License

I have written an e-book, Does the Bible Really Say That?, which is free to anyone. To download that book, in several formats, go here.
Creative Commons License
The posts in this blog are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. You can copy and use this material, as long as you aren't making money from it. If you give me credit, thanks. If not, OK.
Showing posts sorted by date for query Genesis 2. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Genesis 2. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Monday, June 08, 2026

Science as part of humanity's responsibility

What is science? The Project Gutenberg dictionary says: Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge.

Knowledge, generally, is commended in the life of Solomon: 1 Kings 4:31 For he was wiser than all men—wiser than Ethan the Ezrahite, Heman, Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol; and his fame was in all the nations all around. 32 He spoke three thousand proverbs, and his songs numbered one thousand five. 33 He spoke of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even to the hyssop that grows out of the wall; he also spoke of animals, of birds, of creeping things, and of fish. 

Solomon's works specifically included many kinds of living things. 

Here are some more passages that indicate that scientific study of the natural world is a good thing:

Studying astronomy helps us to praise God more fully. Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God. The expanse shows his handiwork. 2 Day after day they pour out speech, and night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.

According to Job 12:7 “But ask the animals now, and they will teach you; the birds of the sky, and they will tell you. 8 Or speak to the earth, and it will teach you. The fish of the sea will declare to you. 9 Who doesn’t know that in all these, Yahweh’s hand has done this, 10 in whose hand is the life of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind? 

This passage seems to encourage the study of the natural world.

Proverbs 25:2 "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." This verse encourages the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, which aligns with scientific inquiry.

Genesis 1 says that humans were to have dominion over other living beings. This implies that the lives of non-human organisms should be studied and the studies should be applied. Dominion requires knowledge.

Here's another passages that indicate that scientific study of the natural world is a good thing:

Colossians 1:16 For by him all things were created in the heavens and on the earth, visible things and invisible things, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things are held together.

If all things were created for him, shouldn't we honor Christ by learning about them?

Thanks for reading.

 


Tuesday, September 16, 2025

Sunspots 989

 


Things that I have spotted that may be of interest to others:



Politico reports that Artificial Intelligence war games have a disturbing tendency to escalate into global war.

Ken Schenck discusses the concept of creation out of nothing, and concludes that our current understanding of that idea has not existed (!) until recently.


Nature reports that scientists are discussing the possibility of producing "mirror life," organisms made from  molecules that are mirror images of those naturally occurring in living things.

Today is "square root day" -  9 + 16 = 25.

Thanks for reading!

Tuesday, February 11, 2025

Blogging: Posts that have received over 500 views

I blog mostly because I want to say something, whether anyone reads it or not. I hope that I am also blogging for God's glory. Sometimes I wonder if it's worth the effort, but a recent experience indicates that at least some of it is. The experience is that Blogger, which I have used since beginning this blog, keeps track of the number of views, and comments, on each post. I was posting on a biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and looked up some previous posts on him, and was amazed to note that those two posts had received over 400 views each. Those posts are here and here. (In case you are wondering, there are over 2,000 posts on this blog. Most of them have received a few dozen views.)

What is a view? I'm not sure, but suppose that, at minimum, someone clicked on the blog post's page. 400 views does NOT mean that 400 people actually read the post, or even glanced at it.

So what posts have received over 500 views? Here's an annotated list, including:

A post on what's wrong with the political left, and the right, is here.

A number of "Sunspots" posts have received over 500 views. Some of these are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here here and here.

A post on "Homosexual Activism and Public Opinion" has received over 500 views. So has one on "Sexual Sins not Mentioned in the Bible."

A post on the moral universe of Game of Thrones has also received over 500 views.

One of my posts (number 65 of such) quoting G. K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy has received over 800 views. 

A post on "What is a Christian novel," made the cut.

The Sunspots post of January 11, 2017, has received over 500 views. I'm not sure why. So has the Sunspots for May 3, 2017.

A post on "Farewell Speeches from Bible Characters" has received over 500 views.

A post on Jehoshaphat's prayer, in 2 Chronicles 20, which is almost entirely a quotation from the World English Bible, a public domain modern version, has received over 900 views. 

Scriptural Principles that Relate to Science has more than 500 views. 

A post on computers and the mind-body problem (and soul uploading) has more than 500 views.

A post on whether animals ate meat before the Flood has had over 500 views.

A post on whether it rained before the Flood has received over 500 views.

A post pointing out that everyone interprets the Bible, especially Genesis 1, (or depends on the interpretations of other people) rather than just reading it, met the criterion.

A post on whether a Christian must be a Young-Earth Creationist, about a dialogue between Karl Giberson and Albert Mohler, has had over 500 views.

My review of Soul Surfer, the movie, has received over 1300 views.

A rehash of a post from The BioLogos foundation, on whether natural selection can produce new genetic information, has received over  500 views. (It can.)

Musings on the color, green, covering a lot of topics briefly, has had over 1490 views.

A poster, based on Philippians 4:8, one of my favorite verses, made the list.

Here's a poster, showing pattern for prayer, based on the ACTS acronym, which has received over 1400 views. A similar post (I shouldn't have done this twice!) has received 750 views so far.

An essay on Tolkien's writing, entitled Galadriel, Fëanor, and the Silmarils, has gotten over 1000 posts.

An essay on whether Elizabeth Moon's The Deed of Paksenarrion novels, which are fantastic literature, are Christian or not, meets the criterion. An essay on these novels, themselves, was at 497 views on July 5, 2015.

An essay on sword and sorcery fiction -- Tolkien's work is an example, but my no means the only one -- and why there is such, and why it is popular (at least with some people).

An essay on Grass, a science fiction work by Sherri S. Tepper, made the list.

A post entitled "Abortion - Some Thoughts for Christians" made the list.

So did a poster on what photosynthesis does, which has been viewed nearly 900 times.

So did a poster on How Computers Work.

A list of the ways that God reveals Himself to us, with Bible references, has been viewed over 1800 times.

A discussion of cases, in the Bible, where the woman was the spiritual head of the family, has received about 700 views.

I copied one of the hymns of Charles Wesley, which are in the public domain. It's about repentance. The post has received over 900 views. I've never heard that song used in church.

A post on what I see as a Christ-figure, in Watership Down, by Richard Adams, made the list.

There was a post that took an anti-abortion organization to task for claiming that a human embryo has a heartbeat at 18 days of development (it doesn't) that has received over 2000 views.

A post on the question of whether there was rain before the Flood has gotten over 2600 views.

This post, with discussion, and a poster, suggesting that we should be very careful as to what we say about end times, has received over 1100 views.

A post acknowledging the death of Norman Borlaug, Nobel-prize-winning botanist, met the criterion.

A post considering some speculation about how many people died in the Flood has received over 3400 views.

I invented what I call the 90% rule for marriage. It met the criterion.

A post on the Resurrection, Superstition, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics met the criterion.

A meditation on the "Hallelujah Chorus" from Beethoven's Christ on the Mount of Olives has been viewed over 500 times.

Two posts on homosexuality have been viewed many times. One is on the question of whether homosexuality is innate or acquired. The other looks at what the Bible says about homosexuality.

A post from my teaching days, on biological ethics, and the concepts of moral agency and moral considerability, has received over 700 views.

A post with a song I wrote, on the Golden Rule, met the criterion.

A post on passages where memorial stones are mentioned in the Bible has been viewed over 1300 times.

A compilation of places, in the book of Acts, where a church engaged in prayer together, has been viewed over 1200 times.

"What's Wrong with Young-Earth Creationism" -- there are problems with all views of origins -- has been viewed over 1600 times, and received over 20 comments by others.

A post on what I believe about origins has been viewed over 800 times.

A book review of a book about questions of enhancing humans, for athletic competitions and other reasons, met the criterion.

A compilation of the prophet Hosea's references to Ephraim has been viewed over 1400 times.

A post on what the Bible says about light has been viewed over 2800 times.

A discussion of the dwarves in The Last Battle, by C. S. Lewis, has been viewed over 600 times.

A compilation of what the Bible says about figs has been seen over 1600 times.

A one-sentence quotation, on what sin is, from Susanna Wesley, mother of John and Charles (and others) has been viewed over 700 times.

A post on the sea as a symbol of evil in the Bible, based on a book by David Snoke, has been viewed over 1500 times. Another discussion of this topic, without references to Snoke, has been viewed over 1600 times.

A discussion of what the Bible says about tattoos is my most popular post, as it has been viewed over 36,000 times, and has received at least 50 comments by others.

I pointed out a candidate for the "most sexist verse in the Old Testament," and that post has met the criterion.

A post that says that "I believe that the universe was designed intelligently" has been viewed over 2000 times.

A post highlighting quotations on joy, from C. S. Lewis, Tolkien, Ursula K. Le Guin, and George MacDonald, all authors of fantastic literature, has met the criterion.

A discussion of religion in The Left Hand of Darkness, an award-winning science fiction novel by Ursula K. Le Guin, has received over 700 views.

A post considering the question of whether Louis Pasteur disproved abiogenesis (sometimes known as spontaneous generation) has been viewed over 2100 times.

I claim that Christ didn't come as a baby -- be careful about throwing rocks my way! Read the post first. It has been viewed over 1000 times.

A post agreeing that The Golden Compass, by Philip Pullman, is openly atheistic, but saying that there are worse dangers than blatant atheism, has been viewed over 600 times.

Charles Wesley's hymn, "I Know that My Redeemer Lives," has been viewed nearly 1200 times.

A post on the occurrences of the fruit, pomegranate, in the Bible, has been viewed 1000 times.

A post on the occurrences of the word, basket, in the Bible has been viewed nearly 1900 times.

A post on Athaliah, one of the most wicked women in the Bible, perhaps the wickedest, has received over 600 views.

One of my Sunspots, for no reason that I know of, has gotten over 500 views.

A brief criticism of Al Mohler's argument for YEC, from He Lives, has gotten over 500 views. 

Some thoughts by Antonin Scalia, US Supreme Court justice, on gun regulation, met the criterion.

A post, mostly quoting 2 Corinthians 1:1-4, has also met the criterion.

A post on the idea of play, in the Bible, has been viewed over 2700 times.

Two posts, here and here, on the agnosticism of Christopher Paolini, author of Eragon, and related works, have accumulated over 2000 total views.

A post on why living things have cells has received over 2600 views.

The post that has received more views than any other, save one, is on what the Bible says about light. It has gotten over 15,700 views.

A post on trees in the Bible has been viewed nearly 2000 times.

A musing on the subject of whether I am earnestly seeking God, which is mostly a quotation of the first four verses of Psalm 63, has been viewed 1000 times.

A comparison of Young-Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design has received nearly 600 views.

I have asked the question, "Isn't God a great artist?" with a photo of lichens, and that brief musing has received over 700 views.

An important post on environmental stewardship in the Bible has received 5486 views, as of November 25, 2014.

A post on what John Wesley had to say about the idea of the image of God has met the criterion.

A post on almond flowers in the Bible, and what they looked like (with a photo, not by me) has received nearly 4000 views.

A post on Joseph's cup, and divination (telling the future) has met the criterion.

A post on "Looking for Something," using a parable in Luke 15, has been viewed over 900 times.

"I believe in evolution: so do you" has met the criterion.

A bible study on what the New Testament church actually prayed for has been viewed over 1000 times.

To my amazement, a photograph of mimosa flowers has been viewed over 1200 times.

"Confessions of a Freecell Addict" has received over 700 views.

One of an occasional series, on women in the Old Testament, is on five sisters - Mahlah, Noah, Milcah, Hoglah and Tirzah - has been seen over 500 times.

A post on the Christianity -- or not -- of Star Wars, has been viewed over 2700 times.

A post on Tamar, a woman of the Old Testament, has been viewed over 600 times.


A description of travel from Greenwood, South Carolina, to North Augusta, South Carolina, has been viewed over 900 times.

A post on inbreeding in the Old Testament has been viewed over 3600 times.

A free scan of a public domain woodcut of the Last Supper has had over 600 views.

"Technology: some Biblical basics" has met the criterion.

A post on the colors purple, scarlet and crimson has met the criterion.

Abishag: beauty contestant and bedwarmer received over 3000 views.

Hathach: lessons from a eunuch has been viewed over 600 times.

A post, showing a chart giving the Biblical evidence for being a Christian has been viewed over 500 times. 

"How to treat aliens, foreigners and strangers" has been viewed over 500 times. 

A post on "God's creativity" has been viewed over 800 times. 

A post on the (they say) 7 C's of history, by Answers in Genesis, has been viewed over 500 times.

Saturday, June 22, 2024

rocks and stones in the Bible

My Bible search tool tells me that there are about 140 occurrences of the word "rock" in the Bible, and about 330 occurrences of "stone." Here are some of the more important passages related to rock or stone.

In Genesis 28, Jacob, fleeing from his brother Esau, takes a rock for a pillow, and, when he wakes, sets that rock up as a pillar, and pours oil on it, and promises to give God from his goods.

In Exodus 28, the first instance of stoning to death as a punishment occurs. Stephen was stoned in Acts, and Paul was stoned and left for dead.

In Exodus 24, the Ten Commandments were engraved on two stone tablets, by God, Himself. Later, after Moses broke them in righteous anger, God made new tablets. These tablets were still in a sacred box, or ark, many years later.

In Exodus 28, twelve stones, as part of the garments of the High Priest, represented the twelve tribes. There are a number of other references to precious stones in the Bible.

In Exodus 33, God tells Moses that he can be hidden in a cleft of a rock, while God passes by.  

Leviticus 26:1 You shall make for yourselves no idols, and you shall not raise up a carved image or a pillar, and you shall not place any figured stone in your land, to bow down to it; for I am Yahweh your God.

Stoning to death was commanded several times in the Old Testament, or was given as the penalty if anyone were to commit certain sins.

In Numbers 20, Moses obtained water for the Israelites, in a sinful manner, by striking a rock.

Deuteronomy 27:1 Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, "Keep all the commandment which I command you today. 2 It shall be on the day when you shall pass over the Jordan to the land which Yahweh your God gives you, that you shall set yourself up great stones, and coat them with plaster. 3 You shall write on them all the words of this law, when you have passed over, that you may go in to the land which Yahweh your God gives you, a land flowing with milk and honey, as Yahweh, the God of your fathers, has promised you."

Deuteronomy 32:3 For I will proclaim Yahweh’s name.  Ascribe greatness to our God! 4 The Rock: his work is perfect, for all his ways are just.  A God of faithfulness who does no wrong, just and right is he.

In Joshua 4, the Israelites were told to take stones from the bed of the Jordan River, which they were about to cross, and set them as a memorial to God's power.

1 Samuel 2:2 There is no one as holy as Yahweh, for there is no one besides you, nor is there any rock like our God.

David took 5 stones to use in his sling, when he confronted Goliath, according to 1 Samuel 17.

2 Samuel 22:2b Yahweh is my rock, my fortress, and my deliverer, even mine; God is my rock in whom I take refuge; my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge. My savior, you save me from violence.

There are several other times when God is called a rock, in the Old Testament.

1 Kings 5 - 7 describes the building of the Temple. Many stones were used in the construction.

In Ezra 5 and 6, stones were used to re-build the temple.

There is only one use of the word, stones, in the entire book of Psalms. It's in 102:14.

In Isaiah 2, sinners try to hide themselves from God, in the rocks.

In Matthew 4, Satan tempts Christ, suggesting that He turn stones into bread.

Matthew 7 has the parable of the house built on a rock.

Matthew has the parable of seed falling on rocky ground.

Matthew 16:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 I also tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. ..."

In Luke 19, Jesus says that if the crowd hadn't hailed his entry into Jerusalem, the stones would have cheered for Him.

1 Peter 5 says that believers are like living stones.

Tuesday, June 11, 2024

rivers in the Bible

Rivers are mentioned often in the Bible. The Bible search tool I use says that there are 188 uses of the word, "river" in the Bible. Many of them seem trivial, landmarks. Here are some of the scriptural occurrences, some not so trivial:

Genesis 2 speaks of one river coming out of Eden, and splitting into four rivers.

Genesis 15:18 prophecies that Abraham's offspring will control the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates. There are similar statements in Deuteronomy 11:4 and Joshua 1:4.

In Genesis 41, Pharaoh described his dream of the future famine, in which dream cows by the river are symbolic.

In Exodus 1 and 2, baby Moses is set afloat on the river (apparently the Nile)

In Exodus 4-8, some of the plagues sent on the Egyptians involved a river, most likely the Nile.

The crossing of the Jordan river, arguably one of the highlights of the Old Testament, is described in Joshua 2-4.

Joshua 24 has three warnings about serving gods from beyond the river.

There are several instances where a river (sometimes not name, hence understood by the audience) is used as a border. For example, see 1 Kings 4:21-24.

In 1 Kings 5, Naaman of Syria complains when Elisha tells him to wash seven times in the Jordan, rather than washing in the rivers of Syria.

In 2 Kings 18:11 and 1 Chronicles 5:26, the captured Israelites are placed next to the Gozan river.

There are several references to "beyond the river" in Ezra and Nehemiah.

Psalm 46:4 "There is a river, the streams of which make the city of God glad, the holy place of the tents of the Most High."

There are several references to restoring the land, and its rivers, in Isaiah. Here's one such: Isaiah 43:2 When you pass through the waters, I will be with you, and through the rivers, they will not overflow you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned, and flame will not scorch you. This chapter also says that God can create rivers in the desert.

Ezekiel 47 tells about a river that will flow out of the temple, and will have abundant trees along it, and abundant fish in it.

Amos 5:24 was used in Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech: "But let justice roll on like rivers, and righteousness like a mighty stream."

Mark 2 tells of the ministry of John the Baptist, who baptized Christ in the Jordan river.

Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit in John 7:38 “... He who believes in me, as the Scripture has said, from within him will flow rivers of living water.”

In Acts 16, the first converts in Europe joined with Paul and his fellows at a place of prayer on a river.

The final chapter of the Bible refers to a river: Revelation 22:1 He showed me a[a] river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb, 2 in the middle of its street. On this side of the river and on that was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruits, yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. (See reference to Ezekiel, above)

Crossing the Jordan, Christ being baptized in that same river, the Holy Spirit being promised, the conversion of Lydia, and the abundant riverside in the Final Kingdom are not so trivial. May you and I experience that last instance! Thanks for reading.

Saturday, March 09, 2024

The Six-Day War in Creationism, by Gene Nouhan

There are several books that seriously criticize Young-Earth Creationism, as it is taught by Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis (AiG), and others. The Six-Day War in Creationism: A New Critique of the Young Earth Reform Movement and Its Excesses is the most thorough such book that I have read. It's also the longest. The length and content of that title gives a hint of that thoroughness, and length. 

Author Gene Nouhan  carefully considers the meaning of the Bible's original languages, and concludes that the Bible wasn't meant to say that the earth is but a few thousand years old, and doesn't. His related main criticism of the Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) movement is that its advocates do not usually explicitly claim that you have to agree with them for your eternal salvation, but that they argue so strongly for a YEC interpretation (never mind the lack of evidence) that the message that comes across is that only YEC believers can be saved.

Nouhan doesn't attempt to rule out a six day creation by examining scientific evidence. Others have done so, explaining that a young earth isn't consistent with geological, biological, or paleological findings. Nouhan's base is the original words in the Bible, as far as we can know them. I am not a scholar of biblical language, but Nouhan seems convincing. He calls upon logic and common sense.

Two other books that I recommend are not as thorough, but seem sound in Biblical scholarship, and make some important points. (Mis)interpreting Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Near Eastern Context of the Bible, by Ben Stanhope, deflates claims from AiG that the Bible teaches that dinosaurs were contemporary with people in Noah's time, based on his analysis of the language of the Old Testament. Why does AiG make such claims? One possibility is that they genuinely believe that the Bible teaches that. Another possibility is that, as a culture, we are excited by dinosaurs -- see Jurassic Park, etc., the Flintstones, news reports on newly discovered fossils, and many other phenomena -- and that AiG is using this fascination to raise interest, attendance, and money. Stanhope considers archaeology, and some of the sciences, as well as history. An important sample is 

It’s historically outrageous to suppose a global flood ... [is] supposed to have managed to blast out the Grand Canyon in North America and fossilize the dinosaurs in Uzbekistan but couldn’t put a dent in the Sphinx at Giza or other hundreds of Egyptian sites and entire civilizations constructed far earlier and well documented as alive and well through this period. If you accept the calculation that a global flood occurred in 2300 BC, you absurdly end up having to compress or explain away nearly all of the world’s chronological and archaeological evidence dating to before the middle of the Egyptian Old Kingdom period.

The Heresy of Ham: What Every Evangelical Needs to Know About the Creation-Evolution Controversy, by Joel Edmund Anderson, argues that AiG believes, and teaches, that Young-Earth Creationism is one of the foundational beliefs of the church, which belief is a heresy. Here's a quotation from the book:

... heresy is not limited to simply wrong teaching about something. It also can involve undue emphasis of a particular theological point or view, and actually elevate a secondary or non-essential issue to a level of primacy, equal to the resurrection of Christ.

And Anderson (and Nouhan) believe that AiG and those it influences and agrees with have done exactly that.

Nouhan's book is not perfect. There are a few things that the editor missed, such as using "tenant" when "tenet" was what was meant. The acronym SDWC is commonly used, but never expanded. (It means "Six Day War in Creationism," of course. There are hundreds of footnotes. Some of them, to web sources, don't give the UUL but give the site's name (Answers in Genesis, for example) and the date. Some of those sources would be hard to fine. Some footnotes are not to an outside source, but give part of Nouhan's argument. I'm not clear as to why these are not part of the main text. Finally, Nouhan overuses italics. When it doubt, italicize, seems to be his thinking. These are minor flaws, or maybe flaws at all. It's a good book.

Thanks for reading!

The following graphic does not directly relate to this post, but it's my blog. It's impossible to take Genesis 1 and 2 as two straightforward sequential lists of events:




 

Friday, September 22, 2023

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.

Saturday, September 16, 2023

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.


 

Thursday, September 14, 2023

Is the science of the Bible always correct? Lamentations 2:11 on the liver

Image of the liver from Wikimedia Commons



Lamentations 2:11 My eyes fail with tears. My heart is troubled. My liver is poured on the earth, because of the destruction of the daughter of my people, because the young children and the infants swoon in the streets of the city. (World English Bible, public domain)

Commentary by A. R. Fausset: "that is, as the liver was thought to be the seat of the passions, "all my feelings are poured out and prostrated for," &c. The "liver," is here put for the bile ("gall," Job 16:13; "bowels," Psa 22:14 ) in a bladder on the surface of the liver, copiously discharged when the passions are agitated." (source)

From Calvin's commentary: "But Jeremiah, in short, shews that all his faculties were so seized with grief, that no part was exempt. He then says that his liver was poured forth, but in the same sense in which he said that his bowels were disturbed. They are indeed hyperbolical expressions; but as to the meaning, Jeremiah simply expresses his feelings; for there is no doubt but that he was incredibly anxious and sorrowful on account of so great a calamity;" (source)

The author of Lamentations was not including the first verse quoted above as part of a discussion of liver anatomy and physiology. If he had been doing so, he would have been largely wrong, as can be seen by reading this solid source on how the liver was perceived in ancient times. The authors of that source, in fact, quote the verse at the beginning of this post, and say, commenting on it, that the liver "... was also the seat of all the emotions..." Or, as Fausset put it in his commentary, the passions.

Was Jeremiah (presumably the author of Lamentations) wrong about the liver? Well, yes, about its significance and function. Was the Bible wrong about the liver? Yes, in the same way. But Lamentations was not a physiology text. God knows the function of the liver, perhaps even knowing aspects of it that are yet to be discovered, here in 2023, and He knew them in Jeremiah's time. The Bible, nor God, is not in error worth mentioning, or defending, concerning this passage. Jeremiah spoke in accord with the beliefs of his day, and those beliefs were not such as to imperil anyone's salvation. These beliefs were incorporated into what he said about the liver. It would have been strange indeed for God to have tapped Jeremiah on the shoulder and said "excuse me, but the liver is not actually the seat of the emotions. Carry on with your prophecy," and, of course, He didn't do that. To expect every Biblical description of created things to match current scientific knowledge is unreasonable.

Thanks for reading. Take care of your liver. 

September 15, 2023:

I have discovered that, in chapter six of his book, (Mis)interpreting Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Middle Eastern Context of the Bible, Ben Stanhope discusses the brain and the kidneys, in a fashion similar to my treatment of the liver, in this post. God willing, I'll post on these further organs soon.

October 6, 2023: Here is a post on the kidneys, and here is one on the size of mustard seeds. Both posts argue that the Bible was produced according to the beliefs about nature and humans that were prevalent at that time.

Tuesday, September 05, 2023

Is Genesis straightforward historical narrative? Genesis 1 and 2

The Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith says, in part: “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.” … and “The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages but are six consecutive, 24-hour days of creation; …”

Two previous posts (genre, and culture) on this blog describe the effect of genre, and of the culture of the writers, and listeners/readers, in ancient times, on what the Bible communicates. Those effects, and other reasons, indicate that Genesis 1-2, in particular, is not simple, and does not necessarily communicate consecutive events. 

Let’s consider the questions of simplicity and of consecutive events.
 
Genesis 1 puts the creation of humans, male and female, on Day 6. If Genesis 2 does, it doesn’t do so simply. Adam comes at the beginning, and Eve at the end, in chapter 2. It is possible to reconcile these accounts on this point, but, to do so, one must depart from a “plain reading of scripture.*” Genesis 1 also puts land plants in day 3, before the creation of humans, whereas Genesis 2 seems to put Adam before the plants. Genesis 1 puts the creation of animals on day 6, whereas Genesis 2 appears to put that creation after the appearance of Adam. Answers in Genesis, and others, believe that Genesis 2:19 should be translated to say that God “had formed” -- already done it -- before presenting the animals to Adam. Perhaps, but only four of the Bible versions given in the Blueletter Bible say that. The other thirteen say “formed,” as if it happened as they were presented to Adam. One of the four that says “had formed” gives “formed" as an alternate reading.

There are many God-fearing, Christ-believing Bible scholars who are convinced that Genesis 1 and 2 were not intended to be step-by-step historical narrative, and/or who do not think that their purpose was to establish the timing of creation. Listen to N. T. Wright, for one.

There are other reasons for doubting that Genesis 1 and 2 were meant to give us a step-by-step historical narrative of the creation. God willing, I shall continue this series.

Answers in Genesis zealously defends the Bible, if the Bible needs any defense, but they propose at least one really strange idea of how to look at the Bible.

*Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, “Pausing for a Leaven warning,” March 2, 2023, writes “we should always be suspicious when the secular world proclaims anything at odds with a plain reading of Scripture.” That phrase, “plain reading of scripture,” is claimed as the foundation of Answers in Genesis, the most influential young-earth entity.