Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
I try to reconcile the Genesis account with what actually exists. The Hebrew language is often not clear, so examining the actual creation as it exists helps. Most helpful to me are the scriptures that reveal that the physical universe, and primarily the earth, were created as a dwelling place, or kingdom, for the angels to enjoy. Their rebellion caused the chaotic condition described in Genesis 1:2. The gap is an explaination that makes sense, and can be supported by scripture.
Understood. I realize that many feel the need to conform their interpretations to scientific understandings. I used to do this myself. I went from a plain reading of the text to gap, to day-age and full circle back to a plain reading of the text. Whether that's the right approach or not, is not what I'm trying to discern in this thread. First, I'm trying to determine what the plain and simple reading is so I can determine just how much liberty I can take in my cosmological theories.
Originally Posted by oldwiseguy
Recall that today's highly educated meteorologists still refer to the daily appearance of the sun as "sunrise". God has chosen to detail much of the creation account as it appears, not as it actually is. The sun, moon, and stars still appear to be up in the sky, not way out in space.
Actually these meteorologists are being literal and correct in doing this in everyday language. When it comes to describing movement, since all movement is relative, one must always use a point of reference. There is nothing non-literal about it. When you tell your kids to be still in the back seat, the point of reference is understood to be the car. You are not telling them to jump out of a moving car, nor moving planet for that matter. This type of language is literal and descriptive of actual reality in regard to the point of reference. When the Bible says do not move the ancient boundary stones, it is describing the reality of the boundary stones not moving in regard to their point of reference—the ground. This doesn't mean the Bible teaches that the ground never moves, or the continents never shift, or the earth is not moving in regard to the sun. Modern astrophysicists use terms like sunset and sunrise in everyday language and are literally correct in doing so.
__________________ I believe everything in my Bible is true—even the part about genuine leather.
If this has anything to do with the idea that a literal approach to the text leads to a solid dome holding back a heavenly ocean, this has been completely debunked. Firmament is defined very clearly in verse 8, and the waters above were created before oceans were created. There is no link to Genesis 1 and popular ANE cosmologies.
I'm sorry, but you're going to need to cite sources that it's been "debunked". I don't see where verse 8 debunks it in any such way. The original word - raqiya - refers to "the visible arch of the sky". That word has its roots in the word "raqa", which means "to pound, to expand, to overlay" - and which ALWAYS refers to a solid surface. To imply the use of these words to mean the sky as we know it would make such use a unique innovation to this passage.
I'm sorry, but you're going to need to cite sources that it's been "debunked". I don't see where verse 8 debunks it in any such way. The original word - raqiya - refers to "the visible arch of the sky". That word has its roots in the word "raqa", which means "to pound, to expand, to overlay" - and which ALWAYS refers to a solid surface. To imply the use of these words to mean the sky as we know it would make such use a unique innovation to this passage.
This is of course ignores the description given in Genesis 1:8, that raqiya‘ is heaven! Words can get altered throughout history to mean various things, but we have the very simple definition. It does not say raqiya‘ divides earth and heaven, rather, it is heaven. Just as dry land is the earth, and waters are the seas, so raqiya‘ is heaven (or the heavens). It is possible that ANE beliefs influenced the meaning of this word raqiya‘ later in history, but we have the root right here in the context of Genesis. To learn the biblical meaning of raqiya‘ we merely need to study what the Bible says about the heavens. So unless you are going to argue that heaven is a solid dome, you are in a bit if a bind.
__________________ I believe everything in my Bible is true—even the part about genuine leather.
Okay, just finished reading every word of Lamoureux's article. It's a very well written article. I'm aware of every argument he makes, and verse he cites. I'm ready for you to prove from scripture and reason that raqiya‘ is really a solid dome holding up a "heavenly sea" (as Lamoureux puts it). I'll just kind of hang out until you make your case.
__________________ I believe everything in my Bible is true—even the part about genuine leather.
This is of course ignores the description given in Genesis 1:8, that raqiya‘ is heaven! Words can get altered throughout history to mean various things, but we have the very simple definition. It does not say raqiya‘ divides earth and heaven, rather, it is heaven. Just as dry land is the earth, and waters are the seas, so raqiya‘ is heaven (or the heavens). It is possible that ANE beliefs influenced the meaning of this word raqiya‘ later in history, but we have the root right here in the context of Genesis. To learn the biblical meaning of raqiya‘ we merely need to study what the Bible says about the heavens. So unless you are going to argue that heaven is a solid dome, you are in a bit if a bind.
Of course I'm not going to argue that the heaven is a solid dome. I do think, though, that the original authors THOUGHT the heaven was a solid dome.
You can argue all you want that the word refers to the earth's atmosphere and the endless, starry sky, but the truth is that no evidence exists that states it can be used that way. If you do that, you might as well throw away the Hebrew dictionary; you would be free to redefine every word in the Genesis account because, after all, THAT must be what the word meant originally.
You're saying that Genesis is the literal Word; thus, reality must match what Genesis says; when reality does NOT match what the Word says, then we change or expand the meaning of the words so the account can still be taken literally. That is circular reasoning at its finest, and hardly the "complete debunking" you indicate.
Of course I'm not going to argue that the heaven is a solid dome. I do think, though, that the original authors THOUGHT the heaven was a solid dome.
You can argue all you want that the word refers to the earth's atmosphere and the endless, starry sky, but the truth is that no evidence exists that states it can be used that way. If you do that, you might as well throw away the Hebrew dictionary; you would be free to redefine every word in the Genesis account because, after all, THAT must be what the word meant originally.
You're saying that Genesis is the literal Word; thus, reality must match what Genesis says; when reality does NOT match what the Word says, then we change or expand the meaning of the words so the account can still be taken literally. That is circular reasoning at its finest, and hardly the "complete debunking" you indicate.
Soooo your whole case for arguing for the firmament being a solid dome and not heaven is the hebrew dictionary? There's nothing from the context of scripture to support your argument? Which do you believe came first, the text of Gen. 1:8 or the hebrew dictionary? It doesn't bother you that biblical writings may not support this interpretation?
__________________ I believe everything in my Bible is true—even the part about genuine leather.
You're saying that Genesis is the literal Word; thus, reality must match what Genesis says; when reality does NOT match what the Word says, then we change or expand the meaning of the words so the account can still be taken literally.
Even what you said is true, one can only do that within a certain limit, which is not much. The meaning of any word has to be interpreted, the "literal meaning" of a word SHOUD include all "possible" interpretations. Again, the options are not that many at all.
For example, in the "pillar" of the earth, the pillar could be varied in material, color, temperature/pressure, size or orientation. As long as the identify is in a shape similar to a pillar, you may say it is literally true.
So, the "water" could be treated as having a literal meaning of "non-solid" and include substance like air (vapor or not).
The Hebrew language allows for interpreting these verses to agree with what actually exists:
Heaven (the firmament) can be properly translated as the sky, or, the atmosphere.
Above (the firmament) can be properly translated as in, or, throughout.
Therefore Gen 1:7 as translated in the KJV:
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Could be properly translated:
"And God made the atmosphere, and separated the waters which were under the atmosphere from the waters which were in, or throughout, the atmosphere: and it was so."
This should make everyone happy.
owg
Last edited by oldwiseguy; 1st June 2008 at 01:55 AM.
Soooo your whole case for arguing for the firmament being a solid dome and not heaven is the hebrew dictionary? There's nothing from the context of scripture to support your argument? Which do you believe came first, the text of Gen. 1:8 or the hebrew dictionary? It doesn't bother you that biblical writings may not support this interpretation?
Let me take this argument to its logical conclusion.
I can show you from Scripture that God created kangaroos and sliced bread before everything else. For what does Genesis say?
Pada mulanya Allah menciptakan langit dan bumi.
(Genesis 1:1 ITB)
Now "langit" means kangaroos and "bumi" means sliced bread - What? They don't? And you're trying to refer me to a Indonesian dictionary to prove me wrong? Don't tell me you think that Indonesian dictionaries existed before the text of Genesis 1:1!
But yes, Indonesian dictionaries existed before Genesis 1:1 was written in Indonesian. And a Hebrew dictionary - whether formally as ink-marks on papyrus or scratches on steles, or informally as the living spoken language of an ancient people whose words had roots in agreed descriptions of the real world - existed before the first word of the Bible was written in Hebrew. Vocabularies must exist before narratives. Why do you think Bible translators need linguistic training?
The specific problem with your counter-argument is that just because the firmament was named Heaven doesn't stop it from being a firmament. "The firmament of Heaven" does not a firmament cease to be.
And you contradict your own views:
Originally Posted by Calminian
Understood. I realize that many feel the need to conform their interpretations to scientific understandings. I used to do this myself.
After all, how do you know that the heavens are actually not a firmament? Have you even been up Mt. Everest? For all you know, the "sky" might really a plexiglass dome around the earth that you can reach if you climb up the highest mountain in the world and close your eyes and tiptoe and reach up.
To be blunt: you don't know for yourself that the atmosphere is a 50km-thick layer of insubstantial 78% nitrogen + 21% oxygen that slowly fades out into a vacuum of first the solar system and then interstellar space. You've never experienced that, and the Bible never describes it in those terms. You've swallowed the proclamations of science hook, line and sinker in believing that. (Am I saying that is wrong? Hardly. But don't pretend that you don't do it, when in reality 99% of your conceptions of physical reality are made out of scientific "facts" without either Biblical or personal verification that just happen to be socially unfashionable to question.)
So you go around convinced that the Bible is "correct". "The right answer is that the heavens are not a solid dome above our heads," you say, "and the Bible got it right!" So you think - but who gave you the right answer, in the first place? Show me one non-eschatological quotation from the Bible which describes the firmament as "insubstantial", or "airy", or "ethereal", or any of the senses in which one today understands the atmosphere.
Originally Posted by Calminian
Now that I'm studying Hebrew, I'm looking at Genesis a bit differently. I'm noticing some interesting things.
Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (erets). 2 And the earth(erets) 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 waters (mayim).
I never noticed this before, but erets (the earth) was not originally spoken of as distinct the waters. Mayim, (the waters) were merely used to describe a characteristic of erets (the earth). Earth at that time was simply the waters. But after verse 9 this changed.
“Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.”
From this point on, the waters are never descriptive of the earth. They are now descriptive of the seas. A new term, dry land is now descriptive of the earth, established by God's very decree.
"And God called the dry land Earth (erets), and the gathering together of the waters (mayim) He called Seas."
The earth (erets) was once, apparently, a formless mixture of water and land—a mud of some sort. So obviously the waters before verse 9 were drastically different from the waters after verse 9. Originally they were earth-waters, later they become sea-waters.
Methinks you are overlooking the obvious. "Earth" and "waters" are different words, with different meanings. (This is where dictionaries come in useful.) Now let's take your argument as far as we can - let's suppose that indeed on Day 1 "the waters" cannot be considered as a distinct entity, and are instead irredeemably co-mingled with "the earth". Well then: why call one part "earth" and one part "water"? What distinction between one part and the other would there be, so that we should give two portions of the same homogeneous mixture two arbitrarily different names?
Let's go further with your theory. Let's say that "water" in Gen 1:1-8 should really be rendered "mud". Well, why can't I render Genesis 1:9-10 as follows?
And God said, "Let the mud under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered mud he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
After all, you assume that God can separate land and water in verse 8. Why not assume that He can separate land and water in verse 2? Indeed, why not assume that "earth" actually means, well, "earth", and "water" "water"?
__________________
And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? - Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
Soooo your whole case for arguing for the firmament being a solid dome and not heaven is the hebrew dictionary? There's nothing from the context of scripture to support your argument? Which do you believe came first, the text of Gen. 1:8 or the hebrew dictionary? It doesn't bother you that biblical writings may not support this interpretation?
No, it doesn't bother me at all. What the original authors were referring to was the sky; not some modern idea of the atmosphere and outer space. It is simply what their idea of the sky was. It is a mistake to try and work it somehow in with modern scientific discovery.
In the end, the passage is there to tell us what God was responsible for creating, not exactly how it was created. Trying to manipulate the obvious meaning of the language to suit our modern ideas is bad hermeneutics, and could lose the original intent of the passage.
Linear Mode
