Genesis 1: What is a 'firmament'?

[Bootstrap]

Waters above and waters beneath, could be demonstrated with a modern globe.

I'm having a hard time seeing a modern globe in this text. Can you help me understand what part of this corresponds to a modern globe? Is there any hint that the earth is a sphere or that the earth is a planet like other planets in this chapter?

I’m saying that if you take a regular globe of the earth, set it on your dining room table, it will typically be oriented with the North Pole on top, and the South Pole “beneath”, right?
In that sense, there is waters “above” the equator, and waters “below”. To explore this idea, then the land would be in the “midst” of all the waters. Roughly speaking.

Not to get hung up on the North being the “top”, or any thing, other than just saying no matter which way one positions a sphere, one side will be the “above” and one side will be “beneath”.

As you draw this picture, where is "Heaven" or "Sky"? (The Hebrew word shamayim can mean either.)

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 there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

There are waters above the shamayim and waters under the shamayim. God gathers together the land on the waters that are under the shamayim:

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.

How does that map onto a modern globe?

[Neto]

I'm having a hard time seeing a modern globe in this text. Can you help me understand what part of this corresponds to a modern globe? Is there any hint that the earth is a sphere or that the earth is a planet like other planets in this chapter?

Neither is there anything there that suggests a flat earth. Elsewhere we have figurative language in the Scripture referring to the earth as "the four corners of the earth", and also as "the circle of the earth".

How do you know that the language alluding to a flat earth is "figurative" But Genesis 1 and 2 are to be taking literally?

I didn't say anything like that. I said that I do not see anything there that alludes to a flat earth. I think people now-a-days are reading that into it because many people in the past thought it was that way, and imposed their observations on the Scripture, the same as many do today. Having lived among both very isolated "primitive" people and very educated secular people, my observation is that people are in most ways the same throughout time & in all cultures.

[Bootstrap]

So I haven't thought about this before. But did the ancient Hebrews believe that rain was God letting out some water from the "waters above" that is stored above the firmament or vault of the sky?

I assume they would not have had a modern understanding of the water cycle and that all precipitation came from water on earth that entered the atmosphere through evaporation and transpiration and becomes rain through condensation.

The Old Testament represents a long period of time, I'm not sure all authors thought the same way, their understanding could well have developed over time. But some verses do seem to indicate that rain happens when the windows of heaven are opened.

Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need.

For there shall be a sowing of peace; the vine shall yield its fruit, and the ground shall give its increase, and the heavens shall give their dew; and I will cause the remnant of this people to possess all these things.

[Wayne in Maine]

I do not have time to delve into this deeply, but someone might research what the shape of the cosmos and the meaning of raqia is by seeing what the Jewish Rabbis (Sages) wrote on these matters as recorded in the Mishnah,Talmud and Gemara. I recall some specific debates that clearly indicate an understanding of the earth as flat with a solid raqia over it.

[Bootstrap]

I do not have time to delve into this deeply, but someone might research what the shape of the cosmos and the meaning of raqia is by seeing what the Jewish Rabbis (Sages) wrote on these matters as recorded in the Mishnah,Talmud and Gemara. I recall some specific debates that clearly indicate an understanding of the earth as flat with a solid raqia over it.

Here is one place to look:

https://www.sefaria.org/Bereishit_Rabbah.4?lang=bi

But these rabbis were significantly later than Genesis, so we should keep that in mind as well. Their thinking may have developed beyond what the original recipients would have understood.

You can find a LOT of commentary starting here:

https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.1.7?lan ... l&lang2=en

Some of it is in Hebrew, some in English. My Hebrew is too primitive to read most of the Hebrew commentary.

[RZehr]

I'm having a hard time seeing a modern globe in this text. Can you help me understand what part of this corresponds to a modern globe? Is there any hint that the earth is a sphere or that the earth is a planet like other planets in this chapter?

I’m saying that if you take a regular globe of the earth, set it on your dining room table, it will typically be oriented with the North Pole on top, and the South Pole “beneath”, right?
In that sense, there is waters “above” the equator, and waters “below”. To explore this idea, then the land would be in the “midst” of all the waters. Roughly speaking.

Not to get hung up on the North being the “top”, or any thing, other than just saying no matter which way one positions a sphere, one side will be the “above” and one side will be “beneath”.

But in a heliocentric spherical earth there is no up or down. Or at least there is no reason to put the north pole up. In fact on most globes, the north pole is not up. The earth is tilted 23.5 degrees on its axis on most globes so it is actually the Arctic Circle that is directly on the top of the globe. One might more logically position one's own position at the top of the globe if one is modeling an Old Testament frame of reference.

I don't know what to say more than what my last sentence was. I don't disagree. But the argument doesn't hinge at all on the north pole being "up". "Up" or "beneath", only terrestrial terms - not objective, such as we have determined North to be, nor are they relevant in outer space.

Two people, one each in Antarctica and one in the Artic can both accurately point straight above them and rightly say those opposite directions, are "up". In such manner, anywhere on the globe has water "beneath" (the bottom of the earth opposite from that point) and water "above".

[RZehr]

I'm having a hard time seeing a modern globe in this text. Can you help me understand what part of this corresponds to a modern globe? Is there any hint that the earth is a sphere or that the earth is a planet like other planets in this chapter?

I’m saying that if you take a regular globe of the earth, set it on your dining room table, it will typically be oriented with the North Pole on top, and the South Pole “beneath”, right?
In that sense, there is waters “above” the equator, and waters “below”. To explore this idea, then the land would be in the “midst” of all the waters. Roughly speaking.

Not to get hung up on the North being the “top”, or any thing, other than just saying no matter which way one positions a sphere, one side will be the “above” and one side will be “beneath”.

As you draw this picture, where is "Heaven" or "Sky"? (The Hebrew word shamayim can mean either.)

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 there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

There are waters above the shamayim and waters under the shamayim. God gathers together the land on the waters that are under the shamayim:

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.

How does that map onto a modern globe?

I don't see the problem. Can you clarify the problem for me? I see the sky and heavens, where most people that aren't flat earthers place them.

[Bootstrap]

As you draw this picture, where is "Heaven" or "Sky"? (The Hebrew word shamayim can mean either.)

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 there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

There are waters above the shamayim and waters under the shamayim. God gathers together the land on the waters that are under the shamayim:

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.

How does that map onto a modern globe?

I don't see the problem. Can you clarify the problem for me? I see the sky and heavens, where most people that aren't flat earthers place them.

The earth rests on the waters below the firmament. The earth and the sea are both down there. I would think this includes everything you see on a globe.

The firmament corresponds to heaven, and there are also waters above the firmament. You could, of course, imagine the seas and earth as a globe, a firmament as a shell over that, with the waters above the firmament. That would also fit the text.

But that's hard to reconcile with the solar system as we understand it. Here's the description from Genesis:

14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

If the sun and the moon and the stars are also in the firmament, how do you draw that picture? I can't think of a way to do it that is compatible with both the description in Genesis and our modern conception of the solar system. At the very least, this text is not trying to teach us about the solar system as modern Americans think of it.

I think it's helpful to actually try to draw these things, go back and read the text, and make sure that the drawing corresponds to the text.

[Ken]

I’m saying that if you take a regular globe of the earth, set it on your dining room table, it will typically be oriented with the North Pole on top, and the South Pole “beneath”, right?
In that sense, there is waters “above” the equator, and waters “below”. To explore this idea, then the land would be in the “midst” of all the waters. Roughly speaking.

Not to get hung up on the North being the “top”, or any thing, other than just saying no matter which way one positions a sphere, one side will be the “above” and one side will be “beneath”.

But in a heliocentric spherical earth there is no up or down. Or at least there is no reason to put the north pole up. In fact on most globes, the north pole is not up. The earth is tilted 23.5 degrees on its axis on most globes so it is actually the Arctic Circle that is directly on the top of the globe. One might more logically position one's own position at the top of the globe if one is modeling an Old Testament frame of reference.

I don't know what to say more than what my last sentence was. I don't disagree. But the argument doesn't hinge at all on the north pole being "up". "Up" or "beneath", only terrestrial terms - not objective, such as we have determined North to be, nor are they relevant in outer space.

Two people, one each in Antarctica and one in the Artic can both accurately point straight above them and rightly say those opposite directions, are "up". In such manner, anywhere on the globe has water "beneath" (the bottom of the earth opposite from that point) and water "above".

I think if the Old Testament authors had wanted to describe the earth as a sphere orbiting the sun they could easily have done so in unambiguous terms. Instead what they describe is the world as one sees it from a human perspective. That is to say a flat expanse of earth bordered by limitless oceans and with a domed sky overhead across which celestial bodies pass. Which is basically the same way that every other ancient culture saw the world at that time from the Maya to the ancient Chinese.

[Soloist]

Can any of you actually prove round earth with testable understandable science that the average individual can do?

What about heliocentric versus geocentric?

Can you disprove the theory of the massive gyroscopic universe without very specialized equipment or access to space?

Can you prove the curve you see actually extends past the "ice barrier" that you cannot go past? How many of us have seen the compass spin at the south pole? How many of us have looked at the stars from the south hemisphere and the north hemisphere?