When the Sky?

[robocop (actually)]

Oh and I know the canopy theory. Every day of creation the Lord saw to be good except the 2nd day because the water above would fall on the Earth saving only those on Noah's Ark (and some other groups of organisms that could survive).

 

[Faithofchristian]

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Then in verse 20 there is an atmosphere for the birds to fly in. There seems to be no mention of where it came from. When was it formed in the narrative?

Ok, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

So the question is, When was the beginning?
Verse 1, doesn't say when the beginning was, only in the beginning.
Lot of people especially Christians trys to implement this into the 6 days creation week. But that will not hold up.


As for the atmosphere that you made mention of, The atmosphere was already there with the earth in Genesis 1:1.

But the question you brought up, is a very good question, about the atmosphere, That's for sure.

If only people only understood about the first earth age, then everything else would line up for them.

But as it is people have no concept about that first earth age.There is plenty of evidence in the bible, as well around the earth, that gives support about that first earth age.

The earth as well as the atmosphere have been since Millions if not Billions of years old. So the earth and atmosphere out dates the 6 days creation week.

But as you said, which you are right about and is a very good valid question to ask.
There is no mentioning in all the 6days of creation about the atmosphere as being created in Genesis 1:1-31.

So how long has the atmosphere and the earth been around?
So since we know that the dinosaurs bones dates back to 6.5 Millions of years ago, so that means that the atmosphere and the earth as to be just as old.
Otherwise how would the dinosaurs breath without any atmosphere to breath?
The Atmosphere is made up of air, that we and the animals breath to live by.

So your question is a valid question to ask.

But seeing there is no mentioning in
Genesis 1:1-31, during the 6 days of creation. about the creation of the atmosphere?

 

[sealchan]

Um, your forgetting the part where God put the sun, the moon and the stars in your atmosphere. 1:14-20 KJV

The text indicates that the sun, moon and stars are in what we today would call the atmosphere, yes. This is logically what the text says quite plainly.

Now I know this is incorrect factually, but I do think it is Biblical. In fact I would suspect that all other cosmologies of the many sophisticated cultures of the author's time probably had more elaborate and complex heavens. But it would be just the sort of take on that type of cosmology for the author of Genesis to counter that with the most simple, straight-forward and obvious kind of cosmology that anyone could vouch for which is that there is water and dry land below, a high heaven full of air and birds and then above that high up are sun, moon and stars perhaps in the ceiling of that space. But sometimes there comes down the waters from above. The sky is blue after all just like deep waters are blue except when the waters above the atmosphere-heaven are falling in some measure.

This is all very good scientific theory...for the author's time. It doesn't add much of anything to the description of nature that isn't fairly obvious. The more I think about it, the more I like this author's counter-elaborate and anti-speculative cosmology. I admire its "down-to-earth" quality even as it doesn't "hold water" by today's standards of knowledge.

But for my accurate descriptions of cosmology I will pick up my works of Stephen Hawking and start from there. That doesn't mean I cannot admire the character of Genesis 1's description as it appears.

I also acknowledge that there may be a cultural context to this story that would indicate that the author had some other more complete understanding of the cosmos in mind. But I have to think that from a literary point of view my interpretation above makes Noah's story that much more intense. It is the collapse of the very Universe that is occurring with the flood! The undoing of the original separation of the waters and the dry land and the partial undoing of the separation of the waters above and below. Noah's ark is like a miniature heaven-atmosphere drifting on the primordial chaos of the waters above and below, a cosmic egg from which will re-hatch all of life.

I know that flood narratives were out and about in various cultures...perhaps this cosmology was created by the author in order to foreshadow the Noah flood narrative itself. This would fit in nicely with the very sparse but intentional literary style of Genesis.

 

[sealchan]

That would seem to be the wrong interpretation and it has it's roots and is a b*stard offspring of replacement theology. Prolly why it makes no sense to you.
The firmament of heaven, created on the 2nd day is clearly what sepearated the waters. Verses 14-19 clearly shows the sun moon and stars as being in the firmament.

It is the "open firmament of heaven " of verse 20 is where the birds fly. This clearly puts this as the atmosphere and the firmament of heaven as space.

I guess I'm not following how you are deducing two heavens from the text when it says firmament of heaven vs open firmament of heaven. Why does "open" designate the heaven that separates the waters? And where else in Genesis 1 does it indicate that there is another heaven outside of the waters and the heaven within the waters?

 

[sealchan]

Think of a circle that is earth. There is water which makes up another circle surrounding it. This is the deep. Then the next circle is heaven, most probably God's abode. This is the most likely view of the Biblical world of Genesis 1:1 KJV. (I see another view here but follow this one through first if you will)

Along comes the firmament which adds a space right smack dab in the middle of all that water. The waters below are now on earth. There is a space called "the firmament of Heaven." This is where God put the sun the moon and the stars. This is the second heaven, 1:1 being the third (John was called to the third heaven in Revelation).

The waters above moved to the heaven (no capitalization here) of 1:1. The atmosphere is the "open firmament of heaven " where the birds fly. This is the first heaven.

Are you with me so far?

I guess I am not following...I will start with accepting the earth as a circle, infinitely extensive or no...but I am not sure where you would get a circle of water surrounding the earth. The dry land and the waters under the heaven were separated but there is no geometrical specificity here. I assume the author meant that the way that land and water are separated "today" would be the assumption here.

Heaven separated the waters (of the deep) between upper and lower. The most simple explanation for this would be a sandwich with heaven-atmosphere as a layer between to slices of bread-waters.

Perhaps there is some extra-Biblical context you are referencing here that the original Jewish audience would have understood?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm attempting to put this in light of the narrative. Sky had to come from somewhere. My best estimate from the text is that it was either part of the formless and void earth, the deep, or the heaven of 1:1.

The NIV puts it this way

"
So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."

 

[sealchan]

The NIV puts it this way

"
So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."

To me it seems that the sky is the atmosphere (as we now know it) and it appears "out of thin air" by the separation of the waters. I suspect the waters are the primordial ocean, a chaos of energy that the author chose to depict as an ocean. Probably this was related to other cosmogonies in nearby cultures. It could be psychologically associated with the womb and the amniotic fluid in which we are born and emerge. As the heaven/sky was created out of the waters so are each of us. As the one river from Eden entered into the Garden of Eden amidst the expanse of the Earth and emerged (separated) as four rivers. As Adam and Eve in the garden split from obedience to God and became...separated. Division, separation, birth...these are ancient mythic motifs that the author of Genesis has referenced here either for the sake of familiarity for his audience or for the sake of contrast with other beliefs...or both

What the author intended is probably a matter of understanding the mythic, symbolic context of his/her times and understanding how the author may have put their own perspective into the cosmogony presented.

I believe that some might call this a spiritual reading of the scripture, but it is also a literary understanding of the scripture by an author who was simultaneously trying to tell us a specific story and get us to look past that story.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

To me it seems that the sky is the atmosphere (as we now know it) and it appears "out of thin air" by the separation of the waters. I suspect the waters are the primordial ocean, a chaos of energy that the author chose to depict as an ocean. Probably this was related to other cosmogonies in nearby cultures. It could be psychologically associated with the womb and the amniotic fluid in which we are born and emerge. As the heaven/sky was created out of the waters so are each of us. As the one river from Eden entered into the Garden of Eden amidst the expanse of the Earth and emerged (separated) as four rivers. As Adam and Eve in the garden split from obedience to God and became...separated. Division, separation, birth...these are ancient mythic motifs that the author of Genesis has referenced here either for the sake of familiarity for his audience or for the sake of contrast with other beliefs...or both

What the author intended is probably a matter of understanding the mythic, symbolic context of his/her times and understanding how the author may have put their own perspective into the cosmogony presented.

I believe that some might call this a spiritual reading of the scripture, but it is also a literary understanding of the scripture by an author who was simultaneously trying to tell us a specific story and get us to look past that story.

I think that gets to the heart of it, a great work resonates with a great diversity of people, time, places, not a handful of 21st C critics. and the Bible does this like no other book in the history of humanity.

A beginning to the universe itself, the Earth once being one great ocean, then one great land mass and ocean, life beginning in the sea, stars being comparable to the number of grains of sand on Earth, space unfolding like a fabric into higher dimensions- water above the sky...

there are many things that once seemed strange in Genesis until we learned more, and there will always be things we don't understand, where the light of science has not shone, and someone can point and claim the Bible makes no sense- atheism of the gaps?

Water was plentiful in the early universe
https://phys.org/news/2015-05-plentiful-early-universe.html

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The NIV puts it this way

"
So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."

Bad translation.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I guess I'm not following how you are deducing two heavens from the text when it says firmament of heaven vs open firmament of heaven. Why does "open" designate the heaven that separates the waters? And where else in Genesis 1 does it indicate that there is another heaven outside of the waters and the heaven within the waters?

There are three heavens. Where God resides is the third heaven. This was created in verse 1:1.

God created the "firmament of heaven" on the second day. This is the second heaven. It separated the waters of the deep. The waters from above were in the the third heaven where God resides. The waters below were part of earth.

The "open firmament of heaven ," or the sky, is the first heaven.

This is all according to the KJV text. The creation is very simple in verses 1 and 2. It is completely unlike what we see today. There is earth as the inner most circle. The next circle is the "firmament of heaven." The next, and outermost circle is the heaven of verse 1. The "firmament of heaven" divided the waters of the deep.

Remember that the circles are only analogous. The innermost circle of earth and water is formless and void at this stage which makes that circle more like a point.

The next circle is the "firmament of heaven.

The outermost circle may have only had the innermost boundry where the firmament of heaven abutted it. The outside boundry of the God's heaven is not described in the text.

Now, if you wish to apply modern cosmology to it, well yes it's tricky. Yet, imagine a bit. In the beginning was a God and a singularity. Inside that singularity was all of the creative matter and energy of our present universe. God imagined inside that singularity an earth. Of course it was formless and void. This is verse 1 of Genesis. There was a singularity and heaven where God hung out.

Do you follow so far? I'm trying to consolidate your three posts into one answer without writing a book.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I think that gets to the heart of it, a great work resonates with a great diversity of people, time, places, not a handful of 21st C critics. and the Bible does this like no other book in the history of humanity.

A beginning to the universe itself, the Earth once being one great ocean, then one great land mass and ocean, life beginning in the sea, stars being comparable to the number of grains of sand on Earth, space unfolding like a fabric into higher dimensions- water above the sky...

there are many things that once seemed strange in Genesis until we learned more, and there will always be things we don't understand, where the light of science has not shone, and someone can point and claim the Bible makes no sense- atheism of the gaps?

Water was plentiful in the early universe
https://phys.org/news/2015-05-plentiful-early-universe.html

Insightful post. Let me ask you this, keeping in mind that many like to view Genesis creation through the eyes of their percieved concepts of the knowledge of the times: how would that ancient scholar describe the plasma that was the entire universe for a short time?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Insightful post. Let me ask you this, keeping in mind that many like to view Genesis creation through the eyes of their percieved concepts of the knowledge of the times: how would that ancient scholar describe the plasma that was the entire universe for a short time?

We know it was pure photons at one point: ..Let there be light... but that comes after mentioning Earth in Genesis

But Genesis gives a poetic, very brief and remarkably accurate history of creation overall, it's not meant to be a scientific cheat sheet, the details are for us to discover.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

We know it was pure photons at one point: ..Let there be light... but that comes after mentioning Earth in Genesis

But Genesis gives a poetic, very brief and remarkably accurate history of creation overall, it's not meant to be a scientific cheat sheet, the details are for us to discover.

The earth was without form and void, part of the plasma. Light came 240,000 to 300,000 uears later.
Yet the spirit of God moved on the face of the waters before there was light. Perhaps this coincided with the inflationary period within the first seconds of the expansion. The expansion also created the firmament as our universe grew in size with great separations.

 

[sealchan]

There are three heavens. Where God resides is the third heaven. This was created in verse 1:1.

This is debatable without additional context...the author describes the initial state of Creation and it forms a picture in the audience's mind which suggests we are hovering in a space outside of that initial state. Is this what you mean by the third heaven?

In KJV we have "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" which could be interpreted as above or on top of the waters or it could be interpreted as within the plane of the surface of the waters. But for the sake of this thread and the OP I will grant you that there is an implied space outside of the waters.

[*]God created the "firmament of heaven" on the second day. This is the second heaven. It separated the waters of the deep. The waters from above were in the the third heaven where God resides. The waters below were part of earth.
[*]

Okay I will accept this.

[*]The "open firmament of heaven ," or the sky, is the first heaven.
[*]

This is where I get lost. I don't understand where you see the open firmament of heaven (open FOH) as different than the FOH. You may have a good reason for this but I don't see it. Is there a context that the author or his/her audience would have for making this assumption?

[*]This is all according to the KJV text. The creation is very simple in verses 1 and 2. It is completely unlike what we see today. There is earth as the inner most circle. The next circle is the "firmament of heaven." The next, and outermost circle is the heaven of verse 1. The "firmament of heaven" divided the waters of the deep.
[*]

[*]Remember that the circles are only analogous. The innermost circle of earth and water is formless and void at this stage which makes that circle more like a point.
[*]

[*]The next circle is the "firmament of heaven.
[*]

[*]The outermost circle may have only had the innermost boundry where the firmament of heaven abutted it. The outside boundry of the God's heaven is not described in the text.
[*]

Okay I see what you are describing now. I'm still not seeing that as what is described in Genesis. I have to think that you and I and anyone who reads this description would bring with them some assumptions and apply the description to the assumptions. What is of most interest to me are what the assumptions of the author and his audience would be.

[*] Now, if you wish to apply modern cosmology to it, well yes it's tricky. Yet, imagine a bit. In the beginning was a God and a singularity. Inside that singularity was all of the creative matter and energy of our present universe. God imagined inside that singularity an earth. Of course it was formless and void. This is verse 1 of Genesis. There was a singularity and heaven where God hung out.
[*]

[*]Do you follow so far? I'm trying to consolidate your three posts into one answer without writing a book.

I see your reasoning. But I am not following your three heavens deduction. I know that in the history of cosmologies there were many ways of looking at the cosmos and some of them involved concentric spheres (where the planets would move for instance). These cosmologies gradually evolved into the modern scientific ones.

My reading has me imagining a sandwich with only three layers:

• Waters above
• Heaven-sky-atmosphere
• Waters below separated from dry land

This seems to me to be the view that brings with it the least amount of assumptions and is based on Genesis (KJV or other).

I would say that there is an implicit space around all of this where the author and the audience see the original state of things and see God as either attached to, very near to or within the outer surface of the original waters. But for two reasons I tend to discount this as part of the author's cosmology:

• I don't see any text referring again to this implied space outside of the waters (and the space within) in Genesis
• There is always this implied space whenever anyone tries to explain the origin of the Universe. This is like trying to talk about the moment before Time was created. There is this pesky "what was there before there was a before" or a pesky "where did the first where come into existence at" sort of thing that at some point an author has to just ignore.

So for the sake of this OP can you say more about how you see that there is a difference between the "open FOH" and the FOH?

Does the phrase firmament of heaven imply that there is a heaven and within that heaven there is a firmament?

I've looked at Wikipedia and apparently the Hebrew word which firmament is translated from indicates a shape that is the result of beating out something until it is flat such as how a dish might be formed from a small lump of soft metal.

Again I understand your image, and I see that it probably lines up with those other perspectives that have been drawn up by those wanting to understand and illustrate this scripture. But what does the text actually say? And what contemporaneous context should be considered that would indicate how the author understood this text?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This is debatable without additional context...the author describes the initial state of Creation and it forms a picture in the audience's mind which suggests we are hovering in a space outside of that initial state. Is this what you mean by the third heaven?

In KJV we have "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters" which could be interpreted as above or on top of the waters or it could be interpreted as within the plane of the surface of the waters. But for the sake of this thread and the OP I will grant you that there is an implied space outside of the waters.



Okay I will accept this.



This is where I get lost. I don't understand where you see the open firmament of heaven (open FOH) as different than the FOH. You may have a good reason for this but I don't see it. Is there a context that the author or his/her audience would have for making this assumption?



Okay I see what you are describing now. I'm still not seeing that as what is described in Genesis. I have to think that you and I and anyone who reads this description would bring with them some assumptions and apply the description to the assumptions. What is of most interest to me are what the assumptions of the author and his audience would be.



I see your reasoning. But I am not following your three heavens deduction. I know that in the history of cosmologies there were many ways of looking at the cosmos and some of them involved concentric spheres (where the planets would move for instance). These cosmologies gradually evolved into the modern scientific ones.

My reading has me imagining a sandwich with only three layers:

• Waters above
• Heaven-sky-atmosphere
• Waters below separated from dry land

This seems to me to be the view that brings with it the least amount of assumptions and is based on Genesis (KJV or other).

I would say that there is an implicit space around all of this where the author and the audience see the original state of things and see God as either attached to, very near to or within the outer surface of the original waters. But for two reasons I tend to discount this as part of the author's cosmology:

• I don't see any text referring again to this implied space outside of the waters (and the space within) in Genesis
• There is always this implied space whenever anyone tries to explain the origin of the Universe. This is like trying to talk about the moment before Time was created. There is this pesky "what was there before there was a before" or a pesky "where did the first where come into existence at" sort of thing that at some point an author has to just ignore.

So for the sake of this OP can you say more about how you see that there is a difference between the "open FOH" and the FOH?

Does the phrase firmament of heaven imply that there is a heaven and within that heaven there is a firmament?

I've looked at Wikipedia and apparently the Hebrew word which firmament is translated from indicates a shape that is the result of beating out something until it is flat such as how a dish might be formed from a small lump of soft metal.

Again I understand your image, and I see that it probably lines up with those other perspectives that have been drawn up by those wanting to understand and illustrate this scripture. But what does the text actually say? And what contemporaneous context should be considered that would indicate how the author understood this text?

We know there are three heavens because John was called there in Revelation. This is where God resides. Birds fly in the OFH (verse 20). The sun the moon and the stars are in the FH (verses 16-17).

Do you see any other way of arriving at three heavens from Genesis1?

 

[sealchan]

We know there are three heavens because John was called there in Revelation. This is where God resides. Birds fly in the OFH (verse 20). The sun the moon and the stars are in the FH (verses 16-17).

Do you see any other way of arriving at three heavens from Genesis1?

Which chapter of Revelation are you referencing for those verses?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Which chapter of Revelation are you referencing for those verses?

That was a misreference on my part. The third heaven is referenced in II Corinthians 12:2. This establishes that there are three heavens.
Heavens 1 and 2 references come from Genesis 1.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Which chapter of Revelation are you referencing for those verses?

I appreciate your sticking with this. It helps me to articulate more clearly what I'm trying to clarify.

What this boils down to is why the firmament is separate from the sky. It has to do with where the birds fly and where the sun moon and stars exist.

Genesis 1:14 clearly puts the sun, moon and stars in the "firmament of heaven. This clearly implies outer space.

The birds cannot fly in space, therefore the "open firmament of heaven," where Genesis1:20 says they do fly, cannot be the "firmament of heaven."

 

[sealchan]

I appreciate your sticking with this. It helps me to articulate more clearly what I'm trying to clarify.

What this boils down to is why the firmament is separate from the sky. It has to do with where the birds fly and where the sun moon and stars exist.

Genesis 1:14 clearly puts the sun, moon and stars in the "firmament of heaven. This clearly implies outer space.

The birds cannot fly in space, therefore the "open firmament of heaven," where Genesis1:20 says they do fly, cannot be the "firmament of heaven."

Looking at the Bible as a whole it makes sense what you are saying.

I may be looking even more "narrow-mindedly" at Genesis 1 and wanting to understand what it is saying on its own. What did the Jews, in the time before Jesus, think the Universe was like based on what Genesis alone was saying. There was certainly some extra-Biblical and unspoken assumptions here. Probably there was an understanding that the sun, moon and stars were further away than the clouds (the upper waters?).

So I think that I can provisionally accept what you are saying here, but I think that it is ambiguous to say that Genesis 1 outlines three heavens even if that may have been a common understanding at the time. The text could be clearer on this but isn't. I have found that the author(s) of Genesis seem to be very clear on what they include and what they leave out so as to spark discussion regarding the morality of what is taking place in the story told.

I suspect that the way in which the waters were separated may be a theme that later events in Genesis itself are meant to reflect on...maybe even and especially Exodus' account of Moses' parting the sea.

I look forward to your further posts on close focus Biblical exegesis!

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Oh and I know the canopy theory. Every day of creation the Lord saw to be good except the 2nd day because the water above would fall on the Earth saving only those on Noah's Ark (and some other groups of organisms that could survive).

I bet you have a misunderstanding of what the windows of heaven mean.