вЂThe basic historical fact that defines the meaning of raqiyaвЂ-the Hebrew word in Genesis 1 which the King James Bible reads as вЂfirmament,вЂ™ but many modern translations render вЂexpanseвЂ™-вЂis simply this: all peoples in the ancient world thought of the sky as solid.вЂ™ 2ДЇollowing this statement is an impressive and informative list of citations that goes on to prove just that point: from American Indians to the neighbors of the Hebrews in the ancient East from ancient times until the time of the Renaissance, there were almost no recorded dissenters, leading Seely to the resolution, вЂWhen the original readers of Genesis 1 read the word rДЃqГ®aвЂ they thought of a solid sky.вЂ™ 2 Then, after an analysis of relevant Biblical texts, Seely concludes: He announces near the very start of his 1991 article: In particular, Seely has published two papers in the Westminster Theological Journal claiming that the Bible teaches that there is a solid dome above the earth. Therefore this article is justified as pulling out this tree of misinformation by its roots. Although his papers are not cited in any Bible commentary I could find at the Reformed Theological Seminary at Orlando, Florida, his views seem to be beloved of Christians who desire to compromise the plain teachings of Scripture with the man-made theories of evolution and billions of years. In giving ammunition to sceptics and others who want to destroy the Bible, thus feeding into the world system and giving it comfort, in some ways Seely is more dangerous to Christians than atheists. Seely, who has also claimed that the Bible makes scientific errors. More recently, the enemies of Christ have acquired an ally in the professing evangelical Paul H. However, such sceptical arguments against the BibleвЂ™s cosmology have been repeatedly refuted by conservative Christians. Neither would Jesus, if he were truly God in the flesh, endorse erroneous teaching. They use these arguments to claim that the Bible cannot be the word of God, rightly pointing out that God would not make errors in his Word. It is common for sceptics to attack the Bible for teaching a primitive cosmology, including a flat earth and geocentrism. One can, however, justifiably understand Genesis to be in harmony with what we presently know about the nature of the heavens. SeelyвЂ™s conclusion is both presumptuous and untenable, and he fails to recognize that the description of the rДЃqГ®aвЂ is so equivocal and lacking in detail that one can only read a solid sky into the text by assuming that it is there in the first place. Seely, who maintains that both the social background data and the text of the Bible itself support this conclusion. Such enemies of the Gospel have an ally in the professing evangelical Paul H. One example is the assertion that the Hebrew word ЧЁЧ§Ч™Чў rДЃqГ®aвЂ, or вЂfirmamentвЂ™ in the KJV, denotes a solid dome over the earth, so that the Bible is guilty of scientific error.

SeelyДЄnti-Christian sceptics often denounce the Bible as teaching a faulty cosmology.

Is the raqГ®aвЂ (вЂfirmamentвЂ™) a solid dome? Equivocal language in the cosmology of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a response to Paul H.

Firmament flat earth