In this series of articles, weâve been addressing the most common prooftexts that FSIPs (Flat/Stationary Interpretation Proponents) cite to justify their allegation that the Bible depicts, indicates, or implies a flat and/or stationary earth. Genesis 1 is a passage frequently cited among these many prooftexts. I recommend you read the chapter before continuing.
Now, most of you are probably wondering what in the world this passage has to do with the shape of the earth. Indeed, anyone simply reading these verses in their context without a preset agenda would never link the idea of a flat or stationary earth with these verses. The very fact that I need to explain how the FSIPs infer this concept from these verses ought to speak volumes.
FSIPs usually appeal to two concepts contained within this passage: 1) the earth having a âfaceâ and 2) the word âfirmament.â[1] According to FSIPs, the earth has a face like a clock has a face. Therefore, since a clock is round and flat, the earth must be round and flat. Additionally, they believe that the firmament is a firm or solid dome that covers a flat, circular earth, like the dome of a snow globe. (See image below)
Is this really what Moses was intending to communicate here in Genesis? Is this what any of the biblical authors were endeavoring to depict, suggest, or portray in their writings? Or is this yet another example of the FSIPs imposing their preexisting cosmological ideas onto the text to justify their cosmological beliefs? Letâs once again examine the text in context to see if thereâs any validity to these claims.
The Face of the Earth
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (Gen 1:2)
And God said, âBehold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is
on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. (Gen 1:29)
Genesis isnât the only book of the Bible that speaks of the earth having a âface.â All told, the phrase âthe face of the earthâ (pÄ¡nÄ hÄ Äâ¡rÄášŖ) appears more than twenty times in fourteen different books.
The Hebrew term pÄ¡nÄ occurs ~1940 times in Scripture, with more than 350 of those being translated as âface.â Many of these instances are meant figuratively, like âhe fell on his face,â seeing God âface to face,â and âseek my face.â
You have said, âSeek my face.â
My heart says to you,
âYour face, Lord, I do seek.â
Hide not your face from me. (Ps 27:8-9a)
Itâs also used literally in many places. Yet, pÄ¡nÄ is never used (either figuratively or literally) in reference to a clock or any other kind of timekeeping device like a sundial.
The most common sense in which âfaceâ is intended is of a human face.
Israel said to Joseph, âNow let me die, since I have seen your face and know
that you are still alive.â (Gen 46:30)
When Moses came down from Mount SinaiâĻ the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God. Aaron and all the people of Israel saw Moses, and behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near himâĻ 33 And when Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil over his face. (Ex 34:29â33)
Shockingly enough, human faces are on human heads, and human heads are not “flat like a clock.” Rather, a human head is shaped more like an oblate spheroid (a sphere). So, if weâre to follow the FSIPsâ reasoning, we should really conclude that since the earth has a face like a human head has a face âĻ the earth must be an oblate spheroid!
But, of course, such reasoning is completely fallacious (as is their entire line of argumentation).
Anyone not trying to impose their cosmological views on the text naturally understands that face means surface in these passages in Genesis and elsewhere. The two words are synonymous. As a matter of fact, theyâre the same word in Hebrew.
Thatâs why pÄ¡nÄ is also rendered as âsurfaceâ in these very same translations.
Behold, the Lord will empty the earth and make it desolate,
and he will twist its surface (pÄ¡nÄ )and scatter its inhabitants. (Isa 24:1)
He who made the Pleiades and Orion,
and turns deep darkness into the morning
and darkens the day into night,
who calls for the waters of the sea
and pours them out on the surface of the earth (pÄ¡nÄ hÄ Äâ¡rÄášŖ),
the Lord is his name; (Am 5:8)
This is why many English translations render pÄ¡nÄ as âsurfaceâ in Genesis 1.[2] For example, the NASB1995 readsâĻ
The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the watersâĻ (v. 1)
Then God said, âBehold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth.â (v. 29)
And in Ezekiel we read:
âMy flock was scattered over all the surface of the earth, and there was no one to search or seek for them.â (Ezk 34.6)
Now, all three-dimensional objects have surfaces, regardless of their shape. Both a hockey puck and a basketball have a surface. Both my desk and the globe on my desk have a surface or face. The surface of an object is simply the external or outward facing side of an object. Hence the synonym face.
Anyone not trying to impose their cosmological presuppositions on the text understands that the passage is in no way attempting to depict or communicate what the shape of the earth is by using the word âface.â
Once again, the FSIP-cited passages that supposedly depict a flat earth have absolutely nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
The Firmament
And God said, âLet there be a firmament [rÄqÃŽaâ] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.â And God made the firmament [rÄqÃŽaâ], and divided the waters which were under the firmament [rÄqÃŽaâ] from the waters which were above the firmament [rÄqÃŽaâ]; and it was so. And God called the firmament [rÄqÃŽaâ] Heaven. (Gen 1:6â8 KJV)
Then God said, âLet there be lights in the firmament [rÄqÃŽaâ] of the heavens…â Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament [rÄqÃŽaâ] of the heavens to give light upon the earthâĻ Then God said, âLet the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament [âal penÃĒ rÄqÃŽaâ] of the heavens.â (Gen 1:14-20 NKJV)
As I said above, FSIPs believe that the firmament in Genesis 1 is a solid metal dome that encloses a flat earth like a snow globe. How do they derive this concept from this passage?
Richard D. Phillips explains in The Reformed Expository Commentary on Genesis, âA popular view among liberal scholars is that Moses held a primitive understanding in which the sky was a metal dome holding back the waters of the cosmic sea. The use of the word ‘firmament’ in the Latin Vulgate and through it the King James Version has encouraged this interpretationâĻ The idea is that the Israelites picked up this idea of the sky as a metal roof from their ancient Near Eastern neighbors.â[3]
There are then two primary aspects of this interpretation: 1) the use of the word âfirmamentâ and 2) the cosmologies of the Hebrewsâ neighbors.
The Word Translated as âFirmamentâ
Now, chances are many of you couldnât find the word firmament when you read through Genesis 1 in your Bible. Thatâs because it only appears in most of the older English translations, most notably the King James, New King James, Revised Standard, and Authorized versions. Itâs likely that if you have a more modern translation, the word in your version is âexpanse.â
God said, âLet there be an expanse [rÄqÃŽaâ]âĻâ And God made the expanse [rÄqÃŽaâ] and separated the waters that were under the expanse [rÄqÃŽaâ] from the waters that were above the expanse [rÄqÃŽaâ]âĻ And God called the expanse [rÄqÃŽaâ] Heaven. (ESV, NASB, TLV, LSB, CSB, YLT)
The Hebrew word being translated as firmament/expanse is rÄqÃŽaâ.
What is the best translation of rÄqÃŽaâ here in Genesis? Letâs first look and see how the passage itself describes the rÄqÃŽaâ.
According to these verses, the rÄqÃŽaâ is something created by God on the second day (v. 8) that separates the waters above the earth from the waters beneath (v. 6). The waters beneath are âthe seasâ or oceans (v. 10). What are the waters above? Weâre not told.
In the rÄqÃŽaâ God placed the sun (the greater light), the moon (the lesser light), and the stars (v. 16). So, the rÄqÃŽaâ is the space or area above the seas in which the sun, moon, and stars reside.
Further, weâre told that birds fly across the face of the rÄqÃŽaâ (v. 20), and that God called the rÄqÃŽaâ âheavenâ (ÅĄÄ¡mĮ¡yim) (v. 8).
This is all the information weâre given. Please note that thereâs nothing about the size, shape, or nature of the rÄqÃŽaâ included in Genesis itself.
Other Uses of rÄqÃŽaâ
What about outside of Genesis? What if we turned to the other uses of the noun rÄqÃŽaâ in the Bible (Ezekiel 1:22â26; 10:1; Psalm 19:1; 150:1; Daniel 12:3)? Do they provide any additional details about the rÄqÃŽaâ of creation?
Daniel writes, âThose who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky [rÄqÃŽaâ] aboveâ (Dan. 12:3 ESV). From this we can see that the rÄqÃŽaâ looks shiny and is above us. Thereâs nothing here about its shape, size, or nature, though.
Neither do we learn anything else about the shape, size, or nature of the rÄqÃŽaâ from the two passages in the Psalms.
What about the two passages in Ezekiel? Many FSIPs cite these passages as âproofâ that the rÄqÃŽaâ is a solid dome.
In his book, Ezekiel records several prophetic visions that heâd seen (Ezk 1:1). In the first vision, he sees âthe likeness ofâ four living creatures, each creature having four faces (a human, lion, ox and eagle face–what, no clock face?), four wings, human hands, and calvesâ feet.
Beside each of these bizarre creatures, Ezekiel sees a wheel within a wheel with tall rims that were full of eyes. And above the heads of these creatures, Ezekiel sees âthe likeness ofâ a rÄqÃŽaâ âshining like awe-inspiring crystal, spread out above their headsâ with a likeness of a throne above it (Ezk 1:22).
And from this highly symbolic vision, weâre supposed to understand the shape and nature of the rÄqÃŽaâ in Genesis? Really?! Is this a good way to interpret Scripture? Is this a good example of Scripture interpreting Scripture? Are we also to understand from this vision that wheel rims have multitudes of eyeballs? And that seraphim have four heads with human, lion, ox, and eagle faces? That thereâs a literal, material throne resting on top of the rÄqÃŽaâ on which sits a human with a metal torso and legs of actual fire?
William Barrick writes, â[I]t would be a very erroneous interpretation to try to use the vision that Ezekiel saw to understand the nature, location, and relationship of the raqiyaâ [sic] with respect to other physical things in the time-space-matter world described on Days 2, 4, and 5 of Creation Week.â[4]
This is a prime example of the outrageous lengths that FSIPs will go to make the Scripture fit their beliefs.
Even if we did use these passages in Ezekiel, the only thing that weâd learn is that something with âthe likeness of a rÄqÃŽaââ shines âlike awe-inspiring crystalâ (1:22). So, itâs something overhead that looks shiny, just like in Daniel.
As it turns out, the other uses of the noun rÄqÃŽaâ in the Bible are of no help in understanding the shape or nature of the rÄqÃŽaâ of creation.
The Etymology of rÄqÃŽaâ
We can next try looking at the etymology of the word rÄqÃŽaâ. It derives from the Hebrew verb rÄqaâ, which has several meanings depending on the context in which it appears. For instance, rÄqaâ refers to hammering a thin layer of metal (Ex 39:3; Num 16:38-39), to stamping oneâs feet (Ezek 6:11; 25:6), and to David stamping his enemies âdown like the mire of the streetsâ (2 Sam 22:43). Itâs also used for spreading out the earth (Ps 136:6; Isa 42:5; 44:24).
Please note the distinction between the action and the object of that action in these passages. They hammer (action) the metal (object of the action). They stamp (action) their feet (objects of the action). The verbal action doesnât determine the meaning of the object nor its physical properties like shape, size, or nature. The verb rÄqaâ only describes what is happening or has happened to the object.
As commentator Herbert Livingston writes, âThe emphasis in the Hebrew word raqia is not on the material itself but on the act of spreading out or the condition of being expanded.â[5]
Therefore, itâs the action of rÄqaâ that ought to inform our definition of rÄqÃŽaâ.
As Dr. Danny Faulkner explains, âIn any language, when a noun is created from a verb, as is the case with rÄqÃŽaâ, it is the action of the verb that gives the meaning to the noun, not some property of what, in some cases, may be the object of the verb. For instance, consider the English verb expand. This verb, imported from French, came first, and then later the noun expanse developed. An expanse is something that has been expanded. In the meaning of the noun expanse, there is no hint of any property of something that has been expanded. Rather, the meaning of expanse is derived entirely from the action of the verb expand. In similar manner, it ought to be obvious that the meaning of the Hebrew noun rÄqÃŽaâ comes from the action of the Hebrew verb raqaâ, not from some property of what is sometimes the object of the verb… This is why many more modern translations of the Bible render raqaâ as expanse rather than firmament.â[6]
Therefore, etymologically, the closest definition of rÄqÃŽaâ is âsomething spread out or expanded; an expanse.â
Dr. Henry Morris writes, âThe English word âfirmamentâ in the Bible is a translation of the Hebrew raqia, meaning âexpanse.â Its meaning is not âfirm boundaryâ as biblical critics have alleged, but might be better paraphrased as âstretched-out thinnessâ or simply âspace.â”[7]
Martin Luther comments, âThe Hebrew word rÄqÃŽa denotes âsomething spread out,â from the verb raqaâ, which means âto expandâ or âfold out.ââ[8]
Interestingly, the ÅĄÄ¡mĮ¡yim (God called the rÄqÃŽaâ âÅĄÄ¡mĮ¡yimâ) is poetically described as having been âspread outâ or âstretched outâ (nÄtÄh) by God in numerous places (e.g., 2 Sam 22:10; Job 9:8; Ps 104:2; Isa 44:24; Jer 10:12; Zec 12:1).
John Gill notes, âGod ordered a firmament to be, or an expanse; something stretched out and spread like a curtain, tent, or canopy: and to this all those passages of Scripture refer, which speak of the stretching out of the heavens, as this firmament or expanse is afterwards calledâ.[9]
Does any of this speak to the size, shape, or nature of the rÄqÃŽaâ? No. All that we can really learn etymologically is that the rÄqÃŽaâ is something that has been spread out.
Their Neighborsâ Beliefs
Since there is nothing within the Bible that gives any indication whatsoever that the rÄqÃŽaâ is either solid or a dome, where do FSIPs get this idea from? They presume it based on the beliefs of the Israelitesâ ancient pagan neighbors.
At the core of the FSIP argument is the assumption that, even though itâs nowhere explicitly stated, the Bible must contain the idea of the sky as a solid dome covering a flat earth because Israelâs ancient Near Eastern neighbors believed the sky was a solid dome covering a flat earth.
As FSIP Paul H. Seely writes, âThe basic historical fact that defines the meaning of raqiyaââĻ is simply this: all peoples in the ancient world thought of the sky as solid.â[10]
â[T]he Hebrews were influenced via the patriarchs by Mesopotamian concepts and via Moses and their time in Egypt by Egyptian concepts,â[11] says Seely. He then reasons that itâs âall the more historically probableâ that Moses and his readers believed like their pagan neighbors did.
Indeed, this has been (and still is) the supposition of many liberal and evangelical scholars alike.
And yet, this argument is faulty on several levels.
First, the entirety of the argument is based on conjecture. We must assume what Moses was thinking and then read that assumption into his words.
As J.P. Holding writes, âThe cosmology has been kept so basic and equivocal that one must force certain meanings into the text and analyze what the writer âmust have been thinking.ââ[12]
Why do they believe Moses was thinking this? Is it because we have extrabiblical writings from Moses that proves this? No. As Dr. Terry Mortensen notes, âWe have no way of knowing what the ancient Israelites, especially at the time of Moses when Genesis was written, believed about the earth, the raqiyaâ, the heavenly bodies, etc. Apart from Scripture, the Israelites wandering in the wilderness with Moses left no records.â[13]
Is it then because we have a plethora of extrabiblical writings demonstrating that the ancient Israelites believed this? Although we donât, letâs suppose for a minute that we did. What would that prove? Nothing other than that many ancient Israelites thought a certain way. Does that mean all of them did? No. Thatâs the fallacy of division. Even if many (or even most) of the Israelites had believed a certain way, that doesnât mean every single one of them did.
Mortenson writes, âWhile that might possibly be true of pagan idolatrous Israelites, there is no sound reason to think that it is true of Israelites who clung to Godâs Word.â[14]
After all, a substantial part of the Old Testament is dedicated to rebuking the Israelites for their wrong beliefs and behaviors. I vividly remember a museum exhibit about the ancient Israelitesâ daily lives. Among the artifacts were dozens of household idols. Many Israelites were idolatrous polytheists. Are we then to assume that Moses and the other writers were idolatrous polytheists too?
Thatâs essentially what the FSIPs are alleging. Seely says elsewhere, âThe writer and first readers of Gen 1Â also inherited Mesopotamian concepts about the natural world from the patriarchs and no doubt were influenced by Egyptian concepts during their stay in Egypt. Moses, in fact, was âeducated in all the wisdom of the Egyptiansâ (Acts 7:22; Ex 2:10).â[15]
Many of Israelâs neighbors believed that the god Marduk created the heavens and the earth by splitting the carcass of the goddess Tiamat in half, âmaking the firmament from the top half to hold back the upper waters from flooding the earth. From the bottom half he made the mountainous foundations of the sea.â[16]
Should we then assume this is what Moses mustâve been thinking and was really intending to communicate?
In his book The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?, author and expert on ancient pagan cultures and literature John Oswalt explains that when comparing the biblical worldview with those of ancient pagan cultures, they differ ânot merely slightly, but diametrically.â He continues, âI am simply saying that any straightforward comparison must conclude that beneath any possible surface similarities are radically different ways of thinking about reality.â[17]
Richard D. Phillips writes, âIt is very doubtful that the Israelites would have simply imbibed the cosmology of their pagan neighbors, since their religion strongly emphasized both physical and metaphysical separation from idolaters.â[18]
J.P. Holding concludes, âThis argument is very weak indeed. The patriarchs worshipped God and believed His Word, not Mesopotamian myths. There is absolutely no indication in Scripture that they held any such beliefs.â[19]
That last sentence is worth repeating: âThere is absolutely no indication in Scripture that they held any such beliefs.â Therefore, what is going to be our authority in this discussion? What some people believe Moses mightâve been thinking because of his pagan environs? Or his actual words and what they reveal?
We ought to heed the wise counsel of John Sailhamer who once said, â[W]e must be careful to let neither our own view of the structure of the universe nor what we think to have been the view of ancient people to control our understanding of the biblical authorâs description.â[20]
But if many ancient Israelites had adopted the pagan cosmologies, couldnât they have read it into the Bible? Do you hear whatâs being asked? Couldnât someone have imposed their extrabiblical beliefs on the Bible? Couldnât they have interpreted the meaning of rÄqÃŽaâ according to their own perceptions? Of course!
As Holding says, âPerhaps the ancient readers of this text did envision a solid dome with an ocean above it, but if so, they read things into the inspired and equivocal language of the text.â[21] [emphasis mine]
The Bible âis often unconsciously interpreted in terms of the readerâs own culture, time and beliefs,â as Seely says.
Indeed, many have done exactly this throughout the centuries. Itâs precisely what happened when Jewish scholars translated the Septuagint (LXX).
As J.B. Payne explains in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, âIn pre-Christian Egypt confusion was introduced into biblical cosmology when the LXX, perhaps under the influence of Alexandrian theories of a âstone vaultâ of heaven, rendered rÄqÃŽaĘŋ by stereÅma, suggesting some firm, solid structure. This Greek concept was then reflected by the Latin firmamentum, hence KJV âfirmament.ââ[22]
The point being that the meaning of the word rÄqÃŽaâ in Scripture is unclear when it comes to shape and nature, and that people must read their preexisting beliefs into rÄqÃŽaâ in order to see them in it (i.e., eisegesis).
As J.P. Holding writes, â[T]he description of the raqiyaâ is so equivocal and lacking in detail that one can only read a solid sky into the text by assuming that it is there in the first place.â[23]
Ultimately, there is no justifiable reason to believe the rÄqÃŽaâ is a solid dome as opposed to an expanse of air or space.
Therefore, from a Scriptural perspective, we are free to believe whatever we want about the rÄqÃŽaâ, so long as we believe that itâs something created by God on the second day that separates the waters above the earth from the waters beneath, in which the sun, moon, and stars reside and across whose face the birds fly.
So, can FSIPs read their solid-dome beliefs into the rÄqÃŽaâ without contradicting this information? Yes!
Can someone, with as much justification, say that it squares exactly with the current understanding of earthâs atmosphere and a universe that stretches billions of light-years in every direction? Yes. Whether the âwaters aboveâ are clouds or are cosmic waters at the edge of the physical universe, both models fit within the information weâre given.

OR

As J.P. Holding concludes, âTruly enough, one can indeed read Genesis 1 and say that a solid sky is in mind. But one can also, with as much justification, read Genesis 1 and say rather that it comports exactly with what we know today of the atmosphere and the solar system, with or without adjustments made for phenomenological language, and this is because of the utterly equivocal nature of the language used in Genesis 1.â [24]
We simply need to recognize that weâre reading our extrabiblical beliefs into the Bible, not getting them from the Bible. We cannot–indeed, we must not–assert that passages like Genesis 1 teach or even imply our beliefs about the nature and shape of the rÄqÃŽaâ. What we can say is the Bible accommodates our beliefs about these things because of its ambiguity concerning them.
Once again, we see how FSIPs are reading their beliefs into the Bible in an attempt to justify their positions. And once again, we see that their FSIP beliefs are nowhere to be found there. The most serious problem with this is that theyâre lying about Godâs Word by alleging that it says something that it doesnât. In so doing, they not only slander the Word of God but malign the God of the Word.
In our final article, weâll take a look at corners, pillars, and circles; oh my!
[1] The word firmament appears in the KJV, NKJV, ASV, and Geneva translations.
[2] Some versions that render pÄ¡nÄ as surface are the NIV, NLT, NASB, TLV, LSB, CSB, CJB, HCSB, ISV.
[3] Phillips, R. D. 2023. Genesis (Reformed Expository Commentary) (p. 81-83). Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing.
[4]Â Barrick, W. D. 2013. Four Views on the Historical Adam (p. 201â202). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.
[5] Livingston, G. H., et al. 1969. Beacon Bible Commentary, Volume 1: Genesis through Deuteronomy (p. 32). Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press.
[6] Faulkner, D. 2019. Falling Flat: A Refutation of Flat Earth Claims (p. 282). Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
[7] Morris, H. M. 2010. The third firmament. Days of Praise (October 17). https://www.icr.org/article/third-firmament/.
[8] Luther, M. 1958. Lutherâs Works, Volume 1: Lectures on Genesis Chapters 1â5 (G. Schick, Trans., J. Pelikan, Ed., p. 24). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
[9] Gill, J. 1810. An Exposition of the Old Testament (Volume I) (p. 5). London: Mathews and Leigh.
[10] Seely, P. H. 1991. The firmament and the water above – part I: the meaning of raqiya’ in Gen. 1:6-8. Westminster Theological Journal 53: 227-240.
[11] Seely, P.H. 1997. The geographical meaning of âearthâ and âseasâ in Genesis 1:10. Westminster Theological Journal 59(2): 236.
[12] Holding, J. P. 1999. Is the raqiya’ (‘firmament’) a solid dome? Equivocal language in the cosmology of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a response to Paul H. Seely. CEN Technical Journal 13(2): 46.
[13] Mortenson, T. 2020. The firmament: what did God create on day 2? Answers Research Journal 13 (August 19): 113â133.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Seely, P.H., 1997. The geographical meaning of âearthâ and âseasâ in Genesis 1:10. Westminster Theological Journal 59(2): 246.
[16] Ryken, L., et al. 2000. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (p. 169). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
[17] Oswalt, J. N. 2009. The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? (p. 63). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.
[18] Phillips, R. D. 2023. Genesis (Reformed Expository Commentary) (p. 81-82). Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing.
[19] Holding, J. P. 2000. Is the âerets (earth) flat? Journal of Creation 14 (December): 51â54. https://creation.com/is-the-erets-earth-flat
[20] Sailhamer, J. H. 1992. The Pentateuch as Narrative (p. 89). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.
[21] Holding, J. P. 1999. Is the raqiya’ (‘firmament’) a solid dome? Equivocal language in the cosmology of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a response to Paul H. Seely. CEN Technical Journal 13(2): 50.
[22] Harris, R. L., et al (Eds.). 2003. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press.
[23] Holding, J. P. 1999. Is the raqiya’ (‘firmament’) a solid dome? Equivocal language in the cosmology of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a response to Paul H. Seely. CEN Technical Journal 13(2): 44.
[24] Ibid, p. 45.