Re: concordance & genesis (edited)

I said,
> >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)
>
> Peter replied,

"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.
>
>
PS: I grant that "modern" was not the best term to use, but it was the rise
of modern astronomy in the 16th century that caused a serious change of
interpretation. The salient point of departure is in round figures c. 1550, when
Luther would not back down from what the biblical text says, and Calvin opted for
the "common sense" interpretation of clouds for the waters above the
firmament. He made no attempt to exegete the passage in either its biblical or
historical (for which he had no information) context.

Regardless of the word "modern," 1500 years of Christians interpreting Gen
1:6-9 as referring to a solid firmament with a sea above it still says that this
interpretation is not properly labeled a "> prevailing dogma among many
> current interpreters" as if only biased and unthinking interpreters would say such
> a thing. It is the historic interpretation of the Church which you are
> rejecting, and the Church was carrying it on from the Jews before them.

I will make only a few comments on your concordist commentaries. They seem
to agree that the expanse is the atmosphere and the clouds are the waters above
the atmosphere.
First of all, in the biblical account "the waters above" are half of the
tehom (the Deep) mentioned in 1:2 which is a sea; so the waters above are half of
a sea. There is no evidence that this sea turned into clouds. "Clouds" is thus
a gratuitous addition to the Bible.

Secondly, Gen 1:7 uses the prepositions me'al plus lamedh to tell where the
water above is located in reference to the firmament. This is the very same
prepositional phrase with the very same object (a firmament) as is used in Ezek
1:25. In that verse it is used to describe a voice coming from above a
firmament. There is no question that the voice is coming from a man on a throne that
is above the top of the firmament, not embedded in the center of the firmament.
Indeed, the phrase used, me'al plus lamedh. never means "in" or "within."
Consequently, even if the concordist interpretation were not ignoring the
contextual meaning of Scripture by transforming the sea of Gen 1:2-7 into clouds,
these clouds would have to be above the top of the atmosphere, not embedded
in it. That is what the prepositions in Ezek 1:26/Gen 1:7 demand. Consequently,
the supposed clouds would have to be at least 30 miles above the earth, that
is, above the top of the atmosphere. That is three times higher than even the
highest ranging clouds reach!

Thirdly, Gen 1:14, 15 and 17 say the heavenly bodies were IN the firmament,
which could mean either in the fabric of the firmament or within the space
under the firmament. If the firmament is the atmosphere, then the sun, moon and
stars are IN the atmosphere or within its bounds.

Finally, I must comment on Archer's statement that no ancient culture taught
that the sky was a beaten out metal canopy. It is true that most cultures
teach that the sky is made of stone (e.g., Babylonian) or maybe earth; but, the
Egyptian Pyramid Texts (c. 2000 BC) seem to speak of the sky as being made of
metal. Max Muller accepted this idea and went on to say the Egyptians apparently
believed the firmament was made specifically of iron. He says, "This
conception of a metal dome explains some expressions of later times, such as the name
of iron, be-ni-pet ('sky metal'), or the later word for 'thunder,' khru-bai
(literally, 'sound of the metal') i.e., thunder was evidently explained as the
beating of the giant sheets of metal which constituted the sky."
Jews at least considered the possibility that it might be made of metal. They
speculated as to whether it was made of: clay or copper or iron (3 Apoc. Bar.
3.7

>PS: 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 by modern OT
> scholars?

PR; 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.

PS: Actually there is good evidence that the writer of Genesis was influenced
in his "world picture" not his "world view" by the Babylonians. As to
inspiration, you are confusing it with revelation. The contrast in theology between
the biblical and Babylonian creation stories speaks of unique revelation to the
Hebrews, but nothing indicates that it is any different in its "science." A
100% inspired writer can still speak in terms of the science of his own day.
There is no biblical proof that he will not do this. The idea that an inspired
writer cannot do this is just a rationalistic extra-biblical assumption that
pleases human reason. The Bible does not teach it. Nor is it needed to make the
Bible relevant to all generations: The revelation in Gen 1 that there is one
supreme God who made the sky is clear to all generations, whether they thought
it was solid as they did for the first 1500 years of Church history, or
whether they thought it was not solid as they do now.

Paul.
Received on Tue Dec 23 01:09:13 2003