Genesis Account of Creation: Firmament

[exchemist]

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.

Ah, that's more like it!

What I could not understand in the other article is how the headline writer reached the conclusion that the Earth was all under water, when water is not mentioned in the text of the article at all!

I am aware that tectonic activity has resulted in a progressive process of fractionation, whereby the less dense rocks of the continental blocks have progressively grown larger and presumably the oceanic crust and mantle more dense, over the aeons. But without knowing how much free surface water there was at this early date, it seems impossible to conclude that it was all under water.

 

[nPeace]

Correction:The Firmament that separates the waters above from the waters below.

Where exactly is the Firmament located? And what is the Firmament exactly?

There is no waters above the Earth. So, as I was informed, the water vapors are what Genesis was supposedly referring to.



Would the Firmament be wetlands at ocean depths?

Would the Firmament be atmospheric?

How do you reconcile Genesis creation account 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 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.

So basically as it appears:

1)Waters above
Firmament
Waters below

2) Then the waters above and below gathered unto one place and the dry land appeared.

Firmament or expanse. The Hebrew word raqiʹa‛, translated expanse, means to stretch out or spread out or expand.
It refers to the atmospheric heavens.
Does not conflict with geology.

The Bible says, circle of the earth, not that the earth is a circle.
Every sphere has a circle. Therefore the earth is a sphere with circles.
A circle of a sphere is a circle that lies on a sphere. Such a circle can be formed as the intersection of a sphere and a plane, or of two spheres. A circle on a sphere whose plane passes through the center of the sphere is called a great circle; otherwise it is a small circle. Circles of a sphere have radius less than or equal to the sphere radius, with equality when the circle is a great circle.

If one goes miles into space, and looks back on the earth, they will see the circle of the earth.
(Isaiah 40:22) . . .There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He is stretching out the heavens like a fine gauze, And he spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
This was known centuries before modern science. How?
Why did earth's inhabitants before Newton, and telescopes, not think they were in a huge dragon?
The obvious answer seem to be as stated in the Bible itself.
(2 Peter 1:21) . . .men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)

 

[halbhh]

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.

Thanks for the link. I do like to read 3, 5, a dozen articles on things like this that are more interesting as one can often glean extra details from various sources. Below is a tangential article I was reading a bit early today, from 2014, from before the zicron-water-world discovery, about where Earth's water was thought to come from. By the way, my initial thought re water around the world: isn't the reason it's thought this means a water world is because there are basically not much tectonic processes yet at that time to have built up mountains and elevations much. See? Ergo, if you have deep oceans someplace, then by implication...it would be expected to mean water around the Earth generally then. Anyway, this article is about a different but interesting aspect -- where's all the water from. Astronomy/astrophysics is a lifelong interest, so I'm often reading several such articles a day, just as a fun thing I enjoy. I suppose I've read a couple dozen articles about the when and how Earth got water, and this is only another of the many ideas:
https://phys.org/news/2014-10-oceans-early-earth.html

 

[nPeace]

"And God said, let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under (or within) the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day." (Genesis 1:6-8 KJV)

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.

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.

"And God said, “Let there be lights within the firmament or vault to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."

(Genesis 1:14-16 KJV) This verse says that the Sun, Moon, and Stars=planets of our solar system, are "within" the firmament. Therefore, the waters that are "above the firmament=dome/vault" must be above the Sun, Moon and Stars=planets of our solar system, revealing that the waters which are referred to in Psalms 148:4; "Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that [be] above the heavens," belong to the greater galactic nebula cloud which has become our Milky Way Galaxy.

The Oort cloud, or the Opik-Oort cloud, which is named after Jan Oort, is a spherical cloud that surrounds our solar system, a cloud of predominantly icy objects such as comets that are comprised of mainly hydrogen, oxygen=water, ammonia and methane, and extends up to about a light year from the sun and defines the cosmographical boundary of our Solar System and the region of the suns gravitational dominance. Here is the Firmament, the great spherical vault within which is found the sun, moons and planets of our solar system, the dome of ice above us.

Knowing that the planets of our solar system were already created before the sun came into existence when the hydrogen nuclei within the condensing solar cloud started fusing together to produce helium nuclei and a lot of energy thereby creating our sun, we must now ask the question, “Did life on earth begin to evolve before the creation of the sun?” As is recorded in the Bible. And can life exist without sunlight? Proof of this is to be found in the darkest depths of our oceans, where life has evolved over six miles beneath the surface where sunlight does not and cannot penetrate.

Oort reasoned, a comet could not have formed while in its current orbit and must have been held in an outer reservoir for almost all of its existence.
Enter the Oort cloud... a figment of man's imagination.
He might as well had proposed a giant spirit being... no difference, imo.

 

[nPeace]

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

1. People assume the mountains were the same height 4000 years ago.
2. People assume the earths conditions were the same as today.

The article thus makes assumptions that cannot be used to refute conditions quite different than what it suggests.

 

[nPeace]

 

[halbhh]

Ah, that's more like it!

What I could not understand in the other article is how the headline writer reached the conclusion that the Earth was all under water, when water is not mentioned in the text of the article at all!

I am aware that tectonic activity has resulted in a progressive process of fractionation, whereby the less dense rocks of the continental blocks have progressively grown larger and presumably the oceanic crust and mantle more dense, over the aeons. But without knowing how much free surface water there was at this early date, it seems impossible to conclude that it was all under water.

Not "all" as in 100% necessarily, but it's currently a widespread view that the early water was a water world.

E.g. -- "It was probably more like small areas of rocky surface surrounded by a substantial global water ocean."
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-life-evidence-cells-bottom-ocean.html

Should we all read some more up to date articles from a dozen or more sources? That's what I like to do. I'm actually just looking over some search results already... Phys.org is a nice site, in that instead of science writers writing popular science articles, it's reports on research.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for the link. I do like to read 3, 5, a dozen articles on things like this that are more interesting as one can often glean extra details from various sources. Below is a tangential article I was reading a bit early today, from 2014, from before the zicron-water-world discovery, about where Earth's water was thought to come from. By the way, my initial thought re water around the world: isn't the reason it's thought this means a water world is because there are basically not much tectonic processes yet at that time to have built up mountains and elevations much. See? Ergo, if you have deep oceans someplace, then by implication...it would be expected to mean water around the Earth generally then. Anyway, this article is about a different but interesting aspect -- where's all the water from. Astronomy/astrophysics is a lifelong interest, so I'm often reading several such articles a day, just as a fun thing I enjoy. I suppose I've read a couple dozen articles about the when and how Earth got water, and this is only another of the many ideas:
https://phys.org/news/2014-10-oceans-early-earth.html

I agree that Earth grew with water, but a lot of that would be in the mantle. And much of that water is still there today. There are quite a few articles on water in the mantle, quite a bit in fact. Google "ringwoodite" and you will see them pop up. The early Earth may have had some oceans, but they were probably not as deep as modern ones nor as extensive. Until plate tectonics kicked in only the uppermost sources of water would have been able to contribute to what became oceans.

 

[osgart]

1. People assume the mountains were the same height 4000 years ago.
2. People assume the earths conditions were the same as today.

The article thus makes assumptions that cannot be used to refute conditions quite different than what it suggests.

1. People assume the mountains were the same height 4000 years ago.
2. People assume the earths conditions were the same as today.

The article thus makes assumptions that cannot be used to refute conditions quite different than what it suggests.

Gravitational compression must have been the method by which land formed and accreted. And there must have been bombardments of meteors impacting the early Earth. How would you explain the Kuiper Belt?

Early Earth must have been a hot, and violent place and has long since cooled.

The mutual momentum's doing most of the planet forming. Early Earth must have taken a long, long time to develope orbiting a far more intensely heated proto sun; as the sun rises in temperature and becomes a full star.

 

[halbhh]

Regarding your preference to not know there could have been a global oceans, I'd suggest just read more articles. It helps update your views. Views on geology of early Earth can get dated pretty fast it's looking like. Here's a good principle: don't use a preferred theory to filter what you read, but read more widely.

I've read several recent articles in the last 15 minutes. It's easy to update your views.

I agree that Earth grew with water, but a lot of that would be in the mantle. And much of that water is still there today. There are quite a few articles on water in the mantle, quite a bit in fact. Google "ringwoodite" and you will see them pop up. The early Earth may have had some oceans, but they were probably not as deep as modern ones nor as extensive. Until plate tectonics kicked in only the uppermost sources of water would have been able to contribute to what became oceans.

 

[nPeace]

Gravitational compression must have been the method by which land formed and accreted. And there must have been bombardments of meteors impacting the early Earth. How would you explain the Kuiper Belt?

Early Earth must have been a hot, and violent place and has long since cooled.

The mutual momentum's doing most of the planet forming. Early Earth must have taken a long, long time to develope orbiting a far more intensely heated proto sun.

I'm not sure what that has to do with mountain heights, and atmospheric pressure 4000 years ago

 

[osgart]

I'm not sure what that has to do with mountain heights, and atmospheric pressure 4000 years ago

Does anybody really know the heights of mountains 4000 years ago? Where would I find such info? And if mountains grow taller over time then they do it from intense volcanic heat and pressures.

The Bible indicates that Creation started off very temperately. But I don't see any established facts about that. Working the way backward in time you have to gather the knowns and be seamlessly, logically valid.

 

[nPeace]

Does anybody really know the heights of mountains 4000 years ago? Where would I find such info? And if mountains grow taller over time then they do it from intense volcanic heat and pressures.

The Bible indicates that Creation started off very temperately. But I don't see any established facts about that. Working the way backward in time you have to gather the knowns and be seamlessly, logically valid.

That's my point. One cannot use assumptions to refute Biblical passages. So saying how much water would be required to cover Mount Everest, is not a valid argument. They don't know that any mountain was even half the height of Mount Everest, at that time.
You know I am referring to your post, right?

 

[shmogie]

(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.

Oh, and how do you know what was in their mind, if they didn't write it ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does anybody really know the heights of mountains 4000 years ago? Where would I find such info? And if mountains grow taller over time then they do it from intense volcanic heat and pressures.

The Bible indicates that Creation started off very temperately. But I don't see any established facts about that. Working the way backward in time you have to gather the knowns and be seamlessly, logically valid.

A few thousand years is nothing when it comes to the ages of the mountains. They would have been roughly the same height then as they are now. In other words it would take over five vertical miles of water to cover the mountains. The height of the tallest peaks of the Himalayas. And speaking of them, they are a relatively young age that began to rise about twenty million years ago:

Himalayas - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's my point. One cannot use assumptions to refute Biblical passages. So saying how much water would be required to cover Mount Everest, is not a valid argument. They don't know that any mountain was even half the height of Mount Everest, at that time.
You know I am referring to your post, right?

Actually it is since we understand the geology of the world more than well enough.

 

[paarsurrey]

It seems to have escaped your notice that this is the "Science and Religion" section.

It is well accepted by the main strands of Western Christianity that the Genesis account is an allegory. Its purpose is to set the scene for the rest of the bible, by describing:
- God as Creator,
- the relationship between God and his creation and, most importantly of all, for the bible,
- the creation of Man and the relationship between God and Man.

That is what it does. The details are ways of conveying these principles in terms that would be intelligible to a particular time and people. It is unproductive to try to link the details of the Genesis account with science. The bible is not a science textbook.

"The bible is not a science textbook"

Sure it is not. The Word of Revelation from G-d is always for guidance in ethical, moral and spiritual realms.

Science does not interfere in these realms, specific with Religion. It is the story-tellers of Science who wish that it should.

I agree with one that Word Revealed to Moses from G-d ("The bible) is not a science textbook".

Regards
______________
"For the majority of Judeo-Christian readers of the Bible, particularly those of larger, mainstream denominations, modern science poses no fundamental challenge to religion in general or the Bible in particular, because these two worlds are, in the words of Stephen Jay Gould, "nonoverlapping magisteria" [Gould1999, pg. 1-10]. Such readers are able to view the Bible as the inspired word of God and yet retain sufficient flexibility to accommodate modern science. At the least, they are willing to accept that the Bible was not intended to be read primarily as a scientific textbook, and that eventually both perspectives will be seen to be part of a unifying truth."
Can the Bible be read as a scientific textbook?

 

[Deeje]

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.

Creation does not contradict what science "knows" at all. Creation argues with what science "assumes" to be true. If science can't prove something, then they have a belief...just like we do.

You have no more proof for evolution than I have for God. I have the same evidence as you do...I interpret it from my own perspective, just as you do. If people want God NOT to exist, then in their own mind they will destroy him, justifying their position because they have no answers to all the hard questions. The answers are there for those genuinely seeking them. But if you want excuses not to believe, or you wish to dictate the terms of your tenancy to him, then you will have no future life. Now, since atheists do not want the kind of future life that God offers, then they get what they expect anyway.

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.

Exactly! You just described what the Bible said would happen in this time period. Humans have gone off on their own tangents, inventing all manner of lifestyles according to the desires of their flesh. "The Church" went off the rails just as it was prophesied to happen....and the atrocities were proof that Jesus was nowhere to be seen in that organization. Our own imperfections led us here. Humans wanted independence and the freedom to do as they pleased, so God allowed them that freedom to demonstrate where it would take us. This life is an object lesson. But we never seem to learn....

God cares about everyone, but not everyone cares about God. This is not the life he intended for us with all its inequalities and injustices.....the fact that we have a sense of justice at all is testimony to the fact that we are created with God's qualities. Do you see the quality of justice in the animal kingdom? Is compassion and empathy seen there? Are animals messing up the planet....or is it just us?

We are designed for a life that most of us will never experience in this world.....and therein lies the rub. This life is the one that humans chose, and so God allowed them to experience the results of doing things their way.

Is anyone really happy?

 

[osgart]

That's my point. One cannot use assumptions to refute Biblical passages. So saying how much water would be required to cover Mount Everest, is not a valid argument. They don't know that any mountain was even half the height of Mount Everest, at that time.
You know I am referring to your post, right?

Highest Mountain | Everest

2.4 inches a year mt. Everest grows a year. Over 4000 years that is 0.152 miles.

You go back that far and the difference in mountain growth isn't that significant.

 

[blü 2]

Correction:The Firmament that separates the waters above from the waters below.

Where exactly is the Firmament located? And what is the Firmament exactly?

There is no waters above the Earth. So, as I was informed, the water vapors are what Genesis was supposedly referring to.



Would the Firmament be wetlands at ocean depths?

Would the Firmament be atmospheric?

How do you reconcile Genesis creation account 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 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.

So basically as it appears:

1)Waters above
Firmament
Waters below

2) Then the waters above and below gathered unto one place and the dry land appeared.

As @Heyo said, the 'firmament' is imagined as a hard dome above the (flat) earth, with the stars affixed to it in such a manner that if they come loose, they'll fall to earth.

The word is from Latin 'firmamentum' (from 'firmus', meaning 'firm'). It first appears in the Vulgate, translating the Septuagint's στερέωμα (from στερεόϛ, 'firm'). The Hebrew word being translated is raqiya`, for which I find the following translation note:

1. extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament

─ expanse (flat as base, support)
─ firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)

─ considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above​

In other words, it means the sky, thought of as solid eg

Job 22:12 “Is not God high in the heavens? See the highest stars, how lofty they are! 13 Therefore you say, ‘What does God know? Can he judge through the deep darkness? 14 Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the vault of heaven.’

Job 37: 18 Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?

Job 38: 7 when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? [ie the stars are adjacent to each other on the fixed dome]

Isaiah 14:13 You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far north; 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will make myself like the Most High.’

Ezekiel 1:22 Over the heads of the living creatures there was the likeness of a firmament, shining like crystal, spread out above their heads. 23 And under the firmament their wings were stretched out straight, one toward another; and each creature had two wings covering its body. 24 And when they went, I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of many waters, like the thunder of the Almighty, a sound of tumult like the sound of a host; when they stood still, they let down their wings. 25 And there came a voice from above the firmament over their heads; when they stood still, they let down their wings. 26 And above the firmament over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness as it were of a human form.

Ezekiel 10:1 Then I looked, and behold, on the firmament that was over the heads of the cherubim there appeared above them something like a sapphire, in form resembling a throne.

Amos 9:6 who builds his upper chambers in the heavens and founds his vault upon the earth,

Matthew 24:29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken;

Revelation 6:13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale; 14 the sky vanished like a scroll that is rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. 15 Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the generals and the rich and the strong, and every one, slave and free, hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, 16 calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;
​

For more on biblical cosmology, see >here<.

​