The Firmament

Christian apologists have made several attempts to explain away references to the firmament, and many modern Bibles now use the term "expanse" to try to sweep the issue under the carpet. This post looks at some Christian apologist web pages that attempt to deal with the issue.

Answering Islam

Web page here.They look at this verse:

Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

Note that in those times mirrors were made of molten bronze or copper, which was then polished, so "molten looking glass" presumably meant a metal mirror. They quote Norm Geisler and Thomas Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook On Bible Difficulties, 1992, and so shall I.

It is true that the origin of the Hebrew word raqia meant a solid object. However, meaning is not determined by origin (etymology), but by usage. Originally, the English word 'board' referred to a wooden plank. But when we speak of a church board member, the word no longer has that meaning. When used of the atmosphere above the earth, "firmament" clearly does not mean something solid. This is evident for several reasons. First, the related word raqa (beat out, spread out) is correctly rendered "expanse" by many recent translations. Just as metal spreads out when beaten (cf. Ex. 39:3; Isa. 40:19), so the firmament is a thinned out area.

A lot of words to say nothing at all!

Meaning is determined by usage, fair enough. So how is it used? According to Strong's concordance:
beaten (1), hammered (2), plates (1), spread (3), spreading (1), stamp (1), stamped (2).

So in fact the usage supports the idea of a solid firmament.

The rest is a circular argument. Christians have decided it does not refer to a solid dome, so assert that it "clearly does not mean something solid" and have chosen to translate the word as "expanse" in modern editions. Sorry, but that in no way indicates that the original author had that meaning in mind.

"Second the root meaning 'spread out' can be used independently of "beat out", as it is in several passages (cf. Ps. 136:6; Isa. 42:5; 44:24). Isaiah wrote, 'So says Jehovah God, He who created the heavens and stretched them out, spreading out the earth and its offspring (Isa. 42:5, MKJV). This same verb is used of extending curtains or tents in which to dwell, which would make no sense if there was no empty space there in which to live. Isaiah, for example, spoke of the Lord 'who sits on the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to dwell in...'

Okay, so we have this word which means a solid thing is spread out thinly. This might apply to working metal to make a bowl, it might apply to unpacking and erecting a tent. Remember that this was a bronze age or early iron age society; these were the sorts of things that might be familiar to them.

Sure there was space to live in a tent. But the canvas of the tent was stretched out over your head - just as God stretched out the firmament over the whole world. This makes perfect sense, and really I struggle to see Geisler and Howe's point here.

Third, the Bible speaks of rain falling through the sky (Job 36:27-28). But this makes no sense if the sky is a metal dome. Nowhere does the Bible refer to little holes in a metal dome through which the drops fall. It does speak figuratively of the 'windows of heaven' opening for the Flood (Gen. 7:11). But this should probably not be taken any more literally than our idiom, 'It is raining cats and dogs.'

What? Nowhere does the Bible refer to little holes in a metal dome through which the drops fall - but actually it does! This is some wonderful cognitive dissonance. They have decided that references to rain coming though holes is figurative - because that supports their position - and then go on to say there are no references at all.

The reality is that the Bible makes numerous references to these holes.

"Fourth, the Genesis creation account speaks of birds that 'fly above the earth across the face of the firmament' (Gen. 1:20). But this would be impossible if the sky was solid. Thus, it is more appropriate to translate raqia by the word 'expanse' (as the NASB and NIV do). And in this sense there is no conflict with the concept of space in modern science.

They seem to be arguing that Genesis say birds fly in space! The face of the firmament is the side of the dome that faces us, and it seems quite reasonable that birds would fly across it.

"Fifth, even taken literally, Job's statement (37:18) does not affirm that the 'skies' are a 'metal mirror,' but simply that they are 'as [like] a mirror. In other words, it is not a comparison that need to be taken literally, any more than God is really a 'strong tower' (cf. Prov. 18:10). Further, the point of comparison in Job is not the solidity of the 'skies' and mirror, but their durability (cf. word 'strong' [chazaq]; v. 18). So, when all is considered, there is no evidence that the Bible affirms that the firmament of the sky is a metallic dome. And thus there is no conflict with modern science." (Geisler & Howe, When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook On Bible Difficulties [Victor Books, USA 1992], pp. 229-230)

Yes, it does say the firmament is like a metal mirror, so we cannot take that to mean it actually is a metal mirror. But we can assume that the author thought it was like a metal mirror - i.e., solid.

Interesting that they take "strong" to mean durable. However, this is just wishful thinking on their part. A solid firmament would be an incredible feat of engineering in human terms, requiring remarkably strong materials of construction - and it is this that the Biblical author is alluding to.

By the way, here is how the word chazaq is used elsewhere in the Bible.

The article cites Strong's concordance, concluding:

Hence, Geisler & Howe were correct when stating that the term can mean hard or firm and therefore refers to the heavens enduring throughout the ages much like a metal mirror endures. The comparison is on durability, not solidity.

That is some reach there. Me, when I see that "the term can mean hard or firm" I am going to conclude that it refers to something hard and firm. But hey, they have already decided there is no firmament, so are obliged to twist the evidence to support that conclusion.

JP Holding

Holding wrote an article, itself responding to an article by Paul Seely. The article by Seely is in two parts here and here:

God called the firmament Heaven

Holding starts with Genesis 1:7-8

Genesis 1:7 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.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The issue here is God calling the firmament "heaven". Does God live within the solid structure? That does seem unlikely. Holding prefers to consider the firmament to be the atmosphere:

We therefore argue that raqiya‘ is intended rather to refer to that which serves to ‘separate the earth from all that is beyond it’,15 (that is, what we call the atmosphere, and interstellar space) and that because no differentiation is made otherwise, there is no reason why Genesis can not be read to permit a description of the heavens and the natural order as we know it.

So does he believe that God created the atmosphere, and called that "heaven", and God sits on a thone in the atmosphere? I am not at all convinced that that makes any more sense.

The Hebrew word used here is שָׁמַ֫יִם or "shamayim", which can mean heaven or sky. Perhaps a better explanation is that God created a solid dome over the word, and he called it the sky.

Genesis 2:29, 2:20, 6:7, 7:3, 9:2 all talk about birds of the sky, using the same word, and in the flood account, the waters come from the sky, using the same word.

It is worth remembering that our modern idea of an afterlife in heaven is at odds with the Biblical view, in which all the dead will return to life at the same moment, to live, not in heaven, but on earth.

This page lists all 400 or so occurances of the word, and many times one Bible translates it as heaven, another as sky, and there are plenty of times it could be translated as sky when it is not.


This is not without problems, as Holding says. One is the birds of the sky, as already mentioned (though he cites a different verse). How can the birds fly in the firmament (which is called "sky"), given it is a solid structure?

But raqiya and shamayim are different words that are used differently in the Bible. God creates a firmament, and calls it the sky, but these are two different words used differently throughout the Bible.

Holding attempts to counter this, saying:

The problem with this argument is that the claim that shamayim is ‘broader in meaning’ than raqiya‘ in Genesis 14 is simply groundless—the result of circular reasoning. In Genesis 1:8, the implication is that the raqiya‘ has the name shamayim in an exact one-to-one correspondence, just as is the case for the ‘Earth’ and the ‘Seas’ when they are named (v. 10). There is no reason to see a broader meaning of shamayim than an exact equation with raqiya‘.

The reality is that we do have good reason to think that the words are not synonymous - and that is why they are consistently translated differently.

God Creates Nitrogen, Oxygen, Etc...

Holding says:

There is a flaw in this line of reasoning as well. Seely has asserted that the ‘air’ or ‘space’ which surrounds us is ‘intangible,’ and this is correct from a strictly phenomenal point of view. But in actuality, the ‘air’ and ‘space’ around and above us is not strictly ‘intangible’ at all. It is rather composed of gas molecules (oxygen, carbon dioxide, etc.) that are too small for us to feel or otherwise perceive unaided, and further out into space there is a wide variety of material such as spaceborne dust, gases, and so on. There is no reason why ‘made’ should be an inappropriate verb for the creation of such things, unless Seely can show elsewhere that creation of something similar required a different verb—and that he certainly cannot do, unless he has some hidden passages in the Old Testament up his sleeve.

This is certainly possible, and it is illustrative of the fact that Christian apologists can and do find rationalisations for pretty much anything in the Bible that does not take their fancy. The question is, is this likely to be what the author meant? Holding gives us no reason to suppose so.

Ezekiel and Exodus

Holding rejects the description in Ezekiel as being merely a dream, and on this I agree. He also similarly rejects the description in Exodus 24:10, which is less certain, but I will allow him that one too.

Waters Above

What, then, are these ‘waters’? We agree with Seely, against a number of commentators, that these are not clouds. 31 Rather, it is our suggestion that these ‘waters’ were the originally-created, basic building blocks of matter that the earth was made from, and otherwise became all that was created outside of our atmosphere and/or our solar system. 32 We would hardly expect the author of Genesis to make distinctions between things like stellar matter, methane gas, asteroids, comets, etc.

Well, that is a possible interpretation, but is it likely? Holding continues:

No further revelation is given about the nature of these waters; nor is it said what has happened to them. As far as the inspired writers knew, these waters were still ‘up there,’ and if they started with the conception of an ocean, they would continue with that conception.

The reality is that the Bible has several references to the water that is still up there, refering to windows being opened in the firmament to allow rain to come through. Holding objects to this on the basis that it is "not proven" that raqiya‘ and shamayim have different meanings. That is just rhetorical sleight-of-hand. We can be confident that it is very likely they had different meanings, and that is suffice to say that it is very likely that the Biblical authors were thinking about the waters above when they say the windows in the firmament opened to allow rain through.


We do not need to prove that they had different meanings - that would be impossible at this great remove  to show - we need only to show it was very likely to show that the firmament very likely refered to a solid structure.

God and Science

 This web page starts out with some telling admissions, quoting first Josephus:

After this, on the second day, he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from the other parts, and he determined it should stand by itself. He also placed a crystalline [firmament] round it, and put it together in a manner agreeable to the earth, and fitted it for giving moisture and rain, and for affording the advantage of dews.

And the Jewish Talmud:

"The learned of Israel say, "The sphere stands firm, and the planets revolve"; the learned of the nations say, "The sphere moves, and the planets stand firm." The learned of Israel say, "The sun moves by day beneath the firmament, and by night above the firmament"; the learned of the nations say, "The sun moves by day beneath the firmament, and by night beneath the earth."

These prove that the Jews of that time believed in a solid firmament, which would seem to destroy all arguments to the otherwise.


Later the author discusses what the firmament actually is, ending a section called "The Firmament" saying:

So, the verb raqa does not necessarily refer to the beating out of a solid object, but to a spreading out process, whether the object be solid or not.

So the best he has is that raqa might not mean a solid structure - but he has already admitted that the ancient Jews thought exactly that!

The page goes on to discuss this more, but its claims are the same as the pages already discussed. What I did find intriguing was the claim that:

 The Bible does present a cosmological model of the universe, although, being a spiritual guide rather than a scientific one, it is not overly detailed. Even so, it is scientifically accurate. Overall, the Bible presents God as the Creator of the entire universe (matter, energy, space, and time). It makes the following audacious claims, which contradicted the prevalent ancient cosmologies, but have been confirmed by modern science:

• Time had a beginning.
• The universe had a beginning.
• The universe was created from the invisible.
• The dimensions of the universe were created.
• The universe is expanding.
• Creation of matter and energy has ended in the universe (refutes steady-state theory).
• The universe is winding down and will "wear out" (second law of thermodynamics ensures that the universe will run down due to "heat death"-maximum entropy).

What? It is scientifically accurate to present God as the creator of the universe? Wow.

Does the claim that time had a beginning contradict the prevalent ancient cosmologies? He offers no evidence to support that claim. In fact, while he does give verses that seem to indicate the Bible says these things, most seem to be common to many creation myths. Here is the Greek creation account, and here the Babylonian story. Just like the Genesis account, both start from a formless, watery void. And I really think all creation myths involve things that we can see appearing - that is what creation is!

His claim about the Bible saying the universe is expanding is based on verses stating that God created an expanse over the sky. This is about God creating a solid structure, an event that happened in the past, not that is on-going today.

BioLogos

This is by way of contrast. BioLogos describe themselves as "a community of evangelical Christians committed to exploring and celebrating the compatibility of evolutionary creation and biblical faith, guided by the truth that “all things hold together in Christ.”".

They have a page about the firmament, with a great illustration of the Biblical cosmology. As they say:

Arguing for a non-solid raqia in Genesis is extremely problematic, for two reasons. First, the biblical and extrabiblical data indicate that raqia means a solid structure of some sort. The second problem is a much larger theological issue, but is actually more foundational. Regardless of what one thinks of the raqia, why would anyone assume that the ancient cosmology in Genesis could be expected to be in harmony with modern science in the first place?

ETA (9/Dec/19): Just come across his great post on a blog by a Christian who argues very well that firmament does indeed mean a solid structure (but goes on to say that it does not matter).
https://letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/was-the-expanse-overhead-in-genesis-1-a-solid-dome/