Vernon wrote:
<< But how can you justify this interpretation of events? It seems you are
more influenced by extra-biblical sources than by the Word of God. The
Hebrew word 'raqia' - properly translated 'expanse' (NASB) rather than
'firmament' (AV) - doesn't in itself suggest 'solidity', and nowhere in
the Scriptures do I find confirmation that it does. ETC>>
You need to search the Scriptures before drawing the conclusion that a raqia'
is not solid. Ezek 1:22 makes it quite clear that a raqia' is solid; and
virtually all commentors on Ezek recognize this. In addition, standard Hebrew
lexicons recognize the solidity of the raqia'. And, the Church has
historically understood that the raqia' is solid. Finally a solid firmament
was the universal understanding in the time of Moses; and hence a dictionary
of that day would have defined it as solid; and God does not make up the
meanings of the words he employs in Scripture: he uses the words that exist.
There is thus a very coherent picture and strong case that the raqia' is
solid.
Unless you can show me evidence that a raqia' is not solid, I must conclude
that you are reading modern science into the Word of God.
<<Paul, as yet you have failed to comment on my reading of Rev.13:18 - a
verse which, (a) offers wisdom, and (b) dare not be ignored. ETC>>
I do not have the background to speak to this.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 20 2001 - 22:41:15 EST