Does the expanse of heaven in Genesis 1 make sense?

[McCulloch]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light�; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Notice that the heavens, earth and water all exist before light. Also notice that the alternation of light and dark, called day and night is established before the sun. It also seems as if the author was completely unaware that day and night are quite relative. Day here is night half way around the world.

Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.� God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

This expanse called heaven, seems different from the heavens created before the first day. For one thing, heaven separates the waters above from the waters below.

Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear�; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them�; and it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Just in case there is any confusion as to what the waters below refer to, this makes it rather clear that the waters below are the seas.

Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth�; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

This expanse of heaven, which separates the water above from the waters below, now has the sun and moon in it.

Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.� God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.� There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

And birds live in the expanse of the heavens, below the waters above along with the sun and the moon.

Does it make any sense to talk of water above the sun and moon?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

Well that would depend on what an individual personal interpretation of what that expanse IS and what that individual own worldview is.

For example if someone interpreted the word elephant in the room, to be a literal elephant in the room and the expression was used to describe a board meeting, then they would no doubt say "That makes no sense" but if they believed it was an idiom, and they also believed in board meetings, then it would make perfect sense.

To conclude there are to many variables to make anything but a purely subjective opinon based comment. For me, based on what I interpret the "expanse" to be looking at the topic both linguistically and thematically and my worldview then yes, the Genesis makes perfect sense.

[JehovahsWitness]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Notice that the heavens, earth and water all exist before light.

QUESTION: What are we to understand with the world "God created the heavens"?

Many interpret this to refer to God's creation of the spiritual realm (the invisible dimension where God, the spirits (angels) exist. Is this however the only explanation for this passage?

PSAMS 8:3
When I see your heavens, the works of your fingers, The moon and the stars that you have prepared

ISAIAH 40:26
"Lift your eyes up to heaven and see who created all these” the one who leads out their vast array of stars by number, calling them all by name” because of his great might and his powerful strength — and not one is missing." ISV

JOB 9:9
"He makes the stars: the Bear, Orion, the Pleiades, and the constellations of the southern sky." - Holman Christian Standard Bible

From the above scriptures it seems clear that the bible writers used the expression "the heavens" not exclusively to refer to the invisible realm but also (depending on the context) to refer to the physical universe made up of planets and starts.

CONCLUSION: If we are to understand the first statement in Genesis to refer to the creation of the planets and stars (which are in fact "suns" then the bible, by implication is stating that God's first ("in the beginning") act of physical creation was the creation of stars - read: light - along with planets. That is to say, by the time the account turns it specific attention of the planet earth and it's light source (the sun), light had already existed, possibly for billions of years in the universe.


FURTHER READING
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001949


RELATED POSTS

Did anything exist prior to "the beginning"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 99#p882099

Does the bible contain scientifically accurate insights about the origin of the Universe?
viewtopic.php?p=1032301#p1032301

What are we to understand with the world "God created the heavens"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 09#p763409

Does the bible say God created plants before the sun?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 17#p836617

Does the bible teach the earth is FLAT?
viewtopic.php?p=1032310#p1032310

Does the bible say God created plants BEFORE he created the sun/light?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 17#p836617

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

THE SUN , BIBLE & SCIENCE and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS

[JehovahsWitness]

It also seems as if the author was completely unaware that day and night are quite relative. Day here is night half way around the world.

This lead us nicely to another vital aspect of understanding Genesis, that of perspective and relativity.

As the OP points out, terms such as "light" "dark" "day" "night" are all relative, in short, it depends on where you are and what you are refering to. If you are standing in Australia and someone else is standing in Britain, then the statement "it is night" is true? but for one person not for both, in other words "it is night here" would be more appropriate if people didn't automatically relativise (which they do).

Now we have to ask two essential questions:

1. From what perspective is the Genesis writer presenting the account?
2. Is there any evidence that the statements made were absolute?

1. From what perspective is the Genesis writer presenting the account?

More often than not, and especially when referring to the emersion of light, the Genesis account seems to be presenting the action from the perspective of someone on the earths surface. For example it speaks about "expanse" being "above" ... well there IS no above in absolute terms if we are speaking about a spot on an circular planet, but from a human perspective, looking "up" we see starts, planets, light, and yes, from any given point those things appear to be "above" TO US. So it seems reasonable to conclude that the persective would be "what you could see from any given point on the earth at the time being referred to".


2. Is there any evidence that the statements made were ABSOLUTE?

Many fundamentalists and literalistic atheist seem to have an inbuilt assumption that all bible verses are absolute. That, for example a verse that says the word "evening" must only be referring to the 3 or 4 hours before Sunset, that it MUST also be saying that it was evening on every place on the planet . Or that to say "it was dark" meant that it was dark in every corner of the UNIVERSE and that light did not exist!

Indeed this near fanatical desire to believe the bible is always speaking in absoute terms deviates even from the most common everyday usage of words, after all, what mother of a teenage boy would, on hearing him whine "I'm starving, there's nothing to eat" presume that the boy is literally near death and that all food has CEASED TO EXIST, since he used the word "nothing".

Any arbitary "rule" that says common sense must be applied to all statements except when it comes to "the word of God" when all metaphore, relativism, or even regard for the common use of words at the time must be ignored in favor of staunchly literal interpretation is curious. (No doubt in the example given above of the teenage boy, if that scenerio had found its way into the bible, there would be long threads on "anti-bible sites" discussing how "the writer here seemed unware that there was food in the store next door"...). In any case the above seems to be born more from a narrow interpretation and a dogged determination to undermene the validity of scripture rather than from anything born out linguistically or even contextually in the bible.

CONCLUSION: It would be an errror to disregard the aspect of perspective or to assume that the statements in Genesis were made in an absolute in the terms used. The bible, like all literature, often makes statements from the viewpoint of the protagonist, and the Genesis account is written for the most part, as if someone was observing the action either from above or from a given point on the surface of the planet.

[JehovahsWitness]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. [2] The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.[3] Then God said, “Let there be light�; and there was light. [4]God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. [5]God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

[...] notice that the alternation of light and dark, called day and night is established before the sun.

Firstly there is no mention of the word "sun" in the passage at all. The assumption that this verse deals with the creation of the sun is imho a faulty one dealt with previously (see post #3). What Genesis 1:3 does deal with is "light". In an earlier post I spoke about the need to understand "persepctive" and not think in absolute terms, (see above) so it would be more accurate to say, Genesis 1:3 deals with pre-existing light becoming visible on the surface of the earth. Before looking at this, it would be benefitial to examine in more detail the writers statements in verse [2]

EARLY EARTH initially "dark"?

Genesis (the first book in the BIBLE) says: "the earth proved to be formless (“unformed� (תֹהוּ, tohu) ) and waste (hebrew: vohuv)and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep" [The verse in Hebrew reads: "Bereshit bara elohim et hashamaim veet haaretz vehaaretz haita tohu vâ vohuv echoshech al pney tehom"]

Thus, the bible provides (4) different elements regarding early earth


1) it was intially formless (without definite shape)
2) it was uninhabitable (could not sustain life) "waste"
3) light could not intially penetrate to its surface (it was dark)
4) the surface was predominately liquid "waterly" (water/liquid like)

1) Was the earth 'formless'? being 'formless' means to be without form; Having no definite shape; shapeless.Solids are objects that have a definite shape (=form) and definite volume; Gases have no definite mass, volume, or shape.

Scientist speculate that the early the atmosphere of our planet was indeed most likely full of water vapor and noxious gases, such as hydrogen sulfide, methane, carbon dioxide, ammonia, and nitrogen.

2) Was the earth "waste"? In hebrew (the language the bible was written in) the word waste is applied to areas that cannot be inhabited. Was the earth initially uninhabitable (abiotic, lifeless) ? Scientist reckon that the planet would have intially been unable to sustain life for three main reasons

*the heat (apparently the earth was made up of extremely hot liquid rock, even at the surface)
*the atmosphere (atmosphere was a mix of gases that would be toxic to all forms of life)
*the cooling state, with no vegetation, animals, or human beings


3) Was it dark as the bible says?The bible indicates that light was initially not discernable from the surface, indeed some theorize that the primitive earth long remained covered in darkness, due to outgassing from volcanic eruptions.

4) Was the earths surface initially "watery" as it says in scripture? The Early atmosphere was probably dominated at first by water vapor, which, as the temperature dropped, condensed to form part of Earth's oceans.

[JehovahsWitness]

Then God said, "Let there be light; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

Also notice that the alternation of light and dark, called day and night is established before the sun.

Again, even the most casual of readings reveals that there is absolutely no mention of the CREATION of the SUN. What we do have is a series of events.

#1 God declares that there will be light.
#2 Light appears
#3 The appearance of alternate periods of light and dark. ("day" "night")

So the question arises: how did the planet progress from being totally shrouded in darkness (see post #5 above) to having an atmosphere clear enough for the light from the sun to be distinguishable from the darkness that existed during the hours after the Sunset?



WHEN DID GOD CREATE THE LIGHT?

"In the beginning..."
The first verse of Genesis (1:1) mentions the creation of the heavenly bodies saing : "In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth ..." This no doubt would have included our sun and the stars (for further details see post #3 above)

DAY 1
On the first creative "day" the bible explains that initially " the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep ..." (note, it did not say the universe had no light, only that what light may have existed did not reach "the surface" of the planet at the time. Evidently, the light from the sun was not visible from the earth. Scientists theorize that the primitive earth long remained covered in darkness, due to outgassing from volcanic eruptions.

Eventually God proceeded to say: “Let light come to be. This "light" came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Hebrew word there used for light (on day 1) is ’ohr, meaning light in a general sense; the SOURCES of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth.

Translator J. W. Watts reflects this when it says: “And gradually light came into existence (A Distinctive Translation of Genesis). The light that reached earth was “light diffused, as indicated by a comment about verse 3 in Rotherham’s Emphasised Bible.

To illustrate: Have you ever tried to find the sun on a day when the sky was completely overcast? You know the sun is THERE (it's not dark, there is light) but you cannot see where the light is coming from because of the clouds. This is similar to the situation from days 1 through 3 in Genesis.


CONCLUSION: To assume that Genesis 2:2 is refering to the creation of the sun is inconsistent both with the language used, the contextual information provided and the consensus of perspective overwhelmingly used in literature the world over. The Hebrew terms used in this verse rather indicate it refers to the gradual appearance of light from the sun as the earths atmosphere cleared.










RELATED POSTS

Did anything exist prior to "the beginning"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 99#p882099

Does the bible contain scientifically accurate insights about the origin of the Universe?
viewtopic.php?p=1032301#p1032301

What are we to understand with the world "God created the heavens"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 09#p763409

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

EVOLUTION, THE BIBLE & SCIENCE and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS

[bluethread]

It is good that this is not in the S&R forum, because it has nothing to do with science. It is about definition. It is like the first chapter of a novel, where plot character and setting are established.

It establishes tov (that which is right and proper), yom (that which is lighted), layil(that which is darkened), 'ereb(departure of light), boqer(return of light), shamayim(those which are above). The best fit English is good, day, night, evening, morning and heavens. Yom, layil, 'ereb and boqer become closely related to the best fit English in relation to the completed creation. The terms tov and shamayim, not so much. If one was to do a best scientific fit for the term shamayim, in this context, it would probably be atmosphere. The waters below would be surface water and the waters above would be ice or water vapor. Again, this is scientific best fit, not perfect scientific explanation.

The reason why that which is lighted, that which is darkened, the departure of light and the return of light are designated before the sun and the moon is because this is a stream of consciousness account, not a perfect evolutionary account. The concept of linear time is being established as an overriding principle. The sun and moon being created elements and not deities, is secondary. It is like painting a picture, the background is painted first and the details are filled in later. I hope that helps.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

My dear cosmic companion,

It took five posts for you to come up with apologies for the Bible's apparent contradictions as shown in the OP. The Bible as a work of guidance to be used in this day and age is ludicrous.

Especially admitting the Bible is open to human interpretation -- seems rather sacrilegious coming from a JW. I quote from Wikipeadia:

The entire Protestant canon of scripture is seen as the inspired, inerrant word of God.[69] Jehovah's Witnesses consider the Bible to be scientifically and historically accurate and reliable[70]

May the Force be with you

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 8 by 2Dbunk]

My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is this is a debating forum where each point a poster makes may be challenged and supporting evidence for said challenge presented. Since the oriiginal post had a great number points I have systematically followed the above protocol addressing each point in detail.

Feel free to do the same.


JW

[oldbadger]

Notice that the heavens, earth and water all exist before light. Also notice that the alternation of light and dark, called day and night is established before the sun. It also seems as if the author was completely unaware that day and night are quite relative. Day here is night half way around the world.

This expanse called heaven, seems different from the heavens created before the first day. For one thing, heaven separates the waters above from the waters below.

Just in case there is any confusion as to what the waters below refer to, this makes it rather clear that the waters below are the seas.

This expanse of heaven, which separates the water above from the waters below, now has the sun and moon in it.

And birds live in the expanse of the heavens, below the waters above along with the sun and the moon.

Does it make any sense to talk of water above the sun and moon?

Hi........ When I read 'In the beginning' I think about the Big-Bang, the cause of which we know absolutely nothing. There were hundreds of millions of years before there was any light..... and such a description as 'In the beginning' is quite wonderful when related to the initiation of our universe.

Metaphor? Sure.

Wonderful? Definitely!