Rethinking the Waters of Gen. 1

[crawfish]

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).

Yes, and you can always use scissors to cut the puzzle pieces to fit where you want them to. That doesn't mean you're going to end up with an accurate picture, though.

 

[Iosias]

Futato looks at the ANE context in his “Because It Had Rained”.

 

[Iefan]

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.

There is a commentary among the Dead Sea Scrolls that posits God first created light and darkness for himself, and then distinguished between the two for our sake. Could be possible it's simply an expression of that concept, and the "mud" is nothing we could possibly understand through any sort of human logic.

 

[Calminian]

No, it doesn't bother me at all. What the original authors were referring to was the sky;

Actually, they were referring to heaven strictly speaking. Shamayim is the world translated sky, and it means heaven. Sky is not a terrible translation either as heaven and sky are basically the same thing. Heaven is the upward expanse. Most literal translations, translate the word heaven. (NASB, NKJV, KJV, YLT)

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.

I haven't stated this. They had no idea about the nature of that great expanse. It is you that are accusing them of making unequivocal statements about its solid nature. It is you that are accusing them of believing in a heavenly sea above a solid dome. I would like to hear why you believe this. I don't believe they were trying to tell us anything about it at all. They simply believed the firmament was heaven where God and the illuninaries dwelt and it was an upward expanse.

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.

I totally agree. Yet Lamoureux, in the article you linked, says something totally different. He claims a specific primitive cosmology of ANE culture appears in the Bible. I'd like to know if you agree with him? Personally I believe the writers used such equivocal descriptions of the heavens that they are compatible with several cosmological structures including modern ones. But if you agree with Lamoureux that their descriptions were unequivocal, please share why.

 

[Calminian]

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."

Personally I'm don't think this is a warranted interpretation. The writers had no idea what an atmosphere was. Atmosphere is a very technical term and there is no equivalent ancient hebrew term. Furthermore it is said that God set the sun and moon in the firmament which we know not to be the case. Heaven is a better term as it sums up everything into an expanse that the birds fly on the face of and the moon and stars exist in. Heaven is simply the upward expanse. No other detail is implied.

 

[Calminian]

After all, how do you know that the heavens are actually not a firmament?

I don't think you understand. The firmament is heaven. Genesis 1:8. Scripture doesn't say the firmament is in heaven, nor that it divides heaven and earth. Rather it is heaven. I didn't understand the rest of your post.

 

[Calminian]

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.

I think you'd be surprised. Words in all languages can be used multiple ways in multiple contexts. There's a danger in allowing all possibilities in all contexts.

For example: In my grandfather's day, he used to walk to school every day and would rarely make it back before the day ended.

Here you have the word day with three different meanings in one sentence. Should we be allowed to interpret any of those occurrences with any of the full range of english meanings? Each occurrence is bound to a specific interpretation that can't be altered regardless of the range of the word.

So, the "water" could be treated as having a literal meaning of "non-solid" and include substance like air (vapor or not).

I agree with this. Waters, even as we know them today, vary in content. The waters of the Mississippi are very different than the waters of the ocean which are different from mountain stream waters. The hebrew term mayim was used to refer to the earth until verse 10, when it was not solid.

 

[shernren]

I don't think you understand. The firmament is heaven. Genesis 1:8. Scripture doesn't say the firmament is in heaven, nor that it divides heaven and earth. Rather it is heaven. I didn't understand the rest of your post.

If "earth" and "water" are really two different words that describe one undifferentiated whole before Genesis 1:8, why bother using two different, normally non-synonymous words? I assume that there is a perfectly usable Hebrew word for "mud".

The fact that two different words are being used shows that your thesis is untenable. Even if the physical separation of water and earth is only accomplished in verse 8, the ontological separation of water and earth has already been accomplished from verse 2 - by the use of two separate words which show that it is meaningful to speak of some action being performed on, or some status being attendant of, the waters, which do not apply to the earth.

In any case. Your thesis that "the firmament" is simply identifiable with "the heavens" fails on many counts. For one, you are being inconveniently fuzzy about what precisely these "heavens" will be (although to be fair you haven't really been asked). What are they? The atmosphere? The space of the solar system? The outer space? The rest of the physical universe outside Earth, whether observable or not? Or "spiritual space" - the dwelling place of God and the angels?

Secondly, the simple text of the passage itself shows that God's naming the firmament "Heaven" is not a simple identification. For starters:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(Genesis 1:1 KJVR)

There is already a "heaven" in existence before the creation of the firmament in vv. 7-8, some kind of heaven which has properties not contingent upon the firmament, and in which the firmament is later set. vv. 7-8 clearly mean that the firmament is set in heaven - the firmament is heaven insofar as it is located in heaven. How can I know that? Because 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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Personally I'm don't think this is a warranted interpretation. The writers had no idea what an atmosphere was. Atmosphere is a very technical term and there is no equivalent ancient hebrew term. Furthermore it is said that God set the sun and moon in the firmament which we know not to be the case. Heaven is a better term as it sums up everything into an expanse that the birds fly on the face of and the moon and stars exist in. Heaven is simply the upward expanse. No other detail is implied.

I can fix that:

"And God made the sky, and separated the waters which were under the sky from the waters which were in, or throughout, the sky: and it was so."

The 'setting of lights in the firmament' on the fourth day is a metaphor for the presence of both Christ and Lucifer (the greater and the lesser luminaries), and that they would both be 'illuminated', or 'shine' on the earth.

Notice that Heaven is capitalized here:

1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Heaven when capitalized means the abode of God. Strange eh? It's the only place in Genesis 1 were Heaven is capitalized, but refers to the literal atmosphere. (Is this why Satan (the god of this world) is called, "the prince of the power of the air.")?

Genesis 1 is very rich in metaphor.

owg

 

[Mallon]

I skimmed through it. Why don't you go ahead and cite the points you think are of substance and try to argue them.

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.jsp?artid=2052&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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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).quote]

37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? No bronze here.

 

[crawfish]

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).quote]

37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? No bronze here.

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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

That is the whole point of the verse in Job; to describe the firmament as likened to a sort of large, mighty, mirror; which during the daytime it certainly is. The sun shining on it from above gives it the reflective 'silver backing' necessary in glass mirrors. It reflects and diffuses light from all sources within and below it. Absent the sun, at night it becomes clear, revealing the vastness of space, stars, etc. Very ingenious of God to design it that way.

I did respond to Ezekiel 1 but it failed to post. This 'frosty' firmament is only above the heads of the creatures, and is part of the whole strange apparatus. It is not descriptive of the entire "firmament of heaven".

owg

 

[crawfish]

That is the whole point of the verse in Job; to describe the firmament as likened to a sort of large, mighty, mirror; which during the daytime it certainly is. The sun shining on it from above gives it the reflective 'silver backing' necessary in glass mirrors. It reflects and diffuses light from all sources within and below it. Absent the sun at night it becomes clear, revealing the vastness of space, stars, etc. Very ingenious of God to design it that way.

I did respond to Ezekiel 1 but it failed to post. This 'frosty' firmament is only above the heads of the creatures, and is part of the whole strange apparatus. It is not descriptive of the entire "firmament of heaven".

owg

I agree that the former is using simile; however, doesn't this support Lamoureux's point? The idea of the solid firmament was a commonly held belief of the times, and the use of such simile would make the text more understandable to the reader of the time.

Where I think it gets taken too far is when the metaphor is extended to try and match some scientific truth. The firmament was not meant to mean the atmosphere, and it is a mistake to try and make the connection - it can only lead to misunderstanding of the meaning of the original text.

 

[Assyrian]

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).quote]

37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? No bronze here.

Oops I can see where you might misread the AV here. It is not molten-looking glass, looking like melted glass, but a 'molten' looking-glass. Unlike King Jame's time when mirrors were made of glass (which is where looking glasses go the name), when the bible was written they were made of solid metal. We find the same word molten used to describe the huge brass bowl or 'molten sea' in 1Kings 7:16. 'Molten' refers to cast metal, usually bronze or brass, which is where Mallon's NIV gets its translation.

But the issue is the hardness of the sky in the description not the precise metallurgy. Interesting the way 'strong' or 'hard' comes in front of the simile "hard as a mirror of cast bronze". They may not have thought the sky was really a bronze mirror, but they did think it was a hard as one.

Incidentally it is interesting how perceptions change. We think of mirrors as fragile, easily broken, in biblical times a brass mirror was probably one of the toughest items in the household.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The firmament was not meant to mean the atmosphere, and it is a mistake to try and make the connection - it can only lead to misunderstanding of the meaning of the original text.

But what about this verse?

1:20 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.

owg

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Oops I can see where you might misread the AV here. It is not molten-looking glass, looking like melted glass, but a 'molten' looking-glass. Unlike King Jame's time when mirrors were made of glass (which is where looking glasses go the name), when the bible was written they were made of solid metal. We find the same word molten used to describe the huge brass bowl or 'molten sea' in 1Kings 7:16. 'Molten' refers to cast metal, usually bronze or brass, which is where Mallon's NIV gets its translation.

But the issue is the hardness of the sky in the description not the precise metallurgy. Interesting the way 'strong' or 'hard' comes in front of the simile "hard as a mirror of cast bronze". They may not have thought the sky was really a bronze mirror, but they did think it was a hard as one.



Incidentally it is interesting how perceptions change. We think of mirrors as fragile, easily broken, in biblical times a brass mirror was probably one of the toughest items in the household.

I agree that it was a description for its day and time. What is interesting is that it is likened to a mirror, which it actually is kinda/sorta in that in the daytime it traps and reflects light.

owg

 

[OldWiseGuy]

deleted double post

 

[Calminian]

I agree that it was a description for its day and time. What is interesting is that it is likened to a mirror, which it actually is kinda/sorta in that in the daytime it traps and reflects light.

owg

Interesting.

 

[Calminian]

If "earth" and "water" are really two different words that describe one undifferentiated whole before Genesis 1:8, why bother using two different, normally non-synonymous words? I assume that there is a perfectly usable Hebrew word for "mud".

I'm not sure mud is the best word either. The original earth was formless and deep and "waters" was likely the best hebrew word to describe it. But we know for certain that land didn't exist prior to verse 9. And we know for certain that waters were used to describe earth prior to verse 9, but never after verse 9.

The fact that two different words are being used shows that your thesis is untenable. Even if the physical separation of water and earth is only accomplished in verse 8, the ontological separation of water and earth has already been accomplished from verse 2

Wrong! Read closely. The waters is title description of earth, not a distinct component as it became in verse 10. From verse 10 on, waters only refers to bodies of water. The original earth was formless and empty—the waters. The post verse 9 earth was dry solid land.

There is already a "heaven" in existence before the creation of the firmament in vv. 7-8, some kind of heaven which has properties not contingent upon the firmament, and in which the firmament is later set. vv. 7-8 clearly mean that the firmament is set in heaven - the firmament is heaven insofar as it is located in heaven. How can I know that? Because both qualifiers are used in tandem later on:

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.

Your posts are dificult to respond to, Shernren. I wish you'd try a different tone.