Rethinking the Waters of Gen. 1

[Calminian]

shernren has somewhat beat me to the punch already

Then this should be easy to counter. (kidding)

as many of his objections to your interpretation of the firmament are both brought up in the article I cited and shared by me. I'll be curious to see how you addess his contentions. But I would also appreciate your take on the following issues raised in Lamoureux's article:

1) Lamoureux makes the point that every time the Bible refers to the firmament, it does so in a way that describes a hard, metalic structure.

I disagree. I don't think heaven is described as a solid mass in scripture. Nor do I think the Ezekiel passage describes a solid mass firmament, but the most explicit description we have of rayqia is in Genesis 1:8. It is heaven. It is not said to be in heaven, nor to be the divider of heaven and earth. It is heaven. This is a fact that both Seely and Lamouroux seem unwilling to accept. Seely explicitly stated that heaven is a broader term than firmament, but has yet to show any justification for this statement. The truth is, Seely only says this because he knows the idea of God's throne, etc. incased in a solid mass is an impossible stretch.

Even aside from the etymology of the word, the Bible describes the firmament as being "hard as a mirror of cast bronze" (Job 37:18)

Yes and if Lamouroux had done his homework he'd realize this was not God talking, but one of Job's fallible accusers (or was it Job? I'll have to go back and verify that). God doesn't start talking until Chapter 38 in which he rebukes the accuser. Lamouroux doesn't understand that God does not endorse every statement made by people in the Bible.

and crystaline or "sparkling like ice" (Ezekiel 1:22). If the authors of the Bible thought of the firmament as something other than a solid structure, why do they always speak of it as though it were? I'll also point out that the Bible's many references to the "windows of heaven" conjures up the same imagery of a solid dome.

Have you actually read this Ezekiel passages? Please do so if you haven't and tell me if you really believe there was a solid mass extending from these creatures heads. It is very a very bizarre idea and doesn't fit with the text. It is more likely there was some kind of translucent aura extending out above their heads. Look at how modern translations translate it.

Ezek. 1:22 Now over the heads of the living beings there was something like an expanse, like the awesome gleam of crystal, extended over their heads.

Even the KJV points out that crystal is descriptive of the translucent color, not the texture of the firmament.

22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.

And then later in verse 26

26 Now above the expanse that was over their heads there was something resembling a throne, like lapis lazuli in appearance; and on that which resembled a throne, high up, was a figure with the appearance of a man.

I checked the hebrew and there is nothing in these prepositions that require this throne to actually be setting directly on the firmament. It simply says it is above it. The idea of a throne on solid bubble heads is silly in my view. This verse doesn't help Seely or Lamouroux at all, especially in light of the explicit description of the firmament as heave in Genesis. Expanse works much better.

2) Lamoureux also makes the point that those cultures surrounding the Hebrews -- namely the Egyptians and Mesopotamians -- subscribed to the idea of a firmament as well, which is well illustrated in their writings. I'll add that the Jewish Talmud also goes through the trouble of describing the dimensions of this solid dome (e.g., http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=2052&letter=A#6267). So, given the fact that the Hebrews were surrounded by cultures who subscribed to the idea of a solid firmament, and in fact wrote about it as such themselves, why is it so hard to believe that the Bible simply describes the skies using the common imagery of the times?

I totally acknowledge that ancient cultures held to beliefs like this and this may be why the verb raqa and the noun rayqia much much later in history evolved to have these implications. But to ignore the simple straightforward description of rayqia in Genesis 1:8 is inexcusable.

3) I suppose a lot of our disagreement boils down to what Lamoureux calls "concordism" and "accomodationism". Concordism is the view that science must agree with a particular interpretation of the Bible in order for either to be of any value;

You might be surprised that I also find a lot of difficulty with scientific concordism. I don't like the statement found in the Chicago hermeneutics statement. Science is necessarily uniformitarian and miracles like the Resurrection and walking on water are in conflict with it. Besides that very small problematic point, I'm in agreement with the Chicago statements (I think they were all in Chicago).

Accomodationism is the view that God accomodates His message to the limitations of humanity (as Christ did by taking the form of a man) so that they might understand it.

This is totally unnecessary. You would be better off reading JP Holding's responce to Paul Seely in which he gives the true method that God uses to keep us from being confused. God doesn't get into the technical details of cosmology at all. Much of the language in the Bible that touches on cosmology is vague and equivocal. Just about any cosmology could be read into it, and this is what careless theologians have always done. There is absolutely nothing in scripture that teaches a solid dome sky and when examined carefully there are a whole lot of problems with such an interpretation.

I think Lamoureux does an excellent job of defending the accomodationist paradigm (more here: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm). Can you provide your rationale for why you believe accomodationism is bunk and concordism is better? Again, If we're willing to allow for some accomodationism in the Bible, as neocreationists often do, why the reluctance to interpret the Bible's cosmology as being accomodated, too?

You and I are probably going to share many of the same concerns with the concept of scientific concordism. Concordism in regard to reality I have no problem with. You and Lamouroux seem to be struggling with it as you believe that God purposely affirmed false realities in order to help the ancients understand. There are many problems with this. If it is true, that a foreign cosmology would have caused misunderstandings, then what about modern readers? Why wasn't God concerned that modern readers wouldn't understand if the text didn't affirm cosmologies we understand? Holding's explanation is much better.

Thanks, Calminian. Looking forward to your reply.

My pleasure.

 

[Calminian]

The passage is probably clearer in non-KJV translations; however, the original text implies a surface of mirror.

You ignore the passage in Ezekiel. Note that the passages below it which talk about the angels below the surface, and God's throne above it. Definitely gives the impression of solidity.

I don't see how solidity is conveyed at all in the passage. The idea of a solid mass extending from the creatures heads some where high above where a throne sits is quite bizarre. There is nothing in the hebrew prepositions that require this throne to be setting on the firmament and there is nothing in the description of the firmament suggesting it is solid. Crystal or ice simply refers to its colors.

22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.

I've studied this passage over and over and a connective solid mass incasing all the heads of the creature is staring to become laughable. If this is the best Seely and Lamouroux have, they're in trouble.

 

[Mallon]

Calminian, in order for me to understand your position, I'll have to ask you to clarify when you are using the word "heaven" to refer to the skies and when you are using it to refer to God's spiritual place of dwelling. I think this might be causing some undue confusion between us. Case in point:

but the most explicit description we have of rayqia is in Genesis 1:8. It is heaven. It is not said to be in heaven, nor to be the divider of heaven and earth. It is heaven.

How do you mean "heaven" here? I ask because the Bible describes the firmament (which you equate with "heaven") as being the dwelling place of the birds, the sun, and the moon. I take it by "heaven" (= firmament, as per your usage) you mean the skies/outer space? If so, you're once again forced to deal with sherner's contrast of Genesis 1:1 and 14.

Lamouroux doesn't understand that God does not endorse every statement made by people in the Bible.

So how do you delineate between which statements God endoreses and which He doesn't? A pertinent question for concordists, to be sure (not so much for accomodationists).

Have you actually read this Ezekiel passages? Please do so if you haven't and tell me if you really believe there was a solid mass extending from these creatures heads.

I'm not sure what your objection is. Ezekiel 1:22 describes the firmament as extending ABOVE the heads of the animals. Not OUT of their heads.

Even the KJV points out that crystal is descriptive of the translucent color, not the texture of the firmament.

As I understand it, the word the KJV translates as "colour" is "ayin". According to Strong's Hebrew dictionary, this can also describe the "outward appearance" of an object, which is much more inclusive than simply "colour". Is the KJV right in its translation? More recent translations don't seem to agree. I'm no expert in the Hebrew language, though. Perhaps someone with the proper credentials could speak to this?

The idea of a throne on solid bubble heads is silly in my view.

But your 21st century, post-Englightenment view isn't the basis by which we judge the meaning of the Bible. In trying to decypher the Scriptures, we try to put ourselves in the shoes of those ancient Hebrews, do we not?

This is totally unnecessary. You would be better off reading JP Holding's responce to Paul Seely in which he gives the true method that God uses to keep us from being confused. God doesn't get into the technical details of cosmology at all. Much of the language in the Bible that touches on cosmology is vague and equivocal.

Except when it comes to the age of the earth, right?
But seriously, the etymology of the word "firmament", the Bible's description of the firmament as being hard like a mirror of bronze, the similarity of the Bible's cosmology to those of the surrounding ANE cultures, and the elaborate descriptions of the firmament given in the Jewish Talmud are just too much for me to ignore. Surely these different lines of evidence are not just in agreement by coincidence.

Concordism in regard to reality I have no problem with. You and Lamouroux seem to be struggling with it as you believe that God purposely affirmed false realities in order to help the ancients understand.

I disapprove of your use of the term "false realities" here. Was Jesus promoting a "false reality" when he refered to the mustard seed as the smallest of all seeds? Was God promoting a false reality when, in 2 Samuel 24, He inspired the author to speak as though the Lord had caused David to sin by ordering a census? I hope you would answer 'no'. I agree with your earlier statement that God is disinterested in teaching us about cosmology, so why would He not accomodate His spiritual message to the cosmological framework of the ANE people? God cares about the message, not the medium in which it is delivered.

There are many problems with this. If it is true, that a foreign cosmology would have caused misunderstandings, then what about modern readers? Why wasn't God concerned that modern readers wouldn't understand if the text didn't affirm cosmologies we understand?

I'm not sure I understand the jist of your questions here. Of course God expects us -- the 21st century Christian audience -- to read the Bible with the context of the ancient Hebrews in mind. Otherwise, the Ten Commandments would make no sense. How many people own oxen or slaves anymore? How many women still cover their heads when they pray (1 Cor 11:1-16)? In the same way, He expects us to interpret the Bible's cosmology with the ancient Hebrew context in mind.

An interesting discussion, Calminian, but I'm afraid I don't yet find your thesis as convincing or as internally-consistent as you do. Looking forward to your response.

 

[Calminian]

Calminian, in order for me to understand your position, I'll have to ask you to clarify when you are using the word "heaven" to refer to the skies and when you are using it to refer to God's spiritual place of dwelling. I think this might be causing some undue confusion between us. Case in point:

How do you mean "heaven" here? I ask because the Bible describes the firmament (which you equate with "heaven") as being the dwelling place of the birds, the sun, and the moon. I take it by "heaven" (= firmament, as per your usage) you mean the skies/outer space? If so, you're once again forced to deal with sherner's contrast of Genesis 1:1 and 14.

I don't see anything in scripture about heaven being a sort of extra-dimensional spiritual dwelling place. The beauty that we see in our telescopes is the domain of God and His angels. Angels dwell on earth as well, and earth is certainly physical. If God has a physical footstool (earth), why can't he have a physical throne? I'm not sure where the idea came from about a spiritual place called heaven, but I don't see it in scripture. Just because something is physical doesn't mean that non-corporeal beings cannot dwell in it. When Jesus went to heaven, he did not just dematerialize as they do in the Enterprise transporter room. He ascended up into the physical sky.

Heaven wasn't created, at least in the form we know it, until Genesis 1:6. It was in this expanse that God placed the heavenly bodies. It is there where the angels also roam. Until I see other evidence from scripture showing me otherwise, that's my view.

So how do you delineate between which statements God endoreses and which He doesn't? A pertinent question for concordists, to be sure (not so much for accomodationists).

Probably the same way you do. Do you believe every statement by every person recorded in the Bible is true? If not, how do you determine the difference?

I'm not sure what your objection is. Ezekiel 1:22 describes the firmament as extending ABOVE the heads of the animals. Not OUT of their heads.

As I understand it, the word the KJV translates as "colour" is "ayin". According to Strong's Hebrew dictionary, this can also describe the "outward appearance" of an object, which is much more inclusive than simply "colour". Is the KJV right in its translation? More recent translations don't seem to agree. I'm no expert in the Hebrew language, though. Perhaps someone with the proper credentials could speak to this?

The problem with this passage is there is nothing concrete saying there is a solid platform upon which a throne sets. There is nothing said about the texture of material of which it is made. Indeed there is nothing in the hebrew prepositions that require the throne to be setting directly on the firmament no matter what it is. To allow this passage to override the explicit statement in Genesis 1:8 that the firmament is heaven exposes an agenda rather than an honest search for the meaning of raqia.

But your 21st century, post-Englightenment view isn't the basis by which we judge the meaning of the Bible. In trying to decypher the Scriptures, we try to put ourselves in the shoes of those ancient Hebrews, do we not?

The problem is, the ancient Hebrew writers weren't given any information about the exact nature of the cosmos. That's the part Seely and Lamoureux stumble on. The authors are not told by God that the firmament is solid nor that it is a vast seemingly infinite expanse. In fact we don't even know the answer to this today. Is space infinite? Lamoureux insists that the ancient Bible writers explicitly conveyed a solid sky. Do you agree?? I hope not, because this is easily demonstrated false from scripture. It's not that the writers were told explicitly that heaven is not solid, but rather, there are too many problems with such an idea. The idea of God and his angels are incased in a solid mass just doesn't fit. The mistake that all of these "experts" make is assuming that the firmament is distinct from heaven. The have to, to avoid the problems I just mentioned. But there is no justification for separating the two. God called the firmament heaven. Like it or not, that's what the text says.

Except when it comes to the age of the earth, right?

If you disagree with Genesis, it is not Holding's fault.

But seriously, the etymology of the word "firmament", the Bible's description of the firmament as being hard like a mirror of bronze, the similarity of the Bible's cosmology to those of the surrounding ANE cultures, and the elaborate descriptions of the firmament given in the Jewish Talmud are just too much for me to ignore. Surely these different lines of evidence are not just in agreement by coincidence.

That the Bible teaches such things is a fairy tale that unfortunately you've fallen for. There is not a single teaching in scripture that supports such a thing. If all you have is a statement by Job or one of his accusers, then you have nothing at all. There is nothing suggesting that these men were speaking inspired truths, and much suggesting they were speaking without knowledge.

Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, 2 “Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge?

Boy if that doesn't sum up Lamoureux's arguments I don't know what does.

I disapprove of your use of the term "false realities" here. Was Jesus promoting a "false reality" when he refered to the mustard seed as the smallest of all seeds?

I haven't studied the mustard seed challenge in detail so will refrain from getting into it in this thread. But according to Lamoureux, God used this errant belief to communicate inerrant beliefs. I don't believe God does this.

Was God promoting a false reality when, in 2 Samuel 24, He inspired the author to speak as though the Lord had caused David to sin by ordering a census? I hope you would answer 'no'. I agree with your earlier statement that God is disinterested in teaching us about cosmology, so why would He not accomodate His spiritual message to the cosmological framework of the ANE people? God cares about the message, not the medium in which it is delivered.

Because scripture is not only for ANE readers. What about all the other readers? Why does God want to only accommodate one group that wouldn't be around for hundreds of years after Genesis 1 was recorded. Genesis is a compilation of writings put together by Moses under God's guidance. ANE culture and their beliefs about cosmology weren't even around yet.

I'm not sure I understand the jist of your questions here. Of course God expects us -- the 21st century Christian audience -- to read the Bible with the context of the ancient Hebrews in mind.

You're confused about what eisagesis is, especially if you going by Lamoureux's article. My understanding about what heaven is, is based on what scripture reveals. It says the stars are in heaven without giving a technical description of what heaven is. I know from technology that the stars are in outerspace. Thus I deduce that heaven is outerspace. This a a straightforward logical deduction that comes from revelation.

An interesting discussion, Calminian, but I'm afraid I don't yet find your thesis as convincing or as internally-consistent as you do. Looking forward to your response.

I don't think you will until you change your presuppositions. You trust scientific naturalistic explanations over biblical ones and feel that this scheme by Lamoureux and co. gives you an excuse to write off the early chapers of Genesis as metaphor. That is eisagesis by definition. Hermeneutics is not your issue.

 

[Mallon]

I don't see anything in scripture about heaven being a sort of extra-dimensional spiritual dwelling place. The beauty that we see in our telescopes is the domain of God and His angels.

Good to know where you stand. So do you expect that we might one day look through our telescopes and find a golden city set atop 12 mineral foundations, perhaps on another planet?
Do you also believe sheol is a real place at the centre of the earth?
Just curious.

Probably the same way you do. Do you believe every statement by every person recorded in the Bible is true? If not, how do you determine the difference?

One way to determine the difference is to compare God's words with His works and see if they agree. If His works independently and multiply contradict His words, chances are that we are interpreting the Bible incorrectly.
I know a lot of neocreationists do not agree with this approach, however. Do you? If not, I again have to ask how do you delineate between which statements God endoreses in the Bible and which He doesn't?

The problem with this passage is there is nothing concrete saying there is a solid platform upon which a throne sets.

I agree. The passage simply suggests that the firmament looks like a crystalline structure. My point was simply to point out that the KJV's translation of "ayin" as "colour" might be wrong. Maybe the firmament looks like a crystalline structure because -- brace yourself -- the ANE people thought it actually was a crystalline structure.
I still think one of the best passages that explicitly argues for a solid firmament is Job 37:18. But you've conentiently poo-pooed this simply by saying it's a mistake and that God doesn't actually endorse that cosmology. Unfortunately, whether God endorses the idea of a solid firmament or not is besides the point. The point is that Job 37:18 reveals that this is something the ANE people actually believed.

To allow this passage to override the explicit statement in Genesis 1:8 that the firmament is heaven exposes an agenda rather than an honest search for the meaning of raqia.

I have no agenda, Calminian, so I would appreciate your not implying that I do. Like you, I am simply trying to make sense of what the Scriptures say. I acknowledge the simple equation of heaven with firmament in Gen 1:8. But I also acknowledge the many other passages of the Bible, and other ancient Jewish texts, that appear to contradict this equation. I think there's more to the story than you're willing to admit.

The idea of God and his angels are incased in a solid mass just doesn't fit.

Doesn't fit what?

If you disagree with Genesis, it is not Holding's fault.

I disagree with what I see as a particular simplistic interpretation of Genesis, Calminian. Not the book itself. Please understand this.

That the Bible teaches such things is a fairy tale that unfortunately you've fallen for.

Can you blame me? As I said, the Bible repeatedly speaks as though the firmament is a solid structure and never as though it were simple, empty space. The wikipedia entry on Firmament does a good job of summarizing those passages that support such an interpretation:

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 (it is sometimes claimed 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).

I know you're simply going to keep insisting that the Bible does not teach that the firmament was a solid object, but as I said, I think these are too many coincidences to ignore. The Hebrews had a dated understanding of how the universe looked. I'm sure we don't have to get into details concerning the Bible's geocentrism or flat-earth cosmology.

I haven't studied the mustard seed challenge in detail so will refrain from getting into it in this thread. But according to Lamoureux, God used this errant belief to communicate inerrant beliefs. I don't believe God does this.

God does this whether you believe it or not, and we see it exemplified throughout the Bible. Case in point: In 1 Chronicles 21:1 we read that Satan caused David to sin by issuing a census of Israel. Yet 2 Samuel 24 tells us that God is the one who incited David to take the census. Did God really cause David to sin? Or was He simply accomodating His message about the perils of temptation to the mind of an author who did not distinguish between ultimate and proximate causes?
As I said, we see examples of accomodation in the Bible all the time. So it's no stretch to include Hebrew cosmology as such an example as well.

Because scripture is not only for ANE readers.

I never said it was. But it was written for an immediate ANE audience by ANE authors. Surely you can't deny this since the very language of the Bible testifies as much. And as such, if we're going to try to understand the Bible, we need to try to understand it as its first audience would have, taking into account their cultural/linguistic/scientific assumptions.

I don't think you will until you change your presuppositions. You trust scientific naturalistic explanations over biblical ones and feel that this scheme by Lamoureux and co. gives you an excuse to write off the early chapers of Genesis as metaphor. That is eisagesis by definition. Hermeneutics is not your issue.

You're sounding uptight, brother. Relax. Your stress is causing you to misrepresent me. I don't read Genesis as a metaphor. I read it knowing that this is what the first Hebrews believed about the creation of the universe, and also understanding that God's message about creation was accomodated to an ancient cosmology in order that they might understand that He is the one true God. This is entirely in line with God's character and with traditional church thought, too (not just Lamoureux et al.). Accomodationism is a concept that goes back to St. Augustine, and it seems to be gaining popularity again among evangelicals in light of the shortcomings of scientific concordism.

 

[Assyrian]

I tend to look at Gen. 1:1 as a summary statement of the entire creation being that dry land and the expanse weren't created until verse 6 and 9. But even if it was, it was not in the form we view it today just as the earth was in a different original form.

I agree there are real questions with translating Gen 1:1, just digging out a bible with footnotes, the NLT says

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.[a]
Footnotes:

1. Genesis 1:1 Or In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, . . .
   Or When God began to create the heavens and the earth, . . .

There is also a tendency in scripture to use 'the heavens and the earth' to refer to everything in creation, the whole caboodle, other passages speak of the heavens, the earth and the seas. But it does not mean the first lot excluded the seas. Rather, like 'the whole kit and caboodle' it does not mean the whole caboodle excludes kit. Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.'"

I don't see how solidity is conveyed at all in the passage. The idea of a solid mass extending from the creatures heads some where high above where a throne sits is quite bizarre. There is nothing in the hebrew prepositions that require this throne to be setting on the firmament and there is nothing in the description of the firmament suggesting it is solid. Crystal or ice simply refers to its colors.

22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.

I've studied this passage over and over and a connective solid mass incasing all the heads of the creature is staring to become laughable. If this is the best Seely and Lamouroux have, they're in trouble.

Where do you get the idea the firmament encases the heads of the creatures or extended from their heads? If you have looked into the Hebrew prepositions you would see the firmament was above or over their heads.

The problem with this passage is there is nothing concrete saying there is a solid platform upon which a throne sets. There is nothing said about the texture of material of which it is made. Indeed there is nothing in the hebrew prepositions that require the throne to be setting directly on the firmament no matter what it is.

Ezekiel seem to concentrate on saying how things appeared to him. Above the heads of the living creatures there appeared what looked like a firmament that looked like some awesome crystal. I don't think Ezekiel was saying the firmament was the structural support of the throne, but it certainly looked solid crystal to Ezekiel.

To allow this passage to override the explicit statement in Genesis 1:8 that the firmament is heaven exposes an agenda rather than an honest search for the meaning of raqia.

You need to be careful here. What Genesis says is that God called the firmament heaven. But don't forget that he also called the light 'day' after he separated it from night, but then went on in the second half of the verse to describe day as including the period from evening to morning, and there was evening and there was morning one day. In Gen 2:4 you even get 'day' referring to the entire period of creation. When God separated the land and sea he called the dry land 'earth'... Yet Gen 2:1 refers to the entire creation as Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

While the firmament, the sky, is called 'the heavens' presumably for illustration purposes, the firmament separated the waters under the firmament from the waters above the firmament. Are those waters beyond even heaven itself? Or is the firmament simply part of the heavens?

You may not think the throne is resting on the firmament as a solid platform, but the text does describe it above the firmament, Ezek 1:26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne. Yet there are plenty of passages that describe God's throne as being in heaven Psalm 11:4 The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD'S throne is in heaven Psalm 103:19 The LORD has prepared his throne in the heavens. If the firmament is all there is of the heavens, isn't a layer of crystal a bit thin for heaven, and doesn't Ezekiel have the throne in the wrong place, sitting above the heavens rather than in them?

 

[Calminian]

I agree there are real questions with translating Gen 1:1,

But nothing that really affect the issue we're discussing.

There is also a tendency in scripture to use 'the heavens and the earth' to refer to everything in creation, the whole caboodle, other passages speak of the heavens, the earth and the seas. But it does not mean the first lot excluded the seas. Rather, like 'the whole kit and caboodle' it does not mean the whole caboodle excludes kit. Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.'"

The Bible is clear when God made the sea by dividing the waters below. It is clear when He made earth as the dry land. It is clear when it made heaven as an expanse dividing upper and lower earth-waters. And it is clear that earth, heaven and sea are distinct components of creation. There is enough that is clear not to stumble one what isn't.

Where do you get the idea the firmament encases the heads of the creatures or extended from their heads? If you have looked into the Hebrew prepositions you would see the firmament was above or over their heads.

The prepositions are not that specific. But either way, a solid bubble or half bubble over their heads seems to be a strained interpretation, especially when there's nothing in the text implying solidity.

Ezekiel seem to concentrate on saying how things appeared to him. Above the heads of the living creatures there appeared what looked like a firmament that looked like some awesome crystal.

I don't find a single translation that puts it like this. Both KJV and NKJV say it was the color of crystal. The NASB says it was like the gleam of crystal. Gleams are not solid. The NIV says it sparkled like ice (not that it was solid like ice). None of these say anything about the structure. This is supposedly according to Seely, the clearest text we have on the nature of a raqia. Of course we know the clearest is verse 8 of Genesis.

I don't think Ezekiel was saying the firmament was the structural support of the throne, but it certainly looked solid crystal to Ezekiel.

This is something you've read into the text. It never says anything of the sort. Why are you not citing the version that says this?

You need to be careful here. What Genesis says is that God called the firmament heaven. But don't forget that he also called the light 'day' after he separated it from night, but then went on in the second half of the verse to describe day as including the period from evening to morning,

I'm not sure what you hoped to prove from this. Light was created and then called day. The earth was created and separate into dry land and seas. The dry land was called earth. The waters were called seas. An expanse was created and called heaven. If you want to argue the expanse already existed on day one that's fine. It doesn't help Seely or Lamoureux's case which it seems you want to do. What you have to show, like Seely tried to show, is that shamayim is a broader term than raqia. If anything, raqia is broader than shamayim. If I say I call this building, home, then this specific building and home are a direct one to one correspondence. Thus, while all buildings are not home, home is always a building. The same is true with the expanse. Not all expanses are heaven, but heaven is always an expanse.

and there was evening and there was morning one day. In Gen 2:4 you even get 'day' referring to the entire period of creation. When God separated the land and sea he called the dry land 'earth'... Yet Gen 2:1 refers to the entire creation as Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

Huh? Where does it say "entire?" God is focusing on a specific part of creation in Genesis 2.

While the firmament, the sky, is called 'the heavens' presumably for illustration purposes,

It's funny watching you guys work through this trying to make it work...

the firmament separated the waters under the firmament from the waters above the firmament. Are those waters beyond even heaven itself? Or is the firmament simply part of the heavens?

The waters of Genesis 1:6 are above the heavens. There are waters in the heavens as well, because the hebrew writers understood clouds. This is a major oversight of solid dome advocates. Unlike the caricatures, the hebrews knew clouds were the source of rain and described clouds and being in the heavens. And yet there are those original waters that are above the heavens. This is what the text says. You just have to deal. No room for solid domes.

You may not think the throne is resting on the firmament as a solid platform, but the text does describe it above the firmament, Ezek 1:26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne.

Which puts another monkey wrench in Seely and Lamoureux's analogy. I don't think the expanse of Ezekiel is supposed to be a picture of the structure heaven at all. They writer was simply describing a gleaming aura over the heads of the creatures. The best proof text for solid dome advocates just crumbled. I'll be borrowing this.

 

[Assyrian]

The prepositions are not that specific. But either way, a solid bubble or half bubble over their heads seems to be a strained interpretation, especially when there's nothing in the text implying solidity.

[FONT=&quot]Don't confuse shape and solidity. Solidity is implied by the description of it looking like crystal. The shape is that of an expanse, spread out, I doubt it would have appeared as a bubble or half bubble on the scale Ezekiel was looking at, close up by the living creatures, it is when you look from horizon to horizon that the sky appears dome shaped, though it is also suggested by the description of the firmament ‘spread out’. The verb also means to bend or bow which is how it is often translated with ‘heavens’. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]2Sa 22:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]10 He bowed the heavens also, and came down[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Ezekiel seem to concentrate on saying how things appeared to him. Above the heads of the living creatures there appeared what looked like a firmament that looked like some awesome crystal.

I don't find a single translation that puts it like this. Both KJV and NKJV say it was the color of crystal. The NASB says it was like the gleam of crystal. Gleams are not solid. The NIV says it sparkled like ice (not that it was solid like ice). None of these say anything about the structure.

'like the gleam' in the NASB tells us its appearance, which is what I have been saying. The WEB puts it Over the head of the living creature there was the likeness of an expanse, like the awesome crystal to look on, stretched forth over their heads above. The NIV says Spread out above the heads of the living creatures was what looked like an expanse, sparkling like ice, and awesome.

This is supposedly according to Seely, the clearest text we have on the nature of a raqia. Of course we know the clearest is verse 8 of Genesis.

You mean you take a single verse in Genesis. and ignore what the word firmament meant to people at the time, what it meant to people in the bible, and based on God calling the firmament 'heavens', you build an interpretation everything else in scripture is forced into. But as we have seen you cannot do the same thing with the other things God names in the same chapter, the hours of light as 'day' or dry land being called 'earth'

This is something you've read into the text. It never says anything of the sort. Why are you not citing the version that says this?

The Hebrew k'ayin from ayin an eye means to look like. We find it in Num 11:7 where it is usually translated appearance NASB Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance like that of bdellium. You find this word for appearance 6 times in Ezekiel 1 and the word demuth likeness a further 10 times. They are both found in verse 22 which is why I suggested Ezekiel is describing how things appeared to him.

I'm not sure what you hoped to prove from this. Light was created and then called day. The earth was created and separate into dry land and seas. The dry land was called earth. The waters were called seas. An expanse was created and called heaven. If you want to argue the expanse already existed on day one that's fine.

But that isn't what Genesis says I don't know why you would think it is 'fine'. It is not what I am saying anyway. The firmament was not created until verse 6. The problem is your claim the firmament equates to the totality of the heavens. It certainly isn't in Ezekiel.

But you say God called the firmament 'heavens', therefore the firmament is all the heavens.
However God called light 'day' but the word day can mean more than the hours of daylight. Day can include night time too.
God called the dry land 'earth', but the word earth can mean more than just dry land. It can be used to include rivers, swamps and seas.

It doesn't help Seely or Lamoureux's case which it seems you want to do. What you have to show, like Seely tried to show, is that shamayim is a broader term than raqia. If anything, raqia is broader than shamayim. If I say I call this building, home, then this specific building and home are a direct one to one correspondence. Thus, while all buildings are not home, home is always a building. The same is true with the expanse. Not all expanses are heaven, but heaven is always an expanse.

So where is God's throne?

Huh? Where does it say "entire?" God is focusing on a specific part of creation in Genesis 2.

Chapters divisions aren't inspired Gen 2:1 is part of the the first creation account, the writer hadn't even got the seventh day. Yet it refers to the completed work of creation as 'the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them'. The phrase 'the heavens and the earth' includes the seas - and the waters above the firmament.

It's funny watching you guys work through this trying to make it work...

I did point that it was speculative, the 'presumably'. I don't know why God called the firmament heaven, he didn't tell us. But I do know from scriptures I have shown you that there is more to the heavens than the firmament.

The waters of Genesis 1:6 are above the heavens.

So when Exodus 20:11 says in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, instead of being a summary of all of creation as most people read it, it misses out the bits that are above the heavens?

There are waters in the heavens as well, because the hebrew writers understood clouds. This is a major oversight of solid dome advocates. Unlike the caricatures, the hebrews knew clouds were the source of rain and described clouds and being in the heavens. And yet there are those original waters that are above the heavens. This is what the text says. You just have to deal. No room for solid domes.

I agree the Israelites knew what clouds were, they knew God had put water up in the sky. But you think there is more water separated by the firmament? you are proposing three layers of water, the seas, then our atmosphere, then the clouds, then the firmament, then the waters above heaven? Sounds like you have a couple of layers too many there.

Which puts another monkey wrench in Seely and Lamoureux's analogy. I don't think the expanse of Ezekiel is supposed to be a picture of the structure heaven at all. They writer was simply describing a gleaming aura over the heads of the creatures. The best proof text for solid dome advocates just crumbled. I'll be borrowing this.

You have been looking at too many pictures of Catholic saints Calminian. It was not a gleaming aura, he saw an expanse that looked like an awesome crystal.

 

[Calminian]

[FONT=&quot]Don't confuse shape and solidity. Solidity is implied by the description of it looking like crystal.

Sorry this is reading into the text. This reminds me of how some in the liberation theology, black Jesus movement have concluded Jesus had an afro because the text says his hair was "white like wool." But the text does not say his hair was curly like wool. It was simply a reference to its color.

You are doing the same thing with this text. An aura would also be the same translucent color as ice or crystal. It is a reference to its color or gleam, not its texture. This text that you are building your case on, is tenuous at best and certainly does not warrant going back to Genesis and overriding its clear definition of raqia.

You mean you take a single verse in Genesis. and ignore what the word firmament meant to people at the time,

Actually yes, you should trust the Bible over ANE beliefs that came years later. Language and words are in a constant state of change. If the Bible says the firmament is heaven, and ANE cultures say it is a divider between heaven and earth, you should believe the Bible.

what it meant to people in the bible, and based on God calling the firmament 'heavens', you build an interpretation everything else in scripture is forced into.

Actually when you start out by believing what the Bible says, the rest of it falls into place rather effortlessly.

But as we have seen you cannot do the same thing with the other things God names in the same chapter, the hours of light as 'day' or dry land being called 'earth'

Actually I can. As I'll show, your are misunderstanding what correspondences the Bible is referring to.

The Hebrew k'ayin from ayin an eye means to look like. We find it in Num 11:7 where it is usually translated appearance NASB Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance like that of bdellium. You find this word for appearance 6 times in Ezekiel 1 and the word demuth likeness a further 10 times. They are both found in verse 22 which is why I suggested Ezekiel is describing how things appeared to him.

The text was speaking of the appearance of its color or gleam. You are trying to force the meaning onto Ezekiel's passage because you know how clear the definition of raqia is in Genesis. You are approaching the text with a solid-dome presupposition.

But that isn't what Genesis says I don't know why you would think it is 'fine'. It is not what I am saying anyway. The firmament was not created until verse 6. The problem is your claim the firmament equates to the totality of the heavens. It certainly isn't in Ezekiel.

This is exactly what Seely attempted in his article and Holding nailed him on it.

The problem with this argument is that the claim that shamayim is ‘broader in meaning’ than raqiya‘ in Genesis is simply groundless—the result of circular reasoning. In Genesis 1:8, the implication is that the raqiya‘ has the name shamayim in an exact one-to-one correspondence, just as is the case for the ‘Earth’ and the ‘Seas’ when they are named (v. 10). There is no reason to see a broader meaning of shamayim than an exact equation with raqiya‘.
In fact, Seely’s only reason for saying that shamayim and raqiya‘ are not equal seems to be that it would result (because of verses like Deuteronomy 4:17, and other like Psalm[wash my mouth]11:4) in the absurd conclusion that the birds fly or God sits enthroned ‘inside’ a solid structure! In other words, .... he has started with the idea of the solid sky, based on the views of ancient people, and forced onto the text divisions in the shamayim that are simply not specified, and in the case of Genesis 1, not even permitted, by the text.

That pretty much sums in up. The only reason you believe they are not the same is because you have approached the text with a solid dome presupposition.

But you say God called the firmament 'heavens', therefore the firmament is all the heavens.

Yes! This expanse, he called heaven.

However God called light 'day' but the word day can mean more than the hours of daylight. Day can include night time too.

There are two errors you are overlooking. God call that particular light that he divided from the darkness, day. That is what day is, and day is what that particular light is. In that particular cycle of day/night, the part that is lighted is day.

Light used unspecifically is actually broader in meaning than day. But that light is always day.

Now, the same is true with God calling the expanse the heavens. God was naming that particular expanse that divided upper and lower earth (the waters). Now not all expanses are the heavens, but the heavens are always that particular expanse. Expanses in general are broader, but that expanse is an exact one-to-one correspondence.

If I say, I named that building the Taj Mahall, then that building and the Taj Mahal are an exact one-to-one correspondence. This doesn't mean all buildings are the Taj Mahal, but the Taj Mahal is always that building.

God called the dry land 'earth', but the word earth can mean more than just dry land. It can be used to include rivers, swamps and seas.

No I don't think the writers understood earth this way. Rivers are said to cover the earth, such as in the metaphor used in Jer. 46:8. Earth is never described as waters.

So where is God's throne?

In the expanse called the heavens.

Chapters divisions aren't inspired Gen 2:1 is part of the the first creation account, the writer hadn't even got the seventh day. Yet it refers to the completed work of creation as 'the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them'. The phrase 'the heavens and the earth' includes the seas - and the waters above the firmament.

So, you just believe this for no reason?

I did point that it was speculative, the 'presumably'. I don't know why God called the firmament heaven, he didn't tell us. But I do know from scriptures I have shown you that there is more to the heavens than the firmament.

I'm sorry, but you haven't. You've shown that the term expanse can be broader when not specifically talking about the expanse that divided the earth waters, but you haven't shown that that specific expanse is not as broad as its name, "the heavens." This is what you must do to make solid dome cosmology work.

So when Exodus 20:11 says in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, instead of being a summary of all of creation as most people read it, it misses out the bits that are above the heavens?

Yes! Now certainly God created the waters above, but Moses simply mentions things in the heavens, earth and sea. The waters above the heavens are rarely mentioned in scripture.

I agree the Israelites knew what clouds were, they knew God had put water up in the sky. But you think there is more water separated by the firmament?

You got it! The waters of Genesis 1:6 are a different kind of waters—earth waters.

you are proposing three layers of water, the seas, then our atmosphere, then the clouds, then the firmament, then the waters above heaven? Sounds like you have a couple of layers too many there.

Clouds aren't a layer. Clouds are things that are in the heavens. That's what the Bible says.

You have been looking at too many pictures of Catholic saints Calminian. It was not a gleaming aura, he saw an expanse that looked like an awesome crystal.

If that's what the text said, I'd believe it. It simply doesn't.

 

[shernren]

Sorry this is reading into the text. This reminds me of how some in the liberation theology, black Jesus movement have concluded Jesus had an afro because the text says his hair was "white like wool." But the text does not say his hair was curly like wool. It was simply a reference to its color.

You are doing the same thing with this text. An aura would also be the same translucent color as ice or crystal. It is a reference to its color or gleam, not its texture. This text that you are building your case on, is tenuous at best and certainly does not warrant going back to Genesis and overriding its clear definition of raqia.

There are plenty of things in the world that are white as wool without being as fluffy as wool. But when was the last time you saw something gleam like a crystal without actually being crystalline?

This is exactly what Seely attempted in his article and Holding nailed him on it.

The problem with this argument is that the claim that shamayim is ‘broader in meaning’ than raqiya‘ in Genesis is simply groundless—the result of circular reasoning. In Genesis 1:8, the implication is that the raqiya‘ has the name shamayim in an exact one-to-one correspondence, just as is the case for the ‘Earth’ and the ‘Seas’ when they are named (v. 10). There is no reason to see a broader meaning of shamayim than an exact equation with raqiya‘.
In fact, Seely’s only reason for saying that shamayim and raqiya‘ are not equal seems to be that it would result (because of verses like Deuteronomy 4:17, and other like Psalm[wash my mouth]11:4) in the absurd conclusion that the birds fly or God sits enthroned ‘inside’ a solid structure! In other words, .... he has started with the idea of the solid sky, based on the views of ancient people, and forced onto the text divisions in the shamayim that are simply not specified, and in the case of Genesis 1, not even permitted, by the text.

That pretty much sums in up. The only reason you believe they are not the same is because you have approached the text with a solid dome presupposition.

Actually, there's plenty that Harding conveniently forgot to mention, which I've already mentioned in my post:

... both qualifiers are used in tandem later on:

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
(Genesis 1:14 KJVR)

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. (lit. "on the face of the firmament of heaven")(Genesis 1:20 KJVR)

(emphases added)

If "firmament" and "heaven" are so easily and singly equal as you say they are, why is the compound description necessary? Surely God could have simply said "Let there be luminaries in Heaven", and it would all be clear and you would be right. Instead it must be specified that the luminaries and later birds are associated with the firmament of the heaven, perhaps because either:

- there are other firmaments besides the one in heaven, so that they are not simply in the firmament, but the firmament of the heaven;
- or there are other locales in heaven besides the firmament, so that they are not simply in heaven, but the firmament of the heaven.

Whichever it is, the text itself disproves your reading of it clearly enough.

Thirdly, even if you were right and "firmament" can be simply identified with heaven, that would not displace the connotations of solidity that we find about the firmament. The firmament is able to divide waters from waters (Gen 1:6) and looks stunningly crystalline (Eze 1:22). The heavens, meanwhile, can be stretched forth (Isa 45:12, 51:13) - even as a curtain! (Isa 40:22) - they can shake, literally "quiver" (Isa 13:13), and they have pillars (Job 26:11) too. Add this on to the evidence of the etymology of "firmament", raqiya from the act of metal casting, and the etymology of its consistent Septuagint translation stereoma with its implications of solidity and substantiality.

Your arguments, unlike the firmament , do not hold water.

Go back and read Harding's reply and see how essentially defensive it is. Note that there is not one instance in which Harding can confidently say that the "raqia" cannot be a solid dome. There is not one instance in which he can unequivocally say that the "raqia" is insubstantial; he is therefore forced to retreat to the assumption that Scripture is "equivocal" about this matter - that is to say, that a solid dome is only as good an interpretation as a concordist interpretation which considers the "raqia shamayim" as a pre-scientific conception of the atmosphere and outer space. He cannot prove that it is a worse interpretation.

Indeed, he concedes himself:

Now I am by no means asserting that the human writer of Genesis 1 had some knowledge of terrestrial gases or extraterrestrial objects; that is not the point. That author (and later readers) could very well have understood the raqiya‘ as Seely supposes; but in being inspired to say that a raqiya‘ was ‘made’, without saying anything about its nature, the word permits us today to recognize the raqiya‘ for what it most likely is: An ‘expanse’ of terrestrial gases—or perhaps also extraterrestrial matter within our solar system or throughout space.

...

We are left with the assertion that raqiya‘ and ‘asah are the most suitable choices available to the Hebrew, and Seely has failed to show otherwise. The Hebrew language had no holding place at this time for the concept of terrestrial gases or space-borne particles, nor for the concept of an infinite or immeasurable upward space, and the combination of words that was used in Genesis offered the only choice.
​

(emphases added) Can you see the remarkable tension Harding introduces into his position? We can recognize the "expanse" as one of terrestrial gases, space-borne particles, and an immesurable upward space - even though Harding himself admits that this was most likely not what the original authors could have meant, given the constraints of their language. (How hard is it to invent a word? We coin neologisms all the time. There is no better way to explain the absence of "a holding place for the concept" of the atmosphere and outer space than to say that those concepts simply did not exist.)

Again, near the end:

Perhaps the ancient readers of this text did envision a solid dome with an ocean above it, but if so, they read things into the inspired and equivocal language of the text every bit as much as Seely or I have.
​

It is crucial and timely that Harding regards his own view as being as much an externally-provoked interpretation of and reaction to the text as Seely's.

The question remains of why Harding believes that the atmosphere is really made of gases and that it is surrounded by an immeasurable upward space. He believes such things; they can be found nowhere in the Bible (by his own admission) or in his own personal experience. Therefore the only answer is that he believes them based on what science says, and then forms his interpretation of the Bible around them.

After all, his scientifically-validated view of the atmosphere allows him to read "terrestrial gases and an immeasurable upward space" into a word from a language which by his own admission had no room for that concept. Well, then, that allows us to do anything we want, doesn't it? I can read evolution into Genesis 1 - why didn't God describe it? Because the Hebrew language had no room for the concept! I can read conventional geology into Genesis 1 - why didn't God describe it? Because the Hebrew language had no room for the concepts!

If Harding is allowed to let science dictate his interpretations, why can't we?

 

[Assyrian]

Sorry this is reading into the text. This reminds me of how some in the liberation theology, black Jesus movement have concluded Jesus had an afro because the text says his hair was "white like wool." But the text does not say his hair was curly like wool. It was simply a reference to its color.

Jesus was Jewish, he probably did have curly or wavy hair. Now Rev 1:14 does say The hairs of his head were white like wool, but Dan 7:9 says and the hair of his head like pure wool, which is broader, not limited to the colour of the hair. White and wavy or white and curly are very reasonable ways to read Daniel. The leap comes saying white curly hair mean afro and that Jesus was black.

You are doing the same thing with this text. An aura would also be the same translucent color as ice or crystal. It is a reference to its color or gleam, not its texture. This text that you are building your case on, is tenuous at best and certainly does not warrant going back to Genesis and overriding its clear definition of raqia.

Like your liberation theology friends, you are reading the 'aura' into the description. Ezekiel described something that appeared to be crystal.

Actually yes, you should trust the Bible over ANE beliefs that came years later. Language and words are in a constant state of change. If the Bible says the firmament is heaven, and ANE cultures say it is a divider between heaven and earth, you should believe the Bible.

If we want to understand what the bible mean we need it understand the words it uses and what they meant to he people who spoke the language. Otherwise you simply take your 21st century misunderstanding of the text and assume your are ‘believing what the bible says’ is in the fact of what the text means. Or because the words are obscure from your 21st century perspective, grab one verse you think you do understand and make everything fit that. I have shown you why your exclusively absolute interpretation ‘firmament is heaven’, doesn’t fit the the way God named things in the rest of the creation account, or the other descriptions of the firmament.

Actually when you start out by believing what the Bible says, the rest of it falls into place rather effortlessly.

It is called proof texting. If you take one verses and make everything thing fit your interpetation of that verse, then bible interpretation is effortless. Wrong, but effortless.

Actually I can. As I'll show, your are misunderstanding what correspondences the Bible is referring to.

I've just come back to this having gone through your post and no, you don't show where I am misunderstanding any correspondences.

The text was speaking of the appearance of its color or gleam. You are trying to force the meaning onto Ezekiel's passage because you know how clear the definition of raqia is in Genesis. You are approaching the text with a solid-dome presupposition.

Seems you are adding two translations together. The Hebrew is כעין k'ayin, lit. 'as eye' or 'like eye', it means appearance or form. We find it in Num 11:7 Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance like that of bdellium. The KJV translates it as 'colour' instead. You can translate it in Ezekiel as appearance, or looked like, or if you really want to follow the KJV as colour, though Hebrew scholarship has moved on singe then. What you can't do is translate it twice, combining modern scholarship and KJV as 'the appearance of its colour'.

This is exactly what Seely attempted in his article and Holding nailed him on it.

The problem with this argument is that the claim that shamayim is ‘broader in meaning’ than raqiya‘ in Genesis is simply groundless—the result of circular reasoning. In Genesis 1:8, the implication is that the raqiya‘ has the name shamayim in an exact one-to-one correspondence, just as is the case for the ‘Earth’ and the ‘Seas’ when they are named (v. 10). There is no reason to see a broader meaning of shamayim than an exact equation with raqiya‘.
In fact, Seely’s only reason for saying that shamayim and raqiya‘ are not equal seems to be that it would result (because of verses like Deuteronomy 4:17, and other like Psalm[wash my mouth]11:4) in the absurd conclusion that the birds fly or God sits enthroned ‘inside’ a solid structure! In other words, .... he has started with the idea of the solid sky, based on the views of ancient people, and forced onto the text divisions in the shamayim that are simply not specified, and in the case of Genesis 1, not even permitted, by the text.

That pretty much sums in up. The only reason you believe they are not the same is because you have approached the text with a solid dome presupposition.

A very poor argument there. It is not circular reasoning to say that an opposing argument is baseless. And it is argument to motive to say the only reason we disagree with your argument is because we want to ‘read in’ a solid firmament. If your only argument against the meaning of firmament we get from scripture and Hebrew is a verse that doesn’t make your case, then don’t accuse us of bias in rejecting your argument. Come up with a better argument.

But you say God called the firmament 'heavens', therefore the firmament is all the heavens.

Yes! This expanse, he called heaven.

You are missing the point, it is not the particular firmament that is the issue, but whether that firmament encompassed all there is of heaven.

There are two errors you are overlooking. God call that particular light that he divided from the darkness, day. That is what day is, and day is what that particular light is. In that particular cycle of day/night, the part that is lighted is day.

Light used unspecifically is actually broader in meaning than day. But that light is always day.

Now, the same is true with God calling the expanse the heavens. God was naming that particular expanse that divided upper and lower earth (the waters). Now not all expanses are the heavens, but the heavens are always that particular expanse. Expanses in general are broader, but that expanse is an exact one-to-one correspondence.

If I say, I named that building the Taj Mahall, then that building and the Taj Mahal are an exact one-to-one correspondence. This doesn't mean all buildings are the Taj Mahal, but the Taj Mahal is always that building.

Apart from the Indian restaurant in my town, and a range of other Taj Mahals

However we have more than enough example in the verses in Gen 1.

................object ....... ....name
God called the .light ............ Day,
God called the .expanse .......... Heaven
.......and the .darkness he called Night
God called the .dry land ......... Earth
.......and the .waters . he called Seas

Now lets look at your argument, that it is particular object God calls day. So the objects God names can be a broader category than the particular one God named. And it is true.
There are lights that are not day. A candle is not called day, neither is the moon or moonlight.
There are darknesses that are not ‘night’, pull your hat over your eyes or go into a cave.
There are expanses that are not called heaven, any time a blacksmith hammers out a sheet of metal, that is an expanse, so is gold leaf.

But none of it helps you argument, because I was not talking about the object named being a broader category, but the name having a wider meaning than just that object.

Day is the name of the 12 hours of daylight
….but day has a broader meaning than 12 hours of daylight. It can refer to the whole 24 hours or even much longer periods of many cycles of day and night.
Earth is the name God gave the dry land
…but ‘earth’ has a much wider range of meanings, from a field or an individual country to the whole planet.
Heavens is the name God called the firmament he made
…but God created the heavens before he created the earth and its firmament. Genesis 1 is not the only creation account that says God created the heavens before he made the earth. Psalm 104:2-10 and Psalm 136:5-10 both of these follow the order of Gen 1, and while you can argue about the meaning of Gen 1:1, these Psalms read it that the heavens were made first. Job 38 has the ‘morning stars’ aka venus and mercury, singing when the foundation of the earth were laid.

In fact it your argument works against you, not only does the name have a broader meaning than just the object named, you have shown the object named can also be just one of a broad category.

But if you want exclusive definition from Gen 1, YECs lose much more than they gain. God called the light day and immediately goes on to describe 'and there was evening and there was morning the first day' If the period from evening to morning is included in the first day then Genesis can't be talking literal days. If you claim firmament is all of the heavens, then daylight is all of the day. Evening to morning is night time that cannot be part of a literal day which has just been defined in Gen 1:5.

No I don't think the writers understood earth this way. Rivers are said to cover the earth, such as in the metaphor used in Jer. 46:8. Earth is never described as waters.

Only in a flood. Jer 46:8 Egypt rises like the Nile, like rivers whose waters surge. He said, 'I will rise, I will cover the earth, I will destroy cities and their inhabitants.'

Normally rivers and stream were seen as part of the land.

When the rivers canals, ponds, and pools of water were turned to blood Exodus 7:21 says There was blood throughout all the land of Egypt. Balaam lived in a town beside a river. The river is described as a river of the land Num 22:5 And he sent messengers to Balaam the son of Beor, to Pethor which is beside the River of the land of the sons of his people, to call for him.
Deu 8:7 For the LORD your God is bringing you into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and springs, flowing out in the valleys and hills. Deu 10:7 From there they journeyed to Gudgodah, and from Gudgodah to Jotbathah, a land with brooks of water. The KJV puts it a land of rivers of waters. Rivers and brooks, fountains and springs, canals, ponds and pools are all part of a ‘land’.

So where is God's throne?

In the expanse called the heavens.

Not according to Ezekiel. Ezek 1:26 And above the expanse over their heads there was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire; and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness with a human appearance.

Chapters divisions aren't inspired Gen 2:1 is part of the the first creation account, the writer hadn't even got the seventh day. Yet it refers to the completed work of creation as 'the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them'. The phrase 'the heavens and the earth' includes the seas - and the waters above the firmament.

So, you just believe this for no reason?

Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
The verse comes as a summary at the end of the creation. ‘Thus’ refers back to the previous creation, ‘were finished’ or ‘were completed’ refers to the whole work of creation that went before. ‘And all the host of them’ tells us it was talking of the complete creation. The phrase ‘heavens and the earth’ is frequently used to summarise all of God’s creation Or do you think Moses forgot about the sea when he said Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.'"? Did Hezekiah forget too? 2Ki 19:15 And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD and said: "O LORD the God of Israel, who is enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God, you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth. Haggai Zechariah and Zerubbabel? Ezr 5:11 …We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and we are rebuilding the house that was built many years ago, which a great king of Israel built and finished. Psalm 115:15 May you be blessed by the LORD, who made heaven and earth! Psalm 121:2 My help comes from the LORD, who made heaven and earth.

Genesius’ Lexicon describes one of the meanings of erets as:

Specially--(1) the earth, orbis terrarum, opp. to heavenהַשָּׁמַ[FONT=&quot]֥יִם וְהָאָ[FONT=&quot]֖[/FONT][/FONT]רֶץ
Gen. 1:1; 2:1, 4, andאֶ֥רֶץ וְשָׁמָֽיִם Gen 2:4, “heaven and earth,” used of the whole creation..
​

erets means more than simply dry land, though that is what God called the dry land.

 

[Assyrian]

I'm sorry, but you haven't. You've shown that the term expanse can be broader when not specifically talking about the expanse that divided the earth waters, but you haven't shown that that specific expanse is not as broad as its name, "the heavens." This is what you must do to make solid dome cosmology work.

Like I said Ezekiel described God’s throne above the expanse. Also the description indicates a reasonably narrow expanse. The word itself suggests that, an expanse was a sheet of metal beaten thin, thinner than it was expanded wide. Nor does the description hint that God’s throne might be vast distances away that you interpretation would need.

Yes! Now certainly God created the waters above, but Moses simply mentions things in the heavens, earth and sea. The waters above the heavens are rarely mentioned in scripture.

Moses is describing all of creation, not ‘simply mentioning things in the heavens, earth and sea’.

You got it! The waters of Genesis 1:6 are a different kind of waters—earth waters.

Not H2O?

Clouds aren't a layer. Clouds are things that are in the heavens. That's what the Bible says.

Step outside on a rainy day then tell me clouds don’t form a layer. But don’t go on about ‘that is what the bible says’, you have to show us. The bible describes an expanse between waters on earth and water above the earth. That is three layers: sea, air, clouds. You have five layers: sea, air, clouds, heaven, water outside heaven. That is not what the bible says.

Of course they knew rain came from clouds. But the bible also describes rain as coming from heaven. [FONT=&quot]Gen 7:[/FONT][FONT=&quot]11 …and the windows of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Gen 8:2[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Deut 11:11[/FONT][FONT=&quot] But the land that you are going over to possess is a land of hills and valleys, which drinks water by the rain from heaven,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Deut 11:17[/FONT][FONT=&quot] then the anger of the LORD will be kindled against you, and he will shut up the heavens, so that there will be no rain,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Deut 28:12[/FONT][FONT=&quot] The LORD will open to you his good treasury, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season.[/FONT]

You have been looking at too many pictures of Catholic saints Calminian. It was not a gleaming aura, he saw an expanse that looked like an awesome crystal.

If that's what the text said, I'd believe it. It simply doesn't.

[FONT=&quot]Ezek 1:22 WEB[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Over the head of the living creature there was the likeness of an expanse, like the awesome crystal to look on, stretched forth over their heads above[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]
ESV Over the heads of the living creatures there was the likeness of an expanse, shining like awe-inspiring crystal, spread out above their heads.
ASV And over the head of the living creature there was the likeness of a firmament, like the terrible crystal to look upon, stretched forth over their heads above.
AMP Over the head of the [combined] living creature there was the likeness of a firmament, looking like the terrible and awesome [dazzling of shining] crystal or ice stretched across the expanse of sky over their heads.


As Shernen has pointed out, Harding admits the author and readers of Gen 1 could have read it as a solid dome, well they not only read it as a solid dome, the firmament looked like crystal to Ezekiel too.

 

[Calminian]

Like I said Ezekiel described God’s throne above the expanse. Also the description indicates a reasonably narrow expanse. The word itself suggests that, an expanse was a sheet of metal beaten thin, thinner than it was expanded wide. Nor does the description hint that God’s throne might be vast distances away that you interpretation would need.

What's interesting is, even Paul Seely disagrees with you that the etymology is enough to support a solid sky. He believes scriptural context is the key. And who said anything about the throne being vast distances away? This was a vision, and I don't think the writer was trying to portray a model of the cosmos at all. Why would I need vast distances?

Moses is describing all of creation, not ‘simply mentioning things in the heavens, earth and sea’.

Sorry, this just isn't the case. Why not just take Moses at his word? He was describing the heavens, earth, seas and their hosts. Why don't you believe this? Why not take the text literally like Lamoureux claims he is? And BTW, there is no biblical hebrew word that I know of that means planet. This is another nomenclature issue that many stumble over. Earth, in the Bible only means dry land. This should clear up all those "ends of the earth" passages. The earth in biblical nomenclature does have ends. They are called beaches.

BTW, here are some other biblical references that list heaven, earth, and sea distinctly. Psa. 96:11, Psa. 146:6, Ezek. 38:20, Hag. 2:6, Acts 4:24, Acts 14:15, Rev. 10:6, Rev. 12:12, Rev. 14:7, Rev. 21:1

Not H2O?

H2O is only one component of sea waters and the ancient bible writers (ABW's) didn't not know about H20. You're stumbling on nomenclature. Certainly H2O was a part of the earth waters, because the sea came from them, but the components of the dry land were in it also. This is what the text says. Why don't you believe it? If the goal is to look at the text in a straightforward way, then why do solid dome advocates seem to ignore what is literally said? Ocean waters did not exist until verse 9. You have to deal with that.

Step outside on a rainy day then tell me clouds don’t form a layer. But don’t go on about ‘that is what the bible says’, you have to show us. The bible describes an expanse between waters on earth and water above the earth. That is three layers: sea, air, clouds. You have five layers: sea, air, clouds, heaven, water outside heaven. That is not what the bible says.

Here's where Seely, Lamoureux and you haven't done your research. The ABW's understood clouds very well. They knew they were the source of rain and believed them to be in the Heavens. Here's just a few passage I've gather from the Bible on clouds.

Psa. 77:17 The clouds poured out water.....
1Kings 18:45 So it came about in a little while, that the sky grew black with clouds and wind, and there was a heavy shower.
Eccl. 11:3 If the clouds are full, they pour out rain upon the earth...
Zech. 10:1 Ask rain from the LORD at the time of the spring rain — The LORD who makes the storm clouds; And He will give them showers of rain, vegetation in the field to each man.

It is also clear that clouds are, biblically, in the heavens, indeed they are called the doors and jars of heaven.

Judg. 5:4 “...The earth quaked, the heavens also dripped, Even the clouds dripped water.
Job 38:37 “Who can count the clouds by wisdom, Or tip the water jars of the heavens,
Psa. 78:23 Yet He commanded the clouds above, And opened the doors of heaven;
Is. 45:8 [wash my mouth]“Drip down, O heavens, from above, And let the clouds pour down righteousness
Dan. 7:13 [wash my mouth]“I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming...
Matt. 26:64 Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

The Bible even refers to clouds as canopies.

2Sam. 22:12 “And He made darkness canopies around Him, A mass of waters, thick clouds of the sky.
Psa. 18:11 He made darkness His hiding place, His canopy around Him, Darkness of waters, thick clouds of the skies.

Of course they knew rain came from clouds. But the bible also describes rain as coming from heaven.

Exactly!! Rain from clouds and rain from heaven is the same thing! Clouds are in heaven! Look at the passages I've cited. (Hopefully you understand the concept of hebrew parallelism.) They should clear up all the confusion on this matter. Lamoureux has not studied the ABW's understanding of clouds.

As Shernen has pointed out, Harding admits the author and readers of Gen 1 could have read it as a solid dome, well they not only read it as a solid dome, the firmament looked like crystal to Ezekiel too.

Ezekiel simply doesn't help you. There is no reason to indicate this is a model of the cosmos, nor that a solid mass extended from the creatures heads. The descriptions are of the gleam and color, nor form. Ezekiel was merely describing a vision.

Again the key to all of this is the biblical description of the firmament in Genesis 1. God called it the heavens. Why don't you and Seely and Lamoureux believe it? He didn't say it was in heaven, nor that it divided heaven and earth. The firmament is heaven. This trumps every etymological argument in existence.

 

[Calminian]

Here's a must-read for those considering the uses of "firmament" and "waters above the heavens" in Genesis:
http://www.drvinson.net/theo/185-DSY/version/1/part/6/data/Lamoureux.%20Lessons%20from%20the%20Heavens.%20On%20Scripture,%20Science%20and%20Inerrancy.%20PSCF.%20March%202008.pdf?branch=main&language=default

Hey Mallon, do you have any idea where this article was published? I just finished an article on this subject and quoted this article quite a bit and would like to properly footnote it. But for the life of me I can't find the sources. Let me know if you know. Thanks.

 

[Mallon]

Hey Mallon, do you have any idea where this article was published? I just finished an article on this subject and quoted this article quite a bit and would like to properly footnote it. But for the life of me I can't find the sources. Let me know if you know. Thanks.

It's from the December issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, I believe. Check it out on the ASA website.

 

[Calminian]

It's from the December issue of Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, I believe. Check it out on the ASA website.

Ah, that makes sense. I see on the pdf it's PSCF volume 60, number 1 of March, 08. Looks like they don't have it uploaded yet, but I have what I need. Thanks!

 

[Calminian]

I actually just noticed you posed twice. Sorry I missed this entire response.

Jesus was Jewish, he probably did have curly or wavy hair. Now Rev 1:14 does say The hairs of his head were white like wool, but Dan 7:9 says and the hair of his head like pure wool, which is broader, not limited to the colour of the hair. White and wavy or white and curly are very reasonable ways to read Daniel. The leap comes saying white curly hair mean afro and that Jesus was black.

Since we both agree I won't belabor this, but the Daniel passage is also a reference to color. The Hebrew literally reads,

‘I was seeing till that thrones have been thrown down, and the Ancient of Days is seated, His garment as snow white, and the hair of his head as pure wool, His throne flames of fire, its wheels burning fire.

Snow and wool are simply parallel expressions of white. The Revelation passages reflects this. Not a hill to die on.

Like your liberation theology friends, you are reading the 'aura' into the description. Ezekiel described something that appeared to be crystal.

Actually I'm reading out of the text and seeing that aura is compatible. There is nothing from the outside that I am reading in. I don't know of any past interpretations nor ancient traditions that speak about an aura to read into the text.

If we want to understand what the bible mean we need it understand the words it uses and what they meant to he people who spoke the language.

And the best way to do this is through context.

Otherwise you simply take your 21st century misunderstanding of the text and assume your are ‘believing what the bible says’ is in the fact of what the text means. Or because the words are obscure from your 21st century perspective, grab one verse you think you do understand and make everything fit that. I have shown you why your exclusively absolute interpretation ‘firmament is heaven’, doesn’t fit the the way God named things in the rest of the creation account, or the other descriptions of the firmament.

It is wrong to read 21st century meanings into the text, but just a wrong to read ancient cultural beliefs into the text. Just because ANE neighbors and even other jews believed in a solid sky, doesn't mean the ancient bible writers were conveying this. As holding points out, the terms are ambiguous and easily fit with many cosmologies.

It is called proof texting. If you take one verses and make everything thing fit your interpetation of that verse, then bible interpretation is effortless. Wrong, but effortless.

But the fact is, Genesis 1:8 is explicit. The firmament is heaven. All contextual reasoning must start there. I am reading the text much more literally than you or Lamoureux are.

Seems you are adding two translations together. The Hebrew is כעין k'ayin, lit. 'as eye' or 'like eye', it means appearance or form. We find it in Num 11:7 Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance like that of bdellium. The KJV translates it as 'colour' instead. You can translate it in Ezekiel as appearance, or looked like, or if you really want to follow the KJV as colour, though Hebrew scholarship has moved on singe then. What you can't do is translate it twice, combining modern scholarship and KJV as 'the appearance of its colour'.

There is not a single translation that supports a solid expanse above the creature's heads. And you are still ignoring the contextual evidence of Gen. 1:8 which Ezekiel was very familiar with.

A very poor argument there. It is not circular reasoning to say that an opposing argument is baseless. And it is argument to motive to say the only reason we disagree with your argument is because we want to ‘read in’ a solid firmament. If your only argument against the meaning of firmament we get from scripture and Hebrew is a verse that doesn’t make your case, then don’t accuse us of bias in rejecting your argument. Come up with a better argument.

But the argument simply demolishes the sophistic etymological arguments of the likes of Seely and Lamoureux. The Bible says raqia is named shamayim. That's quite a difficult obstacle for solid domers to overcome. This is the original understanding of the term that predates ANE etymology. This is why Seely tried to make the case that shamayim is broader than raqia. But he failed. If you look at the references he cites, none even mention raqia.

You are missing the point, it is not the particular firmament that is the issue, but whether that firmament encompassed all there is of heaven.

It does. That's what the text literally says. Heaven is the name given to shamayim.

Now lets look at your argument, that it is particular object God calls day.

But any word can be used to mean anything in certain contexts. The same is true with the english word day. It's even true with the english word heaven, and may be true with shamayim, but that's not where your problem is. Seely is not arguing for a broader meaning, but a broader physical area for heaven, something the scriptures don't support. If you feel there is support for this, please cite it. Don't make that case that it is possible heaven was broader. Make the case that it actually is from scripture.

But if you want exclusive definition from Gen 1, YECs lose much more than they gain. God called the light day and immediately goes on to describe 'and there was evening and there was morning the first day' If the period from evening to morning is included in the first day then Genesis can't be talking literal days. If you claim firmament is all of the heavens, then daylight is all of the day. Evening to morning is night time that cannot be part of a literal day which has just been defined in Gen 1:5.

Yes of course. Any word in any language has this potential. But this does not prove your case about heaven. You need to do this from scripture. I've show what the text says about raqia. The burden is on you to show shamayim is broader and can refer to a much broader area beyond the thin layer of the raqia. Otherwise your whole case is built on speculation and eisagesis.

Normally rivers and stream were seen as part of the land.

evidence please.

When the rivers canals, ponds, and pools of water were turned to blood Exodus 7:21 says There was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.

This does NOT make your case. It can also be said there is blood shed throughout the entire earth. This does mean people were not distinct from earth. Trust me on this one. You are reading modern concepts into an ancient term. Earth = dry land, not a planet.

 

[shernren]

The argument you haven't answered is: why should the firmament stop being a firmament simply because it is named Heaven? As I posted earlier: The "heavens", meanwhile, can be stretched forth (Isa 45:12, 51:13) - even as a curtain! (Isa 40:22) - they can shake, literally "quiver" (Isa 13:13), and they have pillars (Job 26:11) too.

Where in any non-apocalyptic passage in the Bible are the heavens described as non-substantial?

 

[Calminian]

The argument you haven't answered is: why should the firmament stop being a firmament simply because it is named Heaven? As I posted earlier: The "heavens", meanwhile, can be stretched forth (Isa 45:12, 51:13) - even as a curtain! (Isa 40:22) - they can shake, literally "quiver" (Isa 13:13), and they have pillars (Job 26:11) too.

Where in any non-apocalyptic passage in the Bible are the heavens described as non-substantial?

This is something you should take up with Lamoureux and Seely. They have described the firmament as a divider of heaven and earth. But if you feel heaven should be thought of as a solid mass in which clouds, stars, angels and God's throne are incased, please make your case. This should be interesting.

 

[shernren]

This is something you should take up with Lamoureux and Seely. They have described the firmament as a divider of heaven and earth. But if you feel heaven should be thought of as a solid mass in which clouds, stars, angels and God's throne are incased, please make your case. This should be interesting.

Now:

- we know that the Israelites had no conception of the atmosphere as an indefinitely extended collection of insubstantial matter, or at best no words to describe it as such. (This is something your own Harding admits.)
- we know that the word that the Israelites used for "the firmament" was etymologically riddled with the implication of solidness (a fact acknowledged both in the Septuagint translation, which both Jesus and Paul quoted as equivalent to inerrant Scripture, and in our modern translation of "firmament").
- we know that the concepts of both "firmament" and "heaven" are often attached to descriptors associated with solidity - being able to quiver, being rolled up like a scroll, being stretched out like a tent, etc. (And when either firmament or heaven are spoken of as being "vaporized" or anything close to that, it is in an eschatological context where even the mountains will be made dust, not proving much.)

And let's recap what you have proven:

- you have not shown that the Israelites read any passage about the sky with the same scientific understanding that we moderns do. (Harding admits as much himself.)
- you have not shown that, given an ancient concept of a solid sky compared with the modern concept of an indefinitely extended incorporeal atmosphere, at any point in the Bible the modern concept makes more textual sense compared to the ancient concept. (It certainly makes more scientific sense - but we aren't to be influenced by heathen externalities, are we?)
- you have not shown that the Israelites even had any words appropriate for describing the modern concept of atmosphere. And even within the concept of plenary verbal inspiration only words are verbally inspired; the act of reaching back and saying "well, they didn't have the words for this and that, but they could've meant it anyway" must always remain theological speculation within such a framework. (In fact, such talk makes more sense within our post-textual-criticism world, instead of in the old days of pre-fundamentalism when the letters were believed to be inspired to the extent that Newton and his contemporaries sought out code in its letters not unlike the modern "Bible Code".)

Harding's case, and yours, seems to rest on trying to prove that the text we have is "ambivalent", or literally capable of being pulled in more than one direction. The evidence we have is that the text was only ever pulled in one direction for more than 80% of its lifetime: towards the direction of a solid dome sky. Remember, everything I am quoting to you now is textual evidence. I am not making a single reference to science. (You need to refer to science to show that the "solid sky" interpretation is not a good one.) The fact that solid descriptors are attached to both "the heavens" and "the firmament" is given in specific verses in post #58.

As for Lamoureux and Seely, sure, I think they (and those before them in the same vein) may have gone a bit overboard trying to draw a precise map of the cosmos delineating what goes where without exception or ambiguity. To the extent that they try to do that, they misunderstand the intent of the text. Have you ever read or written science fiction before? In any extended series (say Star Wars) there has to be some mechanism to preserve continuity: so, for example, every author who works in that universe has to know that starships can only reach so many times the speed of light, and no more, or that so far they have put this species of alien here, and that species of alien there, and ... there has to be some kind of compendium on which all previous knowledge is written and to which every future Star Wars work will refer. (It's called Wikipedia. )

My point is that the Bible's picture of the cosmos isn't like that, any more than a modern poet would feel obliged to understand atmospheric diffraction and the mechanics of light production in stellar cores before talking about how the stars twinkle on a dark night. There is no preset, consistent map of the cosmos that all Bible writers refer to (other than the barest-of-bones locations that even we colloquially use today - the sky being above us, and God higher still, the sea being around us, hell being beneath us ... ). If Seely and Lamoureux try to pin the firmament down as being one particular place, there will inevitably be one or two verses that describe it as subtly but critically different, precisely because there is no preset cosmogony that all biblical writers need to be constrained by. And in pointing that out, you do us great service.

But from that idea there are two ways to go. The first is to note that partial ambiguity does not imply total ambiguity. Even if the authors of the Bible wouldn't make up their minds about where the firmament was, they knew what it was like: solid. It's interesting that you challenged me to defend Lamoureux and Seely by proving that the firmament is "a divider of heaven and earth". Why would that be necessary? The table in front of me is solid, but it doesn't divide heaven and earth. Even if Lamoureux and Seely are entirely wrong about the consistent location of the firmament (because there isn't one), why would that make them wrong about the consistent nature of the firmament? As your own Harding admits, the Israelites wouldn't even have had a word for our modern concept of atmosphere. The "ambiguity" is hopelessly lopsided ... unless, of course, you let pagan externalities like science cast the deciding vote.

The second way to go is to note that it is precisely science which provides this all-encompassing, consistent cosmogony which truth adheres to. The idea certainly serves you well enough; you say that the Biblical description is "ambiguous" between a solid sky and an insubstantial atmosphere - certainly, when one considers that there is substantial, consistent Biblical evidence, but no scientific evidence whatsoever, for a solid sky; and that there is no Biblical evidence whatsoever, but substantial, consistent scientific evidence for an insubstantial atmosphere.

Well, two can play at that game. If you're allowed to import the insubstantial atmosphere from science into the Bible, what stops us from importing evolution and long ages into the Bible? Harding's point was that even though the Israelites didn't even have words for an insubstantial atmosphere, the atmosphere is still scientifically true, and therefore a fortiori must be Biblical. (There must have been Jedi Troopers in J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth, because any good fantasy series must have Jedi Troopers, even though there is not one mention of them in the books anywhere at all. It just so happens that Tolkien didn't have the words for them ...) Well, then, the Israelites didn't have the words or mental concepts to properly understand evolution or long ages either, so is it a surprise that their description of the world does not incorporate those concepts?

Face up to what the Bible actually says, instead of what you think it should!