Tweet
Waters over Firmament, Flat Earth, and whether the Bible can be factually incorrect.
Two common views on the Bible's factual veracity are:
(1) That God inspired the prophets and writers of the Bible, and so what they intentionally narrated in the Bible cannot be factually incorrect. So to give two examples, if Moses or another writer intended expressed that there are liquid waters above the heavens, or that the earth is flat, then such assertions absolutely must be correct. To prove otherwise, one would have to show that the writer did not actually express such an idea, and was instead only intending to use an allegory.
(2) That God inspired the prophets and Bible writers to express spiritual truths, and as such, not everything that they stated must be factually correct. Instead, it is only asserted that their writings contain some kind of spiritual truths inside.
Could one persuade adherents of the first view that the second one is correct? If so, how?
Two major scientific beliefs in the ancient world that are no longer commonly taught today are the beliefs in waters above the firmament and in a flat earth. Let's start with the waters above the heavens.
Genesis 1 records:
Notice that in this passage, God made a firmament, put lights (the sun, moon, and stars) in the firmament, and made for the waters to be above that firmament.
This is from a 1534 Lutheran Bible, showing the waters in aqua blue over the firmament:
default_luther_bible_exc_02_0706141537_id_45037.jpg
Then in Genesis 7-8, we read about the windows of the heavens that open for the waters to rain through:
Psalm 148:4 reflects the belief that there are waters above the heavens:
Praise Him, highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens!
In each passage above, we can see as a matter of literary analysis that there are liquid waters over the highest heavens.
First, we see that God made a firmament (in Hebrew rā-qî-a‘), which means a firm layer.
Strong's Hebrew dictionary gives the following definition:
The word literally means something beaten out, like metal.
It comes from the Hebrew word raqa', meaning:
The firmament's solidity might be found in Job 37:18: "With Him, have you spread out the skies, Strong as a cast metal mirror?"
In the 3rd-1st centuries BC, when ancient scholars translated the Bible into the Greek language in a version called the Septuagint, which is commonly cited in the New Testament, the translation for firmament in Greek in Genesis was sterewma, which means something form or solid. For example, in Col. 2:5, Paul writes in Greek, talking about the "sterewma" of faith in Christ.
Second, we see the reference to what God put above the firmament, "the waters",(ham-mā-yim in Hebrew) which means the liquid waters collectively, and includes seas, lakes, rivers, and oceans, as opposed to ice, air, fog or clouds, although there are waters inside of clouds too (Job 26:8). Further, "the waters" in Genesis 1 refers to the primordial waters that also form the ocean. Some of those primordial waters are above the heavens, and so it cannot refer to the clouds, since the stars are in the heavens, as opposed to above them. Nor does Genesis 1 say that the waters are above just part of the heavens, but that they are above "the heavens", collectively.
Turning to Genesis 7-8 and the story of the great flood, we see that just as there are "fountains in the deep", there are windows above the heavens, and that the "windows" hold back so much water that it flooded the earth up to the mountains of Ararat, since Noah's boat landed there. What does it mean that there are "windows above the heavens"? Is the heaven solid so that the waters can rain through closable openings in it called "windows"? Such ideas would be consistent with belief in waters over the heavens held back by a firm layer, the firmament.
In Psalm 148, we meet the primordial waters over the heavens again. The verse says that there are "the heavens", which sounds like a collective term, then there are the "highest heavens", which would be part of those heavens, and then there are "the waters that are above the heavens." This also shows that the waters above the heavens are naturally not in the visible clouds, because the clouds would be in the heavens, at least within the "highest heavens", rather than above them all.
For Jewish writings of 200 BC-300 AD on the firmament and the waters, see: Genesis 1:6-8 DAY 2 Creation of the Firmament, Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies, http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible..._firmament.htm
hebrew_conception_universe.jpg
220px-Scheme_of_things1475.gif
1475 AD woodcut
There are three primary ways that scholars and Christians have dealt with the passages about the heavenly waters:
(1) An old, literal view commonly held by Church fathers and by Luther says that the passages are factually correct in the way that they sound and that there is a mass of real liquid water over a heavenly firm layer,
(2) Reformed Protestants following Calvin claim that they refer to clouds, and
(3) more liberal, critical Christians propose that they are mythical, fictional accounts containing spiritual truths that God formed the cosmos with His power.
If one accepts #1, then one then one must answer whether this conforms to scientific reality.
One modern theory proposed to support #1 has been that there used to be a "canopy" of water directly over the earth's atmosphere before the flood, but not afterwards. Problems with this theory are that (1) in Genesis 1, the canopy is not just above the earth, but above the stars too, (2) in the Psalms, written long after the flood, the psalmist still writes about the waters over the heavens in the present tense, (3) humans have sent machines past the atmosphere of the earth without finding a firm layer that was holding back a canopy of water.
An essay by Walter Brown on the Penn State Christian faculty website against the canopy theory is here: http://www.personal.psu.edu/jmc6/CFS...own_canopy.pdf
On one hand, it's hard to say for sure whether there is a mass of water beyond our universe and whether the universe's edge is solid. However, there are other potential problems with the waters above the firmament theory. The Bible teaches that the stars are set "in" the "firmament", and that the "heavens" are the firmament. In other words, in the Biblical view, the heavens themselves are a solid layer and the stars are set in that solidity. This however contradicts our modern scientific understanding that the stars are set in empty space. Another problem is that in the story of the flood, this solid layer of firmament opened up and let the rains come down for the flood through its windows. This means that the solid layer on the edge of the universe opened holes and allowed the rain water to travel all the way down to the earth from the edge of the universe.
If one accepts #2, teaches that these passages are literally factual, and proposes that the firmament is the empty atmosphere and the waters are the clouds, then the difficulty is matching this idea with what the Bible says on the topic as a matter of literary analysis, as well as what the early Christians believed on the topic. This essentially requires extreme literary gymnastics. The real goal of such gymnastics is to forcefully pressure the Bible's passages to fit into one's own scientific modern view of cosmology, otherwise one would simply accept the literary implication and connotations that the heavens with the stars in them are beaten firm and that above them are vast liquid waters.
For example, In his commentary on Genesis 1, Calvin takes the view that the firmament are the space over the ground, the atmosphere, and the space in the celestial heavens:
So while Calvin says he does not know why the Septuagint's translators chose the word Stereoma, Firmament, the editor of Calvin's commentary follows it up by saying that firmament means something hard and that the Hebrews believed that there was a solid roof over the earth. That David says that the heavens are stretched like a curtain does not contradict this idea, since after all a curtain is also a solid substance.
Calvin then decides that the waters must refer to clouds, and to explain this he claims that the Bible is only giving instruction on the visible earth as directly perceived, not the starry heavens, which would be astronomy. Here he writes about the firmament:
That is, Calvin finds "great difficulty" in theory #1, that Moses is talking about actual masses of waters over the firmament, and Calvin calls it "incredible" and against "common sense". Therefore, he concludes that the waters are just the "visible form of the world", what is seen "before our eyes", noting that "We see the clouds". So the term "waters" Calvin interprets as referring to the clouds.
However, we in fact from elsewhere in the Bible we know that the writers do not restrict itself to talking about what is directly seen in the world, and occasionally talk about events in the spiritual world that are not directly perceived, as when the Bible discusses angel's interactions in heaven.
However, Calvin does still read the passage as if Genesis 1 refers to waters beyond earth's own atmosphere, as he continues in his commentary on the chapter:
It's true, however, that scientists have found water in space, so that one can talk about "celestial waters". But actually in Psalm 104:3, David was not talking about waters in the celestial heavens, but specifically mentioned waters "above" the heavens.
By the way, lest we think that Calvin's commentary on Genesis 1 was elsewhere scientifically correct, we can note what he wrote about the moon here:
https://archive.org/stream/commentar...1calv_djvu.txt
Theory #3 about the waters above the heavens is the liberal critical Christians' suggestion that Genesis 1 is an ancient mythical, fictional account of the world's creation. In this view, the account is not factually, scientifically correct, but still contains spiritual truths, like the belief that God's force and will made the cosmos and formed it into what it is. This view sometimes compares the story in Genesis to the beliefs of other Near East civilizations of the 3rd to 1st millenia BC, when the Torah was written.
One modern writer connects the story of the heavans forming a firm layer to beliefs of other civilizations at that time:
In the Babylonian myth, the main god fought and divided the goddess Tiamat in half whose name is based in the Babylonian word for the seas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat#Etymology
Gier writes:
In Genesis 1:2, we read about Tehom, the deep: The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep [Tehom].
Psalm 148:7 says: Praise the Lord from the earth, You great sea creatures and all the depths [Tehomot]...
Several other times the Deep, Tehom, is anthropomorphized, as when the book of Job portrays it as grey-haired. This of course does not necessarily mean that the Bible actually thought that Tehom was a real goddess being, but rather that in describing the material cosmology of the elements and components of the cosmos, they likely shared similar beliefs as neighboring civilizations.
The problem with proposing that the account in Genesis 1 is mythical and fictional, and not factual, is that it opens up the question of how much else in the Bible is mythical and fictional. Take for instance the story of Abraham and his interactions with God, or those of Moses' predecessors. Those stories often sound supernatural, like when God came to have dinner with Abraham or turned Lot's wife into salt. If these narratives were passed down and put into writing in the Torah in Moses' era, then a conclusion that some supernatural accounts like the creation of the firmament were fictional, then it leads one to question whether other significant extreme, supernatural traditions passed down to be recorded in the Torah were fictional too.
(1) That God inspired the prophets and writers of the Bible, and so what they intentionally narrated in the Bible cannot be factually incorrect. So to give two examples, if Moses or another writer intended expressed that there are liquid waters above the heavens, or that the earth is flat, then such assertions absolutely must be correct. To prove otherwise, one would have to show that the writer did not actually express such an idea, and was instead only intending to use an allegory.
(2) That God inspired the prophets and Bible writers to express spiritual truths, and as such, not everything that they stated must be factually correct. Instead, it is only asserted that their writings contain some kind of spiritual truths inside.
Could one persuade adherents of the first view that the second one is correct? If so, how?
Two major scientific beliefs in the ancient world that are no longer commonly taught today are the beliefs in waters above the firmament and in a flat earth. Let's start with the waters above the heavens.
Genesis 1 records:
6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”
7 Thus 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.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. (šā-mā-yim, "heavens")
...
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;
7 Thus 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.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. (šā-mā-yim, "heavens")
...
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years;
This is from a 1534 Lutheran Bible, showing the waters in aqua blue over the firmament:
default_luther_bible_exc_02_0706141537_id_45037.jpg
Then in Genesis 7-8, we read about the windows of the heavens that open for the waters to rain through:
7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
8:2 And the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were shut, and the rain was restrained from the heavens.
8:2 And the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were shut, and the rain was restrained from the heavens.
Praise Him, highest heavens, And the waters that are above the heavens!
In each passage above, we can see as a matter of literary analysis that there are liquid waters over the highest heavens.
First, we see that God made a firmament (in Hebrew rā-qî-a‘), which means a firm layer.
Strong's Hebrew dictionary gives the following definition:
1. extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out; compare Job 37:18); — absolute ׳ר Ezekiel 1:22 +, construct ׳רְ Genesis 1:14 +; — ᵐ5 στερέωμα
2. the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it,
2. the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it,
It comes from the Hebrew word raqa', meaning:
to pound the earth (as a sign of passion); by analogy to expand (by hammering); by implication, to overlay (with thin sheets of metal)
http://biblehub.com/lexicon/psalms/136-6.htm
http://biblehub.com/lexicon/psalms/136-6.htm
In the 3rd-1st centuries BC, when ancient scholars translated the Bible into the Greek language in a version called the Septuagint, which is commonly cited in the New Testament, the translation for firmament in Greek in Genesis was sterewma, which means something form or solid. For example, in Col. 2:5, Paul writes in Greek, talking about the "sterewma" of faith in Christ.
Second, we see the reference to what God put above the firmament, "the waters",(ham-mā-yim in Hebrew) which means the liquid waters collectively, and includes seas, lakes, rivers, and oceans, as opposed to ice, air, fog or clouds, although there are waters inside of clouds too (Job 26:8). Further, "the waters" in Genesis 1 refers to the primordial waters that also form the ocean. Some of those primordial waters are above the heavens, and so it cannot refer to the clouds, since the stars are in the heavens, as opposed to above them. Nor does Genesis 1 say that the waters are above just part of the heavens, but that they are above "the heavens", collectively.
Turning to Genesis 7-8 and the story of the great flood, we see that just as there are "fountains in the deep", there are windows above the heavens, and that the "windows" hold back so much water that it flooded the earth up to the mountains of Ararat, since Noah's boat landed there. What does it mean that there are "windows above the heavens"? Is the heaven solid so that the waters can rain through closable openings in it called "windows"? Such ideas would be consistent with belief in waters over the heavens held back by a firm layer, the firmament.
In Psalm 148, we meet the primordial waters over the heavens again. The verse says that there are "the heavens", which sounds like a collective term, then there are the "highest heavens", which would be part of those heavens, and then there are "the waters that are above the heavens." This also shows that the waters above the heavens are naturally not in the visible clouds, because the clouds would be in the heavens, at least within the "highest heavens", rather than above them all.
For Jewish writings of 200 BC-300 AD on the firmament and the waters, see: Genesis 1:6-8 DAY 2 Creation of the Firmament, Institute for Biblical & Scientific Studies, http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible..._firmament.htm
hebrew_conception_universe.jpg
220px-Scheme_of_things1475.gif
1475 AD woodcut
There are three primary ways that scholars and Christians have dealt with the passages about the heavenly waters:
(1) An old, literal view commonly held by Church fathers and by Luther says that the passages are factually correct in the way that they sound and that there is a mass of real liquid water over a heavenly firm layer,
(2) Reformed Protestants following Calvin claim that they refer to clouds, and
(3) more liberal, critical Christians propose that they are mythical, fictional accounts containing spiritual truths that God formed the cosmos with His power.
If one accepts #1, then one then one must answer whether this conforms to scientific reality.
One modern theory proposed to support #1 has been that there used to be a "canopy" of water directly over the earth's atmosphere before the flood, but not afterwards. Problems with this theory are that (1) in Genesis 1, the canopy is not just above the earth, but above the stars too, (2) in the Psalms, written long after the flood, the psalmist still writes about the waters over the heavens in the present tense, (3) humans have sent machines past the atmosphere of the earth without finding a firm layer that was holding back a canopy of water.
An essay by Walter Brown on the Penn State Christian faculty website against the canopy theory is here: http://www.personal.psu.edu/jmc6/CFS...own_canopy.pdf
On one hand, it's hard to say for sure whether there is a mass of water beyond our universe and whether the universe's edge is solid. However, there are other potential problems with the waters above the firmament theory. The Bible teaches that the stars are set "in" the "firmament", and that the "heavens" are the firmament. In other words, in the Biblical view, the heavens themselves are a solid layer and the stars are set in that solidity. This however contradicts our modern scientific understanding that the stars are set in empty space. Another problem is that in the story of the flood, this solid layer of firmament opened up and let the rains come down for the flood through its windows. This means that the solid layer on the edge of the universe opened holes and allowed the rain water to travel all the way down to the earth from the edge of the universe.
If one accepts #2, teaches that these passages are literally factual, and proposes that the firmament is the empty atmosphere and the waters are the clouds, then the difficulty is matching this idea with what the Bible says on the topic as a matter of literary analysis, as well as what the early Christians believed on the topic. This essentially requires extreme literary gymnastics. The real goal of such gymnastics is to forcefully pressure the Bible's passages to fit into one's own scientific modern view of cosmology, otherwise one would simply accept the literary implication and connotations that the heavens with the stars in them are beaten firm and that above them are vast liquid waters.
For example, In his commentary on Genesis 1, Calvin takes the view that the firmament are the space over the ground, the atmosphere, and the space in the celestial heavens:
Moreover, the word rqy (rakia) comprehends not only the whole region of the air, but whatever is open above us: as the word heaven is sometimes understood by the Latins. Thus the arrangement, as well of the heavens as of the lower atmosphere, is called rqy(rakia) without discrimination between them, but sometimes the word signifies both together sometimes one part only, as will appear more plainly in our progress. I know not why the Greeks have chosen to render the word stereoma, which the Latins have imitated in the term, firmamentum; [59] for literally it means expanse. And to this David alludes when he says that the heavens are stretched out by God like a curtain,' (Psalm 104:2.)
[EDITOR'S FOOTNOTE # 59] Doubtless Calvin is correct in supposing the true meaning of the Hebrew word to be expanse; but the translators of the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and our own version, were not without reasons for the manner in which they rendered the word. The root, rq, signifies, according to Gesenius, Lee, Cocceius, etc., to stamp with the foot, to beat or hammer out any malleable substance; and the derivative, rqy, is the outspreading of the heavens, which, "according to ordinary observation, rests like the half of a hollow sphere over the earth." To the Hebrews, as Gesenius observes, it presented a crystal or sapphire-like appearance. Hence it was thought to be something firm as well as expanded -- a roof of crystal or of sapphire. The reader may also refer to the note of Johannes Clericus, in his commentary on Genesis, who retains the word firmament, and argues at length in vindication of the term.
[EDITOR'S FOOTNOTE # 59] Doubtless Calvin is correct in supposing the true meaning of the Hebrew word to be expanse; but the translators of the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and our own version, were not without reasons for the manner in which they rendered the word. The root, rq, signifies, according to Gesenius, Lee, Cocceius, etc., to stamp with the foot, to beat or hammer out any malleable substance; and the derivative, rqy, is the outspreading of the heavens, which, "according to ordinary observation, rests like the half of a hollow sphere over the earth." To the Hebrews, as Gesenius observes, it presented a crystal or sapphire-like appearance. Hence it was thought to be something firm as well as expanded -- a roof of crystal or of sapphire. The reader may also refer to the note of Johannes Clericus, in his commentary on Genesis, who retains the word firmament, and argues at length in vindication of the term.
Calvin then decides that the waters must refer to clouds, and to explain this he claims that the Bible is only giving instruction on the visible earth as directly perceived, not the starry heavens, which would be astronomy. Here he writes about the firmament:
Moses describes the special use of this expanse, to divide the waters from the waters from which word arises a great difficulty. For it appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, [60] and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere...
The things, therefore, which he relates, serve as the garniture of that theater which he places before our eyes. Whence I conclude, that the waters here meant are such as the rude and unlearned may perceive. The assertion of some, that they embrace by faith what they have read concerning the waters above the heavens, notwithstanding their ignorance respecting them, is not in accordance with the design of Moses. And truly a longer inquiry into a matter open and manifest is superfluous. We see that the clouds suspended in the air, which threaten to fall upon our heads, yet leave us space to breathe. [62]
The things, therefore, which he relates, serve as the garniture of that theater which he places before our eyes. Whence I conclude, that the waters here meant are such as the rude and unlearned may perceive. The assertion of some, that they embrace by faith what they have read concerning the waters above the heavens, notwithstanding their ignorance respecting them, is not in accordance with the design of Moses. And truly a longer inquiry into a matter open and manifest is superfluous. We see that the clouds suspended in the air, which threaten to fall upon our heads, yet leave us space to breathe. [62]
However, we in fact from elsewhere in the Bible we know that the writers do not restrict itself to talking about what is directly seen in the world, and occasionally talk about events in the spiritual world that are not directly perceived, as when the Bible discusses angel's interactions in heaven.
However, Calvin does still read the passage as if Genesis 1 refers to waters beyond earth's own atmosphere, as he continues in his commentary on the chapter:
Nor does David rashly recount this among His miracles, that God layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters, (Psalm 104:3;) and he elsewhere calls upon the celestial waters to praise God, (Psalm 148:4.)
By the way, lest we think that Calvin's commentary on Genesis 1 was elsewhere scientifically correct, we can note what he wrote about the moon here:
That it is, as the astronomers assert, an opaque body, I allow to be true, while I deny it to be a dark body. For, first, since it is placed above the element of fire, it must of necessity be a fiery body. Hence it follows, that it is also luminous; but seeing that it has not light sufficient to penetrate to us, it borrows what is wanting from the sun. He calls it a lesser light by comparison; because the portion of light which it emits to us is small compared with the infinite splendor of the sun.[72]
[EDITOR'S FOOTNOTE #72] The reader will be in no danger of being misled by the defective natural philosophy of the age in which this was written.
[EDITOR'S FOOTNOTE #72] The reader will be in no danger of being misled by the defective natural philosophy of the age in which this was written.
Theory #3 about the waters above the heavens is the liberal critical Christians' suggestion that Genesis 1 is an ancient mythical, fictional account of the world's creation. In this view, the account is not factually, scientifically correct, but still contains spiritual truths, like the belief that God's force and will made the cosmos and formed it into what it is. This view sometimes compares the story in Genesis to the beliefs of other Near East civilizations of the 3rd to 1st millenia BC, when the Torah was written.
One modern writer connects the story of the heavans forming a firm layer to beliefs of other civilizations at that time:
The ancient Egyptians thought that the sky was a roof supported by pillars. For the Sumerians tin was the metal of heaven, so we can safely assume that their metal sky-vault was made out of this material.(10)... In Homer the sky is a metal hemisphere covering a round, flat, disc-like earth, surrounded by water. The Odyssey and the Illiad speak alternatively of a bronze or iron sky-vault.(11) For the ancient Greeks Anaximenes and Empedocles, the stars are implanted in a crystalline sky-dome. At Genesis 1:17 the stars are "set in" (as if implanted) in the firmament.
SOURCE: The Three-Story Universe, N. F. Gier, God, Reason, and the Evangelicals, (University Press of America, 1987), chapter 13.
SOURCE: The Three-Story Universe, N. F. Gier, God, Reason, and the Evangelicals, (University Press of America, 1987), chapter 13.
Thorkild Jacobsen[5] and Walter Burkert both argue for a connection with the Akkadian word for sea, tâmtu, following an early form, ti'amtum.[6]
Burkert continues by making a linguistic connection to Tethys. He finds the later form, thalatth, to be related clearly to Greek Θάλαττα (thalatta) or Θάλασσα (thalassa), "sea". ... Tiamat also has been claimed to be cognate with Northwest Semitic tehom (תהום) (the deeps, abyss), in the Book of Genesis 1:2
...
Tiamat is usually described as a sea serpent or dragon, however assyriologist Alexander Heidel disagreed with this identification and argued that "dragon form can not be imputed to Tiamat with certainty". Other scholars have disregarded Heidel's argument, Joseph Fontenrose in particular found it "not convincing" and concluded that "there is reason to believe that Tiamat was sometimes, not necessarily always, conceived as a dragoness".[11] While the Enûma Elish does not specifically state that Tiamat is a dragon, only that she gave birth to dragons and serpents among a more general list of monsters including scorpion men and merpeople, other sources containing the same myth do refer to her as a dragon.
Burkert continues by making a linguistic connection to Tethys. He finds the later form, thalatth, to be related clearly to Greek Θάλαττα (thalatta) or Θάλασσα (thalassa), "sea". ... Tiamat also has been claimed to be cognate with Northwest Semitic tehom (תהום) (the deeps, abyss), in the Book of Genesis 1:2
...
Tiamat is usually described as a sea serpent or dragon, however assyriologist Alexander Heidel disagreed with this identification and argued that "dragon form can not be imputed to Tiamat with certainty". Other scholars have disregarded Heidel's argument, Joseph Fontenrose in particular found it "not convincing" and concluded that "there is reason to believe that Tiamat was sometimes, not necessarily always, conceived as a dragoness".[11] While the Enûma Elish does not specifically state that Tiamat is a dragon, only that she gave birth to dragons and serpents among a more general list of monsters including scorpion men and merpeople, other sources containing the same myth do refer to her as a dragon.
Gier writes:
In Genesis 1:1 we find the linguistic equivalent of Tiamat in the Hebrew word tehom ("the deep"), and the threat of watery chaos is ever present in the Old Testament. Evangelical F. F. Bruce agrees that "tehom is probably cognate with Tiamat," and Clark Pinnock admits that Yahweh also "quite plainly...fought with a sea monster" and that the model of the battle is a Babylonian one.(22) The psalmists describe it in graphic terms: "By thy power thou didst cleave the sea-monster in two, and broke the dragon's heads above the waters; thou didst crush the many-headed Leviathan, and threw him to the sharks for food" (Ps. 74:13-14 NEB; cf. Job 3:8; Isa. 27:1).
The Three-Story Universe
The Three-Story Universe
Psalm 148:7 says: Praise the Lord from the earth, You great sea creatures and all the depths [Tehomot]...
Several other times the Deep, Tehom, is anthropomorphized, as when the book of Job portrays it as grey-haired. This of course does not necessarily mean that the Bible actually thought that Tehom was a real goddess being, but rather that in describing the material cosmology of the elements and components of the cosmos, they likely shared similar beliefs as neighboring civilizations.
The problem with proposing that the account in Genesis 1 is mythical and fictional, and not factual, is that it opens up the question of how much else in the Bible is mythical and fictional. Take for instance the story of Abraham and his interactions with God, or those of Moses' predecessors. Those stories often sound supernatural, like when God came to have dinner with Abraham or turned Lot's wife into salt. If these narratives were passed down and put into writing in the Torah in Moses' era, then a conclusion that some supernatural accounts like the creation of the firmament were fictional, then it leads one to question whether other significant extreme, supernatural traditions passed down to be recorded in the Torah were fictional too.
Comment