The firmament

[Corvus]

I have heard said by some creationists that there was once a water canopy above the earth.

[6] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
[7] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
[8] And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

What seems exceedingly odd to me is that the stars occupy this firmament:

[14] And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
[15] And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
[16] And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
[17] And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
[18] And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

As do the birds:

[20] And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

So if the stars were sandwiched between an open area between two waters, where is the water above us? What is the second water the bible speaks about?

How could this water flood the world, according to the water canopy interpretation?

[israeltour]

I agree that Moses, or whoever wrote Genesis, wrote about how things appeared to him, but how things appeared were clearly wrong. I would think that for a creationist, this would be a significant blow towards genesis being a factual account of the creation of the world.

It would seem so, but unnecessarily. Moses was writing history to the best of his ability. We now know more than he did. That should not be a problem for us. I have suggested a series of events that match science, and match a likely perspective that Moses really could have had. It explains historical innaccuracies for logical reasons, yet allowing for the possibility that Moses was writing of real events, and meant everything he wrote.

So, in a literal sense, I am saying that Genesis is scientifically inaccurate, but what Moses appears to have been shown is exactly what occurred. So, it does appear to parallel history in that regard. His recording of it however lacked our modern scientific perspective.

[Curious]

So, in a literal sense, I am saying that Genesis is scientifically inaccurate, but what Moses appears to have been shown is exactly what occurred. So, it does appear to parallel history in that regard. His recording of it however lacked our modern scientific perspective.

Regarding also your previous post look once more and you will find that the sun,moon and stars were said to be created on day 3 not day 4 as you stated. If this is the case then how could dissipation of dust from the atmosphere allow light through prior to this day, there would have been no light to enter the atmosphere. Additionally, how could the plants grow before there was light to allow them to grow as these were created on day 2.
Moses could not have been there at the creation to witness the event so cannot give his particular view of the events or do you contend that God, in an attempt to explain it, by vision or explanation, did such a poor job as to leave Moses utterly confused? Strange that a God who wishes to give this information to man would not make it more understandable to his recorder. As for lacking our scientific perspective, this would not be a problem if he was in receipt of God's perspective.

[israeltour]

All excellent points!

So, in a literal sense, I am saying that Genesis is scientifically inaccurate, but what Moses appears to have been shown is exactly what occurred. So, it does appear to parallel history in that regard. His recording of it however lacked our modern scientific perspective.

Regarding also your previous post look once more and you will find that the sun,moon and stars were said to be created on day 3 not day 4 as you stated.

I think we're shifted by a day. We may not agree, but just so you know how the account reads to me:

Biblical Account

• Before Day 1: God hovers over the waters of a void earth
  Day 1: God creates light, separates it from darkness.
  Day 2: God separates the waters from the waters, creating the sea and firmament.
  Day 3: Dry land appears, and vegetation grows
  Day 4: Constellations are "created"
  Day 5: Life abounds in the waters and the air
  Day 6: Life abounds on the ground. Mankind created in God's image.
  Day 7: God rests

Mapping to Science

• Before Day 1: Big Bang, earth created, dinosaurs evolve and die out due to a meteor devestating the earth. Leads us up to 65 million years ago.
  Day 1: Devestation subsides enough for light to hit the earth once again... but sky and space cannot be seen yet.
  Day 2: Waters subside enough to distinguish between the sea and the sky.
  Day 3: Waters subside enough for dry land to appear. Vegetation grows.
  Day 4: Water and atmostpheric dust subside even more, enough for sun, moon, and starts to be seen from the earth's surface.
  Day 5: Life evolves in the sea and air.
  Day 6: Life evovles on the ground. Mankind created in God's image.
  Day 7: God rests.

...how could dissipation of dust from the atmosphere allow light through prior to this day, there would have been no light to enter the atmosphere.

I believe the sun, moon, and stars already existed, even before Day 1, and that the light finally burned through on Day 1... but it took until Day 4 for the sun itself to be seen. Since Moses thought the sun was really in the firmament, he would have thought that the sun's appearance was due to its creation. In practical sense, it seemed accurate at the time he wrote it.

Additionally, how could the plants grow before there was light to allow them to grow as these were created on day 2.

God said "Let there be light" on day 1, which comes before the plants grew.

Moses could not have been there at the creation to witness the event so cannot give his particular view of the events or do you contend that God, in an attempt to explain it, by vision or explanation, did such a poor job as to leave Moses utterly confused?

God meets us where we are at. This is seen throughout scripture. Well, scripture describes itself as God-inspired and God-breathed, but nowhere is it blanketly described as God-dictated. I may depart from some Christians on this point, but why else would there be the slight inconsistencies we see between the Gospel accounts? All four authors are trying to write of the same events, yet record things differently. They record different details, even differetn sequences at times. This is a common occurance when piecing together a car accident for example. Had God dictated the gospels, then either no confusion between the different accounts would exist, or there would have only been one account. Instead, God inspired the four Gospel writers to record the life of Jesus, and they did so. The divinity of the books is seen (by those who see it) when studying the life of Jesus. The humanity is seen in the imperfections that need explaining. It is therefore the same with Genesis. Moses was inspired by God to record it, and Moses did so to the best of his ability, and with the understanding his education afforded him. The divinity is seen in the surprising parallels between Moses' account and what really happened. The humanity is seen in the imperfect details that we can now explain through science.

Strange that a God who wishes to give this information to man would not make it more understandable to his recorder. As for lacking our scientific perspective, this would not be a problem if he was in receipt of God's perspective.

Maybe God didn't give Moses His perspective. Every vision recorded in the bible is from the perspective of the prophet writing it. I believe in John's Revelation, he saw Daniel receiving his vision recorded at the back of the book named after him. They each wrote of the end times from their own perspective. God was sitting on His thrown according to John, and we don't see God's perspective actually represented in either appocalyptic account. In fact, Daniel was even told not write down everything he saw! So even Daniel's own account was incomplete. So, the idea of a prophet seeing a vision and not recording it from God's perspective has precedent... of course, I realize that Moses doesn't record his account as a vision. But then, he gives no indication where the account came from. We also know that Moses was fallible and often did his own thing. God once told him to touch a stone with his staff to make water come out... Moses hit the stone instead. God was upset with Moses, but let the water come out anyway. This let everyone think that Moses was doing exactly as God said, when clearly he wasn't... God corrected Moses privately in fact... and then Moses recorded it. So, we can see that Moses' humanity got caught up in his service to God, and God used him anyway. The long and and the short of it is, the imperfections in Genesis are Moses', not God's.

[Curious]

So, in a literal sense, I am saying that Genesis is scientifically inaccurate, but what Moses appears to have been shown is exactly what occur.

Alright. I can't say I agree with your interpretation but at least you show initiative.

[ST88]

We also know that Moses was fallible and often did his own thing. God once told him to touch a stone with his staff to make water come out... Moses hit the stone instead. God was upset with Moses, but let the water come out anyway. This let everyone think that Moses was doing exactly as God said, when clearly he wasn't... God corrected Moses privately in fact... and then Moses recorded it. So, we can see that Moses' humanity got caught up in his service to God, and God used him anyway. The long and and the short of it is, the imperfections in Genesis are Moses', not God's.

That's a very well-thought-out argument. It answers a lot of questions that non-believers have about the situation. I wonder, though, how the idea of God, itself, survives this kind of textual criticism. If we are to take everything that came before Moses' time as a vision revealed to him and incompletely recorded by him, what in the story allows God to exist at all? If the incompleteness of his vision is proof that he is human, what gives us the authority to assume that God is the source of his vision, and not merely the product of his fallible humanity?

Also, what are we to make of the incomplete or mistaken notions of the autobiographical part of the story that he recounts?

[israeltour]

We also know that Moses was fallible and often did his own thing. God once told him to touch a stone with his staff to make water come out... Moses hit the stone instead. God was upset with Moses, but let the water come out anyway. This let everyone think that Moses was doing exactly as God said, when clearly he wasn't... God corrected Moses privately in fact... and then Moses recorded it. So, we can see that Moses' humanity got caught up in his service to God, and God used him anyway. The long and and the short of it is, the imperfections in Genesis are Moses', not God's.

That's a very well-thought-out argument. It answers a lot of questions that non-believers have about the situation. I wonder, though, how the idea of God, itself, survives this kind of textual criticism.

Like practically all debates of this nature, it comes down to faith. After all, even where I explain things one level deeper than others, I've only drilled down just so far. From my perspective, I now understand what God did a little better than before. But whenever that happens, it brings up new questions. For myself, a person of faith, my faith is strengthened because I did drill down a level more, and it is in faith that I start investigating the next set of questions. For the critic, I've replaced one set of questions with another, and so haven't proven my case. I believe that no matter how deep we dig, it will always come down to faith, but I'm not surprised. After all, I believe that scripture is "God's inspired word", and scripture says knowledge of Him comes down to faith. Well, if scripture is true, then the survival of the very idea of God will always reduce to faith... which itself is further evidence for the faithful, and further frustration for the critic.

If we are to take everything that came before Moses' time as a vision revealed to him and incompletely recorded by him, what in the story allows God to exist at all?

If I can rephrase the question slightly: "if the earth can work without God's interference, then what evidence has He left that points to His existence?" For the faithful (myself included), the answer is circular. I beleive that God could create an earth that operates without His interference, and evidence of where He did that confirms my faith. (I don't mean that God never interferes, just that physics doesn't require it) For the critic, the answer is, "none".

If the incompleteness of his vision is proof that he is human, what gives us the authority to assume that God is the source of his vision, and not merely the product of his fallible humanity?

Well, I think "authority" is the wrong word. "Audacity" however might fit. Well, the more I analyze the writings, the more truth I see in them... and since they are self-proclaimed to be of God, and since they fit science in surprising ways, it is evidence to me that the self-proclamation itself is accurate. Otherwise, I'd be accepting everything about them except for their claim of divine inspiration. It's like those who accept the historical accuracy of the Gospels regarding Jesus' life... accept for all that messiah stuff.

Also, what are we to make of the incomplete or mistaken notions of the autobiographical part of the story that he recounts?

I conclude that Moses' focus was on God and not on himself.