Days of Proclamation: Historical Reading of Genesis 1Part 1 Someone please ask for part 2
by Glenn R. Morton 2019
Introduction
Those who know me know I have spent much of my life looking for ways to harmonize science and the Biblical record without violating either the historicity of Scripture nor the data of Science. Most will say this is a fool's errand; maybe, but I think we should at least try. God had a communication problem to deal with: He was going to talk to Neolithic farmers AND 21st century scientists. Our God is said to have foreknowledge, so why do so many interpretations of Genesis 1 act as if He was only speaking to the Neolithic farmers and not to 21st century scientists? It seems to me He should have been able to convey truth to both groups. Below is the Days of Proclamation view which I firmly believe solves this problem.
In this quest we need to examine my hermeneutical method(method of interpretation). I believe the words should be interpreted by what they mean. That is, one shouldn't change the meanings of the words, but can consider the limitation of the Neolithic language or alternative meanings of the words. Conservative interpreters of the Scripture often say that the proper meaning of a passage is what it meant to the original author. I agree with that. The original reader's understanding is not important because he might not have understood the meaning correctly. Finally, my most important rule, if there is a way to interpret the passage so as to make it historically/scientifically true, use that interpretation. If a method of interpretation forces the Scripture to be false, then it is the wrong approach. Why would we Christians want the Bible to be false?
Sadly, most Christians working in science deny that God could have told a true story of Creation to Neolithic farmers. These Christians say that the Neolithics would have been unable to understand or unwilling to accept the truth. So, they say, God accommodated his views to the falsehoods of the culture of the day. This is called Accommodationalism. Thus large parts of Scripture, including Genesis 1 are not to be taken as anything but cultural tales. I find this appalling. First, I spent much time during my crisis of faith talking with atheists. Both atheists and accommodationalists use the same arguments; use the very same problems in the Bible. Accommodationalist believe in God in spite of the problems while atheists disbelieve in God because of the same set of problems.
Secondly, Accommodationalism says God isn't smart enough to tell a simple but true story of Creation that Neolithics could understand and we would also feel is true. Is our God that small? Third, if God is telling falsehoods, it shatters His credibility, like a perjuror's credibility is ruined. If God allows falsehood in one place, can we trust that He didn't tell us a falsehood in the resurrection of his son? How could we trust a lying God to truly lead us to salvation? How can we trust a God who tolerates fabrications in His message to humans?
Other views that treat Genesis 1 as allegory, reworked myth, poem, or just a theological document generally maintain that history in Genesis 1 is not important or not God's goal. They never explain why, even if it is a poem, it is forbidden for poems to convey true information. Some try to say Genesis 1 is to show that the Hebrew God is greater than the Gods around them, but fail to say why every religion's creation story can't be said to attempt the same goal. These views all suggest that God doesn't know anything about his creation. Why? Because Genesis 1 certainly has all appearances of a creation story trying to tell me what happened. When the Creator doesn't know how Creation was created, we have a problem! Thus, I must reject this widely held view.
The framework interpretation of Genesis1 says the first three days were fixing the form of the earth and the final three days filling the earth. But again, this view is subject to Lee's criticism below that nothing matches the geologic record. If one says it is a poem and isn't supposed to match actual history, then once again, why doesn't God know what happened and have the ability to communicate it to us? The views presented here are designed to avoid this and other traps in Genesis 1.
The Problem
The basic problem we all have in Genesis 1 is the order of creation. Biblical critics often point to the order of events in Genesis 1 as being counter to what science knows to be the case. Adam Lee writes:
"Far from paralleling the geologic record, the Genesis story gets it wrong on every detail. If the creation order of Genesis followed the order of appearance of major groups of multicellular life, it would have begun with simple, non-vascular plants like moss and algae, followed by fish and insects, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals and flowering plants, birds, whales, and finally human beings. (Here's a good reference for the evolutionary timeline.)"
"This doesn't mean that progressive, scientifically minded Christians are forbidden to interpret the Genesis account as a parable for the gradual emergence of life over the eons, if they so choose. But it does mean they must abandon the pretense that the Genesis account contains any sliver of real scientific accuracy."1
The arrogance of an atheist telling us, how we must interpret Genesis is galling. What galls me more is that he is correct about how most scientifically minded Christians interpret Genesis--as something not containing any scientific truth. And that is very sad. This scientifically minded Christian can figure out how to interpret Genesis so that it is completely scientifically accurate, but I already know how it will be received by those same scientifically minded Christians. It is almost as if they want Scripture to be untrue. The views presented below make Genesis 1 match the current view of science.
Another criticism by atheists is that it is hard to have days prior to the formation of the sun. This could be due to the fact that the 'days' are not real days but pre-temporal events, logically before the universe came into being and this is just the best way for a temporal person to understand eternity, put it into our terms.
On the other side of the coin is the very common, orthodox view that Genesis 1 was not meant to be scientific but to show how Israel's God is better than the surrounding Gods. To me, this view is little more than agreeing with Lee that the Genesis account doesn't contain a "sliver of real scientific accuracy." This view has no defenders of Genesis 1 as real history. When in this situation, I always wonder why I should take seriously an account that is totally false. When statements about reality appear to be false, it doesn't make sense to then claim the theology contained in these statements is true. Again, "Doesn't God know what happened in Creation?" and "Can't He communicate a simple version of the truth to us?" Secondly, nowhere in the Scripture does it state that the purpose of Genesis 1 is to be a 'My-God-is-bigger-than-your-god" statement. This is a 20th century assumption forced onto scripture. If you read the Genesis 1 account, it reads as if it is a creation story, not a bragging about their God. Advocates act as if this view of Scripture is unquestionable and irrefutable. There simply is no evidence that their assumption is true.
The Days of Proclamation View
The Days of Proclamation view of Genesis 1 is an overlooked interpretation which avoids the problems above and allows us to really believe the account. It says Genesis 1 only consists of proclamations about what the Universe would be like. Nothing was created at the time of the proclamation. The phrase 'and it was so' was added by the human author, telling his readers, look around, this was accomplished. What the account doesn't say is as important as what it does say. No where does the human writer say: "and it was so, instantly". The assumption that each proclamation was instantly fulfilled is a long-held belief, but one that isn't really in the Scripture. There are eight proclamations on 7 days, day three has two. With each proclamation, I will break the Scripture up between what God said, and what the human writer added to show how the Days of Proclamation view work.
The picture below shows the relation between Genesis 1 and 2. The Days of Proclamation (DoP) view holds that Genesis 1 is the pre-temporal planning of the universe. I will discuss the ancientness of this view in Proclamation 1. The DoP places time between Genesis 1 and 2.
DaysOfProclamation1.jpg
I come from an old earth/evolutionary perspective, as will be seen below. I believe billions of years separate Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Young earth creationists can use the Days of Proclamation view to avoid Lee's criticism by changing the amount of time this view places in between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and still hold to their time scale. While I think young-earthers hold to an invalid time scale, there is nothing to stop a young-earth person from avoiding Lee's criticism via this means.
Is Genesis 1 Historical?
Genesis 1:1 is an executive summary of the rest of the chapter. In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. To those who believe in God, this verse seems to be obviously true. But because many Christians believe Genesis 1 is not scientifically accurate, I did a informal poll over the years. I have asked hundreds of Christians if Genesis 1:1 is a historically and scientifically accurate statement. Even those who claim there is no science in Genesis 1 will say it is historically and scientifically accurate, and then say the rest of the chapter is scientific mush. Only one liberal Christian in all those years said, it wasn't accurate. I never could understand his reasoning. But if Genesis 1:1 is historically accurate, why can't the rest be accurate as well? I think it can be.
The Days of Proclamation might be hinted at in Genesis 1:2, "The earth was formless and void../" What could that mean? Looking up synonyms for formless we find that tohu, formless, means, without plan, without design, without configuration, without pattern, without structure, without framework. This strongly hints that God had not yet set up the plan for the earth. If form is the opposite of formless, then what St. Basil says is interesting, with regards to this view, " The form of the world is due to the wisdom of the supreme Artificer."2 The earth was formless because the Creator hadn't formed the plan. Genesis 1, I believe, is the outline of that pre-temporal planning. Looking up synonyms for bohu, void, we find it means, bare, empty, and lacking. Again, it appears that there is no plan in place for what would fill the earth.
Proclamation 1
Genesis 1:3.
Proclamation: Then God said, “Let there be light”;
Human writer's addenda: "and there was light".
Information from what isn't said: It doesn't say "and there was light instantly"
The account has God saying "Let there be light"; it doesn't have Him saying "Let there be light and there was light". That would make no sense. The phrase, "and there was light", is the editorial statement of the human author. "Let there be light" is the statement of God; "and it was so" is the statement of the human writer.. This is how the Days of Proclamation view approaches each of the proclamations in Genesis. Remember, this is the pre-temporal planning of the universe. The 'and there was light' was added to the account maybe billions of years after the proclamation.
Pre-temporal is both a logical and an old view.
Is viewing Genesis 1 as pre-temporal sensible? Absolutely it is. No matter whether one believes all of Genesis 1 is pre-temporal planning of the universe, or believes these statements immediately created the light, part of this first proclamation is pre-temporal. When God said 'Let', there still was no light, time or space. When God said 'be' there still was no light, time or space. The first part of this sentence is clearly a pre-temporal event until the sentence is finished and light comes into being. So even if one rejects the Days of Proclamation view which has all of Genesis 1 as pre-temporal planning, there is no getting around the fact that the first creative proclamation was stated logically prior to the universe's existence. So why not take a look at how a pre-temporal interpretation of Genesis 1 improves the fit between science and the Bible. Secondly, both Christians and Jews have taken at least parts of this passage as pre-temporal. Nachmanides, a medieval Jewish rabbi, said the whole Torah was written prior to the creation of the world. He explains why Moses doesn't list himself as author:
"The reason for the Torah being written in this form [namely, the third person] is that it preceded the creation of the world, and needless to say, it preceded the birth of Moses our teacher.” 3
St. Basil, looking at Genesis 1:3-5, notes that there is an oddity in the account. Instead of saying "the first day," the Hebrew says "was one day." New American Standard translates it this way. The Hebrew word e-hat is the word for one, and it is translated everywhere else in the Bible as "one", "single", or "only", but never as first. Basil suggests that this day is connected with eternity past.
"If then the beginning of time is called one day rather than the first day, it is because Scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was, in reality, fit and natural to call one the day whose character is to be one wholly separated and isolated from all the others."4
Earlier in his essay, St. Basil had presaged the above statement with:
"The birth of the world was preceded by a condition of things suitable for the exercise of supernatural powers, outstripping the limits of time, eternal and infinite."5
The first day was eternity past plus the first day of creation. With these two statements, St. Basil began the path to the Days of Proclamation view by making the first day, pre-temporal.
The Importance of Light in Genesis 1:3
Liberal Christians, by this I mean those who do not believe the early Genesis accounts contain history or scientific information. will often agree that Genesis 1:3 is historical and scientifically accurate. I am a physicist so Genesis 1:3 tells me much about nature. To me it is quite interesting that the pre-planning mentions light first. It is fundamental to the nature of the universe. It is implicit in the nature of light. When God called light into existence, we know that the velocity of light is measured in distance divided by time. Light's existence requires both time and space to exist. Because light travels in space-time and the shape of space-time is controlled by the gravitational field, we also know that gravity was in existence. General Relativity is about both gravity and the space-time that comes with it. Gravity is one of the fundamental forces in nature. Light is a form of radiation formed by time-varying electrical and magnetic fields so we know electromagnetism existed. . Further, since science shows that at high temperatures, electricity, magnetism and the weak force (responsible for radioactive decay) are all one force, we know the electroweak theory was in existence. To explain this a bit more, while at high temperatures, electromagnetism and the weak force are one, at our temperatures, they split into two different forces. This simple sentence "Let there be light," proves God was thinking about 3 of the 4 fundamental forces in the first planning event.
Science tells us that the first thing that came into existence in the big bang was light. The first 30-50,000 years after the big bang was an era dominated by radiation, called the radiation era. During the radiation era, it was too hot for quarks to condense and hold together to form particles. So, with the very first proclamation we know a lot about the universe. Thus with this simple statement we know that 3 of the 4 fundamental forces of nature are in existence, and we match what we know of the big bang. Thus, I think that proclamation is as true as is the Genesis 1:1.
Proclamation 2
Genesis 1:6-7:
Proclamation: Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
Human writer's addenda: God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
Information from what isn't said: It doesn't say when God made the expanse in relation to the proclamation.
Some will find this section very eisegetical (reading modern things into the Scripture) but as I said above, God has to communicate truth both to Neolithic farmers and to 21st century scientists. There is a way to interpret this proclamation as scientifically true. As it is currently interpreted. as showing a vaulted domed sky, this is a troublesome proclamation and it is ridiculed by skeptics. Interestingly, that idea might have come not from the Hebrews but from the Greeks. There was a mistranslation of the Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate translates, raqiya, as 'firmament. but etymologyonline explains why it is a bad translation. That site says:
"Used in Late Latin in the Vulgate to translate Greek stereoma "firm or solid structure," which translated Hebrew raqiya, a word used of both the vault of the sky and the floor of the earth in the Old Testament, probably literally "expanse," from raqa "to spread out," but in Syriac meaning "to make firm or solid," hence the erroneous translation." 6
So, why did the Septuagint use stereoma as the translation for raqiya? A fascinating article which traces the idea of the vaulted sky, says that Hellenized Jews, knowing of Ptolemaic science bent the translation so as to match what they thought was known about the heavens. Since the Ptolemaic system had 8 solid crystalline spheres with stars, sun, planets and moon embedded in them, the Septuagint translators chose stereoma to match Greek beliefs. Expanse doesn't have the same meaning as firmament. Thus the vaulted sky idea ultimately came from the Greeks, from their understanding of the Ptolemaic system, and thus wasn't demonstrably a Hebrew idea. Further, it is quietly likely that the Syriac meaning of rqi a was influenced by the Septuagint as well, causing the dictionary compilers to call it make firm.
Raqiya does not mean solid, it's root is 'expansion', which is very interesting, of one thinks of the expansion of space. In my opinion, this word should never have been translated 'firmament'. It was a bias caused by the Septuagint and the Vulgate.. Because of the Vulgate, firmament made it into both Strong's and Brown-Driver-Briggs concordances on Hebrew. Frankly, using 'firmament' absolutely makes the Bible false, because it gives the view that the sky was a solid dome separating waters above this solid dome from the waters below. We know this is false from Science. If you want a false Scripture, read no further, there is no point in wasting your time. Those who suggest to me that we can't interpret the Scripture in any other way than the way the Neolithic Hebrews read it, condemn the Bible to be scientifically false with no hope of it ever being interpreted consistently with science. If the Bible is false, it shouldn't be believed.
So how do we get out of this problem? Consider, Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate... " Separate has two different meanings, the first is to "divide", and that is the meaning normally given to this verse. This meaning leads to falsehood. The second meaning is "force apart". If we use this meaning then the verse reads: Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it force apart the waters from the waters.” This indicates continuing action as opposed to finished action when separate means divide. Further, 'force apart' is more consistent with the meaning of raqiya's root, expansion.
With this meaning, then we can match modern science, and there are several possible ways to match modern science. My favorite, because it is simple is that it might refer to the expanse between the clouds and the earth, which we see every day. It is a fact that updrafts keep the clouds afloat, so maybe this is what it is referring to. The updraft of air acts moves the water up and away from the earth and only when the drops are too big to be held up by the updraft, do they fall as rain. If you watch a cumulus cloud growing, you can see it getting taller, spreading up and away from the earth.
Secondly, while the Neolithics couldn't have known of this, we all know of the expanding universe. Galaxies are separated from each other by the expansion of space itself. This is why the use of raqiya is so interesting. It is like there is a double entendre here, as some have observed dual meanings in Biblical prophecies. Space's basic nature is to expand, in the sense of forcing things apart. Space expands because of quantum mechanical properties of space, which generate the cosmological constant for general relativity. Now you can see the match from this possibility--Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate waters from waters. This could be the separation of galaxy from galaxy, or it could be the collapse of matter to form planets in a solar system, where gravity's pull separates the areas of the nebula going into one planet or the other. All of these interpretations makes Day two proclamation match science.
If one of the latter two interpretations is true, why did the Hebrews say waters? Well, they had no word for matter, and water seems quite common in the galaxy. Both gases in space and stars in gravitational fields can flow, like water when gravitational interactions are just right. When galaxies collide one can see stars flowing from one galaxy to another. See the picture below. You can see the bridge of stars flowing from one to the other.
merging-galaxies.jpg
The Vaunted Vaulted Sky Flat Earth Cosmology.
As Younker and Davidson show, this is a topic that was actually developed by Biblical critics, and possibly has no basis in history. They say:
"Anyone who wishes to study ancient Hebrew cosmology will quickly discover that the common understanding among most modern biblical scholars is that the Hebrews had a “prescientific,” even naive, view of the universe. This understanding is built around the idea that the Hebrew word rāqîa‘, which appears in Genesis 1 and is usually translated “firmament” in English Bibles, was actually understood by the ancient Hebrews to be a solid, hemispherical dome or vault that rested upon mountains or pillars that stood along the outermost perimeter of a circular, flat disc—the earth. Above this solid dome was a celestial ocean (“waters above the firmament”). Attached to the dome and visible to observers below were the stars, sun, and moon. The dome also possessed windows or gates through which celestial waters (“waters above the firmament”) could, upon occasion, pass."7
The idea that the Hebrews believed in a flat earth and solidly domed sky is a myth, as we will show. I will not deny that some people did believe in the vaulted sky, but they were rare and considered eccentrics. Elihu, when speaking to Job said,
Job 37:18 can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?
Does this support the domed sky/flat earth? It sounds like it but maybe not. The word used for 'skies' is more often translated as clouds than as skies, so it isn't really clear he is speaking about the firmament (raqiya). Robert C. Newman points out that r i is not the normal word for mirror in Scripture. Younker and Davidson say:
"Newman, 15, also notes that ḥāzāq can mean “mighty” as well as “strong,” and mûṣaq literally means “poured out.” He concludes that since in this verse the context is on-going weather phenomena rather than creation, the following translation of the verse is preferred: “Can you, with Him, spread out the mighty clouds, With an appearance of being poured out?”"8
For context: Job 37 has words like lightning, thunders, snow, rain, whirlwind, cold out of north,, frost, watering while wearing cloud, fair weather, wind. The chapter is speaking of meteorology, not cosmology. Given the uncertainty about the proper translation of the verse this does not provide certain evidence of a solid firmament, unless one is predisposed to looking for such evidence.
The vaulted sky idea has the ignorant Hebrews believing rain came through windows in the firmament. Wiki says:
"Rain, snow, wind and hail were kept in storehouses outside the raqia, which had "windows" to allow them in - the waters for Noah's flood entered when the "windows of heaven" were opened."9
The most important reason not to believe the nonsense above is that in Gen 7:11 it is the windows of shamayim (the sky), not the windows of raqiya (expanse)!. So, categorically NO; the firmament raqiya) didn't have windows through which water flowed.
The second reason is that there is plenty of Biblical evidence that the ancient Hebrews knew that rain came from clouds, not from windows in the sky. Since Job is the oldest book, this knowledge predates the rest of the Bible.
Judges 5:4“the clouds poured down water."
2 Samuel 22:12"the dark rain clouds of the sky."
1 Kings 18:45"Meanwhile, the sky grew black with clouds,the wind rose, a heavy rain started falling "
Job 26:8 “He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.”
Job 36:28 "the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind."
Job 37:11 “He loads the clouds with moisture; he scatters his lightning through them.”
Job 37:13 “He brings the clouds to punish people, or to water his earth and show his love.”
Job 38:34 ““Can you raise your voice to the clouds and cover yourself with a flood of water?”
Job 38:37 “Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens”
Psalm 18:11 "the dark rain clouds of the sky."
Now that we have established that Hebrews knew the source of rain–and weren’t quite as stupid as they are portrayed, we need to look at the history of the idea of the vaulted sky/flat earth cosmology to see how it happened. Multiple researchers have debunked this idea and it doesn't seem to go away. No one seems to be listening. There are many points Younker and Davidson make:
1. Some have suggested the Hebrews borrowed the vaulted sky/flat earth cosmology from the Mesopotamians. Lambert showed that the Babylonians didn't have a vaulted sky.10 Their cosmology was quite different from a vaulted dome.
2. Early Church fathers rejected the solid vaulted sky. St. Basil said:
"I have said what the word firmament in Scripture means. It is not in reality a firm and solid substance which has weight and resistance; this name would otherwise have better suited the earth. But, as the substance of superincumbent bodies is light, without consistency, and cannot be grasped by any one of our senses, it is in comparison with these pure and imperceptible substances that the firmament has received its name. 11
"As Edward Grant notes, “Most Christian authors and Latin Encyclopedists during late antiquity . . . thought of the heavens (i.e. celestial spheres) as fiery or elemental in nature, and therefore fluid.”12
3. Medieval Christian scholars didn't commit to a solid dome cosmology
"During the late Middle Ages, most authors were vague and noncommital despite the fact that the very name firmamentum, with its implications of strength, power, and stability, and even of solidity and hardness, seemed to invite an explanation and thus to provide an occasion for the expression of opinions about its possible hardness or softness. "13
4. In the 14th century scholars moved to a solid firmament and it remained that way for two centuries.
5. Hard spheres were abandoned in the 16th century because of the observations of Tycho Brache and the comet of 1577 which proved there were no hard spheres. The comet seemed to plow right through those hard spheres without any effect.
6. The idea of the vaulted cosmology came from religious skeptics.
"Historians Jeffery Burton Russell and Christine Garwood respectively debunk the long-held view among modern scholars that ancient philosophers and scientists of the early Christian church, late antiquity, and the Middle Ages believed the earth was flat. After an extensive review of the letters, papers, and books of all the major thinkers throughout these periods, Russell and Garwood made the surprising discovery that apart from a few isolated individuals, no one believed in a flat earth—indeed, the common consensus throughout this entire period among virtually all scholars and churchmen was that the earth was spherical. Where, then, did the flat-earth understanding of early Christian and medieval thought originate? They were able to trace its origin to the early nineteenth century when antireligious sentiment was high among many scholars and intellectuals." 14
Russell wrote a piece on the internet debunking the flat earth which is part and parcel of this vaulted cosmology idea, and said:
"No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat."15
And further how no one is listening.
"Historians of science have been proving this point for at least 70 years (most recently Edward Grant, David Lindberg, Daniel Woodward, and Robert S. Westman), without making notable headway against the error. Schoolchildren in the US, Europe, and Japan are for the most part being taught the same old nonsense. How and why did this nonsense emerge?"16
Russell's article shows that it was Washington Irving, and Antoine-Jean Letronne who got the vaulted dome and flat earth going around 1800. Irving wrote the fraudulent story about Columbus being told that he would fall off the flat earth if he sailed west, when in fact Columbus was being told that China was far to far away for his ship to make it. Letronne was an academic with anti-religious biases' who misrepresented the early church fathers, portraying them as believing in a vaulted domed sky and flat earth.
This falsehood became an easy story for Christian opponents to use on us. "Look how dumb those Christians are!" And as academia turned more and more away from Christian culture over the past 2 centuries, few want to look into this, change it, or tell the truth. Even Christian academics love this game, but as I said, they prefer their Bible false.
Biblical scholars need to rethink the idea of a solid firmament, which falls into the trap atheists lay for us. As long as we agree with them that the vaulted, domed sky/flat earth was what the Bible taught, we will continue to force falsehood on the Scriptures. I know it goes against the grain of a couple of hundred years of thinking, but raqiya-expanse, does not indicate solidity--firmament, it indicates exactly what space out there does--expand.
by Glenn R. Morton 2019
Introduction
Those who know me know I have spent much of my life looking for ways to harmonize science and the Biblical record without violating either the historicity of Scripture nor the data of Science. Most will say this is a fool's errand; maybe, but I think we should at least try. God had a communication problem to deal with: He was going to talk to Neolithic farmers AND 21st century scientists. Our God is said to have foreknowledge, so why do so many interpretations of Genesis 1 act as if He was only speaking to the Neolithic farmers and not to 21st century scientists? It seems to me He should have been able to convey truth to both groups. Below is the Days of Proclamation view which I firmly believe solves this problem.
In this quest we need to examine my hermeneutical method(method of interpretation). I believe the words should be interpreted by what they mean. That is, one shouldn't change the meanings of the words, but can consider the limitation of the Neolithic language or alternative meanings of the words. Conservative interpreters of the Scripture often say that the proper meaning of a passage is what it meant to the original author. I agree with that. The original reader's understanding is not important because he might not have understood the meaning correctly. Finally, my most important rule, if there is a way to interpret the passage so as to make it historically/scientifically true, use that interpretation. If a method of interpretation forces the Scripture to be false, then it is the wrong approach. Why would we Christians want the Bible to be false?
Sadly, most Christians working in science deny that God could have told a true story of Creation to Neolithic farmers. These Christians say that the Neolithics would have been unable to understand or unwilling to accept the truth. So, they say, God accommodated his views to the falsehoods of the culture of the day. This is called Accommodationalism. Thus large parts of Scripture, including Genesis 1 are not to be taken as anything but cultural tales. I find this appalling. First, I spent much time during my crisis of faith talking with atheists. Both atheists and accommodationalists use the same arguments; use the very same problems in the Bible. Accommodationalist believe in God in spite of the problems while atheists disbelieve in God because of the same set of problems.
Secondly, Accommodationalism says God isn't smart enough to tell a simple but true story of Creation that Neolithics could understand and we would also feel is true. Is our God that small? Third, if God is telling falsehoods, it shatters His credibility, like a perjuror's credibility is ruined. If God allows falsehood in one place, can we trust that He didn't tell us a falsehood in the resurrection of his son? How could we trust a lying God to truly lead us to salvation? How can we trust a God who tolerates fabrications in His message to humans?
Other views that treat Genesis 1 as allegory, reworked myth, poem, or just a theological document generally maintain that history in Genesis 1 is not important or not God's goal. They never explain why, even if it is a poem, it is forbidden for poems to convey true information. Some try to say Genesis 1 is to show that the Hebrew God is greater than the Gods around them, but fail to say why every religion's creation story can't be said to attempt the same goal. These views all suggest that God doesn't know anything about his creation. Why? Because Genesis 1 certainly has all appearances of a creation story trying to tell me what happened. When the Creator doesn't know how Creation was created, we have a problem! Thus, I must reject this widely held view.
The framework interpretation of Genesis1 says the first three days were fixing the form of the earth and the final three days filling the earth. But again, this view is subject to Lee's criticism below that nothing matches the geologic record. If one says it is a poem and isn't supposed to match actual history, then once again, why doesn't God know what happened and have the ability to communicate it to us? The views presented here are designed to avoid this and other traps in Genesis 1.
The Problem
The basic problem we all have in Genesis 1 is the order of creation. Biblical critics often point to the order of events in Genesis 1 as being counter to what science knows to be the case. Adam Lee writes:
"Far from paralleling the geologic record, the Genesis story gets it wrong on every detail. If the creation order of Genesis followed the order of appearance of major groups of multicellular life, it would have begun with simple, non-vascular plants like moss and algae, followed by fish and insects, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals and flowering plants, birds, whales, and finally human beings. (Here's a good reference for the evolutionary timeline.)"
"This doesn't mean that progressive, scientifically minded Christians are forbidden to interpret the Genesis account as a parable for the gradual emergence of life over the eons, if they so choose. But it does mean they must abandon the pretense that the Genesis account contains any sliver of real scientific accuracy."1
The arrogance of an atheist telling us, how we must interpret Genesis is galling. What galls me more is that he is correct about how most scientifically minded Christians interpret Genesis--as something not containing any scientific truth. And that is very sad. This scientifically minded Christian can figure out how to interpret Genesis so that it is completely scientifically accurate, but I already know how it will be received by those same scientifically minded Christians. It is almost as if they want Scripture to be untrue. The views presented below make Genesis 1 match the current view of science.
Another criticism by atheists is that it is hard to have days prior to the formation of the sun. This could be due to the fact that the 'days' are not real days but pre-temporal events, logically before the universe came into being and this is just the best way for a temporal person to understand eternity, put it into our terms.
On the other side of the coin is the very common, orthodox view that Genesis 1 was not meant to be scientific but to show how Israel's God is better than the surrounding Gods. To me, this view is little more than agreeing with Lee that the Genesis account doesn't contain a "sliver of real scientific accuracy." This view has no defenders of Genesis 1 as real history. When in this situation, I always wonder why I should take seriously an account that is totally false. When statements about reality appear to be false, it doesn't make sense to then claim the theology contained in these statements is true. Again, "Doesn't God know what happened in Creation?" and "Can't He communicate a simple version of the truth to us?" Secondly, nowhere in the Scripture does it state that the purpose of Genesis 1 is to be a 'My-God-is-bigger-than-your-god" statement. This is a 20th century assumption forced onto scripture. If you read the Genesis 1 account, it reads as if it is a creation story, not a bragging about their God. Advocates act as if this view of Scripture is unquestionable and irrefutable. There simply is no evidence that their assumption is true.
The Days of Proclamation View
The Days of Proclamation view of Genesis 1 is an overlooked interpretation which avoids the problems above and allows us to really believe the account. It says Genesis 1 only consists of proclamations about what the Universe would be like. Nothing was created at the time of the proclamation. The phrase 'and it was so' was added by the human author, telling his readers, look around, this was accomplished. What the account doesn't say is as important as what it does say. No where does the human writer say: "and it was so, instantly". The assumption that each proclamation was instantly fulfilled is a long-held belief, but one that isn't really in the Scripture. There are eight proclamations on 7 days, day three has two. With each proclamation, I will break the Scripture up between what God said, and what the human writer added to show how the Days of Proclamation view work.
The picture below shows the relation between Genesis 1 and 2. The Days of Proclamation (DoP) view holds that Genesis 1 is the pre-temporal planning of the universe. I will discuss the ancientness of this view in Proclamation 1. The DoP places time between Genesis 1 and 2.
DaysOfProclamation1.jpg
I come from an old earth/evolutionary perspective, as will be seen below. I believe billions of years separate Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Young earth creationists can use the Days of Proclamation view to avoid Lee's criticism by changing the amount of time this view places in between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and still hold to their time scale. While I think young-earthers hold to an invalid time scale, there is nothing to stop a young-earth person from avoiding Lee's criticism via this means.
Is Genesis 1 Historical?
Genesis 1:1 is an executive summary of the rest of the chapter. In the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. To those who believe in God, this verse seems to be obviously true. But because many Christians believe Genesis 1 is not scientifically accurate, I did a informal poll over the years. I have asked hundreds of Christians if Genesis 1:1 is a historically and scientifically accurate statement. Even those who claim there is no science in Genesis 1 will say it is historically and scientifically accurate, and then say the rest of the chapter is scientific mush. Only one liberal Christian in all those years said, it wasn't accurate. I never could understand his reasoning. But if Genesis 1:1 is historically accurate, why can't the rest be accurate as well? I think it can be.
The Days of Proclamation might be hinted at in Genesis 1:2, "The earth was formless and void../" What could that mean? Looking up synonyms for formless we find that tohu, formless, means, without plan, without design, without configuration, without pattern, without structure, without framework. This strongly hints that God had not yet set up the plan for the earth. If form is the opposite of formless, then what St. Basil says is interesting, with regards to this view, " The form of the world is due to the wisdom of the supreme Artificer."2 The earth was formless because the Creator hadn't formed the plan. Genesis 1, I believe, is the outline of that pre-temporal planning. Looking up synonyms for bohu, void, we find it means, bare, empty, and lacking. Again, it appears that there is no plan in place for what would fill the earth.
Proclamation 1
Genesis 1:3.
Proclamation: Then God said, “Let there be light”;
Human writer's addenda: "and there was light".
Information from what isn't said: It doesn't say "and there was light instantly"
The account has God saying "Let there be light"; it doesn't have Him saying "Let there be light and there was light". That would make no sense. The phrase, "and there was light", is the editorial statement of the human author. "Let there be light" is the statement of God; "and it was so" is the statement of the human writer.. This is how the Days of Proclamation view approaches each of the proclamations in Genesis. Remember, this is the pre-temporal planning of the universe. The 'and there was light' was added to the account maybe billions of years after the proclamation.
Pre-temporal is both a logical and an old view.
Is viewing Genesis 1 as pre-temporal sensible? Absolutely it is. No matter whether one believes all of Genesis 1 is pre-temporal planning of the universe, or believes these statements immediately created the light, part of this first proclamation is pre-temporal. When God said 'Let', there still was no light, time or space. When God said 'be' there still was no light, time or space. The first part of this sentence is clearly a pre-temporal event until the sentence is finished and light comes into being. So even if one rejects the Days of Proclamation view which has all of Genesis 1 as pre-temporal planning, there is no getting around the fact that the first creative proclamation was stated logically prior to the universe's existence. So why not take a look at how a pre-temporal interpretation of Genesis 1 improves the fit between science and the Bible. Secondly, both Christians and Jews have taken at least parts of this passage as pre-temporal. Nachmanides, a medieval Jewish rabbi, said the whole Torah was written prior to the creation of the world. He explains why Moses doesn't list himself as author:
"The reason for the Torah being written in this form [namely, the third person] is that it preceded the creation of the world, and needless to say, it preceded the birth of Moses our teacher.” 3
St. Basil, looking at Genesis 1:3-5, notes that there is an oddity in the account. Instead of saying "the first day," the Hebrew says "was one day." New American Standard translates it this way. The Hebrew word e-hat is the word for one, and it is translated everywhere else in the Bible as "one", "single", or "only", but never as first. Basil suggests that this day is connected with eternity past.
"If then the beginning of time is called one day rather than the first day, it is because Scripture wishes to establish its relationship with eternity. It was, in reality, fit and natural to call one the day whose character is to be one wholly separated and isolated from all the others."4
Earlier in his essay, St. Basil had presaged the above statement with:
"The birth of the world was preceded by a condition of things suitable for the exercise of supernatural powers, outstripping the limits of time, eternal and infinite."5
The first day was eternity past plus the first day of creation. With these two statements, St. Basil began the path to the Days of Proclamation view by making the first day, pre-temporal.
The Importance of Light in Genesis 1:3
Liberal Christians, by this I mean those who do not believe the early Genesis accounts contain history or scientific information. will often agree that Genesis 1:3 is historical and scientifically accurate. I am a physicist so Genesis 1:3 tells me much about nature. To me it is quite interesting that the pre-planning mentions light first. It is fundamental to the nature of the universe. It is implicit in the nature of light. When God called light into existence, we know that the velocity of light is measured in distance divided by time. Light's existence requires both time and space to exist. Because light travels in space-time and the shape of space-time is controlled by the gravitational field, we also know that gravity was in existence. General Relativity is about both gravity and the space-time that comes with it. Gravity is one of the fundamental forces in nature. Light is a form of radiation formed by time-varying electrical and magnetic fields so we know electromagnetism existed. . Further, since science shows that at high temperatures, electricity, magnetism and the weak force (responsible for radioactive decay) are all one force, we know the electroweak theory was in existence. To explain this a bit more, while at high temperatures, electromagnetism and the weak force are one, at our temperatures, they split into two different forces. This simple sentence "Let there be light," proves God was thinking about 3 of the 4 fundamental forces in the first planning event.
Science tells us that the first thing that came into existence in the big bang was light. The first 30-50,000 years after the big bang was an era dominated by radiation, called the radiation era. During the radiation era, it was too hot for quarks to condense and hold together to form particles. So, with the very first proclamation we know a lot about the universe. Thus with this simple statement we know that 3 of the 4 fundamental forces of nature are in existence, and we match what we know of the big bang. Thus, I think that proclamation is as true as is the Genesis 1:1.
Proclamation 2
Genesis 1:6-7:
Proclamation: Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
Human writer's addenda: God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
Information from what isn't said: It doesn't say when God made the expanse in relation to the proclamation.
Some will find this section very eisegetical (reading modern things into the Scripture) but as I said above, God has to communicate truth both to Neolithic farmers and to 21st century scientists. There is a way to interpret this proclamation as scientifically true. As it is currently interpreted. as showing a vaulted domed sky, this is a troublesome proclamation and it is ridiculed by skeptics. Interestingly, that idea might have come not from the Hebrews but from the Greeks. There was a mistranslation of the Latin Vulgate. The Vulgate translates, raqiya, as 'firmament. but etymologyonline explains why it is a bad translation. That site says:
"Used in Late Latin in the Vulgate to translate Greek stereoma "firm or solid structure," which translated Hebrew raqiya, a word used of both the vault of the sky and the floor of the earth in the Old Testament, probably literally "expanse," from raqa "to spread out," but in Syriac meaning "to make firm or solid," hence the erroneous translation." 6
So, why did the Septuagint use stereoma as the translation for raqiya? A fascinating article which traces the idea of the vaulted sky, says that Hellenized Jews, knowing of Ptolemaic science bent the translation so as to match what they thought was known about the heavens. Since the Ptolemaic system had 8 solid crystalline spheres with stars, sun, planets and moon embedded in them, the Septuagint translators chose stereoma to match Greek beliefs. Expanse doesn't have the same meaning as firmament. Thus the vaulted sky idea ultimately came from the Greeks, from their understanding of the Ptolemaic system, and thus wasn't demonstrably a Hebrew idea. Further, it is quietly likely that the Syriac meaning of rqi a was influenced by the Septuagint as well, causing the dictionary compilers to call it make firm.
Raqiya does not mean solid, it's root is 'expansion', which is very interesting, of one thinks of the expansion of space. In my opinion, this word should never have been translated 'firmament'. It was a bias caused by the Septuagint and the Vulgate.. Because of the Vulgate, firmament made it into both Strong's and Brown-Driver-Briggs concordances on Hebrew. Frankly, using 'firmament' absolutely makes the Bible false, because it gives the view that the sky was a solid dome separating waters above this solid dome from the waters below. We know this is false from Science. If you want a false Scripture, read no further, there is no point in wasting your time. Those who suggest to me that we can't interpret the Scripture in any other way than the way the Neolithic Hebrews read it, condemn the Bible to be scientifically false with no hope of it ever being interpreted consistently with science. If the Bible is false, it shouldn't be believed.
So how do we get out of this problem? Consider, Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate... " Separate has two different meanings, the first is to "divide", and that is the meaning normally given to this verse. This meaning leads to falsehood. The second meaning is "force apart". If we use this meaning then the verse reads: Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it force apart the waters from the waters.” This indicates continuing action as opposed to finished action when separate means divide. Further, 'force apart' is more consistent with the meaning of raqiya's root, expansion.
With this meaning, then we can match modern science, and there are several possible ways to match modern science. My favorite, because it is simple is that it might refer to the expanse between the clouds and the earth, which we see every day. It is a fact that updrafts keep the clouds afloat, so maybe this is what it is referring to. The updraft of air acts moves the water up and away from the earth and only when the drops are too big to be held up by the updraft, do they fall as rain. If you watch a cumulus cloud growing, you can see it getting taller, spreading up and away from the earth.
Secondly, while the Neolithics couldn't have known of this, we all know of the expanding universe. Galaxies are separated from each other by the expansion of space itself. This is why the use of raqiya is so interesting. It is like there is a double entendre here, as some have observed dual meanings in Biblical prophecies. Space's basic nature is to expand, in the sense of forcing things apart. Space expands because of quantum mechanical properties of space, which generate the cosmological constant for general relativity. Now you can see the match from this possibility--Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate waters from waters. This could be the separation of galaxy from galaxy, or it could be the collapse of matter to form planets in a solar system, where gravity's pull separates the areas of the nebula going into one planet or the other. All of these interpretations makes Day two proclamation match science.
If one of the latter two interpretations is true, why did the Hebrews say waters? Well, they had no word for matter, and water seems quite common in the galaxy. Both gases in space and stars in gravitational fields can flow, like water when gravitational interactions are just right. When galaxies collide one can see stars flowing from one galaxy to another. See the picture below. You can see the bridge of stars flowing from one to the other.
merging-galaxies.jpg
The Vaunted Vaulted Sky Flat Earth Cosmology.
As Younker and Davidson show, this is a topic that was actually developed by Biblical critics, and possibly has no basis in history. They say:
"Anyone who wishes to study ancient Hebrew cosmology will quickly discover that the common understanding among most modern biblical scholars is that the Hebrews had a “prescientific,” even naive, view of the universe. This understanding is built around the idea that the Hebrew word rāqîa‘, which appears in Genesis 1 and is usually translated “firmament” in English Bibles, was actually understood by the ancient Hebrews to be a solid, hemispherical dome or vault that rested upon mountains or pillars that stood along the outermost perimeter of a circular, flat disc—the earth. Above this solid dome was a celestial ocean (“waters above the firmament”). Attached to the dome and visible to observers below were the stars, sun, and moon. The dome also possessed windows or gates through which celestial waters (“waters above the firmament”) could, upon occasion, pass."7
The idea that the Hebrews believed in a flat earth and solidly domed sky is a myth, as we will show. I will not deny that some people did believe in the vaulted sky, but they were rare and considered eccentrics. Elihu, when speaking to Job said,
Job 37:18 can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?
Does this support the domed sky/flat earth? It sounds like it but maybe not. The word used for 'skies' is more often translated as clouds than as skies, so it isn't really clear he is speaking about the firmament (raqiya). Robert C. Newman points out that r i is not the normal word for mirror in Scripture. Younker and Davidson say:
"Newman, 15, also notes that ḥāzāq can mean “mighty” as well as “strong,” and mûṣaq literally means “poured out.” He concludes that since in this verse the context is on-going weather phenomena rather than creation, the following translation of the verse is preferred: “Can you, with Him, spread out the mighty clouds, With an appearance of being poured out?”"8
For context: Job 37 has words like lightning, thunders, snow, rain, whirlwind, cold out of north,, frost, watering while wearing cloud, fair weather, wind. The chapter is speaking of meteorology, not cosmology. Given the uncertainty about the proper translation of the verse this does not provide certain evidence of a solid firmament, unless one is predisposed to looking for such evidence.
The vaulted sky idea has the ignorant Hebrews believing rain came through windows in the firmament. Wiki says:
"Rain, snow, wind and hail were kept in storehouses outside the raqia, which had "windows" to allow them in - the waters for Noah's flood entered when the "windows of heaven" were opened."9
The most important reason not to believe the nonsense above is that in Gen 7:11 it is the windows of shamayim (the sky), not the windows of raqiya (expanse)!. So, categorically NO; the firmament raqiya) didn't have windows through which water flowed.
The second reason is that there is plenty of Biblical evidence that the ancient Hebrews knew that rain came from clouds, not from windows in the sky. Since Job is the oldest book, this knowledge predates the rest of the Bible.
Judges 5:4“the clouds poured down water."
2 Samuel 22:12"the dark rain clouds of the sky."
1 Kings 18:45"Meanwhile, the sky grew black with clouds,the wind rose, a heavy rain started falling "
Job 26:8 “He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight.”
Job 36:28 "the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind."
Job 37:11 “He loads the clouds with moisture; he scatters his lightning through them.”
Job 37:13 “He brings the clouds to punish people, or to water his earth and show his love.”
Job 38:34 ““Can you raise your voice to the clouds and cover yourself with a flood of water?”
Job 38:37 “Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens”
Psalm 18:11 "the dark rain clouds of the sky."
Now that we have established that Hebrews knew the source of rain–and weren’t quite as stupid as they are portrayed, we need to look at the history of the idea of the vaulted sky/flat earth cosmology to see how it happened. Multiple researchers have debunked this idea and it doesn't seem to go away. No one seems to be listening. There are many points Younker and Davidson make:
1. Some have suggested the Hebrews borrowed the vaulted sky/flat earth cosmology from the Mesopotamians. Lambert showed that the Babylonians didn't have a vaulted sky.10 Their cosmology was quite different from a vaulted dome.
2. Early Church fathers rejected the solid vaulted sky. St. Basil said:
"I have said what the word firmament in Scripture means. It is not in reality a firm and solid substance which has weight and resistance; this name would otherwise have better suited the earth. But, as the substance of superincumbent bodies is light, without consistency, and cannot be grasped by any one of our senses, it is in comparison with these pure and imperceptible substances that the firmament has received its name. 11
"As Edward Grant notes, “Most Christian authors and Latin Encyclopedists during late antiquity . . . thought of the heavens (i.e. celestial spheres) as fiery or elemental in nature, and therefore fluid.”12
3. Medieval Christian scholars didn't commit to a solid dome cosmology
"During the late Middle Ages, most authors were vague and noncommital despite the fact that the very name firmamentum, with its implications of strength, power, and stability, and even of solidity and hardness, seemed to invite an explanation and thus to provide an occasion for the expression of opinions about its possible hardness or softness. "13
4. In the 14th century scholars moved to a solid firmament and it remained that way for two centuries.
5. Hard spheres were abandoned in the 16th century because of the observations of Tycho Brache and the comet of 1577 which proved there were no hard spheres. The comet seemed to plow right through those hard spheres without any effect.
6. The idea of the vaulted cosmology came from religious skeptics.
"Historians Jeffery Burton Russell and Christine Garwood respectively debunk the long-held view among modern scholars that ancient philosophers and scientists of the early Christian church, late antiquity, and the Middle Ages believed the earth was flat. After an extensive review of the letters, papers, and books of all the major thinkers throughout these periods, Russell and Garwood made the surprising discovery that apart from a few isolated individuals, no one believed in a flat earth—indeed, the common consensus throughout this entire period among virtually all scholars and churchmen was that the earth was spherical. Where, then, did the flat-earth understanding of early Christian and medieval thought originate? They were able to trace its origin to the early nineteenth century when antireligious sentiment was high among many scholars and intellectuals." 14
Russell wrote a piece on the internet debunking the flat earth which is part and parcel of this vaulted cosmology idea, and said:
"No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat."15
And further how no one is listening.
"Historians of science have been proving this point for at least 70 years (most recently Edward Grant, David Lindberg, Daniel Woodward, and Robert S. Westman), without making notable headway against the error. Schoolchildren in the US, Europe, and Japan are for the most part being taught the same old nonsense. How and why did this nonsense emerge?"16
Russell's article shows that it was Washington Irving, and Antoine-Jean Letronne who got the vaulted dome and flat earth going around 1800. Irving wrote the fraudulent story about Columbus being told that he would fall off the flat earth if he sailed west, when in fact Columbus was being told that China was far to far away for his ship to make it. Letronne was an academic with anti-religious biases' who misrepresented the early church fathers, portraying them as believing in a vaulted domed sky and flat earth.
This falsehood became an easy story for Christian opponents to use on us. "Look how dumb those Christians are!" And as academia turned more and more away from Christian culture over the past 2 centuries, few want to look into this, change it, or tell the truth. Even Christian academics love this game, but as I said, they prefer their Bible false.
Biblical scholars need to rethink the idea of a solid firmament, which falls into the trap atheists lay for us. As long as we agree with them that the vaulted, domed sky/flat earth was what the Bible taught, we will continue to force falsehood on the Scriptures. I know it goes against the grain of a couple of hundred years of thinking, but raqiya-expanse, does not indicate solidity--firmament, it indicates exactly what space out there does--expand.
Comment