F I R M A M E N T U M

[DanielLL]

Brown-Driver-Briggs for Hebrew.

† [ חוּג S 2328 , 2329 TWOT 615 , 615a GK 2552 , 2553 ] vb. draw round, make circle ( Aramaic circumivit; n. , אָתְּחוּג , circle, vault of heavens ) Qal Pf. על־פני גָח קֹח מים Jb 26:10 ( cf. Pr 8:27 ), hath drawn as circle bound, of horizon-line.

. 3. trace, mark out , a circle, c. על over the face of deep Pr 8:27

The lexicon you mentioned agrees with me, He drew a circle, not a sphere.

 

[DanielLL]

That’s hypocrisy, given that you inserted “no thickness” and “two dimensional” into the Word where it simply says “surface”.

You understand circle is a two dimentional figure? The fact that He drew a circle already proves the surface was two dimentional.

 

[Grandpa]

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.


You are not the Judge to declare anyone guilty, you are the accuser, and a single witness:

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.


The Word is Truth, the witnesses of man cannot "refute" the witness of the Word. It is written:

1 John 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.



Ok not a singular translator ever translated the word as sphere. There is not a single bible not just in english, but in any language, that ever translated the word as sphere. That means you have no witnesses, at all. Just your own understanding.

I didn't say "witness".

I said facts.

The FACTS show that your interpretation of Gods Word is wrong.

Its ok. People get it wrong sometimes.

 

[DanielLL]

The FACTS show that your interpretation of Gods Word is wrong.

The witness of men is not absolute Truth, or facts. The Witness of the Word is greater and The Word is absolute Truth, as a matter of fact. And the Word says "circle", with "waters above the firmament". These are the FACTS

 

[Grandpa]

The witness of men is not absolute Truth, or facts. The Witness of the Word is greater and The Word is absolute Truth, as a matter of fact. And the Word says "circle", with "waters above the firmament". These are the FACTS

Your interpretation is wrong because of Facts.

The Witness of the Word is absolute Truth.


It is your interpretation of it, that is the witness of men, that is wrong because of FACTS.

 

[DanielLL]

Your interpretation is wrong

Can you provide the interpretation of "circle", or just that I'm wrong?

 

[Dino246]

You understand circle is a two dimentional figure? The fact that He drew a circle already proves the surface was two dimentional.

Again, you refuse to acknowledge your error and instead sidestep it.

Again, you ignore the fact that one can draw a perfect circle on the exterior of a sphere just as easily as on a flat surface. Your misinterpretation proves nothing.

For all your claims of knowledge and understanding, you are quite ignorant of basic geometry.

 

[DanielLL]

one can draw a perfect circle on the exterior of a sphere

Yes, you can draw a circle on the exterior of a sphere, but the circle you draw on it, is still a circle, not a sphere. A circle has no height, it is a flat two dimentional geometric figure. You can draw a circle anywhere you like, it will still be a two dimentional flat circle.
And the Word says He drew a circle on the face of the deep, which is a flat surface in the context of geometry, if you hadn't realized it yet, that circles are two dimentional and flat, the Word expands for you and specifies where the circle was drawn, on the flat surface of the flat waters of the deep.

 

[Dino246]

And the Word says He drew a circle on the face of the deep

Please provide chapter and verse for that. Bible Gateway can't find such a verse.

, which is a flat surface in the context of geometry,

As this context is not, strictly, geometry, one cannot assume that every term implies the strict geometric sense. "Face" can mean "surface" and nothing is lost... except your imposed flatness.

if you hadn't realized it yet, that circles are two dimentional and flat, the Word expands for you and specifies where the circle was drawn, on the flat surface of the flat waters of the deep.

As you haven't realized it yet, the word is "dimenSional," and the Word does not specify that the surface of the deep was flat.

 

[posthuman]

A sensible explanation. Beer has alcohol, right? Oh, maybe it's root beer.

does alcohol have a root, also?

 

[posthuman]

Yes, you can draw a circle on the exterior of a sphere, but the circle you draw on it, is still a circle, not a sphere. A circle has no height, it is a flat two dimentional geometric figure. You can draw a circle anywhere you like, it will still be a two dimentional flat circle.

not if it's a hypercircle.
it can be any dimension you like; infinite dimensional

i think it's a big mistake to categorically confine God to Euclidean 3-space.


((all the same i think we are really just reading a few poetic descriptions of the perceived horizon from the POV of a human standing anywhere on the earth. all you see, wherever you are, God made, and God is far above. so -- how good are your eyes? how much do you perceive? however great anyone is, or thinks themselves to be, God is infinitely greater; incalculably high above))

when given a choice, i advise always taking the highest view of God possible.

 

[posthuman]

You understand circle is a two dimentional figure? The fact that He drew a circle already proves the surface was two dimentional.

no, not a proof at all; your premise is wrong.

you can draw any N dimensional figure on any K dimensional surface where K ≥ N

here is a proof:

a point is 1 dimensional ((n = 1))
i can draw a dot on top of a dot ((k = n))
i can draw a dot on a 2d piece of paper ((k = n+1))
i can draw a dot on a 3d basketball ((k = n+2))
by induction, k can extend to infinity

QED

if He draws a 2d circle on the deep, all we know geometrically about the deep is that it is **at least** 2d
the deep may be infinite dimensional; we can still draw a circle on it.

 

[DanielLL]

chapter and verse

Proverbs 8:27 When He prepared the heavens, I was there, When He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

As this context is not, strictly, geometry, one cannot assume that every term implies the strict geometric sense.

A circle is flat, it is impossible to "impose" flatness on a circle, because a circle is already flat. It is also a geometric figure, and there is no other context but the context of surface in geometry, that is why you haven't present me with any other context, so until then:

b. From the sense of surface, Genesis 1:2 עלפֿני תהום upon the face of the deep

circle
/ˈsəːk(ə)l/
noun
1.a round plane figure whose boundary (the circumference) consists of points equidistant from a fixed point (the centre).
"draw a circle with a compass"

plane
/pleɪn/
noun
1.a flat surface on which a straight line joining any two points on it would wholly lie.

surface
/ˈsəːfɪs/
noun
1.the outside part or uppermost layer of something.
"the earth's surface"
GEOMETRY a continuous set of points that has length and breadth but no thickness.

"Face" can mean "surface"

Yes, it can. But do you realize the circumference of a sphere would be the equator of the earth, and not the "outside part or uppermost layer"? A circle on a sphere would be the equator, a line, not the surface. So, in this case it can't mean surface in that way, but it must mean the surface of a flat circle, it goes to show yet another reason why the correct interpretation is the flat surface of a circle.

not if it's a hypercircle.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

i think it's a big mistake to categorically confine God to Euclidean 3-space.

We are not discussing the nature of God, we are talking about creation.

a point is 1 dimensional ((n = 1))
i can draw a dot on top of a dot ((k = n))
i can draw a dot on a 2d piece of paper ((k = n+1))
i can draw a dot on a 3d basketball ((k = n+2))
by induction, k can extend to infinity

You can draw a dot anywhere you like, the dot is still a one dimentional dot, not a 2d paper, nor a 3d basket ball. You see, just because you changed the location of the dot, you haven't changed it's nature, likewise with the circle, you can place it around a sphere, but that won't change it into a sphere, the circle is still a circle around the sphere, it is called the circumference.

 

[posthuman]

We are not discussing the nature of God, we are talking about creation.

creation is a direct reflection of the nature of God:

God’s invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.​

(Romans 1:20)​

​

IMO you should really have fundamental things like this well understood before you think to present yourself as some kind of teacher of cosmological topology.

You can draw a dot anywhere you like, the dot is still a one dimentional dot, not a 2d paper, nor a 3d basket ball. You see, just because you changed the location of the dot, you haven't changed it's nature, likewise with the circle, you can place it around a sphere, but that won't change it into a sphere, the circle is still a circle around the sphere, it is called the circumference.

so you do not comprehend math or even simple argumentation.
got it.
that's OK, i can teach you. the math anyway; there are people here who are a lot better at logical argumentation than me. Dino for example, or iamsoandso, or several others i can't think of. just reach out.



you need to go back and read my post, carefully, and slowly, and think about what i am doing in it.

you said drawing a 2 dimensional circle on a 'something' means that something has to be 2 dimensional.
that is rubbish thinking on your part. totally false conclusion unsupported by your premise.
you can draw a circle on a hedgehog.
that does not prove that hedgehogs are 2d.

i proved this, by contradiction, for all dimensions, through induction -- i can make a 1-dimensional dot on anything. that doesn't make all things 1d

 

[Dino246]

Proverbs 8:27 When He prepared the heavens, I was there, When He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

Every "version" of the KJV I can find does not have that wording. Instead it has...

When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

Obviously you aren't using the KJV.

A circle is... also a geometric figure, and there is no other context but the context of surface in geometry, that is why you haven't present me with any other context

Um... how about the context of Scripture? "Surface" must first be understood as it is used in this case in Scripture, without imposing any other context.

surface
/ˈsəːfɪs/
noun
1.the outside part or uppermost layer of something.
"the earth's surface"
GEOMETRY a continuous set of points that has length and breadth but no thickness.

You are definitely going off on a tangent with your definitions.

But do you realize the circumference of a sphere would be the equator of the earth, and not the "outside part or uppermost layer"? A circle on a sphere would be the equator, a line, not the surface. So, in this case it can't mean surface in that way, but it must mean the surface of a flat circle, it goes to show yet another reason why the correct interpretation is the flat surface of a circle.

Wow.... On the surface of Earth, the (theoretical) equator is indeed a perfect circle. However, the Tropic of Cancer is also a perfect circle, as is the Arctic Circle and every other line of latitude, yet only one is a line of circumference. The Greenwich Meridian and every other meridian of longitude are also perfect circles, and all are lines of circumference.

Further, as I have stated at least twice, one can draw a circle on the outer surface of a sphere. The planet-destroying superweapon on the Death Star (from Star Wars) is a perfect example, and although in this case the smaller circle is set obliquely, it corresponds in shape to one of the smaller lines of latitude on Earth...

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Yet here you are adding your selected definitions of words to God's word.

You can draw a dot anywhere you like, the dot is still a one dimentional dot

Again, the word is "dimensional". If you can't learn this small thing, how can you learn large and important things?

 

[posthuman]

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

God did not say 'the earth is a frisbee' so this applies to you equally if not moreso.
do not add "the earth is a pancake" to the Bible. the earth is not a tostada; it is quite plain to see.



however when i pointed out that a hypercircle is not 2d, i have epistemological evidence to back up bringing the idea into the conversation.

this is a math thread, is it not?

well then -- is math created by mankind or is math created by God and discovered by mankind?
((pretty important question. please think about it for 3 days before thinking about answering))


if math is created by God ((it is)) then the abstract idea of 'circle' is formed in the thoughts of God, which are not 2 dimensional or confined in any way whatsoever to the kinds of thoughts of mankind. this is the principle of Isaiah 55:8-9

so the circle in your mind, a puny little 2d one, is your own pitiable human construct of circle in your menial human capability to understand the meta concept, "circle"
DO NOT CONFINE GOD TO YOUR LIMITATIONS. Isaiah 55:8-9. remember it.

a 2d circle is only one instance of an hypercircle, with n=2

now is God infinite or is God 2d?
God is infinite.

so the truth of 'circle' is the thoughts of God concerning circle, because all things have their existence through Him, including abstractions like mathematics. He created mathematics; we discover it.
we 'discovered' hypercircles for n=2. we are remiss if we don't push further, and we are further remiss if we relegate God to only being capable of 2d thoughts and ways.


IOW
your arguments about circles show no geometric fear of God or reverential topology.
they are simply not conclusive or evidentiary of your premises.

God is Spirit, yet He has physical attributes like an arm and a foot. He is Spirit, and no one has seen Him at any time, but He was manifest in the flesh and whoever sees the Son, has seen God.
God is omnipresent, yet He has location, yet not even the heavens of the heavens ((firmament of the firmament? expanse of the expanse? surface of the surface??? see 1 Kings 8:27/2 Chronicles 2:6))
He is beyond all human understanding.

when you read the Bible and find things to wonderful for you, this is a good sign you are reading it correctly.
when you read the Bible and think you have everything figured out, this is a good sign you are woefully lacking comprehension of what you are reading.

 

[posthuman]

the context of surface in geometry

the context of surface in geometry is not confined to any particular limited dimension.

mathematics is infinite dimensional. that is its very nature.
'geometry' isn't 3d or 2d.

can i suggest a book?




current physical models intuit that the surface of the earth is 11-dimensional.
IMO they are setting the bar too low.

have you asked yourself what an 11-dimensional circle looks like?
have you asked yourself why you think God is stuck in Euclidean 3-space?

 

[posthuman]

reverential topology

been dying to use this phrase in a conversation, lol

yay!

 

[tourist]

does alcohol have a root, also?

Probably grapes, per the grape thread consensus. I will also review this fermentation thread to ascertain a measure of truth in this regard.

 

[Magenta]

There are many "extended surfaces", and many "expanses", this is not specific. That is why every word in Strong's is then organized depending on the context, for example in the context of Genesis 1:6, the word means: the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it.
You can't ignore context, you can't reduce a word to only it's isolated meaning, I know you don't do this with other words. For example:
Jesus said to eat His flesh, so if you were consistent, you would have to eat His literal flesh. Flesh does mean flesh after all, doesn't it?
That is why Strong specifies depending on the context, and the verse: figurative discourse, to appropriate to oneself the saving results of the violent death endured by Christ, John 6:52-56.

Not all the time, but they were right about Hebrew at the very least. They definitely knew Hebrew better than you.
So, you believe them when they say "expanse", but not when they say it is "solid". You pick and choose, right?

God Himself defines what raqia is: "God called the expanse heaven." Further in Genesis, God says, "... let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens." Obviously, birds do not fly through solids = raqia is not a solid object. God also set lights in the firmament. If it was solid, we would not see those lights, not would those lights be moving within it.