Talk:Firmament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
	This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page

Clearly one advantage of a myth--such as the one included in Genesis--that puts a body of water above the vault of heaven is its usefulness in making sense of the fact that rain falls to earth through the heavens, and therefore, apparently, from somewhere above them.

Contents 1 Weasel words 2 over templatized 3 Removed irrelevant material 4 The Firmament, link & reference

[edit] Weasel words

Added weasel-tag because of the references to "some experts","some people","most experts",... KebsOne 11:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] over templatized

I removed quite a few templates since it seemed to be a holy war of templates on the article page. If its worth the time to put the template in its worth the time to explain here, on the talk page. Templates removed:

{{Inappropriate tone}}

{{TotallyDisputed}}

{{Unencyclopedic}}

{{Essay-like}}

{{Incoherent}}

{{Calm talk}}

{{Controversial}}

JohnCub 23:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Is any of this regarding the Hebrew origin of the word firmament? That reference continues to be removed from the article; however, the Strong's Bible Concordance is a widely accepted and valued reference tool.

Megamile 07:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed irrelevant material

The discussion of the waters "gathered in one place", while interesting, is not relevant to the article. If you read the text, it's clear that the gathering of waters "into one place" was a distinct event from the separation of heavenly and earthly waters by a firmament, and the waters "gathered into one place" remained on the earth. Rocinante9x 21:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Firmament, link & reference

Can someone please tell me how the external link to an organization that is called "The Firmament" (the name of this very article) is inappropriate? The organization doesn't try to sell anything; whereas, the external link to the Catholic Encyclopedia tries to sell their CD-ROM once the viewer gets there. Talk about adverising and/or promotion...

Also, why was the section about lights being placed in the firmament (Gen 1:14-17) removed from the article but the creation part (Gen 1:6-8) was left in? They are both direct citations of the Book of Genesis, and together they give a more complete illustration of the "firmament". Megamile 21:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to consider the link to the Firmament's presentation of the Proof of God/Creator to be deemed "inappropriate" as a link to the article on the 'Firmament'. If someone is continually "editing/deleting" that link it is obviously being done out of bias and not allowing the general public to see it. That's censorship. I would like to add that I've seen the presentation by the Firmament and it is not an advertisement and they're not selling anything, but shows a strong connection between the two most significant celestial bodies (lights in the Firmament - Gen 1:16-17) and the two most significant structures in the Bible (i.e. Noah's ark and the Ark of the Covenant). It would seem since the article in question is on the 'Firmament' and its Biblical definition that the Firmament presentation is exactly that and the link should be left in the article for the perusal of the viewer/reader of the article. I feel it enhances the article and gives unique information on the subject of the Firmament. http://www.thefirmament.org --MyCallonWiki 23:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the "lights in the firmament" can stay. In fact, I'd like to expand that: the Hebrews believed that the stars were small lamps attached to the firmament dome (which could be knocked off) while the Sun (and, IIRC, the Moon) moved in and out of the dome through a system of "gates" (described in the Book of Enoch). But the "Firmament" website isn't about the Hebrew solid-skydome "firmament" at all. The article is a sermon which attempts to make an "argument for God" by playing with numbers (e.g. the surface area of the deck of Noah's Ark in Hebrew cubits is approximately equal to the diameter of the Sun in English miles: measurements and units chosen only because the numbers wouldn't fit otherwise). This has nothing to do with the Hebrew Firmament. --Robert Stevens 07:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"Sure, the 'lights in the firmament' can stay."? It seems that you are acting as the gatekeeper of the article rather than a collaborative editor to it for the edification of others. When I edited the article with a Strong's reference, Genesis reference, and external link, I left the reference to the Vulgate and the link to Catholic Encyclopedia even though I disagree entirely with the validity of both of those sources. However, when you reversed my edits, you took out everything when the only part you seem to disagree with is the Firmament link. If we can agree that the word "firmament" means an expanse in which lights were placed, then why is it inappropriate to have a link to an organization whose name is the Firmament which expands on information regarding those lights placed in the firmament? After all, the link is being placed in the "External links" section and there is no product being offered, which is not the case with the Catholic Encyclopedia link.Megamile 08:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Firmament was regarded as a solid dome (not an "expanse" of space) to which the stars were physically attached. The article has an entirely different interpretation, based on modern astronomy. It mentions astronomical phenomena (along with non-astronomical phenomena), but it doesn't discuss the actual Firmament. --Robert Stevens 11:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you check the "firmament" definition in the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible in the Hebrew definition (the origin of the word) #7549 it reads; 'an expanse i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:-firmament'. That clearly points out that it means "expanse". If you check Genesis 1:14 it states that God set lights in the firmament to give light (i.e Sun, Moon & Stars). In Genesis 1:8 God calls the firmament Heaven, not a dome of lights. The dome of lights and stars being swallowed up by the Sun is from pagan Egyptian and Greek sources which ARE NOT the definition of firmament but pagan beliefs. Please cite your source for firmament being a dome of small lamps. The Hebrews knew what the firmament was and not some pagan belief. Enoch also knew what the firmament was/is. If a link called the Firmament exists and it is explaining the possible connectivity of Biblical structures to celestial lights in the heavens and God called the Heavens the firmament and visa versa that would appear to not only compliment the definition but, in fact, be the definition as well. --MyCallonWiki 20:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a link to Strongs Concordance already in the article, in "References". It says:

1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
a) expanse (flat as base, support)
b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

It also quotes Gesenius's Lexicon: "the firmament of heaven, spread out like a hemisphere above the earth... to which the stars were supposed to be fixed, and over which the Hebrews believed there was a heavenly ocean".

The Hebrews used the same cosmology as their pagan neighbors. Biblical references to this cosmology (specifically, the notion of a solid Firmament with Heaven above it) include the creation of the Firmament in Genesis 1:6; God opening windows in the Firmament in Genesis 7:11 to let water rain down, and closing them again in Genesis 8:2; the construction of a tall tower to reach Heaven in Genesis 11:4; celestial warehouses for snow and hail in Job 38:22, the sky as a strong crystalline material in Job 37:18 and Ezekiel 1:22; the sky as a tent in Isaiah 40:22; stars as small objects attached to the Firmament (which can fall off) in Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, Revelation 6:13, Revelation 8:10, Revelation 9:1 and Revelation 12:4 (apologists sometimes claim that these "falling stars" are meteors, but the swipe of a dragon's tail dislodges one-third of all the stars in the sky in Revelation 12:4).

The heavens are "rolled back like a scroll" in Revelation 6:14: however, as stars are apparently still being knocked off the Firmament in subsequent verses, it's unclear which layer is being removed at this point.

As for Enoch: that book gives even more information, such as the elaborate system of openings that the Sun passes through when entering and leaving the dome. Again, from a link that's already in the article (as "The Vault Of Heaven"), the section on "The Sun and Moon":

This is the first commandment of the luminaries: The sun is a luminary whose egress is an opening of heaven, which is (located) in the direction of the east, and whose ingress is (another) opening of heaven, (located) in the west. I saw six openings through which the sun rises and six openings through which it sets. The moon also rises and sets through the same openings, and they are guided by the stars; together with those whom they lead, they are six in the east and six in the west heaven. All of them (are arranged) one after another in a constant order. There are many windows (both) to the right and the left of these openings. First there goes out the great light whose name is the sun; its roundness is like the roundness of the sky; and it is totally filled with light and heat. The chariot in which it ascends is (driven by) the blowing wind. The sun sets in the sky (in the west) and returns by the northeast in order to go to the east; it is guided so that it shall reach the eastern gate and shine in the face of the sky (1 Enoch 72:2-5).

As for the "Firmament" video: it discusses the Sun, the Moon, Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, and Solomon's Temple. But it doesn't discuss the Firmament at all. It barely mentions the word (and only because of the Genesis quote).

And another thing: the purpose of the video is to solicit donations ("with menaces", in fact: the end of the video declares that there are only a few places in Heaven and strongly implies that you'd better join up, and pay up, real soon). --Robert Stevens 22:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of your rebuttal is arguable interpretations of what is speculated to be "believed" by several hypothecators and aren't definitions at all. The Biblical and Strong's reference are definitions that coincide with the Firmment article in Wiki. You are doing the proverbial "Straining a gnat and swallowing a camel."

As far as the link to the Firmament presentation and it referring to God's command to let there "be lights in the Firmament to give let unto the Earth," that site does exactly that and they do exist, then what's the problem with having a link to that source? The purpose of the video is not to solicit donations if it were that would be required at the beginning of the presentation and there is no requirement. The viewer makes the decision after watching the product and there's no requirement to do so. But, based on that objection then the Catholic Encyclopedia link should be reverted because they are soliciting readers to buy their CD, yet no one is reverting their link. There is also a link in the 'ark of the covenant' Wiki article that's listed under 'Replicas' with the sole intent of selling replicas of the ark for as much as $3000 without alerting the reader to that fact and no one is trying revert that link.

So, how about you post your take and source links and let others post theirs for the completeness of the reader on the Firmament? Anything else is censorship and not editorial. --MyCallonWiki 23:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to Robert Stevens:

According to Egyptian mythology, the goddess Nut was said to be the mother of the sky, i.e. the sun, moon and stars. Her depiction is that of a woman on all fours with the stars on her belly. At night the sun was said to be “swallowed up,” ran through her belly, and was reborn through her uterus at dawn. See: Nut (goddess).

The article in the Catholic encyclopedia on the Firmament recounts these and other pagan ideas that stem from Babylonia, the Greeks and Romans, which are the roots of Catholicism. This same article then attempts to explain what the Hebrew thought was/is and the Catholic take on how it is explained in Scripture. Stevens seems to get his take from this source as well.

These ideas, of course, have nothing to do with the true meaning of ‘The Firmament’ according to the Book of Genesis in the Bible but are based on ancient, pagan ideas. To have a reference that correlates Noah’s Ark and the Ark of the Covenant to the Sun and Moon, the rulers of the Firmament, is something Wikipedia would be remiss to leave out.

When you go to the Catholic encyclopedia, you are solicited to buy their encyclopedia on CD. Catholic dogma claims the infallibility of its leader and that the only way to salvation is through him. So you better join up now in order to be saved or you’ll be doomed to an eternity in hell. That’s menacing. Also, Wikipedia itself asks for donations from those who have benefited from its work. There’s no menace to that. It’s a matter of free choice. --IMSirius 23:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My comments regarding "soliciting donations" was a response to the point raised by Megamile earlier: that the Catholic Encyclopaedia site might be deemed "inappropriate" because it sells a product.

Why are some people so reluctant to actually read the Strongs Concordance link provided by Megamile? What part of "considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above" do you not understand? And what part of "the firmament of heaven, spread out like a hemisphere above the earth... to which the stars were supposed to be fixed, and over which the Hebrews believed there was a heavenly ocean" do you not understand?

The Hebrews, like other Caananite tribes, inherited their cosmological model from the Sumerians (not the Egyptians): a flat Earth covered by a solid sky-dome made of a hard crystalline or metallic material. That is the "true meaning" of the Firmament (a word derived from the Hebrew riqqua, meaning “beaten out”, a reference to the process of making a metal bowl by hammering metal flat). It is the worldview that is used consistently throughout all Hebrew scriptures: for instance, in the Book of Baruch, the builders of the Tower of Babel actually reach the underside of the Firmament dome and begin to drill through it before God intervenes.

This is an article about the Hebrew concept of the Firmament. We should be writing about what the ancient Hebrews actually believed (based on what they actually wrote), not what modern Christian or Jewish apologists would prefer that they believed (based on nothing but wishful thinking, and directly contradicted by the actual scriptures that we have). --Robert Stevens 10:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The intent of this article is not to define the Firmament as only the Hebrews saw it, but to define the concept of Firmament throughout History. The title is Firmament not Hebrew Firmament. If you will read the first line this should be even more abundantly clear “in the context of Christianity, Judaism and Islam”. Mr. Stevens you are attempting to police this article to your own opinion which is censorship pure and simple and completely missing the point. If there are external links which edify regarding the subject then they should be allowed. If there are definitions which differ from the Hebrew then they should be broken out by subject, i.e. Christianity… Judaism… Islam… Egyptian… etc. If something is added which is blatantly false and no references can be given then remove it, not because you disagree but because it is false. The point being that this article, as all articles in Wikipedia, should be unbiased and accurate covering all aspects of the subject whether you agree with them or not. It is up to the reader to determine what the truth is and without all the facts that is not possible. --Stargate5 17:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not stopping you from writing a set of articles such as you propose (though I'd recommend separate pages for the various historical periods). Indeed, this article already links to Shamayim, Primum Mobile and Celestial spheres, therefore what you propose has already been done. I am not trying to impose "my own opinion" on this particular page, but the Hebrew opinion. But none of this has anything to do with the subject which prompted this discussion in the first place: the removal of a link to a video which wasn't discussing the Hebrew Firmament OR describing any established "modern equivalent" belief. Removing non-notable "linkspam" is a part of Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not a place where anyone can hang a link to his personal website. That aspect of Wikipedia's "censorship" isn't going to change anytime soon. And I note that the link is being inserted on multiple pages and removed by multiple editors: it is routine purging of "linkspam" by the Wikipedia community, not some sort of personal vendetta by myself. --Robert Stevens 18:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Stevens, you're not "imposing" the "Hebrew opinion" at all, but what you believe to be the Hebrew opinion. I'm Hebrew and that's not my opinon at all. If you want to insert your idea of what you believe the Hebrew opinion is then insert it as your opinion and stop calling it the Hebrew opinion. Editorial pages of a newspaper is for "opinions", not Wikipedia. You're right though, that has nothing to do with the link to The Firmament site you keep reverting (based on our your own opinion). Just as none of the sources you cite have anything to do with the link reverted. The presentation and the site itself well establishes a "modern equivalent" by the content of the video and the fact it is an organization not a "a personal website". Is that's your definition of "linkspam" whether it is "notable" or not? That would then be prejudicial to only something you consider "notable". I must assume by that you justify the other "linkspams" being attached to the article so the Catholic Encyclopedia can remain. I don't believe The Vault of Heaven link is "notable" and IS a personal website. It appears that you and Wasell are the only two "editors" in league to revert the Firmament link, and you more than him. To stop this cat and mouse scenario, how about you leave the link called the Firmament.org produced by the organization called The Firmament that does give light on the celestial objects in the Firmament in the article on the Firmament? And stop calling it spam for they're not advertising anything nor selling anything like your "notable linkspams" are. Or better yet submit it for Arbitration? --MyCallonWiki 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, another problem with the video is that it fails your "external links which edify regarding the subject" test. It's a simple game with numbers, nothing more. It's based on two fortuitous coincidences which have nothing to do with the Bible (and therefore could be used to "prove" just about any set of religious beliefs): the fact that the Moon is approximately 2,160 miles across (it's actually more like 2,158, but that's pretty close), and the fact that the Sun is almost exactly 400 times larger at just under 865,000 miles (note that this number is rounded down while the previous one was rounded up: for consistency, the author should have used either 215 and 864 or 216 and 865 as his "magic numbers", but then the calculations wouldn't have worked). Of course, if the measurements had been different, he could have used other dimensions (circumference, mass, surface area or whatever) or other units (no rationale was given for using miles: astronomers use meters nowadays).

216 is a very useful number for numerologists, because 6 x 6 x 6 = 216. And 216 x 4 = 864. And, of course, 2 x 3 = 6.

Everything else follows from that. Common measurements, involving multiples of 2 and 3, can then be made to produce 216 and 864 after a little mathematical manipulation. Note how the author juggles cubits, feet and inches in order to multiply by 2 or 12 whenever convenient. It's somewhat tedious to set up, but not "miraculous". The author doesn't care about factors of ten, as long as he gets the desired 3 digits. And calculating surface areas is a good excuse to multiply numbers together (he could also have calculated volumes if he wanted more multiplication: note that he ignored one dimension of each Ark, because he didn't want/need to use it).

The whole exercise might have a place as a reference in a numerology article, but it doesn't say anything particulary "edifying" about the Bible (or, more pertinently, the Firmament). --Robert Stevens 19:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr Stevens you could have circumvented this whole editing war by informing the original editor who posted the link to review the Wikipedia policy on links instead of engaging in this format of contention. I see, however, that you have a habit of this form of contention not for editing purposes beneificial to the readers but for your own aggrandizment. Now, by your above comment, you have confirmed your prejudice against the site by your crtitizing the content of the video based on your conclusions of numerology. You keep referencing the content being "his" or from "him" and "he" , yet it is not a single person but a collabrative production of many.

Your numerological speculations are your version and are not correct and the Firmament's are not manipulative. It cites and explains very clearly the Biblical reference and calculations of the cubit being used that is referred to as the righteous measure that would reveal the mystery referenced by Enoch. I can cite you several hundred Almanacs and recognized Astrological sites that reference that the Moon's diameter is 2160 miles and the Sun's mean diameter at 864,000 miles. The Sun expands and contracts based on the point of its cycle. A solar eclipse substantiates the measures accuracy by the Sun being 400 times larger than the Moon but the Moon 400 times closer to the Earth therefore appearing to be the same size. You're once again basing your conclusions on your opinion of numerology and celestial diameters. There is a huge number of Biblical points that have these exact numbers (216 & 864) built into them which I'm sure you're not aware of and space and time doesn't allow to be cited here. All your contentions do is confirm you seek debate on the subject and not editing at all

That being said and based on your crtique of and belief that the celestial measures are being manipulated, when they're not, proves you are engaging in an edit war and nothing more. Therefore the point of continuing this discussion is not attaining any mediation at all. You have made it very clear you just don't want the link because it does not fall within your belief system. The measures speak for themselves and are Scientific and Astrological facts and Biblically accurate. Now, you're contending the size of the celestial objects in the Firament which is questionable on your part. So, based on Wikipedia's Guidelines the only options left is to refer this to Arbitration. --MyCallonWiki 21:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MyCallonWiki regarding the Arbitration. Looking at the edits made by Mr. Stevens as well as his openly biased attitude toward The Firmament, I do not believe mediation would settle anything. I am most agreeable to finding a compromise, as noted in my previous entry; however, I think Mr. Stevens has made it most clear that he intends to be the judge and jury regarding edits to this article. I read the latest of his edits, and I was about to remove the 5th paragraph entirely since it is merely (mis)interpretation of Scripture rather than fact-based information. I decided not to do so because I thought a possible compromise could be a section within the article named "Firmament, as a solid surface" and another section named "Firmament, as an expanse" since they are both definitions of the Hebrew word. I would first find out if that is something we could all agree upon, but I'm sure Mr. Stevens would vehemently oppose the idea since he obviously has a predisposition as to what this article is about. I agree with Stargate5 that this article should be unbiased and accurate covering ALL aspects. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what Wikipedia is about? As others have noted, the article should be something that everyone can contribute to in terms of links and references regarding the "firmament" so the reader has a complete view rather than a single POV that doesn't allow for any other perspectives. I disagree with a lot of references and links on Wikipedia, but I leave the majority in because I realize that there are more than one POV to be considered in each case. I believe an external link to The Firmament website is appropriate because it illustrates the definition relating to an "expanse" having "lights", let alone the fact that it's an organization that has the same name as the article. I also believe that having two sections, one for the "solid" perspective of the word and another for the "expanse" perspective, would be a fair and necessary outcome. As stated, I do not believe Mr. Stevens is capable of finding a middle ground; therefore, I'm all for Arbitration. --Megamile 04:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to raise an arbitration case, then do so. In the meantime, I (and others) will continue to enforce Wikipedia rules by removing a link which violates multiple Wikipedia rules and guidelines. In addition to being off-topic for this article (it does NOT present a cosmological model comparable to the Hebrew Firmament: "hey, let's play with these numbers" is not a cosmological model), it also fails notability (it does not represent the established position of any religion or denomination, or the scholarly consensus in any field), and it's a video (linked articles should be text, except in special circumstances such as musical performances). --Robert Stevens 09:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Take arbitration if you think it will help, but you'll get told that the link is inappropriate. Almanacs and the like are not considered credible sources and that plus vague references to bits of the bible is all they've used. "God knew things about the solar system we only found out recently"? Yes, but according to the Bible PI is 3, we knew that was wrong a long time ago. Robert Stevens is correct, this is an exercise in playing with numbers that relies on fable and unreliable sources. --Brianmc 12:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)