Sola scriptura and the firmament

[oxmixmudd]

At this point, I can see nothing in the text that puts a lot of water above the sun, moon and stars. Nor do I believe that the ancient skywatchers would think of such a thing without having it put into their heads. But I will certainly look at the evidence you give, with what I hope is an open mind. I am glad when scientific evidence agrees with the Bible; but I, like you, am MOST interested in the words of our God.

The stars are in the firmament(raqia). The waters are above it. The raqia divides the waters above from the waters below, but it is in the firmament that the stars are placed. Earth below, firmament with stars and sun and moon, waters above. It is very simple.

The raqia and the shamayim are not equivalent in the mathematical sense. The raqia is called heaven (shamayim), but shamayim is not equal to the raqia (again, look at the usage in Genesis 1:14). shamyim is encompasses much more than the raqia.

Check out also the other major usage of raqia in Ezekiel 1:22-25 and 10:1, the word here describes a crystal (rigid and firm) firmament in heaven. Realize also that there are window/portals/sluices in heaven. They let the water through for the flood, they also let the manna through in exodus, and angels through elsewhere.

look also at raqia and its roots: (strongs)

7549 raqiya` raw-kee'-ah from 7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:--firmament.
7554 raqa` raw-kah' a primitive root; to pound the earth (as a sign of passion); by analogy to expand (by hammering); by implication, to overlay (with thin sheets of metal):--beat, make broad, spread abroad (forth, over, out, into plates), stamp, stretch.
7555 riqqua` rik-koo'-ah from 7554; beaten out, i.e. a (metallic) plate:--broad.

Do not forget also the birds fly across the face of the raqia, not in the raqia. (1:20)

Do not forget that the waters above can't be the clouds, for the clouds are between the sun. moon. stars and the Earth, yet the raqia and the sun moon stars are below the waters above.

My guess is you can't see it for the same reason I did not see it for so many years - your brain is automatically trying to fit it to what you currently understand, not simply reading it for what it says.
It is hard to accept that this text is describing what they knew then, not what we know now - but there is no way without importing our knowledge into the text to arrive at any less than earth below: raqia with sun/moon/stars: waters above. What you are doing is hiding from yourself what the text plainly says by reading into it meanings and implications that aren't in the text sola scriptura. You are seeing what you know to be true, and not seeing what you know not to be true, in spite of what the text plainly says.

keep looking. That 'mystery' around the text, that part that just doesn't quite make sense - that is your mind trying to fit the words to present day knowledge and science, and it just doesn't quite fit.


Jim

[Collier]

Thank you, Jim. I'll look at "raqia" again later. But in the meantime, I have been studying Job 38, to see whether it fits the flood better than it fits Genesis 1:1.

I noticed two things:

1. The idea of DARKNESS is not in Genesis 6 to 8. There were clouds, but no total darkness. The days were distinguishable from the nights, even though there was non-stop rain for forty days AND forty nights.

On the other hand, there was total darkness on the face of the deep in Gen. 1:2. Day and night were not discernable until God said, "Let light be."

2. The LANGUAGE of Job 38 is the language associated with infancy. The translators did not make up that language. God speaks of the seas bursting forth from the "womb". He made darkness a "swaddling band" for the earth. That's the kind of language you use when you're talking about a newborn infant.

According to Ussher's dates, the flood took place some fifteen hundred years after Adam was created. It was long enough for men to become totally corrupt. This was no new-born infant. It was a world of men so wicked that God had to destroy them with a flood.

A swaddling band is not used to destroy anything.

So I conclude that the garment of cloud and the swaddling band of darkness refer to Genesis 1:2, and not to the flood.

If I missed some evidence, please point it out. I do appreciate the need to look at ALL the evidence.

[Collier]

I have the feeling that we are talking about different things. Could we start at the beginning?

The first verse of the Bible says, "In the beginning Gid created the heavens and the earth." I have always understood the heavens to mean everything I could see above me, and the earth to be the ground I stand on.

Adam saw much the same thing as I do. So did Abraham and Moses and Joshua. They saw the sun crossing the sky in the daytime and the moon and stars at night. They saw the dry ground under their feet. God created those things "in the beginning" - even though the dry ground did not APPEAR until the third day.

Is that how you understand it?

[oxmixmudd]

Thank you, Jim. I'll look at "raqia" again later. But in the meantime, I have been studying Job 38, to see whether it fits the flood better than it fits Genesis 1:1.

I noticed two things:

1. The idea of DARKNESS is not in Genesis 6 to 8. There were clouds, but no total darkness. The days were distinguishable from the nights, even though there was non-stop rain for forty days AND forty nights.

On the other hand, there was total darkness on the face of the deep in Gen. 1:2. Day and night were not discernable until God said, "Let light be."

2. The LANGUAGE of Job 38 is the language associated with infancy. The translators did not make up that language. God speaks of the seas bursting forth from the "womb". He made darkness a "swaddling band" for the earth. That's the kind of language you use when you're talking about a newborn infant.

According to Ussher's dates, the flood took place some fifteen hundred years after Adam was created. It was long enough for men to become totally corrupt. This was no new-born infant. It was a world of men so wicked that God had to destroy them with a flood.

A swaddling band is not used to destroy anything.

So I conclude that the garment of cloud and the swaddling band of darkness refer to Genesis 1:2, and not to the flood.

If I missed some evidence, please point it out. I do appreciate the need to look at ALL the evidence.

I don't think Job 38 is the issue here, Job 38 is not giving a specific description of the structure of creation, nor is it the subject of this thread. You have tried to bring it in to the discussion, but I don't see that it sheds any light at all upon the primary issue: That the structure described in Genesis is earth and waters below, raqia above as separator for waters below/above and in which are placed the star, sun, and moon, and above which is the previously mentioned waters above.

But You are right on the point of infancy/creation, Job 38 does concern itself with creation. I focused on your claim it was on the creation of the Earth and the text you focussed on trying to connect it with Genesis 1:2 is talking about the waters of the sea.

However, it is a very, very poetic description of the same, comparing the bursting of the seas with birth from the womb, clouds and darkness as swaddling cloths. If you are to derive literal and technical details from the text, then you must recognize that in this text the Earth is on foundations, and the water of the sea was held in place behind 'doors' after being set loose to form the waters the land is in the midst of. Further, there are 'ends' of the Earth which can be grabbed and allow the entire Earth to be shaken. So I would be very, very careful drawing too much literal from this text. Especially using it to shed light on the specific structure being described in Genesis 1 - unless you wish to also make Genesis 1 poetry, and all this literal creation stuff then becomes moot.

However, you should also note that the symbolism used in this poetry (Job 38) is itself also consistent with the ANE view of the world. flat earth on pillars or foundations, land surrounded by a great sea of water and so forth. I would be very, very wary of trying to refine the Genesis 1 description using this text. For grabbing one text as literal, why should we not grab it all? Indeed, all decisions for assigning anything literal to this text are based on exactly what this thread is the antithesis of: you are bringing what you know of nature from outside scripture, based on 21st century knowledge and using it to extract from the text in Job alternative meanings (alternative to the plain reading of that text) that might help you map Genesis 1 to a more palatable 21st century understanding.

That is not what I asked for or am looking for.

Sola scriptura: what is structure is Genesis 1 describing. No knowledge of natural science beyond what can be gleaned with naked eye observation allowed. (to be absolutely fair, I should require in a Pre-Greek/Pre-Roman nomadic tent dwelling agrarian civilization - but hey, I want to give you guys a chance).



Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I have the feeling that we are talking about different things. Could we start at the beginning?

The first verse of the Bible says, "In the beginning Gid created the heavens and the earth." I have always understood the heavens to mean everything I could see above me, and the earth to be the ground I stand on.

Adam saw much the same thing as I do. So did Abraham and Moses and Joshua. They saw the sun crossing the sky in the daytime and the moon and stars at night. They saw the dry ground under their feet. God created those things "in the beginning" - even though the dry ground did not APPEAR until the third day.

Is that how you understand it?

I understand verse 1 as a summary of all that follows. The text which follows fleshes out the initial statement. Thus vs 1 is not 'before' the verses which follow - it is simply a summary declaration of truth: "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

And yes, that would at the very least mean all that Adam or anyone could know about by observation or travel.


Jim

[Collier]

I understand verse 1 as a summary of all that follows. The text which follows fleshes out the initial statement. Thus vs 1 is not 'before' the verses which follow - it is simply a summary declaration of truth: "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

And yes, that would at the very least mean all that Adam or anyone could know about by observation or travel.


Jim

Okay; we are clear on what each other thinks of verse 1.

We agree that any human being from Adam on would understand the term "heaven and earth" to mean all that could be seen by the naked eye. And don't shortchange the ancients. They were more observant of nature than most of us are. (They didn't have television and computers to take up their time.)

The wonder of God's Word, in my view, is that it really doesn't matter whether David thought the earth was the center of the universe or not. The words made sense. And they make the same sense to us. We still talk about the sun rising and setting. We talk about the sun moving farther south as the middle of summer approaches. We are describing, literally, what we actually observe - no matter how much or how little we may understand of the science involved.

God created the heavens and the earth IN THE BEGINNING. The earth is described in verse 2 as being formless and empty. Darkness was on the face of the waters. This is a description of the EARTH, don't forget. So these waters must be the seas that covered the earth.

The passage does NOT say that there was darkness in the heavens. It says there was darkness on the face of the waters. Nowhere else.

That perfectly fits the words of Job 38:9. I don't believe David would have had any trouble understanding that. Nor would Job. Nor do I.

When God said, "Let light be," light was. The result was DAY and NIGHT.

David and Job and I all know that day and night are caused by sunlight. We don't need a Hubble telescope to figure that out. So this verse confirms what verse 1 says: the heavens and the earth were created "in the beginning".

But there was no light from the sun on the face of the waters before God said, "Let light be."

That, too, perfectly fits Job 38:9.

So why is it necessary to understand Gen. 1:1 to be a summary statement covering what happened during the six days? It covers the creation of the heavens and of the earth - the immature earth described in verse 2 - "in the beginning".

The six days, on the other hand, involve the making (not creating) of the expanse which God called "heaven" on the second day, the separating of the dry land and the seas on the third day, and then the creation of all the forms of life that fill those three places.

That is described in Exodus 20:11: the heaven, the earth, the seas, and everything in them. Those are the things God made during the six days.

So why is it necessary to understand Gen. 1:1 to be a statement of what happened during the six days? That is certainly not what anyone reading the passage would think of automatically. The story reads like a consecutive series of events. And that is how I understand it - whether the universe is geocentric or otherwise.

[oxmixmudd]

Okay; we are clear on what each other thinks of verse 1.

We agree that any human being from Adam on would understand the term "heaven and earth" to mean all that could be seen by the naked eye. And don't shortchange the ancients. They were more observant of nature than most of us are. (They didn't have television and computers to take up their time.)

I am not trying to shortchange them. They knew both more and less than we do, depending on what subject we are discussing ...

The wonder of God's Word, in my view, is that it really doesn't matter whether David thought the earth was the center of the universe or not. The words made sense.

This is far to general a statement. Sometimes yes, sometimes no (from a scientific perspective).

And they make the same sense to us. We still talk about the sun rising and setting.

But we know it doesn't actually rise, or actually set. The words now only refer to the appearance of things, and they are adequate to that description. But before Galileo, that was not the case. And before the Greeks understood the Earth to be a ball, they believed it literally rose and set over a 'flat earth' (but this was really just the 'land' - all the land there was, which was thought to be surrounded by a great sea).

We talk about the sun moving farther south as the middle of summer approaches. We are describing, literally, what we actually observe - no matter how much or how little we may understand of the science involved.

We do indeed use language to describe the motion of the sun as it is observed rather than as it actually is. No argument there. But this does not mean the writers of scripture had the same knowledge - and the evidence is greatly to the contrary,

God created the heavens and the earth IN THE BEGINNING. The earth is described in verse 2 as being formless and empty. Darkness was on the face of the waters. This is a description of the EARTH, don't forget. So these waters must be the seas that covered the earth.

You must be very careful here. Part of what you are doing here is using an anachronastic approach to the reading. The 'earth' was not the 'earth' the planet. The 'earth' was eretz - the land - whatever they understood the land to be. When it says the land was formless and empty, it could mean many things. The Hebrew can refer to nothingness or empty space, or it can refer to confusion, unreality, emptiness, it can be a place of chaos. All that we know we have from the text (vs 2) is water. At first, there is no heaven and no land, only the waters. These waters - sola scriptura - are just that, primordial waters. But if there was earth (land) at all here, it was under these waters. God's spirit moved over the surface of the waters. later, after dividing the waters above and below, the waters are divided again and dry land finally appears. This word translated 'appear' does imply to make it visible. So the formless and void earth is under the waters of the opening verses.

The passage does NOT say that there was darkness in the heavens. It says there was darkness on the face of the waters. Nowhere else.

sola scriptura, there were no heavens yet. They are yet to be created. There is only darkness and waters, and by implication formless and empty land beneath those waters.

That perfectly fits the words of Job 38:9. I don't believe David would have had any trouble understanding that. Nor would Job. Nor do I.

I am not sure at all why you keep bringing this up. It has nothing to do with the structure implied in Genesis 1. Job 38 is obviously poetry, unlike Genesis 1. We can learn some things about what the ancients thought from their poetry, but since poetry is filled with symbolism, we must first know the culture of the poetry to differentiate between symbolic and literal reference relative to the poetry. To build a case from Job 38, you must first know the very thing we are trying to understand by studying Genesis 1.

When God said, "Let light be," light was. The result was DAY and NIGHT.

Not according to Genesis. It says God said let there be light, and THEN (next step) God divided the light from the darkness. Day and Night did not come till God divided the light and the dark. God divides the light and the dark two times in Genesis. Here, and later when He puts the sun and moon and star into the firmament.

The thing here that you miss is that the firmament, the sky, observationally, has its own light. (look up on a mostly cloudy day at the holes in the clouds - blue light shines through, also, the light of dawn and dusk is there even when the sun and moon and stars are all invisible) Further, as day comes or as night falls, there is a clear and unmistakable division between the light and the dark. Look east on a clear evening and watch the division of light come across the sky like someone drawing a curtain of dark across the sky from east to west, or the inverse in the morning before sunrise. (we know it is the terminator, the place where our spheroid passes into shadow from the sun), but to them, the sky has a light part and a dark part, and the line of division was fixed.

David and Job and I all know that day and night are caused by sunlight. We don't need a Hubble telescope to figure that out. So this verse confirms what verse 1 says: the heavens and the earth were created "in the beginning".

No - this is not correct. The causation was not truly known as we know it now. The sun and moon were not understood as the only sources of light. The heavens had their own light, this is the light of verses 3 and 4. But is was divided. This is why the sun and moon could wait for day 4 while days, evening and morning, passed in days 1,2,and 3. These first 3 days were like twilight days and pitch dark nights. At least, that is what we can conclude reading the text sola scriptura plus basic observation. There was light without the sun, moon, and stars. The light of the sky. God made that light first, and then divided it and the darkness so there could be day and night. Otherwise, where was the light on days 1, 2, and 3?

In your view, the sun and moon and stars are all there before day 4? That is directly contradicting the plain meaning of the text! God calls them into being just like He did the light. And He does it 3 days later.

But there was no light from the sun on the face of the waters before God said, "Let light be."

No there wasn't, but neither was there a sun, nor light of any kind yet. Just darkness and waters and land, formless and empty, beneath the waters.

That, too, perfectly fits Job 38:9.

Not really, You are taking way too much liberty with the text, reading far to much of what you understand and want to be true into it. You can't put 21st century understanding on top of the text to make the scriptures say what they don't say. There is no understanding of 'planet earth' here. And the scripture is clear the sun and moon were not made till day 4, and they were not put into place until then either, neither the stars. You are making vs. 1 contradict the remaining text. That is another reason why I thing vs 1 is a summary.

So why is it necessary to understand Gen. 1:1 to be a summary statement covering what happened during the six days? It covers the creation of the heavens and of the earth - the immature earth described in verse 2 - "in the beginning".

Because, verse 1 does not speak of water or darkness. Yet they are the first two things mentioned in vs 2, they are the starting point - yet they are not mentioned at all in Verse 1. Verse 1 then speaks in summary of all that was created, after the fact. verses 2 - 31 walk us through that process chronologically, step by step.

The six days, on the other hand, involve the making (not creating) of the expanse which God called "heaven" on the second day, the separating of the dry land and the seas on the third day, and then the creation of all the forms of life that fill those three places.

Yet God said 'let there be light' in vs 3, something new and not yet created as part of vs 2, and not mentioned in vs 1. God remarks how good the light is - surely this is the first time light has been. Indeed, He says "let there BE light". Light did not exist before verse 3. So God is doing more than just 'making' after vs 1, He is calling things into being that simply did not exist till he called them into existence.

That is described in Exodus 20:11: the heaven, the earth, the seas, and everything in them. Those are the things God made during the six days.

So why is it necessary to understand Gen. 1:1 to be a statement of what happened during the six days? That is certainly not what anyone reading the passage would think of automatically. The story reads like a consecutive series of events. And that is how I understand it - whether the universe is geocentric or otherwise.

To a certain extent, there is a certain ambiguity over treating Genesis 1:1 being a summary of 2-31, or reading it as a kind of calling into being the primordial elements which are then fashioned into the cosmos. And In either case, the structure described in 2-31 sola scriptura is to be reckoned with. But you can not extend Genesis 1:1 into more than the calling into being of the basic elements because of how 2-31 proceeds, because you then cause the scripture to become self-contradictory, and because your motivation to do so is not the text, but your current understanding of the universe.

In summary, what you appear to want to say is that somehow the sun and moon and stars and even planet earth are all created as part of 1:1, and as I have pointed out, you just can't do that. It is reading into the text what is not there, and it is not motivated by simply trying to understand the text, but by trying to find some kind of 'fit' for what we know today - an eisogetical and anachronistic approach. And specifically antithetical to what I have asked for: sola scriptura show Genesis 1 is not describing the ANE cosmos.

Jim

[Collier]

[QUOTE=oxmixmudd;2662647]I am not trying to shortchange them. They knew both more and less than we do, depending on what subject we are discussing ...
I am discussing nature, observable by all men from the beginning of the human race.

You must be very careful here. ... The 'earth' was not the 'earth' the planet. The 'earth' was eretz - the land - whatever they understood the land to be. ( Agreed.) ... At first, there is no heaven and no land, only the waters. ... God's spirit moved over the surface of the waters. later, after dividing the waters above and below, the waters are divided again and dry land finally appears. This word translated 'appear' does imply to make it visible. So the formless and void earth is under the waters of the opening verses.
There seem to be two contradictory statements here. "At first, there is no heaven and no land, " and "So the formless and void earth is under the waters of the opening verses."

The second statement certainly fits the text. On the third day, God DIVIDED the waters from the dry land, making the dry land appear. He did not CREATE the land (erets) on the third day. I know that, because he created the earth (erets) "in the beginning". Sola scriptura.

sola scriptura, there were no heavens yet. They are yet to be created. There is only darkness and waters, and by implication formless and empty land beneath those waters.
How come? If the land (erets) existed in verse 2, why not the heavens? After all, God created the heavens AND the earth "in the beginning". If the words mean anything at all, then the heavens and the earth were created at the same time. If either was created first, then the order of the words puts the heavens first.

If I accept verse 1 as absolutely true (and I do), then I cannot accept the statement that AFTER verse 1, there was earth, but no heavens. That conclusion is not based on sola scriptura.

[oxmixmudd]

[QUOTE=Collier;2664685]

I am not trying to shortchange them. They knew both more and less than we do, depending on what subject we are discussing ...
I am discussing nature, observable by all men from the beginning of the human race.

Don't be obtuse. Men before 300BC could observe nature, but they did not know the Earth was a sphere. Men before Galileo could observe nature but had no clue the planets were other worlds, some even larger than the Earth. Likewise prior to the last 300 years, no-one understood the stars were other suns, and it is only the last 50 years the true scope and size of the heavens was understood. Likewise, atoms, molecules, the nature of lightning weather, the composition of the atmosphere, the reason the sky is blue etc etc etc. What they knew, what they understood of the nature of the Earth, the Universe, was significantly less that what we know. And their ideas of what things were we colored not by rigorous scientific investigation, but by assumptions about what they were seeing.

And it is simply a fact - an known historical truth based on the readings of documents from many different cultures contemporary to the Hebrews, and the Bible itself, that the ANE cultures of the time of the Hebrews consider the sky a solid dome in which were placed the sun moon and stars. It is also a known fact based on the study of many historical and present primitive cultures that primitive cultures almost universally consider the sky a solid vault. And the language of this text gives us no reason to believe the Hebrews were any different from these.

You must be very careful here. ... The 'earth' was not the 'earth' the planet. The 'earth' was eretz - the land - whatever they understood the land to be. ( Agreed.) ... At first, there is no heaven and no land, only the waters. ... God's spirit moved over the surface of the waters. later, after dividing the waters above and below, the waters are divided again and dry land finally appears. This word translated 'appear' does imply to make it visible. So the formless and void earth is under the waters of the opening verses.

There seem to be two contradictory statements here. "At first, there is no heaven and no land, " and "So the formless and void earth is under the waters of the opening verses."

Actually, The contradiction comes from you considering the first verse as something other than a summary of the verses which follow - which I don't.

The initial state of the universe per Genesis is not gleaned from vs. 1, but from verses 2 and3. The initial state was darkness, there were waters and apparently (if one takes the word appear to imply the land existed under the water) land under those waters.

And again, God is causing basic components implied in vs 1 to come into being throughout verses 2-31. You have ignored this fact in your responses so far, but this is key to understanding the text: You can't have vs 1 be a creative act covering all of cosmos AND God creating in verses 2-31 things that according to your interpretation were already created. It is a MAJOR conflict in your view. This is not a problem if verse 1 is a summary.

The second statement certainly fits the text. On the third day, God DIVIDED the waters from the dry land, making the dry land appear. He did not CREATE the land (erets) on the third day. I know that, because he created the earth (erets) "in the beginning". Sola scriptura.

This one aspect may be consistent with your view, but your view is inconsistent with most of the remaining text. However, treating verse 1 as a summary creates NO conflicts in the text. It is the better of the two options. Consider: vs 1 does not connect to vs 2 well at all in your view: God makes the heavens and the land, then in the very next verse all is dark and God is brooding over the waters???? Then he reveals the land, but turns around and remakes the heavens???? He makes light for the first time after he makes the heavens and the Earth, but light is energy and matter is energy and that means light must have already existed, so he is making light again??? You are stumbling all over yourself trying to get the text to be self-consistent. But if verse 1 is a summary statement of what follows, it all makes sense.

sola scriptura, there were no heavens yet. They are yet to be created. There is only darkness and waters, and by implication formless and empty land beneath those waters.
How come? If the land (erets) existed in verse 2, why not the heavens?

Well, because in vs. 6-8 God makes the firmament and calls is heaven!!! Again, you've got God making things and then making them again to make vs 1 not a summary.

It think where you stumble is you want to account for where the water came from. I don't think you can. I don't think the Bible tells us.

After all, God created the heavens AND the earth "in the beginning". If the words mean anything at all, then the heavens and the earth were created at the same time. If either was created first, then the order of the words puts the heavens first.

Or verse 1 is just a summary. You are doing a great deal more than just looking sola scriptura. You are demanding a specific ordered chronology that covers all of verses 1-31. You can't do that, you must let the text tell you how it is to be understood. Verses 6-8 tells us how the heavens were created, and vs 9 tells us how God made the dry land - both covered in verse 1. You think that because the dry land was made to appear by gathering the waters, that vs 1 is the creation of the land, and verse 9 the uncovering. But verse 6-8 define the creation of the heavens, not merely its uncovering or formation from a something already made, and so your logic fails here. But if verse 1 is a summary, there is no conflict.

If I accept verse 1 as absolutely true (and I do), then I cannot accept the statement that AFTER verse 1, there was earth, but no heavens. That conclusion is not based on sola scriptura.

That is an arbitrary decision on your part - it is not demanded by the text. What is worse, A) it is a conclusion demanded by you 21st century understanding of the cosmos. And B) you are choosing a view of the text that is internally inconsistent so that you can find some kind of mapping for the text to a 21st century understanding of the cosmos. That is eisogesis. Verse 1 is a summary of what is to follow in 2-31. That is the only self-consistent view of the text sola scriptura. There is nothing sola scriptura that demands the there be heavens if there is first only water and possibly submerged land.

This text is not describing the making of what you understand to be. And that is why it confuses you, why you must resort to internally inconsistent readings of the text. It is couched in the language of ANE understanding of the cosmos and creation. We must draw from it the meanings the authors intended and not try to map it to our present day understanding in isolation from understanding what they though the cosmos was. There may well be inspired secondary layers and understandings of this text - but the top layer, the plain reading - is describing the creation of the Cosmos they understood, not the one we understand.

Just so there is not confusion:

Verse 1 is a summary of what vs. 2-31 describe, not an initial act.

This is a summary of why I think Vs 1 is a summary.

A) It does not address all the elements of creation, as the remaining verses do. That is, it is clearly a summary in terms of content.

B) It is in the past, not the present.

1. It describes as having been made the heavens. yet Vs. 8 describes the heavens being constructed, then later verses describe the heavens being filled.
2. Likewise in later verses the Earth is uncovered (or made to appear - which could mean fiat creation depending on your understanding of the word), and then filled.
3. Light, a fundamental part of the universe (heavens) is created - made to be, after vs 1.

All of the above would have been already created if vs 1 was not a summary, as you read it, yet are being re-created later. This makes the text itself internally inconsistent.

Finally, treating the text of vs 1 as a summary yields no internal contradictions of any sort. It primariy simply conflicts with your need for an explicit description of the source of the water mentioned in vs 2.

Jim

[Collier]

I have been rereading the whole thread, and I want to stress some things that we agree on. We agree that "The scriptures are 100% consistent with a geocentric view of the cosmos." So I am looking at these verses with the geocentric view in mind. [That's easy, because it fits what I thought as a child - about seventy years ago.]

What delights my heart is that the scriptures can be understood by those who hold this view, but are equally understandable to those who hold the heliocentric view.

We also agree that the YEC position (trying to make science fit the view of the universe that they hold) is not helpful. Their insistence that disagreeing with their view is "tantamount to destroying the Gospel" is (I think) positively harmful.

My contention is that their view is a superficial, rather than literal, interpretation of Genesis 1.

For example: "The initial state of the universe per Genesis is not gleaned from vs. 1 but from verses 2 and 3."

Verses 2 and 3 describe the EARTH, not the universe. That's what it says. THE EARTH was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep. The heavens are not mentioned at all. Sola scriptura.

Verse 1 does not describe the universe, either. It simply states that the heavens and the earth were created in the beginning. Then comes the description of that newly created earth in vv. 2 and 3.

Also: the heaven that was formed in v. 8 was not CREATED. Nothing was created on the second day. God made a firmament that SEPARATED the waters below from the waters above, and he called the firmament heaven. [I am equating this heaven with that of v. 26 - "birds of the heaven" - but I acknowledge your arguments re raqia.]

I am reminded of the heaven in 1 Kings 18:45. "The heavens were black with cloud and wind, and there was a great rain." So cloud, water, darkness and heaven are all connected. The greater the amount of water in the clouds, the darker the sky will be.

This makes God's words to Job entirely relevant. He made clouds the infant earth's "garment". The metaphor is poetical, but the clouds are literal.

Likewise, the "swaddling band" is a metaphor, but the "thick darkness" is exactly what was on the face of the deep in Genesis 1:2.

Thank you for giving your reasons for considering the first verse to be a summary of the whole account rather than the first of several consecutive events. I will look at those reasons carefully before responding.

[Collier]

Light, a fundamental part of the universe (heavens) is created - made to be, after vs 1

God did not "create" light in v. 3. [In fact, after verse 1, the word "created" does not appear again until v. 21.]

In verse 3, God said, "Let light be," and light was. Where?

The text is very specific about the location of the darkness. It was on THE FACE OF THE DEEP, which covered the land until the third day. That's where the darkness was (sola scriptura). It was on the surface of the EARTH as described in verse 2. We have no scriptural justification for thinking it was anywhere else.

So that's where the light was when God said, "Let light be." It was on the surface of the earth, replacing the darkness during the day.

Nor did God recreate the heavens on the second day. God separated the waters to make a firmament which he called heaven.

All of the activities of the first three days were designed to change the uninhabitable earth (verse 2) to the kind of earth that could hold the birds of the air, the animals that creep on the land, and the fish that swim in the seas (vv. 26 & 27).

By the way, the word "heavens" can refer to more than one thing, as you have already pointed out. For example:
1. Rizpah kept watch over the bodies of her two sons and would not allow any bird of the heaven (ha shemayim) to rest on them (2 Samuel 21:10). That "heaven" obviously fits Genesis 1:26, 27. [Jeremiah 4:25 has a similar meaning.]
2. The heaven of 1 Kings 18:45 was a sky of black clouds.
3. The heaven that Elihu describes in Job 37:18 is like a strong mirror, reflecting light (heat?) on someone who is so hot that even his clothes are hot (v. 17), at a time when no clouds are in the sky.

So - light was not created on day one. Also, IF we read the text as it is written, then the heavens were not "created" on the second day. The dry land and the seas were not "created" on the third day. And the heavenly bodies were not "created" on the fourth day.

Instead, all of the physical universe (no matter HOW the reader understands the universe) was created "in the beginning". And it is not unreasonable to add, "out of nothing". Hallelujah!

[oxmixmudd]

I have been rereading the whole thread, and I want to stress some things that we agree on. We agree that "The scriptures are 100% consistent with a geocentric view of the cosmos." So I am looking at these verses with the geocentric view in mind. [That's easy, because it fits what I thought as a child - about seventy years ago.]

What delights my heart is that the scriptures can be understood by those who hold this view, but are equally understandable to those who hold the heliocentric view.

We also agree that the YEC position (trying to make science fit the view of the universe that they hold) is not helpful. Their insistence that disagreeing with their view is "tantamount to destroying the Gospel" is (I think) positively harmful.

My contention is that their view is a superficial, rather than literal, interpretation of Genesis 1.

For example: "The initial state of the universe per Genesis is not gleaned from vs. 1 but from verses 2 and 3."

Verses 2 and 3 describe the EARTH, not the universe. That's what it says. THE EARTH was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep. The heavens are not mentioned at all. Sola scriptura.

Verse 1 does not describe the universe, either. It simply states that the heavens and the earth were created in the beginning. Then comes the description of that newly created earth in vv. 2 and 3.

Also: the heaven that was formed in v. 8 was not CREATED. Nothing was created on the second day. God made a firmament that SEPARATED the waters below from the waters above, and he called the firmament heaven. [I am equating this heaven with that of v. 26 - "birds of the heaven" - but I acknowledge your arguments re raqia.]

I am reminded of the heaven in 1 Kings 18:45. "The heavens were black with cloud and wind, and there was a great rain." So cloud, water, darkness and heaven are all connected. The greater the amount of water in the clouds, the darker the sky will be.

This makes God's words to Job entirely relevant. He made clouds the infant earth's "garment". The metaphor is poetical, but the clouds are literal.

Likewise, the "swaddling band" is a metaphor, but the "thick darkness" is exactly what was on the face of the deep in Genesis 1:2.

Thank you for giving your reasons for considering the first verse to be a summary of the whole account rather than the first of several consecutive events. I will look at those reasons carefully before responding.

Thank you for making this effort to point out what we agree on. It is helpful - and I will try to honor the spirit you express here as we continue this discussion.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Light, a fundamental part of the universe (heavens) is created - made to be, after vs 1

God did not "create" light in v. 3. [In fact, after verse 1, the word "created" does not appear again until v. 21.]

In verse 3, God said, "Let light be," and light was. Where?

The text is very specific about the location of the darkness. It was on THE FACE OF THE DEEP, which covered the land until the third day. That's where the darkness was (sola scriptura). It was on the surface of the EARTH as described in verse 2. We have no scriptural justification for thinking it was anywhere else.

The problem here is many fold. There is no scriptural justification for thinking there was anywhere else yet other than the face of the deep!

You see all that we can see is brought into existence from the deep described:

Phase I

a) there is the formless and void land
b) there is the face of the deep
c) there is darkness

Phase II

a) God causes light to exist (word that is used is 'hayah' : the hebrew is היה). This word means basically 'to be'. He does not tell light to 'appear', as he causes the dry land to appear. He calls it into 'being'.
b) God divides light and dark
c) God sees the light and proclaims it good - as he does other NEW things he forms or
calls into existence.

Phase III

a) God makes the raqia to divide the waters - the deep. He divides it into two - above and below.
this is the first division of the waters. Now we have waters below/waters above and firmament between. This encloses all the world one can observe - everything.

Phase IV

a) God divides the waters again, this time to allow the land to appear. The formless and void land. Now we have land surrounded by water, raqia above and waters above that.

This ends the formation phase of all that is. It proceeds from the deep, the land. What we now have is an empty heaven, an empty land, and an empty sea, but their form and structure is now established. They are no longer formless. But they are still void (empty)

Phase V

God fills the created structures. He fills the land first with plants. But he tells the earth to make them, He doesn't make them.

Then he fills the heavens - he makes the moon, the sun, and the stars and places them in the raqia.

Then He fills the waters, land, and heavens (shamayim) with animal life. The birds, remember, fly across the face of the raqia in the shamayim. The birds are not in the raqia. But curiously, He commands the land, the sea to produce this life. He doesn't make them directly like He does the sun, moon, stars and raqia.

And that is everthing we can observe. It is all made/formed/called into existence as part of verses 1:2-31 (2:1-4 as well).

Notice the closing: then the heavens and the Earth were finished. Not, "then the Earth was finished". 2-31 is not just talking about the land/planet earth. It's the whole deal. All of it.

So that's where the light was when God said, "Let light be." It was on the surface of the earth, replacing the darkness during the day.

No - I can't see this. The description of God's reaction to calling light into existence, of dividing it from darkness, just does not fit some limited scope for the appearance of light relative to all of creation.

Nor did God recreate the heavens on the second day. God separated the waters to make a firmament which he called heaven.

Since the Shamayim and the Raqia are different elements of the heavens, this is not a point I could argue against - If you limit the 'heavens' of vs 1 to the shamayim, sans the raqia. But raqia is where he put the newly made stars and sun and moon. This makes the heavens created in vs 1 a poor match for the universe of stars, galaxies and empty space. The universe of stars, glaxies, and empty space maps directly to the raqia. But the shamayim of verse 1 could be the dwelling place of God independent of the universe in which we live, or perhaps just the quantum foam of empty space itself, sans any stars or galaxies.

All of the activities of the first three days were designed to change the uninhabitable earth (verse 2) to the kind of earth that could hold the birds of the air, the animals that creep on the land, and the fish that swim in the seas (vv. 26 & 27).

This we agree - except your scope is far to limited. This is much more than just the forming of the earth itself. What do you do with the fact God MAKES the sun, moon, and stars on day 4 and PLACES them in the raqia - and that He makes the raqia itself? This just doesn't fit your interpretation at all.

By the way, the word "heavens" can refer to more than one thing, as you have already pointed out. For example:
1. Rizpah kept watch over the bodies of her two sons and would not allow any bird of the heaven (ha shemayim) to rest on them (2 Samuel 21:10). That "heaven" obviously fits Genesis 1:26, 27. [Jeremiah 4:25 has a similar meaning.]
2. The heaven of 1 Kings 18:45 was a sky of black clouds.
3. The heaven that Elihu describes in Job 37:18 is like a strong mirror, reflecting light (heat?) on someone who is so hot that even his clothes are hot (v. 17), at a time when no clouds are in the sky.

So - light was not created on day one. Also, IF we read the text as it is written, then the heavens were not "created" on the second day. The dry land and the seas were not "created" on the third day. And the heavenly bodies were not "created" on the fourth day.

Yes, shamayim is a much more general term We agree there, but no, this is just not at all what is said. God made the sun moon and stars on the fourth day.

No I understand you are making a hard distinction between creation ex nihilo and making/ forming. And that is fine - they are worthy distinctions. Except that even if God made or formed the sun moon and star from pre-existing stuff on day 4, that still leaves us without them existing as sun, moon, and stars for days 1, 2, and 3, which negates the extent to which you wish to have God creating in verse 1. Further, this whole line of thought completely misses what I outlined above: God is creating everything that can be observed in verses 1-16. Duplicating the work done in verse 1 from your perspective. This essentially requires vs 1 to be a summary statement and not a creative act, unless you have a very limited form of creation in verse 1 - just the primordial elements which are then formed into the cosmos per the remainder of the chapter.

Instead, all of the physical universe (no matter HOW the reader understands the universe) was created "in the beginning". And it is not unreasonable to add, "out of nothing". Hallelujah!

I don't see this as a viable interpretation. It is clear from the form and description that 1:2-31/2:1-4 are talking about the creation of all that is, not just the Earth. The focus appears more oriented towards 'the Earth' from our perspective only because we understand the vastness of the heavens relative to the Earth (the planet). But they writers did not. Yet even though the heavens are only described briefly, the text clearly puts the creation of and population of that which contains the sun moon and stars(raqia), as well as the creation(making/forming) of the sun moon and stars in the space of time covered by verses 2-16. This is after verse 1 in your view, which precludes them already being in existence as verse 2 opens.

Finally, note also vs 2:1: Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all he hosts of them.

clearly 2-31 is describing the process of the creation of all that is, filling out the simple proclamation of v 1:1. This again points to 1:1 as a summary of what is to follow, not the majority of the creation of the universe - as your view requires.




Jim

[Collier]

Thank you, Jim. You know your subject well. Your arguments will either change my mind (which I am capable of doing, I hope) or else they will force me to find scriptural justification for what I believe.

You see all that we can see is brought into existence from the deep described:

Phase I

a) there is the formless and void land
b) there is the face of the deep
c) there is darkness

I have been looking in Strong's Concordance at the way "the deep" is used in the Bible.

In Gen. 7:1, we are told that the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of the heavens were opened up.

"The deep" is no longer primordial. This means the sea - the same sea that was over the land until the third day.

Wherever the phrase "the deep" is used, as far as I can see, it refers to deep waters.

That extends into the Greek New Testament. We understand perfectly what the Lord meant when he told Peter to launch out into the deep (Luke 5:4). He wasn't talking about something mystical. Peter knew exactly what He meant, and did what he was told.

"The windows of the heavens" are explained to us immediately. "The windows of the heavens were opened, AND IT RAINED ON THE EARTH FORTY DAYS AND FORTY NIGHTS." There is nothing mystical about it. It fits what the ancients could observe.

For Elijah and Ahab, the heavens that opened up were the heavens described in 1 Kings 18:45 - heavens that were "black with thick clouds". The same goes for Asaph (Psalm 77:17), and for Elihu and Job (Job 37:11). Sola scriptura.

By the way, if you want an eye-opener as to what Elihu understood about the power of God in nature, read Job 36:27-28. God "draws up the drops of water; they distil rain into mist, which drip rain down the clouds and drop upon man" (literal translation). Poetic language, yes, but describing reality, just the same.

And after Job had received this very simple lesson on the water cycle, in the next chapter GOD speaks to him, and tells him something only He could know. He tells Job about the garment of cloud with which He clothed the newly created earth, the swaddling band of darkness which was against the skin of the infant earth. Poetic language, yes; but describing reality, just the same. And it was a reality that Job and Elihu and Elijah (and we) can understand.

So verse 2 of Genesis tells us that the earth was empty and formless, and darkness was on the face of the deep (the seas that covered the dry land until the third day). But there were waters ABOVE the seas, and those waters above (which I understand to be the garment of cloud that God told Job about) were separated from the waters below (the deep) in verses 6-8 to form a sky.

GIVEN THE CONTEXT, I understand that sky to be like the sky in 1 Kings 18:45 - a sky that was black with thick clouds. Job would have understood the same thing.

[oxmixmudd]

Thank you, Jim. You know your subject well. Your arguments will either change my mind (which I am capable of doing, I hope) or else they will force me to find scriptural justification for what I believe.

You see all that we can see is brought into existence from the deep described:

Phase I

a) there is the formless and void land
b) there is the face of the deep
c) there is darkness

I have been looking in Strong's Concordance at the way "the deep" is used in the Bible.

That is reasonable, and that can shed some light (pardon the pun) on its use in Genesis 1:2, but you must also remember that Genesis 1:2 is describing something unique. You can't ignore it's context in 1:2 because you find the term used in some way somewhere else.

In Gen. 7:1, we are told that the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of the heavens were opened up.

"The deep" is no longer primordial. This means the sea - the same sea that was over the land until the third day.

I'm not so sure. You have to realize that the cosmos created in Genesis 1 is a cosmos made from and surrounded by water.

2 Peter 3:5 "For this they willingly are ignorant of that by the word of God the heavens were of old and the earth standing out of the water and int the water.

(interesting though the phrase 'the heavens were of old' in this context though - eh )

Nevertheless, in the context of the waters of the deep, I am not sure you can escape that the earth was viewed as surrounded by waters, the same waters from which the cosmos emerges in Genesis 1.

Wherever the phrase "the deep" is used, as far as I can see, it refers to deep waters.

Yes - it does. But there is great mystery in this, especially from the perspective of the writers. And these primordial waters of Genesis 1:2 which are divided two ways and from which land emerges especially so.

That extends into the Greek New Testament. We understand perfectly what the Lord meant when he told Peter to launch out into the deep (Luke 5:4). He wasn't talking about something mystical. Peter knew exactly what He meant, and did what he was told.

Well, I am not so sure about that either, though they would likely have known (perhaps/perhaps not) that he deep there would not be like the deep of the Mediterranean Sea, or the Red Sea. Nevertheless, I think you are getting your derivation/application backwards. The 'deep' of Genesis 1:2 is not limited only in scope to what they understood the 'deep' to be in terms of the existing seas, but is rather the best term available to describe this opening state of the world as God began to form it.

"The windows of the heavens" are explained to us immediately. "The windows of the heavens were opened, AND IT RAINED ON THE EARTH FORTY DAYS AND FORTY NIGHTS." There is nothing mystical about it. It fits what the ancients could observe.

Oh no! you've missed a major thing here. Yes the windows of heaven opened - they opened in the raqia and let out the waters of heaven, the ones divided in Genesis 1:6 and 7. Here more than anywhere else these windows are literal sluices or openings that allow these heavenly waters to flow through their separator (raqia) and back upon the Earth to submerge it again. There is great symbolism here of God returning the world to its original chaotic state submerged in water by in essence reuniting the waters above the raqia with those below. This flood rain is no normal cloud rain, it was the full capability of heaven to drop onto the earth water from above.

For Elijah and Ahab, the heavens that opened up were the heavens described in 1 Kings 18:45 - heavens that were "black with thick clouds". The same goes for Asaph (Psalm 77:17), and for Elihu and Job (Job 37:11). Sola scriptura.

No - the floodgates of heaven where opened for the noah flood in Genesis 7. It has never happened since. What happened for Elijah and Ahab was much more restrained. But the source waters for clouds being waters from heaven (from the waters above, through the windows of heaven) appears to be part of their understanding - though as you bring up below, maybe not completely.

By the way, if you want an eye-opener as to what Elihu understood about the power of God in nature, read Job 36:27-28. God "draws up the drops of water; they distil rain into mist, which drip rain down the clouds and drop upon man" (literal translation). Poetic language, yes, but describing reality, just the same.

Yes - this is an interesting verse. As translated, it does seem to indicate an understanding of the water cycle. But the words used are odd and as I study it this apparent understanding appears more imposed on the text, or perhaps just misread by us do to us misunderstanding the contextual usage even of the English words:

He [makes] diminish the water drops, distills rain to mist

"he draws up" as you quote is not in the context of causing to rise from the Earth, but is as in drawing water from a well or a cistern. And it is more saying God draws the water from his heavenly sea and then distills it into the clouds as a mist, which then drop it down upon man abundantly.

And after Job had received this very simple lesson on the water cycle, in the next chapter GOD speaks to him, and tells him something only He could know. He tells Job about the garment of cloud with which He clothed the newly created earth, the swaddling band of darkness which was against the skin of the infant earth. Poetic language, yes; but describing reality, just the same. And it was a reality that Job and Elihu and Elijah (and we) can understand.

Well, I doubt that was actually a lesson in the water cycle as I mention above, however, I think you are drawing far to much from the idea clouds can create darkness. Further, the cloud of Job 38:9 is not just a cloud, it is a theophanic cloud, a manifestation of Deity, and likely refers to the Spirit of God which hovered over the waters, not a water cloud. OTOH, the darkness refered to does indeed appear to be darkness as from a cloud or heavy dark cloud. So the darkness then is likely the darkness of Genesis 1:2, but I don't think you can draw from that the conclusion it is a shadow or a blocking of existing light, but rather, from the context of Genesis, the absense of light and a state in which the spirit of God is hovering or brooding over the waters.

So verse 2 of Genesis tells us that the earth was empty and formless, and darkness was on the face of the deep (the seas that covered the dry land until the third day). But there were waters ABOVE the seas, and those waters above (which I understand to be the garment of cloud that God told Job about) were separated from the waters below (the deep) in verses 6-8 to form a sky.

I don't think this was merely a water cloud - that is where you are getting off a bit. It is a cloud of manifestation of God. The word used here is anan (ענן) which is used to describe the pillar of cloud in exodus. You are also drawing in from Job a structure (a normal kind of cloud) that simply isn't mentioned in Genesis - unless it is the Spirit of God himself - which is consistent with Job's use of the hebrew word which implies a theophanic cloud.

Don't get me wrong - this is all very interesting! These are things I've never correlated before, and it is kind of neat to see this connection between Job 38 and Genesis 1. But I do still think you are reaching beyond the text to get the light, specifically the light of the sun and stars,already in existence in Genesis 1:2 and the darkness be merely the blocking of light by this cloud of Job which likely refers to Spirit of God hoving over the primordial waters of creation. That is, there are other meanings more consistent with the overall context of Genesis 1:2-2:4 as the creation of all that is, not just the Earth itself. Again, I ask you: how are the sun moon and stars already in existence per 1:1, when they are clearly described as being created/made and placed into the raqia in 1:14,15?

GIVEN THE CONTEXT, I understand that sky to be like the sky in 1 Kings 18:45 - a sky that was black with thick clouds. Job would have understood the same thing.

I see where you are going ... but I think you are reading into the text with a goal of getting this limited creation (earth only) view of 1:2-2:4. I just don't think you can get there, it requires too much twisting of the plain meaning of that text specifically. As I have said, we have the raqia, and in it the sun,moon, and stars are placed. Note that IS the physical heavens from an observational POV. You can't have them created in v:1, blocked by cloud in v:2 and then the cloud removed in v:3 and then turn around and have them recreated and positioned in v 14:15 - its just not a consistent reading of the text - you are imposing too much from out side what the text says to get there.

However, what Job is saying remains absolutely consistent in my reading, as does the text of Genesis 1:2-2-4, as does 1:1. No twists, not turns. But what we get is the writer describing the creation of what he knew, in a way that can be mapped to what we know perhaps, but not without first understanding what the true structure of creation is.

And that is my point. We can't derive anything but the ANE cosmology from a plain reading without going outside the text, without knowing what the universe really is like in form and history first. Then perhaps we can work through the text and see secondary correlations that let us see God's hand of inspiration, (like the Earth and sea being commanded to produce life!) but on a level likely unknown to the writer, hidden from him until our time when we can see it because of what we now know.


Jim