ECT What is the Firmament in Genesis 1?

[Gary K]

What would the Hebrew have meant of it said "in" the face?

:think:

:noid:

:chuckle:



It doesn't say flying in/across the face of the heaven. It's across the face of the firmament (of the heavens).



I'm pretty sure we're all in full agreement that there is an atmosphere. lain:

Sorry. I think I misread your analysis of my assumptions.

"Tidal waves," actually tsunami, do very little to the ground they run over. Some superficial erosion when they hit the shore. That's relative, of course. They can destroy towns, but they don't cause "massive geological upheaval."



I think we're mostly on the same page, except you seem to place a lot of stock in rainfall as a source of water and destruction, while I think the fountains provided all the water and led to all the destabilization of the planet.

Is that fair?

We are in general agreement. You've misinterpreted a lot of what I've said though. My comments on the amount of rain come from pointing out that world wide rain of the amount that happened during the flood is beyond what our atmosphere could now hold. It goes to what Moses said about separating the waters of the deep from the waters above the firmament. The earth's climate and atmosphere before the flood was completely different. As evidence I point out that there was no rain prior to the flood. The earth was watered by dew. No irrigation needed for crops. The dew was heavy enough, frequent enough, and consistent enough to take the place of rain. That points to a much different atmosphere and climate than we now have.

Genesis 1:6-8 point this out. That the firmament was between bodies of water. In other words the earth was a type of greenhouse with a device for filtering out radiation, ultraviolet light, etc... all of which are harmful to us and shorten our life spans. Remember the lifespans of the antedeluvians? Breaking that upper body of water up would account for the massive rainfall amounts that occurred. Now we get rain only in parts of the earth at a time. During the flood it rained for 40 days and 40 nights over the entire earth at the same time.

Remember the ooparts thread? One of the ooparts that was found deep underground is a piece of brass that could only have been created in an atmosphere without ultraviolet light. We can't, even today, manufacture anything like it as our environment is full of ultraviolet light. It, once again, points to a time on earth where ultraviolet light was not a part of our environment.

 

[genuineoriginal]

As I say: When there is disagreement, we should strive to phrase things in a manner that both sides can agree with. The Bible says that God created a firmament within the deep to divide water from water.

Let's start there and stay there until we have a starting point that we both can agree with.

Here are several English translations of the relevant verses.

Genesis 1:6-8 NIV 6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.​

Genesis 1:6-8 NABRE 6 Then God said: Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other. 7 God made the dome,[a] and it separated the water below the dome from the water above the dome. And so it happened. 8 God called the dome “sky.” Evening came, and morning followed—the second day.​

Genesis 1:6-8 KJV 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.​

Genesis 1:6-8 ERV The Second Day—Sky 6 Then God said, “Let there be a space[a] to separate the water into two parts!” 7 So God made the space and separated the water. Some of the water was above it, and some of the water was below it. 8 God named that space “sky.” There was evening, and then there was morning. This was the second day.​

Genesis 1:6-8 AMP 6 And God said, “Let there be an [a]expanse [of the sky] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters [below the expanse] from the waters [above the expanse].” 7 And God made the expanse [of sky] and separated the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so [just as He commanded]. 8 God called the expanse [of sky] heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.​

Each of these translations is a true and accurate translation of the verses.

Do you agree?

 

[genuineoriginal]

So you're saying He did plan to live on Earth?

Seems reasonable to call it heaven then. :up:

Only if you don't like what the Bible says about it.

Revelation 21:2-3 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.​

 

[Stripe]

Each of these translations is a true and accurate translation of the verses.

Do you agree?

No.

 

[genuineoriginal]

No.

Then we have no place to begin working on an agreement.

 

[Stripe]

Then we have no place to begin working on an agreement.

Why not? :idunno:

You've provided translations that say contradictory things with respect to a specific idea. Are you going to insist that a word without a lot of use to look upon has to have multiple contradictory definitions?

 

[Gary K]

Why not? :idunno:

You've provided translations that say contradictory things with respect to a specific idea. Are you going to insist that a word without a lot of use to look upon has to have multiple contradictory definitions?

I'm curious as to why you see the different translations as being contradictory. I see them all as being different ways of saying the same thing. If I say a bird is flying in the sky, or flying across the face of the heavens, or is flying through the firmament, I am describing the same event but just using different word pictures to describe it. The descriptions don't contradict each other as we all know where birds fly. We know they don't fly through soil or without our atmosphere, so what exactly makes this your proverbial hill to die on? I ask because it baffles me as to the stand you're taking. It just doesn't seem like your normal way of thinking.

 

[Stripe]

I'm curious as to why you see the different translations as being contradictory.

"Vault" and "dome" are radically different concepts (in English) compared with "expanse."

The word raqia is most useful when translated as "firmament," because that keeps the guesswork in the game for a thing we are grappling over anyway. Or we could just use the Hebrew placeholder for a to-be-determined proper English translation.

Either way, one side claims the thing created was the crust of the Earth, while the other says it is the sky.

Looking at the text, we need to agree that the central features of that created item are:

1. It was formed in the water.
2. It separated water above from water below.

We ask, as challenges to the "skyists": Where was the water? What powered the fountains of the deep? How could water falling as rain account for a global flood? Where did that water go?

What are the skyists' challenges to the "crustists" starting from the same foundation of the text?

I see them all as being different ways of saying the same thing. If I say a bird is flying in the sky, or flying across the face of the heavens, or is flying through the firmament, I am describing the same event but just using different word pictures to describe it. The descriptions don't contradict each other as we all know where birds fly. We know they don't fly through soil or without our atmosphere, so what exactly makes this your proverbial hill to die on? I ask because it baffles me as to the stand you're taking. It just doesn't seem like your normal way of thinking.

I'm working from the assumption that Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory is the best model we have.

That said, I'm trying not to let that assumption color my analysis of the text of Genesis. The text says that the birds flew across the face of the firmament of the heavens. This to me works whether the firmament is the crust or outer space, but does not work for "atmosphere."

I'm willing to listen to a breakdown of the Hebrew that might explain why my stance can't be so, but the English — which is pretty much all I can go on — seems to back up what I say.

 

[Gary K]

"Vault" and "dome" are radically different concepts (in English) compared with "expanse."

The word raqia is most useful when translated as "firmament," because that keeps the guesswork in the game for a thing we are grappling over anyway. Or we could just use the Hebrew placeholder for a to-be-determined proper English translation.

Either way, one side claims the thing created was the crust of the Earth, while the other says it is the sky.

Looking at the text, we need to agree that the central features of that created item are:

1. It was formed in the water.
2. It separated water above from water below.

We ask, as challenges to the "skyists": Where was the water? What powered the fountains of the deep? How could water falling as rain account for a global flood? Where did that water go?

What are the skyists' challenges to the "crustists" starting from the same foundation of the text?



I'm working from the assumption that Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory is the best model we have.

That said, I'm trying not to let that assumption color my analysis of the text of Genesis. The text says that the birds flew across the face of the firmament of the heavens. This to me works whether the firmament is the crust or outer space, but does not work for "atmosphere."

I'm willing to listen to a breakdown of the Hebrew that might explain why my stance can't be so, but the English — which is pretty much all I can go on — seems to back up what I say.

Let's look at a few dictionary definitions of words.

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 (gcide)
Expanse Ex*panse", n. [From L. expansus, p. p. of expandere.
See Expand.]
That which is expanded or spread out; a wide extent of space
or body; especially, the arch of the sky. "The green
expanse." --Savage.
[1913 Webster]

Lights . . . high in the expanse of heaven. --Milton.
[1913 Webster]

The smooth expanse of crystal lakes. --Pope.
[1913 Webster]


WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) (wn)
expanse
n 1: a wide scope; "the sweep of the plains" [syn: sweep,
expanse]
2: the extent of a 2-dimensional surface enclosed within a
boundary; "the area of a rectangle"; "it was about 500 square
feet in area" [syn: area, expanse, surface area]
3: a wide and open space or area as of surface or land or sky

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 (gcide)
Firmament Fir"ma*ment, n. [L. firmamentum, fr. firmare to make
firm: cf. F. firmament. See Firm, v. & a.]
1. Fixed foundation; established basis. [Obs.]
[1913 Webster]

Custom is the . . . firmament of the law. --Jer.
Taylor.
[1913 Webster]

2. The region of the air; the sky or heavens.
[1913 Webster]

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst
of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the
waters. --Gen. i. 6.
[1913 Webster]

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament.
--Gen. i. 14.
[1913 Webster]

WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) (wn)
vault of heaven
n 1: the apparent surface of the imaginary sphere on which
celestial bodies appear to be projected [syn: celestial
sphere, sphere, empyrean, firmament, heavens,
vault of heaven, welkin]

heavens
n 1: the apparent surface of the imaginary sphere on which
celestial bodies appear to be projected [syn: celestial
sphere, sphere, empyrean, firmament, heavens,
vault of heaven, welkin]

The one thread running though all these dictionary definitions is our atmosphere.

[*StrongsHebrew*]
07549H7549 רקיע râqîya‛ raw-kee'-ah
From H7554; properly an expanse that is the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky: - firmament.

I included the definition of expanse because of this from Strong's. But Strong's itself leans strongly to the sky side.

Genesis 1: And God called the firmament Heaven.

The Hebrew word translated as Heaven in verse 8 is word 8064 in Strong's.

08064H8064 שׁמה שׁמיםshâmayim shâmehshaw-mah'-yim shaw-meh'
The second form being dual of an unused singular; from an unused root meaning to be lofty; the sky(as aloft; the dual perhaps alluding to the visible arch in which the clouds move as well as to the higher ether where the celestial bodies revolve): - air × astrologer heaven (-s).

In Genesis 1:26 this same word is translated as air in the KJV. It is also translated as heavens by other translators. Either way I see no contradiction. When we look up during the day we see the clouds, the sun, possibly the moon, and a blue background. At night we look up and see the moon and stars as well as possible clouds. Both ways can be translated as "the heavens" without contradiction because we see different things during the day than we do at night. And we are looking at these things through our atmosphere. We cannot help looking through our atmosphere when we look up to heaven, or the heavens.

The only thread of understanding I see running through all of this is sky. I don't see the ground being a continuous thread in these definitions, both Biblical and dictionary. It just doesn't fit naturally. It must be a forced interpretation that denies the plain reading of other verses. As God pronounced the firmament being heaven I think that pretty much eliminates the soil being in any way, shape, or form, from being the firmament. It must be the sky if we believe the Bible.

 

[Stripe]

The only thread of understanding I see running through all of this is sky. I don't see the ground being a continuous thread in these definitions, both Biblical and dictionary. It just doesn't fit naturally. It must be a forced interpretation that denies the plain reading of other verses. As God pronounced the firmament being heaven I think that pretty much eliminates the soil being in any way, shape, or form, from being the firmament. It must be the sky if we believe the Bible.

Have you read through the ideas we presented for why there might be two firmaments?

 

[Gary K]

Have you read through the ideas we presented for why there might be two firmaments?

Do you have scriptural support for the idea that God declared there was a firmament He did not declare to be heaven? Also, I did a word search for 'firmaments' and came up with zero results. If there were two surely the Bible would speak to there being multiple firmaments. It doesn't. The only way the Hebrew for firmament is translated is singular.

 

[Stripe]

Do you have scriptural support for the idea that God declared there was a firmament He did not declare to be heaven? Also, I did a word search for 'firmaments' and came up with zero results. If there were two surely the Bible would speak to there being multiple firmaments. It doesn't. The only way the Hebrew for firmament is translated is singular.

I'll take that as a "yes." :chuckle:

There is very little information on what a firmament is. If we had more to go on, we would have discussed it already.

I'm staying away from assertions about when Hebrew words can be pluralized. I have no idea whether your question is a problem, but let's presume that it is.

 

[Gary K]

One other thing I noticed in my study. The Bible uses the word firmament only 15 times. In every instance it is referred to as "a" firmament or "the" firmament both of which strongly infer a single firmament. The only instance of the "a firmament" phrase is in Genesis 1:6 during the second day of creation. There is no other mention of creating "a firmament". This pretty much rules out the creation of two firmaments.

 

[Gary K]

I'll take that as a "yes." :chuckle:

There is very little information on what a firmament is. If we had more to go on, we would have discussed it already.

I'm staying away from assertions about when Hebrew words can be pluralized. I have no idea whether your question is a problem, but let's presume that it is.

Yeah, I read it. Most of it makes no sense to me. Arguing that the earth is heaven because of one of Jesus' parables? That's a hopeless stretch when the context of the parable is considered. Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world, or have you guys forgotten that?

Your argument about words that "can be" pluralized is very odd. Firmament was never pluralized or some translators would have picked up on that. Probably the majority of them. The absence of any pluralization of the word is pretty strong evidence it was never meant to be in the way Moses used the word.

 

[Stripe]

The earth is heaven because of one of Jesus' parables?

What parable? The key concepts leading to the idea of the firmament in V8 being the crust of the Earth are laid out thus:

The word raqia is most useful when translated as "firmament," because that keeps the guesswork in the game for a thing we are grappling over anyway. Or we could just use the Hebrew placeholder for a to-be-determined proper English translation. Either way, one side claims the thing created was the crust of the Earth, while the other says it is the sky. Looking at the text, we need to agree that the central features of that created item are: 1. It was formed in the water. 2. It separated water above from water below. We ask, as challenges to the "skyists": Where was the water? What powered the fountains of the deep? How could water falling as rain account for a global flood? Where did that water go?

Your argument about words that "can be" pluralized is very odd. Firmament was never pluralized or some translators would have picked up on that. Probably the majority of them. The absence of any pluralization of the word is pretty strong evidence it was never meant to be in the way Moses used the word.

Pluralization would require that both firmaments (assuming there were more than one) were referred to in unison. That there is no instance is not much of evidence for anything.

 

[Omniskeptical]

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

 

[genuineoriginal]

What are the skyists' challenges to the "crustists" starting from the same foundation of the text?

The challenge is to provide the verses where God created the sky.

 

[genuineoriginal]

As God pronounced the firmament being heaven I think that pretty much eliminates the soil being in any way, shape, or form, from being the firmament. It must be the sky if we believe the Bible.

Very true.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The challenge is to provide the verses where God created the sky.

Question begging. You're assuming your position is true in order to assert your position as true.

Your unstated assumption is that the Bible must say that God created the atmosphere or either the Bible is false or that He did not create it.

You first need to establish that everything that was created by God needs to be described in the Bible as God having created it.

If you can do that, then we have no argument, because there is no such verse (according to our position) that says that God created the atmosphere.

But since you cannot and such is not a requirement for scripture, your challenge is invalid, because there are things that were created that the Bible does not describe that God did in fact create.

In other words, you've assumed that the Bible must say that God created the atmosphere, where there are other possibilities for what the Bible actually says.

And as a result of that, you look for verses that say things that line up with your position. This is called confirmation bias.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Question begging. You're assuming your position is true in order to assert your position as true.

If you think that is the wrong thing to do, then you should stop doing it yourself.

Your unstated assumption is that the Bible must say that God created the atmosphere or either the Bible is false or that He did not create it.

Strawman argument.

there is no such verse (according to our position) that says that God created the atmosphere.

Sure there is, it is right here and is found in every translation of the Bible:

Genesis 1:7-8 EXB 7 So God made the ·air [L firmament; dome; expanse; C rain clouds] and placed some of the water above the ·air [L firmament; dome; expanse] and some below it [C referring to the rain and the oceans, lakes, and rivers]. 8 God ·named [called] the ·air [L firmament/dome/expanse] “·sky [heaven].” Evening passed, and morning came [1:5]. This was the second day.​