Bad exegesis

My comments on Grudem's non-theology of creation led me to some Google probing of the question of origins.

I found some interesting posts on the theological approach to language that show, to my mind, an interesting 'retrojection' of a modern myth of convenience into an ancient text. An example.

The point of departure is the view of some (Seely, for example) that the 'firmament' in Genesis 1 was regarded by the ancients as a solid dome. Both Noel Weeks (in a WTJ article which is not linkable..BTW I heard Noel speak at a house party/conference at Oak Flats Anglican Church about 35 years ago; its pleasing to see he's still writing) and Gleeson Archer demolish this. What interests me, though is the exegesis of raqia according to a view that was held, without substantiation, of how ancient pagan cosmology must have been, and the 'accommodation' of God in his revelation of that pagan idea.

Its wrong from the get go; its wrong of God, the logic is wrong, and the conclusion thus shaky...and this is how paid theologians work? I'd be out of a job if I took that approach to my profession!