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?

[McCulloch]

[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.

I have no individual personal interpretation of what expanse is and I am trying not to impose any worldview, just attempting to determine what the author intended.

The author paints a picture, with water below separated from dry land separated from water above by this expanse called heaven (apparently not the same as heavens created before day one). As the flood tale later in Genesis reveals, the waters above can be opened resulting in a deluge. The author clearly states that the sun and moon as well as birds reside in this expanse.

I see a picture, believed to be true by the author, that is vastly different from what we now know to be true.

[McCulloch]

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!

But water and the earth came much later than light.

McCulloch: Does it make any sense to talk of water above the sun and moon?
OldBadger: … Big-Bang, … hundreds of millions of years before there was any light.
McCulloch:

[McCulloch]

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.

So God puts sun and moon into shamayin, the atmosphere, below ice(?) or water vapor?

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.

It does not read like any stream of consciousness account I've read. In fact, it seems very highly structured.

[JehovahsWitness]

I have no individual personal interpretation of what expanse is

okay

The author paints a picture, .

If it's a picture, it's open to interpretation. Pictures, yes. Maths?.... not so much.

The author clearly states that the sun and moon as well as birds reside in this expanse.

And if I say I see myself "in" a Mirror would that make me a primative writer that clearly believes that glass is a magical component in which humans can reside something "that is vastly different from what we now know to be true"? or does this linguistic myopia only apply to bible writers?

I see a picture, believed to be true by the author, that is vastly different from what we now know to be true.

That would only be possible if the picture is "interpreted".

I have no individual personal interpretation of what expanse is .

See above.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 4 by 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..( .... )

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.

Then the "divine inspiration" doesn't hep the writer know anything accurate about what's really occurring in the universe. Or, the god doesn't know. Either way, the Genesis accounts are wrong about what's actually out there and how it works.

We could conclude that it's all made up. And also the god bits ... the writers got that wrong too. We don't have any evidence for any gods.

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.

Yep, it really looks like Genesis was written or invented by people who didn't really know what was happening out there or why.

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".

That's right. The errors DON'T point to divine truth, they point to human error, ignorance and a whole lotta creativity.

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!

Yes, we know full well that we can't take the Genesis stories as true. We have to spin them metaphorically... get some metaphorical truth. But we can do that just as well with any other piece of fiction.

Why should we believe that ANY of the rest of Genesis is true?

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".

Right.. once we dispense with the useless bias that Genesis is somehow TRUE... we can look at it as a piece of fiction, of myth. Exaggerations aren't true. They are BENDING the truth. So, with your exaggeration example you show us that the GENESIS aint true.

It might be hyperbole.. exaggeration, fiction, good honking stories, myths. But we know for a FACT that the Bible gets what's actually OUT THERE wrong.

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.

Maybe you think that sound reasoning is "arbitrary" .

Atheists take the Genesis stories as merely metaphors, poetry, fiction, myth, all of the above, but NOT true statements about the universe.

But in any case, you seem to be pleading that we shouldn't pay attention to the bits that Genesis got completely wrong. Sorry, too late for that. We can read.. and we can plainly see that Genesis is full of wrong bits.

The thing is... we KNOW better than this so called "god inspired" story about how the universe came to be and how it works... so that god.. or that person.. didn't know. So one way or another.. it's just plainly WRONG.

IF the story was to EXPLAIN anything about how the universe works, it fails. So it also fails to demonstrate that a GOD did it. And it fails spectacularly.

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.

Nope, atheists aren't in the business of INTERPRETING at all... but of course, we COULD do so. We just respond to this or that interpretation that the THEISTS bring to the table. If NO theists would EVER try to prove that their stories are REAL stories.. then atheists would not react to the bogus claims.

But atheists keep getting bogus claim after bogus claim. And yeah, it's the "new" kind of atheist who says "WAIT A MINUTE".. that's a bogus claim.

Prove that it's NOT a bogus claim .... otherwise... they got busted.

Linguistics and "context" doesn't say squat about how the universe really works. What the BIBLE says about it is just plain wrong. It took until COPERNICUS to find out.. and then there was a huge religious attack AGAINST the new found data.

But denying data doesn't make the data go away. Things are the way that they are and they ARE NOT the way that they are described in Genesis. Genesis is a bunch of stories.. that's it. They are myths. Just like all the other creation myths, except that THESE myths are very popular. That's the ONLY difference between any "truth" in myths.

Now, a lot of folks haven't caught up to the 1850's .. they CAN accept that the world isn't at the center of the universe, but they just can't accept that life evolves. Meh.. religions cause IGNORANCE and FALSEHOODS to flourish.

These metaphors are useless at best, and dangerous at worse.

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.

Then we should simply NOT take anything in Genesis as LITERALLY true at all. None of it. Not the GOD.. not the magic WORD.. not the Adam, not the EVE, not the talking snake, not the Garden of Eden, not the FLOOD.. all potentially just metaphors.

So, if anyone wants to make a TRUTH claim concerning Genesis.. I'd be thrilled to hear it. But if we are merely speculating about what it might mean in a POETIC kind of way.. then anyone can play at that.

We all have opinions about who is the BETTER poet... some are good some are not as good.. but that's art.. that's semantics... that's creative.. but it's NOT true facts about the sun and the moon and the day and the night. It's just completely wrong about those.

So.. what about the REST of the Genesis.. maybe they got those bits wrong TOO. How would we KNOW?

And there are LOTS of other religious creation myths to choose from.. and to also take METAPHORICALLY... we can look for "truth" in ANY work of fiction or non fiction.

But it doesn't bode well for the TRUTH of something when it's full of factual ERRORS.

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.

Yep, the Bible is literature alright. It reads as if someone is inventing a creation myth. Lots of those.. none of them factually true. And when that's the case, the literature is called FICTION.

Can we move along now?

[rikuoamero]

[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.

Here's the problem I see with a Christian taking Genesis to be metaphorical.
They now no longer have any reason, story or account that actually shows this God character to be the creator that he supposedly is. Without being able to 'show' that God is the one true creator of all...what importance do his commandments and teachings have? I've often been told by believers that they go with what God teaches/taught because he is the creator, there is none higher than him.
And so, when that Christian tries to convince me to follow said teachings, I have to ask "What reason do I have to consider them to be of any particular importance? You certainly don't, given that you don't actually have a reason to suppose this God character to be of any particular importance himself"

[bluethread]

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.

So God puts sun and moon into shamayin, the atmosphere, below ice(?) or water vapor?

As I said, this is a best fit, not perfect scientific explanation. The sun, moon and stars are in the water vapor, as one looks at them. The phrase raqiya' shamayim (support of the heavens) is not that definite.

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.

It does not read like any stream of consciousness account I've read. In fact, it seems very highly structured.

The structure is to establish linear time, in opposition to circular to time, not a scientific explanation. It also groups similar things to establish that they were created things and not deities, or the agents of deities. The purpose of the sun, moon and stars, in the context of the passage, is to act as a chronometer to track linear time. Of course, the sun and moon do more than that, even the ancients knew that. The point is that there is a singular Creator who created all things and has established linear time. The context is the circular Serpent mythology, not the empirical scientific mythology, of the origins of the universe. That said, the scientific mythology, not the detail, is rather similar to the Serpent mythology.

[PghPanther]

It doesn't matter if it does or not................see a person looking up at the night sky can figure well its expanding or staying the same.

So they have a 50/50 shot at guess at something and presuming a God does that which might match scientific models.....and bingo they are so insightful.

That's just a guess with 50% change of being right.......nothing divine about that revelation at all.....