Genesis 1: What is a 'firmament'?

[RZehr]

That's not what Genesis 1 was written for. And to understand what it was written for, it's helpful to read it carefully without force-fitting it to be something else.

John Walton says that the Bible was written for us, but it was not written to us. To understand Genesis 1, we really need to take the time to read what it actually says, no other reading can be considered a "literal" reading. God was writing to people who understood the world very differently than we do, so he spoke to them in their time and their culture. The main point of Genesis 1 is not HOW God created the heavens and earth, but WHO created the heavens and earth and WHY he created them. So many "literal" readings of Genesis 1 are trying to unify Genesis with as much modern science as they can, and the tend to mow over a fair amount of the biblical text and modern science at the same time. Genesis 1 is not trying to explain how modern Americans will come to understand creation in 2020. Or in 2070 or 2120, which may well be quite different.

Who was it written to? Those people it was written to believe it to be a literal historical written recording of the earths origins and formation, or another word would be simply "Genesis".

Our grandchildren may well laugh at us for the way we understood many aspects of science. "The way they thought about creation in 2020 is kind of interesting from a historical perspective, but what's the point?" We laugh at our own grandparents for their understanding. I have an encyclopedia from 100 years ago that tells me the mountains were formed because the earth was hot when it was first formed, then it shrank and wrinkled. It tells me to do an experiment with an apple, leaving it out so that it can shrivel and form mountains the same way. We don't see the world that way now.

Yes. I hope humanity in the future does get a jolly chuckle out of how people way back in 2021 actually believed in Evolution. My hope is that science continues to advance to such a degree that secular scientist someday will shake their head at these current notions. And Christians will once again not be surprised.

To understand Genesis 1, we really need to slow down and read it the way it was written, without reading all our own stuff back into the text. There is no indication of anything like a big bang or creation from nothing, in the beginning, the earth was wild and chaotic, darkness covered the surface of the waters, and God's spirit hovered over the waters. When God says "let there be light!", that does not correspond to any point in the scientific account of creation we tell ourselves today, the waters above and the waters below and the firmament between are all foreign to modern science. From Augustine until today there are many attempts to read the current state of science back into the creation story, but they are all reading things back into the text that the original writers did not write and would not understand.

But if God told the same story, updated to use the concepts of our modern science, it too would need to be adapted 100 years from now. Human beings do not understand what we do not understand. And perhaps the first thing we need to grasp about creation is that we human beings do not grasp it, but God does, and any attempt to explain it to us needs to use imperfect explanations that we can at least sort of understand.

If we really want to understand Genesis 1, we should not ask what it says about dinosaurs or the big bang or photons, we should ask what it says about the waters above and the waters below and the firmament, what it says about God as it describes that, what it says about God in relation to us and to all of creation, how this is echoed in the Psalms and the Revelation ...

It's really not a complicated read. And it was not difficult to understand what it was saying until Darwinism came along, and Christians began to believe that.


What I find fascinating about the idea that we must believe Darwinism full stop, is that to do that one must logically assume that we have reached the pinnacle of knowledge. And although their mouth says science, the position is that science will never be overturned. These Darwinist would be historically the same people who accepted that the earth was flat. And would have been unable to imagine a smartphone being possible.

I think the day will come when humanity advances far enough scientifically, that Darwinism and Big Bang etc, is disproven as flat earth, and rejected as ridiculously old fashion notions.

[Ken]

It's really not a complicated read. And it was not difficult to understand what it was saying until Darwinism came along, and Christians began to believe that.

Actually, Genesis was challenged by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton centuries before Darwin was even born. In fact, Eratosthenes was challenging the Genesis narrative in 200 BC when he accurately measured the circumference of the earth. And the early European explorers relied on maps of a spherical earth created by Ptolemy during the Roman era in the 2nd Century. Darwin was following in a very long and old tradition going back to before the time of Christ in which scientific discoveries conflicted with the Genesis narrative.

What I find fascinating about the idea that we must believe Darwinism full stop, is that to do that one must logically assume that we have reached the pinnacle of knowledge. And although their mouth says science, the position is that science will never be overturned. These Darwinist would be historically the same people who accepted that the earth was flat. And would have been unable to imagine a smartphone being possible.

I think the day will come when humanity advances far enough scientifically, that Darwinism and Big Bang etc, is disproven as flat earth, and rejected as ridiculously old fashion notions.

I think this sort of thinking misstates what science is all about. Evolution is not a "belief" A scientist would not say that they "believe" in evolution or any other scientific theory. At best you might get scientists to admit to believing in the scientific process or scientific method. But even then they would not be using the word "belief" in the same way that you are, but in the sense that it is simply a process that they trust.

Scientists would say that the current theory of evolution, (which is much more sophisticated than anything Darwin wrote about) is currently the best scientific explanation for how change happens in the biological world. But they would be fascinated and cheer and give awards to anyone who came up with anything better that demolished or revolutionized existing 2021 scientific understanding about evolution. No one's belief structures would be challenged or demolished if new science replaces the old. That's how science works. In fact, nothing insures your fame and advancement in science faster than making new discoveries that upset or revolutionize old understandings.

Existing science is continually being replaced by new discoveries and theories. But it doesn't ever get replaced by unscientific beliefs that fall outside the realm of science. Scientists and theologians (or biblical scholars) are simply speaking two different languages.

[RZehr]

It's really not a complicated read. And it was not difficult to understand what it was saying until Darwinism came along, and Christians began to believe that.

Actually, Genesis was challenged by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton centuries before Darwin was even born. In fact, Eratosthenes was challenging the Genesis narrative in 200 BC when he accurately measured the circumference of the earth. And the early European explorers relied on maps of a spherical earth created by Ptolemy during the Roman era in the 2nd Century. Darwin was following in a very long and old tradition going back to before the time of Christ in which scientific discoveries conflicted with the Genesis narrative.

I’m not familiar with what you are specifically talking about here. I suspect that these guys were not in conflict with our understanding of the Creation. And I suspect that they were quite in conflict with the scientific community of their day. I find it fascinating how the anti-Bible/Christian crowds like to ignore and minimize the early scientific contributions and role that the “Christian” church made, and in the same breath lay the wrong views (flat earth) solely at the feet of the church. The truth, as I understand it, was that in those days of the church, science and religion were pretty intertwined, and as such it is reflective on people today how they retrospectively give and take the credit and faults of that time.
The one side gives the church credit for the good contributions and the other side only blames the church for the mistakes. When in reality it probably was completely intertwined.

What I find fascinating about the idea that we must believe Darwinism full stop, is that to do that one must logically assume that we have reached the pinnacle of knowledge. And although their mouth says science, the position is that science will never be overturned. These Darwinist would be historically the same people who accepted that the earth was flat. And would have been unable to imagine a smartphone being possible.

I think the day will come when humanity advances far enough scientifically, that Darwinism and Big Bang etc, is disproven as flat earth, and rejected as ridiculously old fashion notions.

I think this sort of thinking misstates what science is all about. Evolution is not a "belief" A scientist would not say that they "believe" in evolution or any other scientific theory. At best you might get scientists to admit to believing in the scientific process or scientific method. But even then they would not be using the word "belief" in the same way that you are, but in the sense that it is simply a process that they trust.

Scientists would say that the current theory of evolution, (which is much more sophisticated than anything Darwin wrote about) is currently the best scientific explanation for how change happens in the biological world. But they would be fascinated and cheer and give awards to anyone who came up with anything better that demolished or revolutionized existing 2021 scientific understanding about evolution. No one's belief structures would be challenged or demolished if new science replaces the old. That's how science works. In fact, nothing insures your fame and advancement in science faster than making new discoveries that upset or revolutionize old understandings.

Existing science is continually being replaced by new discoveries and theories. But it doesn't ever get replaced by unscientific beliefs that fall outside the realm of science. Scientists and theologians (or biblical scholars) are simply speaking two different languages.

I’m pretty sure that there are a ton of mainstream people who “believe” in Darwinism. And real life science in America isn’t as pure and rosy as you are making it sound. Sure it should be as you say. But it ain’t even close, not on this issue.

[Szdfan]

As it’s been point out, the Genesis account makes clear, direct references to ancient Near-East cosmology (i.e. references to the firmament or the chaotic waters of “the deep”). I don’t think that a “literal” Creationist reading and interpretation is a good reading or interpretation of the text, but forces a contemporary cosmology onto the text.

I think modern “Creationism” and “YEC” is both bad science and bad theology.

[RZehr]

Is that a picture of what Greek scientist believed at that time? Or what Christian religion believed?

[silentreader]

It's really not a complicated read. And it was not difficult to understand what it was saying until Darwinism came along, and Christians began to believe that.

Actually, Genesis was challenged by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton centuries before Darwin was even born. In fact, Eratosthenes was challenging the Genesis narrative in 200 BC when he accurately measured the circumference of the earth. And the early European explorers relied on maps of a spherical earth created by Ptolemy during the Roman era in the 2nd Century. Darwin was following in a very long and old tradition going back to before the time of Christ in which scientific discoveries conflicted with the Genesis narrative.

What I find fascinating about the idea that we must believe Darwinism full stop, is that to do that one must logically assume that we have reached the pinnacle of knowledge. And although their mouth says science, the position is that science will never be overturned. These Darwinist would be historically the same people who accepted that the earth was flat. And would have been unable to imagine a smartphone being possible.

I think the day will come when humanity advances far enough scientifically, that Darwinism and Big Bang etc, is disproven as flat earth, and rejected as ridiculously old fashion notions.

I think this sort of thinking misstates what science is all about. Evolution is not a "belief" A scientist would not say that they "believe" in evolution or any other scientific theory. At best you might get scientists to admit to believing in the scientific process or scientific method. But even then they would not be using the word "belief" in the same way that you are, but in the sense that it is simply a process that they trust.

Scientists would say that the current theory of evolution, (which is much more sophisticated than anything Darwin wrote about) is currently the best scientific explanation for how change happens in the biological world. But they would be fascinated and cheer and give awards to anyone who came up with anything better that demolished or revolutionized existing 2021 scientific understanding about evolution. No one's belief structures would be challenged or demolished if new science replaces the old. That's how science works. In fact, nothing insures your fame and advancement in science faster than making new discoveries that upset or revolutionize old understandings.

Existing science is continually being replaced by new discoveries and theories. But it doesn't ever get replaced by unscientific beliefs that fall outside the realm of science.


And yet on the religious side, when a similar thing happens in relation to Genesis 1, it is attacked as a nefarious and misguided attempt to give the text relevance.


Scientists and theologians (or biblical scholars) are simply speaking two different languages.

[Ken]

Actually, Genesis was challenged by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton centuries before Darwin was even born. In fact, Eratosthenes was challenging the Genesis narrative in 200 BC when he accurately measured the circumference of the earth. And the early European explorers relied on maps of a spherical earth created by Ptolemy during the Roman era in the 2nd Century. Darwin was following in a very long and old tradition going back to before the time of Christ in which scientific discoveries conflicted with the Genesis narrative.

I’m not familiar with what you are specifically talking about here. I suspect that these guys were not in conflict with our understanding of the Creation. And I suspect that they were quite in conflict with the scientific community of their day. I find it fascinating how the anti-Bible/Christian crowds like to ignore and minimize the early scientific contributions and role that the “Christian” church made, and in the same breath lay the wrong views (flat earth) solely at the feet of the church. The truth, as I understand it, was that in those days of the church, science and religion were pretty intertwined, and as such it is reflective on people today how they retrospectively give and take the credit and faults of that time.

The one side gives the church credit for the good contributions and the other side only blames the church for the mistakes. When in reality it probably was completely intertwined.

There is much more to Genesis than the creation story. The scientists above challenged the geo-centric flat-earth conception of the world with the firmament above (as depicted in the drawings a couple of posts above) that was the accepted Christian interpretation of Genesis at that time. Why do you think the Roman Catholic Church Inquisition tried Galileo for heresy in 1633? It was because his heliocentric astronomical model conflicted with the church's interpretation of Genesis.

In fact, it took centuries for the Catholic Church to finally vindicate Galileo. In 1992 Pope John Paul II wrote the following when they finally closed the "Galileo Affair" exactly 350 years after his trial and conviction by the Spanish Inquisition.

Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture....

— Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) – November 4, 1992

[Ken]

I’m pretty sure that there are a ton of mainstream people who “believe” in Darwinism. And real life science in America isn’t as pure and rosy as you are making it sound. Sure it should be as you say. But it ain’t even close, not on this issue.

Maybe so. Ordinary people believe in all sorts of nonsense. But the fact of the matter is that there is simply no "Cult of Darwin" or doctrine of "Darwinism" that scientists believe in. In fact, no one in science actually uses the term "Darwinism" Darwin is no more relevant to modern science than other 18th century scientists like say...Michael Faraday (electricity), John Dalton (chemistry) Carl Linnaeus (taxonomy) Anders Celsius (physics) etc. He is someone you might read about in HS biology, or intro level college classes along with other notable scientists from past centuries. But that is about it. They all made important contributions at the time and science has moved on.

For example, here is the current issue of the Journal of Evolutionary Biology and an example of what evolutionary biology is all about: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/14209101/2021/34/7 You will find no mention of Darwin or Darwinism or anything at all related to Genesis. And certainly no belief structure into something called "Darwinism"

[Falco Underhill]

If we really want to understand Genesis 1, we should not ask what it says about dinosaurs or the big bang or photons, we should ask what it says about the waters above and the waters below and the firmament, what it says about God as it describes that, what it says about God in relation to us and to all of creation, how this is echoed in the Psalms and the Revelation ...

Perusing Augustine's speculations about this is what I found so interesting. The earth was once destroyed by water but the next time the Scripture says it will be destroyed by fire.

It seems the CFs believed the water and the fire hold each other in check on earth. They thought all the vapors of the air condensed and turned to water to cause the Deluge and they speculated a similar process, only in reverse, in the future!

Not a pleasant thing to think about though.

[Szdfan]

Is that a picture of what Greek scientist believed at that time? Or what Christian religion believed?

The diagram is a cosmology that predates Christianity and is reflected in the Old Testament and other ancient cultures. Greek mythology, for example, reflects this cosmology -- i.e. the similarities between Greek (Hades) and Hebrew (Sheol) underworlds.

Whether Greek “scientists” believed this cosmology is another question (I put scientist in air quotes, because while people have always attempted to understand the physical world, science as its own discipline didn't exist until the 17th century). By the 4th Century BC, the Greeks knew the world was a sphere, not flat. Plato and Aristotle believed in a geocentric model, in which earth was at the center of the universe:



This cosmology dominated the Middle Ages and was challenged by Galileo, who argued for a heliocentric model, in which the earth circled the sun. As Ken noted, the Vatican accused Galileo of hearsay for this.