Genesis Account of Creation: Firmament

[Samantha Rinne]

Quick question:

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

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

I'd like to point out to any people debating me, that their compatriots went as far as to say there is no sky. Yeah. After that, I'm not sure I have to defend anything, because anything I say is a more reasonable assertion.

But I will anyway, because you deserve to know THE TRUTH. :dramatic:

The simple answer? Because this world we live in isn't fully real. In a round Earth, the SAME problem exists (I had to use Brazil to get a Lat/Long on both because one is also a country the other is not).
Let's look at Brazil in the capital, since it's in South America. 15°47′S 47°52′W (take note of that West hemisphere) is roughly 9,687 miles from Australia's capital at 35°18′29″S 149°07′28″E . It's basically the other side of the world.

Yet, a round Earth, unlike a flat Earth, also has basically a hill angling perception even further. In other words, in a flat Earth, I could claim the dome or Firmament was somehow funneling my perception so that I could see southern constellations but not northern (even though if it were just a matter of distance perception, this would be pretty difficult to rationalize, like I say, fake). But with a round Earth, we not only have to explain away basically a screen (much like one of those backgrounds they put in movies for car scenes) but have to explain why two people standing around a hill that slopes away are going to at all see the same sights.

I think I can see Orion year-round despite what anyone in a lab coat says, so that's just not so. So the simple answer is you shouldn't be able to see the same constellations in the sky based solely on being it the southern hemisphere. But you can. More importantly, you more easily could just by looking up since there are no major perspective issues, while ummm....

Orbit problems.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, religiously the book still works as a series of morality tales. If one takes it literally there are all sorts of problems.

You try so hard. It's truly remarkable that your posts remain so shallow, petty, and ill-informed:

• To speak of the "book" as a single entity rather than a multiplicity of texts is simply stupid. So, for example, Genesis is markedly different than efforts such as Exodus which, in turn, differ in intent from Judges, Samuel, and Kings. All of these differ from Leviticus. Then we have texts such as Psalms and Proverbs and so on.
• At the same time, to speak of how "the book ... works" religiously is simply silly.
• There are (in my opinion) insurmountable problems with literalism, which is why so many Jews and so much Jewish Torah commentary eschew literalism. In fact, I've participated in formal Torah study for decades and can think of only a handful of participants who embraced the attitude that you strive to mock.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd like to point out to any people debating me, that their compatriots went as far as to say there is no sky. Yeah. After that, I'm not sure I have to defend anything, because anything I say is a more reasonable assertion.

But I will anyway, because you deserve to know THE TRUTH. :dramatic:

The simple answer? Because this world we live in isn't fully real. In a round Earth, the SAME problem exists (I had to use Brazil to get a Lat/Long on both because one is also a country the other is not).
Let's look at Brazil in the capital, since it's in South America. 15°47′S 47°52′W (take note of that West hemisphere) is roughly 9,687 miles from Australia's capital at 35°18′29″S 149°07′28″E . It's basically the other side of the world.

Yet, a round Earth, unlike a flat Earth, also has basically a hill angling perception even further. In other words, in a flat Earth, I could claim the dome or Firmament was somehow funneling my perception so that I could see southern constellations but not northern (even though if it were just a matter of distance perception, this would be pretty difficult to rationalize, like I say, fake). But with a round Earth, we not only have to explain away basically a screen (much like one of those backgrounds they put in movies for car scenes) but have to explain why two people standing around a hill that slopes away are going to at all see the same sights.

I think I can see Orion year-round despite what anyone in a lab coat says, so that's just not so. So the simple answer is you shouldn't be able to see the same constellations in the sky based solely on being it the southern hemisphere. But you can. More importantly, you more easily could just by looking up since there are no major perspective issues, while ummm....

Orbit problems.

Wow! So you cannot think three dimensionally. Amazingly your drawing shows that a person would see the same stars looking to the North in the Northern Hemisphere, and the same stars looking to the South, in the Southern Hemisphere. The seasonal stars one sees are closer to the equator. Do you realize how small the distance between the two Earth positions is relative to the stars? Think of it this way. That is a distance of about sixteen light minutes. Even the closest star is four light years away. So let me put that in terms that you understand. You are looking at some scenery that is one mile away. You move half an inch to your right. Do things look any different?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

raqiya`, or firmament, comes from the root word raqa'; which can mean a spreading out (of clouds).


i'm wondering if this is an inference to interstellar clouds, or some other space phenomena

space then could literally be understood as the waters.

Yes.

And yes. In Genesis, there is mention of God moving on the waters of the Void. This process is altogether impossible to explain, but basically, we are told that God moved sorta "outside" of outer space, and somehow molded it around so that inside the space or (chasm from which we also get the word "chaos") we now have discernible objects.

From Eucharistic Prayer C:

“At your command all things came to be: the vast expanse
of interstellar space, galaxies, suns, the planets in their courses,
and this fragile earth, our island home.
By your will they were created and have their being.”

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It's as established as scientific guessing IMO.

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.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

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

This appears to be a "Discussion on science and religion" forum, not just a RELIGIOUS forum. Such discussion, by the rules, ought to be permissible.

And lots of atheists believe lots of things they read in the scriptures -- just not all of it, and certainly not the obviously mythic. Certainly, most intelligent atheists believe that Paul (Saul of Tarsus) was a real person, and really did wander around the Mediterranean writing letters and preaching. They are also pretty clear that this same Paul, who did exist, did NOT write all of the epistles attributed to him.

You see, since this is both a science and religious forum, those who base what they consider true on what can be properly verified, and those willing to believe everything they're told, in spite of everything, can contribute.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It's as established as scientific guessing IMO.

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.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

There is no waters above the Earth.

What kind of reasoning is that?

If they fell down to Earth, there wouldn’t be, then, would there?
Grief!

Actually though, at any given moment, there are approximately 37.5 quadrillion gallons of water vapor in the atmosphere...so, wrong on both counts.

 

[osgart]

Where exactly is the Firmament located?
Allow me to give you the following.
The Bible say the Earth was a collection of gas, liquid and solids, but it was without any recognizable shape.
"Without Form"
If you look at the trd day, you will see the earth changed in appearance.
As the solids and liquids seperated, land and sea developed.
Therefore the Earth was a huge mixture of mud on the morning of the 3rd day.
it was the intermediate between an Earth that was without shape on the 1st day that changed into a sphere turning on its axis, resulting in Day and Night.
Therefore, on the second day, the earth was a "Mud Ball", with an atmosphere due to the gasses that escaped from this collection of matter.
This atmosphere was very moist, and the Bible actually say that it did not rain at that time before the flood, because a mist rose from the ground that wetted the land.
Therefore, the "Firmament" was the surface of this "Mud Ball", that changed from this big blob in space.
lateron in Genesis we learn about a second firmament where the Sun, Moon and Stars shined on, this is the outter limits of the atmosphere.

There is no waters above the Earth.
True, But the earth changed a lot since it was created.

View attachment 34277

This is along the lines of how Genesis read to me.

And I still see it as a story. But this interpretation sounds the most plausible.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Wow! So you cannot think three dimensionally. Amazingly your drawing shows that a person would see the same stars looking to the North in the Northern Hemisphere, and the same stars looking to the South, in the Southern Hemisphere. The seasonal stars one sees are closer to the equator. Do you realize how small the distance between the two Earth positions is relative to the stars? Think of it this way. That is a distance of about sixteen light minutes. Even the closest star is four light years away. So let me put that in terms that you understand. You are looking at some scenery that is one mile away. You move half an inch to your right. Do things look any different?

And you apparently cannot think, period. As a matter of fact, I do. You see, only you who probably got a liberal arts education (emphasis on "liberal" and "art"), I took a broad range of subjects from the standard sciences (chemistry/physics/biology) to horticulture to philosophy to religion and quite a bit of history. One of the things we learned was how to use the Fermi method to arrive at numbers. I know from reading several articles like this one
How Fast Is Earth Moving?
that we orbit at roughly 67,000 mph. This is miles per hour, meaning in a single hour we are 67000 miles away, and oh golly gee willickers (using 1940s or so rural language because you've already basically written me off as some kind of yokel) that there star group isn't so near, now is it? But in about six hours, the Earth is 402000 miles away (we have no idea of the degree of curve, but for the sake of argument we could in theory say that it turns slightly here, potentially removing 10800 miles from that distance to curve, which still doesn't account for a grossly different position, or that given 7600 miles is about Earth's diameter, this distance is about 90 degrees or 270 degrees depending on how we are looking; this btw is less akin to a hill and more akin to having someone stand on a brick wall and ask them to tell what they see when someone else is flat on the ground, with a flat Earth both are at least able to look up if the object is above them with this model you are basically assuming alot like that they happen to look in the right direction). And in one day it is a bit less (due to curve) than 1608000 miles. Lest you become confused (because you clearly are), 16 light minutes is 178831101.16 miles. 178,831,101 miles. Sorry, but that is a real amount. This is not "one mile away". And this is not "one inch to the right" this is the space it takes light to travel for 16 straight minutes. And we are talking about six months. This is 67000 mph x 24 (we're up to days) x (roughly) 182 days for about half a year (six months) which is closer to 26 light minutes. Suppose you were driving for 26 minutes without traffic. Would you be able to see the same landmarks? We're not talking skyscrapers, we mean tiny dots. Something that looks to your eyes as big as a rodent. No? Well, multiply each mile by 11176943.

Even if we ignore the (absolutely absurd math) of these huge number of speed, the fact remains that we should be 90 degrees from the original location. No matter how much time passes, but let's say you walk forward 6.5 minute and then circle to the left (13 minutes). You will now be facing right, and a right angle from your start place. Do it again, and you are now facing opposite your starting position (180 degrees is actually turning around) 13 minutes to the north. Not only are you not facing your original direction but you are displaced in location. I can personally tell you that if I were to walk 13 minutes ahead, then turn around, I would not see the same sights. That walks me in one direction to our Family Dollar and the other direction, I would be atop a hill outside of town. Neither of these is the same image as before, and all common landmarks are gone (this is just on foot)

By contrast, the distance from two ends of a flat Earth (no hard angles no slope, just random objects like trees and such) is its diameter, which is 7900 miles at the equator. This is 0.00070681218 Light Minutes or about the amount of time it takes for me to make one tiny step. Could I see all of the same things? Hmmmmm. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (Yes, dammit! The only confusion is where the northern hemisphere stars went).

Light Minute Converter

You literally have no concept of what you're talking about.

 

[osgart]

What kind of reasoning is that?

If they fell down to Earth, there wouldn’t be, then, would there?
Grief!

Actually though, at any given moment, there are approximately 37.5 quadrillion gallons of water vapor in the atmosphere...so, wrong on both counts.

So then the Firmament is the sky. And the author meant water vapor and not a reservoir of actual water. Ok.

 

[halbhh]

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.

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.

 

[Tumah]

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

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.

 

[Tumah]

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

That's not what it says. It says that it separates the water above it from the water below it.

Where exactly is the Firmament located?

That depends what it refers to.

There is no waters above the Earth.

What is a cloud?

Would the Firmament be wetlands at ocean depths?

Probably not.

How do you reconcile Genesis with Geology?

You mean the part about Jacob blessing his children?

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.

See Gen. 2:6

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

Is this a new question?

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.

Also in another book, the four corners of the Earth are mentioned. A circle is not a square, so you may want to consider that the writer saw the Earth as both a circle and a square

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you apparently cannot think, period. As a matter of fact, I do. You see, only you who probably got a liberal arts education (emphasis on "liberal" and "art"), I took a broad range of subjects from the standard sciences (chemistry/physics/biology) to horticulture to philosophy to religion and quite a bit of history. One of the things we learned was how to use the Fermi method to arrive at numbers. I know from reading several articles like this one
How Fast Is Earth Moving?
that we orbit at roughly 67,000 mph. This is miles per hour, meaning in a single hour we are 67000 miles away, and oh golly gee willickers (using 1940s or so rural language because you've already basically written me off as some kind of yokel) that there star group isn't so near, now is it? But in about six hours, the Earth is 402000 miles away (we have no idea of the degree of curve, but for the sake of argument we could in theory say that it turns slightly here, potentially removing 10800 miles from that distance to curve, which still doesn't account for a grossly different position, or that given 7600 miles is about Earth's diameter, this distance is about 90 degrees or 270 degrees depending on how we are looking; this btw is less akin to a hill and more akin to having someone stand on a brick wall and ask them to tell what they see when someone else is flat on the ground, with a flat Earth both are at least able to look up if the object is above them with this model you are basically assuming alot like that they happen to look in the right direction). And in one day it is a bit less (due to curve) than 1608000 miles. Lest you become confused (because you clearly are), 16 light minutes is 178831101.16 miles. 178,831,101 miles. Sorry, but that is a real amount. This is not "one mile away". And this is not "one inch to the right" this is the space it takes light to travel for 16 straight minutes. And we are talking about six months. This is 67000 mph x 24 (we're up to days) x (roughly) 182 days for about half a year (six months) which is closer to 26 light minutes. Suppose you were driving for 26 minutes without traffic. Would you be able to see the same landmarks? We're not talking skyscrapers, we mean tiny dots. Something that looks to your eyes as big as a rodent. No? Well, multiply each mile by 11176943.

Even if we ignore the (absolutely absurd math) of these huge number of speed, the fact remains that we should be 90 degrees from the original location. No matter how much time passes, but let's say you walk forward 6.5 minute and then circle to the left (13 minutes). You will now be facing right, and a right angle from your start place. Do it again, and you are now facing opposite your starting position (180 degrees is actually turning around) 13 minutes to the north. Not only are you not facing your original direction but you are displaced in location. I can personally tell you that if I were to walk 13 minutes ahead, then turn around, I would not see the same sights. That walks me in one direction to our Family Dollar and the other direction, I would be atop a hill outside of town. Neither of these is the same image as before, and all common landmarks are gone (this is just on foot)

By contrast, the distance from two ends of a flat Earth (no hard angles no slope, just random objects like trees and such) is its diameter, which is 7900 miles at the equator. This is 0.00070681218 Light Minutes or about the amount of time it takes for me to make one tiny step. Could I see all of the same things? Hmmmmm. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (Yes, dammit! The only confusion is where the northern hemisphere stars went).

Light Minute Converter

You literally have no concept of what you're talking about.

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. Now I could have made fun of you for your ignorance but all I did was to try to explain your error. You should have admitted that and moved on. Instead you dig yourself deeper in the hole.

Spitting out large numbers that are beyond your comprehension does not help your case. You are impressed by the velocity we are moving at. You made this error earlier and I corrected you on that. One does not feel velocity. And all of those velocities are relative to different frames of reference. If you don't understand the frames of reference you don't understand the velocities and I am very sure you lack that understanding.

The correction I gave you was based upon a Solar System based frame of reference since that was what your drawing was based upon. You are the one without a clue here. If you want to discuss those numbers that you do not understand I am happy to do that as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Do you know what a compass is in this context? An image would be nice.

 

[Tumah]

Do you know what a compass is in this context? An image would be nice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct. And that can only construct flat circles.

 

[Tumah]

Correct. And that can only construct flat circles.

That's what I'm saying.

 

[halbhh]

That's not what it says. It says that it separates the water above it from the water below it.

This is very interesting in a way.

In science it's been discovered recently that the early Earth was a water world. At one time, early on, as best I understand, with the heat (and perhaps impacts and accretion even still happening) the oceans and the air wouldn't even have a visible (to a human eye) distinct clear obvious boundary --

If you could have a video camera there and take a picture from 6 or 10 feet above the approximate surface of the water -- the picture would appear to show a swirling formless situation of water in all directions you could see, up, down and sideways. At one time. Early on.

But...in time...eventually, the situation would calm down (probably a very long time), and then it would become possible for this very hardy camera to take another photo (if still working), and it would finally for the first time see a clear separation of the water down into a visible ocean below, with (if still misty and swirling) air.

A separation.

It's very interesting to me.