Goat wrote: ↑Sat Jul 23, 2022 3:45 pmYou also have to point to evidence, and then show WHY that data is evidence for your proposition. Just pointing to data, and saying it is evidence of xyz without convergence of evidence and a testable model doesn’t make that data evidence of any specific proposition.
Of course. I’ve argued from the text and the historical background of our translations in post 1134 of why I believe raqia is better translated as “expanse” rather than “firmament”. I think how we interpret raqia is fundamental in the debate of the dome cosmology. If raqia is translated “expanse”, I highly doubt skeptics would then be so insistent the ancient Hebrews were making unscientific claims. It would be obvious they were just simply giving an account of what they saw than making any “scientific” claim.
Again, all the major modern translations translate raqia as “expanse”. People who argue raqia should be “firmament” base their arguments on the early translations. Why would early translations use firmament? Because they would be most familiar with the Latin Vulgate, which had translated it as “firmamentum”.
Another reason we should doubt the skeptics’ argument that the Biblical authors were claiming the universe is actually a snow dome is the skeptics have made similar claims that the church, in particular during the Middle ages, believed the earth was flat, which in reality is a straw man argument. When digging deeper into the claim, it turns out it was all a myth.
So, we should go back and examine what the text actually says and the historical development of the text to find the truth.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1085971#p1085971