Genesis 1: What is a 'firmament'?

[silentreader]

I have read all the flatearther stuff. It is well, not compelling at all. Followers of Jesus that espouse this nonsense do harm to the kingdom of God.

Finny K notes that it s like mental pornagraphy. People have a need to have "insider info" that makes them feel like they alone have a secret knowledge and everyone else is deluded. This same trait is what drives other conspiracies. Like the rhe USA never landed on the moon...Elvis is alive...aliens landed on earth..chemtrails...non evidenced based medicine...etc.

...CRT...

My suggestion is have this conversation on the CRT thread. However suffice it to say that any sociological theory is different in kind from whether Elvis is alive or the earth is flat surrounded by a wall of ice covered by a dome with God knows what underneath.

Each one is a theory nevertheless, there is that commonality. The big difference is the degree of absurdity...perhaps.

[Bootstrap]

I see no reason to advance nonsense. I'm pointing out its not that easy to actually engage people and show them they are wrong with this. The few points I made are the plausible ways to engage someone and disprove flat earth. Geocentrism removes some speculative unobservable theories and is relatively impossible to disprove from earth itself. How do we know the universe is moving? if you are on a train looking at your seat is it moving? We are on the train. Its impossible for us to know if it is moving or not by looking at earth. The only way to differentiate between the two theories is to use parallax measurements of stars. The parallax is something very difficult to do as the margin is very small. Its childs play with a telescope in space.

Sure.

Now suppose you are God and you are writing to people who live on earth, look up at the sky, know about the sea, but have never thought of solar systems or planets or the globe as we understand them today. Suppose you want to tell them who you are as God, that you brought order out of chaos and built a creation that is very good, that you created man to in your image and to care for the earth.

Do you start by correcting their understanding of the world, telling them there is no such thing as a firmament, that the earth revolves around the sun, that it is a planet? Or do you tell them who you are as God and who they are as human beings in a way that they can understand in their own world view?

When we imagine creation, we may do it the way others in our own culture and time think. And so will others hundreds of years from now, from their own perspective, which will not be the same as ours. When they read MennoNet, they may need to work at understanding our world view to understand what we were talking about.

[Soloist]

Sure.

Now suppose you are God and you are writing to people who live on earth, look up at the sky, know about the sea, but have never thought of solar systems or planets or the globe as we understand them today. Suppose you want to tell them who you are as God, that you brought order out of chaos and built a creation that is very good, that you created man to in your image and to care for the earth.

Do you start by correcting their understanding of the world, telling them there is no such thing as a firmament, that the earth revolves around the sun, that it is a planet? Or do you tell them who you are as God and who they are as human beings in a way that they can understand in their own world view?

When we imagine creation, we may do it the way others in our own culture and time think. And so will others hundreds of years from now, from their own perspective, which will not be the same as ours. When they read MennoNet, they may need to work at understanding our world view to understand what we were talking about.

Asking this question makes me feel like you miss my point entirely. I don't think its relevant to our doctrine or faith.

[Bootstrap]

Sure.

Now suppose you are God and you are writing to people who live on earth, look up at the sky, know about the sea, but have never thought of solar systems or planets or the globe as we understand them today. Suppose you want to tell them who you are as God, that you brought order out of chaos and built a creation that is very good, that you created man to in your image and to care for the earth.

Do you start by correcting their understanding of the world, telling them there is no such thing as a firmament, that the earth revolves around the sun, that it is a planet? Or do you tell them who you are as God and who they are as human beings in a way that they can understand in their own world view?

When we imagine creation, we may do it the way others in our own culture and time think. And so will others hundreds of years from now, from their own perspective, which will not be the same as ours. When they read MennoNet, they may need to work at understanding our world view to understand what we were talking about.

Asking this question makes me feel like you miss my point entirely. I don't think its relevant to our doctrine or faith.

I don't know what I missed - perhaps because I missed it. Can you help me? In a thread about what a firmament is, what were you trying to say?

[PetrChelcicky]

Bootstrap follows the well-worn theory of accomodation, which was developed in the 18th century: The Bible is God's word, but God had to accommodate his word to the concepts of his hearers, so we cannot expect it to accord with the scientific discoveries afterwards.
It's a fine idea, but with problematic consequences: What if people transfer the theory to Jesus' ethical sayings: Does Jesus accomodate to the brains of his hearers here, and can we leave this aside as overcome by new discoveries?
Or shouldn't we better accept that the Bible is not God's word, but humans' word about what God had said (or at least should have said)?

[Ken]

Bootstrap follows the well-worn theory of accomodation, which was developed in the 18th century: The Bible is God's word, but God had to accommodate his word to the concepts of his hearers, so we cannot expect it to accord with the scientific discoveries afterwards.
It's a fine idea, but with problematic consequences: What if people transfer the theory to Jesus' ethical sayings: Does Jesus accomodate to the brains of his hearers here, and can we leave this aside as overcome by new discoveries?
Or shouldn't we better accept that the Bible is not God's word, but humans' word about what God had said (or at least should have said)?

So then are you a flat earther who believes in the literal descriptions of the earth found in Genesis and other Old Testament texts as depicted in some of the diagrams upstream?