Is Gilgamesh's Epic alone in the world?

[The Pixie]

Have you researched that? Hebrew? Greek? Latin? Give us an etymology of Biblical proportions!

The Hebrew is רָקִ֖יעַ, or rā-qî-a‘ (from here). The etymology is of something stamped or beaten out. This is how copper or bronze would have been worked - beat it with a hammer on an anvil to make it spread out to form a bowl or whatever.

"The word translated ‘expanse’ (רָקִ֖יעַ, raqia`) comes from a Hebrew verb meaning ‘to stamp or spread’, sometimes of beating out metal into thin sheets."​

What Was The Raqia'?

This paper briefly examines the historical controversy surrounding the physical creation of the raqia' or 'heaven', as described in Genesis 1. Several Jewish and Christian sources are cited. This paper also analyzes a specific, spiritual

www.academia.edu

See also here, which makes the point that the translators of the LXX used the word for circle, not sphere:

Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth

www.asa3.org

Anything from the Bible scholars on the subject of a metal dome?

See links above.

The Bible. Does the Bible say that birds, clouds something like that are in this Latin translation (firmamentum) of the Hebrew and Greek?

I can help you with this if you like. I have all of the answers. Or you can do it yourself. Whichever you prefer.

Not sure quite what you are getting at here. At least one translation says the bird fly across the vault:

Gen 1:20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”​

Isaiah 40:22 "And him who sits on the sphere of The Earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretched out the Heavens like a vaulted bowl, and stretched them out as a tent for a dwelling."

Now, most translations read circle or globe, but the Hebrew word means sphere. Isaiah, Isaiah, he would have written that, what, 400 years before science and common knowledge came to that conclusion? 3,500 years ago Moses wrote that the earth was hanging upon nothing. Way ahead of science on that. Pretty good for a goat herder, huh? I don't think, though, that he fully understood what it meant when he wrote Job 26:7. He must've gotten his information from some one and it sure as hell wasn't science.

The Hebrew can be found:

Isaiah 40:22 Hebrew Text Analysis

biblehub.com

The word in question os ח֣וּג or ḥūḡ. According to here, it means vault, circle or horizon.

Look at the verse carefully. To me it describes God sitting above a flat earth, looking down on it from above. It specifically says he stretched out a vault. A vault is a solid structure, and stretched out fits with the Raqia being like beaten out copper or bronze.

Again, you need to look at that word translated firmament. Here you can compare Genesis 1:6 and you see firmament is used, most likely from translations influenced by the Latin Vulgate. Especially older translations, but the word expanse, space and canopy are also used.

Again, see the links above. There is no doubt that the ancient Israelites thought the firmament, the raqia, to be a solid dome. I appreciate plenty of translations play that down, but that is because we now know that that is wrong.

That says fountains, though. Why not firmament? Again, there seems to be a problem with translation of Genesis 8:2. Definitely some confusion there.

The water (supposedly) came from two sources - the Waters Above and the Waters Below. Genesis 8.2 says the Waters Below came up via fountains and the Waters Above came via holes in the solid dome.

Like a looking glass or as a looking glass. The key word here is the Hebrew for sky. It comes from a root word that means dust. Film. The word is used for clouds or skies or cloudy skies. (Isaiah 40:15) Clouds form when warm air, rising from the earth, becomes cooled to what is known as the dewpoint, and the water vapor in it condenses into minute particles sometimes called water dust.

I am not sure quite what you are saying. Yes, the word for sky is related to the word for dust. Yes, we now know how clouds form, and deposit rain. However, I am not seeing anything there that actually supports your position.

I don't see where Job 38:22 says the treasures are stored above the firmament.

It says they are stored where Job has never seen them. I feel confident saying he had seen clouds, so it cannot be referring to them.

My interpretation, therefore, is that they understood hail and snow to be stored above the dome in readiness for when God opened the holes to make it fall.

Those are metaphoric applications, not literal. For example, Joseph's parents are similarly referenced as sun and moon, his brothers as stars. (Genesis 37:9, 10) The angels as stars at Job 38:7. The stars falling from heaven are angels of Satan in the war in heaven between Michael and Satan. 1/3 of the angels. Probably not a literal 1/3 but a hyperbolic intensifier signifying a lot.

Genesis 37:9 makes it very clear that the sun and moon are symbolic in a dream. That is quite different to the apocalyptic visions on the NT, which we would expect to be prophetic, not symbolic. How much more of the apocalypse is just symbolic? Is Jesus' return just symbolic?

There is a definite link between stars and angels, and it is possible they thought the stars really were angels, at least in some sense. So yes, the stars falling from heaven really would be the angels of Satan - though I am not sure about that. But the text is clear that they believed stars will drop off the firmament at the end times.

So, to say someone is a pillar in their community means they are erected to support the community. Literally? Or, if, let's say, the sun rises and sets, that's heliocentric thinking? Or to say honesty is the foundation of a good marriage . . .

I am not saying pillar cannot be used as a metaphor. However in the instances in the Bible I do not see any reason to think that that is the case. To say someone is a pillar of the community is to say he greatly supports the community just as a pillar supports a roof. Can you explain what the purpose of the metaphor is in this verse:

1 Sam 2:8 He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and on them he has set the world.​

I cannot see it. To me, it is far more likely the author believed the pillars are real, and that putting the world on them was one of God's many great achievements.

 

[SteveB]

What are you ranting about now Steve? Your diatribes against science would be more convincing if it were not for the fact that you are using some pretty amazing technology - the product of that mainstream science - to do so.

In other words, you're not actually able to learn anything about life, except for your own bias and preconceptions about it.

Thank you for clarifying your position.
See. I don't have to make up anything. You stumble all over yourself to provide it for me.

Yes, occasionally mainstream science is wrong.

Ah.... occasionally.... yet, there's nothing to worry about, because.... after all, it's only occasionally, probably, and likely...
Pity it was only likely, and they actually were wrong in the case of my cancer and the lymph node resection.
I could've used those. I even asked for them back.
But.... since it's only occasionally.... I just have to live with the failure of the scientists who had a belief at that time. After all, only 30% of the people who had my surgery experience what I have.... it's not likely....
Only probably...

You're a real hoot Pixie!
Just think.... had occasionally not happened, I never would have been introduced to computers. And not having been introduced to computers, I never would have learned to use the internet. And not having learned to use the internet, I never would have thought to get a smartphone, let alone an android device which allows me to use the internet anywhere a signal exists.
And lacking that, I never would have heard about this forum. And not having heard about this forum, I never would have come to talk about Jesus with a bunch of people who have convinced themselves that God doesn't actually exist, but they're certainly trying to figure out how to convince others who actually have met God that they are right, and the Jesus believers are wrong, and lacking that, o never would have made your acquaintance.
?
I'm betting you are really wishing for the will, shall right now instead of occasionally, probably and likely.
Although, I'm also here exactly because YHVH said will and shall. In spite of the occasionally, probably, and likely.
So, who would you actually want right now?
Quite frankly, while I do indeed resent the occasional, probably and likely, I'm exceedingly grateful for YHVH's Will, and Shall! And they negate the occasional, probably and likely.

T
You see, in YHVH's realm, there is no occasionally, probably and likely. Coincidence doesn't exist in his Kingdom. ??
Curious how only occasionally, probably, and likely work.

But the fact is that it has a very good track record.

That would explain why my lymph nodes were removed, and now they don't use that procedure any longer.

And when mainstream science rain says there is no solid dome, that the planet is round and orbits the sun, I am going to believe it.

Yet you actually believe that the bible says there is a dome because some translator a long time ago translated rakiya to the latin word firmamento which gets translated into the English word, firmament.
Seems like you are a victim of your own ignorance and refusal to learn, and do what the bible has been telling us for the past 3500 years. Curious how that hebrew class would help here.

The word of importance here is the Hebrew word, RAKIYA.

The Greek word is stereoma.

Since the old testament was written in Hebrew, Rakiya is the word that matters.

I strong suspect you do too,

I never considered believing the descriptions you provided.

Again you persist with this falsehood. Why Steve?

You keep posting it.

The Pixie, post #22: "I think sciences such as meteorology and astronomy support my view that there are no windows in the sky."

I stated it quite clearly, but you seem determined to pretend otherwise. Why would you think I trust anything you say about the Bible when I know for a fact you just make stuff up?

If you don't want me to believe you, make sure that you're not posting things you don't want to be associated with yourself and your beliefs.

What is your reasoning here, Steve?

What part of what I stated are you not understanding?
It's pretty clearly stated. Here's a novel idea for you.
Stop trying to make words say what they don't.
If you're really having this hard of a time with my posts, use a dictionary.
It's worked for me since childhood.

Why does believing ancient Hebrew culture was influenced by surrounding cultures imply "a seriously twisted view of science"? Talk us through the logic here.

Because the other regional cultures weren't instructed in biblical cosmology.
Only the Hebrews were.

There was no explanation. Hence, it was a "pointless diabribe".

It's only pointless when you lack the necessary courage to read, and learn to understand.

But, if basic human language is a foreign concept to you, in my linguistic opinion, your entire collection of posts have been nothing but pointless diatribes, and you ranting about your resentment that your refusal to follow Jesus will guarantee that you spend your eternity in the lake of fire.

And have you done that yourself? Of course not. Why would I expect a Christian to practice what he preaches?

More pointless diatribing.
No. Actually, I'm not preaching on this one.
You keep complaining about how the bible says things it clearly doesn't say, so I thought you would appreciate having access to a resource that would explain why the bible is true and what the language is saying.

Oh... that's right. Your choice phrase is a pointless diatribe.

Great, you are actually reading the text and trying to understand it. Good for you.

I've been doing this for the past 45 years. Where have you been???‍??‍

I do not agree with what happened, but I do agree with what the text claims, so so far so good.

It's not written for our agreement.
It's simply stating what took place.
Like the first statement of the bible.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

It's not asking for our approval, permission or agreement.
It's making a simple statement of fact.

The one you have never done and have no intention of doing?

It's an offer for you to better understand the bible.
If you're too immature to handle it, just say so.
I'd hate to see you have to decide to become more educated. That's obviously a problem for you as an atheist! ??‍

So heaven is the atmosphere?

Not the heaven where God lives. The bible describes 3 heavens. The atmosphere, outer space, and the eternal heavens.

This is one of those educational opportunities for you to learn. Please tell me if it's too inconvenient for you and you need to throw a temper tantrum by claiming it's a pointless diatribe.

When you die, you think you will go up into the atmosphere?

When I die, I'll get to go be with Jesus. As he inhabits eternity, I'll get to live in eternity.
Yet another learning opportunity. You'll have to tell me if you're feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information being presented to you, and feel another temper tantrum coming on.

 

[SteveB]

I ask because your argument here seems to be based on the idea that "heavens" implies atmosphere, which seems very odd.

No. Just an assumption on your part. If you ever want to actually understand, you'd really benefit by letting your biases and preconceptions go.
Otherwise, it seems pretty clear that you'll spend the rest of your time in this conversation throwing temper tantrums.

The ancient Israelites believed God lived above the solid dome. God created heaven above the dome, and earth below it.

Really? Do you actually have linguistic evidence of this, or is that another pointless diatribe about how edumacated you want me to think you are?

Is this becoming too difficult for you? I can stop. You keep telling me what you want me to think happened, instead of simply letting the bible speak for itself.

What you think happened isn't material. Only what the bible actually says.
Don't worry though. We all have to deal with this one.
It's part of what Jesus said regarding dying to ourselves, picking up our cross and following him.

You should try actually reading some.

You should focus more on your own bias and preconceptions, and recognize that the BS you're peddling isn't helping you.

Did you read this bit:

Philo: "And on the fourth day, after he had embellished the earth, he diversified and adorned the heaven:"

Sounds to me like Philo believed the stars, moon and sun were objects stuck to the firmament.

I read it a long time ago. As I mentioned above, where have you been?
It says a lot of things.
Instead of trying to force fit it into your biases and preconceptions, let it say what it actually says.

The ancient Israelites did not understand that daylight comes from the sun. Sunlight and daylight were two distinct things.

Another pointless diatribe....
For someone who doesn't know very much, you seem to have a novel idea that you actually met ancient Israeli people.
Did you finally find a time machine?

They believed God created daylight on day 1, so to them having plants on day 3 made perfect sense.

More pointless diatribe.

On day 4, as Philo notes above, God created the sun, etc. to adorn the dome above us. It is not required for plants, it is not required for daylight. It decorative. It helps mark time, but that is about all.


Which, according the the Bible, adorn the firmament.

Still stuck on firmament.

The Hebrew word is rakiya.
The Latin word is firmamento and the Greek word is stereoma.

As mentioned, when you decide to stop telling me what you think the ancients who were in Israel and who actually had YHVH's word believed, I'll be here.

 

[The Pixie]

In other words, you're not actually able to learn anything about life, except for your own bias and preconceptions about it.

Wrong. What I said is I am not able to learn anything about life from a blowhard whose arguments boil down to "the Bible is true because the Bible is true" and "believe me or suffer hellfire".

Ah.... occasionally.... yet, there's nothing to worry about, because.... after all, it's only occasionally, probably, and likely...

Compared to religion, with "Jam tomorrow!", always "Jam tomorrow!", As I said, mainstream science has a very good track of being right. When the Bible says rain is due to God opening holes in the solid dome above us, and mainstream science says it is due to water droplets in clouds becoming too heavy, I am going to believe mainstream science.

You can believe a flat earth if you want.

You see, in YHVH's realm, there is no occasionally, probably and likely. Coincidence doesn't exist in his Kingdom. ??
Curious how only occasionally, probably, and likely work.

How do you know that? "Jam tomorrow!"

That would explain why my lymph nodes were removed, and now they don't use that procedure any longer.

Compare to Christianity that used to burn witches, and now they don't use that procedure any longer.

Again, I will stick with mainstream science.

Yet you actually believe that the bible says there is a dome because some translator a long time ago translated rakiya to the latin word firmamento which gets translated into the English word, firmament.

I believe the Bible says firmament because it does.

Again, it does not matter down we label it. The raqia was understood to be a solid structure, the etymology of the word is something beaten out, like a metal bowl.

What Was The Raqia'?

This paper briefly examines the historical controversy surrounding the physical creation of the raqia' or 'heaven', as described in Genesis 1. Several Jewish and Christian sources are cited. This paper also analyzes a specific, spiritual

www.academia.edu

Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth

www.asa3.org

Seems like you are a victim of your own ignorance and refusal to learn, and do what the bible has been telling us for the past 3500 years. Curious how that hebrew class would help here.

The word of importance here is the Hebrew word, RAKIYA.

The Greek word is stereoma.

Since the old testament was written in Hebrew, Rakiya is the word that matters.

See links above.

So, if you're going to continue to argue that what other, non-biblical cultures believed in the ancient past, and then say that the bible describes the same thing as they did, I'd say that you have a seriously twisted view of science.

What is your reasoning here, Steve?
Why does believing ancient Hebrew culture was influenced by surrounding cultures imply "a seriously twisted view of science"? Talk us through the logic here.

What part of what I stated are you not understanding?
It's pretty clearly stated....

What I am not understanding is your reasoning. What is the logic that gets you from:

noting what other, non-biblical cultures believed in the ancient past, and then saying that the bible describes the same thing as they did​

To

having a seriously twisted view of science​

How are these two things related, Steve? How can you conclude the latter from the former? To me they seem entirely unrelated, but you said you concluded the latter from the former. How?

Here's a novel idea for you.
Stop trying to make words say what they don't.

When have I done that, Steve? Certainly not with raqia. All the evidence indicates that that refers to a solid a dome. It is you who want it to say something it does not.

If you're really having this hard of a time with my posts, use a dictionary.
It's worked for me since childhood.

How will a dictionary explain your reasoning?

Because the other regional cultures weren't instructed in biblical cosmology.
Only the Hebrews were.

And yet the Biblical cosmology looks remarkably similar to that of the surrounding cultures - a flat earth with a solid dome.

It's an offer for you to better understand the bible.

But of course you do not need to do that, because - in your head - your understanding is already perfect.

So full of pride it is unbelievable.

If you're too immature to handle it, just say so.
I'd hate to see you have to decide to become more educated. That's obviously a problem for you as an atheist!

Why would you hate that Steve? Does other people getting educated scare you?

Not the heaven where God lives. The bible describes 3 heavens. The atmosphere, outer space, and the eternal heavens.

Show me the text.

This is one of those educational opportunities for you to learn. Please tell me if it's too inconvenient for you and you need to throw a temper tantrum by claiming it's a pointless diatribe.

Show me the text, and I will read it.

When I die, I'll get to go be with Jesus. As he inhabits eternity, I'll get to live in eternity.

Jam tomorrow! Hurray!

But nothing today.

No. Just an assumption on your part. If you ever want to actually understand, you'd really benefit by letting your biases and preconceptions go.
Otherwise, it seems pretty clear that you'll spend the rest of your time in this conversation throwing temper tantrums.

You could tell me what your position is, and then back it up with evidence,

Instead, well, as you say, just more of the usual diatribe. We all have biases and preconceptions. I freely admit I do, and clearly you do too. However, I can support my position. I can link to scholarly articles, I can show that the Bible supports my position.

All you have is, well, diatribe.

Really? Do you actually have linguistic evidence of this, or is that another pointless diatribe about how edumacated you want me to think you are?

See links above.

You should focus more on your own bias and preconceptions, and recognize that the BS you're peddling isn't helping you.

And yet I can cite Bible verses that show the authors believed the world is flat, with a solid dome over it, you seem unable to find any to support your position.

And yet I can find scholarly articles that confirm my position, you seem unable to find any to support your position.

Looks like my biases and preconceptions are right.

I read it a long time ago. As I mentioned above, where have you been?
It says a lot of things.
Instead of trying to force fit it into your biases and preconceptions, let it say what it actually says.

I quoted Philo confirming my position.

You apparently cannot find anything Philo said that supports your position - despite being the one who brought him up in the first place!

Again it looks like my biases and preconceptions are right.

 

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

An interesting exchange. However, SteveB seems to be overlooking the generally accepted ancient near eastern belief about the world and the way it looked.

It was those pesky Greeks that established that the earth was not flat.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

The Hebrew is רָקִ֖יעַ, or rā-qî-a‘ (from here). The etymology is of something stamped or beaten out. This is how copper or bronze would have been worked - beat it with a hammer on an anvil to make it spread out to form a bowl or whatever.

"The word translated ‘expanse’ (רָקִ֖יעַ, raqia`) comes from a Hebrew verb meaning ‘to stamp or spread’, sometimes of beating out metal into thin sheets."​

What Was The Raqia'?

This paper briefly examines the historical controversy surrounding the physical creation of the raqia' or 'heaven', as described in Genesis 1. Several Jewish and Christian sources are cited. This paper also analyzes a specific, spiritual

www.academia.edu

The concordance link you gave concentrates on the Hebrew raqia and uses primarily expanse. Vulgate influenced translations, using the Latin firmamentum, will render raqia as firmament, usually with a footnote or marginal reading of expanse. I read most of the academia link more out of interest than anything. It's an academic debate on what the Greek, Latin, Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Aristotle, Empedocles etc. think about the subject, which is fine but not particularly helpful on what the Hebrews thought of it. Your quote from Bible Hub says "sometimes of beating out metal into thin sheets" and that's true, but what seems glossed over, though mentioned in the academia article, is that this is sometimes used in a figurative sense. That's crucial because it seems to be the primary application in the Bible. The expanse is, in effect, like a solid structure, not literally a solid structure. It's an "like" an invisible wall that separates the waters below (oceans, etc.) from the waters above (vapor canopy used in the flood) (Genesis 1:7; 2 Peter 3:5-6).

The academia article goes into great detail on how the ancients viewed the expanse, and I have no doubt that that influenced the thinking of the writers of the Bible, but not the writing of the Bible itself. The writers didn't always understand what was being dictated to them. Although I don't think the strict adherence to the solid structure as critics think of it came into play until the dark ages. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia says: “But this assumption is in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the OT.” - Edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. I, p. 314.

Not sure quite what you are getting at here. At least one translation says the bird fly across the vault:

Gen 1:20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”​

Right. Genesis 1:20 has birds flying in the firmament, more accurately, expanse. If you lift your hand above your head your hand is in the sky, or heavens. The word heaven simply means high. There are the physical heavens, in various levels and above that the spiritual heavens. Spirit simply means invisible to us, but producing visible results. See Expanse and Heaven. Those articles give you a better idea of the thinking of the Bible writers on those subjects. The expanse where birds fly, dew forms, clouds are etc.

The Hebrew can be found:

Isaiah 40:22 Hebrew Text Analysis

biblehub.com

The word in question os ח֣וּג or ḥūḡ. According to here, it means vault, circle or horizon.

Right. Not flat disc.

Look at the verse carefully. To me it describes God sitting above a flat earth, looking down on it from above.

Only a spherical object appears as a circle from every angle of view. A flat disk would more often appear as an ellipse, not a circle.

It specifically says he stretched out a vault. A vault is a solid structure, and stretched out fits with the Raqia being like beaten out copper or bronze.

Which is used metaphorically throughout scripture. Like Deuteronomy 28:23, 24 which says the skies like copper and the land like iron due to drought.

Again, see the links above. There is no doubt that the ancient Israelites thought the firmament, the raqia, to be a solid dome. I appreciate plenty of translations play that down, but that is because we now know that that is wrong.

No. All the evidence points to a metaphoric application of solid. Birds don't fly in literal solid. Clouds, rain, dew, not in solid. You're reading solid into it from the dark ages. If you take the dark ages view of a solid dome then it fits. Not with scripture. You can't say translations play anything down when your supposition is based upon the Latin translation. Especially in a figurative context.

The water (supposedly) came from two sources - the Waters Above and the Waters Below. Genesis 8.2 says the Waters Below came up via fountains and the Waters Above came via holes in the solid dome.

Not literal fountains. A solid structure that includes fountains? No holes. The dark ages pictured sluice holes. The Bible describes the hydrological cycle in simple terms. (Isaiah 55:10; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Job 36:27; Amos 5:8)

I am not sure quite what you are saying. Yes, the word for sky is related to the word for dust. Yes, we now know how clouds form, and deposit rain. However, I am not seeing anything there that actually supports your position.

The Hebrew word for sky (shachaq) comes from a root word that means pound out as into a fine dust. (See sky)

It says they are stored where Job has never seen them. I feel confident saying he had seen clouds, so it cannot be referring to them.

God has used natural forces in a literal sense but he isn't saying that he has a storage of them at the ready, he's telling Job that he has the capability of doing so.

My interpretation, therefore, is that they understood hail and snow to be stored above the dome in readiness for when God opened the holes to make it fall.

The Bible uses symbolic language to describe literal events. God doesn't need to build a warehouse to keep ice, snow, fire, hail, etc. The forces of nature are at his command. He made them and knows how they work. It isn't like he's some kid with a snow fort storing up snowballs for a snowball fight. It's just a symbolic or metaphoric application.

Genesis 37:9 makes it very clear that the sun and moon are symbolic in a dream. That is quite different to the apocalyptic visions on the NT, which we would expect to be prophetic, not symbolic. How much more of the apocalypse is just symbolic?

I've often referred to the poor "scientific" explanations of celestial phenomenon in the Book of revelation being explained away by suggesting the people were ignorant and superstitious. It isn't at all a sophisticated conclusion. So, the sun, moon and stars doing odd things in Revelation are used similarly in Ezekiel describing social, political and environmental upheaval that would and did take place in Jerusalem. The old system was destroyed and replaced by new government, new people, and in effect a new land. Revelation uses the exact same terms but rather than applying exclusively to Jerusalem it applies on a global scale. God's kingdom replaces all of the kingdoms of men with Satan, the god of the system, or world and there is a new government (God's) new people (the meek who inherit the earth and live forever upon it) and new heavens and earth (with out Satan, sin, death, destruction).

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

Is Jesus' return just symbolic?

It's figurative. No man has seen God and lived. What Moses saw was God's presence, often symbolized by lightning and a voice of thunder. There isn't any need for Jesus second coming. That's theological nonsense. Jesus will have a presence that is visible but not a physical presence.

There is a definite link between stars and angels, and it is possible they thought the stars really were angels, at least in some sense. So yes, the stars falling from heaven really would be the angels of Satan - though I am not sure about that. But the text is clear that they believed stars will drop off the firmament at the end times.

No they didn't. That's silly. Angel means messenger. When it's applied to mortal men it's usually rendered messenger but when to spirit beings it's rendered angel. The leaders of the congregations in Revelation served as messengers for God in a spiritual sense and so are referred to as angels, stars, lamps, etc. Satan, Nebuchadnezzar, and Jesus were referred to as daystars or morning stars because they herald a new day like a morning star does. (See star)

I am not saying pillar cannot be used as a metaphor. However in the instances in the Bible I do not see any reason to think that that is the case. To say someone is a pillar of the community is to say he greatly supports the community just as a pillar supports a roof. Can you explain what the purpose of the metaphor is in this verse:

1 Sam 2:8 He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and on them he has set the world.​

I cannot see it. To me, it is far more likely the author believed the pillars are real, and that putting the world on them was one of God's many great achievements.

1 Samuel is from a poem, man. It's a contrast between the wicked who prosper by unrighteousness while the righteous suffer hardship in a sinful world. The ashpit, the throne of glory, the foundation or pillars of the world. These aren't literal. You don't read in the creation account of literal pillars. As the scripture I gave above says, hanging upon nothing. The wicked world is temporary, to be replaced by Jehovah's kingdom.

PS - Thanks for a very thoughtful and well researched response. I appreciate it.

 

[The Pixie]

The concordance link you gave concentrates on the Hebrew raqia and uses primarily expanse. Vulgate influenced translations, using the Latin firmamentum, will render raqia as firmament, usually with a footnote or marginal reading of expanse. I read most of the academia link more out of interest than anything. It's an academic debate on what the Greek, Latin, Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Aristotle, Empedocles etc. think about the subject, which is fine but not particularly helpful on what the Hebrews thought of it. Your quote from Bible Hub says "sometimes of beating out metal into thin sheets" and that's true, but what seems glossed over, though mentioned in the academia article, is that this is sometimes used in a figurative sense. That's crucial because it seems to be the primary application in the Bible. The expanse is, in effect, like a solid structure, not literally a solid structure. It's an "like" an invisible wall that separates the waters below (oceans, etc.) from the waters above (vapor canopy used in the flood) (Genesis 1:7; 2 Peter 3:5-6).

What is your evidence that it "is, in effect, like a solid structure, not literally a solid structure"? This seems the crux of the issue, and yet you gloss over it with just as assertion of your position.

The academia article goes into great detail on how the ancients viewed the expanse, and I have no doubt that that influenced the thinking of the writers of the Bible, but not the writing of the Bible itself. The writers didn't always understand what was being dictated to them.

My argument is that the authors believed the earth was flat with a solid dome. You seem to tacitly admitting this is the case here.

Although I don't think the strict adherence to the solid structure as critics think of it came into play until the dark ages. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia says: “But this assumption is in reality based more upon the ideas prevalent in Europe during the Dark Ages than upon any actual statements in the OT.” - Edited by J. Orr, 1960, Vol. I, p. 314.

So explain the sequence in Genesis 1 in a modern cosmology. It fits a flat earth cosmology perfectly.

Right. Genesis 1:20 has birds flying in the firmament, more accurately, expanse. If you lift your hand above your head your hand is in the sky, or heavens. The word heaven simply means high. There are the physical heavens, in various levels and above that the spiritual heavens. Spirit simply means invisible to us, but producing visible results. See Expanse and Heaven. Those articles give you a better idea of the thinking of the Bible writers on those subjects. The expanse where birds fly, dew forms, clouds are etc.

I think Genesis 1:20 is ambiguous either way. You said earlier:

Does the Bible say that birds, clouds something like that are in this Latin translation (firmamentum) of the Hebrew and Greek?​

​

I took that to be referring to Genesis 1:20, and yet when I examined Genesis 1:20 I see nothing to particularly support your position.

Right. Not flat disc.

And not a ball or sphere, as you were claiming.

However, it implies a flat disk. A circle, encompassed by the horizon is a flat disk.

Only a spherical object appears as a circle from every angle of view. A flat disk would more often appear as an ellipse, not a circle.

When are you getting the "from every angle of view" bit? I do not see that in the verse.

Which is used metaphorically throughout scripture. Like Deuteronomy 28:23, 24 which says the skies like copper and the land like iron due to drought.

It is metaphorically molten copper or bronze, but it is literally (or so it was thought) solid.

No. All the evidence points to a metaphoric application of solid. Birds don't fly in literal solid. Clouds, rain, dew, not in solid. You're reading solid into it from the dark ages. If you take the dark ages view of a solid dome then it fits. Not with scripture. You can't say translations play anything down when your supposition is based upon the Latin translation. Especially in a figurative context.

Birds fly across the surface of a solid dome.

I am reading solid because that is what it says. People in the dark ages read solid because that is what it says.

Not literal fountains. A solid structure that includes fountains? No holes. The dark ages pictured sluice holes.

The dark ages pictured sluice holes because that is what it says.

The Bible describes the hydrological cycle in simple terms. (Isaiah 55:10; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Job 36:27; Amos 5:8)

I am not claiming it is consistent on this. The Noah story is likely much older that those verses. And even then it is possible they believed the sea drained into the waters that surround the flat earth, which would give a water cycle in which rain falls though holes in the dome, as described in Genesis.

The Hebrew word for sky (shachaq) comes from a root word that means pound out as into a fine dust. (See sky)

You said. So what?

God has used natural forces in a literal sense but he isn't saying that he has a storage of them at the ready, he's telling Job that he has the capability of doing so.

No. The verse is about what Job has seen. It is telling us God has seen the stores, while Job has not.

The Bible uses symbolic language to describe literal events. God doesn't need to build a warehouse to keep ice, snow, fire, hail, etc. The forces of nature are at his command. He made them and knows how they work. It isn't like he's some kid with a snow fort storing up snowballs for a snowball fight. It's just a symbolic or metaphoric application.

So what is it saying Job has not seen?

I've often referred to the poor "scientific" explanations of celestial phenomenon in the Book of revelation being explained away by suggesting the people were ignorant and superstitious. It isn't at all a sophisticated conclusion. So, the sun, moon and stars doing odd things in Revelation are used similarly in Ezekiel describing social, political and environmental upheaval that would and did take place in Jerusalem. The old system was destroyed and replaced by new government, new people, and in effect a new land. Revelation uses the exact same terms but rather than applying exclusively to Jerusalem it applies on a global scale. God's kingdom replaces all of the kingdoms of men with Satan, the god of the system, or world and there is a new government (God's) new people (the meek who inherit the earth and live forever upon it) and new heavens and earth (with out Satan, sin, death, destruction).

If you want to take it as figurative, then we might as well say the resurrection was figurative. It was just symbolic.

It's figurative. No man has seen God and lived. What Moses saw was God's presence, often symbolized by lightning and a voice of thunder. There isn't any need for Jesus second coming. That's theological nonsense. Jesus will have a presence that is visible but not a physical presence.

Okay, that was a surprise.

 

[The Pixie]

No they didn't. That's silly. Angel means messenger. When it's applied to mortal men it's usually rendered messenger but when to spirit beings it's rendered angel. The leaders of the congregations in Revelation served as messengers for God in a spiritual sense and so are referred to as angels, stars, lamps, etc. Satan, Nebuchadnezzar, and Jesus were referred to as daystars or morning stars because they herald a new day like a morning star does. (See star)

I appreciate it means messenger but there is definitely a sense that the stars were angels, and that the righteous will be resurrected in a similar form.

Daniel 2:3 Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the [c]expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.​

Daniel was written relatively late, and this may be a later idea.

1 Samuel is from a poem, man. It's a contrast between the wicked who prosper by unrighteousness while the righteous suffer hardship in a sinful world. The ashpit, the throne of glory, the foundation or pillars of the world. These aren't literal. You don't read in the creation account of literal pillars. As the scripture I gave above says, hanging upon nothing. The wicked world is temporary, to be replaced by Jehovah's kingdom.

Other verses also mention the earth is on pillars:

Job 9:6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.​

​

Psalm 75:3 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.​

PS - Thanks for a very thoughtful and well researched response. I appreciate it.

No problem, makes a change to have a reasonable discussion.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

What is your evidence that it "is, in effect, like a solid structure, not literally a solid structure"? This seems the crux of the issue, and yet you gloss over it with just as assertion of your position.

My position is that they didn't think of a solid structure as metallic dome until the dark ages. When I read the Bible that's how it comes across to me. The ancients didn't think scientifically. They didn't think the heavens were bound by solid construction, they thought things beyond their grasp were unknown. It was when the early scientists and philosophers started making assumptions based upon what they knew of the material world reflecting the concept which you propose.

My argument is that the authors believed the earth was flat with a solid dome. You seem to tacitly admitting this is the case here.

I admit your argument is a valid one, though I disagree with it. I'm saying that the writers of the Bible didn't write what they understood or thought, they were told what to write. You don't see it that way. I acknowledge that both of our biases may affect our opinions.

So explain the sequence in Genesis 1 in a modern cosmology. It fits a flat earth cosmology perfectly.

See Semmelweis Reflex | Genesis Chapter 1 graphic/dark or text only/light. Though I wouldn't call it modern cosmology. I don't look for modern cosmology in analyzing an ancient text. Also, a flat earth cosmology doesn't fit perfectly. The word expanse is used, not solid dome.

I think Genesis 1:20 is ambiguous either way. You said earlier:

Does the Bible say that birds, clouds something like that are in this Latin translation (firmamentum) of the Hebrew and Greek?​

​

I took that to be referring to Genesis 1:20, and yet when I examined Genesis 1:20 I see nothing to particularly support your position.

Birds and clouds don't exist in a solid structure. Things don't visibly move within a solid structure. Atheists tend to be the most literal Bible readers. They have a very difficult time with metaphoric expression, at least in the Bible.

And not a ball or sphere, as you were claiming. However, it implies a flat disk. A circle, encompassed by the horizon is a flat disk.

All right. The horizon being the apparent line between the sky and the earth was thought to be a visible solid dome that moved as they traveled towards it?

A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures, by B. Davidson. (pdf file, page 300 on this link) noun masc. circle, sphere. Pr. 8. 27. Dinn '-te 'n ipn3 Is. 40. 22. yiNn 'n-b:s Mm Job 22. 14. i';nn' D'Qtt '1 I just pasted it. I don't think the archaic format works, but you can go look at it yourself. Sphere, circle, globe. There's a good reason why you should compare translations. The KJV of 1611 hardly conformed to modern day cosmology when rendering those verses, not as flat disc but as circle. You could argue that a flat disc would look like a circle from above where God is looking down on it, but how would Moses and Isaiah know that?

At Isaiah 44:13 the word compass, from the related Hebrew וּבַמְּחוּגָ֖ה (ū·ḇam·mə·ḥū·ḡāh). Circle. Compass.

When are you getting the "from every angle of view" bit? I do not see that in the verse.

It's not in the verse, it's just, what? Math or something?

It is metaphorically molten copper or bronze, but it is literally (or so it was thought) solid.

I don't think so. It's only later thought so. It was at the time thought more in terms of space. Expanse.

Birds fly across the surface of a solid dome.

No. They fly in it. The clouds are in it. The rain falls from it, not through it.

I am reading solid because that is what it says. People in the dark ages read solid because that is what it says.

No it doesn't. Translations from the later Latin may say firmament, usually with a footnote or marginal reading of expanse. Just because the Hebrew root means pounded out doesn't mean a strictly literal use, even with the Latin firmamentum.

The dark ages pictured sluice holes because that is what it says.

And if I say, to you, today, that the floodgates were opened you don't necessarily take it literal. In fact, most likely not.

I am not claiming it is consistent on this. The Noah story is likely much older that those verses. And even then it is possible they believed the sea drained into the waters that surround the flat earth, which would give a water cycle in which rain falls though holes in the dome, as described in Genesis.

Possible.

You said. So what?

So, if your contention depends upon the Hebrew root of raqia being beaten "with a hammer on an anvil to make it spread out to form a bowl or whatever" the same applies to the sky, dust, which isn't solid. So I gave a link on expanse, heaven, sky. In the heaven link it talks about what they, Moses, Isaiah and their contemporaries thought, not what Empedocles, the "church fathers," Aristotle, Aquinas, or people in the dark ages thought. Not what you and I think.

No. The verse is about what Job has seen. It is telling us God has seen the stores, while Job has not. So what is it saying Job has not seen?

Right. Job hasn't seen what God can do with the forces of nature which he created. God put those in terms he could understand.

If you want to take it as figurative, then we might as well say the resurrection was figurative. It was just symbolic.

The resurrection wasn't figurative, the presence is. I left a link to that as well. There is no second coming, or second presence, Latin advent.
Israel P. Warren, D.D., wrote in his work The Parousia, Portland, Maine (1879), pp. 12-15: “We often speak of the ‘second advent,’ the ‘second coming,’ etc., but the Scriptures never speak of a ‘second Parousia.’ Whatever was to be its nature, it was something peculiar, having never occurred before, and being never to occur again. It was to be a presence differing from and superior to all other manifestations of himself to men, so that its designation should properly stand by itself, without any qualifying epithet other than the article,—THE PRESENCE.

“From this view of the word it is evident, I think, that neither the English word ‘coming’ nor the Latin ‘advent’ is the best representative of the original. They do not conform to its etymology; they do not correspond to the idea of the verb from which it is derived; nor could they appropriately be substituted for the more exact word, ‘presence,’ in the cases where the translators used the latter. Nor is the radical [root] idea of them the same. ‘Coming’ and ‘advent’ give most prominently the conception of an approach to us, motion toward us; ‘parousia’ that of being with us, without reference to how it began. The force of the former ends with the arrival; that of the latter begins with it. Those are words of motion; this of rest. The space of time covered by the action of the former is limited, it may be momentary; that of the latter unlimited . . . .

“Had our translators done with this technical word ‘parousia’ as they did with ‘baptisma,’—transferring it unchanged,—or if translated using its exact etymological equivalent, presence, and had it been well understood, as it then would have been, that there is no such thing as a ‘second Presence,’ I believe that the entire doctrine would have been different from what it now is. The phrases, ‘second advent,’ and ‘second coming,’ would never have been heard of. The church would have been taught to speak of THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD, as that from which its hopes were to be realized, whether in the near future or at the remotest period,—that under which the world was to be made new, a resurrection both spiritual and corporeal should be attained, and justice and everlasting awards administered.”

Okay, that was a surprise.

You will find a lot of surprises when you examine "Christian" theology.

 

[Semmelweis Reflex]

I appreciate it means messenger but there is definitely a sense that the stars were angels, and that the righteous will be resurrected in a similar form.

Daniel 2:3 Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the [c]expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.​

Daniel was written relatively late, and this may be a later idea.

All of the ideas in the Bible were harmonious throughout. From Genesis to Revelation. The text isn't based upon temporal ideas. The expanse of Moses was the same as the expanse of Daniel.

Other verses also mention the earth is on pillars:

Job 9:6 Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.​

​

Psalm 75:3 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.​

And are still used today in a figurative sense.

 

[The Pixie]

My position is that they didn't think of a solid structure as metallic dome...

My position is they saw it as a solid dome. Whether they thought it was metal or someelse that was strong like metal is not clear.

My position is that they didn't think of a solid structure as metallic dome until the dark ages. When I read the Bible that's how it comes across to me. The ancients didn't think scientifically. They didn't think the heavens were bound by solid construction, they thought things beyond their grasp were unknown. It was when the early scientists and philosophers started making assumptions based upon what they knew of the material world reflecting the concept which you propose.

They did not think scientifically, that is a pretty modern thing. But Genesis 1 shows they were interested in things "beyond their grasp", such as the origins of the universe. They wanted to make sense of the world, and religion was the tool they used.

I admit your argument is a valid one, though I disagree with it. I'm saying that the writers of the Bible didn't write what they understood or thought, they were told what to write. You don't see it that way. I acknowledge that both of our biases may affect our opinions.

Why were they told to record that the sun was created after the plants? Do you think God did it that way round? I see from your link that you say:

Genesis 1:2: The planet was a water planet, waste and empty, meaning that there was no productive land. Though the sun and moon as part of the heavens were complete, at this point light had not penetrated to the surface of the Earth.​

If God told them what to write, why did God get the day he created the sun wrong?

Also, a flat earth cosmology doesn't fit perfectly. The word expanse is used, not solid dome.

The word raqia is translated as expanse to force the Bible to fit modern cosmology. Its etymology, however, is something stamped or beated out, as would be done with a sheet of copper.

Birds and clouds don't exist in a solid structure. Things don't visibly move within a solid structure. Atheists tend to be the most literal Bible readers. They have a very difficult time with metaphoric expression, at least in the Bible.

But birds can fly across a solid structure.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”​

All right. The horizon being the apparent line between the sky and the earth was thought to be a visible solid dome that moved as they traveled towards it?

How much do you think people travelled in those days? Most of the population probably never went more than 20 miles from where they were born.

A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures, by B. Davidson. (pdf file, page 300 on this link) noun masc. circle, sphere. Pr. 8. 27. Dinn '-te 'n ipn3 Is. 40. 22. yiNn 'n-b:s Mm Job 22. 14. i';nn' D'Qtt '1 I just pasted it. I don't think the archaic format works, but you can go look at it yourself. Sphere, circle, globe. There's a good reason why you should compare translations. The KJV of 1611 hardly conformed to modern day cosmology when rendering those verses, not as flat disc but as circle. You could argue that a flat disc would look like a circle from above where God is looking down on it, but how would Moses and Isaiah know that?

I definitely do not use the KJV! For a discussion like this, I very much recommend Bible Hub.

Numerous translations can be compared:

Isaiah 40:22 - Here is Your God!

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth; its dwellers are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

biblehub.com

You can see the Hebrew:

Isaiah 40:22 Hebrew Text Analysis

biblehub.com

You can look up Strong's concordance for each word:

Strong's Hebrew: 2329. חוּג (chug) -- vault, horizon

biblehub.com

Definition​

vault, horizon​

NASB Translation​

circle (2), vault (1).​

At Isaiah 44:13 the word compass, from the related Hebrew וּבַמְּחוּגָ֖ה (ū·ḇam·mə·ḥū·ḡāh). Circle. Compass.

Bible Hub tells me the word is derived from chug, which fits with this being a circle, not a ball. A compass is a device for making circles.

Strong's Hebrew: 4230. מְחוּגָה (mechugah) -- a compass

biblehub.com

It's not in the verse, it's just, what? Math or something?

Not sure what your point is.

No. They fly in it. The clouds are in it. The rain falls from it, not through it.

So find the Bible verses that say that. I can find verses that say birds fly across it, that God opened holes in it to let rain fall through.

Genesis 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;​

No it doesn't. Translations from the later Latin may say firmament, usually with a footnote or marginal reading of expanse. Just because the Hebrew root means pounded out doesn't mean a strictly literal use, even with the Latin firmamentum.

But what is your reason for thinking it was NOT strictly literal? Other than wanting to impose modern cosmology on it.

And if I say, to you, today, that the floodgates were opened you don't necessarily take it literal. In fact, most likely not.

But that does not imply they would do the same.

So, if your contention depends upon the Hebrew root of raqia being beaten "with a hammer on an anvil to make it spread out to form a bowl or whatever" the same applies to the sky, dust, which isn't solid. So I gave a link on expanse, heaven, sky. In the heaven link it talks about what they, Moses, Isaiah and their contemporaries thought, not what Empedocles, the "church fathers," Aristotle, Aquinas, or people in the dark ages thought. Not what you and I think.

Two different things. The raqia was the solid dome. Clearly the clouds were something else; they move, they appear and disappear, they can be on the ground (i.e fog). That is your dust, undoubtedly because they compared clouds to sandstorms.

Right. Job hasn't seen what God can do with the forces of nature which he created. God put those in terms he could understand.

God put it in terms that are WRONG.

The resurrection wasn't figurative...

It looks to me like Christians get to cherry pick the bits they want to be literal and the bits they want to be symbolic. The right way to do it is an analysis of the text. The wrong way is to decide in advance what you want to be literal, and try to rationalise that. How can you assure me you are doing it the right way?

All of the ideas in the Bible were harmonious throughout. From Genesis to Revelation. The text isn't based upon temporal ideas. The expanse of Moses was the same as the expanse of Daniel.

I very much disagree. The changing view of Satan is a great example of how the theology has changed. Even in the NT; I think it likely the author of Mark and Paul believed Jesus was adopted as the son of God, while the author of the later gospels did not. I say this with some reservation, knowing it is likely to send us down another rabbit hole. If you want to discuss either, I suggest another thread.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

If God told them what to write, why did God get the day he created the sun wrong?

He didn't. YOU got it wrong, as usual. Obviously the fourth yom on which He created the sun was not a 24 hour period any more than the "DAY (yom) of the Lord" will last for 24 hours. How could it be? Do you think the writer of Genesis meant that the earth had already circled around the sun four times before the sun was even created?

If someone says to you "Back in my day we used to walk to school," would you ask him to tell you which specific day that was?

 

[The Pixie]

He didn't. YOU got it wrong, as usual. Obviously the fourth yom on which He created the sun was not a 24 hour period any more than the "DAY (yom) of the Lord" will last for 24 hours. How could it be?

I would ask you to explain what you think actually happened, what the order of events was, but we both know you are incapable to doing that. Your role at CARM is to moan when people get it wrong, not to help them understand what you think is right.

I think it is pretty clear that the author believed there were 24-hour periods prior to the existence of the sun on day 4. The text explicit says that. The author seems to have believed day and night were defined by the appearance and disappearance of daylight, which was there from day one.

Genesis 1:3 Then God said, “[d]Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness He called “night.” And there was evening and there was morning, one day.​

No sun, that had not been created yet. But there was already daylight, already a day/night cycle.

Makes no sense to us, because we know that day and night are due to the rotation of the earth. But the author had a very different view of the world.

Do you think the writer of Genesis meant that the earth had already circled around the sun four times before the sun was even created?

Of course not. He believed the sun was a flaming ball that travelled across the solid dome of the sky, and that God did not create that flaming ball until three light/dark cycles had already occurred.

If someone says to you "Back in my day we used to walk to school," would you ask him to tell you which specific day that was?

No, of course not.

But if he said that on the fourth day he walked to school, then in that case I would expect him too. Do you see the difference?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

I would ask you to explain what you think actually happened, what the order of events was, but we both know you are incapable to doing that.

Then you are quite wrong, since ANYONE, even you can do that. In order to know what I think "actually happened" and what I think is "the order of events," all you have to do is read the first chapter of Genesis. Have you been taught to read or does someone need to read it out loud to you?

But if he said that on the fourth day he walked to school, then in that case I would expect him too. Do you see the difference?

"Yom" is a period of time, not always a 24 hour period. Are you seriously thinking that, for example, the "Day of the Lord" only lasts 24 hours? A day is as a thousand years to the Lord. II Peter 3:8

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Do you think the writer of Genesis meant that the earth had already circled around the sun four times before the sun was even created?

Major brain fart on my part. I'll never type on CARM again without my morning cup of coffee. I'm glad I caught it before the Pixie did. I know the MODs would ban me if I called someone else an idiot, but I hope I can call myself one with no repercussions.

I am an idiot.

 

[The Pixie]

I would ask you to explain what you think actually happened, what the order of events was, but we both know you are incapable to doing that.

Then you are quite wrong, since ANYONE, even you can do that. In order to know what I think "actually happened" and what I think is "the order of events," all you have to do is read the first chapter of Genesis. Have you been taught to read or does someone need to read it out loud to you?

What I would like is for YOU to tell me what YOU think actually happened.

But, as I said, we both know that can never happen.

... In order to know what I think "actually happened" and what I think is "the order of events," all you have to do is read the first chapter of Genesis. ...

Great. So when it says

Genesis 1:19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.​

... you are adamant that that is four days later. Glad we have that sorted.

"Yom" is a period of time, not always a 24 hour period. Are you seriously thinking that, for example, the "Day of the Lord" only lasts 24 hours? A day is as a thousand years to the Lord. II Peter 3:8

But you just said you believe what it says in the text! It clearly says days. Now you want to say that actually you interpret that differently! I am not saying you are wrong (necessarily), I am pointing out that telling me to read the text is of no use at all, because you interpret the text a certain way and I do not know what that is.

So then we have:

• There was a day and night cycle, as per Genesis 1:3.
• There was an indeterminate number of said day/night cycles (or two thousand years?)
• God created plants, as per Genesis 1:11
• There was a further indeterminate number of said day/night cycles (or a thousand years?)
• God created the sun, as per Genesis 1:16, and pushed the earth into orbit around it

Right?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

What I would like is for YOU to tell me what YOU think actually happened.

Genesis 1.

But, as I said, we both know that can never happen.

And yet it just happened. See above. You are without doubt the worst prognosticator in the history of prognostication.

Great. So when it says

Genesis 1:19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.​

... you are adamant that that is four days later.

Yep, four "yoms," i.e, four distinct periods of time.

But you just said you believe what it says in the text! It clearly says days.

Yep, four "yoms," i.e, four distinct periods of time.

So then we have:

• There was a day and night cycle, as per Genesis 1:3.
• There was an indeterminate number of said day/night cycles (or two thousand years?)
• God created plants, as per Genesis 1:11
• There was a further indeterminate number of said day/night cycles (or a thousand years?)
• God created the sun, as per Genesis 1:16, and pushed the earth into orbit around it

Right?

Yep. So it finally dawned on you that the author of Genesis 1 could not possibly have meant a 24 hour period when he used he word "yom." Finally. I was beginning to think I was a total failure in my attempts to educate you. This has been one of my few successes. Makes up a little for my previous idiocy.

 

[e v e 21]

The Hebrew is רָקִ֖יעַ, or rā-qî-a‘ (from here). The etymology is of something stamped or beaten out. This is how copper or bronze would have been worked - beat it with a hammer on an anvil to make it spread out to form a bowl or whatever.

"The word translated ‘expanse’ (רָקִ֖יעַ, raqia`) comes from a Hebrew verb meaning ‘to stamp or spread’, sometimes of beating out metal into thin sheets."​

What Was The Raqia'?

This paper briefly examines the historical controversy surrounding the physical creation of the raqia' or 'heaven', as described in Genesis 1. Several Jewish and Christian sources are cited. This paper also analyzes a specific, spiritual

www.academia.edu

See also here, which makes the point that the translators of the LXX used the word for circle, not sphere:

Does the Bible Teach a Spherical Earth

www.asa3.org

See links above.


Not sure quite what you are getting at here. At least one translation says the bird fly across the vault:

Gen 1:20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”​

The Hebrew can be found:

Isaiah 40:22 Hebrew Text Analysis

biblehub.com

The word in question os ח֣וּג or ḥūḡ. According to here, it means vault, circle or horizon.

Look at the verse carefully. To me it describes God sitting above a flat earth, looking down on it from above. It specifically says he stretched out a vault. A vault is a solid structure, and stretched out fits with the Raqia being like beaten out copper or bronze.


Again, see the links above. There is no doubt that the ancient Israelites thought the firmament, the raqia, to be a solid dome. I appreciate plenty of translations play that down, but that is because we now know that that is wrong.


The water (supposedly) came from two sources - the Waters Above and the Waters Below. Genesis 8.2 says the Waters Below came up via fountains and the Waters Above came via holes in the solid dome.


I am not sure quite what you are saying. Yes, the word for sky is related to the word for dust. Yes, we now know how clouds form, and deposit rain. However, I am not seeing anything there that actually supports your position.


It says they are stored where Job has never seen them. I feel confident saying he had seen clouds, so it cannot be referring to them.

My interpretation, therefore, is that they understood hail and snow to be stored above the dome in readiness for when God opened the holes to make it fall.


Genesis 37:9 makes it very clear that the sun and moon are symbolic in a dream. That is quite different to the apocalyptic visions on the NT, which we would expect to be prophetic, not symbolic. How much more of the apocalypse is just symbolic? Is Jesus' return just symbolic?

There is a definite link between stars and angels, and it is possible they thought the stars really were angels, at least in some sense. So yes, the stars falling from heaven really would be the angels of Satan - though I am not sure about that. But the text is clear that they believed stars will drop off the firmament at the end times.


I am not saying pillar cannot be used as a metaphor. However in the instances in the Bible I do not see any reason to think that that is the case. To say someone is a pillar of the community is to say he greatly supports the community just as a pillar supports a roof. Can you explain what the purpose of the metaphor is in this verse:

1 Sam 2:8 He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and on them he has set the world.​

I cannot see it. To me, it is far more likely the author believed the pillars are real, and that putting the world on them was one of God's many great achievements.

the discussion there is not of the current earth.

 

[SteveB]

And at every instance it indicates the authors believed the world was flat with a solid dome over it. If you are claiming that they believed the earth was round and orbited the sun, then you are indeed pretending, you are ignoring what they wrote, what you claim was described by YHVH.

I'd say that at every instance you want it to fit your biases and preconceptions about it, it says the earth is flat.
I don't see where the bible actually states it's flat.

I see where people have tried using to claim it, but I'm not among those who do so.

Eg, if I have my wife hold a cantaloupe up, at 50 feet, I'll see a circular pattern.
If I hold an orange up at arms length, I'll see a circular pattern.

Eg, if I cut the cantaloupe in quarters, and then cut those quarters in half (crosswise), I'll get 8 pieces.
Strangely enough, each piece has three, 90 degree right angles.
Yet, it's a triangle, of 270°.

And this phenomenon only occurs in a spherical coordinate system.

So, two pretty basic things that people would argue shows the world is flat, are simply descriptions of a spheroidal object.

The earth has corners, and is circular...

Nothing flat about it.

Yet here's someone who claims to be highly educated and intelligent, but is unwilling to "see the forest for the trees" because of your biases and preconceptions.

What I find truly fascinating is that you have been seeing such things since childhood, but you lack the comprehension to recognize it as an adult.

Are you really claiming the earth is flat, Steve?

Nope.
Are you really claiming that the bible says the world is flat?

When it comes to the planet being round, orbits the sun and not having a solid dome then it is not merely likely and probably.

I'm not the one who keeps arguing about it.
This still shows me that you are so deep into bias and preconceptions about it that you're not able to actually see anything else.

The people I'm acquainted with who study the bible have no problem whatsoever with the wording actually used, and don't believe that there was a metal dome, with/without holes, polished or otherwise.

Some of us think there was a vapor barrier. And some of us have come to the realization that since we can't actually observe what was, and God said he'd make everything known to us in his time, and given us everything we need to live, and know Him, we're content to wait.

The fact that you are now defending a flat earth shows how bad your faith position is.

?????‍
You're a special breed Pix.

And yet here you are arguing the world is flat.

Only when you refuse to learn the truth.

And yet here you are arguing the world is flat.

Flat as a cantaloupe. And cubicle as a cantaloupe too.
I understand though. You lack the mental faculties to learn.

And yet here you are arguing the world is flat.

Yep. Exactly like this tasty Tuscan cantaloupe I'm enjoying.
I've even got it cut in octants and am thoroughly impressed with the 270° triangles I'm seeing.

Sure. But then I remember that you are here arguing for a flat earth, and I realise just how tenuous your grasp on reality is.

Just because you don't actually know what spherical triangles are, nor do you appear to grasp the nature of observing an oblate spheroid from a major distance is like either.
You know what I find incredibly interesting....
That I can't tell if the sun is spheroidal or a flat circle without any outside help.

By what means do you determine the difference between them?

It's so far away that it actually looks like a circle in the sky. Same with the moon. It's so far away that apart from the different phases, one would think that it's a flat object hung on wires, suspended from the metal dome you keep telling me exists.

Who knows. Maybe one of your ancestors built it? Extracted that brass, and then got all their relatives together and polished it. Then drilled a bunch of holes in the metal. Yeah.... I bet that's what happened, and you're just too frightened to admit it.

Do you think the ancients ancient thought the sun and moon were flat too? How about your ancestors who built the dome?

Right. I think the planet is round, orbits the sun and does not have a solid dome.

It'd be a lot easier to accept this claim had you not just spent the past couple of weeks arguing to the contrary.

Under no circumstances whatsoever will I consider that the description given in the bible is actually correct and true, and the reason for that is that it is not correct and true.

Then don't.
I've never believed that the catholic church had an accurate description.
I do however see pretty clearly that the bible actually describes a spheroidal world, and actually understood the basic physics of the heavens.
It seems to me however that you are indiscriminately stuck on aristotelian cosmology.
I know the catholic church bought it for a very long time. They got pretty pissed off when Copernicus, and later Galileo came up with different hypotheses on it.
Pity you're still stuck on aristotelian principles.
Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo.... they advanced the realm of understanding far beyond what Aristotle had. As impressive as it was, the catholic church clung to his ideas far too long, and made fools out of people like you.

There is just too much evidence against.

Yet you're still talking about it. I'd say that if you actually believe that to be true, you should stop talking about the aristotelian theories.

This is one of the many problems I have with atheists. They talk about what they believe in the third person, treating it like it's other people who believe such things.

Which is exactly what you have been doing for years now.

Well, you definitely make it easy to dismiss atheism.

Sure, because you can just turn a blind eye to the evidence. That is what faith is all about.

???‍
I'm a stage four metastatic melanoma cancer survivor. I live in the middle of evidence and experience all day long, and have for decades.
Wanna try that again?

I cannot.

Yet here we are talking about something everyone I know, including myself knows otherwise.

So what?

Sounds like you're afraid of the truth, and need to do whatever you think will work to make sure that you spend your eternity in a place you swear up and down you don't want to be, and don't believe exists.
Seems like you actually want to be there.

I pointed out that I do not believe you.

Duh! I got that from your very first post I saw years ago.

I still do not.

Duh. I got that too.

Whether that concerns you or not is neither here nor there.

Yet here you are trying to argue with me about false beliefs you possess, telling me what the bible says, when you are the only one who believes that.
I never had. Other Jesus followers I'm friends with or acquainted with through the past 45 years don't believe the things you're claiming.

And yet I have pointed out several of yours, Steve.

You've pointed out the things you want me to believe, simply because YHVH has introduced himself to me, through Jesus Christ, exactly as he described in the bible.
The only thing you have successfully achieved is demonstrating that you are full to the hilt, of more bs than I can easily imagine.

SteveB, post #26: "You're the one who keeps saying you know everything."

Yep. And?

Why should it ne necessary to explain a verse in your sacred book?

Quite simple actually. I'd like to see if you actually understand it, or are trying to bs your way through this.
Because from my perspective, you're peddling too hard, and it seems like you're just trying to bs your way through it.