My personal view of Hebrew cosmology

@Reggie_O_Donoghue,

Did you just say what I thought you said? If the Hebrew believed in a massive sky of solid blue stone, it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the Firmament mentioned in Genesis 1? Okay. But it still leaves us with
a massive sky of solid blue stone!

Either one is a problem for an inspired literature, right?

As for ‘Shachaq’ literally meaning clouds, you then appear to be proposing this sense of the text:

Job 37:17-18
You whose garments get very hot when the earth is still because of the South Wind? Can you, like him, spread out the clouds [originally: skies], firm as a molten mirror?

Once again, either way, the sky has this massive, solid object (made, it would seem, from vast quantities of a molten substance). Do you think your translation makes the sentence more clear?

I think you have been up to your chest in swamp water with too many gators for too long. You are losing the point of the discussion. The discussion is not trying to focus on what the firmament was or wasnt… it’s trying to focus on did the writers of the Old Testament have a reasonable idea of the nature of the sky, the troposphere, lower orbital space, upper orbital space, and so on.

Comets and Stars appear to have a similar size and scale. A falling star (based on experience with meteoroids) could land on the Earth and people would be amazed. But a real falling star would have destroyed everyone long before the star ever touched earth.

Stars were a “host” of minions because everyone could see them move in lock step in the heavens… they were clearly were informed of a military-like obedience, compared to “the Wanderers” (i.e., the Planetes) who took their leave of seemingly any part of the sky they wanted.

But, all in all, no matter what the ancients came up with, including the Hebrew, it was pretty much wrong. So what exactly, @Reggie_O_Donoghue, are you trying reclaim from your understanding of the Old Testament’s cosmology?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Vocabulary Digression - Clouds, Shakhak
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Strong’s agrees with you that it can mean something other than “skies”… but I’m not sure “clouds” is the correct choice here:

Strong’s H7834 = shachaq (Pronunciation shakh’·ak )
Root Word (Etymology), From שָׁחַק (H7833).

KJV Translation Count — Total: Used 21 times.
The KJV translates Strong’s H7834 in the following manner:
cloud (11x),
sky (7x),
heaven (2x),
small dust (1x).

Strong’s Definitions
שַׁחַק shachaq, shakh’-ak; from H7833;
a powder (as beaten small);
**by analogy, a thin vapor; **
by extension, the firmament:
—cloud, small dust, heaven, sky.

If we look at the etymological source, H7833 we read:
shachaq (Pronunciation shä·khak’ )

KJV Translation Count — Total: 4 Times.
The KJV translates Strong’s H7833 in the following manner:
beat (3x), wear (1x).
To rub away,
Beat fine,
Pulverise

To rub away:

  • of incense, of stones
  • of enemies (fig)

שָׁחַק shâchaq, shaw-khak’; a primitive root;
to comminate (by trituration or attrition):
— beat, wear.

[Not your everyday word: Comminate = to threaten with divine punishment or vengeance.]
[Also Trituration = threshed or ground to a fine powder.]

Suddenly we see that the “clouds” you think are implied in the verse are not watery clouds, but powdery clouds! Seemingly the fine dust one can see in the air when viewing it in a beam of strong sunlight.

And when not “dry”, the meaning of being “worn away” seems just as likely a meaning. Out of the four times that the second kind of “shakhak” is used in the Bible, three times it is used to mean something along the lines of “beat fine”:

Exodus 30:36
And thou shalt beat H7833 some of it very small, and put of it before the testimony in the tabernacle of the congregation, where I will meet with thee: it shall be unto you most holy.

2Sa 22:43
Then did I beat H7833 them as small as the dust of the earth, I did stamp them as the mire of the street, and did spread them abroad.

Psa 18:42
Then did I beat H7833 them small as the dust before the wind: I did cast them out as the dirt in the streets.

In the odd-ball use, we find it related to water, but in a wearing or destructive context:

Job 14:19
The waters wear H7833 the stones: thou washest away the things which grow out of the dust of the earth; and thou destroyest the hope of man.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You make the assumption that I am a biblical literalist/inerrantist. I am neither, and I thought I made that clear in my original post. My argument is that Biblical Hebrew cosmology was no more advanced than that of it’s neighbours, yet at the same time it was not exactly the same as how we commonly perceive it.

@Reggie_O_Donoghue,

The more you post, the less I understand about your views.

In my view, “how we commonly perceive” Hebrew cosmology is to frequently give it the benefit of the doubt. And in the process, it comes across as coherent and even persuasive from an archaic point of view.

But when you have finished your fiddling and adjustments, Reggie, I find your interpretation of Hebrew interpretations has produced a world view that has lost its gleam and shine … it is now rather fuzzy and odd around the margins … and no longer has the appeal our “common re-working” once gave it.

So maybe your interpretation is the more realistic… that we should not idealize the Hebrew mind and Hebrew imagination. We should mix it up and leave it a little confusing.

But you shouldn’t entertain the idea that you are doing the Hebrew any favors.

There is another issue with a solid firmament. The sun and moon do not move in unison with the stars.

The stars are in the firmament. The sun and the moon are above the firmament. And so must the planets.

The fact that thousands of stars do rotate in lock step is one of the reasons the ancients were confident that there was something solid up there!

.
.
.
.

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e0a4d06df7354dc0c40e7fecfeb25d0d-c

The sun and moon are ‘in’ the firmament in Genesis 1.

@Reggie_O_Donoghue,

I think we’ve touched on this before. Is there a specific article in Hebrew, like in Greek, that means “in”, as opposed to:
above, around, near, over, under, etc. etc. ? And if so, is it found in that sentence?

Hhhm, after reading this passage from Wayne Horowitz’ Mesopotamian Cosmology, I no longer view the Non-differentiation between atmosphere and heavens to be a serious problem:

"Heaven is the upper of the two halves of the universe. In ancient Mesopotamia, as in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the heavens include both visible areas, where the stars, Sun, Moon, and planets are seen, and higher regions above the sky, where gods of heaven dwell. Only the lists of KAR 307 and AO 8196 and Enuma Elish provide clear evidence that the heavens consist of the sky and more than one level above the sky… The area between the earth’s surface and the stars is not listed in KAR 307 or AO 8196 but is part of the heavens in other texts. For instance, numerous passages speak of birds, clouds, and winds in the heavens (See CAD S/I 345-47), so the region of the universe we call the “atmosphere” or “sky” was clearly part of heaven in ancient Mesopotamia…"

There you go, (did you catch that AiG?), the Hebrews were hardly unique. Likely they didn’t differentiate because they didn’t have words to do so. (Though then again they sometimes do speak of between heaven and earth)

Still, for now I still hold to a non-solid view because of how birds are implied to fly in the waters above just as fish dwell in the waters below.

I’m no Hebrew scholar.

That wasn’t exactly the case with the Babylonians (who believed the Stars had to ‘enter’ the heavens via gates. Their rationale was that they were the floor for the dwelling place of the gods.

I’m not sure this changes any thing you and I were discussing, @Reggie_O_Donoghue.

You refer to the Babylonians. Yes, I suppose they could have some different views. On the Jewish side, the Dead Sea Scrolls includes a sentence that asserts that the most Righteous members of the Assembly will, after dying, become eligible to become a Star !!! (I do not remember which of the scrolls had this reference.)

How would a righteous man take his position amongst the other holy figures already installed in the Heavens? I can imagine going through a door or gate, and being directed to an empty glass bench, with a view of the Earth below, and the perfect vantage for all the humans below to see his righteous glowing being assume his position in the heaven above.

Are you talking about Daniel 12:3.

Well, @Reggie_O_Donoghue, Daniel 12:3 could certainly be used to justify such a belief:

Dan 12:3
And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

The Revised Standard Version is a little easier to read:

Dan 12:3
And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.

An adjustment to word order would also help:
“…those who are wise, and those who turn many to righteousness, shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; like the stars for ever and ever.”

In Nicholas Thomas Wright’s book, The Resurrection of the Son of God (page 58), we read:
“The idea that after death humans (or some of them - it can be thought of as a reward for special virtue) actually become stars goes back behind the Socratic period to Pythagorean philosophy and Orphic religion, and is found also in Babylonian and Egyptian sources.”

FN 146: See e.g. West 1971, 188; for an early Egyptian origin, cf. Kakosy 1969.

On page 111, the author scans some of the Jewish texts:

FN 114 4 Macc.9.22 speaks of the oldest son, during his torture, ‘as though transformed by fire into immortality’…

1 Enoch 58.3 ‘the righteous shall be in the light of the sun, and the elect in the light of eternal life which has no end, and the days of the life of the holy ones cannot be numbered’…

Page 157
"The Testament of Moses speaks of Israel being exalted to the heights, and fixed firmly in the starry heaven… This seems clearly dependent both on Daniel 12:3 (the righteous shining like stars) and on Isaiah 52:13…

Page 159
The Testament of Levi predicts the coming of a new priest, to replace the wicked ones upon whom judgment has fallen, and declares that ‘his star shall rise in heaven like a king’, and that he ‘will shine forth like the sun in the earth’…

Page 160
Fourth Ezra consists of a series of vivid visions…There follows a description of the stqate of the dead before the final judgment, in which one of the delights of the faithful is that it will be shown to them ‘how their face is to shine like the sun, and how they are to be made like the light of the stars, being incorruptible from then on’ - yet another allusion to Daniel 12."

Page 161
"The final apocalypse to be considered here is the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, known as 2 Baruch…[after 51.5 giving] rise to a remarkable passage about the new forms the righteous will take:

“They will live in the heights of the world and they will be like angels and will be equal to the stars… the excellence of the Righteous will then be greater than that of the angels.”

I do find it interesting how Daniel’s view of the afterlife is so different from that of earlier Jewish texts, where the dead simply go down to the grave, where the soul remains, even among the virtuous such as Samuel. I’m tempted to say it is Persian influence.

1 Like

The first three days of separation creation is primarily speaking about what happened in moral and spiritual reality, and is describing events in the physical side of things only secondarily. What is happening in the physical universe is merely a shadow or a reflection of what is happening in that deeper part of nature which in our present primitive state of understanding we refer to as “the supernatural realm.”

A shadow, reflection, or hologram of a solid barrier is not solid. We exist in the hologram/shadow, but the reality which cast the shadow is real even if its reality is not to be found in the shadow.

To put it simply, God on day two in the physical universe was establishing what we know today as the “water cycle.” Prior to this point we have much water, no cycle. The early earth was a hotter and wetter place than the one we know today. Scientists have told us that Mars had significant amounts of water in its distant past, and have speculated the same for Venus. Today both are dry. If they had abundant water in the past, it evaporated and was lost into space. On earth, the process of water escaping into space was arrested. A functioning and stable water cycle was established. This produced conditions suitable for habitation.

I am going through a lot of science fast here, but imagine early earth just as you might see it portrayed on a nature channel broadcast. It’s the standard picture of a planet shrouded in clouds, with steam rising everywhere from a hot surface. In many spots, lava flows as vents spew out molten rock and ever more water vapor. Crust sinks and rises with no build-up, and therefore no mountain ranges. If there was any rain, the heat emanating from the surface would evaporate it before it ever got near the ground. Isn’t that about right?

Now consider last portion of Genesis 2:4-6, which is the towledah for the chapter one material:
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

. To paraphrase the above: This is the story of the Heavens and the Earth, when God made them what they are today. There were no plants or herbs in the field before this. There were none at the start of this account because God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to cultivate them. But mist used to rise up from the earth and cover the whole face of it with water.

It is describing what the earth was like before God intervened. Water went up, but did not much come down. Earth was very wet, but it was drying out just as scientists think Mars and Venus dried out. If the process had not been arrested, it stands to reason that in time our world would have been as barren as those places are now. But what should impress the reader is how very similar this description is to what one might see watching a nature channel program on the same subject of conditions on the early earth.

Now one might quibble at the idea of the division of the waters above and those below on the grounds that clouds today are such a very small proportion of the earth’s water compared to her oceans. That is true today, but I don’t think it reasonable to suppose this was the case at the time described in Genesis 1:6-8. I should think that cloud cover would be much greater. Not only would the early earth still have a much thicker atmosphere, but until plants became common that atmosphere would contain more CO2 than now.

This abundance would have caused earth to retain much more heat, and thus evaporate much more water into the air. In addition, the oceans would be much shallower because the crust of the earth would be “spread out” and not piled up into continents. The water would be distributed more evenly across this ground, and at this point a lot more of it was still trapped in the crust and had not yet been released via volcanism.

Perhaps you have seen how much faster the water in a puddle evaporates when the water in it is spread out? Between the increased greenhouse gases and all of the factors listed above one could expect evaporation of water to have occurred at a very much higher rate. So much higher that an observer at the time could very well speak of the establishment of a functioning water cycle as “the separation of the waters that were below from those that were above.”

Let us move onto the aspect of God’s work in the unseen (by us) world on the second day. I have said that His work in the realm beyond is the type and what is happening in what we call the natural world is a mere shadow of that. On the first day, He determined what the relationship between good and evil would be within this universe. It would be a mixture of Day and Night. Having made and executed that decision, God next dealt with the issue of how justice and judgement would be applied in the two realms. Very much related to this is what degree of connectedness there would be between them.

Water is a fundamental. It is one of the four classical elements. It flows. It connects. It sustains. And in scripture, it judges. It acts either to give life and make clean or to destroy and bring death. Water represents judgement. If you have one realm, heaven, where there is no darkness at all, and another realm, the natural universe, where there is both darkness and light, how does one mete out judgement in each realm?

The best of men might be worse than the worst of unfallen angels. Indeed like the Pharisees, in terms of outward conduct even a fallen spirit might be better able to temporarily restrain their outward actions compared to humans burdened by the weakness of our flesh. Yet it would not be just to judge us, in this life at least, by the standards of those who live in the light of heaven. Nor would it be fair to judge them by our standards. They ought to do better than the best of us.

For minds restricted by modernist thinking, the issue of what degree of connection there will be in the natural world and the supernatural one is never considered because they have mental chains which restrict their thinking. They can only think in terms of “what is seen is all that there is.” Broader minds consider the possibility that there could be more out there than what they can perceive with their own senses.

Indeed 2nd Corinthians 4:18 instructs us to focus on what is unseen rather than that which is seen, because what is seen is temporal, but the unseen is eternal. Hebrews 11:3 expresses the thought that what is seen is made from that which is invisible to us. The Hebrew belief was that many things on this earth were simply flawed copies of that which existed perfectly in the heavenly realm.

If there is a spiritual realm, a world normally unseen to those of us trapped in time, one of the first questions a Creator might consider is “what shall be the degree of connection or flow between the two realms?” What happened with earth’s water parallels what the Creator did regarding this question of connectedness. And by “connectedness” I don’t just mean physical access, but by being connected in terms of standards for justice and judgment. The two factors are strongly correlated. Heaven and the Lake of Fire for example, are most separate.

As with the question of the connectedness of darkness and light on the first day, the question of connectedness of the heavenly realm and the earthly one had several possible answers. God could have decided that there would be no access between the two ever, or that there would be access always. The Creator could have decided that there would be no space between them and therefore no separation or barrier to access. That would have been unfortunate for us though, because if there is no barrier to access then there is no room for a separate standard for justice or judgement.

This decision of access or connectedness has to be made for every realm which is created. For example, in Luke 16:26, the story of Lazarus and the rich man, we see very similar language to that in Genesis chapter one in the sense of a space being placed between two things to keep them separate. In that passage the separation is between the abode of the unrighteous dead and that of the righteous dead. In the abode of the unrighteous dead, there is no water. I have a lot I could say about that regarding the nature of Hell, but let me move on. Here is the verse:

“And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.”

The wording about the “great gulf” cannot help but remind one of bayin, the space put between the darkness and the light on the first day, and the space placed between the upper and the lower waters described on the second day. On the second day God was establishing what sort of access/standard for judgement that there would be between heaven and earth.

In regard to those two realms in Luke 16:26, God made a separation, and it was an impassable one. What He decided in the case of heaven and earth was that there would be a separation, but not an unpassable one. Not an impermeable one. Moving between them would be easy for those above but difficult for those from below.

This separation in geography and space was a secondary effect of what was really happening here- a separation in standards for judgement. In scripture, water is connected to judgement. This is shown in the flood of Noah’s day, where Adam’s seed was judged. It is true in the crossing of the Red Sea, whereby Pharaoh’s army was judged. The prophet Jonah was cast into the sea to calm the waters troubled by his disobedience. If you are found innocent, the water represents a cleansing judgement. This is true for each of us, where the water of baptism represents God’s judgements purifying our souls in repentance. For those churches which practice full immersion the entry of the body under the water represents death and burial.

The emergence from the water in baptism represents new life. It is identifying with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Either way, whether water is washing away what is dirty, or representing the death of those who were disobedient, water represents judgement whether for good or ill. Much like water in the physical world, His judgements are wonderful if you are His, and terrible if they are against you.

That the waters above were separated from the ones below is a description of how God’s standards for judgement were going to be, for a time, different on earth than in the heavens. He does not tolerate up there what He allows down here. For a time, until the end of the age, He has established a lower standard for judgement than that which prevails above.

For more, the book… https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06XRLDYJB

@Mark_Moore

It should be a convenience to you to know exactly when your “pro-Science” readers are going to run right off the tracks of your presentation.

How are you going to be able to cope with an Old Earth scenario if at the drop of a hat, you start inventing whole branches of Archaeo-Science?

  1. The Bible pronounces a firmament. It is fictional. If you can’t accept that, the pro-science Christians are not going to accept you.

  2. Clouds are not a firmament. They aren’t even Waters. They could qualify as Mist(s). Cloud Cover is not a firmament. The firmament was Blue. That’s what inspired the idea of a firmament dividing the waters above from below.

I think you are suffering from a dramatic “tone deafness” when it comes to presenting ideas that you think will appeal to both sides of the discussion.

@Swamidass is much closer to a workable solution. Do you understand his scenario (or scenarios) well enough to describe them to a YEC? … or to your own family?

And you don’t even recognize that I believe the earth is ancient…See George this is another example of how you just don’t get me. And that’s OK. I accept that. You need to accept it as well. We just don’t get each other. Look, I am talking about a very different way of looking at the text than is common, though I was pleased to see a fellow named Terry Middleton on this forum had some ideas that were very similar. Still, I agree I am suffering from tone deafness, as are you toward me. And I don’t think that is going to change between us. Hey, not everybody clicks.

Now it could be that you are THE voice of authority on this forum, and speak for the others. If so, I will figure that out soon enough and just drift away. In the meantime, I suggest you and I simply avoid each other. We are not connecting and I don’t see the desire or ability to bridge the gap here. How about we just leave each other alone? Will that cause you to lose any sleep at night? No need to answer. Answering is what I don’t_emphasized text_ think we should do to one another’s comments.

@Mark_Moore you are going through a lot of speculation here.

The rate of evaporation depends on the temperature of the water, the surface area of the water, the temperature of the air above the water, and the relative humidity of the air above the water. So evaporation would be limited when the air already contains a large amount of water vapor. Any time there is water present in the atmosphere there is going to be a functional water cycle.

I think you might find this article I just read (courtesy of @Jay313) very informative as regards the translations of what kinds of plants are being referred to, and mist=rainclouds.

My conclusions from everything I’ve read, and particularly also recently the post here that talks about the translation of toledot, is that Genesis 2 goes from a cosmic/global scale down to a local scale. If I were to paraphrase, it would look like this:

There is a particular land, after the creations of heavens and earth, where no bushes grow and no grain is cultivated, because God hasn’t given it rain and there is no human tilling it. Then God makes rainclouds rise and water the land, and forms a man from the soil to cultivate the land.

I do not think Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are telling the same events over again, if that helps make sense of what I’m saying.

That did not work out so well for Venus.