In his The Firmament and the Water Above, Paul Seely wrote
Does any statement or phrase appear in the OT which clearly states or implies that the raqia is not solid? Does anything in Genesis 1 state or imply the raqia was not (or was) solid? The fact that it was named "heaven(s)" in Gen 1:8 and birds fly in the heaven(s) (Deut 4: 17) seems to imply the raqia was not solid. But the word samayim (heaven[s]) is broader in meaning than raqia . It encompasses not only the raqia (v. 8; Ps 19:6; 148:4) but the space above the raqia (Ps 2:4; 11:4; 139:8) as well as the space below (Ps 8:8; 79:2). Hence birds fly in the heavens, but never in the raqia. Rather, birds fly upon the face or in front of the raqia (Gen 1:20). This phrase upon the face (surface) or in front of the raqia is important in that it implies the raqia was neither space nor atmosphere. For birds do not fly upon the surface or in front of space or air, but rather in space or air. This distinction is illustrated in the case of fish, which no one would say swim upon the surface or in front of the water (Gen 7: 18) but rather in the water (cr. Exod 7: 18, 21).
Gen 1:17 also testifies that the raqia is not air or atmosphere for it says that God placed the stars (and probably the sun and moon) "in the raqia or the heavens." But the stars are not located in the air or atmosphere. So we know the raqia (in which 1:17 locates them) cannot be air or atmosphere. Even if 1:17 is construed as phenomenal language, the raqia still cannot be air or atmosphere. For the stars do not look like they are located in the air or atmosphere. Rather (as anyone can tell on a clear night away from city lights) they look like they are embedded in a solid vault which is exactly why scientifically naive peoples believe in a solid vault, and why 1:17, in accordance with that belief, says God placed the stars in the raqia. Gen 1:14-17 is such a clear proof that the raqia is not air or atmosphere that some conservatives have tried to dissociate the raqia in vv. 14-17 from the raqia in vv. 6-8. But the statement in v. 14, "Let there be lights in the firmament or heaven," immediately raises the question, What "firmament of heaven"? To which the context immediately replies, the firmament of vv. 6-8 which was called heaven. The contextual identity of the two firmaments is really beyond question. Taken in context it is impossible to say the raqia of vv. 6-8 was just air or atmosphere.
Gen 1:17 also testifies that the raqia is not air or atmosphere for it says that God placed the stars (and probably the sun and moon) "in the raqia or the heavens." But the stars are not located in the air or atmosphere. So we know the raqia (in which 1:17 locates them) cannot be air or atmosphere. Even if 1:17 is construed as phenomenal language, the raqia still cannot be air or atmosphere. For the stars do not look like they are located in the air or atmosphere. Rather (as anyone can tell on a clear night away from city lights) they look like they are embedded in a solid vault which is exactly why scientifically naive peoples believe in a solid vault, and why 1:17, in accordance with that belief, says God placed the stars in the raqia. Gen 1:14-17 is such a clear proof that the raqia is not air or atmosphere that some conservatives have tried to dissociate the raqia in vv. 14-17 from the raqia in vv. 6-8. But the statement in v. 14, "Let there be lights in the firmament or heaven," immediately raises the question, What "firmament of heaven"? To which the context immediately replies, the firmament of vv. 6-8 which was called heaven. The contextual identity of the two firmaments is really beyond question. Taken in context it is impossible to say the raqia of vv. 6-8 was just air or atmosphere.
Leave a comment: