Rethinking the Waters of Gen. 1

[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 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.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

Sorry that I do not have time to elaborate more.

 

[Calminian]

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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

owg

 

[Mallon]

Here's a must-read for those considering the uses of "firmament" and "waters above the heavens" in Genesis:
http://www.drvinson.net/theo/185-DSY/version/1/part/6/data/Lamoureux.%20Lessons%20from%20the%20Heavens.%20On%20Scripture,%20Science%20and%20Inerrancy.%20PSCF.%20March%202008.pdf?branch=main&language=default

 

[Calminian]

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).

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.

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.

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.

 

[Calminian]

Here's a must-read for those considering the uses of "firmament" and "waters above the heavens" in Genesis:
http://www.drvinson.net/theo/185-DSY/version/1/part/6/data/Lamoureux.%20Lessons%20from%20the%20Heavens.%20On%20Scripture,%20Science%20and%20Inerrancy.%20PSCF.%20March%202008.pdf?branch=main&language=default

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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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—formless, 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.

owg

 

[Mallon]

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.

 

[Calminian]

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.

 

[Calminian]

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.

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.

 

[crawfish]

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.

 

[Calminian]

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.

 

[Calminian]

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.

 

[crawfish]

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.

 

[Calminian]

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?

 

[juvenissun]

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).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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

 

[shernren]

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:

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.

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"?

 

[crawfish]

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.