Genesis 1:6-8

Day Two: The Atmosphere (Genesis 1:6-8)

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 there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

1. These verses precipitate us into the very core of the problems incidental to the origin of the celestial (astronomical) universe. They mark the end of cosmological reference and point to the beginnings, respectively, of the geological and the biological. As heretofore stated, the content of this section of the text has reference primarily, it seems, to our solar system, as explained from the viewpoint of a terrestrial inhabitant. However, it can be just as readily applied to the various units (galaxies, stellar systems, supernovae, etc.) of the entire cosmos. We shall now examine these verses rather carefully because of the importance of the subject-matter involved.
2. Progressive Revelation.Many eminent authorities have held that the Genesis Cosmogony as a whole is a record of the Creation couched in the language of the commonality and presented from the viewpoint of ordinary human experience and common sense: in a word, in conformity with what is designated the law of accommodation. We find this law exemplified in the instances of poetic imagery and anthropomorphism occurring throughout the Old Testament, and especially the book of Genesis. Because of the limitations of human vocabulary, its inadequacy as a vehicle for the communication of Divine thought, the most God could do for man was to supply him with an anthropomorphic image of Himself (John 1:18), that is, until He could supply the real, and far more adequate image, in the person of His Only Begotten Son (John 14:6-11). Hence, it follows that revelations given to the infancy of the race were necessarily more anthropomorphic, and stated in simpler terms, than those made in subsequent ages as men advanced in their ability to understand the significance of what was being revealed. God's revelation to men of Himself and His Eternal Purpose was a progressive revelation, and the record of that revelation and its meaning for us was set down, from age to age, by men who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21), precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little, there a little, etc. (Isaiah 28:10; Isaiah 28:13; cf. Mark 4:28). Failure to recognize this aspect of the Divine method leads to absurd distortions of Scripture teaching in the form of half-truths which are often more deceptive than complete error.

3. The Law of Accommodation.This is clearly stated by Marcus Dods (EBG, 4-5) as follows: Accepting this chapter [the first chapter of Genesis] then as it stands, and believing that only by looking at the Bible as it actually is can we hope to understand God's method of revealing Himself, we at once perceive that ignorance of some departments of truth does not disqualify a man for knowing and imparting truth about God. In order to be a medium of revelation a man does not need to be in advance of his age in secular learning. Intimate communion with God, a spirit trained to discern spiritual things, a perfect understanding of and zeal for God's purpose, these are qualities quite independent of a knowledge of the discoveries of science. Had the writer of this book (Genesis) mingled with his teaching regarding God an explicit and exact account of how this world came into existencehad he spoken in millions of years instead of speaking of daysin all probability he would have been discredited, and what he had to say about God would have been rejected along with his premature science. But speaking from the point of view of his contemporaries, and accepting the current ideas regarding the formation of the world, he attached to these the views regarding God's connection with the world which are most necessary to be believed.. Here then instead of anything to discompose us or to excite unbelief, we recognize one great law or principle on which God proceeds in making Himself known to man. This has been called the Law of Accommodation. It is the law which requires that the condition and capacity of those to whom the revelation is made must be considered. If you wish to instruct a child, you must speak in language that a child can understand. Strong (ST, 393-394) writes that what he calls the pictorial-summary view of the Genesis Cosmogony holds that the account is a rough sketch of the history of creation, true in all its essential features, but presented in graphic form suited to the common mind and to earlier as well as later ages. While conveying to primitive man as accurate an idea of God's work as man was able to comprehend, the revelation was yet given in pregnant language, so that it could expand to all the ascertained results of subsequent physical research. This general correspondence of the narrative with the teachings of science, and its power to adapt itself to every advance in human knowledge, differences it from every other cosmogony. current among men. There is a world of truth in these statements. What was necessary in the primitive world to save men from groveling in polytheism and idolatry was the knowledge that there is a living and true God; that He is one, not many; that He is just, holy, and good; that He made the world and all that therein is (Acts 17:24-28); that the crowning achievement of His handiwork was the creation of man in His own image, to be lord tenant of earth. All these truths are expressly set forth in Genesis. The scientific account of the Creation has been written by the finger of God upon the crust of the earth and in the natures of living species; the religious account was incorporated by inspiration of the Spirit of God in the graphic panoramic affirmations of the Genesis Cosmogony.

4. The Mythologizing of the Radical Critics.The radical critics have developed fantastic pseudo-Biblical cosmologies by reference to alleged Babylonian mythological source-material. In so doing they have created a cosmological mythology of their own. Perhaps the radical critics-' point of view is best expressed by Harry Emerson Fosdick (MUB, 46-47) as follows: In the Scriptures the flat earth is founded on an underlying sea; it is stationary; the heavens are like an upturned bowl or canopy above it; the circumference of this vault rests on pillars; the sun, moon, and stars move within this firmament of special purpose to illumine man; there is a sea above the sky, -the waters which were above the heavens,-' and through the -windows of heaven-' the rain comes down; within the earth is Sheol, where dwell the shadowy dead; this whole cosmic system is suspended over vacancy; and it was all made in six days with a morning and an evening, a short and measurable time before. This is the world view of the Bible. An examination of the Scriptures cited as the basis on which this cosmic view was formulated shows that they are not necessarily subject to the interpretation put upon them by these critics; that in fact protagonists of this view fail to distinguish between poetic imagery and propositional truth. (The Scriptures cited are the following: Psalms 136:6; Psalms 24:1-2; Genesis 7:11; Job 37:18; Genesis 1:6-8; Isaiah 40:22; Job 26:11; Psalms 104:3; Genesis 1:7; Psalms 148:4; Isaiah 14:9-11; Psalms 93:1; Psalms 104:5; Psalms 104:2; Genesis 1:14-18; Psalms 78:23; Genesis 7:11; Job 26:7.)

Many authorities, including distinguished Semitio-Scholars have taken these mythologizers to task for imposing on the Bible a stilted, artificial cosmology that is nowhere clearly and systematically taught in Scripture. A striking example of the far-fetched inferences of these critics is found in the alleged association of the Hebrew word tehom, the deep, with the Babylonian Tiamat, the she-dragon of chaos. However, this connection, if it actually existed, simply proves the Hebrew account to have been the original, because the natural object, tehom, surely preceded the mythological personification of it. (Cf. Psalms 136:6; Psalms 24:2.) For a thoroughgoing and conclusive treatment of this important phase of our subject, for which we have not available space here, the student is advised to read Bernard Ramm (CVSS, 96-102), who concludes as follows: The best we can do is to (i) indicate the freedom of the Bible from mythological polytheistic or grotesque cosmologies, (ii) note the general hostility of the Bible to cosmologies which are antitheistic, and (iii) clearly present the theocentric view of the Bible towards Nature. (I call attention here to the thesis of the excellent book by Yehezkel Kaufmann, recently published, The Religion of Israel.This distinguished Jewish scholar writes, obviously, with but one end in view, namely, to establish the fact that Hebrew monotheism was definitely not an evolution from surrounding pagan mythologies and traditions, but was in fact a complete revolution against such systems.) The Fosdick interpretation, as quoted above, is a reading into the first few Chapter s of Genesis a mass of conjecture that simply cannot be validated without unjustifiable distortion of fact.

Similarities between the Babylonian Cosmogony and the Hebrew Narrative of the Creation: (1) Both know of a time when the earth as such did not exist. (2) In Genesis, light dispels darkness, and order follows chaos. In the Babylonian record, Marduk, a sun-god (like the Sanscrit Dyaus pitar, the Greek Zeus patér, the Latin lu piter, meaning father of light) overthrows the she-dragon of darkness, Tiamat. (3) In Genesis, the dry land appears after a time, in obedience to Divine decree. In the Babylonian tablets, Marduk creates the earth out of one part of the corpse of the slain Tiamat. (4) In Genesis, the sun, moon, and stars are set in the heavens, again by the decree of Elohim. In the Babylonian record, Marduk creates them to serve as mansions for the gods. (5) In Genesis, God brings into existence the lower species, again by the operation of His ordinances. In the Babylonian record, the assembly of the gods creates them. (6) In Genesis, God creates mankind. In the Babylonian record, Marduk fashions the first man out of the blood of the slain Kingu who had been Tiamat's consort. Finegan (LAP, 53): The sequence of events in the creation also is the same in the two stories, in that the following happenings take place in the same order: the creation of the firmament, the creation of dry land, the creation of the luminaries, and the creation of man. Both accounts begin with the watery chaos and end with the gods or the Lord at rest. (Incidentally, in the Genesis account, there is no reason for assuming that the creation of the celestial luminaries took place on the fourth day, as we shall see later.)

The Contrasts between the Babylonian Cosmogony and the Hebrew Account of Creation.These unlikenesses are tremendous. (1) Genesis reveals God as the Creator of all things. The Babylonian record brings in a number of deities. (2) Genesis pictures an original darkness, abyss, deep, etc. The Babylonian account personifies them, and the earth, the sky, the sea, and the heavenly bodies as well. (3) Genesis reveals a God without a female counterpart; in fact the Hebrews had no word in their language to express the idea of a goddess. The Babylonian records give to almost every great deity a female counterpart: indeed this was a feature of all pagan polytheisms. (4) Genesis is purely spiritual in character. The Babylonian account is shot through with base passions, jealousies, hates, plots, wars, and like evils. (5) Genesis is purely monotheistic, whereas the Babylonian record is grossly polytheistic. The gods of all the ancient polytheisms were anthropomorphic personifications of natural forces (in particular, of the sun-father and the earth-mother). The God of Hebrew and Christian monotheism is pure personality.

Did the writer of Genesis borrow his account from Babylonian sources? Although this view prevails today in certain academic circles, it is, to a great extent, absurd and unwarranted. A comparison of the religious teaching of the two accounts should be sufficient to settle this question in the mind of anyone not blinded by preconceived opinion. Clay (LOTB, 73); Upon the differences of the two stories we need not dwell. The crude polytheistic grotesqueness of the Babylonian, with its doctrine of emanation or evolution from chaos to order, which makes the gods emerge from this chaos, or brings the firmaments out of a carcass, put it altogether in another class; and it is in no respect to be compared with the dignified and sublime conception of the beginning of things, with God as the supreme Creator, who called all things into existence. The theory frequently advanced that the prophets of Israel took these Babylonian traditions and purified them by the subtraction of their grosser elements, for the purpose of making them the vehicle for teaching the impressive truths of God's personality, unity, and relationship to Israel (H. L. Willett), is, in McGarvey's language (BC, 389) about as sensible as to say that the parable of the prodigal son was derived from Peok's Bad Boy, or from Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer.

Did the Babylonian account (known as Enuma Elish, from its two opening words, meaning when on high) have its origin from Genesis? This is improbable, but not at all impossible. Or, are the few likenesses between them due to a common Semitic inheritance, each handing on from age to age records concerning the early history of the race? Granting that this hypothesis be acceptable, how are we to account for the fact that the Genesis narrative remained pure, the least uncolored by the extravagances of all these ancient traditions? The history of the Hebrew people began with Abraham. How did Abraham or his immediate successors come into possession of such an idealistic religious account of the Creation? How can we account for the pure conceptions embodied in the Genesis account on any other basis than that of supernatural origin and oversight. Granting that the account was a revelation from an early age, what prevented it from becoming steeped in mythological accretions as did the creation stories of all other ancient peoples?

I am not willing to admit that the Mosaic narrative is an embodiment of traditions, when it has all the earmarks of a special divine revelation. This is true regardless of the time in which it may have originated. Why omit all consideration of the Spirit of God in dealing with this problem? Does not special revelation include special inspiration, and vice versa? Why could not the Holy Spirit have revealed these truths to some ancient patriarch who gave them down through his descendants to Moses? Why could not the Holy Spirit have embodied them in a revelation directly to Moses himself? Orif the critics would insist that it be soto an inspired writer in the ages following Moses? Our claim here is that Divine inspiration is the only basis on which anyone can account for the pure conceptions of the Genesis Cosmogony. These simply cannot be explained away as figments of the human imagination.Orr (ISBE, V, 3107): No stronger proof could be afforded of the truth and sublimity of the Biblical account of the origin of things than is given by the comparison of the narrative of creation in Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:4, with the mythological cosmogonies and theogonies found in other religions. Ramm (CVSS, 102): It is typical of radical critics to play up the similarity of anything Biblical with the Babylonian, and to omit the profound differences or gloss over them. When the Biblical account is set side by side with any other cosmology its purity, its chasteness, its uniqueness, its theocentricity are immediately apparent. Again (ibid., 102, n.43): Conservative Christianity explains Babylonian and Biblical parallels by the theory of cognateness (not of dependence, nor of purification.

5. The Firmament. The Waters under the Firmament, and the Waters above the Firmament.(1) The word rakia, translated firmament, means literally, stretched out, hence expanse, and by necessary inference, alludes to the atmosphere. Obviously, this is the space above the earth, in general what we call the sky, the habitat of the winds and clouds, and the space in which the celestial bodies of our solar system move in their courses. Hence, Genesis 1:5 God called the firmament Heaven. Not the heavens of the entire cosmos, referred to in Genesis 1:1, but the celestial heaven which is in close proximity to the earth, the heaven of the earth-world (Delitzsch). (2) Does this passage refer to a separation of the heavenly waters, described as held back by a solid arched firmament to which the heavenly bodies were attached, from the watery abyss below, on which the flat earth was supposed to restthe customary explanation built on the theory of a borrowing from Babylonian cosmology? Not necessarily. It has been stated above that the customarily accepted theory of an adaptation of Babylonian source material to the Hebrew account, is built on the failure of, the critics to recognize the poetic imagery of the Hebrew Scriptures and to differentiate this imagery from astronomical fact.

(3) We accept the interpretation here that is presented by Arnold Guyot, in his excellent little book, Creation; though published as far back as 1884, like many other works of earlier vintage, it gives us a far more sensible understanding of the Genesis Cosmogony than those appearing on the market since the turn of the century, a period in which textual criticism in all areas has been characterized by sheer conjectural extravagances. The word translated waters, Guyot tells us, being the best afforded by the Hebrew language to express the idea of fluidity (nebulousness), is used here to designate the primordial cosmic material, the amorphous world-stuff, the molten mass (now heated to intense degrees by the energizing of Divine Power) of the undifferentiated sun, planets, satellites, etc., of our solar system. (Psalms 148 seems to have this same meaning, where we read of the waters that are above the heavens (Genesis 1:4)waters which are distinguished from the deeps below (Genesis 1:7) and the vapor above (Genesis 1:8). Hence, the separation of the earth from the parent mass, and the development of it into an independent sphere, answers, according to Guyot, to the dividing of the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. That is to say, the waters which were under the firmament (the detached earth in its most primitive state as such) became divided from the waters which were above the firmament (the parent molten mass, which apparently became a sun) by the intervening expanse.Moreover, after having become detached from the parent mass, naturally the earth began to cool at its surface, as it whirled through space; and as this process of cooling continued, the gases were thrown off which formed the atmosphere.And no doubt the entire earth-mass became enshrouded in dense vapors at this stage, these vapors thus obscuring for a time the light of the parent sun from which the planet had been detached. Guyot writes (Cr, 66-67): One fact admitted by all is the work of separation, of individualization, which must have preceded the present combination of the heavenly bodies, and this is indicated as the special work of the second cosmogonic day. thus we follow the gradual concentration from a gaseous state to a compact and well-defined body. We see how a family of planets has been detached from a vast central body which holds them in bondage in their orbits by the power of its mass. That is to say, the entire process by which the earth was detached and developed as a separate planet could well have been duplicated in the detachment and separate development of all the celestial bodies from their respective central suns. This all occurred on Day Two. Thus under the impulsion of the brooding of the Spirit of God, the cosmos began to march into being. And so there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

(4) Note the remarkable correspondence between the foregoing interpretation of Genesis 1:6-8 and current scientific hypotheses of the origin of our solar system. In general, these are two, namely, the monoparental and the biparental hypotheses. According to the former, as envisioned especially in the nebular hypothesis of Laplace (1749-1827), the huge primordial mass of nebulous matter, revolving in space with sufficient velocity and gradually condensing from an intensely high degree of heat, may have eventually, by throwing off successive rings of nebulae, set the stage for the development of all the celestial bodies, moving in their respective orbits, which make up our planetary system. The biparental hypothesis, on the other hand, first suggested by the French naturalist Buffon (1707-1788), pictures the formation of our planetary system as the result of a violent collision between the sun (which in more recent terms is thought of as having become a nova or supernova in the far distant past) and some other celestial body, which he called a comet, by which he apparently meant, however, another star of comparable size. Although some of the fragments caused by this collision must have been lost forever in interstellar space, others, Buffon thought, held in check by the gravitational pull of the central mass (sun), were forced to continue revolving around it in the form of separate planets. This biparental hypothesis has been modified in recent years by the Chamberlin-Moulton theory in which the notion of direct physical collision has been abandoned for the tidal wave theory, namely, that the planets were first formed when a giant tidal wave of nebulous matter was raised on the surface of the sun by the gravitational attraction of an intruding star which passed by the sun at a distance of several solar diameters. This tidal wave theory has been further elaborated by Sir James Jeans. The theory has also been implemented by the planetesimal hypothesis, that these separate planetary masses subsequently grew by accretion of smaller compact masses of nebulae (each surrounding a nucleus) called planetesimals. This tidal action hypothesis has been chosen, instead of that of direct collision, we are told, on the ground that the close passing of two great stars is much more probable than a direct collision. However, it is interesting to note that the British geophysicist, Jeffreys, has suggested recently that the hypothetical stellar encounter must have been much closer than was assumed in the tidal theory, that in fact the passing star must literally have brushed the surface of the sun, in order to tear away masses of solar matter. If this view should be the right one, we are back to the original form of Buffon's hypothesis. Note the following pertinent comments from Gamow (BE, 29): We must conclude that the solid crust of the Earth must have been formed from previously molten material about two million years ago. Thus we can picture the Earth two billion years ago as a completely molten spheroid, surrounded by a thick atmosphere of air, water-vapors, and probably other volatile substances. The Genesis Cosmogony thus speaks for itself in the many features in which it is in harmony with current scientific thinking about the origin of our planetary system.