Talk:Firmament

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)

You may right about the hijacking. The history of the article shows a long succession of edits and reversions. Although I don't agree that the common accepted definition of firmament is of the land. I suspect the majority of Christians accept the scientific consensus about the nature of the Earth, solar system and stars; and thus would agree that 'firmament' does not refer to a literal dome. (Or they would not believe that such a dome exists) However, I'm not aware of any surveys or polls that support this.

I just read all the discussions on this page and there is no longer evidence in the article of most of the changes that were made as a result. In particular:

1. The article makes no mention that there are multiple interpretations or translations of the word "firmament" (expanse)

2. The etymology section makes no mention that the origins of the word are disputed or hard to determine, as Kauffner and Doric Loon mentioned.

3. There doesn't seem to be anything relating to what Saxophilist, Giovanni Mounir, and Editor2020 were discussing. Further, there seems to have been a bit of an edit war between the latter two.

4. The definition given in the first sentence of the article is taken from The Catholic Dictionary. While there is probably nothing wrong with using that as a source; given the divide between Protestants and Catholics, and the disagreement over the word; it is probably best to include all of the various definitions.

I will attempt to fix these problems. I propose that we lock this page to further edits, subject to admin approval to make sure that people aren't simply undoing genuine improvements to the article because they disagree with certain interpretations of the Bible. BBGun06 (talk) 16:31, 23 September 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.

WP:Bias

I think the present article is either in need of a move (e.g. to Firmament (Judeo-Christian)) or some expansion. The concept of a "firmament" or "vault of Heaven" is far more common than just the Biblical text. (Off the top of my head, Nüwa darning the sky and Atlas supporting the heavens cover two further major ancient civilizations.) This namespace needs to at least begin to address the concept broadly across all cultures. — LlywelynII 13:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Not mainstream Christianity and not a reliable source

@Boxcartenant: Biblical inerrantists are a minority of all Christians. As previously stated, that source is WP:SPS, you might want to read what it means. That means it fails the guideline WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Since you didn't cite a source, I can only imagine that you have simply assumed without research that Biblical inerrantists are a minority of all Christians. That's ok. You obviously aren't Christian, so I wouldn't expect you to have been exposed to much interdenominational argument. In fact, about 70% of America is nominally Christian, about 60% mainstream, and then about 62% of mainstream Christians are practicing (i.e. churchgoers), where 60% of 70% brings the number of practicing mainstream Christians to about 40% of the population of America. 24% of Americans believe the Bible is the literal word of God (which implies inerrancy). The Evangelistic Association (a major component of the Evangelical movement, and headed by Billy Graham) supports Biblical inerrancy (it's noteworthy that this article is an interview with Norman Geisler, who represents no small group of followers within Evangelicalism) 42% of American Christians are young-earth Creationists (a doctrine distinctly coincident with Biblical inerrancy).. Inerrancy is mainstream.

Forgot to address the reliability of the source. I talked about that on your personal "talk" page, but I will paste that part of my argument here so that we have everything in one place: "Based on the contents of your user page, I can guess that you have little respect for the beliefs of mainstream Christianity, and so I understand why you would think that Answers in Genesis is not a reliable source of scientific information. However, I think that a good case can be made that it is a reliable source of information about the beliefs of mainstream Christians, inasmuch as they relate to creation science and intelligent design, which is a broad topic and includes the study of Biblical cosmology. The organization is under Ken Ham, who was noted for his debate with Bill Nye, and is also responsible for the (physically large) Ark Encounter museum; he is a well-known name among young-earth creationists, which is still considered a mainstream camp in Christianity. The articles on the website are vetted by the organization prior to publication. It's about as respectable as any Christian research website can be." I want to add, also, that since the articles on that website are vetted by the organization, and the author and poster of that particular article are not a part of Answers in Genesis, and the article itself is actually an excerpt from "Journal of Creation, No 2, (November 1999): 44-51", it's decidedly not a self-published source.Boxcartenant (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• "Since you didn't cite a source, I can only imagine that you have simply assumed without research that Biblical inerrantists are a minority of all Christians." No. Biblical inerrancy is mostly rejected outside certain branches of Evangelicalism. "Inerrancy has been much more of an issue in American evangelicalism than in British evangelicalism. According to Stephen R. Holmes, it "plays almost no role in British evangelical life"."
• "In fact, about 70% of America is nominally Christian" How is this relevant? We are not writing for an American audience, and a global perspective is needed for most of our articles. And we are reflecting views from reliable sources, not the general public.

@Dimadick:I was establishing my sample before I divided it up. America is a large country, and contains a significant part of the Christian population of the world. It's a good case study in mainstream Christianity. Britain -- your counter example -- is relatively much less significant measured against the total population of Christians in the world. Boxcartenant (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

America has less than 5% of the total population of the world; it can hardly contain a significant part of anything on a global demographic basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.217.141 (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

why did you put the rest of this below the reflist?

• "24% of Americans believe the Bible is the literal word of God (which implies inerrancy)." While this confrms my belief that there is something seriously wrong with the education system in the United States, you seem to misunderstand something. The belief in Biblical inspiration does not equate to either Biblical literalism or Biblical inerrancy. "The Roman Catholic Church holds the Bible as inspired by God, but does not view God as the direct author of the Bible, in the sense that he does not put a 'ready-made' book in the mind of the inspired person." ... "The Evangelical position has been criticized as being circular by non-Christians and as well as Christians such as Catholic and Orthodox authors, who accept the doctrine of biblical inspiration but reject the Protestant arguments in favor of it. These critics claim that the Bible can only be used to prove doctrines of biblical inspiration if the doctrine is assumed to begin with."

"The belief in Biblical inspiration does not equate to either Biblical literalism or Biblical inerrancy. "The Roman Catholic Church holds the Bible as inspired by God, but does not view God as the direct author of the Bible, in the sense that he does not put a 'ready-made' book in the mind of the inspired person." ----- You cant have Biblical Inspiration without Biblical Inerrancy, although the words do mean different things, because whatever information is inspired (delivered by God through a person) is also inerrant; I didn't mention Biblical Literalism (so I don't know why you brought it up); That quote from the catholic church doesn't address the relationship between inspiration and inerrancy (I don't know why you quoted it); your last quote seems to be an argument against the doctrine of biblical inspiration as a whole (again, I don't see the relevance of that argument to this discussion)Boxcartenant (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• "and headed by Billy Graham" Billy Graham died in 2018. Who is heading it now? Dimadick (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Not relevant to this discussion at all, but your right that I could have worded that better. Edit: for some reason, I was under the impression that it was passed on to his son, Franklin. My mistake. Correction here: https://www.ecfa.org/Content/Staff (still not relevant to this discussion) Boxcartenant (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

There are several different concepts: (1) divinely inspired (2) useful (2 Timothy 3:16) (3) without error (4) sole source of doctrine (5) divinely dictated (6) meant literally (7) true (8) subject to what we knw to be the case (9) to be understood in the culture in which it was produced ... and who knows what else. It is possible that what is true of one part is is not true of somewhere else. What is true of the original text, assuming that there was one, is not necessarily true of a later text. On the other hand, there have been later versions of the Bible which have had a stature greater than the older: for example, the Vulgate or the King James Version. Whatever one wishes to defend, a defense of something else is not adequate. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you're making a legitimate point, but I had a really hard time distilling the relevance of it to this argument. What are you advocating we do with the article being discussed?Boxcartenant (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Boxcartenant: It's the type of source which makes it unreliable. E.g. you might cite Daniel B. Wallace, who would say pretty much the same thing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Help me out. Citing Daniel B Wallace making this argument would not be more applicable to the contents of that section than JP Holding (afaict), since he's an individual. In order to make the point that the argument in that section was (as stated) the argument of mainstream Christianity, I would need to cite either a large number of individuals, or at least one large organization which is recognized by a large number of individuals as representing the mainstream. Frankly, I don't know why I'm having such a hard time here. It's got to be 100% obvious to everyone contributing here that mainstream Christianity doesn't believe that the Bible describes a flat earth under a solid dome! Why should I have to argue about whether or not this is mainstream? Here, I can cite the original publication if you want. Or I can cite an article with the same argument, by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. What are you expecting?

@Boxcartenant: Ok, compromise solution: if that's what Geisler says, cite a book by Geisler and state "According to Geisler, ...". Of course birds do not fly inside solids, but again, Ancient Israelites did not think that the birds fly upon the firmament, but way below it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: You're asking me to go read all of Geisler's books to find an argument which is otherwise common online. It's unreasonable, and unnecessary. Also, you'll accept that Israelits didn't think that birds flew upon the firmament but way below it even though they said "birds flew *in* the raquia", but you won't accept that they didn't think the raquia was a solid object?? Why is your interpretation literal here, but figurative there? And really, your answer to the question I just asked is totally irrelevant to whether the argument should be on Wikipedia. ETA: Geisler is cited by the article I posted!Boxcartenant (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, we care about the quality of WP:SOURCES. The claim that the authors of the Bible knew the arguments of Copernicus, Galileo and Newton is far-fetched. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to defend the validity of the mainstream point of view in order to garner your permission to represent it on Wikipedia. Whether the mainstream is valid or not is irrelevant -- the section did not say "mainstream Christianity is right". It said (paraphrased) "mainstream Christianity believes". And, actually, if you go back and read the section you deleted, you'll find that it does not depend on the specific beliefs of the authors of the Bible. That's why it mentions inerrancy/inspiration. It doesn't matter what the authors believed -- it matters what they wrote -- and the Hebrew word "raqia" does not have just one single definition, but must be interpreted in light of its context, and the uses of it throughout the Bible are such that it doesn't make sense for it to be solid. The reason (see my sources) that people interpret it as solid is in part because it is described as holding back the rain (which, by the way, would necessitate that Hebrews thought the raqia was below the clouds, even though they could see that mountain tops went above the clouds and they could climb those mountains, because elsewhere in the Bible they clearly express that rain comes from the clouds, but that's a separate argument).

AFAIK, mainstream Christianity means Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and traditional Protestants. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:Sorry, but I'm really not seeing the relevance of that point of information to this conversation. Are you under the impression that catholics, orthodox, and traditional protestants believe there is a solid dome above the earth?Boxcartenant (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Mainstream Christianity either thinks that Sola Scriptura is heresy or they aren't Sola Scriptura radicals. Most Christians would subscribe to liberal theology if they would deeply reflect upon their own position. That means they don't reject historical criticism as coming from Satan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Who said historical criticism came from satan? What does that have to do with whether or not mainstream Christians think the firmament is solid? Do you disagree with me when I say that mainstream Christians do not think there is a solid dome over the earth? Or, rather, more importantly, your opinions about what Christians would find about themselves if they reflected deeply is not really relevant to whether that section should be included in this article.Boxcartenant (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

No, most Christians do not think there's a solid dome above the Earth. However, they are not appalled by the fact that the Ancients (including Bible authors) subscribed to that view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:Agreed. And, what you just said was not contradicted by the section you removed. What is happening in this discussion? Boxcartenant (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Boxcartenant: I don't know. I already offered you solutions: cite Wallace or cite Geisler. And use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: The solutions you offered have not been demonstrated to improve the conformance of that section to Wikipedia's citation rules. Also, the source originally included in that section cited Geisler. Nobody mentioned POV until now, so please explain what part of that section was not neutral.

@Tgeorgescu: Wait wait, I found one from Nomran Geisler and Thomas Howe, making this exact argument (with the bird and everything).. I don't have the page number, but that citation was actually how Norman Geisler wrote it when he cited himself on his own website. I just want to add that your arbitrary withholding of this information from the Wikipedia page, and your imposition of irrational interpretations of Wikipedia's criteria for citation, evidence that you may have some prejudices against accurate representation of religion. You should do some introspection on why you removed that article, and really why you said the stuff you said when you engaged in this ridiculous discussion today.

What you don't understand is that it is either adequately sourced or not adequately sourced. That was our discussion about. It wasn't about evangelical Christians believing what you said. It was about a source that seemed fishy, that's all. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mgasparin: I don't object to the fact that evangelicals have such POV. I object to it being called "mainstream Christian view". And I had objected to dubious sourcing. Further, too much space was used for the evangelical POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu Got that, thanks. I too, object to the notion that such beliefs are mainstream, as they most certainly aren't. Mgasparin (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mgasparin: Yup, and the tone of that section was rather promotional. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Firmament, at least hear me out?

I'm just going to avoid copyright infringement, and say you can establish your own opinion. I might be late to the party, but I did check around and didn't see anything on this subject. I want you to look up Upper-atmospheric lightning from the elves to the lightning we see. Check out what it looks like from top to bottom, and then look up a plasma ball globe when someone touches it. Can you see correlation between the two? Am I wrong or late? I can't find anything on it. Firmament anyone? $That 1Random Guy$ (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Cosmic inflation and multiple bubbles

Through the theories of cosmic inflation and multiple bubbles of worlds, the firmament could be considered to re-emerge as a upgraded concept? But where the size of the firmament is radically larger than in the Bible? I think it's a fascinating coincidence. The basic idea of ​​a constraint as opposed to infinite world is interesting regardless it is true? I think this article should somehow relate this article of Inflation_(cosmology), at least as a See also​-link. --Zzalpha (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the opposition should be mensioned in a section

I think it is quite right of Wikipedia to demand an official scientific basis in the articles and so also to its references.

But I think it is appropriate to note in the article of the firmament that some organizations in the United States without a link to Paul, still take the Bible literally and claim the existence of the firmament in the sense described in older scriptures. After all, it is part of the reality we live in that the firmament is still asserted by some. The section should also have links to those who stand for the position that has no official scientific basis, but is nevertheless a politically obvious position. I think it is a good solution to this type of contradiction that gives the reader an informative reading, the information about the existence of opposition to the official scientific view, that there are those who think otherwise.

The central basis of scientific methodology and truths is that it can be questioned and constantly tested regardless of whether the criticism has a scientific basis or not (has an acceptable scientific methodological basis for the testing process).

It is also important to note that the official Lutheran and Reformed churches such as the Church of Sweden [1] and the Evolution and the Catholic Church absolutely does not claim the existence of the firmament and it is doubtful whether any Greek Orthodox representative claims it.

Instead, they talk about God's responsibility to have created the world in the way that official science describes it. That science has progressed and we know more today than before when older writings were written, when the church had a different scientific basis then, before later discoveries and thus a different view. And thus the acceptance that the scientific basis is developed through scientific methodological work. --Zzalpha (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The article has a "see also" link to "Flood geology", which has a subsection "Vapor/water canopy" Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Local Galactic Bubble

The walls of the local bubble are a star forming region. https://phys.org/news/2022-01-light-year-wide-earth-source-nearby.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.55.242 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent deletions

In recent weeks Achar Sva (talk · contribs) has unilaterally deleted significant portions of this article without explanation either here on talk or in their edit summaries. This includes most of the etymology section, the section on Gnosticism, the section on Calvinism, and the section on Islam. While some of these sections were still in their infancy, each records an important stage in the cultural history of the concept. The von Rad citation was particularly important as a major authority on the question of whether the Biblical word implies a hard object - it is worrying to see that disappear, as losing it makes us more vulnerable to unscholarly editing by biblical literalists. I do accept that citing the Middle English text verbatim may have appeared OTT to some, so I have moved that to another more appropriate article, but I would like to see most of the rest put back. Achar Sva's reasoning is that this article is only about the Old Testament concept of the rāqīa. If that were true, the article would be called Rāqīa or possibly Firmament (Old Testament). However, the article is called Firmament, which by Wikipedia's wont and usage means its scope should include the broadest understanding of that concept in cultural history. If anyone wants a separate article just on the Old Testament concept, they would be welcome to create one under an appropriately specific title, but they would have to produce a lot more material or I suspect it might be speedily deleted. However on this page, Achar Sva's deletions (and bullying style of reverting) are not appropriate. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Why are we using a Hebrew lexicon to describe a cosmology topic? Not an expert source on the topic. Dimadick (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dimadick:Firmament is a biblical cosmology topic, not a cosmology topic. Dan Bloch (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

This article discusses the biblical concept of the raqia. This happens to be translated in English-language bibles as firmament, but the Hebrew/biblical concept is the subject. Nevertheless, I'd be ok with keeping your (Doric Loon) addition provided the raqia part comes before the firmament part. Achar Sva (talk)

@Achar Sva: Just to be clear, it's not an addition - it's reverting your deletion, which is not the same thing. I have no objection to you reorganizing the sequence of ideas in the etymology section provided they still make sense. But the question you have not answered is, why on earth do you think this article is ONLY about the biblical concept of the rāqīa. That's not implicit in the title, and it's not what the content of the article did when you found it. It is a fair representation of what the article does after you deleted a lot of material, but it is a circular argument to use your deletions as a defense of your deletions. The point is, the biblical concept of the rāqīa is only the start of a cultural history of the motif spanning two and a half millennia, and it seems to me entirely arbitrary to say that we shouldn't discuss that whole history. Compare our article on Satan, which starts with the OT concept and then looks at what subsequent history has done with it. After all, there are thousands of creation stories around the world, and if the Genesis creation stories were just another two of them, if they had been forgotten for 2500 years and recently rediscovered by anthropology, we might have a short article on them but we would not have separate articles on small details like the raqia. This article only exists because the idea is still a part of our culture in modern times. And I personally think that evolving ideas like Calvin reinterpreting the firmament as clouds to make it fit into the cosmology of his own period are the most interesting part of the story. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Put the article the way you want it so I can see what we're talking about.Achar Sva (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Actual Hebrew meaning

The Hebrew word for firmament is raquia which means expanse, not a solid dome. The only reason the ancient people saw the sky as a physical thing is because they had no scientific knowledge of the world around them. 174.235.210.254 (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

No, "expanse" is the translation in those modern bibles that try to resolve inconsistencies and problems, but it is not what the Hebrew scholarship suggests at all. See the Von Rad citation in the article - he is about as big an expert as you can get in this field. Doric Loon (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Your entire response to the IP is clearly based on your own preconceived opinion. Von Rad is but a single source who's reliability is questionable. A cursory search for the Hebrew term "raqia" (NOT "raquia") reveals that there are innumerable sources that disagree with Von Rad. This tells me that the IP's argument deserves a lot more than just a summary rejection based on one man's opinion.2601:18C:4303:4550:4126:7BCF:BD80:A892 (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

If by "a cursory search" you mean that you googled this, I can quite imagine what kinds of sites you might have found. The internet is full of popular religion which no doubt has its own merits but is hardly scholarly. If you are looking at that and then saying that the most important scholar of his generation is "unreliable" then I don't know how to answer you. But the Von Rad quote gives reasons for his conclusion and it is clearly based on sound philological research. You would need to produce a scholar of similar standing if you want to argue for the opposite. Doric Loon (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"I can quite imagine what kinds of sites you might have found." ...and you just proved my point. Why are you imagining instead of looking deeper? I did, and there are quite a lot of viewpoints opposing the stance taken by the source you mentioned. All I am suggesting is that there is a plethora of opinions opposed to the notion that raqia fits Von Rad's opinion. He's not the only expert out there. To suggest that one single "expert" is enough to flat out reject any other notions is extremely in contrast to encyclopedic principles, which is to present ALL sides of an argument (with the exception of fringe and clearly debunked theories). Your curt rejection and "imagined" results of a Google search, are indicative of a closed mind, which I don't believe you actually posses. Shouldn't more in depth searching be done on what is clearly a definition that is and has been for a very long time, in total contrast to your opinion? For example, in that "cursory" search, I very quickly found an assertion that raqia being understood to mean expanse has been occurring as far back as nearly a thousand years. This is clearly in stark contrast to your claim that only "modern bibles" used expanse as the definition only to "resolve inconsistencies." If it is true that expanse has been the understood meaning, at least by some, of raqia, does that not bear fleshing out rather than summarily rejecting the idea due to your own preconceived notion? 2601:18C:4303:4550:4126:7BCF:BD80:A892 (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I am absolutely open to other opinions if they are scholarly and philological, and properly sourced in academic literature, but you haven't actually produced one of those yet. Remember, we are talking about the "etymology" section of the article, or as the first writer in this thread put it, the "actual Hebrew meaning". Further down the article there is space to talk about different interpretations in different religious traditions - by all means flesh that out if you wish. But the etymology section should only say what competent experts in semitic linguistics think.

You are right that the word "expanse" is found for example in Brown, Driver and Briggs, the standard dictionary of Biblical Hebrew, who offer the translation "extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out; compare Job 37:18)". If you understand "expanse" to mean something vast, flat and solid, as they do, then we have no argument. The trouble is, that if you only say "expanse", most people think that you mean an open space like the modern understanding of the upper atmosphere, and that is what the OP of this thread was getting at when they wrote that raqia "means expanse, not a solid dome". I can't find any serious Hebrewist who thinks that was what the authors of Genesis intended.

If my tone sounded curt, it's because I'm heartily tired of people trying to make Wikipedia's explanations of Greek and Hebrew words fit their religious opinions, in this case the idea that Biblical cosmology can be literally true and not conflict with modern science. (Not that I am suggesting that is what you are doing! I don't know anything about you, and am assuming good faith.) Historical linguistics is a rigorous discipline, and while we must be alert to varying scholarly opinions, we are not obliged to give equal space to just anything we can dig up on the internet or in devotional writing. Doric Loon (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've put more of BDB into the article, which gives you the word "expanse" in a scholarly context. Doric Loon (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Why no mention of Flat Earther interpretation?

I came to this article for information on the firmament Flat Earthers believe in. There's currently no reference to Flat Earth theory in the entire article. It may be stupid, but it is culturally relevant and worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. 2603:7000:4603:A1D:55FF:ADF2:AA85:BEF6 (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, the picture does show that Hebrew cosmology implies a flat earth. The firmament of heaven and the flat earth were part of a single world view in near-eastern antiquity. If you want to make that more explicit in the article, feel free, though you need to find a source to quote - but that shouldn't be hard, since it's a fairly obvious point.

If you are referring to modern flat-earthers, I don't know whether they believe in a solid firmament of heaven. If you want to put that in the article, you will need good sourcing, because it is not obvious. Doric Loon (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Connection with Sumerian division of the celestial sphere

The division of the waters between Enlil and Enki representing the division of the celestial sphere into northern and southern hemispheres would seem to be related. Anyone aware of sources connecting these specific elements with Genesis? Skyerise (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)