Waters over Firmament, Flat Earth, and whether the Bible can be factually incorrect.

[oxmixmudd]

I will just add a NO to the above highlighted.

Do you know of a more accurate creation myth from that time and culture?

Jim

[seanD]

In a sense, yes. But not the sense you mean here. The parables of Christ are just stories, but do you say His teachings are merely stories? Do you sneer at those that take them seriously and study them carefully? Are they empty and devoid of truth because they are 'stories'?

Recognizing the reality of how and what God was teaching in Genesis is far better a place to be than foisting the myth that Genesis can be used to define what is true and what is false in science. Now THERE is a myth in the sense you intend above.

Jim

The followers of Christ didn't think he was reciting actual events. They knew he was reciting parables --- "Lord why do you speak in parables." It isn't at all the same. The Hebrews believed a myth was actual history, as did Paul who built his theology on that history which you believe was myth. So, in your view, not only did God lead them to believe a myth was history, but led Paul to build his theology on that myth. What possible truth can we derive from a creation myth that Paul believed was history? If you're okay with that, cool.

[shunyadragon]

Do you know of a more accurate creation myth from that time and culture?

Jim

There are no remotely accurate, not even close, creation myths in any ancient culture in history. With creative imagination some people can make anything fit regardless.

[shunyadragon]

The followers of Christ didn't think he was reciting actual events. They knew he was reciting parables --- "Lord why do you speak in parables." It isn't at all the same. The Hebrews believed a myth was actual history, as did Paul who built his theology on that history which you believe was myth. So, in your view, not only did God lead them to believe a myth was history, but led Paul to build his theology on that myth. What possible truth can we derive from a creation myth that Paul believed was history? If you're okay with that, cool.

Actually, very accurate. That is unfortunately why about half or more of the Christians in the USA believe in a literal, or nearly literal Genesis account of Creation.

[oxmixmudd]

The followers of Christ didn't think he was reciting actual events. They knew he was reciting parables --- "Lord why do you speak in parables." It isn't at all the same. The Hebrews believed a myth was actual history, as did Paul who built his theology on that history which you believe was myth. So, in your view, not only did God lead them to believe a myth was history, but led Paul to build his theology on that myth. What possible truth can we derive from a creation myth that Paul believed was history? If you're okay with that, cool.

The issue of 'believed this was literal history' is not as black and white as you make it. First of all, for thousands of years Hebrews and Christians alike took Joshual's long day as LITERALLY stopping the Sun, the sunrise itself as LITERALLY the sun moving across the sky, and the descriptions in Genesis, Psalms and Job of the sky as some sort of cast, hard structure what waters above as LITERALLY true as well. They aren't, and we have come to terms with that transition.

But we have not learned from it.

God reveals through the language and culture of His prophets. He doesn't overcome their natural understanding, at least as regards ancillary elements of the text, when revealing His truth. This is the implication, and it has continued application as we learn more over time about the relationship of Genesis to science and history.

Secondarily, your comments above reveal that in this context you think like an unbeliever! We believe because of the Resurrection. Not because Genesis can be shown to be scientifically accurate? So where is your Faith! The Faith to believe that the core elements of the text ARE real in every sense they need to be to define the theology that we derive from the text and the Resurrection? We have the witness of the Messianic prophecies, the Gospels, and the history of the Church itself to rely on for physical support for the beginnings of our faith. But no-one believes for long because of those kinds of things (including what you demand of Genesis). How many saw the very miracles of Christ and walked away without believing? And how many have never seen a literal miracle yet still believe? We continue to believe because God proves Himself to us, individually and in response to our faith. We come to Him because the Spirit speaks to us and draws us through his Word.

And as long as we don't Mar that text by teaching as truth what is a falsehood, it will be sufficient. But when we teach as truth that which is demonstrably false (That Genesis can function scientifically) THEN we create a massive stumbling block to faith, because EVENTUALLY people learn the truth and that they based aspects of their faith on a false expectation of the Scriptures.

It is my belief that the original Israelites understood the obvious parallels of this text and the pagan cultural references. They knew they were both related and opposing. But they were unequipped to evaluate the literal truth of EITHER narrative. When we impose a requirement these texts serve as a scientifically accurate narratives, we impose something out of time and extra upon the text, something beyond what it was in its time, something beyond what it was ever intended to be as implied by what it is. And that is our presumption, not any sort of failing of the authors, or of God. He had his purpose in doing it this way, and as believers, it is our duty and responsibility to understand it, respect it, and continue in a faithful posture as we learn about it.

Jim

*the historical element is another matter. There is no reason there could not be real history behind each of these narratives. But that history is not necessarily captured literally in the narrative. That is, God did create, but Genesis 1 is poetic and thus describes that creation within a context that contains symbolism and an imposed form. Genesis 2-3 describes the fall, which is reality, but again presented in a form that contains a good deal of symbolism and metaphor - Genesis 7 a massive flood which may well be real (e.g. massive asteroid in a large body of water as yet unproven) and so on and on.

[oxmixmudd]

Actually, very accurate. That is unfortunately why about half or more of the Christians in the USA believe in a literal, or nearly literal Genesis account of Creation.

Shuny - what he wrote is not accurate in the sense you and he intend it. As you use it, it is a statement of unbelief. But you are not a Christian, and so I would not expect other than that from you. But it is not an accurate assessment of the situation at all. And a viable Christian faith aware of the realities of the history of the Earth must take into account elements like the ones I have described in the posts prior to this one.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

There are no remotely accurate, not even close, creation myths in any ancient culture in history. With creative imagination some people can make anything fit regardless.

It does not take a great imagination to recognize the obvious parallels between the opening references to the darkness and chaos followed by the creation of light and the Big Bangs description of the first moments of creation. And, when coupled with the Hebraic convention of parallelism in poetic form, the order of creation is broadly correct. In this narrative a physical creation is produce by an omnipotent being. Gods are not mating and their accidents do not become the elements of creation. The physical elements are very real and very physical. And mankind is not an accident.

So while your choice is to take the Judeo/Christian creation narrative and lump it into a box with all other ancient narratives, it is not at all an accurate assessment of its uniqueness and truth from a spiritual, or even just a physical perspective. It is a clear cut above what it came from.


Jim

[seanD]

The issue of 'believed this was literal history' is not as black and white as you make it. First of all, for thousands of years Hebrews and Christians alike took Joshual's long day as LITERALLY stopping the Sun, the sunrise itself as LITERALLY the sun moving across the sky, and the descriptions in Genesis, Psalms and Job of the sky as some sort of cast, hard structure what waters above as LITERALLY true as well. They aren't, and we have come to terms with that transition.

But we have not learned from it.

God reveals through the language and culture of His prophets. He doesn't overcome their natural understanding, at least as regards ancillary elements of the text, when revealing His truth. This is the implication, and it has continued application as we learn more over time about the relationship of Genesis to science and history.

Secondarily, your comments above reveal that in this context you think like an unbeliever! We believe because of the Resurrection. Not because Genesis can be shown to be scientifically accurate? So where is your Faith! The Faith to believe that the core elements of the text ARE real in every sense they need to be to define the theology that we derive from the text and the Resurrection? We have the witness of the Messianic prophecies, the Gospels, and the history of the Church itself to rely on for physical support for the beginnings of our faith. But no-one believes for long because of those kinds of things (including what you demand of Genesis). How many saw the very miracles of Christ and walked away without believing? And how many have never seen a literal miracle yet still believe? We continue to believe because God proves Himself to us, individually and in response to our faith. We come to Him because the Spirit speaks to us and draws us through his Word.

And as long as we don't Mar that text by teaching as truth what is a falsehood, it will be sufficient. But when we teach as truth that which is demonstrably false (That Genesis can function scientifically) THEN we create a massive stumbling block to faith, because EVENTUALLY people learn the truth and that they based aspects of their faith on a false expectation of the Scriptures.

It is my belief that the original Israelites understood the obvious parallels of this text and the pagan cultural references. They knew they were both related and opposing. But they were unequipped to evaluate the literal truth of EITHER narrative. When we impose a requirement these texts serve as a scientifically accurate narratives, we impose something out of time and extra upon the text, something beyond what it was in its time, something beyond what it was ever intended to be as implied by what it is. And that is our presumption, not any sort of failing of the authors, or of God. He had his purpose in doing it this way, and as believers, it is our duty and responsibility to understand it, respect it, and continue in a faithful posture as we learn about it.

Jim

*the historical element is another matter. There is no reason there could not be real history behind each of these narratives. But that history is not necessarily captured literally in the narrative. That is, God did create, but Genesis 1 is poetic and thus describes that creation within a context that contains symbolism and an imposed form. Genesis 2-3 describes the fall, which is reality, but again presented in a form that contains a good deal of symbolism and metaphor - Genesis 7 a massive flood which may well be real (e.g. massive asteroid in a large body of water as yet unproven) and so on and on.

You perceive me as thinking like an unbeliever because I make it difficult and uncomfortable for you to accommodate both beliefs, which is my intent. Mainly because I hate cowards who want it both ways because it's comfortable that way. TEs just love to equate the issue of geocentrism with ToE in order to justify the error when the two issues aren't at all the same. No one based the theology of the resurrection on geocentrism like Paul did with the Genesis creation. Paul believed death came because of what Genesis describes. Apparently this was an error on Paul's part because death was here long before Adam. But it's not just that Paul was in error, it's the questions that are raised as a result. Why did Adam need salvation if he never sinned like Paul says he did? Why didn't the ape-like creations evolving need salvation? Why and where did death come from if it was such a detrimental factor to humanity that required a God-Savior to defeat it? It's amusing watching you guys jump through hoops to accommodate both beliefs that not only the bible doesn't support but science doesn't support. The problems of geocentrism with ToE aren't the same... at all.

[oxmixmudd]

You perceive me as thinking like an unbeliever because I make it difficult and uncomfortable for you to accommodate both beliefs, which is my intent. Mainly because I hate cowards who want it both ways because it's comfortable that way. TEs just love to equate the issue of geocentrism with ToE in order to justify the error when the two issues aren't at all the same. No one based the theology of the resurrection on geocentrism like Paul did with the Genesis creation. Paul believed death came because of what Genesis describes. Apparently this was an error on Paul's part because death was here long before Adam. But it's not just that Paul was in error, it's the questions that are raised as a result. Why did Adam need salvation if he never sinned like Paul says he did? Why didn't the ape-like creations evolving need salvation? Why and where did death come from if it was such a detrimental factor to humanity that required a God-Savior to defeat it? It's amusing watching you guys jump through hoops to accommodate both beliefs that not only the bible doesn't support but science doesn't support. The problems of geocentrism with ToE aren't the same... at all.

Sean - you are faced with 3 choices.

1) deny reality
2) walk away from Faith in scripture
3) find a way address the issues to answer the questions you list above.

I've chosen 3. You've chosen 1. Both are better than 2, but 1 is fundamentally unstable. One can only pretend the evidence for an old Earth and evolution is flawed for so long until one begins having to lie about what they know to be true to support that position. Better to wrestle with this issues with the all truth on the table than sweep the physical reality under the rug to make things easier.


Jim

[rakovsky]

Your answers are all very interesting. I notice that OTHER received many votes. For those who vote OTHER, can you please say how you would sum up in one line your belief about the waters above the heavens in a style resembling the options that I found:

Yes, and there are vast liquid waters above a firmament and above the stars
Yes, and the waters above the firmament refer to clouds including those in the earth's atmosphere
Yes, and in Genesis 1 the author was intentionally writing allegorically about the waters

KBERTSCHE suggested as a fourth option: "Yes, and in Genesis 1 the author was intentionally writing metaphorically, allegorically, or idiomatically about the waters."

[shunyadragon]

Shuny - what he wrote is not accurate in the sense you and he intend it. As you use it, it is a statement of unbelief. But you are not a Christian, and so I would not expect other than that from you. But it is not an accurate assessment of the situation at all. And a viable Christian faith aware of the realities of the history of the Earth must take into account elements like the ones I have described in the posts prior to this one.


Jim

Ths scenario reflected in the citation, is nonetheless, why the dominant believe is for a literal or near literal interpretation of the Genesis regardless of what I believe.

The Hebrews believed a myth was actual history, as did Paul who built his theology on that history which you believe was myth. So, in your view, not only did God lead them to believe a myth was history, but led Paul to build his theology on that myth. What possible truth can we derive from a creation myth that Paul believed was history?

[shunyadragon]

It does not take a great imagination to recognize the obvious parallels between the opening references to the darkness and chaos followed by the creation of light and the Big Bangs description of the first moments of creation. And, when coupled with the Hebraic convention of parallelism in poetic form, the order of creation is broadly correct. In this narrative a physical creation is produce by an omnipotent being. Gods are not mating and their accidents do not become the elements of creation. The physical elements are very real and very physical. And mankind is not an accident.

So while your choice is to take the Judeo/Christian creation narrative and lump it into a box with all other ancient narratives, it is not at all an accurate assessment of its uniqueness and truth from a spiritual, or even just a physical perspective. It is a clear cut above what it came from.


Jim

These parallels you claim are too anecdotal to be considered realistic in representing anything close to the reality of the scientific description of the history of our physical existence. There are clearly too many contradictions woven into the myth to even come close to a parallel.

I can eaisly lump the ancient creation myths, because that is actually what the are. If I were to vote for one it would be the Hindu one, because it clearly considers a universe millions of years old or more.

[seanD]

Sean - you are faced with 3 choices.

1) deny reality
2) walk away from Faith in scripture
3) find a way address the issues to answer the questions you list above.

I've chosen 3. You've chosen 1. Both are better than 2, but 1 is fundamentally unstable. One can only pretend the evidence for an old Earth and evolution is flawed for so long until one begins having to lie about what they know to be true to support that position. Better to wrestle with this issues with the all truth on the table than sweep the physical reality under the rug to make things easier.


Jim

I obviously reject your premise for #1. Naturally you'll claim it's based on my ignorance, so such a discussion is futile for both of us. Nonetheless, it cuts both ways. #3 will lead to #2 just as fast as you presume #1 will when your honest about the theological problems as I was in the previous post.

[37818]

Your answers are all very interesting. I notice that OTHER received many votes. For those who vote OTHER, can you please say how you would sum up in one line your belief about the waters above the heavens in a style resembling the options that I found:

Yes, and there are vast liquid waters above a firmament and above the stars
Yes, and the waters above the firmament refer to clouds including those in the earth's atmosphere
Yes, and in Genesis 1 the author was intentionally writing allegorically about the waters

KBERTSCHE suggested as a fourth option: "Yes, and in Genesis 1 the author was intentionally writing metaphorically, allegorically, or idiomatically about the waters."

There is a view that prior to the flood [Genesis 7:11] the earth had some kind of water canopy above the atmosphere of the sky [firmament Genesis 1:6], the atmosphere where birds fly [Genesis 1:20]. After that rain, it, that water canopy, was no longer there. That is a view.

[Adrift]

Not all Old Testament scholars are convinced that a solid dome is necessarily implied when speaking of the firmament. So, Kenneth Mathews in his commentary on Genesis,

Source: New American Commentary Volume 1 - Genesis 1-11 by Kenneth Mathews, B&H Publishing Group, pg. 150

God formed an "expanse" to create a boundary, giving structure to the upper and lower waters (1:6-7). The "expanse" is the atmosphere that distinguishes the surface waters of the earth (i.e., "the waters below") from the atmospheric waters or clouds (i.e., "the waters above") . The Hebrew term raqia' ("expanse") may be used for something that is beaten out or spread out like a covering (e.g., Job 37:18; Ezek 1:22-26; 10:1). The stars are depicted as the brightness of the raqia' (Dan 12:3). The atmosphere then is depicted as a canopy or dome spread out over the earth.There is no indication, however, that the author conceived of it as a solid mass, a "firmament" (AV) that supported a body of waters above it. The "expanse" describes both the place in which the luminaries were set (vv. 14-15, 17) and the sky where the birds are observed (v. 20). Thus Genesis' description of the "expanse" is phenomenological--to the observer on earth, the sun and stars appear to sit in the skies while at the same time birds glide through the atmosphere, piercing the skies. In the Old Testament elsewhere there is evidence that the Hebrews understood that clouds produced rain and thus, from a phenomenological perspective, "water" can be described as belonging to the upper atmosphere.

[Note: The English term is derived from the Vg's firmamentum. Job 37:18, which describes skies without rain as a "bronze" expanse (cf. Deut 28:23), is figurative and does not support the common contention that the "expanse" was considered a bronze dome by the Hebrews].

© Copyright Original Source

In the Genesis-Leviticus: The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Revised Edition, Volume 1 we read,

Source: Genesis-Leviticus: The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Revised Edition, Volume 1 edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland with John H. Sailhamer, Walter C. Kaiser Jr., and Richard S. Hess, Zondervan, pg. 59

The sense of the account of the second day of creation is largely determined by one's understanding of the author's perspective or viewpoint. How does the author understand and use the term "expanse" (raqiya`, GK 8385)? Does it reflect a cosmological perspective; that is, is it intended to describe a part of the created universe? For example, Delitzch (96) saw the "expanse" in terms of the outer regions of the universe, "the higher ethereal region, the so-called atmosphere, the sky, is here meant; it is represented as the semi-spherical vault of heaven stretched over the earth and its water." Or does the term describe something in the immediate everyday experience of the author, e.g., the "cloud" that hold the rain? Wenham, 19, appears to take such a view: "Put another way, the firmament occupies the space between the earth's surface and the clouds."

We must be careful neither to let our own view of the universe or what we suppose to have been the view of the ancients (Gunkel, 107) to control our understanding of the biblical author's description of the "expanse" (raqiya`). Even if we were relatively certain of these viewpoints, we must seek clues from the biblical text itself. One such clue is the purpose the author assigns to the word "expanse" in v.6; it is "to separate water from water." The "expanse" is intended to hold water above the land; that much is certain. A second clue is the name given to the raqiya`. In v.8 it is called "sky" (

© Copyright Original Source

And still others,

Source: Genesis, Volume 1 by Paul J. Kissling, College Press, pp 102-104

1:6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." The word translated "expanse" (רָקִיעַ, raqiya`) comes from a Hebrew verb meaning "to stamp or spread, " sometimes of beating out metal into thin sheets. The word is translated as "firmament" in the KJV because of the Latin Vulgate firmamentum implying something firm or solid. But the word only occurs eight times outside of this chapter and always elsewhere in poetic context. Ezekiel 1:22 and Daniel 12:3 describe it as shiny or sparkling. Perhaps this suggest that it was viewed as a glass dome covering the earth. But we must remember that these are poetic texts and the language is undoubtedly figurative. Elihu asks Job, "Can you join him in spreading out the skies hard as a mirror of cast bronze?" (Job 37:18). But again this is poetry and Elihu undoubtedly refers to the mysterious fact that the invisible skies are strong enough to support the clouds (37:16). And furthermore the meaning of a related verb in Hebrew cannot by itself tell us what a noun which is derived from it means. Here the firmament is a hyponym of the word "heaven" or "sky" (שָׁמַיִם ), that is, it is a synonym for heaven (1:8 God called the expanse "sky"), but refers only to one part of the heavens (1:20 "the expanse of the sky"). The expanse is the space between the water on earth and the water carried in the clouds. In the expanse birds fly and the greater and lesser lights appear. There is no modern English word which is fully equivalent. Our word atmosphere works in part, but we do not refer to the sun and moon as being in the atmosphere (1:14). We must constantly keep in mind that Genesis one is not a scientific treatise, and it uses ordinary language, not scientific language. We also speak of the sun rising in popular language even though we know that scientifically the sun does not rise at all; the earth turns to face it.

1:7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. This time God doesn't merely speak the expanse into existence, he "makes" it and then puts the expanse to work in accomplishing its stated purpose, to separate the waters above and below it. Perhaps this is an instance of the subtle polemic of Genesis 1 against idolatrous cosmogonies that seems everywhere just below the surface. The separation of the waters came only after a colossal struggle in the myths of the ancient Near East. In one of them, Enuma Elish, the firmament is formed by the victorious god Marduk by arching the flayed half of the defeated goddess Tiamat after a titanic struggle. Here God indicates that the expanse should come into existence and then makes it in the most mater-of-fact fashion. There is not the slightest hint of a struggle.

1:8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning-the second day.

© Copyright Original Source

A number of scholars believe the idea of a solid firmament and other cosmological traits were derived from the Babylonians. A lot of this is based on the writings of 19th century German scholars like Peter Jensen, Hermann Gunkel, and Friedrich Delitzsch, but the idea that the ancient Hebrews heavily borrowed from the Babylonians and other ancient Mediterraneans has been re-examined, and disputed by scholars like Tremper Longman III, Jeffrey Tigay, Nahum Sarna, Shalom M. Paul, Ake W. Sjoberg, Kenneth Kitchen, John Walton, and John Sailhamer who writes,

Source: Genesis Unbound by John H. Sailhamer, Dawson Media, pg. 89

Though many have assumed that the Bible shares the world view of the ancient orient, the creation accounts we have from that period are all distinct from the Bible. They are distinctly poetic and manifestly mythological. The biblical account, by contrast, is thoroughly narrative in form and decidedly non-mythological. If we want to understand the relationship between the Bible and the ancient Near Eastern culture in which it was written, we would be wiser to compare the Biblical poetic accounts of creation (as in Job 38) with the early ancient Near East accounts. To compare the narratives of Genesis 1 with the poetic myths of the Babylonians is a classic case of mixing apples and oranges. The primary reason the biblical narratives have been compared with the ancient Near Eastern poetry is that no Near Eastern narrative parallels exist. That, in itself, testifies to the distinctive world view of the biblical creation account.

© Copyright Original Source

In his paper, Crucial Questions of Interpretation in Genesis 1, Professor of Old Testament and Biblical Archaeology at Andrews University, Randall Younker, offers this history on the critical view of the firmament,

Firmament in Ancient Mesopotamian CosmologyEnuma Elishraqia'Enuma ElishRaqia'

This brings us to the second line of evidence that is used in support of the idea that stereōmaLetter of Aristeasstereōma for the ancient Hebrew .

Biblical Usage of

This leaves us with the final line of evidence for raqia in Genesis 1 do not provide any direct indication as to the nature of the material, Gen 1:14, 20 provide some insight from a phenomenological perspective as to how the ancient Hebrews understood . In v. 14, is where the sun, moon and stars are located but v. 20 indicates that birds can fly upon it or (better) in it! The full Hebrew expression al-pni is often translated "in the open heavens," meaning "up," "above," or "in" the heavens. In other words, the birds would be flying below the firmament (and the sun, moon and stars) if the was thought of as a solid structure! The text has birds flying in the but clearly at a lower level than the sun, moon and stars. Either the writer conceives of multiple layers or a continuous expanse from the level of the birds to the level of the sun, moon, and stars. Sailhamer, preferring the latter explanation, argues that