The "Firmament"

[Endymion83]

This is an excerpt from an interview (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/asimov.htm) with Isaac Asimov.

Kurtz: When the Bible says, "And God made the firmament," what does it mean? Isn't that odd?

Asimov: Well, if you trace the word firmament back to its original meaning, it is a thin, beaten layer of metal. It is like the top you put on a platter in a restaurant. It is like the lid of a dish. The earth is a dish and the firmament comes down upon it on all sides. It is a material object that separates things. There are waters above the firmament and waters below. In fact, in the Book of Revelation, which was written about 100 C.E., centuries after Genesis was written, the writer describes the firmament as folding up like a scroll. It was still viewed as a thin metal plate. But we know as surely as we can know anything at all that there is no firmament up there -- there's no thin metal layer -- there's only an atmosphere, and beyond it a vacuum, an empty space, except where there are planets, stars, and other objects. The blueness of it is an illusion due to the scattering of light, and the blackness of night is due to the absence of any light that we can see, and so on.

Kurtz: In a metaphorical interpretation, how would you interpret "the waters above and the waters below"? Does that make any sense?

Asimov: Not to me. Obviously the people who first wrote about the waters above the firmament were thinking of rain. The rain supposedly came down through the windows in the firmament. There were little holes, as in a shower head, and the rain drizzled through. I don't blame them for not understanding. I don't criticize the ancients for not knowing what we know. It took centuries to work up this knowledge, and the ancients contributed their share. They were every bit as intelligent as we are and every bit as much seekers after the truth. I'm willing to admit that. But the fact is that they didn't know as much as we know now.
Unless the entire space program and communication satellites are a hoax, it looks like we have a serious case of biblical errancy here. But since apologetics can seemingly worm its way out of everything, what is thier explanation for this?

[Nostalgic Pushhead]

Well, there WAS a firmament, see, but after the flood, well, God had to remove it entirely to flood the planet, and instead of putting it back up (it took long enough the first time) he just invented weather. He figured it wasn't much of an extra project, considering he had to invent all these fossils to plant into the ground.

[Doctor X]

Yeah . . . and . . . like . . . all of that water is not in space because . . . like . . . it fell on the Earth during the flood . . . yeah . . . then . . . um . . . you know . . . it evaporated!

--J.D.

[Utu]

Originally posted by Endymion83
But since apologetics can seemingly worm its way out of everything, what is thier explanation for this?

The word raqya or raqia, which the KJV translates as "firmament" is retranslated to mean "expanse". This is a common method to resolve everything. Just change the meaning of the words.

[spin]

Originally posted by Utu
The word raqya or raqia, which the KJV translates as "firmament" is retranslated to mean "expanse". This is a common method to resolve everything. Just change the meaning of the words.

Especially interesting because the use of the raqia is to physically separate the waters above from those below. Now, had the raqia been conceived of as an empty space then there would have been nothing to hold the waters up away from the waters below according to such a world view. But of course our xian apologist says that this is mere literalism, invoking the term with some smugness after having it used against him often enough because of slight inerrantist tendencies.

However, one then points out that according to the Jews who wrote the ancient Targum Jonathan the raqia was three fingers thick, suggesting that it was indeed solid. But of course our xian apologist says that this is mere conjecture on the part of the ancient Jews and that the xian apologist sees no reason why he cannot project his modern ideas onto what must surely be a misunderstanding of readers such as those ancient Jews.

However, one then points out that the verb RQ` means to "work (metal)" or "beat out" and to that fact one points to Exodus 39:3, "Gold leaf was beat out (YRQ`W, ie from the verb, RQ`)", see also Num 16:38. But of course our xian apologist says, despite RQ` also being in other verses translated as "stamp (one's foot)" with the notion of hard physical contact of foot with ground as a metalurgist's hammer on the metal, the verb is really about the spreading of the metal, so RQ` implies to expand and so raqia shouldbe translated as "expanse" anyway.

:rolleyes:


spin