There is no providential experience of a heavenly sea, whereas there is providential experience of rain descending from clouds. 1 teaches about creation using analogies from providential experience. 1:6-8 as a reference to a heavenly sea violates the key principle that Gen. May we ask whether this interpretation is plausible?įinally, we may observe that an interpretation of Gen. 1:6-8 mentions the first and the third, even though the third is irrelevant, while leaving out the second, which is continually relevant for crops and for herds. Once we acknowledge that Israelites knew that rain comes from clouds, a modern theory about the heavenly sea has to postulate not two bodies of water, but three: the sea on earth, the water inside the clouds, and the heavenly sea. In fact, introducing a heavenly sea creates interpretive problems rather than solving them. The alleged heavenly sea is irrelevant, and so it must be rejected as not pertinent to interpreting 1:6-8. Thus Genesis 1:6-8 is speaking about water above, such as Israelites received from clouds. In Genesis 1 as a whole and in Genesis 1:6-8 in particular God speaks about acts of creation that not only evoke praise but have practical interest to human beings. Genesis 1 speaks about things relevant to Israelites.In general, the Old Testament instructs Israelites about things that affect their lives.Israelites thought of dew as another form of provision of moisture “from heaven,” more or less parallel to rain.In a manner analogous to the heavens being “shut,” the Old Testament may describe rain as coming when the heavens are “opened.”.The Bible uses language about the heavens being “shut” to describe a situation with lack of rain.The Bible sometimes describes rain as coming from “heaven.”.Other materials from the ancient Near East confirm that people of that time were familiar with the idea of rain coming from clouds.Old Testament passages show that Israelites knew that rain came from clouds.Israelites could be expected to have some knowledge about rain.Poythress then offers nine principles that are at play in guiding how we should interpret a phrase like “the waters above”: They are part of a larger pattern, according to which the Old Testament uses analogies between the cosmos and a house or a tent. ![]() But if we are not expecting an explanation in terms of physical mechanisms, we can approach the same passages in a different way: they are imagistic, colorful pictures. If a person expects physicalistic information in ancient mythic texts or in the Bible, he can “find” what he expects. Genesis 1:6-8 becomes intelligible when we realize that it works with analogies between creation and our present experience of God’s providence in bringing rain.įrom there he goes on to examine in some detailed the proffered parallel texts in ANE literature that supposedly show what the ancients believed, and shows how a physicalistic interpretation has been anachronistically imported into them, especially Genesis. 1:6-8 gives us an ordinary description, a phenomenal description, a description of appearances, and does not offer any detailed “theory” about the expanse (“heaven”) or the water above it. (But it is left open whether there is also invisible water.)Īll this makes sense to an ancient Israelite as well as a modern reader with appropriate understanding of the point of view and kind of description that Gen. The expression “waters that were above the expanse” primarily designates water above a cloudy sky, that is, water inside clouds, whose lower side is the sky. Likewise, the Hebrew term for heaven covers the same spectrum (1 Kings 18:45 Gen. We can comfortably speak of a cloudy sky, a blue sky, a fiery sky (at sunset), and a night sky. In many contexts the word heaven (שָׁמַיִם) is roughly equivalent to our modern English word sky. ![]() (The word heaven can also refer to the invisible dwelling of God with his angels.) Depending on the context and the weather and the time of day or night, we may see clouds (by day), sun in a blue sky, stars and sometimes the moon in a black night sky, and black sky when there is a cloud cover at night. Both words refer flexibly to what it above us. Here’s a summary of his positive interpretation of that passage: And Genesis 1:6–8 does not teach or presuppose it.We have no good evidence that people of the ancient Near East actually held this view.In his new book, Interpreting Eden, Vern Poythress argues that both of these premises are wrong.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |