<< How riqiya` is
used in the Bible determines its meaning. In verse 20 the birds "fly in
the open 'riqiya`' of heaven." How can birds fly in a solid shell? The
most obvious solution is that those who wrote the Bible did not concieve of
a solid shell to hold the stars. It is true that other societies of the
time believed such sillyness, but that does not mean that the believers in
God held that position too.
The description of the dividing of the waters by the expanse in verses 6
and 7 does not define in which state (solid, liquid or vapor) were the
waters above. How is it that you know that it was liquid (oceans)? Just
because the waters below were liquid does not mean that those above were
the same.
>>
Gen 1:20 says literally that the birds fly "upon the face (or surface) of the
raqia.'" As Wenham and others have noted, this means that we see birds flying
with the blue sky in the background. The word "surface" is not easily bent
into conformity with the idea that the raqia' is not solid; but in any case
the verse absolutely does not say that the birds are flying _in_ the raqia'.
Further, there are contextual reasons to understand the raqia' as solid, but
not one single piece of evidence which infers it is not solid. You will find
my complete case for the solidity of the firmament at
http://www.bible.org/galaxie/journals/sample/wtj/9095/wtj201.htm
The context clearly shows that the waters above the firmament were one half of
the Deep ocean mentioned in Gen 1:2; and in 7:11 they pour down from the
"floodgates of the sky" (NASV). So the context both before v. 6 and after it
infers plainly that the waters above the firmament were liquid. On the other
hand there is _no evidence_ that the waters above the firmament were not in
liquid form. You will find my complete case for the waters above the
firmament at http://www.bible.org/galaxie/journals/sample/wtj/9095/wtj209.htm
I agree with you that the most probable historical grammatical meaning of the
days in Gen 1 with their "evenings and mornings" is probably 24 hour days;
but, that interpretation is at least a little debatable since Augustine
questioned it; but, the solidity of the firmament with the ocean above it was
never questioned until the Rennaissance. If you set aside the solidity of the
firmament with its liquid ocean above it, you are departing from the straight
forward meaning of the biblical text more than those who reject the 24-hour
days.
Paul