winding up

Yes, correct

Like all words, they can be used to convey the meaning intended, for example, "amuse" most people see and think something we find funny, while another definition means to deceive. When I say God put there in a firm place in the heavens that is what I mean, NOT the atmosphere of the earth. As I expanded they were placed firming in place due to what God did and how God did it.

Yes, I often use examples like "amuse" to explain anachronism and the importance of interpreting a text in its proper historical context and not reading our modern understanding of a word back into an earlier text where it doesn't belong. If someone today was reading an Old French text when amuse had the deceive meaning, but erroneously read into that our modern understanding, they would misinterpret and misunderstand the text. That's why we must always interpret in the proper historical context.

I brought in our modern word atmosphere to the discussion saying Genesis 1 "effectively" puts the sun, moon, stars in the Earth's atmosphere, but that seems to be clouding the issue (no pun intended), so let's remove atmosphere from the discussion, since that's a modern term. People in ancient Bible times had no conception of atmosphere vs outer space. 

So instead, let's focus on what the text says. On Day 2 God created a stereoma to separate the waters above from the waters below. We both seem to be in agreement that stereoma means a solid, firm support

On Day 4, God puts the sun, moon, stars "in" this solid stereoma beneath the waters above that are the source of Noah's flood along with the waters below of the "great deep."

Significantly, the birds do not fly "in" the solid stereoma, but in front of or "across" the stereoma 

You are reading something into it, that simply isn't true, and will not go beyond that much than saying it for one last time. The topic is closed as far as I'm concerned.

Actually, no. I am being true to the literal meaning of Scripture, and stating what Scripture literally says. And we agreed that the stereoma God creates on Day 2 to separate the waters means:

And that there is the literal meaning. So no matter how you want to try to spin it the text literally says God created a solid, firm support structure ("something immovable and solid") and put the sun, moon, stars *in* this solid, support structure. That is what the text literally says.

Try to bear in mind that you're dealing with someone who stubbornly insists that the fossil record shows that all creatures were 'created' at the same time?

So denying the commonly accepted meaning of some word is just a quiet day for him  😉

Unfortunately, you might be right. But at least it demonstrates to everyone else the inconsistency of Biblical literalists, who only interpret the Bible literally when it suits them. Who elevate the literal meaning of Scripture over modern science when they disbelieve the science, but then (in the SAME chapter of Genesis 1) elevate modern science over the literal meaning of Scripture when the science is undeniable. 

   So your contention is that the expanse (firmament) below the waters is the one that God put the Sun,Moon and stars in and not the much greater expanse (firmament) above those waters? 
   Is that where you are trying to lead this?

   The Strong's Concordance is the most commonly used concordance/dictionary in English speaking Christianity.

   "A great expanse" is what is commonly accepted.

Jesus called Himself a door, there is a literal meaning there too, so He wasn't a person? You are fast and loose with scripture turning them into something you accept that flat out goes again reality and reject out of hand what centuries of others have read them to mean in my opinion.

That is a false equivalence and you know it. A person calling oneself a door, we still know to be a person, leaving us only two possibilities: a metaphorical understanding or a diagnosis of mental insanity if a person literally believes oneself to be a door and not a person.

Now please try and listen. You know that I've always said context is most important and interpreting Scripture in its proper historical context is what's most important, and that it is the context that tells us whether to render literally, or figuratively. There is nothing about the context of Genesis 1 that indicates "yom" ("day") can mean anything other than a 24 hour literal day, and I will argue that point just as forcefully; noting the literal meaning of the word, and pointing out that with a few exceptions (like Augustine) that there is a long history of Jewish and Christian tradition that has endorsed this understanding of "day" as a literal 24 hour day. So anyone who wants to  change that understanding today is on shaky ground and going against almost the whole of Jewish and Christian teaching and tradition; the ancient cultural context of the time; the immediate context of Genesis 1, which would seem to require a literal understanding; the literal lexicon meaning of the word, and the fact that this was the most commonplace understanding of the word. Furthermore, the fact that the sole motivation of those who want to change this long held understanding is only so that Genesis 1 will accord with modern science, immediately makes it suspect.

*Now I challenge you to show me how my treatment of "firmament" is any different than my treatment of "day" in Genesis 1. I have not played fast and loose. I do not pick and choose. I start with the historical context with no regard at all for extraneous matters that are foreign to that context like modern science, and first seek to properly understand and establish what the text is saying in its correct context. Once established, then and only then can one expand considerations to other things like modern science. And that by the way is how sound *exegesis* is done, and how it must be done to avoid the error of *eisegesis* and reading into the text what we want it to say.

*So you show me how I have done anything different or how my treatment of "day" and "firmament" is in any way inconsistent. The understanding of "firmament" as a solid, structural support with the sun, moon, stars embedded in it fits with the ancient cultural context of what people truly believed at that time; the literal understanding is also supported by almost the whole of Jewish and Christian teaching and tradition; the literal lexicon understanding of the word and the history of how that word has been rendered in different Bible translations up to modern times further supports that it is meant to be understood literally as a solid structure; other verses in the Bible like in Job understand the "firmament" the same way; and the immediate context of Genesis 1 would also seem to require a literal understanding because God creates literal "light," "mountains," "stars," animals," "plants," "people." (Are we to believe that the sole exception to this is the *firmament* God *creates* to *physically separate* the waters on Day 2?); and the specific context of the verse would seem to require a literal understanding as well, because everytime God creates He creates a literal thing. And the literal 'thing' God creates on Day 2 is made to *physically separate* the waters. The "firmament" understood literally as a solid, physical structure could accomplish this physical separation. (How would a metaphorical 'thing' physically separate anything? And how could any fair minded reader of Scripture come to the conclusion that God creates the firmament on Day 2, which literally means a solid, support (and fits with its prescribed function of physically separating the waters) is not just meant to be understood figuratively, but completely OPPOSITE in meaning. That by "solid support" that physically separates, we are somehow meant to understand that figuratively as NON-SOLID empty air that to people of the time would not seem able to physically separate or "support" anything).

*Trying to say that a word that means literal, solid support is somehow actually meant to be understood figuratively as the opposite of that as a NON-SOLID 'support' is no different from trying to say that "day" in Genesis 1 is actually meant to be understood figuratively as "night." (A figurative meaning of the word that is the word's antonym, doesn't even make any sense even by a non-literal figurative understanding!).

*And finally, the sole motivation for wanting to change this long held understanding is only so it will fit with modern science, which immediately makes it suspect.

*I think any fair minded, neutral party who stumbles into this thread would recognize that I have consistently approached this matter the same way, and that you are the one who is being inconsistent.

Genesis 1 only speaks of one solid, firm structure "firmament" that physically separates the waters below from the waters above, 'supporting' the waters above. Genesis 1 puts the firmament between the waters, not above or below them

  It speaks of two firmaments, one that divides the waters above it from the waters below it, and another great expanse (that's what firmament means)above the upper waters (unless you think the waters above go on forever).

The Strongs Concordance has only been around since 1890 and reflects modern attempts to change the literal lexical meaning of the word (and buck thousands of years of Jewish and Christian teaching and tradition) for the sole purpose of harmonizing Scripture so that it accords with modern science. But you don't have to take my word for it. The evidence is in Strongs Concordance and in the photo you posted yourself. Let's take a look.

Here we see raqiya rendered simply as "an expanse," but curiously adds "(apparently) visible arch of the sky." But why add that at all if it just means "an expanse"?  Because that's not what it 'just' means, and Strongs is aware of the long held understanding of firmament as a solid vault, dome, or "arch" support of the waters above. But our modern understanding of "an expanse" is completely different from this. There is no possible way in modern times that a person today would upon seeing the term "an expanse" think "visible arch" (unless they're part of this conversation). Agreed? "An expanse" today doesn't have any sense of solid much less a solid arch, but makes us think of *a wide open area or space*; sometimes it even makes us think of the sky or the expanse of the universe and great expanse of outer space itself. Agreed?

Now please keep this modern understanding in mind.

*So where does this idea of raqiya just simply meaning "an expanse" come from? Well, Strong Concordance tells us. See below where it says "from 7554"?

So what is entry "7554" in Strongs Concordance? It's a little lower down in the same picture that you posted:

Entry "7554" is raqa, which I actually mentioned in previous posts as being where the word raqiya comes from. According to Strongs Concordance, raqa means "to pound the Earth (as a sign of passion)...to expand (by hammering)...to overlay (with thin sheets of metal)...beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates)...stamp, stretch."

We see this same understanding reflected in Job 37:18 "Can you, like Him, spread out [raqa] the skies hard as a cast metal mirror?"

So where did raqyia as simply meaning "an expanse" come from? From raqa "to expand (by hammering)" as in thin sheets of metal. Raqa has the sense of spreading out metal by pounding, hammering, stamping out metal into thin plates. 

Now let's ask ourselves what words would best convey that same sense today? Well, a lot of the same words still used in metalworking--hammering, stamping, thinning. Today we might also talk about malleability.

In short, raqa relates to metalworking and pounding out a solid piece of metal into thin sheets. And "expand" in this context is referring to the malleability of metal and how the metal "expands, spreads out, thins" as it is being hammered into thin plates or sheets.

*So Strongs Concordance lifts "to expand" from its own lexical definition of raqa, ripping it from its metalworking context which Strongs says means "to expand (by hammering)" and renders the verb "to expand" in noun form (raqiya) as simply "an expanse" that God created on Day 2; which to us today conveys the sense of a wide open area or space and includes ideas of an expansive sky, or the expanse of outer space or the universe----NONE of which convey the true sense of the word as it derives from raqa and relates to metalworking.

*So I ask you, does "an expanse" accurately convey the metalworking sense of malleability and solid metal expanding, stretching, spreading out, thinning due to hammering solid metal out into thin plates?

*I contend that any fair minded person would have to admit that it does not

"Really, where did you hear that?"

I assume you kept reading