Genesis Account of Creation: Firmament

[osgart]

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<.

​

Do you find the Bible a worthwhile read?

 

[blü 2]

Do you find the Bible a worthwhile read?

I find quite a lot of ancient documents interesting. As with them so with the various books and authors of the bible ─ no doubt each reader will find which parts are most interesting to her or him.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

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.

I believe that the Genesis account is describing how the Earth came forth and was separated from the embryonic waters of the planet that it was birthed from.

It was describing the literal birthing of the Earth.

 

[osgart]

I find quite a lot of ancient documents interesting. As with them so with the various books and authors of the bible ─ no doubt each reader will find which parts are most interesting to her or him.

Thanks for the literal Bible cosmology rundown. It puts it into perspective quite nicely.
The stories are quite interesting; especially the many ways people interpret them also.

I grew up with Catholic Bible's, and the Kjv 1611. I am amazed by how it effects people who call themselves Christian. I see it's anthropological, historical impact.
But it's definetly not for me.

 

[Tumah]

You appear to be showing me that compasses can only create two-dimensional planes, but by drawing multiple two-dimensional circles, you can map out a three dimensional sphere. Thanks for the irrelevant information!

 

[halbhh]

If you'd never heard a famous piece of music, say a Mozart piece (or pick another type of great music), known around the world.

Would you rather listen and hear it...
or would you rather listen to some intellectual analysis from someone that doesn't like the music and gets off on making it seem bad?

lol
I think we know this answer to this question.

Do you find the Bible a worthwhile read?

 

[osgart]

If you'd never heard a famous piece of music, say a Mozart piece (or pick another type of great music), known around the world.

Would you rather listen and hear it...
or would you rather listen to some intellectual analysis from someone that doesn't like the music and gets off on making it seem bad?

lol
I think we know this answer to this question.

And how would you suggest I read it?

As metaphor, or allegory!

Should I take it all literally?

The Bible cosmology, you obviously disagree with what he said, and I thought it was literally accurate.

I am sure you and your fellow Christians all read it the same way, right?

Who's interpretation is the official one then?

 

[exchemist]

Thanks for the literal Bible cosmology rundown. It puts it into perspective quite nicely.
The stories are quite interesting; especially the many ways people interpret them also.

I grew up with Catholic Bible's, and the Kjv 1611. I am amazed by how it effects people who call themselves Christian. I see it's anthropological, historical impact.
But it's definetly not for me.

Indeed. But then it suffuses European civilisation. Some knowledge of the bible and Christianity more generally is essential to understanding European history and culture - and that of its colonies such as the Americas.

P.S. This is the reason my (French) wife and I decided to bring our son up as Catholic, rather than letting him "decide for himself" i.e. give it all a miss. I was content to let him drop it a year or so ago, in his teens, because he does now have some understanding of his own (Anglo-French) culture, plus a good grade in his Religious Studies GCSE, which will be handy for specialising in history, which is what he wants to do.

 

[exchemist]

I believe that the Genesis account is describing how the Earth came forth and was separated from the embryonic waters of the planet that it was birthed from.

It was describing the literal birthing of the Earth.

Eh? ".......embryonic waters of the planet it was birthed from"? So our plant was birthed from, er, a planet?

How does that work and how can it explain anything?

Or are you just "bearing witness" or something?

 

[exchemist]

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.

That's a good article, thanks for the link. It does not say anything much, however, about the amount of water in oceans on the early Earth, only mentioning it in passing.

Where it is really interesting, though, is in its espousal of the hydrothermal vent hypothesis for abiogenesis. I had thought this was now disfavoured and that the leading candidate was once more Darwin's "warm little pools", possibly adjacent to volcanic hot springs to provide the sulphur etc. or or else tidal pools along the seashore to provide alternate wetting and drying. But this article claims hydrothermal vents are capable of forming "protocells" i.e. droplets enclosed in membranes. Finding a mechanism to produce membranes is one of the key challenges for any abiogenesis hypothesis.

This link may have other uses on the forum, actually. I quite often find it useful to be able to illustrate, to creationists, usually, the sort of research on abiogenesis that is going on. And this is a nice one.

 

[exchemist]

And how would you suggest I read it?

As metaphor, or allegory!

Should I take it all literally?

The Bible cosmology, you obviously disagree with what he said, and I thought it was literally accurate.

I am sure you and your fellow Christians all read it the same way, right?

Who's interpretation is the official one then?

You don't need a single view on a piece of literature, or a Shakespeare play, though, do you? I mean, if you read Macbeth or the Merchant of Venice, you can get several interpretations of the messages conveyed and the nature of the characters.

But I must admit I find the bible a bit like Lord of the Rings in places: there are some interminable tedious sections in it, c.f. Tom Bombadil.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

I think it's more like not caring wheter or not something is written in any scripture. Things aren't correct simply because they were written down somewhere.

"it was written down", is never a good argument to believe that the thing being written down is accurate.

It's rather a matter of if there is any evidence for it - regardless of where it was written or who claimed it when.

Claims fall and stand on their own merrit and while their origins might be intereting, they aren't relevant to wheter or not the claim is accurate.

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.

And you appear to be a pidgeon trying to play chess. You're knocking down all the pieces, crapping all over the board and then you fly away claiming victory.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.



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?

Give a guy a pulpit and he'll pretend he actually knows the mind of God. Sheesh!

 

[exchemist]

Give a guy a pulpit and he'll pretend he actually knows the mind of God. Sheesh!

I always assumed Deeje was female.

 

[viole]

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.



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?

I dare to say that most Christians would ridicule the naive creationist account that comes from a literary reading of Genesis. Your account, basically.

Ergo, ridiculing the claim that the Universe is 6000 years old, Adam and Eve and stuff, does not entail hating the God of the Bible.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

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.

It has been demonstrated that mountains have shot up rapidly.
You are assuming again that there was a steady rate of growth, just as they assume that inflation rate was steady, so "let's wind the clock back". The video recording, which we don't have may not give the same story you assume.
That's why cops wear body cam now, and equip their cruisers with one. The cop may give one story, but the camera gives another.

So, again, you cannot use assumptions to refute the Biblical accounts.

 

[nPeace]

You appear to be showing me that compasses can only create two-dimensional planes, but by drawing multiple two-dimensional circles, you can map out a three dimensional sphere. Thanks for the irrelevant information!

No. I am agreeing with you.

 

[Tumah]

No. I am agreeing with you.

Are you?
And showing me a picture of a sphere with a dome cut out?

 

[nPeace]

Are you?
And showing me a picture of a sphere with a dome cut out?

It looks like many circles making a three dimensional sphere to me

 

[Tumah]

It looks like many circles making a three dimensional sphere to me

Yeah, great. Thanks for the picture, I guess.