The funny thing is, dozens of modern writers from Carl Jung to Thomas Love Peacock, via the cosmologist Martin Rees, have used the term “vault of heaven” without anyone raising an eyebrow about their grasp of science!
Anyway, since the ANE folks don’t seem to have used it, maybe they knew a thing or two!
I’m actually on the fence as to whether or not the Raqia was solid. But I don’t see any way of explaining away these ‘waters’ above.
There does seem to be tradition of water in the heavens in ANE cosmology. The Egyptian word Nun, which referred to the cosmic ocean literally meant ‘sky water’. There is also the tablet of Shamash and the Enuma Elish.
The waters were ‘above’ the expanse, not ‘in’ it, which would be a much more apt way of saying they are clouds.
The expanse was ‘in the midst of’ (Betowk) the waters. As Seely explains:
Further, the firmament was created “in the midst of” the waters of the sea. It was not
“over” or “upon the surface” of the sea as was the Spirit of God in v. 2. Rather, it was “in the
midst of” (iwtb, betok) the sea, that is, well below the surface. Consequently, there was sea
water above and below it. The meaning of the word betok is aptly illustrated in Exod 14:21b-22
where the Lord divided the waters of the Reed Sea, and the children of Israel went “in the midst
of the sea on dry ground, and the waters were a wall to them on the right and on the left.” This
illustration shows sea water positioned vertically on both sides of the people who were “in the
midst” of the sea. The only difference between this and our passage is that in our passage the
firmament (being sky) is positioned horizontally in the sea, so that the sea water is not
envisioned as being to the right and to the left, but above and below the firmament.
Another good illustration of the meaning of betok is found in Exod 39:25, where bells are
positioned “in the midst of” pomegranates at the bottom of the priest’s robe. The picture is one of
having pomegranates on both sides of the bells, to the right and to the left (v. 26), so that if this
garment were held up horizontally, each bell “in the midst of” the pomegranates would have
pomegranates above and below it. Hence in our passage where the firmament is positioned
1
horizontally “in the midst of” the sea, the firmament has sea water above and below it.
We have then in our passage a picture clearly set forth of a firmament with sea water
above and below it. There is a sea on both sides of the solid firmament. This picture is so clearly
presented, it scarcely needs confirmation. Nevertheless, the second half of v. 6 confirms this
picture, for there the firmament is commissioned to “separate” (hiphil participle of ldb, bdl) the
waters. By the very nature of its task as a separator, the firmament must have water on both sides
of it. The meaning of the word “separate” is illustrated in Exod 26:33 where the task of the veil
in the Tabernacle is to separate the Holy Place from the Holiest Place. There is a place on both
sides of the separator. So it is in our text that there is water on both sides of the separator: above
and below the firmament.
This does seem to be a problem when we really want absolute certainty about these ancient writings; especially when we insist that they compete with rationality and science.
Rationality and science are very powerful tools to analyze problems. They provide a powerful way to estimate the odds of a useful outcome in your life. However, they are not foolproof methods for keeping you moral. This is where we have to turn to the vagaries of religion. Even with religion, it doesn’t guarantee that we will do right, but turning to Jesus is, I think, a process that can help us to find our way through (and in) the dark.
Jordan Peterson produced an interesting interpretation of Genesis 1 that is more along the lines of culture/psychology ( Lecture: Biblical Series II: Genesis 1: Chaos & Order - YouTube ). I wonder if that might be a way out of this endless Genesis 1 loop and into the picture of grace and redemption and what Jesus has done.
It might be fair to say that there is a meaning for every age that can be read into the words of the scripture. Certainly, it is arguable that the universe had an origin. Even if it is a multiverse, it does not mean that the multiverse didn’t have an origin or it doesn’t obey laws. Even if it were no-boundary (Hawkings), it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a God in heaven who demands that we show some appreciation for this life and act in a way worthy of having been granted a life.
The old testament – and particularly Genesis 1 – portrays a very terse picture of the past. It provides a foundation, but a foundation that needs some interpretation. It may prove helpful to try to reinterpret the text to a more rational and scientifically literate culture, but we should consider that Buddhists and other faiths make similar reinterpretations of their writings to make them fit with modern science.
So, if it gives you faith, maybe it is useful, but it is not a club to beat the reprobates and infidels with. For that, we have to depend on faith, on prayer, fellowship with believers, and daily reflection on the word of God. If people who dislike scripture want to preserve a facile reading of scripture, if they want to point out all the things written there as the attitude of a tyrant god with rules and regulations figured on by fiat, how will arguing some tortured made-for-science reading do any better job of persuading them to turn to Jesus? We first have to recognize and confront our own ugliness before we can realize that we are hopeless without God’s grace. We have to ask God for help to get us to be on the right track through that daily reflection, prayer and regular fellowship with believers.
— by Grace we proceed,
What are your thoughts on this website @Jon_Garvey, @gbrooks9. I don’t agree with him on everything (unfortunately he is a young earth creationist), but he has some interesting ideas about how the Hebrews saw the Raqia as a void space formed to allow the earth to be formed, and that this idea was shared by ‘other’ ancient peoples as well.
I think the Raqia was most likely the void space between the waters. The real parallels with Genesis 1-6-8 are with the stories of the heavens being separated from the earth. Which is a very common motiff. The expanse, I would argue would take the place of ‘Shu’ as the separator. If this article is correct, then at least some of the Egyptians believed the heavens were watery, not solid. These are the REAL parallels, not the mesopotamian stone heavens, or the greek celestial spheres.
btw, when I say ‘waters’, I mean a heavenly ocean, not clouds.
Reggie - it annoys me when people (including Bible translators) talk of the raqia as “atmosphere”, because it allows us to continue to assume that the ancients thought of “air” just as we do.
But as I explored in a Hump post, air was only conceived to be a material substance much later, by the Greeks. So what was Shu, the Egyptian god of air, and similar ideas, actually representing?
He was in charge of winds - but it’s clear people did not consider wind or breath as “air in motion”, but as entities in themselves. The illustrations on tombs show the answer - he separates earth and sky: even in the myth, keeping the lovers earth and sky apart is his role. So “air” was considered, I think, to be a spatial, not a material term, in Egypt. Hebrew has no word for “air” at all, so I suggest that it assumes that where “nothing” is, you can breathe normally: why would they have any concept of a vacuum?
That makes sense in the creation context too. There was “nothing” but the spirit of God and the darkness above the waters in Gen 1:1 - no “atmosphere” is mentioned, and so it’s easy for moderns to assume a limitlessless body of water, where the writer only meant an ocean with a surface, above which was “nothing” (assumed to be what we call atmosphere) as far as the heavens might extend.
Whatever the heavens are thought to be like physically, containing God, angels, stars, clouds and whatever, the account needs to explain how they’re “up there” and we’re “down here”. The raqia’s primary role is to separate heaven and earth, which implies a space. Everyone ignores that obvious requirement in the discussion by emphasing domes, or sky, or waters - forgetting that that which is to be explained is the space between earth and heaven.
That seems to me why Job expresses wonder that the clouds stay up unsupported: God wondrously keeps them from falling to earth by what appears to be a thin expanse.
I agree with you entirely. As I’ve said before I don’t think it is the atmosphere, I think it is the sky as a whole. But the sky as a whole is a void space. It seems we are on the same page regarding the separation of heaven from the earth. This is quite a common motif, as it happens, and the Raqia fits the role of the ‘separator’ in other creation stories.
And of course, in the biblical account, without that understanding there’s an inexplicable absence of any mention at all of the creation of the space above the seas where the birds and clouds are.
The one area which I disagree with you on is on what these waters above were. I do see evidence that the Egyptians believed the universe originated in an air bubble in the midst of a primordial ocean.
This is just one depiction of the primordial air bubble.
Well, the Egyptian cosmologies vary a lot. But I read more often a primordial hill arising out of water - again that idea that water must lie on something: the stuff of common experience.
I have to say your relief needs a fair bit of interpretation to find an air-bubble - though of course, you may have an inscription to match.
I thought you were doing pretty well… but I have to say “meh” to your last sentence!
The scribes talk about mists rising up to make clouds. So the idea that something went “up” to make clouds was not the part that so amazed. It was that the clouds, like wine skins (aka King James “bottles”), could then be loaded up with liquid water and Still stay up in the sky - - that was truly amazing!
Job 26:8 - “He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them.”
And from a study on rain and vapor:
nasi’," vapor," i.e. that which rises, from nasa’," to lift": “Who causeth the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth” (Ps 135:7; compare Jer 10:13; 51:16); also translated “clouds”: “as clouds and wind without rain” (Pr 25:14).
1Ki 18:44 - - [Warning Ahab of impending rain …] Behold, there ariseth a little cloud out of the sea, like a man’s hand. And he said, Go up, say unto Ahab, Prepare thy chariot, and get thee down, that the rain stop thee not…"
Job 26:8 - “He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them.”
I made a post which lists some examples of the motif of heaven being separated from the earth here:
https://riderontheclouds.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/no-thats-not-a-miracle-1-the-big-bang/
@Jon_Garvey @gbrooks9 This article gives even more evidence that the Israelites believed in a celestial ocean:
@Reggie_O_Donoghue, thanks for the good looking article…
Anyone having trouble accessing the Scribd.com page, might try this page… I haven’t figured out if there is a download option yet, but it will let you search the document (I think) and you can access all the pages!
[[ Yep… there’s a function for downloading .pdf’s or other formats you might prefer! ]]
Page 40 has a mention of the “celestial ocean” ! … citing The Testament of Levi 2:7 as corroboration!
I didn’t know I could actually search the document! I’ve used archive.org a few times, but it seems easier to find things there by accident when I’m searching for something via google & such.
It occurred to me that, at least trying to put my mind in the mindset of the ancient near east (ANE), probably another reason they thought of an ocean/lake in the sky is that both are bluish and associated with water. … though rain from the sky is not salty. Was there a distinction between lake and ocean?
I recall that Paul Seely often emphasized this kind of interpretation (under discussion). Being educated in the secular university largely in science and philosophy (and trying to reconcile that with being Christian), I’ve struggled for years trying to understand how this reading would help. But I guess the thing to remember is that these texts had to be written for all generations, not just for our particular generation with all our requirement. It is we who must slow down and reflect on the point of the writings. I guess this is part of the point that CS Lewis is getting at in “The Abolition of Man”.
– by Grace we proceed
@wkdawson ( & @Reggie_O_Donoghue & @Jon_Garvey )
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:
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!
Keep in mind that even in the middle east fresh water in the middle east is naturally salty.
This is an extended version of Seely’s article on earth and sea:
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."46In 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!
The throne room/dwelling of God/El yes. The stars are divine council members, or possibly literal stars in the sky, or (most likely) both.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
