begins, right?

I'm not sure where the atmosphere ends.

 

[CoreyD]

I'm not sure where the atmosphere ends.

Okay. What did you mean by "where the atmosphere meets space"?
Hello? Are you still with me?

I took this image from this thread.

There is nothing keeping the waters above from running off the firmament. Is there?

 

[The Liturgist]

I'm not sure where the atmosphere ends.

Answers to:

1. Yes
2. In
3. correct
4. Thin
5. Not sure

Other than item 1, that being the idea that the firmament is a solid barrier, everything rlse on that list is compatible with space as explored by astronauts, including the Lunar mission, and also fulfills the criteria set out in Genesis, in that the waters above are divided from those of the Earth by what we could call the Firmament.

The chief problem with your model is that it is incompatible with the known fact that the air becomes thin at higher elevations - if the world were covered by a solid shell, amd gravity did not exist, the volume of air inside that shell would have a consistent pressure.

 

[DennisF]

I wasn't aware there was a difference.

Strong's Hebrew: 8064. שָׁמַ֫יִם (shamayim) -- Heaven(s), sky

Why do you see a difference?

The ancient "three heavens" model of what is up there is still mostly the model we have today, though we think about it differently. The first heaven is the sky - the troposphere, where birds fly, leaves fall, clouds move, aerospace vehicles experience drag, and weather occurs. In the NT, there is some distinction of it by calling it aire (like our word air). The second heaven is where the stars (kowkob in Hebrew) are, and what we call outer space. A "star" in ancient reckoning is any point of light in the sky, though we distinguish between planets suns, moons, nebulae, comets and meteors. All are "stars" in both Hebrew and Greek (astra). In Hebrew, the second heaven is also called shamayim - the heavens. So shamayim can be either sky or outer space. Genesis 1:1 can read that the elohim created the "sky and land" (shamayim and eretz).

The apostle Paul refers to the third heaven, "where God lives". This is not known to us and is not part of the modern cosmological model. We do not know the scope of reality in which to consider this third heaven. Some think of it as eternity: beyond space-time. This is a completely abstract idea to us because we cannot envision anything outside of space-time. We can employ abstractions involving infinity yet cannot comprehend it in any direct sense. The many infinity-words that appear in Bible translations (usually as superlatives) simply are not there in the Hebrew language or worldview. Take a familiar example: Psalm 23. It ends in typical translations with "... and I shall live in the house of the Lord forever." Forever is an infinity-word, but the transliteration of the Hebrew is "for all the days". It doesn't say which days or how many of them.

Another example that low-level Bible-bashers are fond of involve the translated superlative all; all the cows in Egypt die in one plague, only to get boils in the next plague. Our English word all has a Greek logical meaning of "without exception". The Hebrew meaning is more statistical to mean "the preponderance of". The third heaven is where God lives and that can be anywhere from a nearby star to a different sector of the galaxy to another galaxy to ... somewhere beyond. We simply do not know.

 

[DennisF]

Other than item 1, that being the idea that the firmament is a solid barrier, everything rlse on that list is compatible with space as explored by astronauts, including the Lunar mission, and also fulfills the criteria set out in Genesis, in that the waters above are divided from those of the Earth by what we could call the Firmament.

The chief problem with your model is that it is incompatible with the known fact that the air becomes thin at higher elevations - if the world were covered by a solid shell, a[n]d gravity did not exist, the volume of air inside that shell would have a consistent pressure.

Keep in mind the First Law of Bible study: do not assume that the translators have put the right sense of the passage into your mind with their translation.

During the Exodus, Yahweh came down to Israel in a "cloud" (Hebrew anan) which, by its behavior was not a weather cloud but was a different kind of "big thing in the sky". Hebrew does not have a word for spacecraft or anything else for which we have multiple words for big things in the sky. I'll call it an aerial vehicle because it certainly was above the ground, moved intentionally, had an audio system, and it had some behaviors that we would associate with an aircraft or spacecraft. The wording in Exodus refers to it as a kabed anan - a dense or heavy or thick anan. Kabed is also translated as solid. So to assume that this anan being kabed, has the same characteristic that we mean by the solid state of matter can be misleading. It might simply mean dense.

In our modern time, we do know of the Van Allen belt surrounding the planet which has a particle density that is dense enough to shield the earth from ionizing solar radiation. It is not empty space. I propose this as a possibility for the ancient "firmament". The ancients could observe it in the form of the effects of the aurora borealis - the northern lights.

Another possibility, given the text about water above the firmament is that it is the upper troposphere. The atmosphere decreases monotonically with elevation in both air density and pressure but not in temperature, which is a "roller coaster" function with elevation. The atmosphere comes in layers and the upper layer where the jet stream blows is another candidate for the firmament.

 

[CoreyD]

The ancient "three heavens" model of what is up there is still mostly the model we have today, though we think about it differently. The first heaven is the sky - the troposphere, where birds fly, leaves fall, clouds move, aerospace vehicles experience drag, and weather occurs. In the NT, there is some distinction of it by calling it aire (like our word air). The second heaven is where the stars (kowkob in Hebrew) are, and what we call outer space. A "star" in ancient reckoning is any point of light in the sky, though we distinguish between planets suns, moons, nebulae, comets and meteors. All are "stars" in both Hebrew and Greek (astra). In Hebrew, the second heaven is also called shamayim - the heavens. So shamayim can be either sky or outer space. Genesis 1:1 can read that the elohim created the "sky and land" (shamayim and eretz).

The apostle Paul refers to the third heaven, "where God lives". This is not known to us and is not part of the modern cosmological model. We do not know the scope of reality in which to consider this third heaven. Some think of it as eternity: beyond space-time. This is a completely abstract idea to us because we cannot envision anything outside of space-time. We can employ abstractions involving infinity yet cannot comprehend it in any direct sense. The many infinity-words that appear in Bible translations (usually as superlatives) simply are not there in the Hebrew language or worldview. Take a familiar example: Psalm 23. It ends in typical translations with "... and I shall live in the house of the Lord forever." Forever is an infinity-word, but the transliteration of the Hebrew is "for all the days". It doesn't say which days or how many of them.

Another example that low-level Bible-bashers are fond of involve the translated superlative all; all the cows in Egypt die in one plague, only to get boils in the next plague. Our English word all has a Greek logical meaning of "without exception". The Hebrew meaning is more statistical to mean "the preponderance of". The third heaven is where God lives and that can be anywhere from a nearby star to a different sector of the galaxy to another galaxy to ... somewhere beyond. We simply do not know.

Thank you for sharing your interpretation/view.
Many persons have this view, but I don't believe it is scriptural, and certainly, science does not agree with it.
It's true though that various views about the heavens existed in the past, as is true, even today.

 

[DennisF]

Thank you for sharing your interpretation/view.
Many persons have this view, but I don't believe it is scriptural, and certainly, science does not agree with it.
It's true though that various views about the heavens existed in the past, as is true, even today.

What do you not believe is scriptural and what is, if I might change the logic of your statement a little, conflicts with science?

 

[CoreyD]

What do you not believe is scriptural and what is, if I might change the logic of your statement a little, conflicts with science?

The view that there are three heavens and the third heaven is where God lives, is an interpretation, and not scripture.
Science does not refer to the third heaven, and they certainly do not believe in a realm where a supernatural god lives.

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 does not tell us anything about this third heaven, as you know.
It's easy for one to guess, but unless the scripture otherwise makes it clear, we cannot be certain of this vision.

 

[DennisF]

The view that there are three heavens and the third heaven is where God lives, is an interpretation, and not scripture.

How do you understand the apostle Paul's reference to a "third heaven"? He was writing that in a civilization that would have understood it according to the widespread three-heavens view.

Science does not refer to the third heaven, and they certainly do not believe in a realm where a supernatural god lives.

And today, even from a scientific standpoint, we distinguish between the earth's atmosphere (heaven # 1), outer space (heaven # 2) and whatever might be beyond space-time, multiverses, or whatever (heaven # 3). So the expression "third heaven" does not appear in scientific literature, but the concept does. Changing words or labels does not change concepts named by them.

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 does not tell us anything about this third heaven, as you know.

It tells us that it was a part of Paul's thinking. And because the concept was developed elsewhere in the same civilization Paul lived in and where it was referred to, we can know something more about what was in his mind.

It's easy for one to guess, but unless the scripture otherwise makes it clear, we cannot be certain of this vision.

You're speaking for yourself, and not those who have done more research on the finer points of scriptural references. Perhaps you should take into account that others might know what you do not know that they know.

 

[CoreyD]

How do you understand the apostle Paul's reference to a "third heaven"?

Verse one says Paul had a vision, where in verse 2, a man was caught away to the third heaven - whether bodily or not, he does not know.
So this vision is not where Paul goes anywhere, but is, like John, and Daniel, by spirit, shown something supernatural.

Paul is boasting at this point, and his words are not to give information, but to let those opposes, know that he had a vision from God.
Thus, what Paul meant is not something we need to understand, or that he was teaching.
That's my understanding.

He was writing that in a civilization that would have understood it according to the widespread three-heavens view.

Why do you say that?

And today, even from a scientific standpoint, we distinguish between the earth's atmosphere (heaven # 1), outer space (heaven # 2) and whatever might be beyond space-time, multiverses, or whatever (heaven # 3). So the expression "third heaven" does not appear in scientific literature, but the concept does. Changing words or labels does not change concepts named by them.

No problem.

It tells us that it was a part of Paul's thinking. And because the concept was developed elsewhere in the same civilization Paul lived in and where it was referred to, we can know something more about what was in his mind.

We disagree on that.
Where do you get that this 'concept was developed elsewhere in the same civilization Paul lived in'?

You're speaking for yourself, and not those who have done more research on the finer points of scriptural references. Perhaps you should take into account that others might know what you do not know that they know.

You're saying that you and these persons are not offering your interpretations?

 

[DennisF]

Verse one says Paul had a vision, where in verse 2, a man was caught away to the third heaven - whether bodily or not, he does not know.
So this vision is not where Paul goes anywhere, but is, like John, and Daniel, by spirit, shown something supernatural.

I don't follow this. Supernatural is a pagan and not a biblical idea in which nature is what the Fates control and the gods act supernaturally. This dualism is not in the biblical worldview; Yahweh is Lord of all, not supernatural. I have not raised the question of how or where Paul might have gone but addressed what he said. He used the expression "third heaven" which has a clear meaning in his setting.

Paul is boasting at this point, and his words are not to give information, but to let those opposes, know that he had a vision from God.
Thus, what Paul meant is not something we need to understand, or that he was teaching.
That's my understanding.

You are speculating about Paul's state of mind and purpose for saying what he did. I am not speculating but am addressing what he actually said: third heaven.

He was writing that in a civilization that would have understood it according to the widespread three-heavens view.​

Why do you say that?
{Forum software has a fault. My response in bold.}
Because I know something about ancient history and the thinking of people in Paul's setting. I can read.

And today, even from a scientific standpoint, we distinguish between the earth's atmosphere (heaven # 1), outer space (heaven # 2) and whatever might be beyond space-time, multiverses, or whatever (heaven # 3). So the expression "third heaven" does not appear in scientific literature, but the concept does. Changing words or labels does not change concepts named by them.

No problem.

It tells us that it was a part of Paul's thinking. And because the concept was developed elsewhere in the same civilization Paul lived in and where it was referred to, we can know something more about what was in his mind.

We disagree on that.
Where do you get that this 'concept was developed elsewhere in the same civilization Paul lived in'?

All I can say is to refer you to the history literature of the time. Apparently, you do not know any to be raising this question. You need some background study on this. I am not your tutor.

You're speaking for yourself, and not those who have done more research on the finer points of scriptural references. Perhaps you should take into account that others might know what you do not know that they know.

You're saying that you and these persons are not offering your interpretations?

Some of us think that there is a difference between facts and speculations.

 

[DennisF]

CoreyD,
Upon reflection, I am not sure that I gave a satisfactory response to your comments because you linked to the Wikipedia 7th heaven topic and thus show some awareness of the ancients with their views of multiple heavens. So it does not make sense to me that you would question whether the apostle Paul understood "third heaven". Is it presumptuous to suppose that he would at least know what he was talking about when he himself used the expression? I suspect that you would agree that he understood what he was writing. So I am not sure how to take your comments regarding this.

 

[CoreyD]

I don't follow this. Supernatural is a pagan and not a biblical idea in which nature is what the Fates control and the gods act supernaturally. This dualism is not in the biblical worldview; Yahweh is Lord of all, not supernatural. I have not raised the question of how or where Paul might have gone but addressed what he said. He used the expression "third heaven" which has a clear meaning in his setting.

You are speculating about Paul's state of mind and purpose for saying what he did. I am not speculating but am addressing what he actually said: third heaven.


Why do you say that?
{Forum software has a fault. My response in bold.}
Because I know something about ancient history and the thinking of people in Paul's setting. I can read.


No problem.


We disagree on that.
Where do you get that this 'concept was developed elsewhere in the same civilization Paul lived in'?

All I can say is to refer you to the history literature of the time. Apparently, you do not know any to be raising this question. You need some background study on this. I am not your tutor.


You're saying that you and these persons are not offering your interpretations?

Some of us think that there is a difference between facts and speculations.

Are you speculating on where/what the third heaven is?
That's not written, is it?

 

[DennisF]

Are you speculating on where/what the third heaven is?
That's not written, is it?

The forum software seems to be acting strangely. Yesterday I wrote

CoreyD,​

Upon reflection, I am not sure that I gave a satisfactory response to your comments because you linked to the Wikipedia 7th heaven topic and thus show some awareness of the ancients with their views of multiple heavens. So it does not make sense to me that you would question whether the apostle Paul understood "third heaven". Is it presumptuous to suppose that he would at least know what he was talking about when he himself used the expression? I suspect that you would agree that he understood what he was writing. So I am not sure how to take your comments regarding this.​

I am not speculating to the point that in the ancient world there was a generally accepted idea - a concept, perhaps - of the third heaven, it can be known what it was today, and when Paul uses the expression, I am indeed assuming that what he meant by it is what anyone reading his letter would also understand it to mean.

That does not mean that our modern cosmological model of a "third heaven" is quite the same, though the ancients understood it to be the place "where God lives". I am not going any further than that in exegeting Paul. However, it is a somewhat different topic for us, in the 21st century, to develop our own model of what it might have meant relative to our present cosmological understanding. In that regard, I also do not know where the place that God lives would be. Many today, influenced by the Greek philosophy of infinity-words from the Middle Ages, suppose it is beyond space and time, and hence beyond the modern conception of the universe itself. Yet neither Genesis 1 nor Paul expound upon what the scope of creation is. It might be no wider than our solar system, or our sector of the galaxy. In that place, Jesus, who became incarnate and is now a part of the creation, would (but not necessarily must) be somewhere in it. How about Taygeta in the Pleiades? I really don't know. Nor do I believe others who speculate about the ascension of Christ being beyond space-time, in eternity, know either. God has retained a few secrets for himself to be revealed in the ages to come.

 

[Apple Sky]

In that regard, I also do not know where the place that God lives would be.

IMO God's throne is above the star Polaris in the North from which we have the emerald lights.

King James Bible
And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald;

 

[Job 33:6]

Okay. What did you mean by "where the atmosphere meets space"?
Hello? Are you still with me?

I took this image from this thread.

There is nothing keeping the waters above from running off the firmament. Is there?

The waters wouldn't run off the firmament, because the firmament and all of creation is completely submerged, kind of like a submarine.

Now, obviously this isn't scientific. It's just a common way that ancient people described the cosmos.

 

[CoreyD]

The waters wouldn't run off the firmament, because the firmament and all of creation is completely submerged, kind of like a submarine.

Now, obviously this isn't scientific. It's just a common way that ancient people described the cosmos.

Thanks for answering, but I don't understand.
Are you saying it's just a fantasy?

 

[Job 33:6]

Thanks for answering, but I don't understand.
Are you saying it's just a fantasy?

In ancient times, before people had things like satellites and space shuttles, the sky was thought to have a watery nature or it was at least commonly described as such. That is what was thought to give it its blue color. Same with things like the solid sky. It was a common view in the Greco-Roman world that the sky consisted of crystalline spheres. The Old Testament is much older than the time of Copernicus and Ptolemy. But in the ancient world, perspectives of a solid sky were quite common. The Biblical authors, though inspired by God, still held to normal or common views of their day concerning cosmology.

1942PA.....50..133M Page 133

This does not mean that the Bible is "fantasy", it just means that the Bible isn't exactly a science textbook. It's a book of theology, it's not about astronomy. It's about God. It's not about physics.

 

[JonasDaniels]

I'm probably going to regret weighing in on this, but everyone seems to be playing nice thus far, so here goes.

I am not a sincere believer in anything but Christ Jesus.

However, I am well aware that Satan is the God of this world and that he is the father of lies. And because of this I do not place my trust in Science or any man made institutions.

Okay then.

1. It would seem to be so, yes
2. Within
3. Correct
4. Thick, quite thick.
5. Zero estimate. I have however noticed that it seems to be much hotter and brighter in the last few years than I ever remembered it to be.

 

[Aaron112]

"Water molecules exist in the Orion Nebula and are still forming today. The nebula is composed mostly of hydrogen gas; other molecules are comparatively rare.

Even so, the nebula is so vast that it creates enough water every day to fill Earth’s oceans 60 times over. "

Ocean Worlds: Water in the Solar System and Beyond - NASA Science

The story of oceans is the story of life. Life as we know it requires three ingredients: energy, organic molecules, and liquid water.

science.nasa.gov

I think 900 million million million ....... is possible.... if not likely. A few decades ago or so it was published publicly, but now is difficult to find accurately, obscured by fake news.

In ancient times, before people had things like satellites and space shuttles, the sky was thought to have a watery nature or it was at least commonly described as such.