emotional

I notified Holding/Turkel of my refutation of his raqia' article. To remind, an article of his appears on Answers in Genesis, arguing that the equivocal language of Genesis 1 does not mandate a solid sky (the firmament), here:

<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4169.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4169.asp</a>

I wrote a refutation to this:

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/raqiasolid-01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/raqiasolid-01.htm</a>

and notified Holding. Today I got a general reply (no point-to-point refutations, just an acknowledgement of the article). I'm looking forward to a rejoinder of my article on Tekton. Even better, perhaps an online debate with Holding.

A forthcoming, needed project for my Scriptural Criticism archives is to show how Genesis 1 would appear were it to reflect the scientific cosmogonic history. Eugene Y C Ho has an article in the Secular Web library called "Is a Liberal Interpretation of the Creation Story Compatible with Science?", where he shows that even a liberal, Day-Age interpretation of Genesis 1 would not fit modern science:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/eugene_ho/creation.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/eugene_ho/creation.html</a>

Challenge in hand: to write a science-compatible version of Genesis 1. No firmaments, no primordial waters, taking evolutionary order into account - everything in the light of theistic evolution. Keeping God inside as the original ordainer of everything, but making the Bible fit science.

Tercel

The Day-Age interpretation is "liberal"?

emotional

Compared to the Young-Earth interpretation it is. Old-Earth interpretations stretch the plain meaning of the Bible beyond itself. The yom of Genesis 1 refers to 24-days, as is shown by the preceding "evening and morning" before it: "and there was evening, and there was morning, the first day" - a 24-hour day. The Young-Earthers have it right on that one, though they continue to ignore the issues of geocentrism and the solid firmament.

This is my newly-written salvo in the Genesis 1 series:

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/sci-gen1.htm" target="_blank">A Scientifically Correct Genesis 1</a> - showing how Genesis 1 would read if God had really been its author.

NOGO

This guy is a real joker. I couldn't make through his presentation. There is just too much nonsense.

I stopped when he questioned whether the raqiya‘ in Ezekiel was the same as in Genesis.

Doesn't Ezekiel say that the heavens opened up and that is when he saw the solid surface? Also wasn't the throne og God above this surface?

Some scholars believe that there were actually two surfaces the firmament and the heavens. The firmament was actually a sheet of metal while the heavens was a dome. I tend to believe that there was a single metal dome.

Job 37:18
Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

Looking glass is a mirror which was made of a metal like bronze. Molten here must have something to do with how it was fabricated.

There is of course the book of Enoch.

NOGO

I once had a long discussion about just this subject with a fundie. He kept changing the definition of the firmament as I made counter arguements.

I finally got him by showing that the water above the firmament is used for rain.

Psalms|104:2:13
Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind: Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire: Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever. Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains. At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them. Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth. He sendeth the springs into the valleys, which run among the hills They give drink to every beast of the field: the wild asses quench their thirst. By them shall the fowls of the heaven have their habitation, which sing among the branches. He watereth the hills from his chambers: the earth is satisfied with the fruit of thy works

God's chambers are on the waters. Note also that clouds are like chariots to ride in.
Note also the last line. He waters the hills from his chambers not from the clouds. Now which waters are we talking about in Ps 104:3 ? Could it be the waters below the firmament?

Well rain usually falls straight down. If God waters the hills from his chambers then his chambers are somewhere above the hills. So if it isn't clouds then his chambers whose foundations are in the waters must be in the waters above the firmament. So the waters above the firmament are used for rain as also confirmed in the verses below.

Deuteronomy 28:12
The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand:

Genesis 8:1-2
And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters asswaged; The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained

Windows of heavens are more like opening in the firmament through which water falls than clouds.
So the waters above are for rain. That sort of limits what the firmament can be to ...
not the atmosphere ...
not the solar system ...
not the whole universe ...
but a rigid dome just above a flat earth.

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>