Is this the most central truth in the Genesis creation account?

Maybe we are just seeing the word raqia used in different ways as we see the word heaven having different meanings in the Bible:
https://becomingchristians.com/2013/08/28/three-types-of-heaven-mentioned-in-the-bible/

   Here’s a couple of things I think people put to much emphasis on.

1) Trying to decide if a division was intended between verses 1 and two of Genesis when there is no verse 1 and two of Genesis. We all know chapter and verse identities were added much later and are not a part of the Word of God, but simply added by us for referencing purposes. To build a doctrinal belief based on a supposed gap in time between two verses that really aren’t two verses appears even sillier when you take the verse additions out and read the passage as it was written. It becomes clearly a necessary invention with which to build other false doctrines.

2) MUCH to much is made of someone being a “Bible scholar”, or “OT or NT scholar”. Any day of the week I will take a man who has spent his life humbly reading the Bible and believing it and struggling to obey it in his life and teaching it to his family and those he has influence with over a man who has spent his time digging to find out what color of peppers were favored by OT scribes on their days off and calling himself a scholar because of it. 
   One comes from a position of humility and the other arena is filled with those who love to be called “Rabbi, Rabbi” and pretend great devotion to the Book they subtly insult with faint praise and slight doubts. 
  Obviously not all men who read their Bible understand it all and some are greatly influenced by false teachings they have erroneously believed and not all whom the academic world has chosen to bless with the title of “scholar” are snakes, but I sure have noticed a trend in both groups in my life.

   Most times I’ve encountered a new false doctrine (like the one we’re discussing now) it has been invented by one of these “scholars” with piles of new “information” that previous had been lost to mankind and only recently “rediscovered” by them.

There are so many issues with the article's categories I wouldn't know where to begin.

But laying that aside, Genesis locates raqia in the sky where it serves as a divider separating the physical waters above from the physical waters below (seas) and where the birds are flying in close proximity across the face or surface of raqia (the same word used to describe a fish swimming near the surface of the water).  The "heaven" as outer space is anachronistic.   They believed the sun, moon, stars were much closer (than we know them to be) and smaller than the earth (i.e., the size they appear to be).  In fact, it's much worse than this but I'll stop there.  The bottom line is Genesis locates raqia (in which the sun, moon and stars are set) in close proximity to the earth--close enough for birds to fly across its surface.

(1) First, to be clear, I do not advocate any "gap theory."

(2) We're on the same page with regard to the verses and chapters--those are later additions.  We have to follow the punctuation in the text itself.  However, in this case v.1, v. 2, and v.3 coincide with 3 separate sentences in Hebrew.  Some sentences are clearer than others in the Bible, but here there's some ambiguity and uncertainty in the Hebrew about how these opening 3 verses in Genesis relate to each other w/the result that there are 4 different views.  Without getting into nitty-gritty's I lean towards the following:

•V1 functions as overarching "title"/summary

•V2 follows standard Hebrew narrative form by indicating the state of things ("Now the earth was...") to introduce...

•V3 ...the action that follows (from v3 on)

(3) I went back and re-read your post from Ken Ham more closely and here's the problem: Ham doesn't actually repudiate anything.  He casts a lot of aspersions and questions the sincerity of Walton's conclusions and Walton's  (correct) exegesis in the proper Ancient Near East context---saying how it conveniently allows for old ages and evolution, painting Walton as a closet TE/OEC working under the guise of proper exegesis to support his preconceived beliefs, etc., etc., etc....

(4) Here's the problem: for argument sake, let's say Ham is right about Walton having hidden beliefs and disingenuous motives...The problem is it still doesn't repudiate the Ancient Near East contextual evidence...In fact, let's remove Walton from the equation entirely.  The evidence is still there and has, in fact, been known for quite some time (NOT recently discovered).  This is not some looney fringe idea Walton came up with on his own.

(5) The Genesis creation account simply has more in common with the pagan creation accounts of the time in ancient Egypt, Babylon, Sumer, Mesopotamia.  These creation accounts were directly tied to temple ritual and worship and recited for liturgical use.  There were different creation accounts in Egypt tied to specific temples and their locations.  7-day frameworks are consistent with temple inauguration ceremonies and liturgical recitation.  Ancient Near East temples were seen as mini-cosmos representations (and the tabernacle and Solomon's temple have these aspects as well).  The Genesis account itself contains commandment and pronouncement formulas that correspond to the same Hebrew commands and imperative directives we see in Exodus with the construction of the tabernacle.  Genesis 1-3 (creation-garden of Eden) depicts the cosmos as temple, the garden of Eden as the "Holy of Hollies," and Adam and Eve as priests...and the tabernacle and Solomon's temple contain symbols representative of the cosmos and the garden of Eden and the tree of life and the guarding cherubim and more...The structure of Genesis 1 is not simply a 7 day account....there are heptad groupings in multiples of 7, parallel structures that associate Day 1 with Day 4, Day 2 with Day 5, and Day 3 with Day 6...inclusios, bi- and tri-colon groupings, palistrophes/chiastic structures bookending 1:1 and 2:3; mirror image chiastic structures embedded within larger parallelismus membrorum structures...

(6) In short, Genesis 1-2:3 (and expanding to chapter 3) shows parallel structuring at multiple scales and levels and employs the sacred 7 number of perfection and heptad multiples of 7 that go beyond coincidence and evidence deliberate crafting and structuring that suggests use of Genesis 1-3 for temple liturgical purposes.

(7) I suspect it would be easy to tune a lot of this out and write it off with skepticism as subversive motivation to make Genesis compatible with long ages/evolution.  So for argument sake let's go ahead and all agree that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that everything was created in six, literal 24 hour days and that Adam and Eve were real historical people (obviously, I believe that any way)....Even if it's straightforward historical these other elements including all the connections to tabernacle/temple---they don't disappear, they're all still there.  Even if it's straightforward historical, there's a lot more going on.

(8) Even if literal young earth creation is true (and we're accepting that it is) that's still not the dominant focus.  The resemblance of Genesis especially to a number of the Egyptian creation accounts is uncanny, showing the same sequence of events in creation.  Genesis reads like a line by line repudiation of these pagan accounts.  The picture that emerges is Israel in slavery subjected to immersion in pagan Egyptian religion and culture and Israel needs to first be saved (so Yahweh starts His anti-pagan polemic campaign with plagues that directly strike at various Egyptian gods), and then Israel needs to be cleansed, sanctified and made holy before Yahweh and get rid of all the empty Egyptian paganism they've been immersed in...so Yahweh gives Moses the law, and tabernacle instructions and the rest of the Torah including the Genesis creation account to serve in part for liturgical temple use like ANE creation accounts were used for that correlates with the tabernacle construction directives and that itself is a line by line repudiation of the pagan Egyptian creation accounts they'd been indoctrinated in for 400 yrs...

*I truly have no interest in trying to convince you guys of evolution or long ages or what have you---whatever you think I might be trying to convince you of...when it comes to the Bible I'm strictly an original context guy...So, go ahead and accept YEC.  Seriously, I'm not looking to change that...My goal is simply to share and try to bless others with what I've learned about the original context....So stay YEC...I simply want to encourage people to expand to include the insights from original context alongside their existing beliefs.

I came across this interesting article regarding what the Genesis Creation account tells us about  Cosmology. I personally, don't think that it communicates a cosmology that is at odds with what we know about Cosmology today.
https://bylogos.blogspot.com/2010/02/genesis-and-ancient-cosmology.html

Thanks Steve, I'll have to check it out

(Sorry, only had time to review article.  Will have to return to topic later)

*Ironically, article supports/promotes my point about Genesis 1 creation account representing cosmic temple

3. Heaven and the Temple
There are fascinating connections between heaven and the temple. The tabernacle and temple served as "copies of heavenly things" (Hebr.8:5; 9:23-24). Through his ascension Christ entered "not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God in our behalf" (Heb.9:24).

If the copy has spatial dimensions, so, it would seem, does heaven itself.

Vern Poythress (The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses:13-34) and G.K.Beale (The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism) both argue that the outer courtyard of the tabernacle/temple corresponds to the earth (where man dwells), the Holy Place corresponds to the visible heavens (heaven2), and the Most Holy Place corresponds to God's invisible throne (heaven3, where God and his heavenly hosts dwell), which is distinct from the visible sky.

Beale notes (p.184) that the Bible describes the creation of the universe (Gen.1), the making of the tabernacle and the building of the temple in very similar language. Since God's cosmos is a giant temple, Beale suggests (p.196) that temple imagery should be taken into account when reading Genesis 1.

The tabernacle itself could be considered a copy also of heaven3, with the ark in the Holy of Holies corresponding to God's heavenly throne, the real center of the universe.

My concern in this discussion is any suggestion that the Genesis Creation account presupposes a false Cosmology (shown to be false by Modern Science) as that would undermine Divine Inspiration and Inerrancy as we can see in the false cosmology of the Quran which has the sun setting in a pool of muddy water.

@stevetuck 

What if it's not a suggestion, but a fact?  Hypothetically, let's say for sake of argument that the Bible contains falsehoods by modern scientific standards.  Or, let's say the historical narratives in the Bible has been reworked and embellished to make a point in a way that is unacceptable by modern standards but acceptable by ancient standards?  What if the Bible meets ancient standards of historiography but not modern?  What if some of the words of Jesus in the Bible accurately preserve the "voice" of Jesus (ipsissima vox) but don't preserve his exact/precise words (ipsissima verba)?  What if gospel writers changed the order of events in Christ's life (so they were no longer in chronological order) to make a theological point--such as the gospel of John putting the cleansing of the temple near the front of his gospel and not part of the Passion week--what if this was an acceptable practice back then but not now?   What if the Bible truly does have errors (but the original autographs/manuscripts don't--doesn't this still meet the inerrancy requirement?).  What if the Genesis creation and flood accounts have direct parallels with pagan myths?

What if neither one of us want the Bible to be this way, but it just is what it is?  Would that not entail that the problem is not with the Bible but with our formulation of the doctrines of inerrancy and inspiration?  Is it possible for God to communicate through erroneous beliefs of the day?  Is it hypothetically possible for there to be errors in the Bible but for the Bible to still be inerrant? (e.g. for the Bible to still be *perfectly perfect* for its inteded divine purpose?)   Hypothetically, if faced with one or more of these problems wouldn't it stand to reason that the problem is not with the Bible but with our own faulty expectations that we have imposed upon the Bible?

@Stevetuck 

To be clear, I don't like any of these problems either.  But I also can't ignore them.  First principle of proper biblical interpretation is to interpret by "original meaning/historical context," and for Genesis that context is the Ancient Near East.  When I look at the close parallels between ancient Egyptian creation myths and Genesis 1 like the one's shown below....It just makes the whole YEC/OEC debate, and any and all attempts to try to see geologic processes or other scientific things in the days of creation so misplaced, foreign, and contrived.  It's not even a matter of science vs. non-science. Our modern ideas just simply don't belong,  while the ancient Egyptian creation accounts and Genesis 1 clearly do.  They show a clear relationship and too many similarities for it to happen just by coincidence.

*Too many similarities to be coincidence 

*The strange v.2 in Genesis now makes more sense in its proper historical context 

*And now the creation of light on Day 1 before sun on Day 4 makes more sense.  Egyptian account has divine light created (to dispel primeval darkness) as a result of birth and generation of an Egyptian god.  In Genesis there is a power display of one-upmanship as God requires no birth or generation and creates the divine light simply by speaking it into existence through divine fiat.

*But the differences are greater.  It almost seems like 400 years of Hebrew enslavement under Egyptian taskmasters, including indoctrination in Egyptian paganism is repudiated by Yahweh after delivering Israel from Red Sea and going to Mt. Sinai.

CONCLUSION

*I get why people can feel threatened by all this.  For starters it's so foreign to our way of thinking.  It can also potentially feel like inspiration/inerrancy are being attacked as you note.  Still others will criticize for considering context at all, instead of relying solely on Bible. 

*But it's hard to just ignore the existence of these ancient Egyptian creation accounts with such strong similarities to Genesis.

*So what should be done?  How should the existence of these ancient Egyptian parallels to Genesis 1 be dealt with?

I think that most lies (falsehoods) are mixed with truth to make them more believable. We can see this with the various ancient Creation myths, which incorporate elements of the true Creation account found in Genesis, but which then deviate from the Genesis account in important and significant ways. 
I suggest you read this excellent article and the comments/discussion that follows it:https://billmuehlenberg.com/2017/05/21/genesis-ane-accounts-creation/

Actually,  no, I don't.  I guess you missed all the "what if's" and hypotheticals in my question.  It was a thought experiment.

Looks like most of the points in the article are the same ones I've already made in this and other threads.  So it sounds like we're in agreement then.  Works for me

"In sum, the biblical writers were likely aware of some of the other creation accounts in circulation at the time, but that does not mean they heavily relied on them or simply copied them. Instead it seems the biblical writers went out of their way to repudiate and refute these pagan cosmologies.

So even if they did do some borrowing, it was more the imagery of the myths. The theology and worldview of them were clearly denounced and shown to be deficient."

@Kjvav

But the doctrines of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility are still important to discuss.  Most Christians don't seem to realize how very, very complicated these issues are and not always straightforward and cut and dry.  For example, out of the three, inspiration is the most universally accepted and directly supported (e.g., 2 Tim. 3:16-17).  However, most Christians don't realize that the formal doctrine of inerrancy is not directly supported by Scripture but requires one to make a series of deductive arguments; nor do most realize how relatively recent the doctrine is, only going back to 1500-1600s and then only really becoming an important issue in the past couple centuries; nor do most realize that no single statement of inerrancy exists for the Church and that there are numerous different subtle and not so subtle variations of the doctrine.  Today, most Christians say they believe the Bible is without error, but really don't take time to consider what that means (or even what they mean by it!).  For example, what do we mean by "without error"?  Some take this to mean without error for the purposes of what God intended to communicate by divine revelation, or without error in matters and statements of faith, doctrine, morality, etc.  Others take it to mean perfection down to the last punctuation mark and in all matters from faith to science to history.  This is further complicated by whose standards of "perfection" we adopt and from what period of human history.  For example, the Bible meets ancient standards of historiography but not modern ones which add additional pedantic requirements for precision and accuracy.

 It’s really not complicated. We all know what inerrant means. As soon as you start explaining this age vs that age and this part of the world and science this and history that and on and on and on... you don’t believe in inerrancy. And it is directly taught in Scripture.

And so is preservation.

Anyone familiar with the history of the doctrine of inerrancy, the diverse viewpoints Christians have on it, and the host of other issues involved know that the simple "cut and dry" view is a superficial one and that the matter is indeed very complicated.  As I said it also depends on what a person's standards for "perfection" are (for example, accurate preservation of the message is very different from perfection in every detail down to punctuation).  The standards of "perfection" we require for accurate recording of history today are different from ancient historiography.  Then there are issues like translation differences between the Hebrew Bible and Greek translation of OT (Septuagint) that Jesus and disciples often quoted from.  Then there are lots of little issues like whether Scripture is binding in places where Paul states that he is giving his opinion, the quoting of nonbiblical sources in the Bible like Jewish apocryphal book of Enoch as an authoritative source to support a theological argument and on and on.  And as I said, inerrancy is not directly supported by Scripture but requires one to make a series of deductive arguments to arrive at.  

*How we define "error" *determines* whether the Bible is inerrant or has errors (so again, definitions are very important, and most Christians don't really think about these issues deeply enough and about the various ramifications).

   You see, this is why there will never be an agreement on this topic or many others between us. You start out your argument with “Anyone familiar with the history of the doctrine of inerrancy...” and I absolutely couldn’t care less about what you will say next because if you think that the validity of a doctrine depends on the lineage of people who believed it, we don’t believe the same thing about the Bible. 
   I believe that the Bible I hold in my hands is an accurate translation into English of the actual Word of God, which means it was given by God, word for word perfect and then preserved to every generation. The first five books of our Bible are not what Moses thought, not what people of the time thought, but what the Lord told Moses. How exactly, I don’t know because the Scripture is silent on that, but however God transferred his Word to Moses’ pen one thing is certain, the first five books of the Bible are not the musings of Moses (or whoever you may wish to attribute them to).

   I’ve become convinced that you believe at best that the Bible you hold (or the  multitude of translations you work from) at best contain the word of God. The difference is enormous and irreconcilable. Satan’s words to Jesus in the wilderness contained the Word of God, and yet it was misapplied and deceitful.

   Coming from such different beliefs about the Scriptures, there is no reconciliation between us unless you change your position, because I won’t. I fully expect you to tell me that I am wrong in my assessment of your belief, and then to continue on and prove I’m not. It has been the pattern.

@Kjvav

As usual you jump to conclusions once again reading things into my statements that aren't there. First, let's look at what you wrote:

"You start out your argument with “Anyone familiar with the history of the doctrine of inerrancy...” and I absolutely couldn’t care less about what you will say next because if you think that the validity of a doctrine depends on the lineage of people who believed it, we don’t believe the same thing about the Bible."

Now let's look at what I actually wrote:

"Anyone familiar with the history of the doctrine of inerrancy, the diverse viewpoints Christians have on it, and the host of other issues involved know that the simple "cut and dry" view is a superficial one and that the matter is indeed very complicated."

*All I said is that people who know about the history of the doctrine, and diversity of beliefs about...KNOW THAT IT'S COMPLICATED

*I mean seriously: WHERE IN MY STATEMENT DID I EVER SAY THAT THE VALIDITY OF A DOCTRINE DEPENDS ON WHAT A LINEAGE OF PEOPLE BELIEVE?

ANSWER: NO WHERE DID I STATE THAT

*IF A DOCTRINE IS COMPLICATED DOES THAT MEAN IT'S INVALID AND CAN'T BE TRUE?  NO

*ARE VALID DOCTRINES ONLY THE SIMPLE, UNCOMPLICATED ONES?  NO

You really have a lot of nerve to make the accusations and assumptions that you do (*And then on top of that to insinuate that I'm comparable to Satan???  Wow, you have serious issues).  The only "pattern" is your continual misreading of what I actually say.  Seriously, please read more carefully and stop jumping to conclusions.

I believe the Bible is inspired and inerrant.  My point regarding the doctrine being complicated is due to the fact that there remains so much disagreement among Christians about what it means for something to be inerrant.  Let me clarify what I mean by way of an illustration: please let me know how you would answer each of the following questions:

(1) True or False: Inspiration and inerrancy mean that all parts of Scripture are equally clear and equally important.

(2) True or False: We should use grammatico-historical method to determine the meaning of a biblical text.

(3) True or False: The Bible should be interpreted literally.

(4) True or False: To interpret the Bible literally means to interpret the Bible according to its correct grammatical forms and according to its correct historical and cultural context.

(5) True or False: To interpret the Bible literally is to interpret the Bible according to its original, intended meaning.

(6) True or False: Every biblical text has a single correct meaning

(7) True or False: The correct meaning of scripture is the original meaning

(8) True or False: The correct meaning of scripture is the original meaning and this meaning is singular and cannot change to something else later in.history.

(9) True or False: That the Bible is inerrant means that every number quantity in the Bible is precise, accurate and factually true.  In other words, if the Bible says something was X number of cubits long then it was X cubits long.  If it says there were X number of people present then there were X number of people present.  If it says something weighed X then it weighed X.  The Bible means precisely what it says.

(10) That the Bible is inerrant means that all four gospels present 100% historically accurate narratives/biographies of Jesus' ministry and interactions with people on earth exactly as they happened, when they happened, where they happened and in the true, correct chronological order in which the events in the life of Jesus happened.  

(11) True or False: There are absolutely 0 false statements recorded in the Bible

(12) True or False: In order to faithfully preserve the inerrancy and integrity of the Bible any translations of the Bible must be precise, literal translations.

(13) True or False: To correctly understand the Bible we should employ historical grammatical methods that take in account literary forms and type of genre.

(14) True or False: To be inerrant and preserve the integrity of the word of God, a Bible translation for a new culture does not have to be an exact translation as long as it communicates the same message

(15) True or False: Science can aid our understanding of Scripture and identify false inferences and even actual misinterpretations of the Bible.