The waters were separated there was water above and below, NOT DENYING that. In the expanse of the heavens. In the expanse of the heavens is now talking about something other than water, and even people of science can see, well maybe, the sun, moon, and stars are not the in heavens directly next to the earth.
Air (*raqia*) separates the water on earth from waters in the sky known as clouds in my opinion.
Air (*raqia*) separates the water on earth from waters in the sky known as clouds in my opinion.
I agree, and in the heavens suggest to me that more than just the area between the clouds and the earth are being talked about.
The waters were separated by the firmament/expanse (*raqia*) there was water above and below the firmament/expanse (*raqia*), NOT DENYING that. In the expanse of the heavens. In the expanse of the heavens is now talking about something other than water, Is this where the confusion is? With the phrase 'expanse of the heavens'?
OK, that makes more sense. Now I think I understand where the confusion is. The phrase 'expanse of the heavens' is not referring to something different (*although I agree with you that it's not referring to water either; the firmament separates the waters, but it is not water itself).
'The expanse/firmament of the heavens/sky' in v. 14 is simply a reference to v. 8 where God calls the expanse/firmament 'heaven/sky'.
The important thing to note in all this is that the *firmament/expanse* is the same thing throughout. That is, the *expanse/firmament* in Day 2 is the same *expanse/firmament* in Day 4, AND ALSO the same *expanse/firmament in Day 5. This is clear in both the Hebrew and English translation. We know this because in Genesis 1.6 God says let there be 'A/AN firmament/expanse'. Then from that point on it is referred to specifically as 'THE firmament/expanse'.
6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse (*raqia*) in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made the expanse (*raqia*) and separated the waters that were under the expanse (*raqia*) from the waters that were above the expanse (*raqia*). And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse (*raqia*) Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse (*raqia*) of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse (*raqia*) of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse (*raqia*) of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
20 And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse (*raqia*) of the heavens.”
In short, THE *raqia* firmament/expanse/vault:
(1) Separates the 'waters below' from the 'waters above' (Day 2)
(2) The sun, moon, and stars are put in THE *raqia* (Day 4)
(3) And the birds fly above the earth and across the face of THE *raqia* (Day 5)
***Whatever THE *raqia* is it is the same *raqia* throughout. There is only one *raqia* referred to in Genesis 1. The birds fly across it, the sun, moon and stars are in it, and the 'waters below' and the 'waters above' are separated by it.
I'll ask again. The Bible says on Day 2 God created a firmament/expanse (Hebrew *raqia*) to separate the waters below from the waters above, and set the sun, moon, and stars in this firmament/expanse (*raqia*) on Day 4. Are you claiming the Bible doesn't say that?
If you are claiming that the only expanse in existence at the time was the one that separated the waters above from the waters below, and that the Bible is therefore claiming that the sun is by the clouds, then yes, I’m claiming the Bible doesn’t say that.
I'm not claiming it, it's simply what the Bible actually says. God creates the firmament/expanse/vault *raqia* on Day 2 the purpose of which is to separate the 'waters below' from the 'waters above', and then on Day 4 God says, 'Let there be lights in the firmament/expanse/vault *raqia*'.
Your view would require us to believe that when the Bible creates *raqia* in Genesis 1.6-7 and then puts the sun, moon, and stars in the *raqia* seven verses later in Genesis 1.14 that it's referring to two different things. But that doesn't even make sense. That would mean that instead of God creating the *raqia* and then putting the sun, moon, and stars in the *raqia*, that God creates the *raqia* and then puts the sun, moon, and stars in a different *raqia* that inexplicably appears out of nowhere without any explanation or mention of its creation.
The claim that it's just an extension of the same *raqia* above the 'waters above' also doesn't make sense either, and contradicts what the Bible expressly says. The *raqia* is expressly defined in relationship to the waters: the waters 'under' the *raqia* and the waters 'above' the *raqia*.
God creates the *raqia* to separate the waters. This *raqia* separates the waters 'under' the *raqia* from the waters 'above' the *raqia*. God then puts the sun, moon, and stars in this *raqia*. It's as simple as that. The Bible couldn't be any clearer.
You seem to believe that this water above the firmament is actually the wall of the universe, and that nothing is behind it. But if it isn’t, then what is above this water if not a great expanse, or firmament?
It is a firmament, and that is where the heavenly bodies were put.
@Kjvav,
Ahhhh... yes, very good! People seem to be assuming a certain meaning of 'waters above'. For example, people seem to be identifying 'waters above' with clouds or a 'water vapor canopy' and seem to assume that I am doing the same, when, in fact, I haven't made any precise identification. At most it seems obvious to me that the 'waters above' refer to the source of rain, whatever that may be. We naturally think of clouds, but Genesis 1 does not make any clear connection like that.
***The point is that the identification of 'waters above' is more debatable. There is more room for disagreement on that one.
By contrast the Bible is clear that whatever *the raqia* is (and the NIV translation *vault* is probably closest to the actual meaning of *raqia*) that (1) *the raqia* separates the waters under the raqia from the waters above the raqia; (2) the sun, moon, and stars are put in the raqia; and (3) the birds fly above the earth and across the face of the raqia.
These three statements about the raqia seem indisputable. I don't see how the text can be made to say anything else. That's simply what the Bible says.
HOWEVER, when it comes to the 'waters above' Genesis 1 gives us only one statement about *the waters above the raqia*, and that is simply that they are *the waters above the raqia*.
So the real question turns on the identification of *the waters above the raqia*, wouldn't you agree? That said, I don't think it's a 'wall of the universe', but I do think there are only two main possibilities to what *the waters above the raqia* could be:
A: *The waters above the raqia* are related to rain (whether clouds, or a water vapor canopy, or 'heavenly ocean' or what have you; whatever the 'waters above' are it seems they are related to rain in some way).
B: *The waters above the raqia* are waters at the 'edge of the universe'. This is the view of Ken Ham/YEC Answers in Genesis organization. They recognize that according to the Bible the sun, moon, and stars are in the *raqia* and the raqia is below *the waters above the raqia*, so if *the waters above the raqia* are related to rain, then that puts the sun, moon, and stars in the earth's atmosphere. In order to avoid this and harmonize Genesis 1 with modern understanding they say *the waters above the raqia* must therefore be waters out in space out past all the stars at the 'edge of the universe'.
***These are the only two suggestions I know of. Am I missing any others? Can you think of any other possibilities for what *the waters above the raqia* could be that we can add to the list?
It may be easier, then, if we reframe the issue around the following question: What are *the waters above the raqia*?
A: They are related to rain in some way
B: They are waters at the edge of the universe (YEC Ken Ham/Answers in Genesis view)
C...?
Clouds!
Could be. I'm not sure. *The waters above the raqia* certainly do seem to be related to rain in some way (Option A), whether it's clouds, a 'water vapor canopy', 'heavenly ocean' source of rain, or what have you, or perhaps even a combination of these possibilities (minus the 'water vapor canopy' theory). I think that's far more probable and makes more sense than Option B.
I imagine that if the Hebrew for 'waters' was used , then a large body of liquid water was most probably meant?
If the original author(s) had intended 'clouds' or 'vapour' or 'mist' or (take your pick) then they would have used the word for that instead.
I imagine that if the Hebrew for 'waters' was used , then a large body of liquid water was most probably meant?
If the original author(s) had intended 'clouds' or 'vapour' or 'mist' or (take your pick) then they would have used the word for that instead.
Paul H. Seely has written some of the most extensive reviews on these subjects. For example, he traces the interpretation and translation of *raqia* in Genesis throughout history and shows that the raqia that separated the waters was believed to be a clear, translucent *solid* dome or arch through which one could see the 'waters' or 'sea above the raqia' (*which was the explanation for why the sky is blue---because of the 'ocean above' the solid raqia. Even the word 'firmament' which comes from the Latin 'firmamentum' (the word used to translate the Hebrew word raqia in the Latin Vulgate) means to make solid or firm.
It is only in the past 100 years or so that Bible translations have tried to change this understanding to accord with modern understanding by erroneously translating raqia as 'expanse' or 'space' or 'air'. But this is a distortion of what the Bible actually says. But I digress.
Anyway, I'd forgotten how clouds fit into all this, but was reminded of something PH Seely said:
"The water above the firmament and the clouds are related, but not the same. Later rabbis said the clouds go up to the firmament to get filled with water and then carry that water off to be dumped on the earth as rain."
So yes, the clouds are different from the waters above the raqia. The clouds can't be the waters above the raqia because the clouds can pass in front of the sun but never behind it, and since the sun is in the raqia the waters above the raqia must be above the sun.
Thus, the waters above the raqia are most consistent with an ocean of water above the solid raqia just like we have an ocean of water below the raqia. During Noah's flood the windows or sluice gates of heaven are opened to allow this heavenly ocean above the solid raqia to rain down for forty days and forty nights, and then the windows are closed.
This is the most accurate translation and understanding of Genesis that is faithful to the original Hebrew text. It is also consistent with ANE cosmology. It is also consistent with what most people believed until relatively recently.
The irony in the accusations I receive of so-called twisting the text is that this translation and understanding is actually more faithful to the text and the more LITERAL translation. Those who try to change this to accord with modern science are actually the ones twisting the text.
This is why *Concordism* doesn't work, and *Accommodationism* is the only possible solution.
It may be easier, then, if we reframe the issue around the following question: What are *the waters above the raqia*?
A: They are related to rain in some way
B: They are waters at the edge of the universe (YEC Ken Ham/Answers in Genesis view)
C...?
C. NON-water 'building blocks' of earth and solar system. I just ran across a third suggestion that I find so incredible and ludicrous. This one also comes from Ken Ham's YEC organization Answers in Genesis in an attempt to counter Paul H. Seely's articles on the solid nature of the *raqia* and identification of *the waters above the raqia* (mentioned in above posts). In their own words, Answers in Genesis writes:
"In a second article, Seely goes a step further and attempts to show that the Genesis account teaches the existence of ‘a veritable sea located above’ the solid raqiya‘. Now to begin this section, here is an analogy regarding the first of the Ten Plagues that will prove useful. We have a descriptive indication that the waters of the Nile were turned to ‘blood’, but we need not automatically believe that it was ‘blood’ in the sense of having erythrocytes, platelets, plasma, etc. By the same token, when Genesis speaks of ‘waters’ above the raqiya‘, we are hardly to suppose that it was a substance universally composed of two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen. Nor for that matter can we suppose the distribution of these ‘waters’ was uniform above the raqiya‘, although we do not doubt that some ancient peoples, including the Hebrews, reached that conclusion of their own accord.
What, then, are these ‘waters’? We agree with Seely, against a number of commentators, that these are not clouds. Rather, it is our suggestion that these ‘waters’ were the originally-created, basic building blocks of matter that the earth was made from, and otherwise became all that was created outside of our atmosphere and/or our solar system. We would hardly expect the author of Genesis to make distinctions between things like stellar matter, methane gas, asteroids, comets, etc. A simple elemental term, ‘waters,’ would be sufficient, especially in light of the fact that these same waters were made into ‘Seas’ below the raqiya‘, and even so after the primordial ‘waters’ had been coalesced into different forms. The term ‘waters’ would serve in the minds of the pre-scientific just as ‘blood’ stood for whatever actual substance the Nile became."
***Did everyone catch that? AiG's 'solution' to the problem posed by *the waters above the raqia* is to claim that *waters* does NOT actually mean real, literal water!! This is the type of mental gymnastics that bothers me the most, because YECs get all self-righteous about how they're some supposed self-appointed guardians of the literal truth of God's Word who are the true faithful believing Christians while anyone who disagrees with them is an evil atheist or backsliding compromising reprobate Christian--if they are even worthy of the title (@Kjvav has said as much about me recently; and the same AiG article quoted above says as much about Seely that he's a professed evangelical who's more dangerous than those evil atheists and leads other Christians astray)--BUT THEY DON'T EVEN CONSISTENTLY INTERPRET THE BIBLE LITERALLY THEMSELVES. Isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy? Saying one thing and doing another?
So AiG's 'solution' is a NON-LITERAL interpretation. In fact, it's not even a metaphorical or figurative or allegorical interpretation. It's simply an ad hoc made-up one that claims the words of the biblical text don't mean what they actually mean. 'Water' means water when it comes to Noah's flood, and the 'waters of the Nile' (that turn to NON-literal 'blood'), and even the 'waters below the raqia' that are gathered together on Day 3 in order for dry land to appear are real water, but the 'waters above the raqia' on Day 2 are not actual water? Really? (And I get flak for what I say?).
***This is yet another example of 'literalist' fundamentalists who don't actually interpret the Bible literally.
In sum, it seems obvious that the 'waters above the raqia' in Day 2 of the Genesis creation account relate to rain in some way. It is also clear that the sun, moon and stars are set in the 'raqia' below this rainwater source on Day 4, and that the birds fly across the face of the raqia on Day 5. This puts the sun, moon, and stars below the source of rainwater. This is the most literal, straightforward understanding of the biblical text. It is also consistent with ANE cosmology.
This literal, straightforward understanding of the Genesis creation account is not problematic. It is only problematic for concordists who insist the biblical text must accurately reflect modern understanding. But the only way to do that is it to do 'violence' to Scripture by twisting and distorting it to say something that it doesn't say.
The waters were separated there was water above and below, NOT DENYING that. In the expanse of the heavens. In the expanse of the heavens is now talking about something other than water, and even people of science can see, well maybe, the sun, moon, and stars are not the heavens directly next to the earth.