Creation 6 day literal? Or Not

[klaus54]

WHERE KLAUSE??

WHERE??????????

Where do you fine ONE OF MY POSTS that claim the Bible is a scientific textbook?

I am the one who says it isn't

You tell me.

Why are you balking at an phenomological ANE interpretation?

What's yours?

C'mom -- cough it up.

K54

[klaus54]

Yeah. I'm certainly not an anti-Darwinist, but I know that if I were, if I was talked down to, and called a weak-faithed hypocrite, it certainly wouldn't motivate me to examine his perspective on the issue.

Pleased to explain.

After 45 years in studying this crapola I have no idea what "literalists" think.

You wanna get over your hyper-sensitive snit and spit out YOUR interpretation of the Genesis creation stories?

K54

[klaus54]

In a sense this is why the atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse has said that folks like Richard Dawkins are in a way those who oppose evolution greatest allies.

Source: Fighting the Fundamentalists: Chamberlain or Churchill?

The creationists and the ID supporters simply love Dawkins and his ilk. They pray that they will say more and more. Every time the atheists open their mouths they win converts to the literalist cause. The creationists have been saying all along that Darwinism equals atheism, and now the Darwinians apparently agree! Americans in the middle—meaning, generally, religious Americans in the middle—get the message that science, and Darwinism particularly, threatens their faith. Dembski once wrote to Dawkins: “I know that you personally don’t believe in God, but I want to thank you for being such a wonderful foil for theism and for intelligent design more generally. In fact, I regularly tell my colleagues that you and your work are one of God’s greatest gifts to the intelligent design movement. So please, keep at it!”

© Copyright Original Source

Perzact-ta-dact-tee-lee.

Now see if this sinks into Jorge's and Cerebrum's and seer's and Jord-o-rific's cranium.

K54

P.S. The range of origins beliefs, both scientific and theological, form a nearly closed circle rather than a linear spectrum. The Fundy atheists are extremely close to the Fundy Christian literalists.

'Tis a shame.

[Adrift]

I'll have to read your blog for the full context (perhaps over the weekend if I remember) but it seems that Augustine is discussing the "praiseworthy attempt" by a "certain commentator" there (IIRC this was very likely Basil of Caesarea). Moreover we still have Augustine's direct statement that the firmament "is solid and constitutes an impassable boundary."

Correct. I'm not saying that this is Augustine's view on the matter. Only that its a view that he is sharing from one of his contemporaries that he found "praise-worthy". I'm sorry if that wasn't clear in my original post, but please do read the blog post if you'd like.

[rogue06]

Correct. I'm not saying that this is Augustine's view on the matter. Only that its a view that he is sharing from one of his contemporaries that he found "praise-worthy". I'm sorry if that wasn't clear in my original post, but please do read the blog post if you'd like.

If it is indeed Basil of Caesarea that Augustine is referring to (and note just because he calls it a "praiseworthy attempt" doesn't mean that he agrees with it), FWIU, he (in either "Exegetic Homilies" or "Homilies on the Hexaermeron") seems to have come up with the concept that there were two firmaments, one below the sun and the other being the clouds and concludes that the "body of the firmament, though solid, is transparent." Still he also wrote that while being of solid ice the firmament is "not in reality a firm and solid substance." It appears (and Basil is not the easiest of writers to follow at times) he is referring to the different firmaments -- one solid, one not.

I have yet to find an Early Church Father who provided a description of the firmament that didn't say it wasn't a solid structure.

[jordanriver]

In a sense this is why the atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse has said that folks like Richard Dawkins are in a way those who oppose evolution greatest allies.

ah ok,
you're right

we should appreciate Klaus54 more

[jordanriver]

If it is indeed Basil of Caesarea that Augustine is referring to (and note just because he calls it a "praiseworthy attempt" doesn't mean that he agrees with it), FWIU, he (in either "Exegetic Homilies" or "Homilies on the Hexaermeron") seems to have come up with the concept that there were two firmaments, one below the sun and the other being the clouds and concludes that the "body of the firmament, though solid, is transparent." Still he also wrote that while being of solid ice the firmament is "not in reality a firm and solid substance." It appears (and Basil is not the easiest of writers to follow at times) he is referring to the different firmaments -- one solid, one not.

I have yet to find an Early Church Father who provided a description of the firmament that didn't say it wasn't a solid structure.

"solid" is not as unambiguous as it seems.
Just saying something is "solid" isn't a whole lot of information.

...solid as lead?
...Osmium (Os): The densest of natural elements—twice as dense as lead...

...solid as the solid 'aerogel'?
...aerogel is "...less dense than air, scientists revealed...
...The very lightest substances in the world until now, aerogels, have the ethereal nickname "frozen smoke.” They can reach densities of 1 milligram per cubic centimeter, making them less dense than air at room temperature and sea level."
http://www.livescience.com/17096-wor...d-created.html

Josephus says it's a "crystalline" "κρύσταλλόν"

Source: JOSEPHUS ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS Book I Chapter I ISBN 082542951X

page 25
'FROM THE CREATION OF ADAM TO THE DEATH OF ISAAC'
"...After this, on the second day, he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from other parts; and he determined it should stand by itself. He also placed a crystalline [firmament] round it, and put together in a manner agreeable to the earth, and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording the advantage of dews.
SOURCE google-books SOURCE Amazon

© Copyright Original Source

the account in Josephus' language Greek
[30] μετὰ δὴ τοῦτο τῇ δευτέρᾳ τῶν ἡμερῶν τὸν οὐρανὸν τοῖς ὅλοις ἐπιτίθησιν, ὅτ᾽ αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων διακρίνας κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ἠξίωσε τετάχθαι, κρύσταλλόν τε περιπήξας αὐτῷ καὶ νότιον αὐτὸν καὶ ὑετώδη πρὸς τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν δρόσων ὠφέλειαν ἁρμοδίως τῇ γῇ μηχανησάμενος. SOURCE

Josephus, like I said, wrote according to the sources "κρύσταλλόν" which translates to "crystal"

...ok, crystal like a giant solid diamond? or crystalline like the "crystals of water ice" of the noctilucent clouds of the mesosphere, where most of the meteors that enter earth's atmosphere "melt or vaporize as a result of collisions with the gas particles contained there"
and which is just above the biosphere (life) that is the stratosphere

so I looked in the Greek wiki for "Κρύσταλλος"
SOURCE WIKI
κρύσταλλόν
Ως κρύσταλλος χαρακτηρίζεται οποιοδήποτε στερεό που παρουσιάζει κανονική γεωμετρική διάταξη των δομικών του μερών.

Το αλμυρό νερό αν μείνει ελεύθερο στον αέρα κι αρχίζει να εξατμίζεται θα σχηματιστούν λευκοί μικροσκοπικοί κρύσταλλοι από αλάτι. Πολλές χημικές ενώσεις όταν απομονώνονται από τα διαλύματά τους δημιουργούν κρυστάλλους όπως επίσης και τα περισσότερα τήγματα (προϊόντα τήξης), όταν αυτά στερεοποιούνται. Κρύσταλλοι μπορούν να σχηματιστούν και υπό ορισμένες συνθήκες πίεσης και θερμοκρασίας. Ακόμη, μερικά στοιχεία σχηματίζουν κρυστάλλους, όπως για παράδειγμα το ιώδιο.
IT google translates to:
crystal
Characterized as crystalline solid showing any regular geometric arrangement of the welded parts.

The salty water if left free in the air and begins to evaporate will form tiny white crystals of salt. Many chemical compounds when isolated from their solutions create crystals as well as most melts (melting products), when solidified. Crystals can be formed under certain conditions of pressure and temperature. Further, some elements forming crystals, for example iodine.

ok, so its a "raqiya`"
......and I leave it at that...

if I am to be called a "literalist" then its because I accept that God put a "raqiya`" above us. a "raqiya`"
...votever dot mins

[klaus54]

ah ok,
you're right

we should appreciate Klaus54 more

Spank you very much!

Although if you had a modicum of reading comprehension you would have realized my view is not like Dawkins' AT ALL. In fact it's more of what modern Catholic theologians and historical-critics put forth.

And as far as you are concerned, I'm totally confused as to what YOUR Genesis creation story(s) interpretation(s) might be.

K54

[rogue06]

"solid" is not as unambiguous as it seems.
Just saying something is "solid" isn't a whole lot of information.

...solid as lead?
...Osmium (Os): The densest of natural elements—twice as dense as lead...

...solid as the solid 'aerogel'?
...aerogel is "...less dense than air, scientists revealed...
...The very lightest substances in the world until now, aerogels, have the ethereal nickname "frozen smoke.” They can reach densities of 1 milligram per cubic centimeter, making them less dense than air at room temperature and sea level."
http://www.livescience.com/17096-wor...d-created.html

Josephus says it's a "crystalline" "κρύσταλλόν"

Source: JOSEPHUS ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS Book I Chapter I ISBN 082542951X

page 25
'FROM THE CREATION OF ADAM TO THE DEATH OF ISAAC'
"...After this, on the second day, he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from other parts; and he determined it should stand by itself. He also placed a crystalline [firmament] round it, and put together in a manner agreeable to the earth, and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording the advantage of dews.
SOURCE google-books SOURCE Amazon

© Copyright Original Source

the account in Josephus' language Greek
[30] μετὰ δὴ τοῦτο τῇ δευτέρᾳ τῶν ἡμερῶν τὸν οὐρανὸν τοῖς ὅλοις ἐπιτίθησιν, ὅτ᾽ αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων διακρίνας κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ἠξίωσε τετάχθαι, κρύσταλλόν τε περιπήξας αὐτῷ καὶ νότιον αὐτὸν καὶ ὑετώδη πρὸς τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν δρόσων ὠφέλειαν ἁρμοδίως τῇ γῇ μηχανησάμενος. SOURCE

Josephus, like I said, wrote according to the sources "κρύσταλλόν" which translates to "crystal"

...ok, crystal like a giant solid diamond? or crystalline like the "crystals of water ice" of the noctilucent clouds of the mesosphere, where most of the meteors that enter earth's atmosphere "melt or vaporize as a result of collisions with the gas particles contained there"
and which is just above the biosphere (life) that is the stratosphere

so I looked in the Greek wiki for "Κρύσταλλος"
SOURCE WIKI
κρύσταλλόν
Ως κρύσταλλος χαρακτηρίζεται οποιοδήποτε στερεό που παρουσιάζει κανονική γεωμετρική διάταξη των δομικών του μερών.

Το αλμυρό νερό αν μείνει ελεύθερο στον αέρα κι αρχίζει να εξατμίζεται θα σχηματιστούν λευκοί μικροσκοπικοί κρύσταλλοι από αλάτι. Πολλές χημικές ενώσεις όταν απομονώνονται από τα διαλύματά τους δημιουργούν κρυστάλλους όπως επίσης και τα περισσότερα τήγματα (προϊόντα τήξης), όταν αυτά στερεοποιούνται. Κρύσταλλοι μπορούν να σχηματιστούν και υπό ορισμένες συνθήκες πίεσης και θερμοκρασίας. Ακόμη, μερικά στοιχεία σχηματίζουν κρυστάλλους, όπως για παράδειγμα το ιώδιο.
IT google translates to:
crystal
Characterized as crystalline solid showing any regular geometric arrangement of the welded parts.

The salty water if left free in the air and begins to evaporate will form tiny white crystals of salt. Many chemical compounds when isolated from their solutions create crystals as well as most melts (melting products), when solidified. Crystals can be formed under certain conditions of pressure and temperature. Further, some elements forming crystals, for example iodine.

ok, so its a "raqiya`"
......and I leave it at that...

if I am to be called a "literalist" then its because I accept that God put a "raqiya`" above us. a "raqiya`"
...votever dot mins

And it all depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

[klaus54]

"solid" is not as unambiguous as it seems.
Just saying something is "solid" isn't a whole lot of information.

...solid as lead?
...Osmium (Os): The densest of natural elements—twice as dense as lead...

...solid as the solid 'aerogel'?
...aerogel is "...less dense than air, scientists revealed...
...The very lightest substances in the world until now, aerogels, have the ethereal nickname "frozen smoke.” They can reach densities of 1 milligram per cubic centimeter, making them less dense than air at room temperature and sea level."
http://www.livescience.com/17096-wor...d-created.html

Josephus says it's a "crystalline" "κρύσταλλόν"

Source: JOSEPHUS ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS Book I Chapter I ISBN 082542951X

page 25
'FROM THE CREATION OF ADAM TO THE DEATH OF ISAAC'
"...After this, on the second day, he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from other parts; and he determined it should stand by itself. He also placed a crystalline [firmament] round it, and put together in a manner agreeable to the earth, and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording the advantage of dews.
SOURCE google-books SOURCE Amazon

© Copyright Original Source

the account in Josephus' language Greek
[30] μετὰ δὴ τοῦτο τῇ δευτέρᾳ τῶν ἡμερῶν τὸν οὐρανὸν τοῖς ὅλοις ἐπιτίθησιν, ὅτ᾽ αὐτὸν ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων διακρίνας κατ᾽ αὐτὸν ἠξίωσε τετάχθαι, κρύσταλλόν τε περιπήξας αὐτῷ καὶ νότιον αὐτὸν καὶ ὑετώδη πρὸς τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν δρόσων ὠφέλειαν ἁρμοδίως τῇ γῇ μηχανησάμενος. SOURCE

Josephus, like I said, wrote according to the sources "κρύσταλλόν" which translates to "crystal"

...ok, crystal like a giant solid diamond? or crystalline like the "crystals of water ice" of the noctilucent clouds of the mesosphere, where most of the meteors that enter earth's atmosphere "melt or vaporize as a result of collisions with the gas particles contained there"
and which is just above the biosphere (life) that is the stratosphere

so I looked in the Greek wiki for "Κρύσταλλος"
SOURCE WIKI
κρύσταλλόν
Ως κρύσταλλος χαρακτηρίζεται οποιοδήποτε στερεό που παρουσιάζει κανονική γεωμετρική διάταξη των δομικών του μερών.

Το αλμυρό νερό αν μείνει ελεύθερο στον αέρα κι αρχίζει να εξατμίζεται θα σχηματιστούν λευκοί μικροσκοπικοί κρύσταλλοι από αλάτι. Πολλές χημικές ενώσεις όταν απομονώνονται από τα διαλύματά τους δημιουργούν κρυστάλλους όπως επίσης και τα περισσότερα τήγματα (προϊόντα τήξης), όταν αυτά στερεοποιούνται. Κρύσταλλοι μπορούν να σχηματιστούν και υπό ορισμένες συνθήκες πίεσης και θερμοκρασίας. Ακόμη, μερικά στοιχεία σχηματίζουν κρυστάλλους, όπως για παράδειγμα το ιώδιο.
IT google translates to:
crystal
Characterized as crystalline solid showing any regular geometric arrangement of the welded parts.

The salty water if left free in the air and begins to evaporate will form tiny white crystals of salt. Many chemical compounds when isolated from their solutions create crystals as well as most melts (melting products), when solidified. Crystals can be formed under certain conditions of pressure and temperature. Further, some elements forming crystals, for example iodine.

ok, so its a "raqiya`"
......and I leave it at that...

if I am to be called a "literalist" then its because I accept that God put a "raqiya`" above us. a "raqiya`"
...votever dot mins

As solid and dense as your cranium which causes you to attack views of the Genesis stories without offering any interpretation of your own.

K54

[Adrift]

In a sense this is why the atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse has said that folks like Richard Dawkins are in a way those who oppose evolution greatest allies.

Yes. I imagine that goes both ways. I imagine there were many who left the church because of pastors and clergy who's sole focus was damnation rather than salvation.

[Kbertsche]

This comes up pretty often in these debates, and the rebuttal is typically that the Hebrew preposition (which literally translates "upon" [`al] "the face" [paniym]) is best translated "in front of" or "before" the raqia. The implication is that birds are flying in front of a solid dome, but cannot fly in it.

OT scholars like Claus Westermann (who actually supports the solid dome reading) and Randall Younker point out that there are other ways to interpret the passage though. So, for instance,

Source: Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary by Claus Westermann pg. 137

P describes the living space by using the preposition עַל in two different ways: "Let birds fly above (עַל) the earth, across (עַל) the firmament of the heavens." It is very difficult for us to render the preposition here as it has such a broad scope; what is intended is, over the earth and under the vault of heaven. Hebrew had to use some such roundabout expression because it had no word for space or atmosphere, where the air was, but only for air in motion (L. Kohler, ZAW 32 [1912] 12).

© Copyright Original Source

I realize that its dangerous and presumptuous to disagree with a scholar of the calibre of Westermann, but I can't see why he said what he did above. The normal Hebrew preposition for "in" is simply "b'". This preposition is used in this account of the sun, moon, and stars, which are "in" the firmament. The preposition used for the birds is "'al panee" which literally means "on the face of" the firmament. This is the same preposition used in v. 2 of the Spirit, which fluttered "on the face of" the waters.

One principle of biblical interpretation (whether Hebrew or Greek) is to allow the author to define his own terms. When he switches words in the same account, he is usually doing this to imply a distinction of some sort. So when the Genesis author uses "b'" for "in" the firmament, as he does with the sun, moon, and stars, we recognize that this has its normal meaning of "in". When he speaks of the birds flying "on the face of" the firmament, we recognize that he must be distinguishing this from "in". The fact that this matches with the preposition that he used earlier for the Spirit fluttering "on the face of" (in front of) the waters implies that he must mean something similar here; the birds fly in front of the firmament.

So even though "'al panee" can possibly mean "in" in some contexts, I would argue that in the context of Gen 1 it can only mean "in front of".

[Adrift]

If it is indeed Basil of Caesarea that Augustine is referring to

It may be. I mention that in the blog post actually (and the Basil reference is Homily iii in Hexaemeron), but I think at the time I couldn't find any solid evidence that the theory that Augustine was referring to was, indeed, the exact same one that Basil held, or if it was one that they were simply both familiar with.

(and note just because he calls it a "praiseworthy attempt" doesn't mean that he agrees with it),

I find this an odd thing for you to constantly insist upon. Almost as though you don't want Augustine to hold any other view than that the firmament is solid. At any rate, I'm quite aware that though he finds the theory praiseworthy, that that doesn't mean he agrees with it.

FWIU, he (in either "Exegetic Homilies" or "Homilies on the Hexaermeron") seems to have come up with the concept that there were two firmaments, one below the sun and the other being the clouds and concludes that the "body of the firmament, though solid, is transparent."

I can't seem to find that quote in any of Basil's writings. The best I can see is that its Aquinas quoting something Basil said in Homily ii of Hexaemeron, but I don't actually see any reference to that in the Homily. Here's a link to the Homily in case you're interested http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/32012.htm. By the way, I'm pretty certain that "Exegetic Homilies", and "Homilies on the Hexaemeron" refer to the same collection of writings, or at least, "Exegetic Writings" includes homilies of Hexaemeron as well as a few of his other writings on the Psalms.

Still he also wrote that while being of solid ice the firmament is "not in reality a firm and solid substance." It appears (and Basil is not the easiest of writers to follow at times) he is referring to the different firmaments -- one solid, one not.

I only find support for the one type of firmament that Basil explicitly says is:

Source: Homily iii, chapter 4

Here then, according to me, is a firm substance, capable of retaining the fluid and unstable element water; and as, according to the common acceptation, it appears that the firmament owes its origin to water, we must not believe that it resembles frozen water or any other matter produced by the filtration of water; as, for example, rock crystal, which is said to owe its metamorphosis to excessive congelation, or the transparent stone which forms in mines.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Homily iii chapter 7

I have said what the word firmament in Scripture means. It is not in reality a firm and solid substance which has weight and resistance; this name would otherwise have better suited the earth. But, as the substance of superincumbent bodies is light, without consistency, and cannot be grasped by any one of our senses, it is in comparison with these pure and imperceptible substances that the firmament has received its name.

© Copyright Original Source

While I haven't read any place that Basil refers to multiple firmaments, he does refer to multiple heavens (as least three, including the one that Paul visited), but he seems to distinguish "the firmament that is called heaven" from these other heavens.

I have yet to find an Early Church Father who provided a description of the firmament that didn't say it wasn't a solid structure.

I think the commentator that we see mentioned in Augustine (who may, or may not be Basil) still provides a good case. Also in Homilies iii chapter 9, Basil rejects the popular theory among some Christian writers of his day that thought the firmament was metaphorical.

[Adrift]

I realize that its dangerous and presumptuous to disagree with a scholar of the calibre of Westermann, but I can't see why he said what he did above. The normal Hebrew preposition for "in" is simply "b'". This preposition is used in this account of the sun, moon, and stars, which are "in" the firmament. The preposition used for the birds is "'al panee" which literally means "on the face of" the firmament. This is the same preposition used in v. 2 of the Spirit, which fluttered "on the face of" the waters.

One principle of biblical interpretation (whether Hebrew or Greek) is to allow the author to define his own terms. When he switches words in the same account, he is usually doing this to imply a distinction of some sort. So when the Genesis author uses "b'" for "in" the firmament, as he does with the sun, moon, and stars, we recognize that this has its normal meaning of "in". When he speaks of the birds flying "on the face of" the firmament, we recognize that he must be distinguishing this from "in". The fact that this matches with the preposition that he used earlier for the Spirit fluttering "on the face of" (in front of) the waters implies that he must mean something similar here; the birds fly in front of the firmament.

So even though "'al panee" can possibly mean "in" in some contexts, I would argue that in the context of Gen 1 it can only mean "in front of".

I don't know. I don't know Hebrew, nor am I an Old Testament scholar. Oddly, Westermann doesn't seem to be the only reputable OT scholar who holds that this reading is possible. I don't have access to all of their more technical readings on the subject yet, but I know that scholars like John Sailhamer, Paul Kissling, and Randall Younker, seem to prefer a reading that sees the birds flying in the raqia rather than below it.

[rogue06]

It may be. I mention that in the blog post actually (and the Basil reference is Homily iii in Hexaemeron), but I think at the time I couldn't find any solid evidence that the theory that Augustine was referring to was, indeed, the exact same one that Basil held, or if it was one that they were simply both familiar with.

Thanks. I can never remember exactly which work of Basil's it was from.

I find this an odd thing for you to constantly insist upon. Almost as though you don't want Augustine to hold any other view than that the firmament is solid. At any rate, I'm quite aware that though he finds the theory praiseworthy, that that doesn't mean he agrees with it.

Hmm. I may be wrong but I thought that this was the first time I brought it up which if correct would hardly make it something I'm constantly insisting on. And I just wanted to make that point since it seems that many tend to conflate comments like that with agreement. In my personal experience such remarks are almost always followed with a "but."

I can't seem to find that quote in any of Basil's writings. The best I can see is that its Aquinas quoting something Basil said in Homily ii of Hexaemeron, but I don't actually see any reference to that in the Homily. Here's a link to the Homily in case you're interested http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/32012.htm. By the way, I'm pretty certain that "Exegetic Homilies", and "Homilies on the Hexaemeron" refer to the same collection of writings, or at least, "Exegetic Writings" includes homilies of Hexaemeron as well as a few of his other writings on the Psalms.

That's the part I'm not sure of. I used to have several books which were stored in the basement over at a friend's house who died a couple years ago. When I finally got a chance to retrieve them then had been ruined by flooding when they were moved to a less safe place by his widow.

The last time I actually referenced them directly was with a "debate" with a rather unstable character who posted for awhile before the crash under the name of "becca." I got the quote at that time. And yes Aquinas does, IIRC, quote that line in his "Summa Theologica" (becca actually called it an atheistic source ).

I only find support for the one type of firmament that Basil explicitly says is:

Source: Homily iii, chapter 4

Here then, according to me, is a firm substance, capable of retaining the fluid and unstable element water; and as, according to the common acceptation, it appears that the firmament owes its origin to water, we must not believe that it resembles frozen water or any other matter produced by the filtration of water; as, for example, rock crystal, which is said to owe its metamorphosis to excessive congelation, or the transparent stone which forms in mines.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Homily iii chapter 7

I have said what the word firmament in Scripture means. It is not in reality a firm and solid substance which has weight and resistance; this name would otherwise have better suited the earth. But, as the substance of superincumbent bodies is light, without consistency, and cannot be grasped by any one of our senses, it is in comparison with these pure and imperceptible substances that the firmament has received its name.

© Copyright Original Source

While I haven't read any place that Basil refers to multiple firmaments, he does refer to multiple heavens (as least three, including the one that Paul visited), but he seems to distinguish "the firmament that is called heaven" from these other heavens.

I definitely remember the first quote from my research from a few years back. IIRC, he asked whether "the firmament that is called heaven" was different from the firmament that God created on the second day which at least suggests that he thought there was different firmaments. #@&%#$ 2013 crash of Tweb.

I think the commentator that we see mentioned in Augustine (who may, or may not be Basil) still provides a good case. Also in Homilies iii chapter 9, Basil rejects the popular theory among some Christian writers of his day that thought the firmament was metaphorical.

It definitely seems that Basil thought that the firmament was in some way a real -- physical -- thing rather than metaphorical.