winding up

You're assuming I was referring to Catholicism when I wasn’t. When it comes to Orthodox Christianity, most of the doctrines were, of course, already established by the first century with the writing of the New Testament. An interesting word study a lot of people are probably unfamiliar with is "word." Most (though not all) references to the "word of God" in the New Testament refer specifically to the Gospel. The early church distinguished between teaching (didache) and preaching (kerygma) the gospel message (apostolic kerygma). It's a fascinating study to look at all the references to what the apostles preached (kerygma), including the oldest known Christian Creed found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, going back to just a few years after the crucifixion:

"For I delivered to you of first importance that which I also received 

That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures 

That he was buried and that he was raised the third day according to the Scriptures 

And that he appeared to Peter and the twelve..."

@TruthMuse 

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? 

Did you understand what you meant as you wrote this because I certainly don't. Particularly this: "facts are facts that are not true due to popular or unpopular opinions"

Do you mean a given fact is the case, entirely independent of cultural belief or opinion? That's what I wrote in my post on the previous page.

He said that popular or unpopular opinions are not what make facts true.

That's not quite what he said but your correction is spot-on!

@TruthMuse whaddaya think?

I think God firmly placed the stars and planets in the heavens, and they started behaving as they should so that gravity and the expansion of the universe along with all of the other forces act in a balanced manner so the universe doesn't fly apart or collapse about itself.

No, I mean are you saying that stereoma does not mean solid, firm support but means something else? And if so, can you show me the Bible lexicon that says it means something else?

God places the planets in the heavens they are firmly placed they didn't randomly get where they are any more than they randomly move haphazardly through space and time. Firmly placed does not require land.

You might be reading my posts too fast. I'm asking you about the meaning of a specific word. Please read my Post #148 again.

Stereoma – firmament, space, or expanse? The Greek Septuagint describes the earth’s atmosphere using the word stereoma. This is usually defined as ‘a solid body, a support, strength, firmness,’ and is used to mean a foundation, something immovable and solid. Some Bibles translate it as firmament.

Everything I have said has been with the notion that God placed the stars in the heavens and they holding the stars are an in a foundation that they were meant to be in, and through the fine-tuning of the universe holds it all together so that the forces there react to one another with mass, gravity, and the expanding of the universe and so on, keeping everything running like clockwork. I do not believe anyone or a limited few, outside of you, thinks the stars all started within the earth's atmosphere if I have been reading you correctly.

Thank you. So we agree this is what stereoma means: a solid, firm support.  So the literal meaning of Genesis is that God created a solid, firm support to separate the waters above from the waters below on the second day, and then on the fourth day, God set the sun, moon, stars in this solid, firm support below the waters above that were the source of rain waters for Noah's Flood. 

   For someone who doesn't believe in the perfect inspiration and preservation of Scripture, you certainly seem to believe in it when it comes to dictionaries of ancient languages.

You keep misrepresenting me. I do believe in perfect inspiration (2 Tim 3:16-17). And inspiration applies to the original autographs, so unless you can read the Bible in its original languages, then of course a person would need a Bible concordance or lexicon. Otherwise, you're trusting in men in commitees (who were not divinely inspired) that they accurately translated the divinely inspired word from its original languages into English correctly. The good news is I'm advocating for the literal meaning of the word in question (just like I do for "day" in Genesis 1, which I've said numerous times in agreement with you that it must mean a literal 24 hour day). I was also using the KJV (I would have thought you'd appreciate that).

*Are you saying that "firmament" in Genesis in the KJV wasn't translated from "firmamentum" in the Latin Vulgate Bible, meaning, "that which strengthens, supports, props up"? 

   Just like you, I'm not an expert on translations. The Vulgate was only one of many manuscripts that we're diligently compared when translating the KJB.

   What I am saying is that just because a dictionary gives two or three possible meanings for a word does not mean that those are now (or were then) the only meanings for that word. 
   You can pick up 4 dictionaries today and look up a word and one will give you three possible definitions, another will list two and another list six. It's just a book, it's not infallible. 
   It's clear to anyone reading this thread that you are trying to set up another rudimentary word trap and need someone to agree that the only possible definition to a word is the one you offer so the trap can be sprung and all Bible believers can finally be shown how wrong they are for believing what it says.

I'm really not, but I'm sorry if you feel that way. Not trying to trap anyone or show "how wrong" Bible believers are "for believing what [the Bible] says" (*This is about believing something that the Bible *doesn't* say). I agree Bible concordances and lexicons are not infallible. They are invaluable study tools, but imperfect, nonetheless.

The difficulty here is that it's not an issue of whether "solid, firm support" is the "only" meaning and we're failing to consider other possible meanings, but that we're dealing with fundamentally opposite meanings: it's either "solid," or it's not. And if it's not, then all the lexicons are wrong and need to be completely revamped.

But I'm struggling to see any justification for that. The Hebrew *raqia* that God creates on Day 2 to separate the waters, has the sense of "spreading, stamping, hammering out" like metal into thin plating. Job 37:18 would seem to support this understanding, where God is "spreading out [raqa] the skies, as hard as a mirror of cast bronze." The Jewish scribes who translated the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek (Septugiant) similarly understood raqia to mean a literal solid, firm support, and used the Greek *stereoma* ("that which is made firm, solid") to indicate this (*the same word used in Colossians 2:5 to describe the "firmness" (stereoma) of one's faith). The Christian scribes who translated this into Latin to give us the Latin Vulgate Bible understood it the same way, and used *firmamentum* ("that which strengthens, supports, props up") to indicate this. And of course the KJV renders this as "firmament." Jewish and Christian scribes understood it to mean a solid, firm support. So did early church 'fathers' like Ambrose of Milan; Origen ("without a doubt firm and solid"); Augustine (the "firmament" "it is solid and...it constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below"); and great reformers like Martin Luther. All of Church history has understood it the same way as a solid, firm support, except for just recently in more modern times. 

*So to recap: virtually everyone in ancient times seems to have believed there was a solid sky dome. Jewish and Christians believers similarly understood Genesis 1 to teach a solid, firm support until recently. So did Jewish and Christian scribes, translators, scholars, and theologians. And Bible lexicons similarly understand raqia and stereoma to be a literal *solid* structure. So it would seem that this is, indeed, the literal understanding of the word in Genesis 1.

*But you seem to be saying they're all wrong, and that words like stereoma and firmamentum don't mean solid, but mean the exact opposite: *non-solid." It is like everyone agreeing, and all Jewish and Christian scribes, translators, scholars, and theologians, and all Bible lexicons and dictionaries agreeing that "yom" in Genesis 1 means "day," while one person says, "No, they're all wrong. It actually means 'night'." 

*So I don't see how you can justify such an understanding that the "firmament" in Genesis 1 literally means the opposite (non-solid) of what virtually everyone else has understood it to literally mean (solid). But I'm open to hearing, if you're able to explain how it's possible to justify an opposite understanding.