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.
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 bviously the waters before verse 9 were drastically different from the waters after verse 9. Originally they were earth-waters, later they become sea-waters.
But what really stuck me was the implication this has on interpreting verses 6-8 which happened prior to the creation of sea-waters.
Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters (earth-waters), and let it separate the waters (earth-waters) from the waters (earth-waters).” 7 And God made the expanse, and separated the waters (earth-waters) which were below the expanse from the waters (earth-waters) which were above the expanse; and it was so. 8 And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
So it wasn't an ocean that was divided at that time, but the actual earth! God actually took a portion of the earth and thrust it beyond the heavens. And according to this Psalmist, they are still there.
Psa. 148:4 Praise Him, highest heavens, And the waters (earth-waters) that are above the heavens!
Notice that these waters are never referred to as a sea or ocean. That's because sea-waters weren't created yet, and they are only apart of the lower portion of the earth.
But then we have God radically changing the nature of the earth that was left below, from a muddy earth-waters, to two distinct forms, land and sea—just as we know them today. To the dry land, He gives the name that once summed up the deep formless, empty waters—earth (erets). To the water (mayim) He gives the name, sea.
I never noticed before, this transformation of water and land after Gen. 1:9—a transformation which only affected the muds that were left below. It appears this pre-verse 9 water (which I'm calling mud for lack of a better term) is some sort of land/sea mixture, the building blocks of the earth we know today. Looking at the text carefully, I don't see any other way to read it.
So, if I'm handling the text accurately, this has serious implication for previously popular creation models such as the water or vapor canopy theory. I've always been skeptical about this theory, but now I feel like I have to reject it outright. It also has serious implication for skeptic models such as an ocean it the sky held up by a solid dome. It appears, if I'm correct, that hebrews didn't believe there was an ocean up there at all. A solid dome, holding up a portion of earth-muds? I just don't see it. Maybe everyone has been wrong!
So do we need to rethink Day 2? Anything thoughts would be appreciated.
__________________ I believe everything in my Bible is true容ven the part about genuine leather.
Last edited by Calminian; 27th May 2008 at 05:18 PM.
So, if I'm handling the text accurately, this has serious implication for previously popular creation models such as the water or vapor canopy theory. I've always been skeptical about this theory, but now I feel like I have to reject it outright. It also has serious implication for skeptic models such as an ocean it the sky held up by a solid dome. It appears, if I'm correct, that hebrews didn't believe there was an ocean up there at all. A solid dome, holding up a portion of earth-muds? I just don't see it. Maybe everyone has been wrong!
Basically, this is closely related to the origin of the earth.
One possibility (scientific) on the "mud" as you called it, is that it described a state of earth before the earth has ocean, and before the earth has abundance water vapor in the atmosphere. Instead of mud, people think it is rock (pretty hot) with all the water mixed in it physically and chemically. This view is the current geological model and is still in active research.
We still do not understand the origin of ocean on the earth. And I am glad that you discovered that the first few verses of Gen 1 do not describe the current status of the earth at all. Since we do not know how was the ocean made, so do not reject the vapor canopy model too fast. It is very likely to be true for a hot earth, on which all the water above rock was in air rather than on surface. The only problem to me is to mix the canopy and people of Noah's time together.
Basically, this is closely related to the origin of the earth.
One possibility (scientific) on the "mud" as you called it, is that it described a state of earth before the earth has ocean, and before the earth has abundance water vapor in the atmosphere. Instead of mud, people think it is rock (pretty hot) with all the water mixed in it physically and chemically. This view is the current geological model and is still in active research.
We still do not understand the origin of ocean on the earth. And I am glad that you discovered that the first few verses of Gen 1 do not describe the current status of the earth at all. Since we do not know how was the ocean made, so do not reject the vapor canopy model too fast. It is very likely to be true for a hot earth, on which all the water above rock was in air rather than on surface. The only problem to me is to mix the canopy and people of Noah's time together.
Sorry that I do not have time to elaborate more.
Well, you're right that nothing in the text precludes a vapor canopy, but many cite verse 6 as biblical support for the idea, asserting that the waters above the firmament became this canopy. I see two problems with this, one being that the firmament is heaven in which are the sun moon and stars and the waters are said to be above the firmament. Two, these weren't the same type of waters as we know them today. Whatever they were, they contained the components of our planet, which would not transform well into a vapor.
Could the vapor canopy have formed later, after the formation of the seas in verse 9? Sure, but there is nothing in the text to support this. And I've heard that there are some scientific problems with such and idea and that many creationists have rejected it for that reason.
__________________ I believe everything in my Bible is true容ven the part about genuine leather.
I believe in an old age earth that suffered great turmoil and destruction many times in past ages. The destruction just prior to the renewal of Genesis 1 probably destroyed not only the surface of the earth but the atmosphere as well. Because the distillation/purification process, as well as the distribution system, is absolutely vital to all life on earth the separation of the "waters above" from the "waters below" was imperative early on.
I sort of agree on the "mud" theory, as the surface of the earth would have been "void and empty"; a chaotic wasteland. Pools, lakes, swamps, rivers, marshes, great mud flats, etc. would have covered what 'land' there was. By raising the land here and lowering it there the resulting runoff would have relieved this condition and the waters indeed would have gathered in 'one place' (instead of tens of thousands of places) and the 'dry land' would appear.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
I believe in an old age earth that suffered great turmoil and destruction many times in past ages. The destruction just prior to the renewal of Genesis 1 probably destroyed not only the surface of the earth but the atmosphere as well.
I used to believe in the gap theory, but Gen. 1:6-8 actually speaks of the creation of heaven where the sun moon and stars abide. And these waters that are spoken of in verse 2 are separated and placed somewhere beyond the heavens. It is the expanse of the heavens that separates these two halves of the earth-waters (muds).
Originally Posted by oldwiseguy
Because the distillation/purification process, as well as the distribution system, is absolutely vital to all life on earth the separation of the "waters above" from the "waters below" was imperative early on.
Again, this separation occurred before the sea type of waters ever existed. They weren't created until verse 9.
Originally Posted by oldwiseguy
I sort of agree on the "mud" theory, as the surface of the earth would have been "void and empty"; a chaotic wasteland. Pools, lakes, swamps, rivers, marshes, great mud flats, etc. would have covered what 'land' there was.
I also used to believe the initial earth of verse 2 was simply an ocean planet with land somewhere underneath. But on closer examination, text conveys the earth as a whole being water. If there were land somewhere there underneath, it is not empty. There are four terms that give us clues about the nature of the Genesis 1:2 earth—formless, empty, watery, deep. A land layer underneath would contradict these terms.
Originally Posted by oldwiseguy
By raising the land here and lowering it there the resulting runoff would have relieved this condition and the waters indeed would have gathered in 'one place' (instead of tens of thousands of places) and the 'dry land' would appear.
Keep this in mind and you work through your Genesis interpretations. Earth is never a term used to describe the entire planet. It always refers to the dry land. And the sea is always a separate and distinct component of creation. Notice how Moses sums up the world.
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them
The cosmos is summed up in 3 components, the earth (dry land), the sea (the waters), and the heavens (the expanse). When we use the term earth it often means our entire planet. The ancient hebrews never viewed the term erets this way.
But it's important to understand that these terms weren't established until verse 10 of Genesis 1.
And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas.....
Before verse 9 the earth was understood as waters. From verse 10 on, the earth was never described in terms of water. The sea now is understood in these terms. But before verse 9, the waters in those verses were not descriptive of the sea, but the earth. Thus in verse 6 it was not an ocean that was divided but the earth, the watery earth.
__________________ I believe everything in my Bible is true容ven 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 believe everything in my Bible is true容ven the part about genuine leather.
I used to believe in the gap theory, but Gen. 1:6-8 actually speaks of the creation of heaven where the sun moon and stars abide. And these waters that are spoken of in verse 2 are separated and placed somewhere beyond the heavens. It is the expanse of the heavens that separates these two halves of the earth-waters (muds).
Again, this separation occurred before the sea type of waters ever existed. They weren't created until verse 9.
I also used to believe the initial earth of verse 2 was simply an ocean planet with land somewhere underneath. But on closer examination, text conveys the earth as a whole being water. If there were land somewhere there underneath, it is not empty. There are four terms that give us clues about the nature of the Genesis 1:2 earth庸ormless, empty, watery, deep. A land layer underneath would contradict these terms.
Keep this in mind and you work through your Genesis interpretations. Earth is never a term used to describe the entire planet. It always refers to the dry land. And the sea is always a separate and distinct component of creation. Notice how Moses sums up the world.
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them
The cosmos is summed up in 3 components, the earth (dry land), the sea (the waters), and the heavens (the expanse). When we use the term earth it often means our entire planet. The ancient hebrews never viewed the term erets this way.
But it's important to understand that these terms weren't established until verse 10 of Genesis 1.
And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas.....
Before verse 9 the earth was understood as waters. From verse 10 on, the earth was never described in terms of water. The sea now is understood in these terms. But before verse 9, the waters in those verses were not descriptive of the sea, but the earth. Thus in verse 6 it was not an ocean that was divided but the earth, the watery earth.
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.
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.
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.
Has it? Perhaps you could address the key points made in the essay I provided. I'm inclined to think Lamoureux's essay has some substance to it, given his credentials, sources, and the fact that the essay survived peer review. Certainly it merits more than a mere wave of the hand.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Has it? Perhaps you could address the key points made in the essay I provided. I'm inclined to think Lamoureux's essay has some substance to it, given his credentials, sources, and the fact that the essay survived peer review. Certainly it merits more than a mere wave of the hand.
I skimmed through it. Why don't you go ahead and cite the points you think are of substance and try to argue them. Remember there are experts with credentials on many sides of many issues. Experts are valuable when they can arm you to argue an issue for yourself. But when we just cite them and follow them blindly, that's when they become dangerous.
__________________ I believe everything in my Bible is true容ven the part about genuine leather.
Linear Mode
