Scripture Based Flat Earth Proposition

Some people say the firmament is a rigid dome.

Well --- if they would pay more attention to what the Bible actually says, they would very probably not make that error...

The dome may in fact be 'rigid'; however, according to the Bible - the 'firmament' is not the dome itself - rather, it is the 'expanse' below it.

And, I am more-than-happy to tell that to any Flat Earther to help them understand the proper definition of 'firmament'.

From NOAH WEBSTER'S 1828 DICTIONARY:

FIRMAMENT n. ferm' ament. [L. firmamentum, from firmus, firmo.]

The region of the air ; the sky or heavens. In scripture, the word denotes an expanse, a wide extent ; for such is the signification of the Hebrew word, coinciding with regio, region, and reach. The original therefore does not convey the sense of solidity, but of stretching, extension ; the great arch or expanse over our heads, in which are placed the atmosphere and the clouds, and in which the stars appear to be placed, and are really seen.

Even back then, they refused to believe the Bible [totally-and-completely] and allowed the Ball Earth model belief system to influence the wording of their definition. (at the end)

But, the point I am making by posting it is that it shows us that the original use of the word is different than what many people think. Just because the word contains 'firm' does not mean that it is referring to something 'solid' and 'rigid' according to modern definitions.

It is an elevated piece of rock at ground level separating water from water.

Um... you're a bit late for an April fool, but if you're serious, I strongly suggest reading Genesis 1 carefully.

There is a word there in the Greek OT and there is a Hebrew cognate, the which are mistranslated heaven rather than peak or elevation. The nonsensical firmament that is dome reminds me of a non-existent flat-earth. The bible doesn't say there is even a planet under our feet, but merely implies for later science by astronomy that the base of everything is round.

Do you mean the word “raquia”?

Is it cognate of ουρανος in Greek, or the firmament itself? I mean both raquia and šāmayim, but samayim is plural and means elevations, cognate of Greek ουρανων.

Yes, I agree, the sky expanse and stars/sun/moon expanse are all a part of thee firmament/expanse. I didn't intend to suggest otherwise. The context of my post was to answer Roman34's question, and detail why I strongly disagree with his proposal that scripture somehow indicates the Flood' waters came from the waters above the firmament.

In that context, I wrote birds fly in the (1st) heaven expanse under the expanse of the stars, sun and moon, often referred as the 2nd heaven; to emphasis the common use of the word heavens, not to suggest sky is not in thee firmament. Also, Romans34's post title "Scripture Based Flat Earth Proposition" suggests he's using this proposal as an argument for earth being flat.

Gen 1:14 reads, "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years." And indeed they do! The stars themselves are a sign the earth is a sphere. Let's take a look at these signs.

This a video presentation by christian astronomer and Answers in Genisis fellow, Dr. Danny Faulkner, details those heavenly signs here: Does The Bible Describe the Earth as Flat? - YouTube

For a quick short version of how the signs of the stars prove that earth is spherical please watch this video: Destroying Flat Earth Without Using Science - Part 2: The Stars (youtube.com)

.

If the rain didn't come from the waters above the firmament, then where did they come from?

Your 'cognate' thinking is backwards and incorrect - the Hebrew is original - it did not come from something else.

The Greek OT was translated from the Hebrew. Whatever difference there may be in word definition(s) between the two would have to be a mistranslation of the Hebrew into the Greek.

It certainly seemed to me that you did intend to suggest otherwise...

If you say 'The firmament, or expanse, is...' - are you not declaring/defining what the 'firmament' is?

~ You used the word 'The' - which suggest "the very thing" and not "one of" or [just] something similar.

~ You indicate that the 'firmament' is [the] 'expanse' containing stars, Sun and Moon - [which is] the 2nd heaven. In other words, you equate the 'firmament'/'expanse' with the 2nd heaven [directly]. (And, by making this suggestion, [also] imply that the 1st heaven is below the firmament.)

You state plainly that the 'sky' is below the firmament.

You indicate that the birds fly in the 1st heaven - below the firmament as previously defined.

You do not refer to the area where birds fly specifically in terms of another [different/separate] 'firmament'/'expanse'.

~

Personally, I believe you are just "back-pedaling" - and, as a result, it has caused your "creditability" to "bottom-out" [at least] where this topic is concerned.

It doesn't matter; cognate means the words have the same exact definition.

There is no mistranslation in those parts and the New Testament demonstrates this. The bible doesn't teach planetary concepts before astronomy.

3:13 καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὤν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ
And then none has ascended into an elevation lest oneself from an elevation which he travels, a son of an human the which in the elevation.

John 3:13 - NIV, NAB - in Tertullian Against Praxeas
It is the Son, too, who ascends to the heights of heaven,[426]

Thank you, dear brother, Romans34! It's always excellent to speak to a brother who is straight forward as opposed to deflecting and one who is reasonable.

Your question is the obvious question. Together we have scripture and all that the Lord gave us to understand it. Scripture reads:

Gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

This is one of the many fold reasons I have confidence in scripture: "all the fountains of the great deep broken up". It also did rain, but it seems logical that's a function of distribution, not source. There are two reasons why there's enough water on the earth to flood it.

People have known there's water under the surface of the earth since the digging of wells. Knowledge, techniques and technology has increased through the ages and discoveries of vast amounts water under the earth continues. In a recent 2023 Scientific America article, after finding a vast deposit of fresh water under the ocean floor off the coast using CSEM (controlled source electromagnetic) they estimated there's "one million cubic kilometers" of fresh water just off the coasts worldwide. That's just the coasts.

How much water is under the earth, here on the water planet? We surely don't know. Not only could "all the fountains of the great deep broken up" be more than enough to have covered the surface of the earth way back at the time of the Flood, but in addition to that, the surface of the ocean deep could be pushed up to "sea level", displacing all ocean water across the surface.

There's all that... and there's the fact that our God is all-powerful and capable of miracles. The text does not read the Flood waters came from the waters above the firmament, which scripture reads has been separated from the waters below it, but it does read it came from "all the fountains of the great deep". Genesis uses the term heavens as the abode of birds and rain. I don't see any scriptural or logical reason to suggest it came from the waters above the firmament.

What about the part that says "and the windows of heaven were opened."
It also did rain, you said [emphasis mine]. Where did the rain come from? This IS the very question at hand. It doesn't matter whether there was enough water from below the firmament to flood the earth. The question is: Where did the rain come from? You're avoiding the question that matters. The answer is, of course, the windows of heaven, but what are the windows of heaven? If the Scripture says it came from both places, it seems logical that it came from both sources.
But it clearly reads, "and the windows of heaven were opened"which is where the rain came from. [Where the birds fly is only the first heaven.]

Yes, thank you for that, Gary. I agreed completely with you that the sky is part of the firmament. To any extent I thought the sky was not a part of the firmament, I was mistaken. Thank you gently restoring me. I'm saying, in my reply to Romans34, I was trying to point out that Genesis applies the term heavens to both the sky, home of rain, and it's also applied to the expanse of the sun, moon and stars, as it relates to the verse "and the windows of heaven were opened". That was my goal/intent.

I thought I did answer that question. You already know where water from rain comes from. There's a constant cycle of water evaporating from the earth's surface, rising into the sky, condensing in clouds and then raining back onto the earth. Rain is a miraculous redistribution system. It can put a lot of water everywhere it needs to go.

Why does this happen? It's just an interesting application, but one might suggest Genesis addresses this when it reads it didn't rain until man was created to till the soil for the garden. Again, rain is a miraculous redistribution system. There are physics to explain it, or at least describe it. I've gone over the mechanisms of evaporation many times, and it still truly amazes me.

"The windows of heaven were opened". You don't have to read too far into the Bible to see the richness of metaphors, similes and poetic language. People still use the phrase to refer to a very heavy rain. We've already went over, in Genesis, it uses the word heavens to describe the sky were birds fly, such as Gen 7:23 "and the fowl of the heaven;", (and heavens is also applied to the 2nd and 3rd heavens). I believe the context screams it rained a lot! I don't know if the 3rd heaven has windows or not, but I think the context screams a metaphor akin to "the windows of the sky were opened".

Again, the text reads all the fountains of the great deep broken were up, and the windows of heaven were opened. Waters of the deep and rain. So, yes, it does matter if there was enough water to flood the earth, only to the extent one need not assume it needs more water from somewhere else. Interpreting windows of heaven to mean the windows of the 3rd heaven seems to me superfluous to the full context of those chapters and Genesis as a whole. But I freely admit that thought crossed my mind the first time I heard it read. It's not an unusual thought, I just think it's not the best reading after more contextual contemplation.

One can only assume this current system was in place BEFORE the flood.
Again, it is assumption that it began to rain after man was put in the garden.
I will have to disagree. I don't see evidence that it EVER rained until the time of the flood.
It makes sense to me that "the windows of heaven" refers to "the waters which were above the firmament" just as "the fountains of the great deep" refers to "the waters which were under the firmament".

I really didn't want to get into this discussion; however, I feel that I should point out that rain would be the common normal occurrence since the very beginning of when the current system came into existence/operation. The question is - when did that occur?

By virtue of the 'physics' involved, it stands to reason that it has rained ever since clouds first formed in the open firmament above.

If it was creation week, then it has rained since then.

If it was the flood ['event'] itself that somehow caused it to come into existence/operation, then it has rained [only] since then.

The question to answer is - when did clouds first appear in the open firmament above?

The uncomfortable reality is that Scripture does not tell us, therefore any answer is speculative and any argument based on speculation is not valid.