Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Some Comments on the Creation Week: Day Two


And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
(Gen 1:6-8)

Surprisingly little details are given for the events of Day 2. There seems to be at least two acts that occur (possibly distinct from each other).

1) God divides the waters into the “waters which were under” and the “waters which were above.”

2) God creates an expanse (“firmament” in the KJV) between the waters under and the waters above.

Since the details surrounding these events are so scant, we can only speculate about what these creative acts might have included. However, we must be careful to not hold out our speculation as doctrine. Some things that have been theorized seem reasonable. Some are musings. We can employ science here but we are limited since we are dealing with a unique event that wasn't observed. We can trust the clear text of the Bible but our scientific theories are suspect.

We know that God will soon be creating living things on the earth so it would not be unreasonable to suppose that He is preparing the planet to support them.  The “expanse” or “firmament” is the space occupied by plants and terrestrial creatures (including us). Therefore, God possibly created the atmosphere here with its composite of various gases.

We are certain that water existed on the first day. Since water is hydrogen and oxygen (H2O), then we can say those elements were created on Day 1. If God is creating breathable air on Day 2, it is likely similar to the air we breath now. Besides oxygen, the air would have contained nitrogen, argon, carbon (as in CO2), neon, etc. So the elements of the periodic table are being created ex nihilo in the order that God has chosen to introduce them in the creation and not necessarily in the order of simple to complex as predicted by the Big Bang. More will be introduced as God creates the dry land and living creatures.

The firmament is also where weather occurs. In Genesis 2:5 we are told that it did not rain on the earth during the creation week but perhaps here God is creating clouds (we'll talk in a moment about the waters above the firmament). At the very least, God likely created the mechanisms that would govern weather in the future – things like air pressure (a necessary consequence of having created air), evaporation, etc.

The biggest controversy surrounding Day 2 is over what is meant by the “the waters above” the firmament. There are at least 3 mainstream theories:

The Mundane Explanation

The waters above could simply be clouds and the firmament is the expanse between the earth and the clouds. Such a reading fits the text well and needs little additional explanation.  It should be noted that such a belief would imply that the Bible accurately described clouds as being made of water well ahead of scientific discovery.

The Canopy Theory

Some creationists believe the waters above represent a type of canopy, either of dense clouds or ice. By the way, I've often heard the canopy itself referred to as the “firmament” but the text is clear that the firmament is the expanse between the waters. Proponents of this theory believe the canopy collapsed at the time of Noah and was the source of much of the Flood waters.

This interpretation of the text carries a few difficulties. Such a canopy, for example, would obstruct our view of the stars described on Day 4. Of course, some old earth creationists suggest the sun and stars were created earlier and could not be seen. The sun could only be perceived as diffused light (described on Day 1) and it was not until Day 4 that the clouds were cleared and the sun, moon, and stars could be seen clearly.

There are also some scientific difficulties with a canopy. Of course, I never let prevailing scientific opinion trump the clear meaning of the words of the Bible. The Bible does not explicitly state there was a canopy and there is no other reference to it later in the Bible. I haven't seen a compelling argument for the existence of such a thing. I don't endorse this interpretation but I can't entirely reject it either. Perhaps clouds were more dense prior to the Flood – though not necessarily a solid dome of ice.

While most creationists do reject this idea, there are a few staunch proponents of this theory and have built elaborate models around it. Perhaps the most notable proponent is Carl Baugh who has made some dubious, scientific claims about the affects of such a canopy – things like how it was the canopy that allowed antediluvian people to live for hundreds of years.

Humphreys' Model

In his “white hole cosmology,” Russell Humphreys has proposed that, when God divided the waters, He used the “waters above” as the raw material to create the rest of the universe. This position would mean that the initial earth was huge and most of it was stripped away to form everything else. Again, the Bible doesn't explicitly say this happened so I cannot say dogmatically his view is correct. It could fit the text, though, and Humphreys has made several successful predictions with this model.

Of course, it's possible for a little of each of these theories to be true. The “waters above” must mean something and since we cannot determine a precise meaning from the text, we should be careful not to wed ourselves to any particular theory as though it were scripture.

The passage ends with the usual demarcation; it was evening and morning. All the things done by God in this passage, whatever they may include, were all accomplished in a single, ordinary day.

5 comments:

  1. We can employ science here but we are limited since we are dealing with a unique event that wasn't observed.

    Science does that all the time: every forensic investigator is trying to reconstruct a unique, unrepeatable past event (the medical examiner can't very well make the body on his table die all over again so that he can see it) from evidence in the present. For that matter, even "observational science" assumes that the phenomena studied in the lab will work the same way at other, unobserved (if only because they're in the future) times and places; few scientists would be as interested in science if they didn't think it applied outside laboratories here and now.

    And eyewitness reports have their own limitations. We know that eyewitnesses can lie (even about being eyewitnesses!), or be mistaken, or be misinterpreted or misreported. Every eyewitness account requires interpretation, that starts with trying to reconstruct the unique, unrepeatable state of mind of the witness when he observed the event and again when he recorded it (a problem not entirely absent even from "observational" science). There is no sharp divide between science we can do in the here and now about, e.g. how electronic circuits or bridges work, and science we do about "origins."

    Therefore, God possibly created the atmosphere here with its composite of various gases.
    We are certain that water existed on the first day.


    I will reiterate my point: if God created, on the first day, the laws of physics as we now have them, and also created liquid water, then some sort of air (not necessarily with oxygen) must also have been created, since liquid water boils in a vacuum. Any temperature cool enough to keep it from boiling is -- must be -- cool enough to freeze it solid.

    The biggest controversy surrounding Day 2 is over what is meant by the “the waters above” the firmament. There are at least 3 mainstream theories:

    We know that in the past, other interpretations of the text existed. The authors of the book of Enoch, and Flavius Josephus, both interpreted the "firmament" as an opaque dome with actual gates or hatchways in it to let the rain through. It did not block the view of the stars because the stars were attached to its inside. Note that this is a quite literal reading of the text. Thomas Aquinas, centuries later and knowing that the Earth was a globe, offered a less literal reading: the waters above the firmament were a literal, cold liquid sphere of water outside the outermost of the crystal spheres surrounding the Earth, the sphere of fixed stars. You offer even less literal readings.

    The waters above could simply be clouds and the firmament is the expanse between the earth and the clouds. ... such a belief would imply that the Bible accurately described clouds as being made of water well ahead of scientific discovery.

    The Bible elsewhere connects clouds with rain (e.g. 1 Kings 18:44), and yet elsewhere identifies them as the dust kicked up by God's feet as He walks on top of the sky. Note that I am not suggesting that the biblical authors were stupid; they were bright enough to connect clouds with rain without supernatural assistance -- and imaginative to come up with multiple explanations for both clouds and rain.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steven J,

    You said, “Science does that all the time: every forensic investigator is trying to reconstruct a unique, unrepeatable past event (the medical examiner can't very well make the body on his table die all over again so that he can see it) from evidence in the present.”

    Even forensic science is only done in the present. We may not be able to recreate a particular murder but we can compare things we find at one murder to things we've learned about other murders. We can, for example, fire a bullet from a gun and compare it to a bullet we've found at a crime seen. If they are similar, we may conclude they were fired from the same gun. I've talked about this before on my blog:

    http://rkbentley.blogspot.com/2012/11/abiogenesis-is-not-science.html

    The difference here is that we've NEVER observed any event similar to what is described in this passage. The event happened and we missed it.

    You said, “For that matter, even "observational science" assumes that the phenomena studied in the lab will work the same way at other, unobserved (if only because they're in the future) times and places.”

    So, what observed phenomenon can we compare this passage to? And, by the way, why do you assume the phenomenon should occur the same way every time? Secular science holds to poofism and regularly argues that things can literally appear uncaused. They even claim the entire universe poofed into existence. There's no scientific reason to believe that physical laws which poofed into existence couldn't change at any moment. It's more of a philosophical assumption akin to a religious belief.

    You said, “few scientists would be as interested in science if they didn't think it applied outside laboratories here and now.”

    Tell that to the scientists who militantly argue that the galaxies billions of light years are made up of mostly invisible matter that CANNOT be observed anywhere near earth – let alone in any lab.

    You said, “And eyewitness reports have their own limitations. We know that eyewitnesses can lie (even about being eyewitnesses!), or be mistaken, or be misinterpreted or misreported.”

    The only eyewitness to this event was God. I trust Him to not lie or be in error about what occurred. I will certainly take His word over any scientist who I know wasn't there at all.

    You said, “I will reiterate my point: if God created, on the first day, the laws of physics as we now have them, and also created liquid water, then some sort of air (not necessarily with oxygen) must also have been created, since liquid water boils in a vacuum. Any temperature cool enough to keep it from boiling is -- must be -- cool enough to freeze it solid.

    Perhaps. Are you arguing it must necessarily boil (or be frozen) completely through? I can't say the water at the surface wasn't boiling because the text is silent about the subject (and I won't argue from silence). Even if the surface boiled, it wouldn't necessarily all boil as there would be great pressure on the water deep below the surface.

    Continued...

    ReplyDelete
  3. The biggest controversy surrounding Day 2 is over what is meant by the “the waters above” the firmament. There are at least 3 mainstream theories:

    You said, “We know that in the past, other interpretations of the text existed. The authors of the book of Enoch, and Flavius Josephus, both interpreted the "firmament" as an opaque dome with actual gates or hatchways in it to let the rain through. It did not block the view of the stars because the stars were attached to its inside. Note that this is a quite literal reading of the text.”

    We've already talked about this. What the ancients understood about cosmology does not change what Bible says about cosmology. The Bible does NOT “literally” say the stars are pinned inside an opaque dome.

    You said, “You offer even less literal readings.”

    No. I've offered the exact text and remarked that surprising little detail is given about what actually occurred. I was very careful to say that opinions about the meaning of the waters above the firmament can be considered but are never to be taken as doctrine.

    You said, “The Bible elsewhere connects clouds with rain (e.g. 1 Kings 18:44)”

    OK. Perhaps the ancients did figure it out. Yet, if this passage means to say that the clouds are water, then the Bible is still correct.

    You said, “and yet elsewhere identifies them as the dust kicked up by God's feet as He walks on top of the sky.”

    You failed to cite a text. I could look it up but never mind. I suspect you're citing a passage from Psalms. Critics always cite Psalms as though they are examples of biblical teachings of scientific principles. It's a type of quote mining.

    The theme to the Lone Ranger also suggests that a cloud is made of dust and that the horse, Silver, was made of fire and could run the speed of light! I wish critics would read the Bible with at least the same reading apprehension as an 8 year old watching TV.

    God bless!!

    RKBentley

    ReplyDelete
  4. My apologies for not citing the verse about clouds being the dust from God's feet; it was Nahum 1:3. Compare Isaiah 40:22, in which God sits enthroned above the disk of the Earth looking down on the people, who from His great height appear no bigger than grasshoppers.

    Note that you are not just trusting God; you are trusting that the people who wrote the Bible and transmitted it are conveying God's words. And you are trusting that you are interpreting those words correctly (and of course the relevance of Josephus and Thomas Aquinas is that they were likewise convinced of this, as they reconciled Genesis to what they understood of the science of their own day).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steven J,

    Two quick things:

    First, I just realized I wrote "apprehension" when I meant "comprehension." How embarrassing.

    Second, I try to never "reconcile" my interpretation of the Bible with science. At the most, I reconcile science with the clear meaning of the words of the Bible. When the Bible is silent on a subject - particularly something that hasn't been witnessed by anybody - I will consider any scientific opinion and see if it sounds reasonable compared to things I already know to be true.

    Thanks for your comments. God bless!!

    RKBentley

    ReplyDelete