Sola scriptura and the firmament

[Collier]

I’d like to review the things we agree on, Jim.

First, we agree on your basic premise at the beginning of this thread. Our interpretation of Genesis 1 has to be based on the biblical text, and not on material outside of it. Sola scriptura.
Also, our interpretation must describe things that the ancient Hebrews were able to observe with their own eyes. We cannot base our interpretation on modern heliocentric cosmology.

The YEC view of Genesis 1 fails to meet those standards in at least two instances.

1. THE DEEP
We agree that in every other part of the Bible where the term is used literally, “the deep” refers to deep water on the planet. We also agree that the ancient Hebrews could not have observed any other kind of deep.
So what the YEC teaches about “the deep” does not meet either of the standards you set.

2. DAY
We agree that God defined “day” as light (v. 5). God separated the light from the darkness, and gave them different names. Day means LIGHT, a light that does not include darkness. Night is excluded by the definition.
That definition applies consistently throughout the Bible. "Day" is used to describe a period of LIGHT – whether it’s the natural light of a 12 hour day of work (Exodus 20:9; John 11:9), or the light of a long period of divine activity (Jeremiah 50:27; John 9:4; 2 Corinthians 6:2).
It also fits the geocentric cosmology of the Hebrews. The day lasted as long as the sun was patrolling the skies - from sunrise until sunset. So work began in the morning and ended in the evening (Psalm 104:22-23).
It should also be noted that the phrase “evening and morning” NEVER refers to a 24 hour period in the Bible.
So the YEC definition of “day” as a 24-hour period, or a day/night cycle, or a full rotation of the earth, fails the test on both counts. It contradicts God’s own definition of “day,” and it imposes our heliocentric view of the solar system on a people who had no such concept.

[Collier]

Exd 10:22 And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days. (23) They saw not one another, nether rose any from his place for three days...

Of course. There is no need to add “nights,” because they will be dark anyway.

However, when there is any doubt about whether the nights can be assumed, the two are always mentioned. So we are told that “It rained upon the earth forty days and forty nights.” Otherwise we might wonder whether the rain was constant. The wording tells us that it rained nonstop, day AND night.

Likewise, Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights (Ex. 24:18). He didn't come down at night for a good sleep. Nor did he eat or drink anything for forty days and forty nights (Ex. 34:28). A similar distinction occurs in 1 Samuel 30:12.

Elijah, too, did without food for forty days and forty nights (1 Kings 19:8), and so did the Lord Jesus (Matthew 4:2). [Just in passing, it's interesting that these three - Moses, Elijah and Jesus - all appeared together on the mount of transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-3)]

Then there are Job's friends, who came and sat down with him in his misery, not saying a word, for seven days and seven nights (Job 2:13). They didn't go home and leave him when night came. [That's what I call friends!]

Exodus 13:6 Seven days though shalt eat unleavened bread

They at nothing but unleavened bread from evening or the first day to evening of the seventh. Are you going to try to tell me they could eat leavened bread after dark?

Not at all. This is another case where there is no NEED to specify nights. Since there was to be no leaven in the house AT ALL during those seven days (v. 7), there would be none at night, either.

That's the point. When the nights can be assumed, there is no need to mention them. So, although we are told that it rained for forty days and forty nights, we are also told that the waters remained on the earth for a hundred and fifty days (Genesis 7:24). No need to mention nights here. The waters could not subside each night.

[oxmixmudd]

Exd 10:22 And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days. (23) They saw not one another, nether rose any from his place for three days...

Of course. There is no need to add “nights,” because they will be dark anyway.

However, when there is any doubt about whether the nights can be assumed, the two are always mentioned. So we are told that “It rained upon the earth forty days and forty nights.” Otherwise we might wonder whether the rain was constant. The wording tells us that it rained nonstop, day AND night.

Likewise, Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights (Ex. 24:18). He didn't come down at night for a good sleep. Nor did he eat or drink anything for forty days and forty nights (Ex. 34:28). A similar distinction occurs in 1 Samuel 30:12.

Elijah, too, did without food for forty days and forty nights (1 Kings 19:8), and so did the Lord Jesus (Matthew 4:2). [Just in passing, it's interesting that these three - Moses, Elijah and Jesus - all appeared together on the mount of transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-3)]

Then there are Job's friends, who came and sat down with him in his misery, not saying a word, for seven days and seven nights (Job 2:13). They didn't go home and leave him when night came. [That's what I call friends!]

Exodus 13:6 Seven days though shalt eat unleavened bread

They at nothing but unleavened bread from evening or the first day to evening of the seventh. Are you going to try to tell me they could eat leavened bread after dark?

Not at all. This is another case where there is no NEED to specify nights. Since there was to be no leaven in the house AT ALL during those seven days (v. 7), there would be none at night, either.

That's the point. When the nights can be assumed, there is no need to mention them. So, although we are told that it rained for forty days and forty nights, we are also told that the waters remained on the earth for a hundred and fifty days (Genesis 7:24). No need to mention nights here. The waters could not subside each night.

Precisely. And so, the term day (yom) can stand for either the daylight period OR both the day and night periods of a day (yom). I am glad we finally agree here.

IOW - you just proved my point. I am not sure you realize that, but you did.

--

A bit more seriously, your conclusion from these that yom can only mean day as daylight and never day as night+day is actually a reversal of what is shown here. I think what you are confusing is that the distinction of mentioning nights is not because yom never meant night+day, but because yom can mean either daylight or night+day, and in the cases where nights are mentioned, yom alone would be ambiguous.

That is, it says it rained 40 days and nights not because yom can't mean night+day, but because yom CAN mean both daylight and night+day, thus he had to say days and nights so we would know for sure it meant not periods of rain over 40 days but a continuous rain over 40 days.

You will find this to be the case in all your references. When we see 'days and nights' it is to disambiguate the term and/or for emphasis. It is not proof that yom can not mean night + day. The fact it can mean night+day is all over the scripture, beginning with and established by the Genesis chapter 1 use of the phrase "evening and morning, one/the xth day".

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I’d like to review the things we agree on, Jim.

First, we agree on your basic premise at the beginning of this thread. Our interpretation of Genesis 1 has to be based on the biblical text, and not on material outside of it. Sola scriptura.
Also, our interpretation must describe things that the ancient Hebrews were able to observe with their own eyes. We cannot base our interpretation on modern heliocentric cosmology.

The YEC view of Genesis 1 fails to meet those standards in at least two instances.

1. THE DEEP
We agree that in every other part of the Bible where the term is used literally, “the deep” refers to deep water on the planet. We also agree that the ancient Hebrews could not have observed any other kind of deep.
So what the YEC teaches about “the deep” does not meet either of the standards you set.

2. DAY
We agree that God defined “day” as light (v. 5). God separated the light from the darkness, and gave them different names. Day means LIGHT, a light that does not include darkness. Night is excluded by the definition.

But we do not agree on this issue. You are ignoring the references where 'yom' obvious includes the night period.

That definition applies consistently throughout the Bible. "Day" is used to describe a period of LIGHT – whether it’s the natural light of a 12 hour day of work (Exodus 20:9; John 11:9), or the light of a long period of divine activity (Jeremiah 50:27; John 9:4; 2 Corinthians 6:2).
It also fits the geocentric cosmology of the Hebrews. The day lasted as long as the sun was patrolling the skies - from sunrise until sunset. So work began in the morning and ended in the evening (Psalm 104:22-23).

It certainly does mean the daylight period. But it does not mean ONLY the daylight period.

It should also be noted that the phrase “evening and morning” NEVER refers to a 24 hour period in the Bible.

It means a composite period that includes one period of darkness and one period light 6 times in its usage in Genesis 1. Never more clearly than in Genesis 1:3 where we begin in darkness, God makes light, names the light day (as in daylight) and then says that these two together mean 'day' (what we call a 24 hour period). Looking again,

"And the evening and the morning were one day"

This also defines day, just as clear as "he called the light day", it is the second definition of day given in verse 5, and it means what we call a 24 hour day. Now, this day is in a context, and the context here is not a technical description of creation so that we can actually divine the physical periods of time involved. But the day here is the day of night+day.

So the YEC definition of “day” as a 24-hour period, or a day/night cycle, or a full rotation of the earth, fails the test on both counts. It contradicts God’s own definition of “day,” and it imposes our heliocentric view of the solar system on a people who had no such concept.

This last statement perhaps results from a need of yours to keep Genesis 1 in some kind of overt technical form, yet have day not refer to day as in night+day -> 24 hours. The disconnect is that this passage is defining the form of a day in Genesis 1:5, not its physical parameters (e.g. 24 hours). Remember, Genesis 1 is a parallel description of beginnings where the first 3 days concern themselves with taking the formless cosmos and giving it form. The second three days concern themselves with taking the empty cosmos and filling it. the land/cosmos begins without form and empty, and it ends with form and filled. So even though the form of a day (night+daylight) is established in 1:3-1:5, it is not saying these 'days' of creation are necessarily 24 hour periods - there is great poetry and symbolism in this passage. Too much to reduce it to such a pedantic thing.

Jim

[Collier]

So even though the form of a day (night+daylight) is established in 1:3-1:5, it is not saying these 'days' of creation are necessarily 24 hour periods - there is great poetry and symbolism in this passage.

Didn't you object to the Job passage because it was poetic, while Genesis 1 was not?

In any case, the definitions of Genesis 1 are clear and explicit. If respecting them makes me pedantic, so be it.

Thank you for the discussion, Jim. I want to respect God’s Word, just as it is written. And as it is written, it does not support the doctrine set forth by the YEC organizations.

[oxmixmudd]

So even though the form of a day (night+daylight) is established in 1:3-1:5, it is not saying these 'days' of creation are necessarily 24 hour periods - there is great poetry and symbolism in this passage.

Didn't you object to the Job passage because it was poetic, while Genesis 1 was not?

I objected to your use of Job to derive a technical description of the 'darkness' of Genesis 1 because it is almost purely poetic and any such derivation is highly speculative.

In any case, the definitions of Genesis 1 are clear and explicit. If respecting them makes me pedantic, so be it.

I don't think an overly myopic view of the text is necessarily respectful. I pointed out how day is used to mean more than just the daylight period in several different passages, and how you are misunderstanding the use of 40 days and 40 nights and passages like them. I also pointed out that as "and God called the light day" can serve as a definition of day as daylight, so "an evening and a morning were day one" can serve as a definition of day (yom) as the combination of both day and night. Further, I would add that right after Genesis 7:12 (40 days and 40 nights) is Genesis 7:17 "and the flood was forty days upon the Earth" - here day clearly includes the nights per Genesis 7:12.

So don't get all huffy. Respecting God's word means a lot more that just examining each word, it means examining context, culture, language, history, and the entire scope of the Bible itself.

Thank you for the discussion, Jim. I want to respect God’s Word, just as it is written. And as it is written, it does not support the doctrine set forth by the YEC organizations.

Well we agree there, the YEC's are off. But they aren't off because 'day' in Genesis 1 does not imply a night and daylight. They are off because the do not understand Genesis is not a technical description of the time and space of creation. It is written in the language of the writers, both in that it is in Hebrew, and that it reflects the cultural understanding of what they believed the creation to be. As such any technical correlation of its text must be derived AFTER first understanding what the real state of creation itself is. Not the other way around.

Collier, it was a good discussion. You were cordial and thoughtful. I learned some things, I hope you did too. I hope we disengage amicably, even though will still have some fairly major differences of interpretation on this particular area of study.

Thanks - and In Christ,


Jim

[Collier]

Forgive me, Jim. I did not intend to add anything more, but I really want to finish the wonderful story of Genesis 1. And I will stay within your original guidelines:
The first was sola scriptura: scripture alone.

The second had to do with what the ancients were able to observe. No knowledge of natural science beyond what can be gleaned with naked eye observation allowed.

So I can ignore the thought of waters coming down from above the sun moon and stars, because the ancients never observed water coming from anything but clouds.

I can also ignore any definition of “the deep” which does not fit the deep water that the ancients actually observed.

And now, just to recapitulate:
1. “In the beginning” God created the heavens (everything the ancients could see when they looked up) and the earth (everything they could see when they looked around).

2. The newly created earth is described in v. 2 as featureless and empty. Darkness was on the face of “the deep” that covered the land. Poetry or not, Proverbs 38:6-9 fits this description perfectly, as you admitted in a previous post. Your words were, “… it is kind of neat to see this connection between Job 38 and Genesis 1.” Is it ever!

3. Then God said, “Let light be,” and light was. All of us have observed the darkening that occurs as clouds build up, and the opposite effect when clouds lighten. So I will assume that the garment of cloud became less dense. It still touched the surface of the deep, though. There was no sky.

4. This is where God defines “day” for us. It means LIGHT, separated from darkness. [To suggest that God promptly uses the word in a way that CONTRADICTS his own definition is not showing respect for God or his Word.] But light can mean a natural twelve hour day, followed by night when “no man can work,” or it can mean a long period of divine activity, uninterrupted by nights. The latter fits the context. The former does not.

5. Then God separated the waters below (the deep) from the waters above (the garment of cloud) to form a raqia, which he called “the heaven(s)”. There is now a sky. What the earth-bound observer would see when he looked up would be the bottom of the cloud – the earth’s ceiling. But above that ceiling was a lot of water, IN the cloud.

6. On the third day, God separated the surface waters from the land, forming “earth” and “seas”. [These are the last two definitions in the chapter.]

Notice that the change in the earth was GRADUAL. The cloud lightened on the first day. It rose above the ground the second day. It isn’t mentioned again, but it seems reasonable to expect that the cloud cover continued to lessen, until – after there were green plants growing on the earth - it was dissipated altogether. Everything seems to point to long days of divine activity, uninterrupted by nights of rest.

7. Then God set the luminaries in the firmament of the heavens – the observable sky. I think the ancients saw this happen at the end of every rainy season (the “time of heavy rain” that Ezra 9:13 talks about), when the skies cleared and the sun, moon and stars appeared. They could see HOW God set them in the sky, and I think they could understand WHY. God made (asah) those luminaries rulers of the day and night. He appointed (asah) the moon to govern seasons (Psalm 104:19), and the ancients certainly made use of the moon in their calendar. The sun and the stars were to govern the length of the year, and the ancients used them for that purpose.

I used to wonder why the sun didn’t appear earlier. The ancient Hebrews might have wondered, too. But modern science has given me an answer they could not have had. That “swaddling band” of darkness had to protect the infant earth from rays that would have destroyed all life – until after green plants (including algae) had produced enough oxygen to provide an ozone layer.

That’s something the ancients could not have known; but, to borrow your words, “It’s kind of neat to see the connection.”

Then came the creation of the different forms of life that fill the three habitats formed during the first three days: the fish of the sea, the birds of the heavens, the animals that creep on earth (v. 26, and Ex. 20:11). But that is a subject for another thread. Suffice to say that it did not happen by chance. Not any of it.

And on that note, I will say good-bye, Jim. You can have your last word in peace.

[oxmixmudd]

Forgive me, Jim. I did not intend to add anything more, but I really want to finish the wonderful story of Genesis 1. And I will stay within your original guidelines:
The first was sola scriptura: scripture alone.

The second had to do with what the ancients were able to observe. No knowledge of natural science beyond what can be gleaned with naked eye observation allowed.

So I can ignore the thought of waters coming down from above the sun moon and stars, because the ancients never observed water coming from anything but clouds.

I can also ignore any definition of “the deep” which does not fit the deep water that the ancients actually observed.

And now, just to recapitulate:
1. “In the beginning” God created the heavens (everything the ancients could see when they looked up) and the earth (everything they could see when they looked around).

2. The newly created earth is described in v. 2 as featureless and empty. Darkness was on the face of “the deep” that covered the land. Poetry or not, Proverbs 38:6-9 fits this description perfectly, as you admitted in a previous post. Your words were, “… it is kind of neat to see this connection between Job 38 and Genesis 1.” Is it ever!

3. Then God said, “Let light be,” and light was. All of us have observed the darkening that occurs as clouds build up, and the opposite effect when clouds lighten. So I will assume that the garment of cloud became less dense. It still touched the surface of the deep, though. There was no sky.

4. This is where God defines “day” for us. It means LIGHT, separated from darkness. [To suggest that God promptly uses the word in a way that CONTRADICTS his own definition is not showing respect for God or his Word.] But light can mean a natural twelve hour day, followed by night when “no man can work,” or it can mean a long period of divine activity, uninterrupted by nights. The latter fits the context. The former does not.

5. Then God separated the waters below (the deep) from the waters above (the garment of cloud) to form a raqia, which he called “the heaven(s)”. There is now a sky. What the earth-bound observer would see when he looked up would be the bottom of the cloud – the earth’s ceiling. But above that ceiling was a lot of water, IN the cloud.

6. On the third day, God separated the surface waters from the land, forming “earth” and “seas”. [These are the last two definitions in the chapter.]

Notice that the change in the earth was GRADUAL. The cloud lightened on the first day. It rose above the ground the second day. It isn’t mentioned again, but it seems reasonable to expect that the cloud cover continued to lessen, until – after there were green plants growing on the earth - it was dissipated altogether. Everything seems to point to long days of divine activity, uninterrupted by nights of rest.

7. Then God set the luminaries in the firmament of the heavens – the observable sky. I think the ancients saw this happen at the end of every rainy season (the “time of heavy rain” that Ezra 9:13 talks about), when the skies cleared and the sun, moon and stars appeared. They could see HOW God set them in the sky, and I think they could understand WHY. God made (asah) those luminaries rulers of the day and night. He appointed (asah) the moon to govern seasons (Psalm 104:19), and the ancients certainly made use of the moon in their calendar. The sun and the stars were to govern the length of the year, and the ancients used them for that purpose.

I used to wonder why the sun didn’t appear earlier. The ancient Hebrews might have wondered, too. But modern science has given me an answer they could not have had. That “swaddling band” of darkness had to protect the infant earth from rays that would have destroyed all life – until after green plants (including algae) had produced enough oxygen to provide an ozone layer.

That’s something the ancients could not have known; but, to borrow your words, “It’s kind of neat to see the connection.”

Then came the creation of the different forms of life that fill the three habitats formed during the first three days: the fish of the sea, the birds of the heavens, the animals that creep on earth (v. 26, and Ex. 20:11). But that is a subject for another thread. Suffice to say that it did not happen by chance. Not any of it.

And on that note, I will say good-bye, Jim. You can have your last word in peace.

Very good then. You've had you opportunity to present your entire understanding. While you have clearly attempted to find a reading of the text derived from scripture, and I believe you are sincere as you express the attempt to operate sola-scriptura, the result fails on several fronts. We've been over most of them in previous pages, so, just in closing I will summarize. It is not, however, 'all wrong', do not think I am saying that.

Before listing the failures, I need to make one point about the garment of cloud:

The 'garment of cloud' idea is interesting, but this 'cloud' is the cloud of God's presence, and it is a mistake to interpret it solely as a natural phenomina. The presence of God's Spirit in the OT is often described as a cloud. The Job passage is primarily poetic, and I believe refers to this cloud of the presence of God hovering over the deep.

on to the failures as I see them:

1) Your insistence yom (day) never means the entire period of night + day is just simply wrong. I gave you several examples where it clearly does mean the combined night + day in passages other than Genesis 1. Further, it is absolutely clear that by saying 'evening and morning' in Genesis one, following the Spirit of God hovering over the deep in the dark and then saying let there be light, by putting evening before morning (which implies the night passed before the morning), that this passage defines the form of day as night+day. The historical time of the Sabbath 'day' is sundown to sundown. Finally, when the scriptures mention day and nights together to imply continuity, it is precisely because yom can mean night+day AND just daylight that both terms are used, so as to disambiguate yom which if the two meanings is implied.

2) Your idea that the sun,moon, and stars were already made in verse 1 and were simply given their roles as rulers in verse 16. This is also just wrong. First of all, the word asah's primary meaning it to make or form. Secondly, we have a parallel usage in verses describing the making of the ragia (firmament), which you agree was made at that time, not simply given a function or role.

Further, there is no contextual reason to interpret the sun and moon as already made - taking into account the understanding of the time - that there was light above other than that of the sun, moon, and star - the light of evening and morning (again - pointing back to the use of the term evening and morning). This is the blue glow of the sky, which to the natural observer unfamiliar with the atmosphere and properties of light scattering, appears to come from the sky itself. That is, the 'light' of vs 3 has a source independent of sun,moon, and stars.

And finally, there is not contextual reason to move from the primary word meaning. In all cases where you quote the scripture using asah in the sense of assigning a role, it is absolutely clear the object referenced already existed. Here, the sun,moon,and stars are first described as being made, in a context of making and creating all the basic components of the cosmos, and then declared to have certain roles.

3) The garment of cloud rising up can not be the raqia. The raqia - firmament - can't be a cloud of any kind. First of all, the word implies a firm, rigid structure. The only other place it is used in scripture is to describe a crystal dome in heaven. We have other references, such as the molten looking glass in Job that confirm the ancients understood the dome of the sky to be a fixed and firm object, likely metal or crystal. Its strength and firmness is also implied by the fact it restrained the waters above, and it had windows or sluices in it. And it is a permanent object, clouds come and go. Finally, no cloud can be the raqia because the sun, moon, and stars are placed in the raqia, and all observable clouds are between the earth and the ragia - the sun moon and stars.

A final note: and this will be perhaps difficult to see - your reading of the text is still not truly sola-scriptura. There is nothing that can be observed with the naked eye that, in the context of what was understood at the time the scripture was written, would cause a reader to derive your reading. Your reading is motivated solely by our present understanding, and ignores key conflicts with the text which I have outlined above. A reader reading the text with the ANE cosmology as a background will find no conflicts of any kind between the text and that cosmology, and will thus have no motivation to read it any other way.

Thank you for a good discussion, and for making a serious attempt to answer my request.


Jim