ECT What is the Firmament in Genesis 1?

[JudgeRightly]

God made the angels the same week that He made Adam and Eve (Exodus 20:11). If anything it was one of them that "orchestrated" Adam's fall. His name was Lucifer.

Clete

What does scripture state about whether the fall has anything to do with mankind knowing what good is?

Genesis 3:22-24 22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.​

The verse is talking about the physical "heavens" (also known as the sky and outer space), not the dwelling place of God.

That's your doctrine, not the text.

Clete

If you know the truth, there is no reason to work so hard to avoid it.

The "heavens" that God created in the six days being the physical sky and outer space is the literal interpretation of the text.
If your doctrine teaches otherwise, then you need to reexamine your doctrine.

Sorry, no. That's the TRADITIONAL interpretation of the text. What it ACTUALLY says shows something different.

https://kgov.com/what-is-the-firmament-of-day-2-aka-the-raqia

Yeah, Walt Brown is completely wrong on that one.
He is twisting the word translated as "firmament" to suit his own beliefs, changing it from properly describing the dome of the sky above us into his claim that it means the ground below us.

Saying it doesn't make it so.



And therein lies the root problem.

You're basing your beliefs on this matter on a translation of a translation, when preferably it would be better to look at the original language and see what it says, and then base your beliefs on that.

"Firmament" is an English word that comes from a LATIN word, not Hebrew. The Old Testament was originally written in HEBREW, not Latin.



Sorry, but the Hebrew word that was translated into the Latin "firmamentum" doesn't only apply to the sky.



According to whom?

You?



That would be "firmament (raqia) of the heavens," not "firmament."

The fact that there's a distinction between the two, "firmament" and "firmament of the heavens" should clue you in to what each of them means.

The idea that it ONLY refers to the sky comes from the TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING of the text, NOT the text itself.

'Raqqa,' the root form of the word for 'raqia' means to pound out.

And 'raqia' means:

Strong's h7549 - Lexical: רָקִיעַ - Transliteration: raqia - Part of Speech: Noun Masculine - Phonetic Spelling: raw-kee'-ah - Definition: an extended surface, expanse. - Origin: From raqa'; properly, an expanse, i.e. The firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky. - Usage: firmament. - Translated as (count): the firmament (8), in the firmament (3), of the firmament (3), a firmament (1), from above the firmament (1), in firmament (1).

You're limiting "heavens" to outer space is your doctrine, not the text.

See! I can repeat myself too!

Clete

Yes, Walt Brown saying "firmament" means the ground does not make it so.

However, when God says it it does make it so.

Genesis 1:8 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.​

I'll start a new thread then...

This is that thread. I've clipped the parts from the quotes above that are not necessary for this discussion.

I'd like to request, before we begin this thread, that those who participate in this thread do their best to honor God in their posts.

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

My position (and Clete's position, should he choose to join) is that what the "firmament" in Genesis 1 is referring to is two different places, and determined by the presence or lack thereof of the prepositional phrase, "of the heavens."

In short, the "firmament" is not the same as the "firmament of the heavens," and the text makes it clear that there's a difference between the two through the way each phrase is used.

My position is that the "firmament" (Latin, "firmamentum"; Hebrew, "raqia") is the crust of the earth, which God called "Heaven," and that the "firmament of the heavens" is the sky, space, the "heavens."

In this thread, I hope to learn from everyone who posts here, and also that whatever the outcome, we all come to a better understanding of the truth.

みんなによろしくおねがいします！

 

[genuineoriginal]

My position is that the "firmament" (Latin, "firmamentum"; Hebrew, "raqia") is the crust of the earth, which God called "Heaven," and that the "firmament of the heavens" is the sky, space, the "heavens."

In this thread, I hope to learn from everyone who posts here, and also that whatever the outcome, we all come to a better understanding of the truth.

みんな、よろしくおねがいします！

My position is that God called the firmament "Heaven" and the dry land "Earth" and there is no reason for changing the meaning of firmament from meaning heaven to meaning earth.

Genesis 1:6-10 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. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.​

We can see the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew word translated as firmament by looking at Strong's Definition of the word.

Strong’s Definition רָקִיעַ râqîyaʻ, raw-kee'-ah; from H7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:—firmament.

​

We can check secular definitions as well.

רקיע Pronunciation (Modern Israeli Hebrew) IPA(key): /ʁaˈkia/ (Tiberian Hebrew) IPA(key): /rɔːˈqiːaʕ/ (Biblical Hebrew) IPA(key): /raːˈqiːaʕ/ Noun רָקִיעַ • (rakía) m (plural indefinite רְקִיעִים‎, singular construct רְקִיעַ־) [pattern: קָטִיל] Firmament, sky, heavens: the concave surface on which the heavenly bodies appear to move. (mythology) Firmament: a surface separating the various levels of heaven.

​

We can look at derivative phrases.

קו רקיע From קו‎ (káv-) + רקיע‎ (rakía); hence literally “(a) sky line”. Noun קו רקיע • (káv-rakía) m A skyline: the horizon created by a city's overall structure.

​

We can look at translations to see how the word is used.

היה שלום רקיע כחול Goodbye, blue sky היא אוהבת את רקיע הקיץ. She's like a summer sky. כולנו, תחת רקיע אחד. All of us, under one sky. "רקיע אחד, שני רקיעים רקיע אדום, רקיע כחול" "One sky, two sky, red sky, blue sky!"

​

We can check with the Rabbis to see what Hebrew word means.

My Encounter with the Firmament Of all the vexing problems modern cosmology poses for the first chapter of Genesis, such as the insufficient biblical timeline of 6 days (as opposed to billions of years) until the appearance of humans, or vegetative bloom before the sun and photosynthesis, the most acute for me is God’s creation of the firmament (רקיע; rakia) on the second day. If you are unfamiliar with the firmament, then imagine for a moment the horizon, where the earth appears to meet with the sky. Only try and picture it as a connecting point between two solids: a flat plate like earth, and a rigid dome like an upside down bowl that vaults it, blue as ocean, from the vast stores of water it contains. This is what the Bible is describing when it refers to הָרָקִיעַ, traditionally rendered in English Bibles as “the firmament” (from the Latin firmamentum meaning “support”). If you can entertain this notion, and feel yourself underneath this massive curved wall of heaven, straining under the weight of the rainwater it holds back, then you are living on the earth our sages knew, for this is the world, the universe, of which the Bible conceived The idea of the sky above us as a solid structure is shared by almost all pre-modern human cultures. It is best understood as a product of the pre-scientific mind, attempting to make sense of what it sees and offering an intuitive, though factually incorrect, account. The sky is blue because it is full of water, like the sea.[1] Water doesn’t fall on us because something is holding it up, and that something is transparent, since we can see the blue hue of the liquid behind it.[2] This barrier is dome shaped, since we see the heavens above curving into the horizon and meeting the flat earth. In short, to the ancients the universe was a terrarium of sorts, a carefully preserved space that was fashioned for them by a creator or creators, a “bubble” in endless waters, in which the terrifying calamity of certain flooding was prevented by walls that vaulted above them, the floodgates (אֲרֻבֹּת הַשָּׁמַיִם) of Genesis 7:11. Thus, to the ancient Israelites, the depiction of the second day of creation was natural: the creator was building for them the firmament, the great dome of the sky, and protecting them from being drowned by the waters above.

​

 

[Clete]

It seems to me that there are good arguments on both sides.

I'm accustomed to trusting Bob Enyart because he has, over several decades of time, been shown to be as intellectually honest, clear minded and thorough as anyone I have ever encountered. Genuine Original, on the other hand, is prone to making statements that he can't support and then pretending like he didn't make them when pressed to make an argument. Bob would have made the argument before anyone had to ask him to do so.

It would be difficult in the extreme for me to take any argument made by Genuine Original seriously to begin with, never mind be persuaded by it away from any position that Bob takes based solely on their respective reputations.

What will happen with this thread, if it persists, is that Genuine Original will simply state that Bob's position is wrong without directly addressing a single argument that is made by him.

Sounds like a waste of time to me. Sorry.

 

[Stripe]

A key question to factor in is: Where was the firmament called heaven created. The answer is in the text: It was created within the deep, separating "waters above" from "waters below."

 

[Omniskeptical]

The firmament was rock that covered water; and the heaven is a mistranslation of rock elevation. It isn't an expanse.

 

[Stripe]

Another key question is: Why is there a firmament named heaven and a firmament "of the heavens"?

 

[genuineoriginal]

I'm accustomed to trusting Bob Enyart because he has, over several decades of time, been shown to be as intellectually honest, clear minded and thorough as anyone I have ever encountered.

I respect Bob Enyart, but he does have some problem with his theology, especially when it comes to "The Plot" completely missing the point.

Genuine Original, on the other hand, is prone to making statements that he can't support and then pretending like he didn't make them when pressed to make an argument.

Clete, on the other hand, seems to have a problem understanding any position that does not match up with what he was taught, even when what he was taught was wrong.

 

[genuineoriginal]

The firmament was rock that covered water; and the heaven is a mistranslation of rock elevation. It isn't an expanse.

"Firmament" or "Expanse" in Genesis 1:6 et al.? "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." (Genesis 1:6)​ Critics claim that "firmament", which suggests a firm structure, is an erroneous translation of the empty and open atmosphere. While it is tempting to try to make Genesis fit into the modern understanding of science, such practice is not honest. We only need to look at Job 37:16-18 to see that the ancients considered the atmosphere to be firm: Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge? How thy garments are warm, when he quieteth the earth by the south wind? Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?​ This description of a "strong" "glass-like" atmosphere is available in all translations. The ESV says "hard as a cast metal mirror". The liberal NRSV makes no attempt to try to make Genesis fit into modern science, so it translates the word as "dome". The footnote in the Holman Christian Standard Bible also says the word suggests a dome that could be "beat[en] firmly". The question is not whether "firmament" is the correct translation. It is, as it is consistent with the Old Testament understanding of a "strong" or "firm" atmosphere. The real question is, how could this understanding be reconciled with the reality of an empty and open atmosphere? One theory is that there was once some sort of canopy over the earth, which blocked out harmful radiation which led to the prolonged lifespans of the anti-diluvian people. This is the theory of some young-earth creationists. Another theory is that the ancients regarded the atmosphere as firm, not in density, but in permanence. Whereas forests decay and mountains erode, only the sky remains intact seemingly forever. Something that remains intact forever can be said to be "firm".

​

 

[Clete]

I respect Bob Enyart, but he does have some problem with his theology, especially when it comes to "The Plot" completely missing the point.

That's a laugh!

Let me predict in advance that this is a claim that you will in no way support with anything that looks like a rational argument and the harder anyone might press you to make the argument the further and further you'll back off the statement.

Clete, on the other hand, seems to have a problem understanding any position that does not match up with what he was taught, even when what he was taught was wrong.

You were asked repeated to make the argument. Over and over again I asked you to do so and you refused. Instead, you convinced yourself that I misunderstood your point, which I didn't and instead of asking for clarification you went into jerk of the century mode and made an enemy instead of having a two way conversation.

Respond to this post - or not. Either way, I won't read it.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You were asked repeated to make the argument. Over and over again I asked you to do so and you refused. Instead, you convinced yourself that I misunderstood your point, which I didn't and instead of asking for clarification you went into jerk of the century mode and made an enemy instead of having a two way conversation.

It seems to me that you are the one that went into jerk of the century mode and are trying to make enemies.

I have no problem having rational conversations with rational people, but you seem to think everyone is irrational except for yourself, which makes you the irrational one.

 

[Clete]

It seems to me that you are the one that went into jerk of the century mode and are trying to make enemies.

I have no problem having rational conversations with rational people, but you seem to think everyone is irrational except for yourself, which makes you the irrational one.

I said I wouldn't read this and I intended not too but I suppose I'm a glutton for punishment!



I responded to your own words! I quoted you and then responded just like I do to everyone else. If you thought I misunderstood something all that was necessary is for you to clarify, which it seems you tried to do and then I quoted that and responded to the clarification, which was identical to what I had responded to in the first place.

I don't suppose it's at all possible that you're the one who misunderstood at all! No, no! I'm quite certain that must be entirely impossible!

I know that when I clarified my statements by explaining how whether man has free will is all tied together with whether God has free will and whether God is righteous to the point that they are all effectively the same issue, you blew that off like I was just making it up out of whole cloth, which is when I knew that this discussion wasn't going anywhere and that you weren't trying to make it go anywhere other than to waste my time and that you would never offer the argument that I had repeatedly asked you to make because there was no such argument.

You see, the problem for you really is the fact that the entire discussion is all still here for everyone one to read and I actually bother to go back and read it.

Now, back to ignore with you.

 

[JudgeRightly]

My position is that God called the firmament "Heaven" and the dry land "Earth"

Which is the same as my position, only the meaning of "Heaven" (capital 'H') differs from yours.

and there is no reason for changing the meaning of firmament from meaning heaven to meaning earth.

The only thing I want to change here is the meaning that tradition has assigned to a word that means something more than what tradition says.

If anything, I want to bring back the original meaning of the word, at least in the understanding that it meant something different in the past.

Genesis 1:6-10 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. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.​

:thumb:

We can see the Christian interpretation

I don't think it would be a stretch to call this an appeal to tradition, but even if it were not, it's just poor wording.

A word means what it means, regardless of what one religion says it means.

of the Hebrew word translated as firmament by looking at Strong's Definition of the word.

Strong’s Definition רָקִיעַ râqîyaʻ, raw-kee'-ah; from H7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:—firmament.

​

This is the definition I use, because it is an ACTUAL definition of the word.

As I pointed out in the quoted posts above, the word "firmament" comes from the Latin word "firmamentum," which literally means "that which strengthens or supports.

From: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/firmamentum

We can check secular definitions as well.

רקיע Pronunciation (Modern Israeli Hebrew) IPA(key): /ʁaˈkia/ (Tiberian Hebrew) IPA(key): /rɔːˈqiːaʕ/ (Biblical Hebrew) IPA(key): /raːˈqiːaʕ/ Noun רָקִיעַ • (rakía) m (plural indefinite רְקִיעִים‎, singular construct רְקִיעַ־) [pattern: קָטִיל] Firmament, sky, heavens: the concave surface on which the heavenly bodies appear to move. (mythology) Firmament: a surface separating the various levels of heaven.

​

We can look at derivative phrases.

קו רקיע From קו‎ (káv-) + רקיע‎ (rakía); hence literally “(a) sky line”. Noun קו רקיע • (káv-rakía) m A skyline: the horizon created by a city's overall structure.

​

We can look at translations to see how the word is used.

היה שלום רקיע כחול Goodbye, blue sky היא אוהבת את רקיע הקיץ. She's like a summer sky. כולנו, תחת רקיע אחד. All of us, under one sky. "רקיע אחד, שני רקיעים רקיע אדום, רקיע כחול" "One sky, two sky, red sky, blue sky!"

​

I'm going to stop you here for a moment.

Here's the issue I see:

You have taken a position based on what a word used in the Bible means today, whereas all I am trying to do is bring forth the original meaning of the word, so that what was originally written in the Bible can be understood in the original context.

If you cannot do that, then you will never know what the Author intended to say.

We can check with the Rabbis to see what Hebrew word means.

I don't think you realize, but this is an appeal to authority, another logical fallacy..

My Encounter with the Firmament

There are several problems with this article, not the least of which is that they see the creation week being only 6 days as a problem when the Bible explicitly states 6 days, and at the beginning of creation God made man and woman.

To begin with:

Of all the vexing problems modern cosmology poses for the first chapter of Genesis,

The fact that they claim that Genesis doesn't line up with reality instantly disqualifies them from talking authoritatively about what the Bible says or does not say, making this more of an opinion piece than actual fact.

With that in mind...

such as the insufficient biblical timeline of 6 days (as opposed to billions of years) until the appearance of humans,

In saying this, the author of this article would rebuke Jesus Himself for stating:

[JESUS]But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’[/JESUS] - Mark 10:6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark10:6&version=NKJV

Because he doesn't believe Moses when He wrote God's commandment:

[JESUS]For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.[/JESUS] - Exodus 20:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus20:11&version=NKJV

or vegetative bloom before the sun and photosynthesis,

It is this one fact in the Bible that disproves "billions of years."

The Bible says that God created LIGHT before the stars, and those he made after creating plants, and when He created light, He divided it so that there was both light AND dark, which makes it possible for there to be night and day.

Now that those have been addressed, and now that the author has lost much of his credibility in my eyes...

the most acute for me is God’s creation of the firmament (רקיע; rakia) on the second day.

Now we can get to the topic of this thread:

If you are unfamiliar with the firmament, then imagine for a moment the horizon, where the earth appears to meet with the sky. Only try and picture it as a connecting point between two solids: a flat plate like earth, and a rigid dome like an upside down bowl that vaults it, blue as ocean, from the vast stores of water it contains.

It is this description of the firmament that gives so many flat earthers their ammunition for rejecting what reality states, which is that the earth is a ball, which is orbited by the moon, and which orbits the Sun, which in turn orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, which in turn is at or near the center of the universe God has made for us.

This is what the Bible is describing when it refers to הָרָקִיעַ, traditionally rendered in English Bibles as “the firmament” (from the Latin firmamentum meaning “support”).

This is called question begging. It is a logical fallacy.

He's assuming his conclusion to prove his conclusion.

If you can entertain this notion, and feel yourself underneath this massive curved wall of heaven,

The heavens (sky, space, etc) is not a wall at all.

Our atmosphere is a fluid. Space is a vacuum. God hung the earth on nothing, not a wall.

straining under the weight of the rainwater it holds back,

Aside from the fact that, at face value, this contradicts reality, in that there are not storehouses of water in space...

If the author of this article is referring to the Canopy Theory (CT), he's already out of luck (figuratively speaking), because a mere few inches of water in or above the atmosphere would have boiled the earth and killed off all life within days, if not hours, of God creating it, and even then there wouldn't be enough water in the atmosphere to cause the flood waters to be raised above the highest mountains...

If the author of this article is instead appealing to the miraculous, then there's nothing to argue against, and he wins by default, because miracles cannot be explained by science, and it would therefore render his argument infallible, which makes it unscientific at best, unreasonable at worst.

then you are living on the earth our sages knew, for this is the world, the universe, of which the Bible conceived.

See what I mean?

He's assumed his conclusion to prove his conclusion.

It's circular reasoning.

The idea of the sky above us as a solid structure is shared by almost all pre-modern human cultures.

There's a reason for that, but it has nothing to do with the idea of space being a literal foundation, keyword literal.

It is best understood as a product of the pre-scientific mind, attempting to make sense of what it sees and offering an intuitive, though factually incorrect, account.

He (and you) would be surprised to find out, then, that ancient humans were geniuses compared to modern humans.

The sky is blue because it is full of water, like the sea.[1] Water doesn’t fall on us because something is holding it up, and that something is transparent, since we can see the blue hue of the liquid behind it.[2] This barrier is dome shaped, since we see the heavens above curving into the horizon and meeting the flat earth.

I'd like to see how the author of the article found out how the ancients thought such things, let alone those specific thoughts...

Until then, I'm going to assume it's conjecture and not bother with it.

In short, to the ancients the universe was a terrarium of sorts, a carefully preserved space that was fashioned for them by a creator or creators, a “bubble” in endless waters,

Whatever that means...

in which the terrifying calamity of certain flooding was prevented by walls that vaulted above them,

Once again, question begging...

he floodgates (אֲרֻבֹּת הַשָּׁמַיִם) of Genesis 7:11.

Sorry, but no.

The word used in Genesis 7:11 does not mean "floodgates." The phrase literally translates as "and the windows of the heavens," and the second word in that phrase ("hasamayim," "of the heavens") is the SAME word used in the phrase "firmament of the heavens" in Genesis 1.

There are two phrases used in that verse that, if taken in the order they are used, describes literal fountains of water coming up from beneath the surface of the earth, and the resultant rains coming back down from the high altitudes after being launched by the fountains.

Nothing miraculous at all, just water obeying the laws of physics.

Thus, to the ancient Israelites, the depiction of the second day of creation was natural: the creator was building for them the firmament, the great dome of the sky, and protecting them from being drowned by the waters above.

Again, he's used his conclusion to prove his conclusion.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I know that when I clarified my statements by explaining how whether man has free will is all tied together with whether God has free will and whether God is righteous to the point that they are all effectively the same issue, you blew that off like I was just making it up out of whole cloth, which is when I knew that this discussion wasn't going anywhere and that you weren't trying to make it go anywhere other than to waste my time and that you would never offer the argument that I had repeatedly asked you to make because there was no such argument.

Wrong thread.

This thread is about the word translated as "firmament".

 

[genuineoriginal]

Which is the same as my position, only the meaning of "Heaven" (capital 'H') differs from yours.

Not the original meaning.

If anything, I want to bring back the original meaning of the word, at least in the understanding that it meant something different in the past.

Then you would agree that Heaven (capital 'H') only means something different because tradition has changed the original meaning from "sky" to "the abode of God".

A word means what it means, regardless of what one religion says it means.

That would be nice if it was true, but the meanings of words change over time because of how the word is used in literature and speech.

I'm going to stop you here for a moment.

Here's the issue I see:

You have taken a position based on what a word used in the Bible means today, whereas all I am trying to do is bring forth the original meaning of the word, so that what was originally written in the Bible can be understood in the original context.

If you cannot do that, then you will never know what the Author intended to say.

I understand that, which is why I quoted research into what the original meaning was.

I don't think you realize, but this is an appeal to authority, another logical fallacy.

It would only be an appeal to authority if the only thing I was using was what the Rabbis say.
I am using what the Rabbis say to supplement other citations to strengthen my argument, which is not an appeal to authority.

There are several problems with this article
the author has lost much of his credibility in my eyes...

It sounds like you threw out all of the historical information in the article because the author did not share your beliefs about the scientific opinions.
The difference in opinion does not invalidate the historical information, which is the portion I shared.

The heavens (sky, space, etc) is not a wall at all.

Our atmosphere is a fluid. Space is a vacuum. God hung the earth on nothing, not a wall.

You are attempting to substitute your own definition based on modern science for the original definition that was understood and used when Genesis was written.
That is in contradiction to your claim, "I want to bring back the original meaning of the word".
The original meaning of the word הָרָקִיעַ encompasses the idea that it is referring to the dome of the sky as the ancients understood it.
What we now understand about why the sky arches over the Earth is meaningless in interpreting the text.

this contradicts reality, in that there are not storehouses of water in space...

What we now understand about why the sky is blue is meaningless in interpreting the text because it is ignoring the original meaning.

I'd like to see how the author of the article found out how the ancients thought such things, let alone those specific thoughts...

Until then, I'm going to assume it's conjecture and not bother with it.

The article I used is written as a scholarly article and the author of the article provided citations to show where the information presented comes from.

This barrier is dome shaped, since we see the heavens above curving into the horizon and meeting the flat earth. This understanding is so ubiquitous that some anthropologists consider it a “general human belief.”[3] [3]Gudmund Hatt, Asiatic Influences in American Folklore (Copenhagen, 1949), 50, quoted in, Paul H. Seely: “The Firmament and the Water above Part I: The Meaning of Raqiaʿ in Gen 1:6-8,” Westminster Theological Journal 53 (Fall 1991), 227-240 [231].

​

The word used in Genesis 7:11 does not mean "floodgates." The phrase literally translates as "and the windows of the heavens," and the second word in that phrase ("hasamayim," "of the heavens") is the SAME word used in the phrase "firmament of the heavens" in Genesis 1.

There are two phrases used in that verse that, if taken in the order they are used, describes literal fountains of water coming up from beneath the surface of the earth, and the resultant rains coming back down from the high altitudes after being launched by the fountains.

There is nothing in the verse to support your interpretation that there are fountains of water coming up from beneath the surface of the earth.
You are using your conclusion to prove your conclusion, that is circular reasoning.

Genesis 7:11 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.​

The fountains of the great deep is referring to large amounts of water rising up from the seas and the windows of heaven is referring to large amounts of water coming from the sky.

 

[Stripe]

Not the original meaning.

It's not difficult to find Biblical uses of the word that obviously mean "abode of God" and not "skies."

 

[genuineoriginal]

It's not difficult to find Biblical uses of the word that obviously mean "abode of God" and not "skies."

It seems that using "Heaven" as "abode of God" started around Genesis 24, but before then "heaven" merely meant "sky".

 

[Stripe]

It seems that using "Heaven" as "abode of God" started around Genesis 24, but before then "heaven" merely meant "sky".

Or the v8 instance meant "abode of God."

:idunno:

It certainly makes sense that the place God planned to live with man would be one of His as abodes, while it doesn't make sense that a separator of the ocean would be referring to the sky.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It seems that using "Heaven" as "abode of God" started around Genesis 24, but before then "heaven" merely meant "sky".

(Will get to your post above, just wanted to address the issue with this assumption)

Sorry, but you seem to be forgetting that Genesis wasn't written over a period of about 2200+ years, but within one lifetime, Moses', somewhere around the 1400s B.C, and more importantly, written by God.

The fact that it means AT ALL "God's abode" means that you can't just dismiss it as a possible meaning for the verse in Genesis 1. The Hebrew is consistent throughout the Bible (either because Hebrew didn't change much from the time of Joseph to when it was translated into the Septuagint, or because the Septuagint itself standardized the meanings of the words, or for some other reason... :idunno

What we DO know, is that words have various meanings, especially in certain contexts. The context of the word "Heaven" in Genesis 1 seems to refer to "God's abode" more than it does the sky.

 

[Stripe]

What we DO know, is that words have various meanings, especially in certain contexts. The context of the word "Heaven" in Genesis 1[v8] seems to refer to "God's abode" more than it does the sky.

You mean the use in verse 8, right?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not the original meaning.

Then you would agree that Heaven (capital 'H') only means something different because tradition has changed the original meaning from "sky" to "the abode of God".

I can't say whether the translators did their job perfectly, and that that's exactly what "Heaven" was referring to, but I'm certainly willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that it means "God's abode."

And even if not that, one needs to remember that verse 8, and the rest of Genesis 1, for that matter, is describing the earth BEFORE the Fall of Man, not after, and that the earth would have been a place suitable for God, a paradise, if you will.

Literally what we would imagine "Heaven on Earth" to be like.

I'd also like to point out that before the Fall, God walked in the Garden with Adam and Eve, which means He was there in some way, more specifically than calling the universe God's abode, because God is omnipresent (and by this I don't mean the classical greek meaning of the word, but rather that God can be anywhere He wants to be, even in multiple places at once).

That would be nice if it was true, but the meanings of words change over time because of how the word is used in literature and speech.

Right, I don't disagree with that at all.

I understand that, which is why I quoted research into what the original meaning was.

It would only be an appeal to authority if the only thing I was using was what the Rabbis say.
I am using what the Rabbis say to supplement other citations to strengthen my argument, which is not an appeal to authority.

Very true.

As it so happens, I don't think their reasoning is invalid, just that some of the initial assumptions they make are incorrect.

It sounds like you threw out all of the historical information in the article because the author did not share your beliefs about the scientific opinions.

The difference in opinion does not invalidate the historical information, which is the portion I shared.

Fair point.

You are attempting to substitute your own definition based on modern science for the original definition that was understood and used when Genesis was written.

If modern science can bring to light the original meaning of the word, why should I avoid using it to attempt it?

That is in contradiction to your claim, "I want to bring back the original meaning of the word".

Not necessarily.

See the kgov.com excerpt below, which includes a discussion on "God hung the earth on nothing."

The original meaning of the word הָרָקִיעַ encompasses the idea that it is referring to the dome of the sky as the ancients understood it.

I partially agree.

Be careful, however, that you don't let that become a special pleading argument.

There's more to it than just "the sky," GO.

Going back to Strong's definition for a moment:

Strong's h7549 - Lexical: רָקִיעַ - Transliteration: raqia - Part of Speech: Noun Masculine - Phonetic Spelling: raw-kee'-ah - Definition: an extended surface, expanse. - Origin: From raqa'; properly, an expanse, i.e. The firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky. - Usage: firmament. - Translated as (count): the firmament (8), in the firmament (3), of the firmament (3), a firmament (1), from above the firmament (1), in firmament (1).

The underlined meaning above is what I want to expand on (no pun intended).

Raqia is the noun from the verb raqa meaning being hammered or spread out, as in working metal into a thin sheet or plate. "They beat (raqa) the gold into thin sheets" (Exodus 39:3). "The goldsmith overspreads (raqa) it with gold" (Isaiah 40:19; i.e., gold-plated). Similarly, God overspread the waters of the earth with the plates of the earth's crust, i.e., the firmament, what Walt Brown calls hydroplates. For "God made the firmament (raqia), and divided the waters which were under the firmament (raqia, the crustal plates) from the waters which were above the firmament" (Genesis 1:7). Please review again the verses listed below. For not only did God create "the sea and the fountains" (Rev. 14:7), if this understanding of raqia is is the Bible's actual meaning, then we would expect also to read that initially the surface of the earth was covered only with water, and that then God made the earth's crust above the water: - "In the beginning God created... the earth. ...darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Gen. 1:1-2 - God "laid out the earth above the waters" Ps. 136:6 - "by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water" 2 Pet. 3:5 - "Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament." Gen. 1:7 - "The earth is the Lord’s... For He has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the waters." Ps. 24:1-2​ When the Bible specifically links raqa to the earth (as in the passages below), and because words typically have multiple meanings, it is extreme to insist that raqia cannot refer to anything but the heavens. Genesis was written back when pagans wondered what held up the earth. Perhaps it rested on the back of a tortoise, or on a pillar, or was held up by Atlas. Yet the most ancient Scripture teaches that God, "hangs the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7), which is visually consistent with modern astronomical observation. For just as the firmament of the earth holds up the mountains, so too, the firmament "of the heavens" is strong enough to hold the earth.

- https://kgov.com/firmament

What we now understand about why the sky arches over the Earth is meaningless in interpreting the text.

Not necessarily.

Remember, the ancients were geniuses compared to modern humans.

What we now understand about why the sky is blue is meaningless in interpreting the text because it is ignoring the original meaning.

Then why did you bring up the color of the sky in the first place? Just wondering...

The article I used is written as a scholarly article and the author of the article provided citations to show where the information presented comes from.

That's all well and good, but if the source is incorrect, then the article that quotes it as fact is also incorrect, or at least, misinformed.

This barrier is dome shaped, since we see the heavens above curving into the horizon and meeting the flat earth. This understanding is so ubiquitous that some anthropologists consider it a “general human belief.”[3] [3]Gudmund Hatt, Asiatic Influences in American Folklore (Copenhagen, 1949), 50, quoted in, Paul H. Seely: “The Firmament and the Water above Part I: The Meaning of Raqiaʿ in Gen 1:6-8,” Westminster Theological Journal 53 (Fall 1991), 227-240 [231].

​

* A Solid Dome Sky Belief Widespread Yet Not Intuitive: As Wikipedia reports, "The notion of the sky as a solid object (rather than just an atmospheric expanse) was widespread among both ancient civilizations and primitive cultures, including ancient Greece, Egypt, China, India, native Americans, Australian Aborigines, and also early Christians. It is probably a universal human trait to perceive the sky as a solid dome." Retrieved 8-27-11. However, with the many varied movements in the heavens of the Sun, Moon, planets, stars, comets, and meteorites, it's not intuitive that so much of the whole world would end up believing that the Earth had a solid-domed sky. Except, of course, if the ancients who populated the world after the global flood were misunderstanding the raqia of Day Two as referring to the heavens instead of to the crust of the earth.

[kgov.com/firmament]

There is nothing in the verse to support your interpretation that there are fountains of water coming up from beneath the surface of the earth.

Which is why I'm not using JUST that verse. I'm also using these verses, along with others:

- "In the beginning God created... the earth. ...darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Gen. 1:1-2 - God "laid out the earth above the waters" Ps. 136:6 - "by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water" 2 Pet. 3:5 - "Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament." Gen. 1:7 - "The earth is the Lord’s... For He has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the waters." Ps. 24:1-2

You are using your conclusion to prove your conclusion, that is circular reasoning.

No.

I'm simply letting scripture be my foundation, and my conclusion is a result of that.

Genesis 7:11 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.​

:thumb:

You said floodgates above, yet that word is not in the text, nor is the idea of floodgates being opened in the text; I was simply trying to correct that mistake.

The fountains of the great deep is referring to large amounts of water rising up from the seas

Sorry, but there's currently nowhere near enough water on the earth to cover the earth.

In addition, the Bible uses the term "Seas."

There's a reason for that, and no, it doesn't refer to what we today (post-flood) call oceans.

It refers to actual seas (similar to the Mediterranean), that would have looked like this:

(Second image, seas not to scale, nor is placement or quantity accurate)

This argument is supported by Genesis 1:9-10, which likely describes the settling of the continental crust, from this:

To this:

(Credit to Bryan Nickel for all of these images.)

In other words, my position explains both how the earth was created, AND where the floodwaters not only came from, but also where all the water went from the Fountains of the Deep.

and the windows of heaven is referring to large amounts of water coming from the sky.

No argument there, though the original source of the water is what is in dispute.