What about the Kuiper Belt and the Oort cloud? Do they not constitute some kind of “real physical barrier?” Are both not filled with material composed largely of water mixed with dust (plus metals, and rocks)? For those large and small comets, and the water they hold, to escape their barrier, does not someone/something have to open a gate/window/whatever? Would anyone prior to the last century have understood what The Bible meant by the Kuiper Belt or the Oort cloud? Certainly not before the terms were invented. Literal or allegorical? Yes, I think.
I recall, as a child, viewing a medieval representation of the Church’s concept of the firmament and the waters it held back. It was composed of great sweeping domes, supported by towering pillars. I remember thinking then that their idea didn’t quite get to the heart of the issue, but that it was probably the best they could do at the time, considering the extent of their knowledge. Decades later, I recall hearing about scientists theorizing on the origin of the presence of water on Earth. The consensus seemed to be that 90% of the water on Earth most likely came from comets. That strikes me as a better understanding of the waters of the firmament than soaring domes and towering pillars.
None of the above will likely be found satisfactory for some on this forum. But, for those of us who seek the truth, both of scripture and science, it seems possibly to be a reasonable starting point.
Not literally. The objects in the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud aren't orbiting behind some kind of physical barrier. If someone wants to think of "opening the windows of heaven" as a metaphor for the gravitational perturbations that might send a comet towards us, that's fine. But that's not literally what's going on.
the Church’s concept of the firmament and the waters it held back. It was composed of great sweeping domes, supported by towering pillars. I remember thinking then that their idea didn’t quite get to the heart of the issue, but that it was probably the best they could do at the time, considering the extent of their knowledge.
That's pretty much what the Bible describes, IMO. Which is fine--I don't consider that a "lie." I'm just always amused by how some demand the six-day-creation, dust-of-the-earth part be taken as literally true (or you're not a "real Christian"), and yet tie themselves in knots explaining how the "windows of heaven" don't really mean windows.
Truer words were never spoken.
Evos won't be satisfied with any explanation of something in Scripture unless it fits their secular, materialistic, naturalistic worldview.
They'll have you chasing your tails with "what if's", demanding explanations for things in Scripture that no man can give because God didn't give us enough information and we don't know enough anyway.
And even if you can give a reasonable answer, it will be rejected off hand as not verifiable, which everyone knew all along, without resorting to denying it and having to refer to it as allegory in a vain effort to reject Scripture without coming right out and calling God a liar.
For the skeptic, even if someone rises from the dead, they won't be convinced. They won't believe God's word until they want to believe it.
It's never a matter of *can't* believe, but *won't* believe. God has given us enough to demonstrate His trustworthiness in things that we can understand, so that we can have confidence in the truthfulness of Scripture for those things we can't ever understand.