Genesis Account of Creation: Firmament

[tas8831]

The firmament, I believe, is the atmosphere.
The apostle Peter explains why the waters above the expanse are no longer there. Speaking of the time when God flooded the world, and correlating that with the time of Christ's return, he said...

2 Peter 3:3-7....
"First of all know this, that in the last days ridiculers will come with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: “Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as they were from creation’s beginning.”

5 For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people."

It appears as if God used the water suspended above the atmosphere to flood the earth in Noah's day. It stood suspended there "by the word of God" so a scientific explanation would have no bearing on conjecture that it was impossible for it to be there. A water canopy surrounding the earth would have created "hot house" conditions on earth, evening out the climate and creating a temperate, humid environment conducive to lush growth. The fact that they have unearthed palm trees in Siberia lends credence to that situation IMO.

Jesus said his return would see world conditions similar to those times....violence and immorality being the norm....and here we are again.

And, according to Strongs Concordance, the word used for "circle" in Hebrew (chuwg) also means a sphere.

Too much jargon - why are you hiding behind buzzwords and gibberish? What are you hiding?

 

[exchemist]

Why do you assume I won't like this evidence?

I never take issue with evidence, but rather certain conclusions drawn to based on the evidence.

Good for you, then.

Some caveats (apologies if you know all this but some creationists don't):
- the conclusions drawn by science are always provisional, because what science does is to make models of natural phenomena which can predict what we should be able to observe in nature. Nobody claims the models are "fact" or "proved". This is true of all theories of science.
- Science only considers natural agencies, because its modus operandi is to explain nature in terms of nature.
- Science applies Ockham's Razor in the construction of its models, i.e. it will never add more hypotheses or assumption than are necessary to account for the observations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The "nebular hypothesis", which is the currently accepted theory for how the Earth formed, is based on "protoplanetary discs", which have been observed in young stars (T Tauri type: T Tauri star - Wikipedia) in formation. It is inferred that the same process applied when our own solar system was formed, since there is no observational evidence that it didn't.

 

[nPeace]

LOL....I was just wondering why you'd think we can't reach reasonable conclusions about the state of the Himalayas 4,000 years ago. You mentioned "earth conditions" not possibly being the same back then. What conditions were you talking about?

Did I? Where?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Some caveats (apologies if you know all this but some creationists don't):
- the conclusions drawn by science are always provisional, because what science does is to make models of natural phenomena which can predict what we should be able to observe in nature. Nobody claims the models are "fact" or "proved". This is true of all theories of science.
- Science only considers natural agencies, because its modus operandi is to explain nature in terms of nature.
- Science applies Ockham's Razor in the construction of its models, i.e. it will never add more hypotheses or assumption than are necessary to account for the observations.

Thank you for sharing this. I wish that many others would take these things to heart because they often make claims in absolute terms.

The "nebular hypothesis", which is the currently accepted theory for how the Earth formed, is based on "protoplanetary discs", which have been observed in young stars (T Tauri type: T Tauri star - Wikipedia) in formation. It is inferred that the same process applied when our own solar system was formed, since there is no observational evidence that it didn't.

I have no reason to dispute this process. I believe it happens in nature.

However, I believe that our world (as well as all others that inhabit God's children) are special cases, prepared meticulously by the hand of God, to be an eternal inheritance to His children.

Since we have yet to observe the formation of another Earth-like planet inhabited with God's children, we will never know.

 

[Jose Fly]

Did I? Where?

Your Post #107 in this thread:

"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."​

What "conditions" do you think were different 4,000 years ago, such that we can't reach reasonable conclusions about what mountains were like?

 

[exchemist]

Thank you for sharing this. I wish that many others would take these things to heart because they often make claims in absolute terms.

I have no reason to dispute this process. I believe it happens in nature.

However, I believe that our world (as well as all others that inhabit God's children) are special cases, prepared meticulously by the hand of God, to be an eternal inheritance to His children.

Since we have yet to observe the formation of another Earth-like planet inhabited with God's children, we will never know.

Yes I quite agree that the caveats I listed are almost never mentioned in popular presentations of science - they are taken for granted. But perhaps, when one is discussing science vis-a-vis religion, these philosophical aspects ought to be stated plainly, to avoid needless misunderstanding and hostility.

You can of course believe the Earth is for some reason "special". However, that is an additional hypothesis, for which there is no observational evidence meeting the criteria of science. So, applying Ockham's Razor, science will reject that.

In fact, this is an interesting point. Ockham's Razor leads science to make a general starting assumption about nature, which is "uniformitarianism". This is that what we observe here and now can be applied to other times and places and vice versa, unless there is evidence that it should not be. Uniformitarianism, which was a term first coined in connection with the development of c.18th geology, was a bone of contention at that time, precisely because it conflicted with the "catastrophism" proposed by those who wanted to hold onto the literal truth of Noah's Flood. However the predictive power of geology, based on uniformitarianism, soon relegated catastrophism to a few cranks.

So there you have it. Personally, as someone with a degree in physical science (chemistry), I accept the models of science, always with the caveats somewhere at the back of my mind. I have never seen any conflict between science and religious belief, because I grew up in the main traditions of Western Christianity, which have not taken a strictly literal approach to the Old Testament for centuries. I see Genesis as Origen saw it, back in 200AD: as an allegory.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Yes I quite agree that the caveats I listed are almost never mentioned in popular presentations of science - they are taken for granted. But perhaps, when one is discussing science vis-a-vis religion, these philosophical aspects ought to be stated plainly, to avoid needless misunderstanding and hostility.

You can of course believe the Earth is for some reason "special". However, that is an additional hypothesis, for which there is no observational evidence meeting the criteria of science. So, applying Ockham's Razor, science will reject that.

In fact, this is an interesting point. Ockham's Razor leads science to make a general starting assumption about nature, which is "uniformitarianism". This is that what we observe here and now can be applied to other times and places and vice versa, unless there is evidence that it should not be. Uniformitarianism, which was a term first coined in connection with the development of c.18th geology, was a bone of contention at that time, precisely because it conflicted with the "catastrophism" proposed by those who wanted to hold onto the literal truth of Noah's Flood. However the predictive power of geology, based on uniformitarianism, soon relegated catastrophism to a few cranks.

So there you have it. Personally, as someone with a degree in physical science (chemistry), I accept the models of science, always with the caveats somewhere at the back of my mind. I have never seen any conflict between science and religious belief, because I grew up in the main traditions of Western Christianity, which have not taken a strictly literal approach to the Old Testament for centuries. I see Genesis as Origen saw it, back in 200AD: as an allegory.

Thank you for your comments.

I completely understand why proponents of science may reject many of the thing I believe in.

As a Latter-day Saint, I take the account of Genesis literally unless stated otherwise (such as a dream).

However, we do admit that we do not know everything about what is recorded in Genesis. For example, the account of the Flood could be describing either a local or global Deluge.

Our understanding will always be limited by the text.

Just as science will always be limited by what we can observe.

That, to me, describes a fundamental flaw. Science can never reveal what we cannot observe.

 

[exchemist]

Thank you for your comments.

I completely understand why proponents of science may reject many of the thing I believe in.

As a Latter-day Saint, I take the account of Genesis literally unless stated otherwise (such as a dream).

However, we do admit that we do not know everything about what is recorded in Genesis. For example, the account of the Flood could be describing either a local or global Deluge.

Our understanding will always be limited by the text.

Just as science will always be limited by what we can observe.

That, to me, describes a fundamental flaw. Science can never reveal what we cannot observe.

Well, it is not really a "flaw", given the terms of reference that science gives itself, which restrict it to evidence based on reproducible observation of nature. The discipline of that restriction is what differentiated modern science at its rise, after the Renaissance, and gave it its huge explanatory power and success. So that is never going to change.

But science is not a world view: it is a methodology for understanding nature. There is a lot more to our human experience than nature study.

 

[nPeace]

Your Post #107 in this thread:

"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."​

What "conditions" do you think were different 4,000 years ago, such that we can't reach reasonable conclusions about what mountains were like?

Do you mean, what I assume? I would have to assume, and I am not going to do that. That's apparently the job of those who want to claim that they know everything, and can work out everything.... while denying the fact that they are making assumptions, until after the facts come out, and prove they were wrong....then they say, "Oh scientists assumed." With no shame.
Then they say Creationists are dishonest.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Well, it is not really a "flaw", given the terms of reference that science gives itself, which restrict it to evidence based on reproducible observation of nature. The discipline of that restriction is what differentiated modern science at its rise, after the Renaissance, and gave it its huge explanatory power and success. So that is never going to change.

But science is not a world view: it is a methodology for understanding nature. There is a lot more to our human experience than nature study.

Well said.

 

[Jose Fly]

Do you mean, what I assume? I would have to assume, and I am not going to do that.

Well, you said "people assume the earth's conditions were the same as today", which is true. We do assume gravity existed, the earth was round, the laws of physics were the same......because why wouldn't we?

That's why I asked you about Last Thursdayism. It seemed to me you were trying to cast doubt on the assumption that the laws of physics were the same 4,000 years ago as they are today, which immediately made me wonder if you were of the opinion that we can never know anything about the past, since it's an assumption that things like the laws of physics were the same....which is effectively Last Thursdayism.

That's apparently the job of those who want to claim that they know everything, and can work out everything.... while denying the fact that they are making assumptions, until after the facts come out, and prove they were wrong....then they say, "Oh scientists assumed." With no shame.
Then they say Creationists are dishonest.

Huh. I don't recall anyone here expressing those notions.

 

[nPeace]

Well, you said "people assume the earth's conditions were the same as today", which is true. We do assume gravity existed, the earth was round, the laws of physics were the same......because why wouldn't we?

That's why I asked you about Last Thursdayism. It seemed to me you were trying to cast doubt on the assumption that the laws of physics were the same 4,000 years ago as they are today, which immediately made me wonder if you were of the opinion that we can never know anything about the past, since it's an assumption that things like the laws of physics were the same....which is effectively Last Thursdayism.


Huh. I don't recall anyone here expressing those notions.

Assumptions are made, even though it is known that all it takes is one circumstance to drastically throw that assumption into the rubbish heap. I guess we assume we are actually real living creatures too, right?

 

[Jose Fly]

Assumptions are made

Yes, and in the case of what mountain ranges were like 4,000 years ago, we assume the laws of physics were the same then. Do you disagree with that assumption?

even though it is known that all it takes is one circumstance to drastically throw that assumption into the rubbish heap.

Well yeah, if it turns out the laws of physics were different just 4,000 years ago, that would tend to throw pretty much everything we thought we knew about the past into turmoil. Is there any reason to think that's actually the case?

I guess we assume we are actually real living creatures too, right?

In the same way we "assume" that what we observe around us is actual reality.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, and in the case of what mountain ranges were like 4,000 years ago, we assume the laws of physics were the same then. Do you disagree with that assumption?


Well yeah, if it turns out the laws of physics were different just 4,000 years ago, that would tend to throw pretty much everything we thought we knew about the past into turmoil. Is there any reason to think that's actually the case?


In the same way we "assume" that what we observe around us is actual reality.

In this case, it is not relevant whether I agree with your assumptions or not. Assumptions are not facts, therefore they cannot be used to refute the Biblical account, which is accepted as a true historical account, by some.
When assumptions become facts, we can talk about what we know.

You seem to be pushing at something. Whatever it is, why not make your point?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In this case, it is not relevant whether I agree with your assumptions or not. Assumptions are not facts, therefore they cannot be used to refute the Biblical account, which is accepted as a true historical account, by some.
When assumptions become facts, we can talk about what we know.

You seem to be pushing at something. Whatever it is, why not make your point?

The ages of the mountains are not assumptions. Remember, when you claim "assumptions" you put the burden of proof upon yourself. This is an example of dishonesty of creationists. They try to smear scientists by claiming "assumptions" but they can never explain how the conclusions drawn are assumptions. Just because you do not understand or believe does not make their conclusions "assumptions".

 

[Jose Fly]

In this case, it is not relevant whether I agree with your assumptions or not. Assumptions are not facts, therefore they cannot be used to refute the Biblical account, which is accepted as a true historical account, by some.

So in believing in "the Biblical account", one must not assume that the laws of physics were the same 4,000 years ago? If so, does "believing in the Biblical account" therefore require one to assume that the laws of physics were different 4,000 years ago?

When assumptions become facts, we can talk about what we know.

Well all I can say to that is.....yes, we do assume it to be a fact that the laws of physics were the same 4,000 years ago as they are today. As I noted earlier, why wouldn't we?

You seem to be pushing at something. Whatever it is, why not make your point?

It seemed odd to me that you were basically invoking some form of Last Thursdayism. What you've posted since has only furthered that, which makes me wonder.....do you believe we can know anything about the past?

 

[gnostic]

The firmament, I believe, is the atmosphere.

I think Genesis firmament is indeed referring to the atmosphere.

Wow, an agreement. The oddity of that happening.

The firmament means dome or vault.

It appears as if God used the water suspended above the atmosphere to flood the earth in Noah's day. It stood suspended there "by the word of God" so a scientific explanation would have no bearing on conjecture that it was impossible for it to be there. A water canopy surrounding the earth would have created "hot house" conditions on earth, evening out the climate and creating a temperate, humid environment conducive to lush growth. The fact that they have unearthed palm trees in Siberia lends credence to that situation IMO.

And that’s where our agreement ended.

There’s no water suspended ABOVE THE EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE.

There are a number of different atmospheres, depending on the attitude. And what I have learned back Year 8 high school science, water vapors are mostly found in the lowest atmosphere, the Troposphere.

The water vapors, the moisture and humidity, most of the clouds, the weather patterns, all occur in this level of the atmosphere, the troposphere. The attitudes varied from 9 km at the poles, to as high as 17 km at the equator, so the average attitude is between 12 and 13 km.

Mount Everest has elevation about 8.8 km (above sea level).

Only trace amounts of water vapors in the atmosphere above the troposphere - the stratosphere.

Rain don’t come from the stratosphere or from higher atmospheres.

So this claim of yours, that water existing above the atmosphere is wrong.

Genesis is wrong about sun, moon and stars created and existing inside this firmament, or dome. There are no stars inside the Earth’s atmosphere.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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" is just an archaic term for the sky. Not sure what's so confusing about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Firmament" is just an archaic term for the sky. Not sure what's so confusing about it.

It is more than that. If one reads the Bible it is fairly clear that they thought that it was solid, kept water out. Etc.

 

[gnostic]

"Firmament" is just an archaic term for the sky. Not sure what's so confusing about it.

I have noticed this word is used in King James Version. Most modern translations use sky instead.

Is it Latin or Greek word?

I cannot read either languages, but if it is one or the other, does it appear in the Vulgate or the Septuagint?

It sounds Latin, but I don’t know.