Since Syriac and Hebrew are cognate languages, your admission that the Syriac refers to a "solid" structure reveals a disconnect in language studies. Instead of saying the word in Syriac came to mean a solid structure, and, therefore, passed on an incorrect understanding of raqia', the historical progression is that the Syriac reflects the original meaning of the Hebrew raqia'. To simply say the problem developed from the Syriac is overly simplistic. If that is the answer, then every Hebrew lexicon is wrong, along with all scholarship up until the modern period. As to your comment about liberal and conservative political views, there are also liberal and conservative biblical translators and interpreters. Over the course of this debate, liberal Bible scholars have traditionally sided with the solid-firmament view, while conservative Bible scholars have sided with the atmospheric-expanse outlook. Since conservatives must maintain biblical integrity, as to inspiration and infallibility, the ancient view of a solid firmament casts doubts on that presupposition. Since liberals have no qualms about the Bible containing errors, they have traditionally translated in a manner that supports their presupposition. Right now it is doubtful I will attempt to write the article. Although, like some European universities who have Catholic and Protestant faculties, perhaps I could write an "expanse" article and a "firmament" article: Raqia' - expanse theory; Raqia' - firmament theory?Dr.JGJohnston (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
- CC'd this to Talk:Firmament#Firmament_article_and_editing, hope that's what you were intending to reply to. Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)