Note upon which he sits. Again a solid
Are you saying that the non-material, non-solid God sits upon a solid material throne? Did you know the pre-incarnate Christ in Daniel 10 is describe by the same solid materials? Was the pre-incarnate Christ a solid material substance? Did you know God's throne and the New Jersualem are described by the same kind of materials. Do you believe both Old and New Testament saints believed these things were actually solid materials as well as God's throne as well as God Himself? Do you know what a simile is? Can you recognize it if you saw it in writing? Do the words "as" and "like" ring any kind of bell?
That is not the word used and still it doesn't dispel the view of a solid dome.
Are you saying that "shamamu" is not the Hebrew term translated "heaven"? If that is what you are saying, you better check your ability to read Hebrew for it is that term used consistently for "heaven" in Genesis and by Isaiah in the quotes I gave.
If you are saying that "raqia" is not the Hebrew term translated "firmament" here and throughout with connection with "shamamu" in Genesis you better check your ability to read Hebrew for it is the same word.
If you are not saying either, then what in the world are you saying in response to my words:
If God calls it "heaven" then what does God define "heaven" to be? The Hebrew term heaven is a translation of the Hebrew plural "shamamu" and the Bible speaks of at least three different types- Dr. Walter
You forgot to quote in the open space. not in the dome itself.
Ah...you know what you forgot? That God has already called "raqia" "shamamu"! He did not say that "shamamu" was UNDER, or OVER, or IN raqia but IS raquia. Now what IS shamamu according to Bible writers? It is a stretched out expanse of "open" space. The birds fly "IN" heaven/raqia just as the stars are "IN" heaven/raquia just as God is "IN" heaven/raqia. The term "open" modies "shamamu" which has already been identified as "raqia"
Gen. 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven.
Gen. 1:14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights
in the firmament
of the heaven
The stars are "in" raquia WHICH IS SHAMAMU or "OF THE HEAVEN"
Gen. 1:20.....fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
The Hebrew term translated "open" is more often translated "before" and "face" and may be referring to the previous "heaven" mentioned in the context where the stars are located. Thus the idea would be that the fowls fly ABOVE the earth in the FACE or BEFORE/IN FRONT of the starry heaven which demands another layer of space or raqia between earth and where the stars are. However again, raqia is placed in apposition to "of heaven" or the idea "WHICH IS HEAVEN" as God has alreadyly previous defined - "And God called raqia shamamu"
Yes because the belief was the stars were engraved on the solid dome.
The Theological Wordbook by Laird, Waltke and Archer has traced that idea through Egyptian mythology to ancient Babylonian mythology rather than to Hebrew belief.
YOUR belief that this is the view of INSPIRED BIBLICAL WRITERS in reality denies the inspiration of the Scriptures as such a charge is really an accusation against God as the author of Scriptures that God would inspire men to write mythological errors as truth.
YOUR belief that this is the view of INSPIRED BIBLICAL WRITERS in reality to be consistent must also attribute to them the belief that God Himself is a SOLID MATERIAL object as the very same kind of language using solid materials are attributed to His own person, His throne, New Jerusalem, to the person of angels in both the Old and New Testaments. In other words you ascribe to INSPIRED HEBREW WRITERS complete ignoranc of the use of similies.
this term is not raqia but shameya a different consept And note this quote of 2 cor was 1300 years after genesis. With all the greek influence and discoveries the referrence is different.
False! God has already called "raqia" "shamuma" [shameya) in Genesis 1:8. Moses did not say that man called "raqia" this but God called it this and God does not change and does not INSPIRE men in the New Testament to contradict what he said in the Old Testament.
False! In the New Testament heaven is still described in the language of material solids (Rev. 21).
The only thing that is pretty clear are the following facts:
1. God not man called raqia "shameya" - v. 8
2. Shameya is put in apposition to raquia in every following use of raqia as would be expected since it is called shameya by God
3. Your theory denies the inspiration of the scriptures as it attributes to God the mythological error of a "dome" since scripture is given by inspiration by God rather than by wisdom of men.
4. Your theory ignores that Hebrew scholars can trace your theory to pagan mythology rather than to Hebrew understanding.
5. Your theory denies common sense recognition of the simile.
6. Your theory denies the faith once delivered as to be consistent your theory must equally define God Himself, his throne, the New Jerusalem, angelic beings all equally SOLID MATERIALS as the very same language you demand makes raqia such is equally applied to God's Person, his throne, the New Jerusalem, angelic beings.
7. Your argument does not have EQUAL weight Lexicographical weight with the terms "the evening and the morning" simply because there are no variant uses and definitions for that Hebrew phrase but there is for raquia (hammered out solid VS expanse) and so you cannot logically overthrow the unquestionable with a questionable interpretation and the issue stands or falls with the meaning of "the evening and the morning" being understood according to its constant meaning or reinterpreted figuratively based upon your questionable and chosen interpretation of raqia.
