I see that the watcher has attempted to argue against all of what I just wrote by focusing on the one aspect of my analysis that I didn't elaborate upon, and using this as the basis for a comprehensive rejection of the entirety of my argument.

We've seen this tactic before. Militant atheists are fond of using it, for example, to debunk Scripture -- they pick out one or two (or twenty -- the number is actually immaterial) essentially small "errors" and, from that basis, argue that the whole of the Bible is invalid (or, at least, not factual).

What is the firmament? As noted previously, this is a cosmological structure which appears all through Scripture. As the watcher correctly notes, the word is rooted in the Hebrew word raqa, which means "to flatten," "stamp down," "spread out," or "hammer out."

Notice a common theme there? Flattening, stamping, spreading, and hammering are all actions one applies to a physical object, and then a solid one. This is especially true of hammering and stamping. The nuance of the Hebrew word raqia (which we translate as "firmament") is thus one of something solid, rather than of something expansive.

We see this elsewhere in Scripture, it should be noted.

"Exodus 39:3 and Isa 40:19 use raqa for pounding metals into thin plates, and Num 16:38 employs riqqua (broad plate) in a similar context. The verb raqa is even found in a passage referring to the creation of the sky, which is understood to be a firm surface like a metal. Job 37:18 asks, 'Can you join God in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?' (c.f. Exod 24:10, Job 22:14, Ezek 1:22)" (taken from: Denis O. Lamoueux, Evolutionary Creation, pp. 123)

Let us also remember: "firmament" is an English translation of the Hebrew term. Its root, 'firm,' implies solidity and hardness. The very word itself implies a solid structure. Strong's Concordance is all well and good for referring to the firmament as "an expanse," but that simply goes to show that Strong's Concordance is hardly infallible: the Hebrew word which translates into "firmament" -- raqia, implies something solid, and has always (until relatively recently) been understood as such by the Church.

And this same principle, it should be noted, can be applied to Strong's treatment of "foundations" -- and to the watcher's treatment of same. Job 26:11 and 2 Samuel 22:8 refer to the pillars or foundations of the heavens, while other passages (Deut 4:32 to name but one) refer to the "ends of the heavens". Likewise, well over a dozen references to the Earth having solid foundations can easily be found in just a few books of the Old Testament.

The cosmological model presented in my previous blog post is not something of my own devising; it is a representation of what is called the "three-tiered universe" that is a common fixture of the ancient cosmologies of many Ancient Near Eastern cultures, including the Hebrew people.

And Young Earth Creationists have no way of getting around it, nor do any other strict Biblical literalists. The cosmological model presented in Scripture does not reflect the extant structure of the Universe, as we have now observed it; it only reflects the apparent structure of the Universe, as seen through the eyes of a people living some 5,000 years ago.

If one wants to accept the current, astronomy-derived cosmological model, then one cannot claim to be a strict Biblical literalist, because that cosmological model is not the one described in the Bible. And for a Young Earther, the acceptance of the astronomy-derived cosmological model is a particularly troubling logical mis-step, given that it entails heavily augmenting one's interpretation of Scripture in light of empirical evidence.

Where is the logical pitfall there, good Reader? It is in the fact that those same Young Earthers all too often reject the idea that we must modify our interpretation of Scriptural passages concerning human origins in light of empirical evidence derived from evolutionary theory and research.

In layman's terms, that's called hypocrisy...and it's a hypocrisy that any Young Earth Creationist is guilty of.

One final note. The watcher wouldn't be the watcher if he didn't end a post with a pinch of anti-Catholic rhetoric.

Of course if tomorrow, the pope should come out and state that the church's position is now that Genesis was literal, then he would have to change his beliefs like a puppet to conform to the church's teaching. If he didn't, the Church could take away his hope of salvation., for their hope is truly centered in the Church and it sacraments, and not in the finished work of Christ on the cross. Such great bondage.

Yeah, I've heard these lies before, but I'll respond to them anyhow.

1) if for some reason the 6,000 year creation suddenly became Catholic dogma, it would still be my right to accept or reject the doctrine. Of course, at this point, the only way that the doctrine would shift so drastically would be due to overwhelming evidence that the Earth is, in fact, very young. Given the immense quantities of evidence that the Earth is, in fact, very old, this contrived example rests in the realm of near-impossibility.

But if sufficiently compelling evidence emerged that the Church saw fit to abandon its current, "hands off" stance on creation-related doctrines (apart from the core teachings which I have outlined previously), chances are that I would be convinced by that same evidence, and not because the Church had promulgated a doctrine pertaining to it.

2) my salvation is not imperiled by disagreeing with the Church, but by leaving it. For as I turn my back on the Eucharist, I turn my back on Christ. The same is true of all the other Sacraments as well, which are the gifts of the grace of Jesus and the fullness of the salvation He won for mankind as He hung upon the Cross.

3) it's all well and good to slander Catholics from afar, secure on a blog which disallows comments. But there's no courage in yelling at the world from inside a locked room. It's curious that the watcher never chooses to engage things with which he disagrees directly, through the use of open comment forms, and its doubly curious that he opts to pre-emptively silence his critics on his own blog.

In the end, though, it's just a particularly effete form of cowardice.