Talk:Firmament

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). 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)

Flatearthers Hijacking

I feel that the flat earthers are trying to hijack this page, because the common, accepted definition of firmament is that of actual land and not some crazy dome in the sky.➥   TheCyndicate |✉  : 15:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Order of planets

The statement that the order of the planets / planetary spheres is "preserved in the order of the days of the week" is wrong, at least according to Claudius Ptolemy. The weekday order is ancient, and matches the order in the "classical planet" article (which cites Mackenzie (1915). "13 Astrology and Astronomy". Myths of Babylonia and Assyria.).

My issue is that the planetary spheres’ order is different from the days of the week. The order of the moving celestial spheres is: Moon (lowest*, fastest), Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn (highest**, slowest). That ordering is straight-forwardly based on the apparent speed of the planets: the Moon is the fastest. Mercury and Venus are bound to the motion of the Sun, so all three have the same average speed, but Mercury and Venus run ahead (and fall behind) the Sun from time to time, and Mercury overtakes Venus, so the order of those three is: Mercury, Venus, Sun. The Sun takes one year to cross all the Zodiacal constellations, but Mars requires about 1⅞ years, Jupiter takes about 11⅞ years, and Saturn 29½ years, so the order of the final three is: Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.***

All of these speeds are easily observed by eye, and were observed and recorded by Mesopotamian astrologers / astronomers. Ptolemy dates from 200 CE, and drew on sources from several hundred years earlier (most notably Hipparchos, who in turn, is believed to have relied on Mesopotamian sources for planetary data, at least). During their careful observation of planetary positions in the sky, and tabulation of the planetary speeds for forecasting, it was certainly known to Babylonian / Mesopotamian astrologers / astronomers.

But the spheres’ order does not match the weekday order described in the article: Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn.

It's perfectly reasonable that there would be a different astrological order of the spheres (based on speed of motion) from the religious order (based on brightness / impressiveness of the object and priority of the assigned god), but the celestial spheres (an astrological / astronomical ordering) and the days of the week (a priority / religious order) do not match.

So my first impulse is to just comment-out the offending sentence. Any suggestions for a middle-way? Is there some way to re-phrase the sentence to avoid the error?

208.54.5.213 (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• In addition to being speedy, a religious argument for the Moon being the lowest sphere is that it is the only obviously blemished celestial object – presumably ‘contaminated’ by imperfection from being too close to the terrestrial sphere.

• • The eighth, enclosing sphere is the sphere of the fixed stars; by convention it is the “stationary” reference frame for the planets. The relative rotation of the terrestrial and stellar spheres is observable as 23ʰ56ᵐ04ˢ for anyone with a measuring stick and a diary, so that has to be accommodated by any celestial system. Beyond that relative motion, the question of whether ancients believed that the terrestrial or the stellar sphere moves is intricate and complicated. Thankfully it isn’t relevant to planetary spheres’ order or motion.

• • • Like the Moon, the outer-most three planets are not tied to the motion of the Sun.