Talk:Firmament/Archive 1

Clearly one advantage of a myth--such as the one included in Genesis--that puts a body of water above the vault of heaven is its usefulness in making sense of the fact that rain falls to earth through the heavens, and therefore, apparently, from somewhere above them.

Weasel words

Added weasel-tag because of the references to "some experts","some people","most experts",... KebsOne 11:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

over templatized

I removed quite a few templates since it seemed to be a holy war of templates on the article page. If its worth the time to put the template in its worth the time to explain here, on the talk page. Templates removed:

{{Inappropriate tone}}

{{TotallyDisputed}}

{{Unencyclopedic}}

{{Essay-like}}

{{Incoherent}}

{{Calm talk}}

{{Controversial}}

JohnCub 23:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Is any of this regarding the Hebrew origin of the word firmament? That reference continues to be removed from the article; however, the Strong's Bible Concordance is a widely accepted and valued reference tool.

Megamile 07:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the following templates today. I thought long and hard about what I believed to be the key issues:

{{Refimprove}} - The article currently has no citations other than inline links. Although useful, they do not conform to the guidelines in Wikipedia:Citing_sources.

{{Content}} - This (informally speaking) section does not address the concept of firmament, which is of course what this article is about. It is irrelevant without further work.

Byronshock (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant material

The discussion of the waters "gathered in one place", while interesting, is not relevant to the article. If you read the text, it's clear that the gathering of waters "into one place" was a distinct event from the separation of heavenly and earthly waters by a firmament, and the waters "gathered into one place" remained on the earth. Rocinante9x 21:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hold up, how is that irrelevant? Where the water goes according to Firmament models is completely relevant to the Firmament. --216.228.91.174 (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The Firmament, link & reference

Can someone please tell me how the external link to an organization that is called "The Firmament" (the name of this very article) is inappropriate? The organization doesn't try to sell anything; whereas, the external link to the Catholic Encyclopedia tries to sell their CD-ROM once the viewer gets there. Talk about adverising and/or promotion...

Also, why was the section about lights being placed in the firmament (Gen 1:14-17) removed from the article but the creation part (Gen 1:6-8) was left in? They are both direct citations of the Book of Genesis, and together they give a more complete illustration of the "firmament". Megamile 21:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to consider the link to the Firmament's presentation of the Proof of God/Creator to be deemed "inappropriate" as a link to the article on the 'Firmament'. If someone is continually "editing/deleting" that link it is obviously being done out of bias and not allowing the general public to see it. That's censorship. I would like to add that I've seen the presentation by the Firmament and it is not an advertisement and they're not selling anything, but shows a strong connection between the two most significant celestial bodies (lights in the Firmament - Gen 1:16-17) and the two most significant structures in the Bible (i.e. Noah's ark and the Ark of the Covenant). It would seem since the article in question is on the 'Firmament' and its Biblical definition that the Firmament presentation is exactly that and the link should be left in the article for the perusal of the viewer/reader of the article. I feel it enhances the article and gives unique information on the subject of the Firmament. http://www.thefirmament.org --MyCallonWiki 23:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the "lights in the firmament" can stay. In fact, I'd like to expand that: the Hebrews believed that the stars were small lamps attached to the firmament dome (which could be knocked off) while the Sun (and, IIRC, the Moon) moved in and out of the dome through a system of "gates" (described in the Book of Enoch). But the "Firmament" website isn't about the Hebrew solid-skydome "firmament" at all. The article is a sermon which attempts to make an "argument for God" by playing with numbers (e.g. the surface area of the deck of Noah's Ark in Hebrew cubits is approximately equal to the diameter of the Sun in English miles: measurements and units chosen only because the numbers wouldn't fit otherwise). This has nothing to do with the Hebrew Firmament. --Robert Stevens 07:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Sure, the 'lights in the firmament' can stay."? It seems that you are acting as the gatekeeper of the article rather than a collaborative editor to it for the edification of others. When I edited the article with a Strong's reference, Genesis reference, and external link, I left the reference to the Vulgate and the link to Catholic Encyclopedia even though I disagree entirely with the validity of both of those sources. However, when you reversed my edits, you took out everything when the only part you seem to disagree with is the Firmament link. If we can agree that the word "firmament" means an expanse in which lights were placed, then why is it inappropriate to have a link to an organization whose name is the Firmament which expands on information regarding those lights placed in the firmament? After all, the link is being placed in the "External links" section and there is no product being offered, which is not the case with the Catholic Encyclopedia link.Megamile 08:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Firmament was regarded as a solid dome (not an "expanse" of space) to which the stars were physically attached. The article has an entirely different interpretation, based on modern astronomy. It mentions astronomical phenomena (along with non-astronomical phenomena), but it doesn't discuss the actual Firmament. --Robert Stevens 11:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you check the "firmament" definition in the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible in the Hebrew definition (the origin of the word) #7549 it reads; 'an expanse i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:-firmament'. That clearly points out that it means "expanse". If you check Genesis 1:14 it states that God set lights in the firmament to give light (i.e Sun, Moon & Stars). In Genesis 1:8 God calls the firmament Heaven, not a dome of lights. The dome of lights and stars being swallowed up by the Sun is from pagan Egyptian and Greek sources which ARE NOT the definition of firmament but pagan beliefs. Please cite your source for firmament being a dome of small lamps. The Hebrews knew what the firmament was and not some pagan belief. Enoch also knew what the firmament was/is. If a link called the Firmament exists and it is explaining the possible connectivity of Biblical structures to celestial lights in the heavens and God called the Heavens the firmament and visa versa that would appear to not only compliment the definition but, in fact, be the definition as well. --MyCallonWiki 20:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a link to Strongs Concordance already in the article, in "References". It says:

1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
a) expanse (flat as base, support)
b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

It also quotes Gesenius's Lexicon: "the firmament of heaven, spread out like a hemisphere above the earth... to which the stars were supposed to be fixed, and over which the Hebrews believed there was a heavenly ocean".

The Hebrews used the same cosmology as their pagan neighbors. Biblical references to this cosmology (specifically, the notion of a solid Firmament with Heaven above it) include the creation of the Firmament in Genesis 1:6; God opening windows in the Firmament in Genesis 7:11 to let water rain down, and closing them again in Genesis 8:2; the construction of a tall tower to reach Heaven in Genesis 11:4; celestial warehouses for snow and hail in Job 38:22, the sky as a strong crystalline material in Job 37:18 and Ezekiel 1:22; the sky as a tent in Isaiah 40:22; stars as small objects attached to the Firmament (which can fall off) in Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, Revelation 6:13, Revelation 8:10, Revelation 9:1 and Revelation 12:4 (apologists sometimes claim that these "falling stars" are meteors, but the swipe of a dragon's tail dislodges one-third of all the stars in the sky in Revelation 12:4).

The heavens are "rolled back like a scroll" in Revelation 6:14: however, as stars are apparently still being knocked off the Firmament in subsequent verses, it's unclear which layer is being removed at this point.

As for Enoch: that book gives even more information, such as the elaborate system of openings that the Sun passes through when entering and leaving the dome. Again, from a link that's already in the article (as "The Vault Of Heaven"), the section on "The Sun and Moon":

This is the first commandment of the luminaries: The sun is a luminary whose egress is an opening of heaven, which is (located) in the direction of the east, and whose ingress is (another) opening of heaven, (located) in the west. I saw six openings through which the sun rises and six openings through which it sets. The moon also rises and sets through the same openings, and they are guided by the stars; together with those whom they lead, they are six in the east and six in the west heaven. All of them (are arranged) one after another in a constant order. There are many windows (both) to the right and the left of these openings. First there goes out the great light whose name is the sun; its roundness is like the roundness of the sky; and it is totally filled with light and heat. The chariot in which it ascends is (driven by) the blowing wind. The sun sets in the sky (in the west) and returns by the northeast in order to go to the east; it is guided so that it shall reach the eastern gate and shine in the face of the sky (1 Enoch 72:2-5).

As for the "Firmament" video: it discusses the Sun, the Moon, Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, and Solomon's Temple. But it doesn't discuss the Firmament at all. It barely mentions the word (and only because of the Genesis quote).

And another thing: the purpose of the video is to solicit donations ("with menaces", in fact: the end of the video declares that there are only a few places in Heaven and strongly implies that you'd better join up, and pay up, real soon). --Robert Stevens 22:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of your rebuttal is arguable interpretations of what is speculated to be "believed" by several hypothecators and aren't definitions at all. The Biblical and Strong's reference are definitions that coincide with the Firmment article in Wiki. You are doing the proverbial "Straining a gnat and swallowing a camel."

As far as the link to the Firmament presentation and it referring to God's command to let there "be lights in the Firmament to give let unto the Earth," that site does exactly that and they do exist, then what's the problem with having a link to that source? The purpose of the video is not to solicit donations if it were that would be required at the beginning of the presentation and there is no requirement. The viewer makes the decision after watching the product and there's no requirement to do so. But, based on that objection then the Catholic Encyclopedia link should be reverted because they are soliciting readers to buy their CD, yet no one is reverting their link. There is also a link in the 'ark of the covenant' Wiki article that's listed under 'Replicas' with the sole intent of selling replicas of the ark for as much as $3000 without alerting the reader to that fact and no one is trying revert that link.

So, how about you post your take and source links and let others post theirs for the completeness of the reader on the Firmament? Anything else is censorship and not editorial. --MyCallonWiki 23:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to Robert Stevens:

According to Egyptian mythology, the goddess Nut was said to be the mother of the sky, i.e. the sun, moon and stars. Her depiction is that of a woman on all fours with the stars on her belly. At night the sun was said to be “swallowed up,” ran through her belly, and was reborn through her uterus at dawn. See: Nut (goddess).

The article in the Catholic encyclopedia on the Firmament recounts these and other pagan ideas that stem from Babylonia, the Greeks and Romans, which are the roots of Catholicism. This same article then attempts to explain what the Hebrew thought was/is and the Catholic take on how it is explained in Scripture. Stevens seems to get his take from this source as well.

These ideas, of course, have nothing to do with the true meaning of ‘The Firmament’ according to the Book of Genesis in the Bible but are based on ancient, pagan ideas. To have a reference that correlates Noah’s Ark and the Ark of the Covenant to the Sun and Moon, the rulers of the Firmament, is something Wikipedia would be remiss to leave out.

When you go to the Catholic encyclopedia, you are solicited to buy their encyclopedia on CD. Catholic dogma claims the infallibility of its leader and that the only way to salvation is through him. So you better join up now in order to be saved or you’ll be doomed to an eternity in hell. That’s menacing. Also, Wikipedia itself asks for donations from those who have benefited from its work. There’s no menace to that. It’s a matter of free choice. --IMSirius 23:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My comments regarding "soliciting donations" was a response to the point raised by Megamile earlier: that the Catholic Encyclopaedia site might be deemed "inappropriate" because it sells a product.

Why are some people so reluctant to actually read the Strongs Concordance link provided by Megamile? What part of "considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above" do you not understand? And what part of "the firmament of heaven, spread out like a hemisphere above the earth... to which the stars were supposed to be fixed, and over which the Hebrews believed there was a heavenly ocean" do you not understand?

The Hebrews, like other Caananite tribes, inherited their cosmological model from the Sumerians (not the Egyptians): a flat Earth covered by a solid sky-dome made of a hard crystalline or metallic material. That is the "true meaning" of the Firmament (a word derived from the Hebrew riqqua, meaning “beaten out”, a reference to the process of making a metal bowl by hammering metal flat). It is the worldview that is used consistently throughout all Hebrew scriptures: for instance, in the Book of Baruch, the builders of the Tower of Babel actually reach the underside of the Firmament dome and begin to drill through it before God intervenes.

This is an article about the Hebrew concept of the Firmament. We should be writing about what the ancient Hebrews actually believed (based on what they actually wrote), not what modern Christian or Jewish apologists would prefer that they believed (based on nothing but wishful thinking, and directly contradicted by the actual scriptures that we have). --Robert Stevens 10:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The intent of this article is not to define the Firmament as only the Hebrews saw it, but to define the concept of Firmament throughout History. The title is Firmament not Hebrew Firmament. If you will read the first line this should be even more abundantly clear “in the context of Christianity, Judaism and Islam”. Mr. Stevens you are attempting to police this article to your own opinion which is censorship pure and simple and completely missing the point. If there are external links which edify regarding the subject then they should be allowed. If there are definitions which differ from the Hebrew then they should be broken out by subject, i.e. Christianity… Judaism… Islam… Egyptian… etc. If something is added which is blatantly false and no references can be given then remove it, not because you disagree but because it is false. The point being that this article, as all articles in Wikipedia, should be unbiased and accurate covering all aspects of the subject whether you agree with them or not. It is up to the reader to determine what the truth is and without all the facts that is not possible. --Stargate5 17:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not stopping you from writing a set of articles such as you propose (though I'd recommend separate pages for the various historical periods). Indeed, this article already links to Shamayim, Primum Mobile and Celestial spheres, therefore what you propose has already been done. I am not trying to impose "my own opinion" on this particular page, but the Hebrew opinion. But none of this has anything to do with the subject which prompted this discussion in the first place: the removal of a link to a video which wasn't discussing the Hebrew Firmament OR describing any established "modern equivalent" belief. Removing non-notable "linkspam" is a part of Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not a place where anyone can hang a link to his personal website. That aspect of Wikipedia's "censorship" isn't going to change anytime soon. And I note that the link is being inserted on multiple pages and removed by multiple editors: it is routine purging of "linkspam" by the Wikipedia community, not some sort of personal vendetta by myself. --Robert Stevens 18:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Stevens, you're not "imposing" the "Hebrew opinion" at all, but what you believe to be the Hebrew opinion. I'm Hebrew and that's not my opinon at all. If you want to insert your idea of what you believe the Hebrew opinion is then insert it as your opinion and stop calling it the Hebrew opinion. Editorial pages of a newspaper is for "opinions", not Wikipedia. You're right though, that has nothing to do with the link to The Firmament site you keep reverting (based on our your own opinion). Just as none of the sources you cite have anything to do with the link reverted. The presentation and the site itself well establishes a "modern equivalent" by the content of the video and the fact it is an organization not a "a personal website". Is that's your definition of "linkspam" whether it is "notable" or not? That would then be prejudicial to only something you consider "notable". I must assume by that you justify the other "linkspams" being attached to the article so the Catholic Encyclopedia can remain. I don't believe The Vault of Heaven link is "notable" and IS a personal website. It appears that you and Wasell are the only two "editors" in league to revert the Firmament link, and you more than him. To stop this cat and mouse scenario, how about you leave the link called the Firmament.org produced by the organization called The Firmament that does give light on the celestial objects in the Firmament in the article on the Firmament? And stop calling it spam for they're not advertising anything nor selling anything like your "notable linkspams" are. Or better yet submit it for Arbitration? --MyCallonWiki 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, another problem with the video is that it fails your "external links which edify regarding the subject" test. It's a simple game with numbers, nothing more. It's based on two fortuitous coincidences which have nothing to do with the Bible (and therefore could be used to "prove" just about any set of religious beliefs): the fact that the Moon is approximately 2,160 miles across (it's actually more like 2,158, but that's pretty close), and the fact that the Sun is almost exactly 400 times larger at just under 865,000 miles (note that this number is rounded down while the previous one was rounded up: for consistency, the author should have used either 215 and 864 or 216 and 865 as his "magic numbers", but then the calculations wouldn't have worked). Of course, if the measurements had been different, he could have used other dimensions (circumference, mass, surface area or whatever) or other units (no rationale was given for using miles: astronomers use meters nowadays).

216 is a very useful number for numerologists, because 6 x 6 x 6 = 216. And 216 x 4 = 864. And, of course, 2 x 3 = 6.

Everything else follows from that. Common measurements, involving multiples of 2 and 3, can then be made to produce 216 and 864 after a little mathematical manipulation. Note how the author juggles cubits, feet and inches in order to multiply by 2 or 12 whenever convenient. It's somewhat tedious to set up, but not "miraculous". The author doesn't care about factors of ten, as long as he gets the desired 3 digits. And calculating surface areas is a good excuse to multiply numbers together (he could also have calculated volumes if he wanted more multiplication: note that he ignored one dimension of each Ark, because he didn't want/need to use it).

The whole exercise might have a place as a reference in a numerology article, but it doesn't say anything particulary "edifying" about the Bible (or, more pertinently, the Firmament). --Robert Stevens 19:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr Stevens you could have circumvented this whole editing war by informing the original editor who posted the link to review the Wikipedia policy on links instead of engaging in this format of contention. I see, however, that you have a habit of this form of contention not for editing purposes beneificial to the readers but for your own aggrandizment. Now, by your above comment, you have confirmed your prejudice against the site by your crtitizing the content of the video based on your conclusions of numerology. You keep referencing the content being "his" or from "him" and "he" , yet it is not a single person but a collabrative production of many.

Your numerological speculations are your version and are not correct and the Firmament's are not manipulative. It cites and explains very clearly the Biblical reference and calculations of the cubit being used that is referred to as the righteous measure that would reveal the mystery referenced by Enoch. I can cite you several hundred Almanacs and recognized Astrological sites that reference that the Moon's diameter is 2160 miles and the Sun's mean diameter at 864,000 miles. The Sun expands and contracts based on the point of its cycle. A solar eclipse substantiates the measures accuracy by the Sun being 400 times larger than the Moon but the Moon 400 times closer to the Earth therefore appearing to be the same size. You're once again basing your conclusions on your opinion of numerology and celestial diameters. There is a huge number of Biblical points that have these exact numbers (216 & 864) built into them which I'm sure you're not aware of and space and time doesn't allow to be cited here. All your contentions do is confirm you seek debate on the subject and not editing at all

That being said and based on your crtique of and belief that the celestial measures are being manipulated, when they're not, proves you are engaging in an edit war and nothing more. Therefore the point of continuing this discussion is not attaining any mediation at all. You have made it very clear you just don't want the link because it does not fall within your belief system. The measures speak for themselves and are Scientific and Astrological facts and Biblically accurate. Now, you're contending the size of the celestial objects in the Firament which is questionable on your part. So, based on Wikipedia's Guidelines the only options left is to refer this to Arbitration. --MyCallonWiki 21:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MyCallonWiki regarding the Arbitration. Looking at the edits made by Mr. Stevens as well as his openly biased attitude toward The Firmament, I do not believe mediation would settle anything. I am most agreeable to finding a compromise, as noted in my previous entry; however, I think Mr. Stevens has made it most clear that he intends to be the judge and jury regarding edits to this article. I read the latest of his edits, and I was about to remove the 5th paragraph entirely since it is merely (mis)interpretation of Scripture rather than fact-based information. I decided not to do so because I thought a possible compromise could be a section within the article named "Firmament, as a solid surface" and another section named "Firmament, as an expanse" since they are both definitions of the Hebrew word. I would first find out if that is something we could all agree upon, but I'm sure Mr. Stevens would vehemently oppose the idea since he obviously has a predisposition as to what this article is about. I agree with Stargate5 that this article should be unbiased and accurate covering ALL aspects. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what Wikipedia is about? As others have noted, the article should be something that everyone can contribute to in terms of links and references regarding the "firmament" so the reader has a complete view rather than a single POV that doesn't allow for any other perspectives. I disagree with a lot of references and links on Wikipedia, but I leave the majority in because I realize that there are more than one POV to be considered in each case. I believe an external link to The Firmament website is appropriate because it illustrates the definition relating to an "expanse" having "lights", let alone the fact that it's an organization that has the same name as the article. I also believe that having two sections, one for the "solid" perspective of the word and another for the "expanse" perspective, would be a fair and necessary outcome. As stated, I do not believe Mr. Stevens is capable of finding a middle ground; therefore, I'm all for Arbitration. --Megamile 04:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to raise an arbitration case, then do so. In the meantime, I (and others) will continue to enforce Wikipedia rules by removing a link which violates multiple Wikipedia rules and guidelines. In addition to being off-topic for this article (it does NOT present a cosmological model comparable to the Hebrew Firmament: "hey, let's play with these numbers" is not a cosmological model), it also fails notability (it does not represent the established position of any religion or denomination, or the scholarly consensus in any field), and it's a video (linked articles should be text, except in special circumstances such as musical performances). --Robert Stevens 09:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Take arbitration if you think it will help, but you'll get told that the link is inappropriate. Almanacs and the like are not considered credible sources and that plus vague references to bits of the bible is all they've used. "God knew things about the solar system we only found out recently"? Yes, but according to the Bible PI is 3, we knew that was wrong a long time ago. Robert Stevens is correct, this is an exercise in playing with numbers that relies on fable and unreliable sources. --Brianmc 12:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Cleanup tag...

I can't help but notice that any time a page has something mainstream Christians might disagree with or find embarrassing the page gets some kind of tag like this at the top, accredited sources get taken out as if they're forum polls, chunks of history get censored or distorted, and the page gets treated more like an ideological battle field than an encyclopedia page. So is there anything in particular that's wrong with the page, or did someone get his nickers in a twist because they didn't like the information here and decide to tag it? --216.228.91.174 (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm NJMauthor, the last person to make any significant changes to this article. I added the section on the Firmament in Mesopotamian cosmology and moved the intro to Firmament from the "Hebrew" section to the head of the article.

The only other change of any ideological merit made after me was the exchange of "creation myth" for "creation narrative" in the Hebrew section. This may have been done in good faith to disambiguate the link, or it may have been done because the editor believed "myth" had connotations he did not want personally associated with the book of genesis. In any case, I have reverted the link back to Genesis creation myth.

Aside from the above-mentioned link name change, what gives you the idea that "mainstream Christians" have somehow "censored or distorted" the page? I support the clean up tag, because the information in the hebrews section is poorly sourced (1 source for that large a body of text) and does not properly cite biblical passages; plus the whole thing reads very disjointedly. Perhaps you should make an account on wikipedia and correct whatever you think ought to be altered in this article. NJMauthor (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is "firmament" headed under WikiProject Religion?

This article is quite odd. Rather than stating the etymology of the term firmament, which etymology is utterly absent, the article starts with "[t]he Firmament is the usual English translation of the Hebrew 'raqiya`', leading straight into religious use of the term, as if the sky, or the vault of the heavens, were some supra natural creation. At best, the present entry could be considered a subsection (say under religious interpretation or religious understanding) of the term firmament. Hadan 05:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadan (talk • contribs)

Are you suggesting there is a non-cosmological interpretation of the notion that there is a solid object between a primordial sky sea and the air/earth?NJMauthor (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

Could someone add more etymological information? Particularly, several example sentences of the different ways which that same word would have been used back at the time when the Genesis scripture was originally written? (Acknowledging that there may be some controversy over such details as the exact date of composition..) Certainly, in today's English, "firmament" implies a very solid object (and I presume this may also be the more common implication of that word in 18th century Hebrew), whereas modern translations (NIV) instead use the word "expanse" which implies the very opposite (but are likely influenced by the desire for agreement with accepted modern cosmological views). Hence the need for more detail on the history of that Hebrew term's meaning. Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. It's a Hellenistic era mistranslation. "Firmament" is traditional, "expanse" is the more accurate translation based on current knowledge. --dab (𒁳) 14:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits have removed all mentions of the mistranslation and of the alternative (expanse) which is considered more accurate and which is used in the modern translations. This makes the article misleading (probably goes afoul of WP:NPOV), but Kauffner argues that a section titled etymology ought only expound on one linear sequence of translations that occured up until a certain point and no further and ought neither to give detail explaining the decisions involved. (Additionally, the lead has been modified at the same time to make the principle focus be celestial domes rather than the biblical firmament, which I think is innappropriate here unless someone can cite that those alternative cosmologies used the same term and not merely a similar concept.) Where does information on the most accurate translation belong best? Cesiumfrog (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

NRSV, the New American Bible, the New English Bible, the Jerusalem Bible all use the translation "dome" or "vault". NKJV and RSV still use "firmament". So I don't think there is a consensus among modern translators for the "expanse" translation. The way dictionaries define "firmament" doesn't suggest that its use is restricted to a Biblical context. Here is an example: "The usual primitive conception of the world's form ... [is] flat and round below and surmounted above by a solid firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl." H. B. Alexander, The Mythology of All Races Kauffner (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Firmament article and editing

To Dbachmann,

Possessing bachelor, master, and doctorate degrees in biblical studies,I would like to write the definitive article for Wikipedia concerning the Hebrew noun - raqia' in an effort to provide its readers with a two-sided investigation of the subject. However, I found the present article to lean toward the atmospheric expanse theory over the solid firmament view. This article will take a lot of time and effort, and I am fearful that such efforts will simply be deleted by an administrator who has obviously taken sides toward the convervative end of the spectrum. Can you allow a neutral article that exposes presuppositional biases of liberals and conservatives, and can you let it stand on its own merits? Dr.JGJohnston (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

DJ, if I may,

• Your contribution to the talk page broke it in two ways and needed fixing afterward, so preview and take care.
• Your claimed credentials are not even going to be checked.
• It sounds rather dubious for you to think the US political spectrum is relevent to this topic. (I look forward to your explanation.)
• Your contribution will be edited further (and if perceived as having been wholly unimproving then may simply be reverted in entireity, however even so will not be lost to you but remain accessible via the page history tab) and you should welcome this.

Please let me encourage you to just start contributing. If any problems do arise, then discuss them here. Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Since Syriac and Hebrew are cognate languages, your admission that the Syriac refers to a "solid" structure reveals a disconnect in language studies. Instead of saying the word in Syriac came to mean a solid structure, and, therefore, passed on an incorrect understanding of raqia', the historical progression is that the Syriac reflects the original meaning of the Hebrew raqia'. To simply say the problem developed from the Syriac is overly simplistic. If that is the answer, then every Hebrew lexicon is wrong, along with all scholarship up until the modern period. As to your comment about liberal and conservative political views, there are also liberal and conservative biblical translators and interpreters. Over the course of this debate, liberal Bible scholars have traditionally sided with the solid-firmament view, while conservative Bible scholars have sided with the atmospheric-expanse outlook. Since conservatives must maintain biblical integrity, as to inspiration and infallibility, the ancient view of a solid firmament casts doubts on that presupposition. Since liberals have no qualms about the Bible containing errors, they have traditionally translated in a manner that supports their presupposition. Right now it is doubtful I will attempt to write the article. Although, like some European universities who have Catholic and Protestant faculties, perhaps I could write an "expanse" article and a "firmament" article: Raqia' - expanse theory; Raqia' - firmament theory?Dr.JGJohnston (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Circle

What most people don't know is that when studied out in the greek,Septuagint, or the hebrew, "Heavens" are three seperate words. 1st meaning the sky, where birds fly, 2nd meaning space, where the stars hang out and the 3rd heaven being the place where God abides, which is invisible to the human eye. Another common misconception based on todays interpretation of the word "Vault" is that its a dome (i.e vaulted ceilings) when in actuality "vault" is and was defined as being a CIRCLE. The people who were educated in the scriptures knew the earth was round (Job-oldest book in the Bible-26:10,Job 22:14,Proverbs 8:27,Isaiah 40:22). When the Queen sent Christopher Columbus to the "new world" they both knew they wouldn't fall off the edge of the earth because they were highly educated. Yet the ships' crew were afraid because the common beliefs and superstitions amoung the ignorant-common people- was that the earth was flat.

I removed the above contribution by 24.113.65.188 because I think the style was not encyclopedic (e.g., the language "what most people don't know", use of capitalisation, inspecific mention of some queen and potentially misleading phrasing of her involvement, etc). What do people think about the content however?

Particularly, does it mean "circle", or is "sphere" more correct? Is it referring to the earth itself, or to some construction above the earth (perhaps a flat ceiling necessitating pillars), or is it just referring to the horizon? More important, who exactly today believes this interpretation of the scripture, and why are they notable? (Note the contribution is in direct contradiction to the referenced current Catholic Encyclopedia authority which says "solid dome".)

The tangential details also seem incomplete and problematic at first blush. Which are each of the original words described corresponding to "heavens" (and to the words "vault" and "circle")? What support is there for the statement that Job is the oldest book? Who specifically were "the people who were educated in the scriptures" and what source is there to support the implication that their contemporaries, who were educated but not in scriptures, held contrary notion of the world? Is that probably-apocryphal tale of Columbus relevent? Is there a suitable citation for the claim that the ship's crew feared sailing off the edge of the flat world (and weren't merely afraid because Columbus, in contradiction to the experts at that time, was erroneously underestimating the distance he intended to be at sea)? Cesiumfrog (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Section for etymology

The little essay on mistranslation has its place, but I broke out the material on etymology for the benefit of the reader who comes here looking for a brief explanation of what the word "firmament" means and where it comes from. Kauffner (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The translation section gives the impression that "expanse" is a new, improved translation compared to "firmament". Raqiya is the noun form of the verb raqa, to hammer out, as, for example, metal. This brings to mind firmament as metal or a material analogous to metal. The idea of a metal firmament is part of Summerian and Egyptian cosmology, and is also suggested by Judges 37:18. St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of, "the sold nature of the firmament." Anthropological studies show that primitive people universally believe that the sky is a solid dome. "Firm is the sky and firm is the earth," says the Rig Veda. The reason ancient cosmologies required firmament is because they had to explain why the stars appeared to be in fixed position in relationship to each other, so stars are described as set in the firmament, as in Genesis 1:16-17. If you equate raqiya` with the atmosphere, or some part of it, then the concept is extraneous. This interpretation is not based new linguistic understanding or evidence, but originates with Calvin, who equated firmament with clouds. This is transparently an effort to shoehorn modern views of the atmosphere into scripture in accordance with the "doctrine of accommodation," as he called it. Kauffner (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little worried by the phrase "language experts consider" - backed up merely by a reference to an etymological dictionary. As we all know, such dictionaries can be vastly outdated, and may only represent one side of a controversy, and there is no way to tell that from the reference. Since nobody is still around who speaks classical Hebrew, how do we know what a word means if its use (or its use in a certain way) is relatively rare? One well accepted method is to look at what the same word means in closely related languages. So to use Syriac as an argument is perfectly sensible - it won't do to suggest that those influenced by that piece of evidence are too thick to know which language they are dealing with. Better to say that there is conjecture involved, whatever view you take. I do know (but can't give a reference now) that some OT scholars suggest the metaphor is likely to be something like a tent roof. At any rate, given that the רקיע has windows in it, I think it is pretty clear that the ancient Hebrews had something hard in mind, whatever the word means. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, it might be worth pointing out a little more clearly what the issue is for the Evangelicals. They don't want to acknowledge the possibility of evolution, as that makes atheism intellectually viable. Therefore they want to insist on a literal interpretation of the seven day time-frame. But you can't argue that the chronology of the story must be taken literally and at the same time concede that the cosmology of the same passage is figurative. So the description of the sky must be free of metaphorical language. It's because there is such a powerful vested interest there that we have to get the credentials of the "language experts" out in the open. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I strongly dislike the sentence "Conservatives and fundamentalists tend to favor translations that allow scripture to be harmonized with scientific knowledge, for example "expanse".[6]". Citation [6] is also not relevant; the key though is the vague phrase "conservatives and fundamentalists" which turns the sentence into (anti-)religious polemic, rather than fact. I recommend that it be replaced by a precise statement such as "Specific sources X and Y favour the translation "expanse"." --Dmoskovich (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Translation

I removed a couple of sentences from the "Translation" section, to wit:

Language experts consider that the most accurate English translation for raqia in biblical Hebrew is "expanse" (i.e., that which was stretched out) and that "firmament" is a mistranslation (due to confusion with Syriac).<[ref name="etymol"/]> Among modern translations, NIV and ESV use the word "expanse", while the NRSV uses "dome".

The first of these two sentences advocates for one specific choice (and uses "unsourced experts" to back that choice), but the very next paragraph notes that the translation is problematic, with theological views affecting the translation. I know we're supposed to be bold, but I'd prefer more experienced eyes for this. 184.39.11.20 (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The major Bible translations, especially NRSV, represent the work of the top "language experts" in this field. The old phrasing made it sound like the translations are produced by second stringers. I would restore the sentence comparing translation. Kauffner (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Islam / Koran

Do these have anything to say on the subject? I'd be very interested to know if they expose themselves to the same criticism that Genesis, and hence Judaism and Christianity, does. --196.215.72.113 (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this page needs an un-biased Islamic scholar to add something about the firmament in Islam. Personally I think the Quran 25:53 is talking about the firmament. Several other passages are translated as referring to the firmament in some translations. But not being able to read Arabic I don't want to comment in the main page myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.251.162 (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Change in wording

I changed the wording to make it more accurate. Only a very literalistic interpretation of the Bible produces a cosmology of the world that is incompatible with modern science. Most people do not hold to such an extremely literalistic interpretation. Even Young Earth Creationists don't take such an extreme literal interpretation. Saxophilist (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

But surely the important point is how the original authors understood it. And that was clearly a flat-earth model. The Young Earth Creationists have a problem. They want to take the chronology of this passage strictly literally, but can't take the cosmography literally because they know the world is not flat. But making a dogma out of being literal in the former case while being tolerantly metaphorical about the latter is inconsistent. They usually resolve this by cheating on what the cosmography of the passage actually says. I don't think their ideological contortions are particularly important here. --Doric Loon (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your contributions, Saxophilist. I have also improved the context including a little history of the NIV translation and why "floodgates" is being used instead of "windows of heaven" as well as explain that some verses would suggest that the stars were attached to a solid dome if such verses were taken very literally. An example is what is in Daniel which describes the "Heavenly Host", and this is supposed to target a group, not refer to the heaven. I would also like to respond to Doric Loon, that YECs as well as Christians in general believe that the Bible was written through revelation from God, but that the authors had to use the known words back then to make it clear to the readers. An example is the word "sphere" which describes a 3D circle, but such term was not known back then; only an equivalent term which is "ball", but it was used to describe a ball that you can play with, so it wasn't used to describe a geometrical figure because people back then didn't know the proper term to describe 3D objects, and it's very probable that they didn't even care what a 3D object is or have enough knowledge about them (i.e had knowledge that they exist but they didn't know that they can be distinct from 2D objects, or that a more accurate term can be used). This is the case with Isaiah when the term "circle of the Earth" is used; where the author would most likely have meant that the Earth is a sphere, but rather didn't know how to give such impression to the reader, so the author used the term "circle" instead, since it was the closest term to describe the same shape. In our modern culture, such term "circle of the Earth" would give the impression that the earth is a flat circle, but back then it was used to indicate a circle figure, whether 2D or 3D, and the term wasn't reserved for 2D objects only; this verse in Isaiah 40:22 alongside other biblical verses however, one would, in all honesty, get the impression that the Earth described by the Bible is actually round or a sphere. For example, the following verses suggest a spherical earth when taken together: Isaiah 40:22 ("circle of the earth"), Job 26:7 ("He spreads out the north over empty space, suspending the earth over nothing"), Job 26:10 ("He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters, at the boundary of light and darkness."

From all this, one would conclude that

1. The earth is a circle (whether 2D or 3D)

2. The earth is suspended over nothing

3. There's a "circular horizon on the face of the waters", and there is a "boundary of light and darkness" within the earth (i.e there's a boundary where on a side there's light and on the other side there's darkness)

I find it also interesting that the dating of Job is believed to be ~2000-1500 BC (older than Genesis) or 6th century BC by scholars, which is probably older than any scientific discovery or assumption which asserted that the earth is round.

I agree with you that it's very probable that people back then used to think that the Earth is flat (it actually is a fact), but YECs don't have any issue with that; because from a historical point of view (i.e from dates), it might also be probable that Genesis came first before the flat earth proposition was assumed, and it might be that based on Genesis such "flat earth" interpretation was formed, but it's not Genesis to blame if Genesis meant something else than what was interpreted, especially that Job is older than Genesis - YECs propose that the Bible should neither be taken literally or metaphorically, but rather plainly. It would be really amazing if we could include everything we know about this subject however, especially that a lot of people are concerned about it and that the Wikipedia's article is what first shows up, so if you guys have any suggestions or would like to change my modifications, please don't hesitate to do so! Giovanni Mounir (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Book of Job it was composed "7th and 4th centuries BCE, with the 6th century as the most likely date for a variety of reasons." Editor2020, Talk 04:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Editor2020, I see however that you have undid all of my edits as well as Saxophilist's; do you care to explain? Were they inaccurate? I have explained why only a literal translation gives the impression that the firmament was a solid dome, especially that other verses in the Bible doesn't support the idea - I understand that this is my point of view, and you can easily remove it; but stating that "It is a solid dome" is also a point of view, and hence should be removed too. Please justify your actions. Giovanni Mounir (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I haven't included any kind of "POV", but basically listed the known facts we have such as "In the book of Enoch, ... ", "The term firmament when translated implies..", "the term can also mean", "and can be translated to ... in order to fit modern cosmology", "In Genesis...", "the term was replaced by the floodgates in the NIV...". I actually find that such statements can give the reader a lot of useful information, and I have no clue why you have removed it. Please state the exact reason so that we can resolve the issue; stating that it's a POV is not really useful, because none of these were my points of view; I have merely stated the facts. My point of view is that the firmament is not a solid dome, but as you can see, I haven't included this into the text because Wikipedia is supposed to provide the facts, and let the user make a conclusion. Please explain in more detail. Giovanni Mounir (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you wish, you can call it Original Research based on Primary Sources. Wikipedia's place is not to provide an editor's interpretation of Primary Sources and "let the user make a conclusion." It is to report the WP:Secondary and WP:Tertiary sources as they occur in Reliable Sources. Editor2020, Talk 20:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor2020, so is stating "In the Book of Enoch," and "In Genesis" before the text to give the reader the correct impression not reliable? And stating that the term "windows of heaven" being translated to "floodgates" in the NIV due to various reasons is not reliable? Giovanni Mounir (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor2020, please elaborate what exactly is not reliable so that we can work on the issue - nothing of this is my personal point of view, as I have stated earlier, my point of view is that the firmament is not a solid dome. Giovanni Mounir (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Editor2020, I have reverted your edits since you didn't respond to my questions and since that I cannot see anything wrong with the edits; but I took your advice and made some modifications! You may feel free to check them out and please feel free to let me know if you disagree with any of the content posted and we can reach a consensus together, because I find that such information are necessary and without them, the section will be missing. Example: Under "Biblical use" you can read under the old version:

It had many windows, some of which opened and closed for the sun and moon to travel through

But actually, this is not biblical since this is only found in the Book of Enoch and that book is not in the Bible and so it's necessary to include "In the book of Enoch," before such statements, since they cannot be found in the Bible. Let me know your opinion! Giovanni Mounir (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

See Primary Source and Original Research. Editor2020, Talk 19:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Editor2020, I have seen these already and I understand your point; but since the "Biblical use" section is all based on interpretations, we need to provide the reader with all possible interpretations and to be as accurate as possible to avoid misleading the reader; for example, we don't say: "It was a solid dome", or "it was not a solid dome" but we say "the term can imply a solid dome", and "the term can imply a non-solid structure", etc; since it's all based on interpretations, there are no primary sources and no way to be certain which one is the accurate one, unless we read the rest of the Bible. So my suggestion is: provide the reader with all possible interpretations for this term according to its translation, since merely listing "It was a solid dome" is not accurate and can be misleading as it would make the reader get the impression that the only possible interpretation is for it being solid. Let me know your suggestion. Giovanni Mounir (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)