TEs, what is the current view of the water above the expanse in Genesis?

[Proselyte]

Gen 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.


For the TEs here, what is your view on what the water above the expanse is? What evidence do you have to support your view?

Thanks.

 

[Willtor]

The "water above" was the ocean at the feet of God. In the picture of the cosmos held by the ancient Hebrews, the Earth was literally the dry land. Beyond the land there was the ocean. Arching over both was a so-called firmament, a dome which enclosed space for the Sun, Moon, stars, etc. and the birds below them. Above the firmament was another ocean, and above that was the throne of God. Water was an image of chaos, and it the creation account shows God forming order out of chaos indicating that He is greater than the chaos.

 

[Proselyte]

The "water above" was the ocean at the feet of God. In the picture of the cosmos held by the ancient Hebrews, the Earth was literally the dry land. Beyond the land there was the ocean. Arching over both was a so-called firmament, a dome which enclosed space for the Sun, Moon, stars, etc. and the birds below them. Above the firmament was another ocean, and above that was the throne of God. Water was an image of chaos, and it the creation account shows God forming order out of chaos indicating that He is greater than the chaos.

Wiltor, what do you have to back this up? This is not in the Bible. Do you have some evidence for this?

 

[seebs]

There are many books on how the Hebrew cosmology viewed the universe. And yes, it is more detailed than the Biblical account, which was written in terms of a cosmological view they had long before Moses learned to write.

 

[Proselyte]

There are many books on how the Hebrew cosmology viewed the universe. And yes, it is more detailed than the Biblical account, which was written in terms of a cosmological view they had long before Moses learned to write.

Interesting, but once again speculation. Does anyone have a scientific theory based on evidence?

 

[Mallon]

Interesting, but once again speculation. Does anyone have a scientific theory based on evidence?

How can you base a scientific theory on non-scientific claims?
TE's feel the Hebrew cosmology was a simplistic one based solely on the simple perspective of man (and yes, the "firmament", the water above the firmament, and the stars within the firmament are all biblical). Same goes for the Hebrew perception of the four cornerstones of the earth, the sun circling the earth, etc. It isn't TEs that need to account for such a cosmology, as science has already discounted it. It's those creationists insistant on such a model of the universe who have to explain themselves.

 

[shernren]

Eh, the whole TE position is based on how the Creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 are not meant to be scientific, so why do you expect us to have a scientific accounting for the waters above the firmament? my personal view has always been that this is a phenomenological description of why the skies are blue - because they are actually coloured blue from above by waters being held back by the firmament. It certainly makes more sense than to consider the waters above the firmament as some physical body of water, especially since it is hard to draw any concrete, scientific one-to-one correspondence between the firmament and any physical reality.

 

[chaoschristian]

Gen 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.


For the TEs here, what is your view on what the water above the expanse is? What evidence do you have to support your view?

Thanks.

Not what is, but what was thought to be:

The passage has no bearing on reality as we understand it today; the passage was never intended to provide a scientific (as we know the term) understanding of Creation.

 

[chaoschristian]

Interesting, but once again speculation. Does anyone have a scientific theory based on evidence?

As others have pointed out, this question is way off base.

Two hundred years from now, when some archeologist uncovers your personal diary, do you expect there to be great grand theological and scientific arguments over whether or not you perceived the sky to be blue if you neglected to positively and absolutely state that you perceived the sky to be blue?

The assumed cosmology of the Hebrews was as natural to them as a heliocentric, spherical Earth model is to us.

 

[chaoschristian]

Water was an image of chaos, and it the creation account shows God forming order out of chaos indicating that He is greater than the chaos.

Nitpick alert!

No so much that God formed Creation out of the chaos, but that God could contain the chaos by means of and within his Creation.

Note that the waters throughout Genesis never stop being a representative for chaos.

In the flood account, the water released is not water as we think of it, but an allusion to God releasing the destructive powers of chaos upon Creation. God allows chaos to be ascendent and destroy, and then commands chaos to recede and be contained again.

Very powerful imagery that!

 

[jereth]

For the TEs here, what is your view on what the water above the expanse is? What evidence do you have to support your view?

A somewhat strange question to ask a TE. If there is one thing all TEs agree about, it is the fact that the waters above the heavens are part of Hebrew mythology and do not exist in reality. It comes with heaven being a literal, physical place above the earth where God lives and sheol being a literal cavern beneath the earth where dead people are.

Now, consider that YECists have never been able to agree what the waters above the heavens are. There have been numerous suggestions:
1. Vapour canopy
2. Ice rings orbiting the earth
3. Clouds
4. Wall of ice at the edge of the universe
....and others.
So really, we (TEs) should be asking you (YECs) what your current view is of the water above the heavens.

Wiltor, what do you have to back this up? This is not in the Bible. Do you have some evidence for this?

There are numerous references in the Bible to the ocean above the heavens. Here are just a few:

[FONT=&quot]The Lord will open to you his good treasury, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season… Deuteronomy 28:12
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“Or who can tilt the waterskins of the heavens, when the dust runs into a mass and the clods stick fast together?” Job 38:37, 38
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]You are clothed with splendour and majesty … stretching out the heavens like a tent. He lays the beams of his chambers on the waters… From your lofty abode you water the mountains. Psalm 104:1-3, 13
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars! Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens! Psalm 148:3, 4
[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is he who made the earth by his power… and by his understanding stretched out the heavens. When he utters his voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, and he makes the mist rise from the ends of the earth. Jeremiah 10:12, 13[/FONT]

 

[Proselyte]

I ask this question because of some recent threads I have read. It was asked, why do TEs accept some things on faith (Resurrection for example) but need evidence for other things (Creation/Evolution) for example. I was told regarding the Bible, if there was "evidence" to stir up a controversy, such as a case for evolution, TEs use that evidence when interpreting the Bible...perhaps your reasoning to support evolution and relegate Genesis to a symbolic story.

As far as I know, there is no scientific evidence regarding the waters above the expanse. If there is no evidence contrary to what the Bible speaks of, then wouldn't you accept a body of water above the expanse as the Bible speaks of? Why would you theorize that the Bible is not literally speaking of a body of water, due to some loose interpretation of Hebrew water symbolism? Yet you accept the resurrection as an actual resurrection.

A convincing argument has not been made so far to rule the body of water as anything but what is said in the Bible.

 

[Proselyte]

A somewhat strange question to ask a TE. If there is one thing all TEs agree about, it is the fact that the waters above the heavens are part of Hebrew mythology and do not exist in reality. It comes with heaven being a literal, physical place above the earth where God lives and sheol being a literal cavern beneath the earth where dead people are.

Now, consider that YECists have never been able to agree what the waters above the heavens are. There have been numerous suggestions:
1. Vapour canopy
2. Ice rings orbiting the earth
3. Clouds
4. Wall of ice at the edge of the universe
....and others.
So really, we (TEs) should be asking you (YECs) what your current view is of the water above the heavens.



There are numerous references in the Bible to the ocean above the heavens. Here are just a few:

[FONT=&quot]The Lord will open to you his good treasury, the heavens, to give the rain to your land in its season… Deuteronomy 28:12
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“Or who can tilt the waterskins of the heavens, when the dust runs into a mass and the clods stick fast together?” Job 38:37, 38
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]You are clothed with splendour and majesty … stretching out the heavens like a tent. He lays the beams of his chambers on the waters… From your lofty abode you water the mountains. Psalm 104:1-3, 13
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars! Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens! Psalm 148:3, 4
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is he who made the earth by his power… and by his understanding stretched out the heavens. When he utters his voice, there is a tumult of waters in the heavens, and he makes the mist rise from the ends of the earth. Jeremiah 10:12, 13[/FONT]

I believe there were waters above the firmament. What they are specifically, I'm not sure, but the Bible speaks of it and I support it. There's a difference between that view, and not believing what the Bible says and coming up with some alternate view based on non-Biblical Hebrew water symbolism.

 

[chaoschristian]

I ask this question because of some recent threads I have read. It was asked, why do TEs accept some things on faith (Resurrection for example) but need evidence for other things (Creation/Evolution) for example. I was told regarding the Bible, if there was "evidence" to stir up a controversy, such as a case for evolution, TEs use that evidence when interpreting the Bible...perhaps your reasoning to support evolution and relegate Genesis to a symbolic story.

As far as I know, there is no scientific evidence regarding the waters above the expanse. If there is no evidence contrary to what the Bible speaks of, then wouldn't you accept a body of water above the expanse as the Bible speaks of? Why would you theorize that the Bible is not literally speaking of a body of water, due to some loose interpretation of Hebrew water symbolism? Yet you accept the resurrection as an actual resurrection.

A convincing argument has not been made so far to rule the body of water as anything but what is said in the Bible.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but these are the same types of questions we get from the atheists as well.

 

[Proselyte]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but these are the same types of questions we get from the atheists as well.

Atheists I can understand. They are consistent with their belief (or lack of) system.

 

[shernren]

Nitpick alert!

No so much that God formed Creation out of the chaos, but that God could contain the chaos by means of and within his Creation.

Note that the waters throughout Genesis never stop being a representative for chaos.

In the flood account, the water released is not water as we think of it, but an allusion to God releasing the destructive powers of chaos upon Creation. God allows chaos to be ascendent and destroy, and then commands chaos to recede and be contained again.

Very powerful imagery that!

And note that the chaos waters never receive personification and are never portrayed as putting up any resistance. This is a complete turnaroud from other creation myths. In other creation myths, "god" or the "gods" have to fight long and hard to establish creation, chaos is a giant which has to be slayed or some other monster, and the myth as a whole celebrates the great strength of "god" to "kill" chaos. But the Genesis story doesn't celebrate strength, it celebrates God's authority and Lordship. The waters never put up a smidgen of resistance, God tells them where to go and they go, God looses them and they are loosed, God calls them back to their rightful places and they obey.

And in Isaiah, God when asserting His authority over the nations and their gods refers very specifically to this. He talks of how He creates light and darkness, order and chaos. I believe that this directly alludes to the way in which Genesis 1 makes mockery of all the neighbours' conceptions of chaos and creation.

I ask this question because of some recent threads I have read. It was asked, why do TEs accept some things on faith (Resurrection for example) but need evidence for other things (Creation/Evolution) for example. I was told regarding the Bible, if there was "evidence" to stir up a controversy, such as a case for evolution, TEs use that evidence when interpreting the Bible...perhaps your reasoning to support evolution and relegate Genesis to a symbolic story.

As far as I know, there is no scientific evidence regarding the waters above the expanse. If there is no evidence contrary to what the Bible speaks of, then wouldn't you accept a body of water above the expanse as the Bible speaks of? Why would you theorize that the Bible is not literally speaking of a body of water, due to some loose interpretation of Hebrew water symbolism? Yet you accept the resurrection as an actual resurrection.

A convincing argument has not been made so far to rule the body of water as anything but what is said in the Bible.

The choice of words is revealing: relegate Genesis to a symbolic story. (emphasis added) Why "relegate"? What is taken away from Genesis 1 if it is treated as a symbolic story - especially if it was written as one? In my experience, it has always been the creationists who are less aware of the implications of Genesis 1, as compared to evolutionists who "relegate" Genesis to symbolism.

In any case, there is clear theological significance in the resurrection being a historical event. There is no similar significance in Genesis 1 being a historical record of the event of creation. If one treats the waters as a scientifically existent entity, what do they say about God? If outer space really is surrounded by a thick wall of ice, does that tell me anything about God, about who He is and why He created? On the other hand, if the waters of Genesis' creation account are a symbol of chaos, then there is clear theological significance in the way they are discussed and treated. Genesis is a brilliantly counter-cultural subversion of the creation myths of the time. Treating it scientifically makes light of its power.

 

[Proselyte]

And note that the chaos waters never receive personification and are never portrayed as putting up any resistance. This is a complete turnaroud from other creation myths. In other creation myths, "god" or the "gods" have to fight long and hard to establish creation, chaos is a giant which has to be slayed or some other monster, and the myth as a whole celebrates the great strength of "god" to "kill" chaos. But the Genesis story doesn't celebrate strength, it celebrates God's authority and Lordship. The waters never put up a smidgen of resistance, God tells them where to go and they go, God looses them and they are loosed, God calls them back to their rightful places and they obey.

And in Isaiah, God when asserting His authority over the nations and their gods refers very specifically to this. He talks of how He creates light and darkness, order and chaos. I believe that this directly alludes to the way in which Genesis 1 makes mockery of all the neighbours' conceptions of chaos and creation.



The choice of words is revealing: relegate Genesis to a symbolic story. (emphasis added) Why "relegate"? What is taken away from Genesis 1 if it is treated as a symbolic story - especially if it was written as one? In my experience, it has always been the creationists who are less aware of the implications of Genesis 1, as compared to evolutionists who "relegate" Genesis to symbolism.

In any case, there is clear theological significance in the resurrection being a historical event. There is no similar significance in Genesis 1 being a historical record of the event of creation. If one treats the waters as a scientifically existent entity, what do they say about God? If outer space really is surrounded by a thick wall of ice, does that tell me anything about God, about who He is and why He created? On the other hand, if the waters of Genesis' creation account are a symbol of chaos, then there is clear theological significance in the way they are discussed and treated. Genesis is a brilliantly counter-cultural subversion of the creation myths of the time. Treating it scientifically makes light of its power.

Nevetheless, you cannot explain the water above the expanse scientifically. Whatever personal feelings about confusion as result of that, it doesn't mean changing what the Bible says about it is accurate.

There is also no scientific evidence for Jesus' resurrection. I accept that he was resurrected.

I just find it interesting what some of the views are here. It seems the only miraculous thing some people accept is the resurrection. The rest of the Bible is explained away in "scientific" terms. If Jesus was resurrected, and we know God can do ALL things, why is the rest so hard to accept?

 

[Mallon]

Nevetheless, you cannot explain the water above the expanse scientifically.

What "water" and what "expanse"? Specify what you mean, and I'm sure science can test it. Your vagueries really don't help much.

If Jesus was resurrected, and we know God can do ALL things, why is the rest so hard to accept?

Do you accept that God controls the rain by physically opening heaven's windows and allowing the waters to fall through to the earth? Well, I hope you do, because it's in the Bible: Gen 7:11; Gen 8:2; 2 Kings 7:2.
Do you accept as fact that God laid the earth to rest on a literal cornerstone? Well, I hope you do, because it's in the Bible: Job 38:6.
Do you believe that the stars are capable of singing? Well, I hope you do, because it's in the Bible, too: Job 38:7.
There is much in the Bible we don't take as literal, regardless of the context in which it is written. I find it hypocritical, to say the least, when creationists frown upon those of us who, say, don't accept the notion of a literal firmament, but who don't believe in singing stars themselves. Nevermind where TEs draw the line on literal interpretation. Where do YOU draw the line?

 

[Proselyte]

What "water" and what "expanse"? Specify what you mean, and I'm sure science can test it. Your vagueries really don't help much.

I did:

Gen 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

Do you accept that God controls the rain by physically opening heaven's windows and allowing the waters to fall through to the earth? Well, I hope you do, because it's in the Bible: Gen 7:11; Gen 8:2; 2 Kings 7:2.
Do you accept as fact that God laid the earth to rest on a literal cornerstone? Well, I hope you do, because it's in the Bible: Job 38:6.
Do you believe that the stars are capable of singing? Well, I hope you do, because it's in the Bible, too: Job 38:7.
There is much in the Bible we don't take as literal, regardless of the context in which it is written. I find it hypocritical, to say the least, when creationists frown upon those of us who, say, don't accept the notion of a literal firmament, but who don't believe in singing stars themselves. Nevermind where TEs draw the line on literal interpretation. Where do YOU draw the line?

The Bible is a mystery to us. When Jesus said Peter was a rock, we knew he wasn't a physical rock. There's a big difference between that and calling the water above the expanse something else due to Hebrew water symbolism.

 

[Mallon]

I did:

Gen 1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day. 9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

Ah, well in that case, the Bible is wrong. We know that there is no water in the expanse above the sky we call space. Space is a vaccuum; not the blue water the early Hebrews thought it was (see shernren's post for more).

The Bible is a mystery to us. When Jesus said Peter was a rock, we knew he wasn't a physical rock. There's a big difference between that and calling the water above the expanse something else due to Hebrew water symbolism.

I've heard this before. "God was OBVIOUSLY being metaphorical when He told us that the earth had four corners. God was OBVIOUSLY speaking literally when He told us the world was created in six days."
"God was OBVIOUSLY being metaphorical when He told us the sun circled the earth. God was OBVIOUSLY being literal when told us about the global Flood."
"God was OBVIOUSLY being metaphorical when He told us that the stars could sing. God was OBVIOUSLY being literal when He told us about the "firmament" in the sky."
What is the "big difference" you're referring to, Proselyte? What makes it so easy for you to distinguish between what the Hebrews meant literally and how they understood the world metaphorically?