Rethinking the Waters of Gen. 1

shernren has somewhat beat me to the punch already

as many of his objections to your interpretation of the firmament are both brought up in the article I cited and shared by me. I'll be curious to see how you addess his contentions. But I would also appreciate your take on the following issues raised in Lamoureux's article:

1) Lamoureux makes the point that every time the Bible refers to the firmament, it does so in a way that describes a hard, metalic structure.

Even aside from the etymology of the word, the Bible describes the firmament as being "hard as a mirror of cast bronze" (Job 37:18)

and crystaline or "sparkling like ice" (Ezekiel 1:22). If the authors of the Bible thought of the firmament as something other than a solid structure, why do they always speak of it as though it were? I'll also point out that the Bible's many references to the "windows of heaven" conjures up the same imagery of a solid dome.

2) Lamoureux also makes the point that those cultures surrounding the Hebrews -- namely the Egyptians and Mesopotamians -- subscribed to the idea of a firmament as well, which is well illustrated in their writings. I'll add that the Jewish Talmud also goes through the trouble of describing the dimensions of this solid dome (e.g., http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.j...&letter=A#6267). So, given the fact that the Hebrews were surrounded by cultures who subscribed to the idea of a solid firmament, and in fact wrote about it as such themselves, why is it so hard to believe that the Bible simply describes the skies using the common imagery of the times?

3) I suppose a lot of our disagreement boils down to what Lamoureux calls "concordism" and "accomodationism". Concordism is the view that science must agree with a particular interpretation of the Bible in order for either to be of any value;

Accomodationism is the view that God accomodates His message to the limitations of humanity (as Christ did by taking the form of a man) so that they might understand it.

I think Lamoureux does an excellent job of defending the accomodationist paradigm (more here: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/3EvoCr.htm). Can you provide your rationale for why you believe accomodationism is bunk and concordism is better? Again, If we're willing to allow for some accomodationism in the Bible, as neocreationists often do, why the reluctance to interpret the Bible's cosmology as being accomodated, too?

Thanks, Calminian. Looking forward to your reply.

The passage is probably clearer in non-KJV translations; however, the original text implies a surface of mirror.

You ignore the passage in Ezekiel. Note that the passages below it which talk about the angels below the surface, and God's throne above it. Definitely gives the impression of solidity.

but the most explicit description we have of rayqia is in Genesis 1:8. It is heaven. It is not said to be in heaven, nor to be the divider of heaven and earth. It is heaven.

Lamouroux doesn't understand that God does not endorse every statement made by people in the Bible.

Have you actually read this Ezekiel passages? Please do so if you haven't and tell me if you really believe there was a solid mass extending from these creatures heads.

Even the KJV points out that crystal is descriptive of the translucent color, not the texture of the firmament.

The idea of a throne on solid bubble heads is silly in my view.

This is totally unnecessary. You would be better off reading JP Holding's responce to Paul Seely in which he gives the true method that God uses to keep us from being confused. God doesn't get into the technical details of cosmology at all. Much of the language in the Bible that touches on cosmology is vague and equivocal.

Concordism in regard to reality I have no problem with. You and Lamouroux seem to be struggling with it as you believe that God purposely affirmed false realities in order to help the ancients understand.

There are many problems with this. If it is true, that a foreign cosmology would have caused misunderstandings, then what about modern readers? Why wasn't God concerned that modern readers wouldn't understand if the text didn't affirm cosmologies we understand?

Calminian, in order for me to understand your position, I'll have to ask you to clarify when you are using the word "heaven" to refer to the skies and when you are using it to refer to God's spiritual place of dwelling. I think this might be causing some undue confusion between us. Case in point:

How do you mean "heaven" here? I ask because the Bible describes the firmament (which you equate with "heaven") as being the dwelling place of the birds, the sun, and the moon. I take it by "heaven" (= firmament, as per your usage) you mean the skies/outer space? If so, you're once again forced to deal with sherner's contrast of Genesis 1:1 and 14.

So how do you delineate between which statements God endoreses and which He doesn't? A pertinent question for concordists, to be sure (not so much for accomodationists).

I'm not sure what your objection is. Ezekiel 1:22 describes the firmament as extending ABOVE the heads of the animals. Not OUT of their heads.

As I understand it, the word the KJV translates as "colour" is "ayin". According to Strong's Hebrew dictionary, this can also describe the "outward appearance" of an object, which is much more inclusive than simply "colour". Is the KJV right in its translation? More recent translations don't seem to agree. I'm no expert in the Hebrew language, though. Perhaps someone with the proper credentials could speak to this?

But your 21st century, post-Englightenment view isn't the basis by which we judge the meaning of the Bible. In trying to decypher the Scriptures, we try to put ourselves in the shoes of those ancient Hebrews, do we not?

Except when it comes to the age of the earth, right?

But seriously, the etymology of the word "firmament", the Bible's description of the firmament as being hard like a mirror of bronze, the similarity of the Bible's cosmology to those of the surrounding ANE cultures, and the elaborate descriptions of the firmament given in the Jewish Talmud are just too much for me to ignore. Surely these different lines of evidence are not just in agreement by coincidence.

I disapprove of your use of the term "false realities" here. Was Jesus promoting a "false reality" when he refered to the mustard seed as the smallest of all seeds?

Was God promoting a false reality when, in 2 Samuel 24, He inspired the author to speak as though the Lord had caused David to sin by ordering a census? I hope you would answer 'no'. I agree with your earlier statement that God is disinterested in teaching us about cosmology, so why would He not accomodate His spiritual message to the cosmological framework of the ANE people? God cares about the message, not the medium in which it is delivered.

I'm not sure I understand the jist of your questions here. Of course God expects us -- the 21st century Christian audience -- to read the Bible with the context of the ancient Hebrews in mind.

An interesting discussion, Calminian, but I'm afraid I don't yet find your thesis as convincing or as internally-consistent as you do. Looking forward to your response.

I don't see anything in scripture about heaven being a sort of extra-dimensional spiritual dwelling place. The beauty that we see in our telescopes is the domain of God and His angels.

Probably the same way you do. Do you believe every statement by every person recorded in the Bible is true? If not, how do you determine the difference?

The problem with this passage is there is nothing concrete saying there is a solid platform upon which a throne sets.

To allow this passage to override the explicit statement in Genesis 1:8 that the firmament is heaven exposes an agenda rather than an honest search for the meaning of raqia.

The idea of God and his angels are incased in a solid mass just doesn't fit.

If you disagree with Genesis, it is not Holding's fault.

That the Bible teaches such things is a fairy tale that unfortunately you've fallen for.

I haven't studied the mustard seed challenge in detail so will refrain from getting into it in this thread. But according to Lamoureux, God used this errant belief to communicate inerrant beliefs. I don't believe God does this.

Because scripture is not only for ANE readers.

I don't think you will until you change your presuppositions. You trust scientific naturalistic explanations over biblical ones and feel that this scheme by Lamoureux and co. gives you an excuse to write off the early chapers of Genesis as metaphor. That is eisagesis by definition. Hermeneutics is not your issue.

I tend to look at Gen. 1:1 as a summary statement of the entire creation being that dry land and the expanse weren't created until verse 6 and 9. But even if it was, it was not in the form we view it today just as the earth was in a different original form.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.[a]
Footnotes:

1. Genesis 1:1 Or In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, . . .
   Or When God began to create the heavens and the earth, . . .

I don't see how solidity is conveyed at all in the passage. The idea of a solid mass extending from the creatures heads some where high above where a throne sits is quite bizarre. There is nothing in the hebrew prepositions that require this throne to be setting on the firmament and there is nothing in the description of the firmament suggesting it is solid. Crystal or ice simply refers to its colors.

22 And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the colour of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.

I've studied this passage over and over and a connective solid mass incasing all the heads of the creature is staring to become laughable. If this is the best Seely and Lamouroux have, they're in trouble.

The problem with this passage is there is nothing concrete saying there is a solid platform upon which a throne sets. There is nothing said about the texture of material of which it is made. Indeed there is nothing in the hebrew prepositions that require the throne to be setting directly on the firmament no matter what it is.

To allow this passage to override the explicit statement in Genesis 1:8 that the firmament is heaven exposes an agenda rather than an honest search for the meaning of raqia.

I agree there are real questions with translating Gen 1:1,

There is also a tendency in scripture to use 'the heavens and the earth' to refer to everything in creation, the whole caboodle, other passages speak of the heavens, the earth and the seas. But it does not mean the first lot excluded the seas. Rather, like 'the whole kit and caboodle' it does not mean the whole caboodle excludes kit. Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. Exodus 31:17 It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.'"

Where do you get the idea the firmament encases the heads of the creatures or extended from their heads? If you have looked into the Hebrew prepositions you would see the firmament was above or over their heads.

Ezekiel seem to concentrate on saying how things appeared to him. Above the heads of the living creatures there appeared what looked like a firmament that looked like some awesome crystal.

I don't think Ezekiel was saying the firmament was the structural support of the throne, but it certainly looked solid crystal to Ezekiel.

You need to be careful here. What Genesis says is that God called the firmament heaven. But don't forget that he also called the light 'day' after he separated it from night, but then went on in the second half of the verse to describe day as including the period from evening to morning,

and there was evening and there was morning one day. In Gen 2:4 you even get 'day' referring to the entire period of creation. When God separated the land and sea he called the dry land 'earth'... Yet Gen 2:1 refers to the entire creation as Gen 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

While the firmament, the sky, is called 'the heavens' presumably for illustration purposes,

You may not think the throne is resting on the firmament as a solid platform, but the text does describe it above the firmament, Ezek 1:26 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne.

The prepositions are not that specific. But either way, a solid bubble or half bubble over their heads seems to be a strained interpretation, especially when there's nothing in the text implying solidity.

Ezekiel seem to concentrate on saying how things appeared to him. Above the heads of the living creatures there appeared what looked like a firmament that looked like some awesome crystal.

I don't find a single translation that puts it like this. Both KJV and NKJV say it was the color of crystal. The NASB says it was like the gleam of crystal. Gleams are not solid. The NIV says it sparkled like ice (not that it was solid like ice). None of these say anything about the structure.

This is supposedly according to Seely, the clearest text we have on the nature of a raqia. Of course we know the clearest is verse 8 of Genesis.

This is something you've read into the text. It never says anything of the sort. Why are you not citing the version that says this?

I'm not sure what you hoped to prove from this. Light was created and then called day. The earth was created and separate into dry land and seas. The dry land was called earth. The waters were called seas. An expanse was created and called heaven. If you want to argue the expanse already existed on day one that's fine.

It doesn't help Seely or Lamoureux's case which it seems you want to do. What you have to show, like Seely tried to show, is that shamayim is a broader term than raqia. If anything, raqia is broader than shamayim. If I say I call this building, home, then this specific building and home are a direct one to one correspondence. Thus, while all buildings are not home, home is always a building. The same is true with the expanse. Not all expanses are heaven, but heaven is always an expanse.

Huh? Where does it say "entire?" God is focusing on a specific part of creation in Genesis 2.

It's funny watching you guys work through this trying to make it work...

The waters of Genesis 1:6 are above the heavens.

There are waters in the heavens as well, because the hebrew writers understood clouds. This is a major oversight of solid dome advocates. Unlike the caricatures, the hebrews knew clouds were the source of rain and described clouds and being in the heavens. And yet there are those original waters that are above the heavens. This is what the text says. You just have to deal. No room for solid domes.

Which puts another monkey wrench in Seely and Lamoureux's analogy. I don't think the expanse of Ezekiel is supposed to be a picture of the structure heaven at all. They writer was simply describing a gleaming aura over the heads of the creatures. The best proof text for solid dome advocates just crumbled. I'll be borrowing this.

[font=&quot]Don't confuse shape and solidity. Solidity is implied by the description of it looking like crystal.

You mean you take a single verse in Genesis. and ignore what the word firmament meant to people at the time,

what it meant to people in the bible, and based on God calling the firmament 'heavens', you build an interpretation everything else in scripture is forced into.

But as we have seen you cannot do the same thing with the other things God names in the same chapter, the hours of light as 'day' or dry land being called 'earth'

The Hebrew k'ayin from ayin an eye means to look like. We find it in Num 11:7 where it is usually translated appearance NASB Now the manna was like coriander seed, and its appearance like that of bdellium. You find this word for appearance 6 times in Ezekiel 1 and the word demuth likeness a further 10 times. They are both found in verse 22 which is why I suggested Ezekiel is describing how things appeared to him.

But that isn't what Genesis says I don't know why you would think it is 'fine'. It is not what I am saying anyway. The firmament was not created until verse 6. The problem is your claim the firmament equates to the totality of the heavens. It certainly isn't in Ezekiel.

But you say God called the firmament 'heavens', therefore the firmament is all the heavens.

However God called light 'day' but the word day can mean more than the hours of daylight. Day can include night time too.

God called the dry land 'earth', but the word earth can mean more than just dry land. It can be used to include rivers, swamps and seas.

So where is God's throne?

Chapters divisions aren't inspired Gen 2:1 is part of the the first creation account, the writer hadn't even got the seventh day. Yet it refers to the completed work of creation as 'the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them'. The phrase 'the heavens and the earth' includes the seas - and the waters above the firmament.

I did point that it was speculative, the 'presumably'. I don't know why God called the firmament heaven, he didn't tell us. But I do know from scriptures I have shown you that there is more to the heavens than the firmament.

So when Exodus 20:11 says in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, instead of being a summary of all of creation as most people read it, it misses out the bits that are above the heavens?

I agree the Israelites knew what clouds were, they knew God had put water up in the sky. But you think there is more water separated by the firmament?

you are proposing three layers of water, the seas, then our atmosphere, then the clouds, then the firmament, then the waters above heaven? Sounds like you have a couple of layers too many there.

You have been looking at too many pictures of Catholic saints Calminian. It was not a gleaming aura, he saw an expanse that looked like an awesome crystal.

Sorry this is reading into the text. This reminds me of how some in the liberation theology, black Jesus movement have concluded Jesus had an afro because the text says his hair was "white like wool." But the text does not say his hair was curly like wool. It was simply a reference to its color.

You are doing the same thing with this text. An aura would also be the same translucent color as ice or crystal. It is a reference to its color or gleam, not its texture. This text that you are building your case on, is tenuous at best and certainly does not warrant going back to Genesis and overriding its clear definition of raqia.

This is exactly what Seely attempted in his article and Holding nailed him on it.

The problem with this argument is that the claim that shamayim is ‘broader in meaning’ than raqiya‘ in Genesis is simply groundless—the result of circular reasoning. In Genesis 1:8, the implication is that the raqiya‘ has the name shamayim in an exact one-to-one correspondence, just as is the case for the ‘Earth’ and the ‘Seas’ when they are named (v. 10). There is no reason to see a broader meaning of shamayim than an exact equation with raqiya‘.
In fact, Seely’s only reason for saying that shamayim and raqiya‘ are not equal seems to be that it would result (because of verses like Deuteronomy 4:17, and other like Psalm[wash my mouth]11:4) in the absurd conclusion that the birds fly or God sits enthroned ‘inside’ a solid structure! In other words, .... he has started with the idea of the solid sky, based on the views of ancient people, and forced onto the text divisions in the shamayim that are simply not specified, and in the case of Genesis 1, not even permitted, by the text.

That pretty much sums in up. The only reason you believe they are not the same is because you have approached the text with a solid dome presupposition.

... both qualifiers are used in tandem later on:

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
(Genesis 1:14 KJVR)

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. (lit. "on the face of the firmament of heaven")(Genesis 1:20 KJVR)

(emphases added)

If "firmament" and "heaven" are so easily and singly equal as you say they are, why is the compound description necessary? Surely God could have simply said "Let there be luminaries in Heaven", and it would all be clear and you would be right. Instead it must be specified that the luminaries and later birds are associated with the firmament of the heaven, perhaps because either:

- there are other firmaments besides the one in heaven, so that they are not simply in the firmament, but the firmament of the heaven;
- or there are other locales in heaven besides the firmament, so that they are not simply in heaven, but the firmament of the heaven.

Whichever it is, the text itself disproves your reading of it clearly enough.

Thirdly, even if you were right and "firmament" can be simply identified with heaven, that would not displace the connotations of solidity that we find about the firmament. The firmament is able to divide waters from waters (Gen 1:6) and looks stunningly crystalline (Eze 1:22). The heavens, meanwhile, can be stretched forth (Isa 45:12, 51:13) - even as a curtain! (Isa 40:22) - they can shake, literally "quiver" (Isa 13:13), and they have pillars (Job 26:11) too. Add this on to the evidence of the etymology of "firmament", raqiya from the act of metal casting, and the etymology of its consistent Septuagint translation stereoma with its implications of solidity and substantiality.

Your arguments, unlike the firmament , do not hold water.