Is Genesis straightforward historical narrative, part 2

In recent post on this blog, I argued that Genesis is not straightforward historical narrative. Many Christ-loving Bible scholars had already said this, for many reasons. My principal reason was that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 cannot be straightforward historical narrative, because there are discrepancies between these two chapters. See graphic:

There is another important reason for doubting that Genesis 1 and 2 are straightforward historical narrative. That reason is that the firmament, or expanse, mentioned in Genesis 1, does not exist. The Hebrews of Bible times believed that there was a solid, transparent dome above the earth, which held up the heavenly bodies, as well as water, in its various forms. They thought wrong. Genesis 1 and 2 reflects the beliefs of the writers/readers/listeners. That doesn't mean that the Bible is in error. Genesis does not say that you have to believe in a firmament to please God. There is no reference to an expanse or firmament in the commonly  used creeds of the church. The churches of today do not expect belief in a firmament/expanse as a requirement of members.

Genesis 1 and 2 were written, not to teach astronomy, but to emphasize the existence of an all-powerful Creator, who is deeply concerned about the fate of humans.

Thanks for reading.

The Firmament (or Expanse)

This post is one in a series on the interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. 

Ezekiel 1:22 Over the head of the living creature there was the likeness of an expanse, like the awesome crystal to look on, stretched forth over their heads above. 1:23 Under the expanse were their wings straight, the one toward the other: each one had two which covered on this side, and every one had two which covered on that side, their bodies. (All scripture from World English Bible, public domain, unless noted otherwise. Long quotes are in this color.)

The word translated as "expanse" is as follows, according to Strong's Concordance (See Wikipedia article on that resource) as shown in the Blueletter Bible:

Note that Strong gives two meanings for the Hebrew word rāqîa. The first is a "base, support," and the second is "regarded by the Hebrews as solid, and supporting 'waters' above it."

rāqîa is found in a number of passages in the Old Testament. It is translated as "firmament," "expanse," "surface," "platform" or "vault" in various translations, in Genesis 1:6; 1:6; 1:7; 1:8; 1:14; 1:14; 1:15; 1:17; 1:20, Job 37:18, Psalms 19:2; 150:1, Ezekiel 1:22; (3 times) 1:23; 1:25; 1:26 Daniel 12:3. "Expanse" is the most common, and it is often rendered "likeness of an expanse."

The graphic below is from the same source as the first one, and shows the concordance of Gesenius.

These two old authorities (Strong and Gesenius) believed that the firmament, or expanse, was a physical structure, over the earth, and that the stars were fixed in that expanse, and that that expanse supported reservoirs of water, just as the ancient Jews believed.

Here are some more Biblical uses of the word, rāqîa:

Genesis 1:6 God said, “Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 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. 8 God called the expanse “sky”. There was evening and there was morning, a second day.” The King James Version, and some others, use "firmament," rather than "expanse." "Expanse" is used more often than "firmament." One version uses "arch." The NIV uses "vault." (See here for over a dozen translations of Genesis 1:6.)

Job 37:18 Can you, with him, spread out the sky, which is strong as a cast metal mirror? [This verse supports the idea of a solid dome.]

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God. The expanse shows his handiwork.

Psalm 150:1 Praise Yah! Praise God in his sanctuary! Praise him in his heavens for his acts of power!

Ezekiel 1:22 Over the head of the living creature there was the likeness of an expanse, like an awesome crystal to look at, stretched out over their heads above. 23 Under the expanse, their wings were straight, one toward the other. Each one had two which covered on this side, and each one had two which covered their bodies on that side. 24 When they went, I heard the noise of their wings like the noise of great waters, like the voice of the Almighty, a noise of tumult like the noise of an army. When they stood, they let down their wings.25 There was a voice above the expanse that was over their heads. When they stood, they let down their wings. 26 Above the expanse that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone. On the likeness of the throne was a likeness as the appearance of a man on it above.

Daniel 12:3 Those who are wise will shine as the brightness of the expanse. Those who turn many to righteousness will shine as the stars forever and ever.

There are also Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the sky’s windows opened. ["windows opened" suggests a belief in a solid dome.]

and Job 22:12 “Isn’t God in the heights of heaven? See the height of the stars, how high they are! 13 You say, ‘What does God know? Can he judge through the thick darkness? 14 Thick clouds are a covering to him, so that he doesn’t see. He walks on the vault of the sky.’ [Walking on a vault suggests that the vault is solid.]

Since I was going to write on the firmament/expanse/vault/arch, I thought I should see what AiG, the most important young-earth creationism organization, had to say about it. Here's part of that:

Critics of the Bible have often said that the writings of Genesis reflect an “unscientific view” of the universe—one that reflected the cosmology of the ancient world. One of these criticisms centers on the Hebrew word raqia used in the creation account of Genesis 1. (Guy Vaterlaus, "Underneath a Solid Sky," Answers in Genesis, August 8, 2023. Also published earlier on March 9, 2009.)

And, from the same post: "The argument from these Bible critics is that the ancient Hebrews believed in a solid dome with the stars embedded in the dome." Vaterlaus strongly implies that the ancient Hebrews didn't believe in a solid dome, holding up the heavenly bodies.

"Critics of the Bible" sounds like an important idea. But, what it really means, to Answers in Genesis, is "critics of the Answers in Genesis interpretation of the Bible." See the Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith, which includes the following:

• The account of origins presented in Genesis 1–11 is a simple but factual presentation of actual events, and therefore, provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe. ...
• The great flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and catastrophic in its effects. ...
• Scripture teaches a recent origin of man and the whole creation, with history spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.

In spite of the scriptural and historical evidence, AiG maintains that people of Bible times didn't believe in some sort of dome over the earth, holding up the clouds and heavenly bodies. Here's an article on the subject, from AiG. The title says it: ""Is the Raqiya‘ (‘Firmament’) a Solid Dome?" The answer, is "no."

Another article on the subject, from AiG, says The argument from these Bible critics is that the ancient Hebrews believed in a solid dome with the stars embedded in the dome. They say that the word firmament reflects the idea of firmness, and this reflects erroneous cosmology. Therefore, the Bible is not the inspired Word of God, and we don’t need to listen to its teaching.

AiG may be correct about some Bible critics and what they say about the Bible. But I doubt that many such base their criticism primarily on the idea of a solid dome above the earth. AiG is not correct in saying that statements in the Bible about scientific subjects, like cosmology, have to match our current knowledge, or, if they don't, the Bible is deeply discredited. I have posted here about ancient understanding of the function of the liver, and here, about the size of mustard seeds, and about how the sun's position relative to the earth is described. In these cases, the Bible reports something that was said, or believed, and was wrong scientifically. But that doesn't make the Bible wrong, anymore than reporting on some wacky idea, without arguing for its truth, would discredit CNN's reporting.

The Bible does not teach, as a doctrine to be defended, that there was a solid dome above the earth. But it does describe the situation as the ancient Jews believed it -- they thought there was such a firmament. If anything, that makes the Bible more believable.

Thank you for reading.

 

Answers in Genesis on the vapor-canopy hypothesis (aka the firmament)

The King James version uses the term "firmament" in Genesis 1. Other versions of the Bible use other terms, such as canopy or expanse.

It doesn't matter much. Many Young-Earth Creationists (YEC), especially Answers in Genesis (AiG), the most prominent YEC organization, have stopped pushing the existence of a firmament. Here are some links to AiG articles:

"Running out of Puff."

"What is the State of the Water Vapor Canopy Model?"

"The Collapse of the Canopy Model"

There may well be more such.

All of these articles were published in the AiG official web site, and deny the necessity of a vapor canopy. Rejection of the firmament/vapor canopy is for several reasons, such as one would make stars very difficult to see (and apparently people in Bible times were familiar with the appearance of the stars.) Another reason is that a firmament would increase global warming, probably making life impossible.

I appreciate the abandonment of the vapor-canopy model by AiG. (Not all Christians, probably even not all Christians trained in science, have rejected it, unfortunately.)

The Firmament of the Hebrews

The Blue Letter Bible says the following about the Hebrew word firmament, which occurs first in Genesis 1:6, and again in Genesis 1:14: (quotation in this color)

The KJV translates Strong's H7549 in the following manner: firmament (17x).

Outline of Biblical Usage

    extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament

        expanse (flat as base, support)

        firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)

            considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

            Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)

            רָקִיעַ râqîyaʻ, raw-kee'-ah; from H7554; properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky

The same Hebrew word occurs several times in Genesis 1, and also in Psalm 19:1 and Psalm 150:1. It is repeated 4 times in Ezekiel 1, and also in Ezekiel 10:1 and Daniel 12:3.

Based on the Blue Letter Bible excerpt, the ancient Hebrews believed that there was a firmament, a structure of some kind, that held up the waters in the sky. Here are some more statements of that belief, from the Wikipedia:

In biblical cosmology, the firmament is the vast solid dome created by God on the second day to divide the primal sea (called tehom) into upper and lower portions so that the dry land could appear.

The Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon, planets and stars embedded in it.[9] According to The Jewish Encyclopedia:

The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.

No structure of this kind exists, as far as we know, and the earth is not the center of the universe or the solar system. That doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong. It was just written from the world view of the people who wrote it, and the culture of those who read it. They had a mistaken view of the solar system. We still say that the sun rises and sets, but it doesn't really. The earth rotates. But we aren't wrong if we say it does, and our literature and common discourse use "sunrise" and "sunset." We write and speak from our world view. So did the authors and original recipients of the Bible.

Thanks for reading.

Note added, December 23, 2021:

Joel Edmund Anderson, who firmly believes that Genesis 1-11 was not meant to be taken literally, says that he is not convinced that the ancient Hebrews believed in an actual physical firmament.

 

Note added, June 17, 2022:

This post links to three different articles on the Answers in Genesis web site, showing that Answers in Genesis, the most prominent Young-Earth Creation organization, doesn't believe in a firmament, either.

The moon can be an absentee ruler: Problems with reading Genesis 1 and 2 as history.

Some Christians believe that Genesis 1 was meant to be read as history, and sets forth events in sequence. (See my previous post for further discussion of interpreting Genesis 1.) 

There are some problems with reading Genesis 1 as history, setting forth events in sequence. Here are some of them:

1) Light appears on the first day, but the sun and moon (which are not named, probably as a warning against worshiping them) are not mentioned until the fourth day.

2) The sun is described as ruling the day, and the moon as ruling the night. Surely the ancient Hebrews (and God!) knew full well that the moon appears during the day on most days, for periods up to almost the entire length of that day, and is not always present during the night. How can the moon rule the night on nights when it doesn't appear?

The above photo, taken in daylight, shows that the moon was clearly visible, and the sun was clearly shining. That means that, on the other side of the earth, neither the moon nor the sun was visible in the sky, at that time. Photo from Laura Suarez (distributed via imaggeo.egu.eu).

3) Genesis 1 describes a firmament (or expanse) as being created on the second day. The problem with that is that there is no firmament. Ancient peoples believed that there was one, and supposed that various celestial objects, and clouds, were held up by this structure. There is no firmament. The moon, the sun, the stars, galaxies, planets, comets and asteroids are not held up by any sort of glass sphere, or invisible framework (unless you count gravity as such). They are at distances that vary by orders of magnitude -- the moon is relatively close to us, the Magellanic Clouds much further away, so that there is no way that both of these could be held up by one structure surrounding the earth. The earth is not the center of the solar system.

How do I explain these problems? Is the Bible wrong?

I would argue that the Bible is not wrong. It was not meant to be a textbook of astronomy, or geology, or biology. It was meant to tell us about God, the single wonderful, wise creator, and His sovereignty over the creation. God used the language and ideas of the culture of the time. People of that day believed that there was a firmament, so God allowed the description of the creation to include this. Today, we say "sunset" and "sunrise," even though the sun doesn't really rise, or set -- the earth's rotation makes it seem that it rises and sets. If, for example, a news reporter or a novelist says that an event happened at sunrise, we don't accuse her of ignorance or deception.* These ideas are part of our culture, and communicate within that culture, whereas saying "the earth rotated so that the sun appeared on the horizon in Central Africa," is unnecessarily cumbersome and confusing. The idea of a firmament, in Bible times, communicated with others.

Added Dec 13, 2021: For more on the firmament and the Hebrews, see here.

Thank you for reading!

*There are other examples of this sort of thing, such as acting as if or communicating that gravity is an attractive force, because it's ingrained in our culture. If I understand Einstein, gravity is because of space being warped, so that two objects travel toward each other in space-time, and it isn't really an attractive force. The more up-to-date Einsteinian explanation of gravity was used frequently in Star Trek. ("warp speed") But we write and talk about falling downstairs, for example.

Another example of how culture makes communication unscientific is the use of heart for the seat of the emotions.

It is likely that some current ideas about how things work, from the submicroscopic to the galactic, will seem foolish to people in the future centuries. (If there are to be future centuries.)