Let there be light.

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Paul33:
I disagree with the idea that God stretched out the heavens on day two for the simple fact that Genesis 1: 8 defines the expanse as "sky."

"Sky" or "heaven", depending on your translation. Anyway, based on modern astronomy, you know that the heavens are far more than the sky. I don't think the account was written with such knowledge in mind, nor was it intended to reveal such things.

Show me from the text why you believe the expanse is more than the "sky" (earth's atmosphere) mentioned by God.

Because God makes lights in the expanse (day four) and birds to fly across the expanse (day five). I think this accords well with an ancient perspective that did not realize distinctions between the atmosphere and outer space.

I realize that you read "lights in the expanse" as "lights that are visible through the expanse", but I don't think that's what the author intended to convey. Again, I think that's reading modern knowledge into the text.

 

[Paul33]

But the Hebrew Bible does make distinctions about "sky" and "outer space."

Genesis 1:1 uses shamayim to mean universe. Zechariah 12:1 uses shaymayim to mean the universe that was stretched out.

Genesis 1:8 specifically limits shamayim to the earth's atmosphere, the "sky" that was filled. Exodus 20:11 echoes this thought.

IMO, the key to interpreting Genesis 1 is found in verse two. The earth was tohu webohu (unformed and unfilled, or barren and empty). God then went about forming the earth and filling it. This means that the interpretation needs to reflect what God is doing on the earth, not in outer space. Therefore, the expanse of verse 8 is the earth's atmosphere described as "sky" and not the "stretched out heavens" of verse one.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Genesis 1:1 uses shamayim to mean universe.

No, not on its own. It's the whole construction of heavens-and-the-earth that means the entirety of the physical realm -- what we call the universe. Hebrew had no word for universe, nor did they have the modern idea of what the universe consists of and how Earth is situated within it. The word heavens, shamayim, doesn't by itself mean universe.

IMO, the key to interpreting Genesis 1 is found in verse two. The earth was tohu webohu (unformed and unfilled, or barren and empty). God then went about forming the earth and filling it.

I agree. I'd add one more component: in Genesis 1:2 there was darkness (choshek). The problems of darkness, barrenness and emptiness are solved during the six days.

This means that the interpretation needs to reflect what God is doing on the earth, not in outer space.

That assumes modern ideas about outer space. I don't think God revealed those things to the author of Genesis. The inspired author wrote from his perspective, from which the heavens contained both birds and stars.

Therefore, the expanse of verse 8 is the earth's atmosphere described as "sky" and not the "stretched out heavens" of verse one.

Again, I think you're creating a distinction that would have been foreign to the author and original audience of Genesis.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Mercury, do you not suppose it is possible that God wrote this passage to include the understanding of both the ancients and our more modern selves?

 

[Paul33]

No I'm not, because you just admitted that verse one is about the universe, stating that Hebrew didn't have a word for universe and used "heavens and earth" to describe the universe.

If that is the case, the Hebrews certainly understood the distinctin between the universe way out there and the sky that birds fly in.

Moses was no idiot. He was trained in all of the wisdom of the Egyptians.

Before "modern science" many cultures understood that stars were "out there" and birds were "close by."

 

[garpier]

The firmament (raqia) which God called heaven (shamayim) is not the atmosphere around the earth. In verse 17 God set the sun, moon and stars in the firmament(raqia) which He called heaven (shamayim). In verse 20 the birds fly in or against the face of the frimament according to the Hebrew text. Therefore the firmament where the sun moon and stars were put is not the atmosphere of the eart. It is that strecthed out area which God formed in verse 7. IMO

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by menageriekeeper:
Mercury, do you not suppose it is possible that God wrote this passage to include the understanding of both the ancients and our more modern selves?

I think the historical context of every passage is important, but yes, I do think God has made Scripture understandable to us as well. This is because we know quite a bit about Hebrew culture, in no small measure due to the Bible itself. Because we have this and other windows into the ancient world, we can still understand what is written by those people today (even if some shades of meaning are lost or commonly missed).

I don't accept a view that treats the Bible as a document waiting to be decoded. I'm skeptical of any interpretation that would not have been clear to the original audience. I realize that the New Testament authors sometimes interpreted Old Testament passages in this way, but they did so under inspiration, and I don't think we have the same license. It's far too easy to make a passage say whatever one wants it to say using that approach. I'd much rather say that a certain passage does not apply to us (if there's grounds for that), or is written in a genre other than historical record (if there's grounds for that), than try to make it literally say what I want it to say.

I also don't accept a view that treats the Bible much the way Muslims treat their holy book -- as a document written directly by God where humans only took dictation. I take the human authorship seriously, while not discounting the inspiration of these authors by God. Just as Jesus is both God and man, so too the Bible is a product of God and man. The entire Bible is God's word, but it is not all God's word in the same sense (for instance, 2 Samuel 23:2-3a is God's word in a different sense than 23:3b-4, and Elihu's speeches in Job are not God's word in the same sense as Jesus' words in the gospels).

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by garpier:
The firmament (raqia) which God called heaven (shamayim) is not the atmosphere around the earth. In verse 17 God set the sun, moon and stars in the firmament(raqia) which He called heaven (shamayim). In verse 20 the birds fly in or against the face of the frimament according to the Hebrew text. Therefore the firmament where the sun moon and stars were put is not the atmosphere of the eart. It is that strecthed out area which God formed in verse 7. IMO

God did set or frame the sun, moon and stars in the expanse. But Genesis is using phenomenological language. From the earth's perspective, God did set the sun and moon in the expanse which he called "sky."

When we look up at the sky, we see the sun, moon, and stars. On day two God worked on the sky. On day four, God appointed the sun and moon and framed them in the sky to govern the night and the day.

Please, understand what phenomenological language is. It will help you avoid making interpretive mistakes regarding the nature of creation in Genesis one.

From earth's perspective God filled the sky with birds and he filled the sky with the sun, moon and stars. I believe on day four, the sun, moon, and stars became visible for the first time as God cleared the sky of clouds.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Paul33:
No I'm not, because you just admitted that verse one is about the universe, stating that Hebrew didn't have a word for universe and used "heavens and earth" to describe the universe.

They used it to describe all that existed. This is different than saying they used it to describe the modern view of the universe. They did not have the modern view of the universe.

If that is the case, the Hebrews certainly understood the distinctin between the universe way out there and the sky that birds fly in.

Why would that follow? All it means is that they understood the distinction between the earth (ground) and the heavens (the sky). They didn't know that after sky ended, there was the vacuum of space where the stars were. Their idea of sky was more all-encompassing than our idea.

Moses was no idiot. He was trained in all of the wisdom of the Egyptians.

Exactly. The Egyptians didn't know everything either. Neither do we. Someone is not an idiot because they don't know something that they had no means to discover.

As a side note, we know from Egyptian mummification procedures that ancient Egyptians did not know what the brain was for. While they carefully preserved the other organs, the brain was discarded during mummification. Ancient Hebrews also did not know what the brain was for (biblical Hebrew doesn't even have a word for "brain"), and God didn't reveal this scientific detail. There was no need for God to do so. He communicated the concepts of thinking and reasoning using their own terms, such as thinking with one's heart or kidneys. We now treat these expressions as figures of speech, but at one point they were taken at face value.

Before "modern science" many cultures understood that stars were "out there" and birds were "close by."

Certainly they would realize that the stars were higher than the birds flew. That would not lead them to being able to tell that the birds were within the atmosphere while the stars were in outer space. They had no way to make that distinction.

Anyway, I think you're reading your modern ideas about the universe into Hebrew terms like heaven and earth. The Hebrews divided the world into three components: heaven, earth and sea. That in itself shows that they had a different conception of earth than planet Earth, because in that case a separate division for the sea would be redundant. Here's just some of the verses that refer to this three-fold division of the world:
</font>

• Exodus 20:11a: "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day."</font>
• Nehemiah 9:6: "You are the LORD, you alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them; and you preserve all of them; and the host of heaven worships you."</font>
• Psalm 69:34: "Let heaven and earth praise him, the seas and everything that moves in them."</font>
• Psalm 96:11: "Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice; let the sea roar, and all that fills it..."</font>
• Psalm 135:6: "Whatever the LORD pleases, he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps."</font>
• Psalm 146:6: "[The LORD his God] who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, who keeps faith forever..."</font>
• Acts 4:24: "And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them..."</font>
• Revelation 10:2,5-6: "He had a little scroll open in his hand. And he set his right foot on the sea, and his left foot on the land... And the angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the land raised his right hand to heaven and swore by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it..."</font>
• Revelation 21:1: "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more."</font>

In the Bible, these three components are deeply related, in contrast to your view of the rest of the universe being separate from Earth. When God shakes the earth, the heavens rattle too (Joel 3:16; Haggai 2:6,21).

I don't see it as any fault of Scripture that it describes things according to the science of the day. And, I think it's a mistake to try and reinterpret the words of Scripture to make it seem as though the ancients shared our scientific knowledge.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Therefore, your interpretation must mean that God created an empty universe devoid of everything but the planet earth and then added to this planet eventually adding stars to the empy universe.

I'm butting in to something you wrote about the NET Bible quote. I don't think the NET Bible is claiming what you're claiming, but rather that the structure of the first Genesis creation account is something like this (I'm quoting the ESV instead):

Introductory summary
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

Starting conditions
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (Genesis 1:2)

Six days of creating
(Genesis 1:3-31)

Concluding summary
Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. (Genesis 2:1)

Sabbath
And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation. (Genesis 2:2-3)

Now, I think this is a pretty straight-forward reading of the text. The "heavens and the earth" of Genesis 1:1 are the same ones created during the six days and summarized as "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished" afterward. The bookends of Genesis 1:1 and 2:1 are both summaries of what is between them rather than additional creation events.

The main objection I've seen to this view is that it means Genesis 1 doesn't tell us how the "deep" of Genesis 1:2 was created. I don't see that as problematic because other passages explain that God made everything, including any primordial deep. So, I don't think that's any more of a problem than how the creation of angels isn't mentioned in this account.

 

[Paul33]

I think you limit supernatural revelation. Moses had knowledge that could come only from God whether he understood it or not.

"Heaven and earth" describe the universe, the heaven of heavens of Nehemiah 9:6.

Heaven can also refer to "sky," the sky that is refered to during the six days of forming and filling the earth to make it habitable for man.

It is your assumption that the Hebrews didn't understand concepts like universe or heavenly hosts in distinction to the sky in which birds fly in.

That's your perogative, but you dont' know that anymore than your assertion that I don't know that they did.

So let's go back to the text. Genesis 1:2 describes the condition of the earth after it had previously been stated in verse one that God created the universe.

Therefore the progression of Genesis is:
Universe
Unformed and unfilled earth
Forming and filling earth.

The text indicates that the expanse is "sky."

Regardless of what we think they knew, the text tells us that expanse is sky, the sky birds fly in and the sky that the sun and moon are set in
(phenomenological language).

It's that simple and it has nothing to do with reading into the text our modern understandings.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Paul33:
So let's go back to the text. Genesis 1:2 describes the condition of the earth after it had previously been stated in verse one that God created the universe.

It looks like I managed to anticipate this point.

See my last post at the bottom of the last page, which I posted while you were writing this.

The text indicates that the expanse is "sky."

Yes, "sky" or "heavens". It's one part of the three-part world as we see it described in the Bible, which consists of heavens, earth and sea.

 

[Paul33]

We'll just have to disagree.

The summary theory of Genesis 1:1 doesn't hold up. God created out of nothing the "heavens and the earth" (universe). The vav consecutive continues the thougt. And the earth was tohu webohu. And the Holy Spirit was hovering.

That's straight forward Hebrew! In fact, if verse one is a summary statment, then verse two presents the formless earth as preexistent.

Anyway, I'm going to stick with the text and with Job 38:4-9 which clearly indicates that the earth's foundation was created before God "formed and filled" the earth.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Paul33:
The summary theory of Genesis 1:1 doesn't hold up. God created out of nothing the "heavens and the earth" (universe). The vav consecutive continues the thougt.

The vav consecutive is present throughout the account, including the summary statement in Genesis 2:1. It does not necessarily equal consecutive action. There's no problem with giving a summary and then using "and" to lead to the starting conditions, and then "and" to lead to the first day events.

Are you equally adamant about the vav consecutive in Genesis 2:4-25, where it leads to a different order of events?

In fact, if verse one is a summary statment, then verse two presents the formless earth as preexistent.

Yes, and I addressed that in my post. The fact that this account doesn't tell us about the creation of the deep is no more problematic than how it doesn't tell us about the creation of angels. There is more to God's creation than what Genesis 1 itemizes. Other passages are clear that God made everything.

Colossians 1:15-17: "[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -- all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together."

Hebrews 11:3: "By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible."

Anyway, I'm going to stick with the text and with Job 38:4-9 which clearly indicates that the earth's foundation was created before God "formed and filled" the earth.

How does that help your idea that the text says the stars pre-existed the earth's creation?

 

[Mercury]

Oh, and by the way, I do think other stars existed before our solar system formed. I just don't think Genesis 1 reveals this fact.

The purpose of Genesis 1 isn't to reveal things that humanity can discover itself. If it were, I'm sure the account would tell us the shape of Earth and how it moves around the sun.

Instead, God has left some secrets for us to discover ourselves.

 

[Paul33]

Mercury,

Thanks for the discourse.

What I find interesting is that neither old earth creationists/theistic evolutionists or young earth creationists find any merit in Gorman Gray's interpretation.

That fascinates me, because with a little work from both sides, I think Gray has provided a valid interpretation.

I think it shows how hard and fast we hold to prvious understandings of the Genesis account.

Again, thanks for the discussion.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Paul33:
What I find interesting is that neither old earth creationists/theistic evolutionists or young earth creationists find any merit in Gorman Gray's interpretation.

Just speaking for myself, it is because I find its Scriptural interpretation tortured and its scientific conclusions to be contradicted and falsified. If I found an interpretation hard to swallow but I thought it lined up perfectly with reality, I'd probably consider it more compelling. But, I don't see how this interpretation is appealing either based on the science or the Scripture. I realize you see it differently.

That fascinates me, because with a little work from both sides, I think Gray has provided a valid interpretation.

I'm curious: what would it take for you to accept that the stars are 6,000 years old? Would you be willing to make that compromise? I expect that you wouldn't because you just know, based on what you've studied, that the stars are older. That's how I feel about the biosphere too.

I think it shows how hard and fast we hold to prvious understandings of the Genesis account.

In my case, I've gone from YEC to Gap to TE. I know firsthand what it's like to overcome personal biases, and I don't claim to be without them now. One thing I've found is that TEs, especially evangelical TEs, tend to be less dogmatic about their interpretations because most have already found out they've been wrong in the past. I think it's a valuable experience that many born-and-raised YECs (and born-and-raised TEs) have missed out on.

Again, thanks for the discussion.

Thanks. I enjoyed it too.

 

[garpier]

Originally posted by Paul33:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by garpier:
The firmament (raqia) which God called heaven (shamayim) is not the atmosphere around the earth. In verse 17 God set the sun, moon and stars in the firmament(raqia) which He called heaven (shamayim). In verse 20 the birds fly in or against the face of the frimament according to the Hebrew text. Therefore the firmament where the sun moon and stars were put is not the atmosphere of the eart. It is that strecthed out area which God formed in verse 7. IMO

God did set or frame the sun, moon and stars in the expanse. But Genesis is using phenomenological language. From the earth's perspective, God did set the sun and moon in the expanse which he called "sky."

When we look up at the sky, we see the sun, moon, and stars. On day two God worked on the sky. On day four, God appointed the sun and moon and framed them in the sky to govern the night and the day.

Please, understand what phenomenological language is. It will help you avoid making interpretive mistakes regarding the nature of creation in Genesis one.

From earth's perspective God filled the sky with birds and he filled the sky with the sun, moon and stars. I believe on day four, the sun, moon, and stars became visible for the first time as God cleared the sky of clouds. </font>[/QUOTE]I find it interesting that you are arguing from english words "sky" for example and yet I am making an interpretative mistake by arguing from the Hebrew? What you are calling sky is the Hebrew word shamayim which God equated to the firmament (raqia). Please show me how this is phenomoligical language or an interprettive mistake on my part.

I have pointed out that the Hebrew says that the birds fly in or against the face of the firmament which is consistent with my view that the firmament and the heavens are one and the same and are not part of the earth's atmosphere.

It would seem to me that in order to maintain your interpretation you are ignoring the Hebrew grammar except where you think it will help your case.

 

[Paul33]

NIV Genesis 1:6-8

I think this is a good translation of the Hebrew.

 

[garpier]

It is still a translation and there is nothing like the orginal language. Meanings can often be understood better by studying the original language as you no doubt know. Many translations if not all are subject to the bias of the translators. I am not saying this is either good or bad but it is the nature of translations.