Talk:Firmament

	This Christianity related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Erudite

I move that this article be deleted for being too erudite.162.82.215.199 17:53, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

I second this motion. Dyskolos 18:02, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Wait a minute, buddy, I rescind my motion...if the writer wants it gone, it must stay.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 18:04, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

I move that this article be deleted for being confusing to the devout and meaningless to everyone else. Tony 11:19, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Wow

An articles with more references than content. Someone should fix that. The unbusinesslike^{man of business} 00:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I put them in columns, will that do? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 02:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not flat

[1] the dome does not have to mean a flat Earth. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F18C:4F9C:446A:109D:23A1:D212 / talk}

I see you (and the writer of the article you linked) failed geometry. A dome has one flat side by default. Why is it so hard for you people to just admit that the early primitives who wrote, compiled, and (poorly) edited the Bible got it wrong? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Did you read the article's explanations? It explains away the problems of several verses. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F18C:4F9C:446A:109D:23A1:D212 / talk}

Yeah, I read it. Standard apologetics soundbites. Domes still have one flat side by default and no amount of tap dancing or "corrections" will change that. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I also poked around a bit and noticed that they subscribe to other pseudoscience such as "homosexuality is a choice" (science says no) and "rapture" (bullshit, made up wholesale). Kinda undermines their credibility when they subscribe to crap that isn't even in the bloody fucking Bible. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Is that a reference to all the 'begetting'? Anna Livia (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

" the verb raqa does not necessarily refer to the beating out of a solid object, but to a spreading out process, whether the object be solid or not" see that? ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F18C:4F9C:446A:109D:23A1:D212 / talk}

I read that in the article. Repeating it verbatim doesn't change the facts of geometry, or that the author(s) of your source have poor credibility (aside from being biblical literalists and Young Earth Creationists), or that they support theological concepts which have no basis in the source material, or that they on multiple occasions use circular reasoning, or that there is zero evidence of a "firmament" in reality. What your source is doing is a basic aplogetics trick wherein they shoehorn something into the bible that a plain reading of the text does not support. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Fault me for the lack of imagination, but how the hell does a proposal for a dome not suggest a flat earth? Is Earth actually some sort of salad bowl? Yeah, sure there's "spreading out process"? I'm struggling to understand what kind of difference this makes, but I feel this is some sort of literalist just raqaing their interpretation of the definition super thin, after first assuming the Bible is correct to begin with. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 01:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Could a convex-concave shape 'work in this 'non-theory'?

When 'the relevant bits' of the Bible were being devised there was, of course, very little knowledge of what the sky was and where it ended 'above the clouds.' Anna Livia (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)