Genesis Account of Creation: Firmament

[Samantha Rinne]

I always learned that early Earth was kinda a mass of lava until gas vents kinda steamed everything off. Hadean Period and stuff.

 

[halbhh]

I always learned that early Earth was kinda a mass of lava until gas vents kinda steamed everything off. Hadean Period and stuff.

There is constant new discovery in science, so one thing I've learned over the years is very often even a generally leading viewpoint about such a complex time can change suddenly, and so you take any one picture as tentative. But there are distinct clear facts also. So you want to notice the definite facts, even while also there is inevitably a sorta board picture being filled out with educated guesses. Here one definite fact is the massive early oceans, and the implications of that.
Early Earth Was Almost Entirely Underwater, With Just A Few Islands - Universe Today

 

[dad]

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.

I read through a few pages of the thread and didn't see it mentioned that the firmament is space. Maybe I missed it. Not sure what the problem is, it seems simple. After all the stars were put in the firmament.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's what I'm saying.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood your post.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Please, you don't pretend to have knowledge that you do not. You failed because you used a drawing that shows the difference in position over a half of a year and I explained why that was wrong.

(Annoying ranting that I refuse to listen to since you didn't bother listening to me)

You "explained" why I was wrong.

Actually, you failed the distance, actually going by their estimate rather than factoring the real speed and solving it yourself (resulting in an answer that was 10 LM too low, and treating light minutes like they were actual minutes looking at a distant object in the same place from virtually the same perspective). And then you failed basic angles. And then you failed common sense. And then you have the gall to accuse me of being too stupid to get what you're saying when I not only get what you want to say but immediately know why it's wrong.

Seriously, go outside. Right now. Mainly so I won't have to talk to you, but also so you actually demonstrate your own assumption. Go down a street to your left or right. Then do it again after walking sufficient distance that you are not on an immediately parallel street (which would not be an orbit). In fact, since you clearly don't get it, do all of this while turning in place. Tell me if see anything in common during this trip. And tell me in fact, if you see anything period with constant spinning and probably puking. And hey if you're convinced this is a 3D orbit, jump around too. Not only do I guarantee that by the time you get to two streets over you will have long since abandoned the idea of rotation (have fun~!) but you will not find one landmark you have seen before, until you corner at least once more and probably twice.

Well, you ask, why aren't we doing this at night? Or looking at the sun? Because, we are not measuring our path or perspective but the planet's path and location, so we need to do this from the planet's path by making the journey ourselves.

Btw, I already did this. Around a chair, using couches and other stuff around it as "stars". I not only figured out what was wrong with it but felt violently ill, so if you refuse, I will consider it bad faith and ignore any other proofs you have.

 

[Deeje]

But as your "opinion" is not based on deep science knowledge, you have no idea whether what you call "scientific guessing" is actually happening. And for the record, no it isn't.

"Deep scientific knowledge" was not the purpose of the Genesis account. It was a general description of what took place from the perspective of a scientifically uneducated earth bound observer.

What science "knows", does not contradict the Bible.....what science "thinks" often does.

Deep scientific knowledge is often not set in concrete but is a work in progress, able to be modified by the next "scientific" discovery. Science is not my religion. I trust the one who invented what science studies. OK? You can believe whomever you wish....

 

[Subduction Zone]

You "explained" why I was wrong.

Yes, I did, but you could not understand an explanation based on the sort of math you should have learned in middle school. This does not bode well for you.

Actually, you failed the distance, actually going by their estimate rather than factoring the real speed and solving it yourself (resulting in an answer that was 10 LM too low, and treating light minutes like they were actual minutes looking at a distant object in the same place from virtually the same perspective). And then you failed basic angles. And then you failed common sense. And then you have the gall to accuse me of being too stupid to get what you're saying when I not only get what you want to say but immediately know why it's wrong.

LOL! Their is no such thing as "real speed". You showed a drawing of the Solar System so I used that as the frame of reference. Your illustration showed the difference in position in half of a year and made a foolish statement. I showed why that statement was foolish. Sorry, the failure was all yours. You made the error, I corrected it.

Seriously, go outside. Right now. Mainly so I won't have to talk to you, but also so you actually demonstrate your own assumption. Go down a street to your left or right. Then do it again after walking sufficient distance that you are not on an immediately parallel street (which would not be an orbit). In fact, since you clearly don't get it, do all of this while turning in place. Tell me if see anything in common during this trip. And tell me in fact, if you see anything period with constant spinning and probably puking. And hey if you're convinced this is a 3D orbit, jump around too. Not only do I guarantee that by the time you get to two streets over you will have long since abandoned the idea of rotation (have fun~!) but you will not find one landmark you have seen before, until you corner at least once more and probably twice.

Well, you ask, why aren't we doing this at night? Or looking at the sun? Because, we are not measuring our path or perspective but the planet's path and location, so we need to do this from the planet's path by making the journey ourselves.

Btw, I already did this. Around a chair. I not only figured out what was wrong with it but felt violently ill, so if you refuse, I will consider it bad faith and ignore any other proofs you have.

Okay, you have gone off the deep end here. You are not making any sense at all. You were caught making a foolish mistake. You should have admitted it. If you can do that we can discuss the other velocities that you brought up and did not understand.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Subduction Zone, I know you didn't go. Hurry, run run! This moment!

Anyone who has a deeply held opinion must in fact test their own theories.

To be taken seriously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction Zone, I know you didn't go. Hurry, run run! This moment!

Anyone who has a deeply held opinion must in fact test their own theories.

To be taken seriously.

One does not test theories with foolish tests.

Have you thought this through? Your inability to do basic math and your anger at being corrected may have something to do with your beliefs that were refuted over 2,000 years ago.

 

[Deeje]

That translation is quite unlikely. The word is also used to refer to a compass. It will take more evidence than an appeal to Strong's that it also means sphere.

As you know some words can have several applications, such as the word "day". As Genesis demonstrates, "day" can mean a 24 hour period and it can mean an undetermined length of time, as it does in English. (in my grandfather's day)
Genesis ch1 speaks of the creative "days" and then, in Genesis 2:4 it uses the same word to describe the period of the entire creation. This leaves scope for interpreting the creative "days" as not being 24 hour periods but, as science confirms, undetermined periods of time....possibly thousands or even millions of years each.

Since we have pictures beamed from space confirming that the earth is indeed a spherical, then the "circle" of planet Earth is confirmed to be a "sphere"....no?
Job then tells us that it "hangs upon nothing".....how could the Bible writers know these things (in spite of the accepted ideas that prevailed in the past) that were confirmed only in relatively recent times?

 

[Deeje]

It's very interesting that we now know (in mainstream science) that factually, the Earth was once a Water World --

Early Earth Was Almost Entirely Underwater, With Just A Few Islands - Universe Today
(It's legit mainstream science (my degree is in engineering physics) behind this new insight into how Earth was early on.)

Isn't that interesting?

Suppose you were shown a vision of Earth in that time period, from near the surface (as if standing on a platform just above the water). Depending on how early in time, you might even see not only constant thick clouds, but instead of seeing the constant clouds with a distinct water surface below, you'd see instead a formless swirling mist/vapor, where it would even be hard to see where the water surface began. It would appear as if water was in all directions, up and down and sideways.

Thank you for the link. Yes it's very interesting. Science confirms that the early earth is just as Genesis describes.....how could the writer of Genesis know that?

The Bible is open to many interpretations and some can be very dogmatic and misleading. YEC beliefs deny science, but the Bible doesn't. It can't...because the Creator invented everything that science studies. There is legitimate scope for the creative days to be vast periods of time.

So, it is possible to believe the Bible AND true science (as opposed to theoretical science) because they don't contradict.

When it comes to theoretical science, "belief" is required just as it is with the Bible. It's funny to me that those who want God to disappear, can't really see the difference because their faith in science rivals our belief in the God of the Bible. This is not just a choice between something provable verses something that is mythical (although this is what they think) it's really a choice between one "belief" system and another....isn't that why people are asked if they "believe" in evolution?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

One does not test theories with foolish tests.

Have you thought this through? Your inability to do basic math and your anger at being corrected may have something to do with your beliefs that were refuted over 2,000 years ago.

I wonder where you got that 2000 years number? Oh right, pulled it out your *** too.

2000+ years ago, people still believed in geocentrism. You cannot even mention the specifics of what you believe disproves it. But I can mention what supposedly proves it. Galileo and Copernicus and their wonderful theories, right? That was closer to 500 years ago, and it only proves that planets like Jupiter orbit. It proves nothing at all about Earth's orbit besides an assumption that Earth must also orbit. Must it? In fact, in order to prove the latter, you would have to satellite image Earth's orbit which didn't come until centuries later. And btw, most things about outer space are in fact state secrets, showing the public only a mass media version. So we're in moot point time, unless you personally can cough up a satellite that you sent into space.

I did in fact think this through. This "stupid test" as you put it, actually demonstrated a simple rotating orbit. This test, which you btw proved you were too lazy too do, proved to me that the nearby objects in question might be visible at the absurdly small distance that I used, given an object like a chair (small and able to see over/past) but as the distance increases, and the size of the central object increases:
1. Distance reaches a vanishing point, where the non-adjacent objects cannot be seen at all
2. The orbiting object comes within sight of nearer objects
3. As the size of the central object increases, it obscures sight of any objects opposite it (if the sun is as big as scientists tell us it is in order to have Earth orbit it, then this is what you can call checkmate, you can't see around it on its far side)
4. Rotation itself puts strain on both the orbit and the object orbiting (I kinda felt dizzy)
5. The orbiting object would be unable to see the other object since it is constantly changing position (effectively a rotating and orbiting object would not see a rising and setting sun but instead have blurry room syndrome, this is patently obvious within the first five minutes of this test, but you refuse to do this probably because you in fact already know this)

And so, all people must listen to this music. Because Sun Stone is awesome.

 

[halbhh]

Thank you for the link. Yes it's very interesting. Science confirms that the early earth is just as Genesis describes.....how could the writer of Genesis know that?

The Bible is open to many interpretations and some can be very dogmatic and misleading. YEC beliefs deny science, but the Bible doesn't. It can't...because the Creator invented everything that science studies. There is legitimate scope for the creative days to be vast periods of time.

So, I t is possible to believe the Bible AND true science (as opposed to theoretical science) because they don't contradict.

When it comes to theoretical science, "belief" is required just as it is with the Bible. It's funny to me that those who want God to disappear, can't really see the difference because their faith in science rivals our belief in the God of the Bible. This is not just a choice between something provable verses something that is mythical (although this is what they think) it's really a choice between one "belief" system and another....isn't that why people are asked if they "believe" in evolution?

Some might say a person believes in something, so if they don't believe in X or Y, then they probably believe in Z, or R29.2. For instance, if a person doesn't put faith in God, then they still may have faith, and that faith could be put in any kind of thing, like technology, or music, or themselves (becoming one's own 'god'), or some ideology, like at one point in time early in the 20th century communism had true believers (along with those merely taking advantage of such, and others merely coping with the reality around them). Sure, there can be some (probably not a lot, but some) for whom science isn't an interesting pursuit of understanding of nature, but instead an object of faith, in a more religious sense. A person could put faith in something funny like Country Music, or a cowboy hat they think is a charm. Who knows where that faith tendency will go?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wonder where you got that 2000 years number? Oh right, pulled it out your *** too.

2000+ years ago, people still believed in geocentrism. You cannot even mention the specifics of what you believe disproves it. But I can mention what supposedly proves it. Galileo and Copernicus and their wonderful theories, right? That was closer to 500 years ago, and it only proves that planets like Jupiter orbit. It proves nothing at all about Earth's orbit besides an assumption that Earth must also orbit. Must it? In fact, in order to prove the latter, you would have to satellite image Earth's orbit which didn't come until centuries later. And btw, most things about outer space are in fact state secrets, showing the public only a mass media version. So we're in moot point time, unless you personally can cough up a satellite that you sent into space.

I did in fact think this through. This "stupid test" as you put it, actually demonstrated a simple rotating orbit. This test, which you btw proved you were too lazy too do, proved to me that the nearby objects in question might be visible at the absurdly small distance that I used, given an object like a chair (small and able to see over/past) but as the distance increases, and the size of the central object increases:
1. Distance reaches a vanishing point, where the non-adjacent objects cannot be seen at all
2. The orbiting object comes within sight of nearer objects
3. As the size of the central object increases, it obscures sight of any objects opposite it
4. Rotation itself puts strain on both the orbit and the object orbiting (I kinda felt dizzy)
5. The orbiting object would be unable to see the other object since it is constantly changing position (effectively a rotating and orbiting object would not see a rising and setting sun but instead have blurry room syndrome, this is patently obvious within the first five minutes of this test, but you refuse to do this probably because you in fact already know this)

And so, all people must listen to this music. Because Sun Stone is awesome.

I was talking about the fact that the Earth is a sphere. Erasthothenes first showed that about 2,200 years ago. My figure was rather accurate since I was going on memory:

Eratosthenes - Wikipedia

As to the heliocentric solar system it was Copernicus that first supported that idea. But you are all over the place here, That leads to a bit of confusion in response to your errors.

 

[Deeje]

Ah yes, that 'scientific guessing' that has established that the Earth orbits the sun, and confirmed germ theory and provided us with vaccinations, and figured out how to harness electrons so we can communicate over the Internet. Sure seems that that 'scientific guessing' has managed to tell us more about how reality works that any other method ever.

Now this is a response that often makes me smile.....what does all of that have to do with the topic at hand?

I am not a science denier.....I love science and what it has uncovered in the natural world. I benefit from its technology like everyone else...but when you speak about "germ theory" you act as if evolution and any other scientific "theory" have all been confirmed. Only some have....the rest remain as assumed. Do you know the difference? Assumptions are not facts.

Galileo was punished by the church for daring to contradict their entrenched belief....they lived to regret their actions because what he taught was true and what they believed was not. The egg on their face has never quite been cleaned up.

Science has a habit of being influenced by sinister motives. Splitting the atom for example, unlocking the immense power of something so infinitesimally small was an amazing accomplishment.....but look what evil men did to hijack those scientists into developing the most heinous weapons in existence.....!
Nuclear power stations that have rendered their surroundings as uninhabitable when things go horribly wrong.

Germs were relatively unknown before the invention of the microscope....and doctors didn't even know enough to wash their hands until the late 1800's. It's not a theory today because it's now an established fact.

Vaccinations have the potential to help prevent disease....but today they have become a ridiculous drive to pump as many pathogens into tiny bodies as the law will permit. The epidemic of autism has not ruled out adverse reactions to vaccinations as the culprit in certain children who may be genetically pre-disposed. It is not unusual these days to have autistic siblings. Denial doesn't really mean that it's been eliminated as the cause.

The Vaccine Injury Compensation Scheme has paid out over $4 billion in compensation to those who have been permanently damaged or to parents who lost their children due to adverse reactions to vaccinations. The law states that you cannot sue a vaccine manufacturer.....ever wonder why they are protected from prosecution?

Please don't confuse what science "knows" with what science "assumes" to know. Perception management is a psychological science developed to manipulate people's perceptions about all sorts of issues. Do you think you are immune to propaganda? Informed choice is the only one worth making. That means exploring both sides of every issue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some might say a person believes in something, so if they don't believe in X or Y, then they probably believe in Z, or R29.2. For instance, if a person doesn't put faith in God, then they still may have faith, and that faith could be put in any kind of thing, like technology, or music, or themselves (becoming one's own 'god'), or some ideology, like at one point in time early in the 20th century communism had true believers (along with those merely taking advantage of such, and others merely coping with the reality around them). Sure, there can be some (probably not a lot, but some) for whom science isn't an interesting pursuit of understanding of nature, but instead an object of faith, in a more religious sense. A person could put faith in something funny like Country Music, or a cowboy hat they think is a charm. Who knows where that faith tendency will go?

A note on an earlier source that you used. The more popular that a source is the more likely it is to contain errors. That there were likely oceans on the early Earth does not mean that the entire Earth was covered with oceans. Evidence for water has been found at one site. There likely was liquid water there. This article is a bit better:

Article: Zircons Recast Earth's Earliest Era | AMNH

Continental crust did not exist at that time, but at the same time there had not been a lot of out-gassing of water from the mantle yet. As to "faith". Faith is a weakness of religion. Faith is not allowed in the sciences. Trying to put down people that do not have faith in your God is like putting down people that do not have a debilitating disease. It really makes no sense. It is improper to assume that others have your weaknesses.

 

[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.

Let's go back to this example and your "perfectly good" map. To make it consistent we will refer to three different people. One on Africa, one on New Zealand, and one in South America. All of them on 45 degrees latitude South. If they point to the Southern Cross the South American is going to point straight south along roughly the 60 degree west longitude and 45 degrees up. The person in Africa will point straight south on the 30 degrees east longitude and up at 45 degrees. The one in New Zealand will point straight south along the 170 east longitude line and 45 degrees up. On your map those are three very different directions. And I chose the Southern Cross because it is close to the pole and will always be in the same position. On a globe they all point parallel to each other in the same direction. This is a major fail of your flat Earth map. No matter where you put the Southern Cross you cannot get where people point in reality to match up to where you put the constellation.

 

[Deeje]

Some might say a person believes in something, so if they don't believe in X or Y, then they probably believe in Z, or R29.2. For instance, if a person doesn't put faith in God, then they still may have faith, and that faith could be put in any kind of thing, like technology, or music, or themselves (becoming one's own 'god'), or some ideology, like at one point in time early in the 20th century communism had true believers (along with those merely taking advantage of such, and others merely coping with the reality around them). Sure, there can be some (probably not a lot, but some) for whom science isn't an interesting pursuit of understanding of nature, but instead an object of faith, in a more religious sense. A person could put faith in something funny like Country Music, or a cowboy hat they think is a charm. Who knows where that faith tendency will go?

People are designed to worship.....but if you take God away, that worship will be given to something or someone else. It's an undeniable part of human nature as history attests.

Science has its temples (the hallowed halls of academia) its scripture, (the vast volumes of scientific literature) and their idols (the prominent men of science, past and present)

Sports too have their devotees. Their temples are their stadiums, their scripture is any news or information about their sporting heroes who run around on various bits of grass chasing, throwing or hitting a ball of some configuration or size. They have objects of devotion in the form of sporting memorabilia which can be very expensive. They display these with much pride.

Then there is the worship of celebrities (entertainment idols)....people emulate their clothing...their speech....their lifestyle.....and will purchase any product they promote. Its kind of sad really that those who point fingers at Bible believers are themselves worshipping a substitute....but they cannot see it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

"Deep scientific knowledge" was not the purpose of the Genesis account. It was a general description of what took place from the perspective of a scientifically uneducated earth bound observer.

What science "knows", does not contradict the Bible.....what science "thinks" often does.

Deep scientific knowledge is often not set in concrete but is a work in progress, able to be modified by the next "scientific" discovery. Science is not my religion. I trust the one who invented what science studies. OK? You can believe whomever you wish....

What you call "general description of what took place" and "does not contradict the Bible" are exactly some of the discussions we've been having on this forum. For example, the difficulty of finding wives for Adam's sons, assuming a creation rather than evolution. Creation does, in fact, flatly contradict what science knows about the emergence of the human species on this planet. In the same way, here we are talking about the creation of the earth, and everything in it. In other places, about a global flood that simply never happened.

And then, in other areas, using the same set of books, we'll discover what "the one who invented what science studies" thinks about human beings who differ -- gay people, for example -- and how that can be, has been and is being used to persecute humans. You may or may not care about such things, of course. I know many Christians who don't actually. But I do, and I know even more Christians who also do -- and as a consequence, we all find it necessary to address ideas that lead to atrocities such as the Inquisition, witch burning, shunning and excommunication, and a whole litany of other evils -- evils that result, far too often, from religious beliefs based in scripture.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Yes, there are myths everywhere in ancient times, but these are not historical accounts, nor any of them scientific.