Re: concordance & genesis (edited)

Paul Seely wrote (20 Dec 2003):
>
> Peter wrote,
>
> > I know that this {the idea that there is a body of water, a sea, above a
> > solid dome of the sky] is the prevailing dogma among many current interpreters
> > of Gen.1, although the text itself says nothing at all about a body of
> > liquid water above the expanse, nor that the celestial bodies are
> > located below any waters.
> >
> The idea that Gen 1:6-9 says there was a sea above a solid sky and Gen
> 1:14-17 says the celestial bodies are below these waters is not just the
> interpretation of modern interpreters. It was universally interpreted this way by Jews
> and Christians until modern times. (I have documented this in my paper, "The
> firmament and the water above, Part II: The Meaning of 'The Water above the
> Firmament" in Gen 1:6-8," Westminster Theological Journal 54 (1992) 31-46)

"Universally"? You are really overstating your case! You appear to have
a somewhat biased set of sources. Here I quote some relevant comments
from just some of the interpreters' works I happen to have at home:

- L.F. Church (ed.), "Matthew Henry's Commentary" (Marshall Morgan &
Scott, London, 1960): "... Let there be a firmament, an expansion, so
the Hebrew word signifies, like a sheet spread, or a curtain drawn out.
The firmament is not a wall of partition ... The use and design of it -
to divide the waters from the waters, that is, to distinguish between
the waters that are wrapped up in the clouds and those that cover the
sea. God has, in the firmament of his power, chambers, store-chambers,
whence he watereth the earth..."
- E.F. Kevan, "Genesis", in: F. Davidson, A.M. Stibbs & E.F. Kevan
(eds.), "The New Bible Commentary" (Inter-Varsity, London, 1963):
"Firmament (1:6). An expanse. This is the formation of the atmosphere."
- "The New Scofield Reference Bible" (Oxford University Press, New York,
1967): "Second day: vapor above, water below ... Fourth day: sun, moon,
and stars become visible".
- G.L. Archer, "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" (Zondervan, Grand
Rapids, MI, 1982): "Genesis 1:6-8 presents the second stage: the
formation of an 'expanse' (raqía') that separated between moisture in
suspension in the sky and moisture condensed enough to remain on the
earth's surface. The term raqía' does not mean a beaten-out metal
canopy, as some writers have alleged - no ancient culture ever taught
such a notion in its concept of the sky - but simply means 'a
stretched-out expanse'... Genesis 1:14-19 reveals that in the fourth
creative stage God parted the cloud cover enough for direct sunlight to
fall on the earth and for accurate observation of the movements of the
sun, moon, and stars to take place. Verse 16 should not be understood as
indicating the creation of the heavenly bodies for the first time on the
fourth creative day..."
- R.C. Newman & H.J. Eckelmann, "Genesis One and the Origin of the
Earth" (IBRI, Hatfield, PA, 1989): "The word raqiah, here translated
'expanse' (KJV: 'firmament'), means something spread out... Most
scholars associate it with the sky, but some see it as a huge dome and
others as the atmosphere. It appears to us that the firmament is the
atmosphere for several reasons. (1) Nothing is said of any space between
the firmament and the lower waters... (2) The birds are said to fly
'upon the face' of the firmament... not below... (3) The Hebrews were
well aware that the air supported water in the form of clouds, and the
phrase 'waters which were above the expanse' is actually broad enough
in the Hebrew to describe clouds floating in the sky."

Do you want to counter that you said "universally interpreted this
way... until modern times", not "until today", tacitly excluding "modern
times"? At least Matthew Henry's Commentary dates from the early 1700's,
and it was highly recommended by C.H. Spurgeon. Henry certainly was
pre-modern-cosmology, and the others prove that your interpretation is
not accepted by all scholars in more recent times.

> Given
> that this was also the view of the Babylonians and Egyptians in OT times, are we
> really supposed to believe that the writer of Genesis had no such idea in
> mind and was simply misinterpreted for the first 3000 years as as by modern OT
> scholars?

Even if the conclusion from Babylonian and Egyptian myths to the beliefs
of the Genesis writer were true - for which we have no evidence -, we
cannot put biblical texts on a same footing with extra-biblical ones, if
there is any such thing as divine inspiration. I am not talking about
"mechanical dictation" or "overpowering" of the human writer or
"Bible-as-science-textbook" - see my post to Dave Siemens for more
details.
 
> Is it possible that you have made a commitment to a particular theological
> view which prevents you from allowing the Bible to speak freely? Is it possible
> that you are suppressing the Bible in order to uphold a particular
> theological position?
>
> Paul

Not at all. My post to Dave Siemens, which indicated in some detail my
theological and epistemological views, shows that such an assumption
would be false.

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
<pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
"..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)