This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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.
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)
@ 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)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
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)
@ 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)
References
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)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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.
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)
@ 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)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
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)
@ 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)
References
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)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)