Sola scriptura and the firmament

[Preterist264]

O.K. Found an article on the firmament that's worth taking a look at.

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1650

Could we also discuss the influence of aristotle and ptolomey at some point in the interpretation outside these passages. Certainly they would have been regarded as scientific in the time period even though correct interpretations existed tought by men like Eratosthenes.

So even among the secular world at that point a couple of differant interpretations of the data existed (sound familier?).

[oxmixmudd]

O.K. Found an article on the firmament that's worth taking a look at.

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1650

I have read Holding's take on this and find Him unconvincing in several ways, but more importantly as relates to this thread, Holding's argument can't lead one away from the fact that the text is consistent with the view the heavens are a solid dome. That is, to get to a reason to move to any of the alternative readings Holding discusses from a reading that is taking the text in its most literal meaning, one must FIRST know the sky itself is NOT solid.

What Holding is addressing is a wonderful set of paper's by Paul Seely that are actually trying to show something much stronger than what this thread addresses. Seely is trying to show that the scripture themselves are intending to say the sky is firm, and that the writers thought that was the case, and that is what they wrote down. Holding is trying to say, well, not so fast, these words might have other meanings (and very unconvincingly), maybe the writers sort of knew the sky was not solid.

So, are there specific aspects of Holding's paper that you think show a way to understand the Sun does not go around the Earth, or that the sky (the part above the clouds that holds the stars), is not solid and there are not truly waters above that firm vault - sola scriptura? If so, bring them forward and let's discuss them.

Anything that would show the geocentric idea, or firm dome idea, is not self-consistent with the scripture is fair game.

Could we also discuss the influence of aristotle and ptolomey at some point in the interpretation outside these passages. Certainly they would have been regarded as scientific in the time period even though correct interpretations existed tought by men like Eratosthenes.

That could come into play perhaps later, once someone actually makes an attempt to say it is possible to correct the literal reading I outline in the opening op sola scriptura. Don't get me wrong, all of these topics you want to get to are VERY interesting and worthy of discussion, but they would derail the focus of this thread.

The focus of this thread goes to the heart of a fundamental mistake that has lead us to the current conflict that exists between science and evangelical Christian faith. The idea that we can derive from scripture a correct structure and history of the universe. And a sister idea that is actually quite hypocritical in light of the scripture being most consistent with geocentrism and the methods used to resolve that conflict:

that it is wrong to relagate the text describing the time frame of creation to figurative or phenominal language on the basis of overwhelming scientific evidence.

So what I want to bring to light is two facts:

1) There are readings of scripture that meet every interpretive requirement, that respect the text, that come from a direct reading of the text, and that are flatly wrong. Readings that are actually more literal require less 'relagation to figurative language' than the ones currently used by the majority of Christians to reconcile the scripture with the current understanding of the form of the Earth and the structure of the universe.

2) Those readings have no correction sola-scriptura. They are internally consistent across the entire text.

Once we know that, only a fool would claim that the current interpretive issues (length of a day etc) could not possibly also be an example of 1, especially in light of what the natural evidence says about the natural history of the Earth and universe.

So even among the secular world at that point a couple of differant interpretations of the data existed (sound familier?).

Please keep in mind that the interpretations of the data mentioned where accepted or rejected by the church based not on their mathematical or scientific soundness, but their consistency with the current reigning interpretation of the scriptural text. First they had to meet the scriptural requirements. This is why Galileo and Copernicus (well not so much C, as he published on his death bed) got into so much trouble. They were ok as mathematical exercises, but not as statements of fact, for they conflicted with the scripturally derived understanding of the structure of the cosmos.


Jim

[KBertsche]

O.K. Found an article on the firmament that's worth taking a look at.

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1650

This article is largely a hatchet job against Seely. The author, Holding, grossly mischaracterizes Seely at a number of points, e.g.:

Holding

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.
...
In a second article, Seely goes a step further and attempts to show that the Genesis account teaches the existence of ‘a veritable sea located above’ the solid raqiya‘.

© source where applicable

Seely does not and would not say that the Bible teaches these things! He specifically denies this allegation:

Seely, "The firmament and the water above, Part 1"

Certainly also it is not the purpose of Gen 1: 7 to teach us the physical nature of the sky, but to reveal the creator of the sky. Consequently, the reference to the solid firmament "lies outside the scope of the writer's teachings" and the verse is still infallibly true.

© source where applicable

Seely is careful not to say what Holding accuses him of, that the Bible teaches a solid dome. This would be tantamount to claiming that the Bible teaches error. Rather, Seely shows evidence that this is the historical and contextual meaning of the term, and that the term is used essentially as a cultural metaphor to teach spiritual truth, not physical truth about the universe.

Could we also discuss the influence of aristotle and ptolomey at some point in the interpretation outside these passages. Certainly they would have been regarded as scientific in the time period even though correct interpretations existed tought by men like Eratosthenes.

Some have tried to blame the solid dome concept on the Greeks. But Seely, Lamoureux, and others have provided strong evidence that the concept was generally accepted in the ancient near east long before the Greeks.

[oxmixmudd]

This article is largely a hatchet job against Seely. The author, Holding, grossly mischaracterizes Seely at a number of points, e.g.:

Holding

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.
...
In a second article, Seely goes a step further and attempts to show that the Genesis account teaches the existence of ‘a veritable sea located above’ the solid raqiya‘.

© source where applicable

Seely does not and would not say that the Bible teaches these things! He specifically denies this allegation:

Seely, "The firmament and the water above, Part 1"

Certainly also it is not the purpose of Gen 1: 7 to teach us the physical nature of the sky, but to reveal the creator of the sky. Consequently, the reference to the solid firmament "lies outside the scope of the writer's teachings" and the verse is still infallibly true.

© source where applicable

Seely is careful not to say what Holding accuses him of, that the Bible teaches a solid dome. This would be tantamount to claiming that the Bible teaches error. Rather, Seely shows evidence that this is the historical and contextual meaning of the term, and that the term is used essentially as a cultural metaphor to teach spiritual truth, not physical truth about the universe.


Some have tried to blame the solid dome concept on the Greeks. But Seely, Lamoureux, and others have provided strong evidence that the concept was generally accepted in the ancient near east long before the Greeks.

Thank you for clarifying.

My statement:

Seely is trying to show that the scripture themselves are intending to say the sky is firm, and that the writers thought that was the case, and that is what they wrote down.

would not differentiate from the authors using the cultural metaphor to teach spiritual truth and what the Bible iteslf teaches. It is a subtle distinction to be sure, but a very important one. One I myself do not always take sufficient time to make clear, although typically I will say that this text is written within the understanding of the writers and is essentially phenominal.

Would you feel (Dr. Bertse) that is a fair characterisation, or do I need to be more specific?


Jim

[KBertsche]

Thank you for clarifying.

My statement:

"Seely is trying to show that the scripture themselves are intending to say the sky is firm, and that the writers thought that was the case, and that is what they wrote down."

would not differentiate from the authors using the cultural metaphor to teach spiritual truth and what the Bible iteslf teaches. It is a subtle distinction to be sure, but a very important one. One I myself do not always take sufficient time to make clear, although typically I will say that this text is written within the understanding of the writers and is essentially phenominal.

Would you feel (Dr. Bertse) that is a fair characterisation, or do I need to be more specific?


Jim

I think your characterization is fine, and that Seely would agree with it. The problem, as you note, is to distinguish between what the Bible actually teaches as truth and what it may merely make use of as a cultural metaphor to convey other truths. Your comments have implicitly assumed this distinction, but Holding's comments implicitly deny such a distinction.

Another quote from Seely might help to clarify this:

Seely, "The firmament and the water above, Part 2"

The historical definition of "the water above the firmament" is, therefore, a veritable sea located above a solid firmament which is in turn located above the sun, moon, and stars. This historical meaning, as we shall see, is also the meaning that Gen 1:6-8 contextually demands.
...
The divine intent of this picture was not to communicate natural science, but to teach the fact that the God of Scripture is Creator and absolute Sovereign over the supposedly independent forces of the natural world.

© source where applicable

In other words, a solid dome may indeed be the exegetically correct interpretation of the text. This may be exactly what the author meant to communicate. But this does not mean that the text (or the human author, or God) intends to teach us that there actually is a solid dome. God could simply be accommodating His message to the understanding of the day, using a culturally-accepted model as a vehicle to teach truths about Himself.

[FreezBee]

In other words, a solid dome may indeed be the exegetically correct interpretation of the text. This may be exactly what the author meant to communicate. But this does not mean that the text (or the human author, or God) intends to teach us that there actually is a solid dome. God could simply be accommodating His message to the understanding of the day, using a culturally-accepted model as a vehicle to teach truths about Himself.

This is a very important point

For some reason, some Christians operate from the idea that everything in the Bible is a teaching in every aspect. But why should it be?

The idea seems to come from a special reading of

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

© source where applicable

Note that it doesn't say "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in science", so who came up with the idea that the Bible has to be a science text book?


- FreezBee

[oxmixmudd]

This is a very important point

For some reason, some Christians operate from the idea that everything in the Bible is a teaching in every aspect. But why should it be?

The idea seems to come from a special reading of

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

© source where applicable

Note that it doesn't say "teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in science", so who came up with the idea that the Bible has to be a science text book?


- FreezBee

I think it is not so much that they think it must be a science text, it is that they need proof of inspiration. It goes up against the question: "how can the Bible be the word of God if it contains errors", or "how can the Bible be trusted if it contains errors - any sort of error!", in other words, an extreme form of inerrancy. It has always been interesting to me it is the same requirement as put forward by the unbelieving skeptic, only the skeptic is not interested in trying to find ways to not see the obvious odds and ends in the Bible that can be held up as 'flaws'.

For me, it is important to understand where God did and where he did not inspire as it were, or perhaps better stated, it is important to understand the mode of inspiration. Is it reasonable to expect that in every word written the writer was himself not involved? Is it reasonable to expect that in every mention of the natural world God overrode what the writer knew so that later generations with greater knowledge would have proof of inspiration? I think the answer is obviously no. But that is actually one of the major points of this op, and one of the major faulty assumptions of YEC.

God did indeed use the cultural metaphors of the time to teach His truth, as Dr. Bertse has correctly stated, accomodating certain aspects of His revelation to the understanding of the day. Thus, for us to fully understand the truth God is conveying, we must fold into our understanding the cultural context, and we must not make arbitrary assumptions about how God inspired the writers based on our own personal insecurties, lack of faith, or expectations.



Jim

[FlimFlamboyant]

Now, the purpose of this thread is NOT to explore if that MUST be the only thing the scriptures can mean. The purpose is to explore the YEC idea that one is 'compromising' scripture if one allows knowledge gained about nature (science) to influence how one reads the scripture.

As a YEC, I have to reject your assertion that I would automatically consider this to be a compromise. To me, this would be like asserting that a theistic evolutionist thinks he's compromising science if he allows knowledge about nature he has gained from the Bible to influence how he interprets the evidence.

As a YEC, I don't think it's necessarily a compromise to use our own observations to influence how we read scripture in these cases. However, I think TEs and atheists/agnostics tend to go way overboard, assuming the most ignorant interpretation of scripture possible. Who knows if Joshua was a "geocentrist" or not; the text isn't conclusive either way, as we often speak in relative terms based upon our perception even today.

As for the firmament, I don't see much support for your assertion that the waters above the firmament are actually supported by the firmament, as if the water is literally being held in place by this expanse. I could divide a pile of sand in to two piles, lay a leaf between them, and tell you that the sand piles are divided by a leaf. I believe your interpretation of the text is an example of what I referred to earlier, where the most ignorant interpretation possible is assumed for the sake of argument. I'm willing to bet that Moses knew better than to think that water could be held back or supported by air, even despite his experience at the Red Sea.

[Collier]

Joshua commanded for the sun to stop (and not the earth). This, on its most simplistic reading, is consistent with the idea the sun moves in the sky. Indeed one could argue that if God wanted the earth to stop and not the sun, he could have told Joshua to tell the Earth to stop and not the sun. Without modern knowledge, the simplest conclusion from this text is that the sun does what it appears to do - move across the sky.
Jim

About Joshua (Joshua 10). Barry Beitzel [The Moody Atlas of Bible Lands, pp. 96-98] points out that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still over Gibeon - to the EAST - and the moon to stand still over Aijalon - in the WEST (check a map).

That sounds like a morning request. The Israelites had been marching all night. They had caught the attackers at Gibeon by surprise and were chasing them westward toward Aijalon. The sun was rising in the east, and the [nearly] full moon was setting in the west. What did Joshua want God to do?

Let's look at what God DID do. He produced a storm. A big one. That means lots of cloud. So far as the Israelites were concerned, the sun was not in the sky. From their perspective, the sun didn't move all day.

And the same clouds that brought relief from the desert sun ALSO brought hail that fell on their enemies.

Maybe that's not a miracle; but Joshua had no doubt that God was working for him, in a way that he could understand.

[oxmixmudd]

As a YEC, I have to reject your assertion that I would automatically consider this to be a compromise. To me, this would be like asserting that a theistic evolutionist thinks he's compromising science if he allows knowledge about nature he has gained from the Bible to influence how he interprets the evidence.

You may reject that, but it is not typical of YEC's, and espeicially those leading the charge so to speak. And in general, if you do not consider this a compromise, then why, in light of the evidence for age in the universe and on the Earth, do you still resume that 'day' (yom) must be a 24 hour period of time in Genesis 1? If there were anything you would allow science to influence your interpretation on in this text, it would be that! Yet, you do not.

As a YEC, I don't think it's necessarily a compromise to use our own observations to influence how we read scripture in these cases. However, I think TEs and atheists/agnostics tend to go way overboard, assuming the most ignorant interpretation of scripture possible. Who knows if Joshua was a "geocentrist" or not; the text isn't conclusive either way, as we often speak in relative terms based upon our perception even today.

You would need to specific here. I do not assume most ignorant understanding possible, but here are the facts:

a) The peoples of the time understood the Earth to be flat, the sky to be a solid dome, and the stars/sun/moon to be in the sky. The believed there were waters above the dome.

b) The Hebrews in general, as far as can be known, were NOT scientifically astute relative to their peers.

c) The text of genesis conforms perfectly with a) above. We have to make assumptions beyond what we know to understand the text any other way

d) that text was understood to imply rigid domed sky, etc. etc will into the 2nd millenium after Christ.

It seems clear to me that the writers simply wrote about what they knew about in terms of the structure of the universe as they described God's creative act.

As for the firmament, I don't see much support for your assertion that the waters above the firmament are actually supported by the firmament, as if the water is literally being held in place by this expanse. I could divide a pile of sand in to two piles, lay a leaf between them, and tell you that the sand piles are divided by a leaf. I believe your interpretation of the text is an example of what I referred to earlier, where the most ignorant interpretation possible is assumed for the sake of argument. I'm willing to bet that Moses knew better than to think that water could be held back or supported by air, even despite his experience at the Red Sea.

I wonder why you think the writers used a word whose meaning has its root in the beating out of metal into thin sheets, why other scriptures reference the heavens as being as brass, and where the only other use of the word translated firmament is in reference to a heavenly crystal structure that was fixed over some angels?

I wonder how you suppose the ancients would suppose the 'firmament' could support 'waters above' if it wasn't hard and firm, especially since that is the kind of terminology they used?

And I wonder why the writers would describe sluices/portals/or windows in the heavens to let waters through if they did not think they were rigid and firm?

But look at your last statement:

"I'm willing to bet that Moses knew better than to think that water could be held back or supported by air, even despite his experience at the Red Sea"

Do you think Moses knew about 'air' per se? They knew about the wind, but they had a very mystical understanding of it. Further, this is precisely my point. Of course Moses didn't think air (or nothingness) could support the waters above! That is why He wrote that God made the 'firmament'! This is why it all fits their understanding. Something had to hold up the waters above!


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

About Joshua (Joshua 10). Barry Beitzel [The Moody Atlas of Bible Lands, pp. 96-98] points out that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still over Gibeon - to the EAST - and the moon to stand still over Aijalon - in the WEST (check a map).

That sounds like a morning request. The Israelites had been marching all night. They had caught the attackers at Gibeon by surprise and were chasing them westward toward Aijalon. The sun was rising in the east, and the [nearly] full moon was setting in the west. What did Joshua want God to do?

Actually, the more important thing is the the observation is accurate - in any real scenario that would match the description of the miracle, both the sun and moon would need to stop their motions in the sky - at least the motion that would be observed over a few hours in a starless sky with the naked eye.

Let's look at what God DID do. He produced a storm. A big one. That means lots of cloud. So far as the Israelites were concerned, the sun was not in the sky. From their perspective, the sun didn't move all day.

Somehow this looks like you are the one having the trouble with the miracle. How could they report the sun and moon did not move if they did not see it stand still? I figure they both stood still. I believe in the miracle. Nevertheless, I think Joshua (nor anyone else in his time) did not understand that it was time and/or the Earth that needed to stop in order for that observation to be possible - because neither Joshua nor anyone else we know of at the time knew the Earth was a sphere rotating on its axis and orbiting the sun.

And the same clouds that brought relief from the desert sun ALSO brought hail that fell on their enemies.

Maybe that's not a miracle; but Joshua had no doubt that God was working for him, in a way that he could understand.

So - to avoid Joshua being ignorant of the spherical Earth and writing about an event as he observed it in phenomenal language - in order to avoid facing the idea that God may not have overridden the understanding of the writer in these cases - you are willing to deny the miracle itself???

Interesting.



Jim

[one_lost_coin]

Here is a question for YEC's of all colors.

It is plain to me that the literal cosmology featured in the scriptures is one of a fixed earth around which the sun and other celestial bodies revolve (geocentrism), and a firm and rigid 'sky' in which are embedded or placed the stars, and above which is a large amount of water and even heaven itself. Indeed one purpose of this firmament is to support these celestial waters.

Now, the purpose of this thread is NOT to explore if that MUST be the only thing the scriptures can mean. The purpose is to explore the YEC idea that one is 'compromising' scripture if one allows knowledge gained about nature (science) to influence how one reads the scripture.

So to that end, my question/challenge is this:

Can anyone out there, using scripture alone and not yielding to observations about nature gained from outside scripture show me that this reading of the text is in error?



Jim

I have to say this is one of the freshest and most interesting questions I have come across on this site. Bravo for originality.

[Collier]

Here is a question for YEC's of all colors.

It is plain to me that the literal cosmology featured in the scriptures is one of a fixed earth around which the sun and other celestial bodies revolve (geocentrism), and a firm and rigid 'sky' in which are embedded or placed the stars, and above which is a large amount of water and even heaven itself. Indeed one purpose of this firmament is to support these celestial waters.

Now, the purpose of this thread is NOT to explore if that MUST be the only thing the scriptures can mean. The purpose is to explore the YEC idea that one is 'compromising' scripture if one allows knowledge gained about nature (science) to influence how one reads the scripture.

So to that end, my question/challenge is this:

Can anyone out there, using scripture alone and not yielding to observations about nature gained from outside scripture show me that this reading of the text is in error?

Jim

This IS a good question. And I like the emphasis on scripture alone. But I think there is evidence in Genesis 1 that would prevent a reader from thinking that the firmament was a rigid dome.

God gave a name to the firmament (or expanse) that separated the waters above from the waters below. He called it "heaven" (v. 8).

In verse 26, God gave Adam dominion (stewardship) over "the birds of heaven" (the firmament that He made by separating the waters.)

Birds do not live in a rigid dome. They live in the atmosphere, and breathe the air we breathe.

Then what were the "waters above" that had to be separated from the waters below to make a habitat for birds?

I think Job 38:9 answers that question. God told Job that "... I made cloud the garment of it, and thick darkness a swaddling band for it ..." For what? For the earth (see vv. 4-8).

If that corresponds with Genesis 1:2, then the cloud cover was thick enough to produce a "swaddling band" of darkness on the "face of the waters," where the Spirit of God was moving. In that case the firmament was formed by separating that garment of cloud from the surface waters.

The sky includes more than the atmosphere, of course - UNLESS the sky is overcast. But obviously it INCLUDES the atmosphere, and cannot be understood simply as a rigid dome holding up waters that nobody can see.

[oxmixmudd]

This IS a good question. And I like the emphasis on scripture alone. But I think there is evidence in Genesis 1 that would prevent a reader from thinking that the firmament was a rigid dome.

God gave a name to the firmament (or expanse) that separated the waters above from the waters below. He called it "heaven" (v. 8).

In verse 26, God gave Adam dominion (stewardship) over "the birds of heaven" (the firmament that He made by separating the waters.)

You need to be careful. You must go back to the Hebrew to understand what is being said here, and it is quite different from what you understand. First of all, there are two words being used here: raqia: firmament and shamayim: heaven. If you look contextually at how they are used, you can see very quickly that raqia refers to a very specific structure within the overall shamayim.

Consider 1:14 "let there be lights in the firmament (raqia) of heaven (shamayim)."

The raqia is a specific part of heaven, the structure that separates the waters above from the waters below. And it is in the raqia God put the stars, sun, and moon.

Again in v 20: birds fly in the open firmament of heaven (KJV)

The vulgate says "sub firmamentum coeli" under the firmament of heaven

bible in basic english "under the arch of heaven"

Youngs literal: on the face of the expanse of the heavens.

Birds do not live in a rigid dome. They live in the atmosphere, and breathe the air we breathe.

This is true, but the Bible does not put the birds in the raqia, but flying across the face of it, which shows it has a surface.

Then what were the "waters above" that had to be separated from the waters below to make a habitat for birds?

You are way off here. The habitat of the birds is not the waters above. The waters above are above the stars, the sun and the moon, Do you have the birds flying among the stars, sun and moon? Indeed, the Bible speaks of window in heaven to let those waters down to the Earth as part of the flood. A window is something you construct in a barrier to let something though.

I think Job 38:9 answers that question. God told Job that "... I made cloud the garment of it, and thick darkness a swaddling band for it ..." For what? For the earth (see vv. 4-8).

Careful, this is not speaking of the land (earth) but the waters which surround the land. To equate land and sea as the 'earth' (planet earth) is to read our understanding of the world into the text. It speaks only of water here.

If that corresponds with Genesis 1:2, then the cloud cover was thick enough to produce a "swaddling band" of darkness on the "face of the waters," where the Spirit of God was moving. In that case the firmament was formed by separating that garment of cloud from the surface waters.

It doesn't. This passage (Job) is speaking of God controlling the extent of the waters to the land, of the power of God to divide the waters below and maintain that division. The clouds were, again, not understood to be water, but containers for water (rain). They were filled and emptied, God drew them up or dispersed them, hid himself behind them, used them for chariots. But they were between the raqia and the Earth, obviously below the stars, the sun, and the moon - not above it and them, not the waters above.

Genesis is speaking of the primordial waters and the initial darkness upon them which preceded God's creation of light. The waters which were first divided into waters above and below (separated and held in separation by the raqia), and then divided again to make way for the land (the 'earth').

The sky includes more than the atmosphere, of course - UNLESS the sky is overcast. But obviously it INCLUDES the atmosphere, and cannot be understood simply as a rigid dome holding up waters that nobody can see.

No. You are not reading the text but reading into the text. There is the shamayim and the raqia. The raqia is a part of the shamayim, the part that divides waters above from waters below and that ALSO contains the sun, moon, and stars, and which has an open face across which the birds fly. The clouds nor the atmosphere fit this description. But the dome of the ANE cosmology does fit it, perfectly.


Jim

[Collier]

[QUOTE=oxmixmudd;2661070]You need to be careful. You must go back to the Hebrew to understand what is being said here, and it is quite different from what you understand. First of all, there are two words being used here: raqia: firmament and shamayim: heaven. If you look contextually at how they are used, you can see very quickly that raqia refers to a very specific structure within the overall shamayim.

Consider 1:14 "let there be lights in the firmament (raqia) of heaven (shamayim)."

The raqia is a specific part of heaven, the structure that separates the waters above from the waters below. And it is in the raqia God put the stars, sun, and moon.

Thank you, Jim. You make a good case. And I do agree that I am inclined to understand what is written by what I am able to observe.

But let's begin with the difference between raqia and shamayim.

According to my interlinear Hebrew Bible, God called the raqia "shamayim". He called the expanse "heaven(s)" (Genesis 1:8).

So when I read in v. 26 that God gave Adam dominion over the birds of heaven(s), I conclude that birds fly in some part of the heaven(s).

In fact, that fits the whole passage. The dry land (which God called "earth") is the habitat for animals that walk on dry land. Adam had dominion over those. The seas are the habitat which God made for fish. God gave Adam dominion over them. The heaven is the habitat God made for birds when He separated the waters above from the waters below. God gave Adam dominion over the birds.

I suspect that even the ancient Hebrews knew that clouds mean water. At least, Elijah did (1 Kings 18:43-45). He wasn't looking for a hole in the sky. He was looking for a cloud. And when his servant saw a cloud on the horizon, Elijah knew his prayer for rain had been answered.

Again in v 20: birds fly in the open firmament of heaven (KJV)
and
Youngs literal: on the face of the expanse of the heavens.

Right. The heavens, I think you have said elsewhere, is the sky. The sky is what I see when I look up. It can include birds. It can include heavy clouds. If it includes heavy clouds, it doesn't include stars or moon or sun.

Birds fly in the sky. We see them fly across the face of the clouds, or across the face of the blue sky if there are no clouds. That is not science; it is just simple observation.

At this point, I can see nothing in the text that puts a lot of water above the sun, moon and stars. Nor do I believe that the ancient skywatchers would think of such a thing without having it put into their heads. But I will certainly look at the evidence you give, with what I hope is an open mind. I am glad when scientific evidence agrees with the Bible; but I, like you, am MOST interested in the words of our God.