winding up

Excellent point

Well, yes, but the text also embeds the sun, moon, and stars in a solid dome/vault ("firmament") that is below the "waters above" that were the source of rain for Noah's Flood.  So the text effectively puts the sun, moon, and stars in the Earth's atmosphere/sky (which was believed to be a solid dome up until about the 1500-1600s)

Even if true, what they thought and what it says are still two different things.

Well, actually not. Take for example, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), which is known for its strict adherence to literal word-for-word translation, gives Genesis 1:6-8 as:

6And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. 8God called the dome Sky. 

But even the King James Version makes it clear (@Kjav). The KJV  gives the English "firmament." It's interesting how people miss the rather obvious "firm" in "firmament," which came from the Latin Vulgate Bible, which in Latin is "firmamentum," which literally means "that which strengthens, supports, props up." The Latin "firmamentum" in the Latin Vulgate Bible, in turn, came from the word "stereoma" in the Greek Old Testament (The Septugiant) which means "that which has been made firm." The Jewish scholars who translated the Old Testament into Greek (The Septugiant) before Christ was born (*and by the way, the Septugiant/Greek translation of the Old Testament is the Old Testament translation that is often quoted in the New Testament; at other times the Hebrew Masoretic text is what’s quoted); well the Jewish scribes who gave us the Greek Old Testament (Septugiant) chose "stereoma" ("that which has been made firm") to translate the Hebrew "raqia" which comes from the root "raqa" which means "to beat, stamp, hammer, flatten/spread out [as in metal]." 

*For more than 1,500 years there was no debate about it: God separated the waters by a solid dome/vault/support and fastened the sun, moon, stars to this solid support. The debate was not over whether it was solid, but what type of solid it was (metal, clay, etc.)

*But then when modern science showed that this is not true, more recent Bible translations started softening and altering the literal text so it would fit with modern science!

*So yes, indeed, what Genesis *literally* says is that God created some type of firm, solid support to separate the waters above from the waters below.

*In fact, Martin Luther made this clear and also made it clear what he thought about anyone who compromised and didn't believe the literal truth of God's Word about there being a solid support. Check this out:

And check this out, the cover of a Luther Bible (1534) that Martin Luther translated.

Enlarged view

The "firmament" was "firm," solid. And Martin Luther believed the "stars are fastened to" this solid "firmament" support that was propping up the "waters above" (see surrounding ocean of "waters above" in picture).

*The solid support dome/vault (raqia/stereoma/firmamentum/firmament) is indeed the plain, literal meaning of the text that modern Bible translations have softened, altered, twisted so it fits with modern science!

*Oh the irony that YECs reject the plain, literal meaning of the text!  YECs are the compromisers that Martin Luther warned us about who "wickedly deny" and "presumptuously interpret" in "conformity" with their own "understanding" instead of believing even when it is "beyond our comprehension"!

Again you are telling me what people thought about the text, reality shows that to be wrong. They used to think Jesus' getting stabbed and blood and water coming out weren't scientific either until they knew it was a real thing. Common knowledge it's always accurate, the text as written doesn't reflect that in reality, some actually thought the scriptures taught the earth was flat, but it isn't and the scriptures don't teach that either.

And by "reality" you mean modern science. Modern science "shows that to be wrong." But that does not change the plain, literal meaning of the text (*that's why accommodationism is more viable than concordism). And no, I'm not telling you what people thought about the text, but what the text--what the words themselves--literally mean. Not sure how you can miss that (*and on a side note, regardless of whether people questioned the "blood and water" at the crucifixion, they still knew the Greek words literally meant "blood and water") (*Also, the Scriptures do teach that the earth is flat).

*But with regard to the "firmament," again it's what the words themselves literally mean:

KJV: English "firmament" translated from...

Latin Vulgate Bible: Latin "firmamentum" meaning "that which strengthens, supports, props up" translated from...

The Septugiant (Greek Old Testament): Greek "stereoma" meaning "that which has been made firm" (same word used in Colossians 2:5 to refer to the "firmness" (stereoma) of one's faith)

Greek "stereoma" which was translated from...

Hebrew Old Testament: Hebrew raqia, which means:

Which is related to the Hebrew root "raqa" to "beat, stamp, beat out, stamp out, hammer" (as in metal)

*This understanding of the raqia as a solid dome is further confirmed in Job 37:18, where Job’s wise friend Elihu asks him, “Can you join him [God] in spreading out [raqa] the skies, as hard as a mirror of cast bronze?” It could hardly be any plainer than that.

*The "firmament" is literally some type of solid, firm support 

*If we were meant to understand the "firmament" as just an empty space between the waters above and below there are any number of Hebrew words that could have been used to convey that such as "revach" or "rechoq" or "maqom." 

Again, even if the same words are used they can be used to describe two different things doing two different things the same way, it does not reflect reality. Unless you want to tell me God was confused when He was relating this about the beginning, those are your choices.

Oh, I see. Like how they understood the plain meaning of "day" to mean a literal 24 hour day, which does not reflect the reality of what we know from modern science, so it's okay to update that to mean an undefined, period of time if we want.

Logically, there would seem to be three "choices":

(1) The Bible is wrong; not inerrant; not divinely inspired.

(2) Concordism: The Bible must concord with modern science, so "firmament" can't mean a solid structure, even though that's what the word literally means and how it was understood for over 1,500 yrs.

(3) Accommodation: The Bible is true in matters of faith and theology. God accommodates himself to people, meets people where they are. God is less concerned about the accuracy of people's head knowledge and more concerned about their hearts. So God accommodates us, stoops to our level, and communicates timeless, eternal theological truth's about God's existence and character in terms we can understand (in this case via the ignorant, pre-scientific beliefs of the time).

In Genesis, those truths include: Monotheism that there is one God (vs paganism). That God is not one of many gods or part of nature but Creator of all. That this God brings order to the primeval chaos of Gen 1:2 by ordering and separating Days 1-3 (light from dark, waters below from above, land from water); and then filling sky, waters, land Days 4-6. That the light of Day that appears before the sun (which ancient people believed was a llight source separate from the sun) was not the light caused by the generative "birth" of the Egyptian god Atum from Nun, but created by God by his word alone (Day 1). That the solid Sky arch ("firmament") that holds up the celestial waters above is not the result of Egyptian god Nun passing over the earth to create the Sky god Shu, but is a physical thing created by God. That the formation of dry ground (Egyptian god Geb) and emergence of the sacred "primordial hillock" from primeval watery chaos at the temple of Hermopolis Egpyt in competition with three other sacred Egyptian temple "hills" that teaches various local pagan deities at sacred centers in competition with one another is wrong. God is not some local deity controlling a specific region, but is over all and caused all the earth/land to emerge from the waters below. God doesn't inhabit a local temple, but inhabits all of creation and brings order and purpose to it. That the sun is not a god that was created in the image of Re, but simply a thing God created. That the chaos sea monsters that are beyond the control of the gods are simply sea creatures created by God and under God's control. That humans are not the accidental result of the tears of Atum, but purposefully created by God in God's image to rule and have dominion as God's divine representatives.Etc., etc., etc.

*The advantages of this interpretation include:

(1) It is true to the literal meaning of text/words like "firmament."

(2) It follows correct principles of hermeneutics for proper interpretation by interpreting in the proper historical context of the time and original, intended meaning.

(3) It fits the context of the Exodus and delivery of the Torah on Mt Sinai: they had just come out of Egypt after hundreds of years of pagan Egyptian indoctrination, and Genesis 1 corrects that bad theology.

(4) Accommodationism fits with overall biblical theology where God is not reachable by us, and must accommodate to our level for us to understand, all the way to the incarnation and God becoming flesh.

*The problems with concordism include:

(1) It requires us to twist/change the plain, literal meaning of Scripture to something it doesn't actually say, in order to harmonize and fit with modern science.

(2) It means God did a very poor job communicating what He actually meant, and allowed people to be confused for over 1,500 years (Why use a Hebrew word that *literally* connotes a solid substance that is beat, stamped, spread, hammered out thin like metal plating if He simply meant non-solid, empty air?  Especially, in light of the surrounding Ancient Near East beliefs and culture. Surely God would have the foresight (and omniscient foreknowledge!) to see how confusing it would be to use language that reinforces the common beliefs of the time (and the foreknowledge that such confusion would last more than 1,500 yrs). 

(3) It means EITHER: that (1) there is no one right interpretation of Scripture and that it's okay for Scripture to mean different things at different times and in different cultures; OR, it means that for over 1,500 years Genesis was interpreted incorrectly.

(4) If the latter, then that further means that Genesis only has relevance for us in modern times, and that Genesis was written specifically for us some 2,000 years in advance just for those of us who live in modern times with the advent of modern science, and for no one else in all of human history.

(5) It means SCRIPTURE DOESN’T MEAN WHAT IT LITERALLY SAYS

It cannot contradict the truth, there is only truth and untruths, correct interpretation of scripture will not contradict the truth we see in science if it is really true, there are no flavors of truth.

@TruthMuse 

But that's an assumption imposed on the Bible that it has to meet the rigorous standards of modern science and historiography that the Bible does not teach or require of itself. It's also circular and self-fulfilling by assuming the Bible is 100% true without first proving it. In this forum you often tell people that "stating the beliefs isn’t proving anything." But that's exactly what you're doing here. The skeptic will rightly note that's not fair play. You can't require the skeptic to prove his assertions, while absolving yourself of having to do the same. Instead of demonstrating "truth" it just looks like goalpost moving and rigging the game. If something doesn't fit or looks like it's in error, just change it so it fits. That doesn't make the Bible text true, that's just changing the Bible to say something else.

It also make Bible interpretation subjective and inconsistent. You end up interpreting the Bible "literally" when it "works" and "figurative" or some other interpretation when "literal" doesn't work in order to make it all "true."

It's no different from what OECs do. To them, "reality" is the scientific fact of an old earth, but the Bible can't be wrong, so "day" must mean long periods of time and not literal 24 hour days. By interpreting it this way so it matches reality the Bible remains "truth."  

YECs accuse OECs of not interpreting literally when they don't consistently interpret literally themselves. Thus, Noah's flood is a historical account down to every last detail from the fountains of the deep to the gigantic dimensions of the ark to a global scale flood to the literal meaning of every single number in the account: the 7's & 40's & 150's. None of those numbers could possibly have symbolic significance. They all mean what they literally say, just like the literal ark dimensions, and you're compromising Scripture if you don't interpret "clearly" "historical" accounts like this literally through and through...

....Oh, I mean, well, all EXCEPT for Genesis 7 where it says God "opened the windows of heaven." We'll fudge things on that one and say the whole account is literal except for that part (and later on when God "shuts the windows of heaven" too). Even though people really believed that at the time "clearly" that can't be right and must be "figurative."

*Can't require other Christians to consistently interpret literally if don't consistently do so yourself.

*While well-intended, you simply can't change the plain meaning of a word to something completely opposite. We're not talking shades of meaning like small vs. smaller or tiny. This is calling "small" "large." This is claiming "solid" means "not solid." This is calling raqia/stereoma/firmamentum/firmament, which literally refers to a solid, firm support, and saying it means the opposite. You can't just change the lexical definitions of words. Doing so is worse than OECs claiming "day" is not a literal 24 hour day. It's like claiming "day" means "night."

*Otherwise, any semblance of interpreting the biblical text in a consistent, objective way is forfeited and thrown out. When we can make "solid" mean "not solid" empty space, than any subjective interpretation becomes permissible. We can then make the Bible say anything we want.

*Again, what you're proposing doesn't make the Bible "true," it just makes the Bible say something else that it didn't originally say.

*This is why accommodationism is a more viable option than strict concordism.

@Kjav,

I never claimed to believe in the fundamentalist version of strict biblical inerrancy imposed by 20th century fundamentalists that is unique to fundamentalist/evangelical Christians in the United States that the majority of Christians around the world don't adhere to----and is a doctrine that the Bible doesn't even expressly teach. I said I accept authority and divine inspiration (that Scripture is "God breathed"--which is what the Bible actually teaches) (Also, it's not all or nothing. There is a great amount of historical accuracy in the Bible and the Bible meets ancient standards of historiography. But it's doesn't meet our strict modern standards. But it doesn't have to. Those who try to anachronistically impose contemporary standards on the Bible are unfairly judging it on standards that are foreign to it and that have no business being imposed on it.

You criticize me for interpreting the Bible according to its proper historical context and think all we need to do is read it for what it is (which you don't consistently do yourself), but for some reason are blinded to the fact that NO ONE truly does that. We ALL read through the lens of some perspective that we have (usually hindered by our own societal and cultural baggage). You can't read the Bible without some contextual lens through which to read it. Yours is through the lens of contemporary society with the value and importance we place on scientific accuracy and precision. You're the one who needs it to fit with modern science. I actually don't. I interpret more "literally" than you and even if it "conflicts" with modern science (which it only does if you require it to be something that it is not---a modern scientific account!) like how Genesis literally teaches a solid support for the "waters above" that had literal "windows" God opened to unleash the 40 day torrent of rain in Noah's Flood. You pick and choose when it's convenient and in a way that enables you to still read it through the lens of the modern scientific accuracy and precision valued by our society. You say you aren't swayed by modern science yet can’t see that you are still imposing those principles by requiring the Bible to live up to the strict, rigorous accuracy, and high standards of literacy and precise technical writing valued by our society that is a product of the Scientific Revolution. Your strict "inerrancy" is a reflection of those modern standards and expectations that are important to us in contemporary times; whereas this would be all but meaningless in ancient Bible times when most people were illiterate and couldn't read or write. The world in ancient Bible times was completely different and saw no difference beteeen naturalism vs supernaturalism (there were no such categories), and valued oral storytelling, traditions, relationships, family, community, loyalty. They were more organic, typological, symbolic, looked for patterns. They weren't the narrow, rigid, linear technical thinkers and writers that we are today. That was neither important or relevant to them.

*No one can read the Bible in a contextual vacuum. It's just a matter of which contextual lens we're going to use. The correct context for accurate understanding is the original historical context of the time, which was Israel immersed and indoctrinated in pagan Egyptian creation myths that needed to be directly combatted, which is exactly what Genesis does. That's what's important in Genesis: elevating the one true God (Yahweh) over these false pagan gods. NOT making sure that we have accurate facts and head knowledge about geology, and such. That is an incorrect hermeneutic lens.

*It does no good to say you believe the Bible is 100% error free on all matters of modern science and modern historiography that you anachronistically impose on the Bible, if the only way to sustain such a belief is that you have to pick and choose when you're going to interpret "literally" and "figuratively" and change the Bible to mean something different from what it actually says.

To clarify, no I'm not saying we can make the Bible say whatever we want. I'm saying we can't. Nor can we change the lexical meanings of words to whatever we want. To repeat one of the examples. The Greek translation of the Old Testament (The Septugiant) often quoted in the New Testament translates the Hebrew "raqia" as "stereoma" which can mean the following:

God created a "stereoma"---solid, firm support--to separate the waters above from the waters below. That's what the word means. 

*Are you saying "stereoma" doesn't mean that?

I'm not changing anything, the words are the words, and they describe what occurred as it was described. If the heavens are considered a firm foundation that is what they are, they most certainly hold in place all that is in them in their proper place so they act as they should maintaining stability and influence on the whole.

It's the solid part that's a problem...

I have a neighbor friend who thinks I'm a heretic (get in line) because I accept the conclusions of 'evil' modern science that tells us the earth is not flat and that there is no solid dome in the sky.  According to him, I have compromised my beliefs and allowed myself to be deceived by 'evil' 'satanic' organizations like....NASA, who faked the moon landings and faked EVERY 'space walk' or mission ever claimed to go outside or above/beyond our atmosphere, including even just suborbital flights. Because to him, the Bible makes it clear that the earth is indeed flat, and that there is, indeed, a solid dome. So it is all a big conspiracy cover up and all these so-called space missions by NASA are evil, deceptive lies designed to pull us away from the inerrant truth of God's Word. Obviously, they must be fake and it's 'impossible' for any of them to be true. How does he know this? Well, because in addition to 'irrefutable evidence' that he has of these NASA deceptions, it's also logically impossible, because if anyone ever actually did try to leave our atmosphere they would crash into the solid dome that God created on the second day of creation.

*The irony is he's wrong about the science, but right about the interpretation. That is what the Bible literally teaches and that is how Judaism and the Christian Church down through history have understood it only until relatively recently. And for some time if you didn't believe it, then you were an apostate heretic who elevated the 'wisdom of man' over God's truth. It was 'obvious' that 'wisdom of man' had to be wrong... Until the accumulating scientific evidence was undeniable (except to a small contingency of die-hard holdouts like my neighbor to this day). 

*I'm not sure what's worse. The obsolete, pre-scientific view itself, or the pretend facade that the Church never believed it in the first place and that it's not what the Bible really says. And how the Church quietly changed from staunch opposition against the 'evil' wordly wisdom and science of corrupt men who sought to destroy the very truth of God....to the wholesale embrace of that 'worldly wisdom/science' and even more: the adoption and rebranding of it to then try to claim, "Oh yeah, that's what we always believed, and that's what God's inerrant, infallible, never changing Word of divine relevatory truth as taught in Scripture has always said. Is it any wonder why skeptics would be so distrustful of the church and religion in general? I mean this is the type of fodder for Da Vinci Code-esque coverups by the church. And it's not the first time it's happened. 

*And there is something very, very, VERY wrong about it that strikes at the wholesale integrity and honesty that the church is supposed to be a beacon of.

*The church has a horrible track record with this sort of thing. And YEC literature displays it, unfortunately, on a daily basis. We can review an article a day for years and walk through and see how article after article after article misrepresents the truth of scientific publications (that is, doesn't accurately report what they say but twist them) in their zeal to uphold God's truth. It's just wrong and backwards.

*And it could all be avoided with the simple application of sound, hermeneutical principles that are faithfully taught every day in seminary classes around the world: In order to properly understand the true intended meaning of any text whether it's Shakespeare or the Bible, you have to interpret the text in its proper historical context.

*I remember the first scholarly commentary I ever read on Genesis and how excited I was about it, because finally I was going to get all my questions answered about creation and evolution. What a disappointment. There was not a word, not a mention of any science or evolution or creation and that whole debate. It took me years later to realize why this was so: because Genesis, properly understood and interpreted has next to nothing to do with that modern debate.  Modern science on the whole does not conflict with Genesis because the two have very little to do with each other. They're apples and oranges.

*It is an objective fact that Genesis 1 has more in common with ancient Egyptian creation myths, including the order of events in the Genesis creation week. The lexical, structural and thematic/conceptual parallels between the two are objectively undeniable and there is nothing else known that shares the number of close parallels (modern science certainly doesn't!!). That doesn't mean Genesis 1 developed out of Egyptian mythology. Indeed, it is a direct refutation of those pagan cosmologies. Not an endorsement of them. But because it's a refutation of those Egyptian pagan cosmologies the only way to properly understand Genesis 1 is in that context---in the context of what it's refuting. 

*As long as we keep trying to make Genesis about "us" and our modern contemporary debates and keep trying to force it to speak to those modern debates, and keep trying to force it to answer the questions we want it to answer, then we'll always misunderstand the truth of what it's actually saying and what it's really all about.

I agree that the church has a horrible track record, why, because the church is comprised of people, and so are those who do science. The truth is always there it does not change with the opinions of man, we must conform to it, not setting up our "facts" to conform to our ideas.

'Truth' as philosophers remind us, is nothing more than the set of all true statements.

So what mkes a statement true (or false come to that)? A statement has 'truth-value' only when it relates to some matter of fact. What is a fact? It's an aspect of actuality, how things are actually ordered in our Universe and entirely separate from cultural belief or personal opinion.

Facts about the Universe are uncovered by a process of inspection, not stated arbitrarily because it pleases people to believe this or that as fact.

"The truth is always there it does not change with the opinions of man, we must conform to it, not setting up our "facts" to conform to our ideas"

I broadly agree with this, although I'd use "fact of the matter" in place of "truth", but I know you're using this in a way that's very different to the way I do.

If I read any part of a holy book and I come across what appears to be a propositional statement (one that relates to a matter of fact), the first question I ask is whether the claim  actually stands up and is it supported by evidence. In the example of the Book of Genesis this is often not the case.

But T_M starts from the assumption that all of that book (and the Bible as a whole) must be read as a literal work, each propositional statement a proven fact. However, something can only be said to be a proven fact when a proof has been provided, or when it is self-evidently the case, not when it is stated without evidence.

Nothing in this Universe should be beyond scrutiny or above criticism and that includes the most cherished beliefs of the religious!

Truth is the reality we find ourselves in, our value judgments don't alter that, facts are facts that are not true due to popular or unpopular opinions.

   You make the common mistake of believing Catholicism is the Church and that you can therefore point at all their teachings and proclaim "This is what the Church believes or believed".