Does the Bible teach ancient solid-dome cosmology?

[Calminian]

This is what Cycel believes, so I'll post his brief comment and invite him to defend his view.

....The real problem though is that Genesis presents a view of cosmology that reflects, not our modern understanding, but the view held by the Babylonians. Read carefully though it and you will see that the picture Genesis gives is the universe as a 'snow globe'. You've seen them before. They are for sale in novelty shops.

He can correct me on his specific take, but in short it's the idea that the book of Genesis is not only incompatible with modern scientific theories of origins (which it obviously is), but is actually promoting ancient cosmologies about the structure of the universe—that the earth is surrounded by a solid barrier or dome, in which the sun moon and stars are embedded. This dome was believed to hold up a heavenly ocean.



Proponents of this view believe this is the firmament Genesis speaks of in chapter 1. And believe it or not, some of the biggest proponents are not skeptics, but professing christians (who may indeed be christians).

Paul Seely and Denis Lamoureux are two of the more popular ones. They promote non-concordist theology, which simply put, means God never intended the Bible to be factually accurate in regard to history or physical reality. It only contains theological truth (which could really mean anything, if everything else is false). And they believe this view is best supported by the fact that the Bible teaches these obviously false ancient ideas about the cosmos.

But I believe Genesis contradicts these ancient ideas and is an anomaly among ancient documents. Furthermore, I believe Genesis is remarkably compatible with what we now know about the universe, structurally. It shows no hints of the existence of a solid barrier between heaven and earth, and gives every indication the firmament is an open expanse.

Hopefully that's good enough to get things going.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Ah okay now I know what you're talking about. Me and my friends refer to this as the Glass-Ceiling Theory. While admittedly if this were true the earth could be safely spinning at 1,000 mph without 7x category 5 hurricane force winds; I still do not believe the Glass-Ceiling Theory nor the Spinning Ball Theory are true myself.

Firstly aye, the Bible does not say the stars, sun, and moon are painted on the sky dome. It clearly says they are set in the Firmament, which is what we call outer space.

Secondly, though the sky dome is not solid (it does not have a solid ceiling) it is obviously a dome shape. Simply, the waters of the air weigh more and are a thicker medium than the waters of the firmament and are made of a different material composition. Consider how one can place fundamentally different liquids in a container and they will settle into layers. As for the shape of the firmament, I am particular to the idea of an open expanse, or a plane myself. So despite Cycel's mockery, indeed, a snow globe is a good model indeed for shape of the earth and sky dome.

 

[dcontroversal]

It seems this comes from the canopy of water that was above the firmament which poured down upon the earth during the flood of Noah's day which had made the earth like a giant terrarium before the flood.....90 percent of the aging is due to the sun....this would also account for longevity, the growth of plants and reptiles (which never stops by the way) and a higher oxygen concentration.......just a few thoughts.......

 

[Cycel]

This is what Cycel believes, so I'll post his brief comment and invite him to defend his view.

He can correct me on his specific take, but in short it's the idea that the book of Genesis is not only incompatible with modern scientific theories of origins (which it obviously is), but is actually promoting ancient cosmologies about the structure of the universe—that the earth is surrounded by a solid barrier or dome, in which the sun moon and stars are embedded. This dome was believed to hold up a heavenly ocean.

View attachment 89114

Proponents of this view believe this is the firmament Genesis speaks of in chapter 1. And believe it or not, some of the biggest proponents are not skeptics, but professing christians (who may indeed be christians).

Paul Seely and Denis Lamoureux are two of the more popular ones. They promote non-concordist theology, which simply put, means God never intended the Bible to be factually accurate in regard to history or physical reality. It only contains theological truth (which could really mean anything, if everything else is false). And they believe this view is best supported by the fact that the Bible teaches these obviously false ancient ideas about the cosmos.

But I believe Genesis contradicts these ancient ideas and is an anomaly among ancient documents. Furthermore, I believe Genesis is remarkably compatible with what we now know about the universe, structurally. It shows no hints of the existence of a solid barrier between heaven and earth, and gives every indication the firmament is an open expanse.

Hopefully that's good enough to get things going.

Yes, I believe this is what scripture teaches. To do this up properly will take a bit of time and so I want to wait for another evening, or a weekend. Read the creation account carefully and you will see that this is what it is saying. Support is provided in other areas of scripture. The sky is solid to hold back the water above. Job spells it out very plainly. Essentially the biblical account of the the cosmos is pretty much identical the the Babylonian cosmology. This doesn't disprove God, but it proves that the Genesis creation account is not an historical record.

 

[Calminian]

Yes, I believe this is what scripture teaches. To do this up properly will take a bit of time and so I want to wait for another evening, or a weekend. Read the creation account carefully and you will see that this is what it is saying. Support is provided in other areas of scripture. The sky is solid to hold back the water above. Job spells it out very plainly. Essentially the biblical account of the the cosmos is pretty much identical the the Babylonian cosmology. This doesn't disprove God, but it proves that the Genesis creation account is not an historical record.

Take your time, Cycel. Bring the text textual evidence you can muster.

 

[Calminian]

It seems this comes from the canopy of water that was above the firmament which poured down upon the earth during the flood of Noah's day which had made the earth like a giant terrarium before the flood.....90 percent of the aging is due to the sun....this would also account for longevity, the growth of plants and reptiles (which never stops by the way) and a higher oxygen concentration.......just a few thoughts.......

Just FYI, virtually all creationists have abandoned the canopy theory, and with great reluctance. Henry Morris is the rightful father of creation science, but even he admitted this theory was far from proven. As creationists looked into it more, they found increasing difficulties with both the scientific and textual evidence. In fact most creationists now lean toward Russell Humphreys' interpretation of day 2, that the stretching out of the firmament was not merely atmospheric, but cosmological in scope.

Paul Taylor's article is a good place to start looking into this. I'm not going to say flat out the theory is incorrect, but I personally don't see it in the Text. If it did exist, I don't think the biblical authors wrote about it.

Some good articles on this:

Explaining the Flood without the Canopy
by Paul Taylor - Creation Today

The Collapse of the Canopy Model
by Bodie Hodge - Answers in Genesis

Flood models: the need for an integrated approach
by A.C. McIntosh, T. Edmondson & S. Taylor - Creation Ministries International

 

[nl]

Q. Does the Bible teach ancient solid-dome cosmology?

A. No. The Bible's teaching does not require a solid-dome cosmology. Analysis found at this link: Is the raqiya' ('firmament') a solid dome? - creation.com

 

[4enlightment]

The earth spins around and if the water is able to travel through space to the earth without going into the moon's orbit, I don't see how someone can come up with this. That will be a lot of water coming from above to the earth that it will wash away the earth from its orbit and everything else. Water doesn't flow around in space, it'll just be suspend around in space like stars, but instead of being a solid object, it'll be more likely a bunch of bubbles of water suspended in space. Its says in Genesis that a burst of spring had came from the ground and when something like that happens, it would cause an atmospheric change like electrical storms and rain or whatever. But the flood water had came from the bottom and which it have had a water layer underneath its surface, but there's another layer that waiting to come up and will flood the whole surface with molting lava like a great lake of fire.

 

[oldhermit]

I really do not know how one could either prove nor disprove any of the dome theories. This theory is the product of man's reasoning toward a conclusion that seems fit a set of facts. The problem is that there is nothing in the text of Genesis that we can point to as conclusive evidence in support of this theory. Everything is speculative.

 

[nl]

...Essentially the biblical account of the the cosmos is pretty much identical the the Babylonian cosmology. This doesn't disprove God, but it proves that the Genesis creation account is not an historical record.

Thank you Cycel. I am not ready to throw inerrancy overboard. God has preserved and protected the Bible as a message to the human beings, an earthly species among whom Jesus Christ condescended to become Incarnate and live and die among us. Jesus in heaven still retains that human nature. He resurrected first and the Bible teaches that the day and hour will come when the rest of us also rise from the dead.

...for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. - John 5:28-29

For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever. - 1 John 2:16-17

The ungodly forces of the world have their ungodly trinity of the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gave direction to lay up treasure in heaven. In Luke 12:16-21, Jesus tells the parable of the man who stored up much treasure in earthly barns.

The story concludes with:

But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God. - Luke 12:20-21

Fools hate knowledge, wisdom and instruction is what we are told in Proverbs 1:7,21. I am grateful for the knowledge shared here in these forums. The Bible has more to say on fools and foolishness than Psalm 14:1 and 53:1.

 

[dcontroversal]

Just FYI, virtually all creationists have abandoned the canopy theory, and with great reluctance. Henry Morris is the rightful father of creation science, but even he admitted this theory was far from proven. As creationists looked into it more, they found increasing difficulties with both the scientific and textual evidence. In fact most creationists now lean toward Russell Humphreys' interpretation of day 2, that the stretching out of the firmament was not merely atmospheric, but cosmological in scope.


Paul Taylor's article is a good place to start looking into this. I'm not going to say flat out the theory is incorrect, but I personally don't see it in the Text. If it did exist, I don't think the biblical authors wrote about it.

Some good articles on this:

Explaining the Flood without the Canopy
by Paul Taylor - Creation Today

The Collapse of the Canopy Model
by Bodie Hodge - Answers in Genesis

Flood models: the need for an integrated approach
by A.C. McIntosh, T. Edmondson & S. Taylor - Creation Ministries International

Well...maybe most have abandoned it, but I think a clear reading of Genesis and a study of the words used indicate that it was a reality.....just my view and it seems to logically fit as experiments have been done in sealed chambers with constant temps and a 35% oxygen rate with a higher pressure and reptiles and plants grow faster, bigger etc. Not to mention what it does to human muscle, workability and the ability to run miles without being out of breath.....so.....maybe just one of the many things that we all speculate on that will be known in due time!

At the end of the day...The three sources sited by you are just the opinions of men so.....nothing to base fellowship on for sure.....!

 

[nl]

The past is finite. The future is infinite. We do well to plan for eternity.

 

[Calminian]

Well...maybe most have abandoned it, but I think a clear reading of Genesis and a study of the words used indicate that it was a reality.....just my view and it seems to logically fit as experiments have been done in sealed chambers with constant temps and a 35% oxygen rate with a higher pressure and reptiles and plants grow faster, bigger etc. Not to mention what it does to human muscle, workability and the ability to run miles without being out of breath.....so.....maybe just one of the many things that we all speculate on that will be known in due time!

At the end of the day...The three sources sited by you are just the opinions of men so.....nothing to base fellowship on for sure.....!

I'm just letting you know that there is nothing in the text to support it. Yes, it may have happened. Not everything that happened in the past is recorded in the Bible. I just think we need to be careful when we speak of it as being an event described in the Bible. There are a myriad of interpretive problems in doing this. And yes, the links provided are written by men, so naturally they are just opinions. All my comments are opinion as well. I would suggest testing everything I and they say by the word of God.

 

[Calminian]

Thank you Cycel. I am not ready to throw inerrancy overboard. ...

Keep in mind, Cycel is not a Christian. Many proponents of this view do claim to be Christians, and are, as you say, throwing inerrancy overboard (though they claim otherwise). Cycel will be coming at this from the viewpoint that the Bible is not a reliable document, and certainly not the Word of God.

 

[dcontroversal]

I'm just letting you know that there is nothing in the text to support it. Yes, it may have happened. Not everything that happened in the past is recorded in the Bible. I just think we need to be careful when we speak of it as being an event described in the Bible. There are a myriad of interpretive problems in doing this. And yes, the links provided are written by men, so naturally they are just opinions. All my comments are opinion as well. I would suggest testing everything I and they say by the word of God.

I agree and do qualify what I write like the use of (just my view) and (just a few thoughts to ponder) and (nothing to base fellowship on)

 

[posthuman]

does anyone know what would be the Aramaic word for "interstellar gas" ?

 

[Calminian]

does anyone know what would be the Aramaic word for "interstellar gas" ?

Mayiym (waters) is a good possibility as far as a hebrew word. Water (not gas) seems to be the substance God made everything out of, including the land and sea. Peter specifically speaks of the land being made out of water.

And now NASA seems to be in agreement. I never knew this but apparently we are finding vast reservoirs of water out in deep space at the very edges of our Universe.

Astronomers Find Largest, Most Distant Reservoir of Water

ICR has an article on this as well: Water Near Edge of Universe Bolsters Creation Cosmology

 

[JimmieD]

... but in short it's the idea that the book of Genesis is not only incompatible with modern scientific theories of origins (which it obviously is), but is actually promoting ancient cosmologies about the structure of the universe—that the earth is surrounded by a solid barrier or dome, in which the sun moon and stars are embedded. This dome was believed to hold up a heavenly ocean.

Yes, I believe this is what scripture teaches.

Genesis doesn't promote/teach cosmology [of any kind], and I would suggest that if that's what we're getting from Genesis, we're missing the point and what it's actually teaching.

Genesis is teaching and promoting the belief that Yahweh has chosen Israel; and it's author(s) has gone to extensive lengths to explain why. Roughly, Genesis is teaching/promoting that Yahweh created everything good and chose Adam to be his vice regent and ruler over creation. He and his offspring failed, so God destroys everything and starts over with Noah and his offspring. Noah and his offspring fail, God scatters everyone at Babel and starts over with Abraham and his offspring.

The repeated theme is that God created, he chose someone to rule the earth, that person and their offspring fail, God judges them and starts over again by choosing someone new, ultimately leading to his selection of Israel. Further underlying this idea of election of Israel is that Israel's job was to rule over the earth as God intended man to do. Israel would be the new man, the perfect man that God intended. The repetead cycle is election->failure->judgment->election

This theme is picked up elsewhere in scripture too (as well as being picked up by later Jewish psuedopigraphical writers). The book of Daniel talks mysteriously about 4 kingdoms that ruled over the earth. Each time a new kingdom rules, they eventually fail and are replaced. Ultimately, this leads to the kingdom which would crush all others and rule as God's Principal Agent. Daneil clearly thought that kingdom was Israel, just as the author of Genesis did. The cycle is the same as in Genesis; each dominant ruler is eventually destroyed and replaced until God vindicates Israel as his chosen one.

The theme is picked up by Paul as well who concludes that just as all the gentiles had failed, and the Jewish nation had been elected by God to fulfill this mission, they failed just like the rest, leading Paul to conclude just like the Psalmist, "there is none righteous, not even one."

Genesis isn't teaching or promoting the scientific method, cosmology, or history. It's promoting and teaching that God selected Israel to do what everyone else failed to do - rule the earth as God's Agent. Having hindsight makes the theme a little depressing too since we know that Israel split and between them and Judah were eventually destroyed and conquered several times over.

While the author's beliefs about cosmology are interesting, and frequently hotly debated, they are beside the point of the writing.

 

[Calminian]

...Genesis isn't teaching or promoting the scientific method, cosmology, or history....

Why would these things you say be mutually exclusive? The founding of Israel is history, in that it's historically true. How can you say the Genesis doesn't teach history, when you just cited several historical accounts from Genesis—Adam and Eve, the Flood, and Abraham's calling? Genesis is not exclusively historical. There's much theology in it, obviously. But it's a theology based in history.

And you also say it's beside the point? In what sense is the historicity of Genesis beside the point? Are you saying it may or may not have happened, and either way it doesn't matter? If so, I would be curios if you feel the same way about the Gospels. If the first Adam didn't exist, maybe the last Adam is a metaphor as well. That seems to be where you're going with this.

 

[Calminian]

...While the author's beliefs about cosmology are interesting, and frequently hotly debated, they are beside the point of the writing.

The author's beliefs? The author is the Holy Spirit? I'm amazed at how little faith modern christians have in the Bible. If the Holy Spirit is not smart enough to get the history and order of events correct, then how do you know He got the theology right?

Also, why would you think the order of event is beside the point? Theologically, death is the result of sin. In the naturalistic theory of origins, death comes first for millions of years until man finally arrives on the scene and sinned. The theology is actually dependent on the historical order of events.