Bobzammel

It seems from Genesis, and other passages of the Bible, that it was generally believed that the atmosphere was a solid dome, that the stars, moon, and sun were "under" it, and above was some second ocean(explanation for blue sky?) and of course, heaven.
This of course has already been stated in this forum before.
Given the fact that some use the bible to disprove evolution and a moving earth "Because it says so" are there any Christians out there who actually believe that the idea of a universe beyond Earth is as much a heresy as evolution? That the other planets, nebulae and what-not are some "Satanic deception"? I'm just wondering what depths people will sink to to prove their religion's "science".

idiom

Wouldn't it be really odd if voyager plowed into a giant dome/sphere at the edge of the solar system...

The idea from genesis is that there was a "firmament" that caused the sky to be red. The common thread is that whatever gravitiational miracle was holding it up was destroyed by asteroids or something similar during the flood. It may also be infered that this event caused the shattering of the single continent thingie.

It is interesting what people refuse to let go of...

Any one who says "just because it says so" probably hasnt read it. If you wanted to fight science there would be far more creative ways than that.

sourdough

I wish there was some flat Earth planet,we could ship all those
dumbass bible freaks to.
:banghead:

Shadowy Man

Well crap, I'd be out of work in a hurry.

idiom

It always occured to me that a flat earth was anti-God anyway.

Go figure.

happyboy

don't you people know ANYTHING??? NASA is a satanic lie! the sky is a dome, and everything our telescopes show us is a satanic lie, too! satan is the god of this world, after all, and the bible clearly states what the world and universe are like. sheesh, people.

happyboy, savior of the creationists

Bobzammel

What's scary is that I think that The Flat Earth Society actually believed in what you just said.

happyboy

yeah, i agree. it's almost painful watching some people deny with all their hearts what common sense and their own senses tell them is true. :boohoo:

happyboy

Jimmy Higgins

I once read a comic that had the caption, "The sky's the limit" with a person in a rocketship saying "Damn" as he bounced off of the sky.

Actually, as far as I know, I've never heard that one. The firmament was "created" in order to protect the world from the waters of chaos that had somehow enveloped the Earth. Ya, I know, where'd all this come from? Sounds like the bible will need a pre-trilogy like Star Wars to answer a few more questions.

In any case, god creates the firmament (also the only thing the bible doesn't say that God saw good in it) to shelter the world. Then god takes the water left over and puts it into basins to form oceans. It can't be stressed enough how important this is because it is these same conditions, prior to the second day that the world is returned to in the "Great" flood. Once again, the windows of heaven were opened and chaos ruled on the planet. DOH!

A couple points here.
1) God created the firmament, so there would need to be no miracle for it to stay up.
2) I believe the belief is that people feel that the flood was the end of the firmament.
3) Peleg is usually thought of when it comes to the continental divide. Peleg literally means to split apart.

1) Is ridiculous. There was never a firmament because we'd need one today. And this though continues onto point 2.

2) People say the firmament left, well, what about the waters it was protecting us from? The Noah story never mentions the disappearance of the firmament, just the opening of it, and hardly says that any large universal changes have happened. Those thoughts remain solely in the minds of e-creationists.

3) Peleg is certainly inconclusive. The bible mentions that in Peleg's time, the "Earth was divided". However, this doesn't mean much. Even if it were referring to the spliting of land, it is much more likely an aetiological explanation of some large fault crack in the ground. However, Peleg could certainly be referring, out of place, to the time after The Tower of Babbel, when the world was semantically divided. Oh, thank god for that.

As for the rest of the universe, the problem christians would have is the absolute evidence that it exists. Now while some have tried to even suggest that light decays its speed over distance, very few if any get far enough to suggest that satan is fooling us all. Besides, Genesis chapter 1 clearly lays out the universe. Granted, it says the moon gives it own light off and is very unspecific on the stars, it does indicate a universe. So very few christians could just go up and deny that.

Thomas Cassidy

Well, uh, actually, no. God created the firmament, and on the last day, he saw EVERYTHING He had made it is was all "very good." That seems inclusive of the firmament.What do you mean "stay up?" Have you been reading to much "Chicken Little?" The word "firmament" comes from the Hebrew word "raqiya‘" and means "streatched out expanse." We have a perfectly good synonym in modern English, "sky." There is nothing in the word to suggest a solid body or structure of any sort. It simply means that God stretched out the sky, the atmosphere, and outer space.No, I just glanced outside and it is still there. Well, Peleg does mean "divided" or "division" but the division being referenced in Genesis 11 is the division of mankind into different language groups, which is mentioned immediately prior to Peleg in Genesis 11. Still there. I just looked up and saw that, contrary to the report published by Chicken Little, the sky has NOT fallen. The sky is still there. The windows of heaven (atmospheric heaven) opened and a torrential rain fell (metaphorical language - we still use it today, as in "cloud burst"). And the sky didn't protect us from anything, other than, as it does today, as an atmospheric attenuator for solar and cosmic radiation. Yeah! Now you got it!
Well, actually, Barry Settlefield has suggested that the propagation constant has decayed over time, not over distance and, he suggests, follows the curve of the Doppler shift. But, I too think it is a bunch of desparate hooey.