Genesis 1:6-8

[Stu]

So what is the general understanding of verse 6 - 8?
To me it seems pretty clear from the actual wording that the water was divided into two halves with an expanse (sky) in between.

So that would mean the waters here on earth, and then another body of water above the sky? With the water above contributing during the time of the flood as suggested by Kent Hovind and others?


3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 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.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

[Canuckster1127]

What do you think of that in light of this article on our main board?

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/canopy.html

[Stu]

Interesting read thanks.

Ok so according to that interpretation what / where exactly is the water above the expanse.

I mean the Bible is very specific in it's description. The sequence of events relating to the creation of water and land goes like this:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 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.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Now why dedicate an entire paragraph (6-8) just to describe the formation of the "vault" and the water above and below it.
What is the water above the sky then?

And why does the Bible specifically reference "the waters under the sky" in verse 9; as it would indicate that the waters above the sky is an actual body of water, or phenomenon.

[Canuckster1127]

Hey Stu,

I don't understand the question. According to the article these comments address any assumption of a water canopy past the fourth day:

Could the "waters which were above the expanse" and the "floodgates of the sky" be referring to a water canopy? Let's look at the original Hebrew text to determine what these English translations are referring to. The Hebrew word translated "expanse" is raqia (Strong's # H7549), which occurs 18 times in 15 verses of the Old Testament. The vast majority of these occurrences are found in Genesis 1. Genesis 1:8 actually defines the term raqia as being the equivalent to the Hebrew word shamayim (Strong's #H8064), which can be translated as "heaven" or "sky." Some examples of the use of raqia in Genesis 1 include the following:

•Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse [raqia] of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; (Genesis 1:14)
•And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse [raqia] of the sky." (Genesis 1:20)
As can be seen by the uses of raqia, the term is very broad, encompassing both outer space and the atmosphere of earth. Obviously, raqia could not be specifically referring to a water canopy. Other verses state that raqia is declaring (present tense) the work of God's hands. This cannot be referring to a water canopy, since one does not exist at this present time.

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse [raqia] is declaring the work of His hands. (Psalm 19:1)
Let's look at the other phrase, "floodgates of the sky," and see how this is used in the Old Testament. Here is the verse from the flood account and the corresponding [Hebrew] words.

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky [arubbah:H699 shamayim:H8064] were opened. (Genesis 7:11)
If this term is never again used in the Old Testament, one could make a case for the idea that the "floodgates of the sky" might refer to a water canopy. However, it can be seen from the verses below (which occur well after the flood) that this term applies to rain in general:

•"Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this," says the LORD of hosts, "if I will not open for you the windows of heaven [arubbah:H699 shamayim:H8064], and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows. (Malachi 3:10)
•The officer on whose arm the king was leaning said to the man of God, "Look, even if the LORD should open the floodgates of the heavens [arubbah:H699 shamayim:H8064], could this happen?" "You will see it with your own eyes," answered Elisha, "but you will not eat any of it!" (2 Kings 7:2)
The Bible declares there was no canopyThe above verses from the Bible demonstrate that there is no biblical basis or biblical reference to the idea of a water canopy above the earth. Ultimately, the Bible actually states that there was no canopy above the earth from the fourth creation day onward. Any kind of substantial water canopy above the earth would prevent the stars from being seen, which is directly contradicted by Genesis 1:14-18:

Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. And God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1:14-18)
Another biblical problem with the water canopy theory is what the Bible said happened to the waters of the flood. According to Genesis, the water receded (which is impossible if it came from a vapor canopy) and was dried by the wind. Neither method would not significantly affect a global flood, further suggesting that the Genesis flood was local in extent.

I believe that addresses the issue. Maybe I'm misunderstanding but what is it in that explanation (and you're certainly not obligated to agree with it) that is internally inconsistent?

In terms of a question to you, what do you think about the actual physical size of such a canopy? Do you see any inconsistency in terms of how plant and animal life would sustain with the light that would penetrate such a canopy to the earth below?

[dayage]

Stu,

The waters above are the clouds and the waters below are the oceans. The atmosphere at the time was either steamy or foggy, so the waters were touching the waters. Now God was making an open expanse between them.

Hebrew was the original language from which these translations came. The Hebrew noun raqia, found in Genesis 1, comes from the verb raqa which means to expand or spread out. It is often used in the Bible for the expanding of metal, which was done by beating it into thin sheets, to making coverings for objects (Num. 16:38). It is also used with reference to the spreading out of the dry land (Ps. 136:6; Is. 42:5, 44:24) and clouds (Job 37:18). So, raqa means to expand something and raqia means an expanse.

As already mentioned, the clouds are the waters above and this is why the Psalmist can say that the waters above the heavens are still in place (Ps. 148:4). This can also be seen in Ps. 104:3 and 13.
3. "Laying the beams of His upper chambers in the waters; He makes the clouds His chariot; He walks upon the wings of the wind;"
13. "He waters the mountains from His upper chambers…"

Lamoureux tries to use both of these Psalms to support his view of a solid dome holding up a body of water. There is no mention of a solid dome and the waters, as were seen in those Psalms and will be supported below, are in the clouds.

In Genesis 1, the raqia is the expanse of air between the oceans (waters) below and the clouds (waters) above. It is no more complicated than that.

2 Samuel 22:12
He made darkness around him a canopy, thick clouds (ab, shachaq), a gathering of water.

Job 26:8
"He wraps up the waters in His clouds (ab); and the cloud (anan) does not burst under them."

Job 36:27-28
"For He draws up drops of water, they distill as rain in His rain cloud (ed), those clouds (shachaq) pour down, they drip upon man abundantly."

Job 37:11
"Also with moisture He loads the cloud (ab); He scatters the cloud (anan) of His lightning."

Job 38:34
"Can you lift up your voice to the clouds (ab), So that an abundance of water may cover you?"

Psalm 77:17
"The clouds (ab) poured out water; the clouds (shachaq) gave forth a sound; Thy arrows flashed here and there."

Ecclesiastes 11:3
"If the clouds are full, they pour out rain upon the earth;"

[dayage]

I believe that the "floodgates" in Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 are clouds. In other places they are called doors of heaven (Psalm 78:23-24), water jars of heaven (Job 38:34-37), windows of heaven (2 Kings 6:25; 7:1-2, 19). The parralelisms in Job and the Pslam make it clear that the words refer to clouds.

I disagree with Rich Deem about the raqia also refering to the universe.

Dr. Wayne Grudem:

“The sun, moon, and stars created on the fourth day as “lights in the firmament of the heavens” (Gen. 1:14) are placed not in any space created on day 1 but in the “firmament” that was created on the second day. In fact, the correspondence in language is quite explicit: this “firmament” is not mentioned at all on day 1 but five times on day 2 (Gen. 1:6-8) and three times on day 4 (Gen. 1:14-19).”

If we take Dr. Grudem’s lead, we will notice that this “firmament of the heavens” is also mentioned once on day five (Gen. 1:20). Here it is the place that the birds fly. Birds are said to fly across the "face of the firmament of the heavens" or "face of the sky," which Jesus shows us is the cloud layer (Matt. 16:2-3; Luke 12:54, 56). It is furthered mentioned three times (as heavens) on day six, in the phrase “birds of the heavens.”

Genesis 1:17 says “And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth.” The word translated set, natan, literally means give. It can also mean appoint, which I believe is the correct sense here. So God appointed them in the sky to give light, etc. The majority of the description of the fourth day is dealing with the functions for which these lights had been appointed.

The phrase “God appointed them in the firmament of the heavens,” could not possibly mean that they were placed in the atmosphere. Yet, as Dr. Grudem and I have pointed out, that is exactly where they are said to have been given/appointed. Remember that the “firmament,” “firmament of the heavens,” and “heavens,” of Gen. 1:3-29, are consistently defined as the expanse between the clouds and ocean, where the birds fly. The very fact the clouds are said to be the upper bounds for this “firmament,” shows that God was not saying that the lights were placed in it. Everyone could see that the clouds pass in front of, not behind the lights (Job 26:8-9; Ezek. 32:7-8).

Had God wanted to say that the lights were made on day four, He could have said that they were “set in the heavens.” Without the mention of a firmament, waters or birds, this would have pointed us to the heavens of Genesis 1:1, the universe. Instead, as mentioned above, He told us that on day four the lights were appointed in the atmosphere.

I believe that these combined arguments force the interpretation that the “lights” were already in the universe, but now became visible to the Spirit looking up into and through the “firmament” (atmosphere), to what lay beyond. Therefore, they were not placed or set in the firmament, but given or appointed (when God parted the clouds) in order to be the daily, seasonal, and yearly signs needed by the advanced life forms God was about to create.