Genesis Account of Creation: Firmament

[Subduction Zone]

(Edit: RF seems to despise .PNG images. Just see the article.)
- from Firmament - Wikipedia

The firmament, in the mind of the authors of Genesis, is a firm structure, a dome above the circle of the earth. The stars are fixed to the firmament, the planets, the sun and the moon move inside the firmament. It obviously has no relationship to reality.

Well that's annoying. When images are not visible one can often see them by hitting the reply button. Not this time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But the spherical Oort Cloud, as revealed in post #16 DOES.

Still not close to the mythical verses.

 

[Native]

The Firmament that separates the waters above the Earth and below the Earth.

Where exactly is the Firmament located?

There is no waters above the Earth.

Would the Firmament be wetlands at ocean depths?

How do you reconcile Genesis with Geology?

I am thinking that the Genesis writer saw blue skies and figured there was water in the skies that was vaulted and would release rain from time to time.

Also Genesis talks of a vast expanse! Where might that be?

Also in another book the circle of the Earth is mentioned. A circle is not a sphere so I am under the impression that the writer saw Earth as a dome with a circle of flat land.

Several ancient cultures have a Story of Creation and even though these stories are told from an Earthly perspective, most of these stories begins with a cosmological description from a stage where the Solar System wasn´t created.

The Solar System is an integrated part of the Milky Way rotation and it is logical to assume that the Solar System also is an integrated part of the Milky Way formation.

If so: How did our ancestors describe and depicted these conditions? If looking at the whitish contours of the Milky Way, it can be compared to and symbolized as a river on the sky, hence the Genesis terms of "waters above and below" because the Milky Way contours can be observed all around the Earth.

In Genesis there is an interpretation problem with "the two time creation of the Earth". This problem occurs when readers aren´t aware of the formation of solid masses in the beginning of the creation where firm matters are created from the "gaseous rivers". The initial Genesis term of "earth" means just "solid matter" from which everything is created, including the Solar System, as said here:

So say you. Aristotle, however, tells us [Metaphysics 983 b6 8-11] that, according to Thales (one of the Seven Wise Men, 6th century BCE) the originating principle of all matter was a single substance: water, and that the earth was a flat disk that floats in the "cosmic sea." Thales of Miletus | Greek philosopher

When interpreting "earth" here as "solid soil", this solid soil formed a flat disk which is not the Earth, but the flattish Milky Way structure.

It appears as if God used the water suspended above the atmosphere to flood the earth in Noah's day.

As the Milky Way appearance, amongst other symbolism, is referred in ancient myths as a "River in the Sky", the "Noah Flood" is a misinterpretation. This celestial river of the Milky Way "runs" all OVER and AROUND the Earth in the Sky and not ON the Earth. And of course this astronomical river never was used as a divine revenge over humans.

The term "firmament" according to the Creation account, is taken from the Hebrew: רָקִיעַ raqiya` raw-kee'-ah, which is defined by many scholars as an expanse, or the visible arch of the sky:—firmament, but a primitive root; “רָקַע raqa` raw-kah” means, to pound, hammer, to overlay (with thin sheets of metal):—beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.

A "visible arch on the (night) Sky" is very likely resembled by the contours of the Milky Way.

The creation of the firmament is associated with the placement of some sort of structure, and in some modern Bibles many modern scholars translate the Hebrew word raqia as a "dome" or "vault". The Hebrew language appears to imply that the firmament is a firm, fixed structure (FIRMament, which can now be seen as the spherical cloud of comets (Icy vault) in which our solar system was created from the solar nebula cloud that was divided from the greater galactic nebula cloud.

I´m not sure about the "comets and icy vault" but very sure of the Solar System formation connection (and division) with the "greater galactic nebula cloud" i. e. the overall formation of the Milky Way galaxy.

Knowing that the planets of our solar system were already created before the sun came into existence . . .

How did you came to this conclusion? This must rely on a misinterpretation of the "earth concept" in Genesis where the first term "earth" describes "solid matters" and not the Earth itself - or other planets.

My preliminary conclusion:
The Genesis Story of Creation, as other cultural creation stories, deals with the creation of the Milky Way and the Solar System. In this sense, these stories don´t deal with the beginning and creation of the entire Universe, but they all describes the principles of creation and the very formation of the ancient known part of the Universe, our Milky Way and the Solar system.

 

[exchemist]

The Firmament that separates the waters above the Earth and below the Earth.

Where exactly is the Firmament located?

There is no waters above the Earth.

Would the Firmament be wetlands at ocean depths?

How do you reconcile Genesis with Geology?

I am thinking that the Genesis writer saw blue skies and figured there was water in the skies that was vaulted and would release rain from time to time.

Also Genesis talks of a vast expanse! Where might that be?

Also in another book the circle of the Earth is mentioned. A circle is not a sphere so I am under the impression that the writer saw Earth as a dome with a circle of flat land.

Reconciling geology with Genesis is simply not an appropriate thing to attempt. It is an allegory of creation. This has been widely recognised within Christendom for centuries, starting with Origen in 200AD.

 

[Native]

@ The Anointed,

Continued from post #16.

It was from the galactic nebular cloud, which was the residue of the heaver elements that were exploded off with the great super nova, which was the death of one of the gigantic earlier generation Stars that our Milky-Way galaxy would be formed in the second creative period=day, as the active universal forces brought about a division of the Solar nebular cloud [The Waters Below] from the Galactic nebular cloud [The Waters Above].

The accretion of the galactic nebula disk, which was being attracted to the central Black Hole around which it had begun to orbit, transferred angular momentum outward as it transferred mass inward, it was this that caused our solar nebula to begin to rotate and condense inward, bringing a division of the solar cloud, from the galactic cloud, or the waters above from the waters below.

I really like your attempts to compare and include the Genesis story with the consensus issues of formation in Modern Cosmology.

Personally though, I wouldn´t use the modern terms of gravity and black holes when it comes to the biblical way of explaining the creation.

In the Bible, and in other cultural Stories of Creation, the very concept of LIGHT is the one which creates everything in the Milky Way, hence you/we have to focus on the electromagnetic forces and its qualities of attraction in the plasmatic clouds of gas and dust and the later repulsion of formed stars and planets.

IMO it is the very swirling current in the electromagnetism which creates the rotational and orbital momentum in the galaxies and planetary systems.

 

[Native]

The verses you gave claim that the people of today are ignoring an established fact. From your language it sounds like you have an hypothesis at best.

And i found an attempt to refute that hypothesis.

The Vapor Canopy Hypothesis Holds No Water

Your linked article deals with the idea of Noah´s Flood. IMO this flood is connected to the myth of the Milky Way River which is imagined by our ancestors as a river running in the Sky. In this sense we can talk of the water concept, but ALSO in the scientific concept of cosmic clouds of gas and dust. In this sense, the ancient story of creation and the scientific explanations deals with the very same facts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, yet another thread pitting the pathetic Christian literalist against the petty bible-trasher, both managing to be equally annoying (although the latter impresses me as being far more juvenile and irresponsible).

It is, as I said, annoying.

There is, however, a third option. One can recognize the opening verses of Genesis as an attempt to reimagine Ancient Near East cosmology through the lens of radical ethical monotheism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, yet another thread pitting the pathetic Christian literalist against the petty bible-trasher, both managing to be equally annoying (although the latter impresses me as being far more juvenile and irresponsible).

It is, as I said, annoying.

There is, however, a third option. One can recognize the opening verses of Genesis as an attempt to reimagine Ancient Near East cosmology through the lens of radical ethical monotheism.

Where was there any "Bible -trashing"?

Your attempt to justify Genesis is not much better than that of the literalists.

 

[exchemist]

Where was there any "Bible -trashing"?

Your attempt to justify Genesis is not much better than that of the literalists.

Hang on, hang on. He's not attempting to justify anything in that post, but simply pointing out how the Genesis myth may have arisen, as literature.

And the point about "radical ethical monotheism", as being the innovation in religious thought of the period, is quite intriguing, I find.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Your attempt to justify Genesis is not much better than that of the literalists.

Justify?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hang on, hang on. He's not attempting to justify anything in that post, but simply pointing out how the Genesis myth may have arisen, as literature.

And the point about "radical ethical monotheism", as being the innovation in religious thought of the period, is quite intriguing, I find.

Justify?

Actually the phrase quoted by @exchemist was what appeared to be an attempt to justify the story to me. Meanwhile the silence about any supposed thrashing seems to indicate that there was not any. At that time I do not think that people were too concerned about literature, though I could be wrong.

 

[Native]

There is, however, a third option. One can recognize the opening verses of Genesis as an attempt to reimagine Ancient Near East cosmology through the lens of radical ethical monotheism.

In fact there is many more options. You can study "Comparative Mythology" and "Comparative Religion" where the Story of Creation looks fairly much the same as the one in Genesis.

 

[exchemist]

Actually the phrase quoted by @exchemist was what appeared to be an attempt to justify the story to me. Meanwhile the silence about any supposed thrashing seems to indicate that there was not any. At that time I do not think that people were too concerned about literature, though I could be wrong.

You seem determined to misunderstand what is being said.

The bible is a work of literature, just as the Iliad is, or countless other cultural stories that help to define people's sense of who they are. Like the Iliad it may have originated as an oral tradition and was written down later. Whether the people of the time "were concerned about literature" is neither here nor there.

Any anthropologist would be interested in innovations in the way a culture thought about the world and religious ideas are clearly a big part of that.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

The Firmament that separates the waters above the Earth and below the Earth.

Where exactly is the Firmament located?

There is no waters above the Earth.

Would the Firmament be wetlands at ocean depths?

How do you reconcile Genesis with Geology?

I am thinking that the Genesis writer saw blue skies and figured there was water in the skies that was vaulted and would release rain from time to time.

Also Genesis talks of a vast expanse! Where might that be?

Also in another book the circle of the Earth is mentioned. A circle is not a sphere so I am under the impression that the writer saw Earth as a dome with a circle of flat land.

:smh:

Earth has an atmosphere. The height of which is generally not agreed upon (ask the internet "height of the atmosphere" and you get a different idea of it from NASA and Wikipedia and about four or five other articles). Its atmosphere is made up of air, nitrogen, and water vapor.

That is, to all accounts by primitive man, this sky is a dome of water because rain comes from there. It's just poetic language.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem determined to misunderstand what is being said.

The bible is a work of literature, just as the Iliad is, or countless other cultural stories that help to define people's sense of who they are. Like the Iliad it may have originated as an oral tradition and was written down later. Whether the people of the time "were concerned about literature" is neither here nor there.

Any anthropologist would be interested in innovations in the way a culture thought about the world and religious ideas are clearly a big part of that.

Many seem to think that it is much more than a work of literature. Perhaps a better term should be found, and I may have reacted a bit to his false accusation that he was not able to support. Telling falsehoods about others is rather irritating to me.

 

[Terry Sampson]

When interpreting "earth" here as "solid soil", this solid soil formed a flat disk which is not the Earth, but the flattish Milky Way structure.

I've never heard that spin on it. Interesting.

And of course this astronomical river never was used as a divine revenge over humans.

You'll get no objection from me on that matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What! Don't you believe in the flood of Noah's day? Oh that's right, you don't believe anything recorded in the scriptures do you?

You appear to be one of those fly in and fly out atheists, who are Biblically ignorant , which I refer to as seagulls, they fly in and defaecate on others posts then fly away. I've got some chippies for you mate, do you want some chippies, it might stop your senseless screeching on this RELIGIOUS forum.

Because such an event would leave behind evidence that would be extremely clear to see. Not just geological evidence, but biological evidence. And a chemist may be able to bring up chemical e evidence that such an event would have left behind. And a physicist could explain to you how God cooked Noah and family to a crisp.

The lack of expected evidence tells us that it did not happen.

 

[tгєรкเค]

The space is not vacuum, the universe is entirely made up of cosmic waters but unlike our Earth's Water, the deep surface waters is entirely different from the earthly (h2O) waters, the Earth and all other planetary systems of the entire universe are submerged deep underneath these vast ocean of spatial fluid.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

So say you. Aristotle, however, tells us [Metaphysics 983 b6 8-11] that, according to Thales (one of the Seven Wise Men, 6th century BCE) the originating principle of all matter was a single substance: water, and that the earth was a flat disk that floats in the "cosmic sea." Thales of Miletus | Greek philosopher



View attachment 34271

I have seen this picture before. Despite increasingly becoming more of a flat Earther the more I debate with round Earth defenders (nice job guys, you helped make me believe the exact opposite), this picture always makes the Earth look so warped and lumpy that I actually do the opposite. It's just so BAD. I mean, you have an actual square, guarded by angels, surrounding an Earth that isn't even flat but a strange parabola or something.

Gleason world map is perfectly good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have seen this picture before. Despite increasingly becoming more of a flat Earther the more I debate with round Earth defenders (nice job guys, you helped make me believe the exact opposite), this picture always makes the Earth look so warped and lumpy that I actually do the opposite. It's just so BAD. I mean, you have an actual square, guarded by angels, surrounding an Earth that isn't even flat but a strange parabola or something.

Gleason world map is perfectly good.

Quick question:

A person in southern South America and southern Australia are both looking south one night. "South" on your map for them is two very different directions. Yet both looking "south" they can see the same stars. How does that work out?

Edit: To be specific they are looking at the constellation the Southern Cross. At any time in night that is going to be straight South in direction in the Southern Hemisphere yet according to your map they would be looking in all sorts of different directions.