What is the firmament

[Job 33:6]

Does the Bible say it is? No. It is described as a circle though, not a ball, having a foundation. Heiser accepted and taught all this, yet embraced the doctrine of accommodation. I still appreciate all his teaching, but disagree with his approach to this subject. Maybe he didn't want to deal with all the haters, mostly Christian, that would arise. Especially since his work was amongst reputed scholars.

Rob Skiba saw the moon landing as a kid and wanted to be a NASA astronaut. He got as far as becoming a helicopter pilot In his later years he became probably the greatest advocate of flat earth. He also became an advocate of following the Torah. While I didn't agree with his Torah views, he did always make a lot of sense when it came to flat earth. He probably was the best advocate of the subject.

Both Heiser and Skiba have passed on in recent years.

The Flat Earth Controversy From A Biblical Worldview

Nobody is forcing anybody to follow any teaching, but biblical cosmology makes a lot of sense. I have yet to find those refuting such views doing so without mockery, chiding, and subtle insults.

So what is the earth? Biblically it is not a planet.

It sounds like you believe that the earth is flat. So, on that note, I'll take my leave. All the best.

 

[Job 33:6]

We are literally stars.

I never said that.

 

[Paul4JC]

Firmament or Expanse? Two Ways to Interpret Genesis 1:6​

1. The solid dome view​

In the first major view, rāqîaʿ denotes an actual, solid, physical dome and should be translated as such—that is, with a word like “firmament” or “vault.” Interpreters who argue that the rāqîaʿ is a solid structure usually take one of two approaches.

1. Some who take the first view openly reject biblical cosmology. They argue that the biblical authors truly believed the sky to be a solid dome and, like their ANE neighbors, they simply got it wrong. Therefore, while Scripture does intend to teach that the sky is a literal solid dome, proponents of this view see this as simply another example of ancient ignorance resulting in error and can be dismissed as such. For evangelicals, this is obviously not a viable interpretive option.
2. Others who take the first view argue that we must make a distinction between how the ancients pictured the universe and how Scripture co-opts that imagery for rhetorical purposes without actually endorsing it at the level of material reality. Proponents of this view see rāqîaʿ as literary/theological language that was never intended to be a technical description of the physical universe. Those who take this approach see no need to try to reconcile a solid sky with modern astrophysics. Scripture is simply using common ancient imagery to communicate a theological—not a scientific—message.

2. The empty space view​

In the second major view, rāqîaʿ is a phenomenological description of the atmosphere and/or space and should be translated as such—that is, with a word like “expanse” or “sky.” Those who hold this view see “spread out” as the primary meaning of rāqîaʿ, and they tend to take one of two approaches:

1. Some who take the second view argue that we must interpret Scripture in a way that “concords” with modern science. Apparent conflict between the two, they say, comes from over-literalization of biblical language. Thus, rāqîaʿ is simply phenomenological language used to depict the atmosphere and outer space. Like the modern terms “sunset” or “dewfall,” rāqîaʿ is just a natural way of describing how the heavens appear to human observers (i.e., a clear blue dome across which the heavenly bodies move and from which the “waters above” fall, through heavenly “windows”/“floodgates”).17 In this view, describing the sky as rāqîaʿ is no more “erroneous” than a modern speaker talking about a beautiful “sunrise.” God actually inspired such imagery in a way that would prefigure what modern science would only later come to realize about the atmosphere, solar system, and the fabric of spacetime itself.18
2. Others who take this latter view argue that we should interpret rāqîaʿ simply as something “spread out” or ”expansive.” The word is used as a non-literal, artistic description of the sky or the heavens in general. Just as the ancients “spread out” their tents over their heads, so too has God “spread out” the heavens above the earth. This approach largely agrees with view 1b above in that both interpret rāqîaʿ as metaphorical rather than literal (or even phenomenological) language. The disagreement is over whether it intends to describe something solid or something immaterial.

 

[Job 33:6]

Firmament or Expanse? Two Ways to Interpret Genesis 1:6​

1. The solid dome view​

In the first major view, rāqîaʿ denotes an actual, solid, physical dome and should be translated as such—that is, with a word like “firmament” or “vault.” Interpreters who argue that the rāqîaʿ is a solid structure usually take one of two approaches.

1. Some who take the first view openly reject biblical cosmology. They argue that the biblical authors truly believed the sky to be a solid dome and, like their ANE neighbors, they simply got it wrong. Therefore, while Scripture does intend to teach that the sky is a literal solid dome, proponents of this view see this as simply another example of ancient ignorance resulting in error and can be dismissed as such. For evangelicals, this is obviously not a viable interpretive option.
2. Others who take the first view argue that we must make a distinction between how the ancients pictured the universe and how Scripture co-opts that imagery for rhetorical purposes without actually endorsing it at the level of material reality. Proponents of this view see rāqîaʿ as literary/theological language that was never intended to be a technical description of the physical universe. Those who take this approach see no need to try to reconcile a solid sky with modern astrophysics. Scripture is simply using common ancient imagery to communicate a theological—not a scientific—message.

2. The empty space view​

In the second major view, rāqîaʿ is a phenomenological description of the atmosphere and/or space and should be translated as such—that is, with a word like “expanse” or “sky.” Those who hold this view see “spread out” as the primary meaning of rāqîaʿ, and they tend to take one of two approaches:

1. Some who take the second view argue that we must interpret Scripture in a way that “concords” with modern science. Apparent conflict between the two, they say, comes from over-literalization of biblical language. Thus, rāqîaʿ is simply phenomenological language used to depict the atmosphere and outer space. Like the modern terms “sunset” or “dewfall,” rāqîaʿ is just a natural way of describing how the heavens appear to human observers (i.e., a clear blue dome across which the heavenly bodies move and from which the “waters above” fall, through heavenly “windows”/“floodgates”).17 In this view, describing the sky as rāqîaʿ is no more “erroneous” than a modern speaker talking about a beautiful “sunrise.” God actually inspired such imagery in a way that would prefigure what modern science would only later come to realize about the atmosphere, solar system, and the fabric of spacetime itself.18
2. Others who take this latter view argue that we should interpret rāqîaʿ simply as something “spread out” or ”expansive.” The word is used as a non-literal, artistic description of the sky or the heavens in general. Just as the ancients “spread out” their tents over their heads, so too has God “spread out” the heavens above the earth. This approach largely agrees with view 1b above in that both interpret rāqîaʿ as metaphorical rather than literal (or even phenomenological) language. The disagreement is over whether it intends to describe something solid or something immaterial.

Most evangelical old testament scholars recognize that ancient peoples believed in a solid sky. So I'm not sure why you would say "this is obviously not a viable interpretive option."

The ancient authors weren't advanced in their understanding of astronomy. And we shouldn't try to change the Bible anytime it reflects an ancient understanding of the cosmos. When you read an ancient text, you shouldnt be surprised if you find ancient ideas.

 

[trophy33]

proponents of this view see this as simply another example of ancient ignorance resulting in error and can be dismissed as such. For evangelicals, this is obviously not a viable interpretive option.

For example, the (theistic) theory of evolution is being held by 41% of evangelical leaders.

Evangelical Beliefs and Practices

Who are evangelical Christians? What do they believe? And what do they see as the boundaries of their faith? The survey contains several questions that

www.pewresearch.org

Another example, 50 of 70 interviewed evangelical Christians and leaders were accommodationists regarding the mustard seed being the smallest seed:

Therefore, such interpretations are not just viable options, but actually quite common among evangelicals.

 

[Ted-01]

Firmament or Expanse? Two Ways to Interpret Genesis 1:6​

1. The solid dome view​

In the first major view, rāqîaʿ denotes an actual, solid, physical dome and should be translated as such—that is, with a word like “firmament” or “vault.” Interpreters who argue that the rāqîaʿ is a solid structure usually take one of two approaches.

1. Some who take the first view openly reject biblical cosmology. They argue that the biblical authors truly believed the sky to be a solid dome and, like their ANE neighbors, they simply got it wrong. Therefore, while Scripture does intend to teach that the sky is a literal solid dome, proponents of this view see this as simply another example of ancient ignorance resulting in error and can be dismissed as such. For evangelicals, this is obviously not a viable interpretive option.
2. Others who take the first view argue that we must make a distinction between how the ancients pictured the universe and how Scripture co-opts that imagery for rhetorical purposes without actually endorsing it at the level of material reality. Proponents of this view see rāqîaʿ as literary/theological language that was never intended to be a technical description of the physical universe. Those who take this approach see no need to try to reconcile a solid sky with modern astrophysics. Scripture is simply using common ancient imagery to communicate a theological—not a scientific—message.

2. The empty space view​

In the second major view, rāqîaʿ is a phenomenological description of the atmosphere and/or space and should be translated as such—that is, with a word like “expanse” or “sky.” Those who hold this view see “spread out” as the primary meaning of rāqîaʿ, and they tend to take one of two approaches:

1. Some who take the second view argue that we must interpret Scripture in a way that “concords” with modern science. Apparent conflict between the two, they say, comes from over-literalization of biblical language. Thus, rāqîaʿ is simply phenomenological language used to depict the atmosphere and outer space. Like the modern terms “sunset” or “dewfall,” rāqîaʿ is just a natural way of describing how the heavens appear to human observers (i.e., a clear blue dome across which the heavenly bodies move and from which the “waters above” fall, through heavenly “windows”/“floodgates”).17 In this view, describing the sky as rāqîaʿ is no more “erroneous” than a modern speaker talking about a beautiful “sunrise.” God actually inspired such imagery in a way that would prefigure what modern science would only later come to realize about the atmosphere, solar system, and the fabric of spacetime itself.18
2. Others who take this latter view argue that we should interpret rāqîaʿ simply as something “spread out” or ”expansive.” The word is used as a non-literal, artistic description of the sky or the heavens in general. Just as the ancients “spread out” their tents over their heads, so too has God “spread out” the heavens above the earth. This approach largely agrees with view 1b above in that both interpret rāqîaʿ as metaphorical rather than literal (or even phenomenological) language. The disagreement is over whether it intends to describe something solid or something immaterial.

I appreciate this informational post and want to thank you for it.

I do find it strange that people want to insist that the "solid dome theory" is one that has been taught the most in churches and is also the theory that most Christians hold. Personally, I have been in and out of churches for over 40 years and have never heard this talked about or preached/taught on ever. I've only heard it since coming to chat sites like this one... and frankly, I find it both shocking and disturbing. But not just that some Christians really hold to this theory, but those who come against the solid dome/flat earth theorists and the YEC folks with equally false counter argument that Scripture was merely legends and myths. I'm not sure where you stand on that. But I appreciate the information in this post.

 

[Job 33:6]

I appreciate this informational post and want to thank you for it.

I do find it strange that people want to insist that the "solid dome theory" is one that has been taught the most in churches and is also the theory that most Christians hold. Personally, I have been in and out of churches for over 40 years and have never heard this talked about or preached/taught on ever. I've only heard it since coming to chat sites like this one... and frankly, I find it both shocking and disturbing. But not just that some Christians really hold to this theory, but those who come against the solid dome/flat earth theorists and the YEC folks with equally false counter argument that Scripture was merely legends and myths. I'm not sure where you stand on that. But I appreciate the information in this post.

This topic is new to you, likely because you aren't following Biblical scholarship. The concept of ancient peoples believing in a solid sky, including the ancient isrealites, is widely accepted by old testament scholars, and it's a subject that's been around, at least since the early 1900's with the discovery of ancient literature of the caves of qumran and of ugarit.

The subject is covered well by numerous old testament scholars. I would recommend "Reading Genesis 1 and 2: An Evangelical Conversation" for discussions on Genesis by 5 didn't Bible scholars. They cover the topic well.

Reading Genesis 1 and 2: An Evangelical Conversation (see book on Amazon)

 

[Apple Sky]