I’ve heard this objection about “salt water” a few times… I think Moderns are making an erroneous assumption.
They assume that the “waters of the Earth” are intrinsically salty, and thus different from the celestial waters.
But the Apsu imagined at the core of the terrestrial mound, is not intrinsically salty. It is “sweet water” … it is the result of the powers of the divine power over water.
The further from the Apsu one travels, the more the Sweet Waters are tainted by the Earth that surrounds and entangles this sweet water. It is the all encompassing earth that turns fresh water into bitter waters.
In the celestial sphere, there is no taint of earth, and ash and dirt… the Sweet Water remains sweet.
Looking at the two waters in this way, makes it easier to see what the ancients saw.
By the way, “yam” is a word shared by the Semites and the Egyptians. It meant “big water” … not “sea water” or “salt water”.
We know this because the word for the “Sea of Galilee” (the name of a fresh water lake in the New Testament) is called the “sea of Chinnereth” in the Old Testament!:
Num 34:11 And the coast shall go down from Shepham to Riblah, on the east side of Ain . . .and shall reach unto the side of the sea of Chinnereth…
Jos 12:3 And from the plain to the sea of Chinneroth on the east. . .
Jos 13:27 . . .the rest of the kingdom of Sihon king of Heshbon, Jordan and his border, even unto the edge of the sea of Chinnereth . . .
In all three cases, “sea of Chinnereth”, in Hebrew, is:
יָם [ Yam, Strong’s H3220 ]
כִּנְּרוֹת [ Kinnĕrowth , Strong’s H3672 ]
The reason the Apsu was frequently associated with the island of Bahrain (now connected to Saudi Arabia by means of a long causeway) is that despite being an island surrounded by the salty ocean, wells in Bahrain were able to bring Sweet Water (fresh water) up from the interior of the Earth … where, in the view of the Ancients, there shouldn’t have been any fresh water!
To answer this question we need first to realize that in the ancient Near East > both springs and rivers are sometimes salty. And, the sea at that point where large
rivers flow into it is more or less fresh for some distance out. Also, off the coast of
the island of Bahrein, as well as off the Levantine coast near Arad, there were
famous fresh water springs in the sea.85 Hence, although people in the ancient Near
East certainly distinguished between fresh water and salt water, they may not have
distinguished between them as sharply as we do and hence felt little or no pressure to
either ask or answer our question. The commonality of water may have been more
important to them than the difference between salt water and fresh–at least when
thinking cosmologically. Nor is this just speculation for we know that the > Sumerians did not distinguish between fresh and salt water in their cosmology; and,
Pope, in fact, came to the conclusion that neither did the Hebrews.86
This may have been the basis for believing that the earth floated on the same sea which surrounded it.
Seely also tells us:
The idea of the earth floating upon Nun is related to the Egyptian concept of
a hillock being the first earth to arise out of the primeval ocean: “The huge mound
which emerged from Nun at the very beginning, when heaven and earth were still
united.” This primeval hillock was understood to be an island. This fact along with > the similarity of this concept to that in the “earth-diver” myths as well as the fact that > the god Atum who is associated with this mound is described as “floating” (e.g. CT > 714) tell us that the primeval hillock from which the earth developed was floating on > the waters of Nun. Additionally, a variant spelling of Nun wherein the sign for sky
is upside down indicates that "The Primeval Waters also exist below the earth."46
In Homer there are also hints that the earliest Greeks thought of the sea as
upholding the earth. Il 9:183 describes Poseidon, the god of the sea, as "earth-holder > or upholder." Leaf commented on this epithet, “perhaps originally supporting the
earth, regarded as floating on the sea.” The same verse in the Iliad also describes > Poseidon as “earth-shaker”; and Poseidon was worshipped as the god of earthquakes. > This concept corresponds with the idea encountered in tribal thought as well as in > Thales (reported in Seneca QN 3:14) and others that earthquakes are caused by > movement of the sea below the earth.57
Also, just as Babylonians and Egyptians thought of the sea below as the
source of springs and rivers, Homer (Il 21: 195-7) speaks of the Ocean being the > source of all seas, rivers, springs and wells. Further just as the Egyptians sometimes > referred to the Nile by the name of its source, the underground ocean Nun, the > earliest Greeks referred to the Nile as Okeanos.58 Herodotus also (2:25) says that a > legendary theory of the Nile is that it comes from Okeanos. Aristotle (De Caelo B
13, 294a, 28) speaking of those who say “the earth rests on water,” thus evidencing > that this was at least a minor school of thought, mentions “the most ancient account” > as coming from Thales who said the earth "stays in place through floating like a > log…"
Horowitz tells us that such an idea existed in Mesopotamia:
The statement that Marduk creates these animals on top of the sea* may
be compared with the account of the creation of animals in The Bilingual Account of tlie Creation of the World by Marduk (CT 13 35-37 + dupl.). In this
text, Marduk creates dry land on top of the sea by building a (reed-)raft (P’diri = amu) and pouring out dirt (CT 13 36:17-18). Then, in lines 20-22, Marduk
creates mankind and the animals on dry land on top of the raft, which floats on > the sea.
Does such an idea exist in the Hebrew Bible? I would argue it does, and is described in Genesis 1:9:
And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.
All the water under the sky was joined into a single body. Meaning that the waters below the earth, and that which surrounds the earth, and lakes and rivers are a single body.
Judging by what we’ve been discussing, I think this is what Israel probably though the universe looked like, though I’m putting emphasis on the cosmic mountain of Hermon.
Did you do that art work?! That’s marvelous. I trust you won’t mind if I make a copy of that!
Very nice… and really … worth a journal article sometime when your schedule allows it. In a
way, using raw geometries, instead of trying to make a naturalistic drawing, keeps the content at
the symbolic level… which is where the debate really should operate.
I like the touch of the top of the “apsu” waters, within the mound/mount, being able to supply the river flowing out of the mid-mound cave!
The yellow square or cube? Is that the throne room of EL?
By the way, nice collection of quotes in your posting prior to the art!
Something to point out, in case there are readers who didn’t make the leap spontaneously, is that the Egyptian creation imagery of a mound appearing in the midst of the waters was something that Egyptians, priests and commoners, could visualize each and every year… as the Nile floods would recede, and fertile farm fields, as islands and islets would appear from the striking vistas of nothing but delta waters and the oceans beyond them!
I have to say, for the record, that I think you and we here (on the BioLogos blog pages) have assembled more corroboration and evidence for an understanding of the ancients’ Firm Firmament than I have seen anywhere else assembled!
I actually don’t believe the firmament was ‘firm’. At least some Egyptian cosmological notions included heavens made of water, without a solid structure. Of course, some Egyptians did believe in a solid sky, I won’t deny, but I find the Genesis Raqia fits the former better than the latter.
How odd that you doubt the resurrection of Jesus (“lack of proof”)… but you will throw yourself on the sword of “the firmament is firm enough to be an orbiting ocean of water… but not firm enough for anything else” (< my attempt at paraphrasing your prior posting).
But @Reggie_O_Donoghue, if it is an orbiting body of water … I think it doesn’t matter how additionally firm the firmament is… it’s still based on the ignorance of the Ancients.
I don’t disagree. I think we’ve well established that stars are not living beings, mountains don’t extend into space and the sea does not supply rivers and lakes from below.
Why do you keep doing this to yourself? You have explained nothing of consequence in the “Rider on the Clouds” article of 27 March 2018. But you have done a marvelous job of taking 20 minutes from my life that I will never get back.
You keep returning to the theme of “heaven” being something that includes “the sky” … and then you pretty much do an Irish jig with one or two verses… and then walk away. You have replaced the term “firmament”
with the term “expanse” - - virtually “an expanse of nothing”.
A credible treatment, to permanently mold the English Speaking world’s understanding of the meaning Raqia, must do the following:
Describe the separation of waters into the waters above the sky and the waters below the sky.
The raqia, however it is to be characterized, is not water itself; it holds the Celestial Waters up above.
The raqia, whether it includes “the open sky” or not, is completely irrelevant to the Raqia’s prime function - to hold the celestial waters at bay.
For someone who doubts the sufficient evidence of a resurrection, it escapes my powers of observation (though not perfect, they are not trivial either) to identify why you will do almost anything to explain away the “firmness” of the firmament - - And it is here that you end your discussion?
For someone who has demonstrated considerable facility in working with ancient texts, this is a tremendous let-down. Yes, let us, by all means, set aside the term dome. It offends my heart and mind to even imagine a “dome”. But what is “all this” about the “expanse” ? The “nothing”?
As you can see in this extract from Strong’s (Blueletter Version), each time the word “expanse” is used, it is associated with the term of something that means something solid:
“extended surface (solid), expanse…” or “expanse (flat as base, support)” - There is even an explanatory note: “considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting ‘waters’ above”.
Strong’s translates H7549 17 times. And each time it is translated with the English neologism: “firmament”, derived from the Latin for something “firm”… like a “floor”… or a “ceiling”.
Replace the Firmness with the Nothingness
But your approach is hardly a new idea. I have provided 15 quotes from the various bibles conveniently extracted in the Blueletter tool. 8 of these quotes have removed the word and the meaning of “solid” or “firm” from the verse entirely. The translators clearly didn’t want to make it look like the scribes of Genesis didn’t know how the solar system worked. So instead of suggesting that there was something solid that separated the waters… they simply said “the expanse” separated the waters! Now we just have waters up there … all on their own. Does that improve the reading?
8 Translations for Gen 1:7 that replace “firm/firmament” with an “expanse of nothingness”:
NET: New English Translation
So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so.
NLT: New Living Translation
And that is what happened. God made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens.
NASB: New American Standard Bible
God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the [fn]expanse from the waters which were above the [fn]expanse; and it was so.
HNV: Hebrew Names Version
God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse, and it was so.
CSB: Christian Standard Bible
So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above the expanse. And it was so.
YLT: Young’s Literal Translation
And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which are under the expanse, and the waters which are above the expanse: and it is so.
DBY: Darby Translation
And God made the expanse, and divided between the waters that are under the expanse and the waters that are above the expanse; and it was so.
ESV: English Standard Version
And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
.
.
.
.
Okay, @Reggie_O_Donoghue, how did “empty expanse” separate the waters? Is this just a magic trick? And if there is literally nothing solid up there, holding up the waters, how does this solve your problem? We are still stuck with all that water up there!
But let’s look at the 7 versions that admit that there is something solid up there…
7 Translations for Gen 1:7 that explicitly state there is something up there holding up the waters
KJV: King James Version
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which wereunder the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
RSV: Revised Standard Version
And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so.
NKJV: New King James Version
Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which wereunder the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
NIV: New International Version
So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.
ASV: American Standard Version
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.
WEB: Webster’s Bible
And God made the firmament; and divided the waters which wereunder the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
VUL: Vulgate
et fecit Deus firmamentum divisitque aquas quae erant sub firmamento ab his quae erant super firmamentum et factum est ita
.
.
.
.
But what is this “solid” stuff? Exodus 24:10 suggests that it is a brilliant, clear, blue stone!
All these verses say there is a pavement of something like a stone up there … and you
have replaced this pavement with an “expanse of nothingness”:
Below is your “corrected depiction” of the firmament with a Correction to the correction:
You boldly X-d out the entire image. But really, all you have done is removed the “firmament” which in your illustration was a very thin black line that the stars were appended to. Now the stars just hang there, along with the water. There… no more firm firmament… just stars under an ocean of celestial waters…
Ordinarily I would allow for this parallel possibility… the the pavement just “looking like the sky”… instead of being placed in the sky.
But Ezekiel refers to this same stone… and it is in the sky … … twice… once it is “in” the firmament, the 2nd time it is “above” the firmament.
Eze 1:26
And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire H5601 stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
Eze 10:1
Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire H5601 stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne.
Ezekiel has clearly moved the EL throne-room from a recess in “the mountain” to a place in the sky!
Also, everything in Ezekiel’s vision can be found in Babylonian astrological imagery (astrology was not something the Israelite’s approved of), if anything, all it tells us is how the Babylonians viewed the sky.
So… are you going to explain why you think it matters whether there is a “dam” in the sky holding back the waters… or that the waters are up there without any visible means of support?
It’s the same question as the warehouses full of snow and hail.
What keeps everything from falling down … if there isn’t something to hold onto up there?
Actually, Ezekiel was equally influenced by Persian metaphysics as Babylonian. Ezekiel’s reference to bones and skeletons is a veiled reference to the Persian method of disposing of the dead.
