In this series of articles, we’ve been addressing the most common prooftexts that FSIPs (Flat/Stationary Interpretation Proponents) cite to justify their allegation that the Bible depicts, indicates, or implies a flat and/or stationary earth. Genesis 1 is a passage frequently cited among these many prooftexts. I recommend you read the chapter before continuing.
Now, most of you are probably wondering what in the world this passage has to do with the shape of the earth. Indeed, anyone simply reading these verses in their context without a preset agenda would never link the idea of a flat or stationary earth with these verses. The very fact that I need to explain how the FSIPs infer this concept from these verses ought to speak volumes.
FSIPs usually appeal to two concepts contained within this passage: 1) the earth having a “face” and 2) the word “firmament.”[1] According to FSIPs, the earth has a face like a clock has a face. Therefore, since a clock is round and flat, the earth must be round and flat. Additionally, they believe that the firmament is a firm or solid dome that covers a flat, circular earth, like the dome of a snow globe. (See image below)
Is this really what Moses was intending to communicate here in Genesis? Is this what any of the biblical authors were endeavoring to depict, suggest, or portray in their writings? Or is this yet another example of the FSIPs imposing their preexisting cosmological ideas onto the text to justify their cosmological beliefs? Let’s once again examine the text in context to see if there’s any validity to these claims.
The Face of the Earth
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (Gen 1:2)
And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is
on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. (Gen 1:29)
Genesis isn’t the only book of the Bible that speaks of the earth having a “face.” All told, the phrase “the face of the earth” (pā·ně hā ā’·rěṣ) appears more than twenty times in fourteen different books.
The Hebrew term pā·ně occurs ~1940 times in Scripture, with more than 350 of those being translated as “face.” Many of these instances are meant figuratively, like “he fell on his face,” seeing God “face to face,” and “seek my face.”
You have said, “Seek my face.”
My heart says to you,
“Your face, Lord, I do seek.”
Hide not your face from me. (Ps 27:8-9a)
It’s also used literally in many places. Yet, pā·ně is never used (either figuratively or literally) in reference to a clock or any other kind of timekeeping device like a sundial.
The most common sense in which “face” is intended is of a human face.
Israel said to Joseph, “Now let me die, since I have seen your face and know
that you are still alive.” (Gen 46:30)
When Moses came down from Mount Sinai… the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God. Aaron and all the people of Israel saw Moses, and behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him… 33 And when Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil over his face. (Ex 34:29–33)
Shockingly enough, human faces are on human heads, and human heads are not “flat like a clock.” Rather, a human head is shaped more like an oblate spheroid (a sphere). So, if we’re to follow the FSIPs’ reasoning, we should really conclude that since the earth has a face like a human head has a face … the earth must be an oblate spheroid!
But, of course, such reasoning is completely fallacious (as is their entire line of argumentation).
Anyone not trying to impose their cosmological views on the text naturally understands that face means surface in these passages in Genesis and elsewhere. The two words are synonymous. As a matter of fact, they’re the same word in Hebrew.
That’s why pā·ně is also rendered as “surface” in these very same translations.
Behold, the Lord will empty the earth and make it desolate,
and he will twist its surface (pā·ně )and scatter its inhabitants. (Isa 24:1)
He who made the Pleiades and Orion,
and turns deep darkness into the morning
and darkens the day into night,
who calls for the waters of the sea
and pours them out on the surface of the earth (pā·ně hā ā’·rěṣ),
the Lord is his name; (Am 5:8)
This is why many English translations render pā·ně as “surface” in Genesis 1.[2] For example, the NASB1995 reads…
The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters… (v. 1)
Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth.” (v. 29)
And in Ezekiel we read:
“My flock was scattered over all the surface of the earth, and there was no one to search or seek for them.” (Ezk 34.6)
Now, all three-dimensional objects have surfaces, regardless of their shape. Both a hockey puck and a basketball have a surface. Both my desk and the globe on my desk have a surface or face. The surface of an object is simply the external or outward facing side of an object. Hence the synonym face.
Anyone not trying to impose their cosmological presuppositions on the text understands that the passage is in no way attempting to depict or communicate what the shape of the earth is by using the word “face.”
Once again, the FSIP-cited passages that supposedly depict a flat earth have absolutely nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
The Firmament
And God said, “Let there be a firmament [rāqîa‘] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” And God made the firmament [rāqîa‘], and divided the waters which were under the firmament [rāqîa‘] from the waters which were above the firmament [rāqîa‘]; and it was so. And God called the firmament [rāqîa‘] Heaven. (Gen 1:6–8 KJV)
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament [rāqîa‘] of the heavens…” Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament [rāqîa‘] of the heavens to give light upon the earth… Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament [‘al penê rāqîa‘] of the heavens.” (Gen 1:14-20 NKJV)
As I said above, FSIPs believe that the firmament in Genesis 1 is a solid metal dome that encloses a flat earth like a snow globe. How do they derive this concept from this passage?
Richard D. Phillips explains in The Reformed Expository Commentary on Genesis, “A popular view among liberal scholars is that Moses held a primitive understanding in which the sky was a metal dome holding back the waters of the cosmic sea. The use of the word ‘firmament’ in the Latin Vulgate and through it the King James Version has encouraged this interpretation… The idea is that the Israelites picked up this idea of the sky as a metal roof from their ancient Near Eastern neighbors.”[3]
There are then three fundamental reasons underlying this interpretation: 1) the word “firmament,” 2) the belief that Moses held this view, and 3) the cosmologies of the Hebrews’ neighbors.
The Word Translated as “Firmament”
Now, chances are many of you couldn’t find the word firmament when you read through Genesis 1 in your Bible. That’s because it only appears in most of the older English translations, most notably the King James, New King James, Revised Standard, and Authorized versions. It’s likely that if you have a more modern translation, the word in your version is “expanse.”
God said, “Let there be an expanse [rāqîa‘]…” And God made the expanse [rāqîa‘] and separated the waters that were under the expanse [rāqîa‘] from the waters that were above the expanse [rāqîa‘]… And God called the expanse [rāqîa‘] Heaven. (ESV, NASB, TLV, LSB, CSB, YLT)
The words “firmament” and “expanse” can carry either similar or very different meanings, depending on the reader. That is, the terms themselves are somewhat ambiguous and subject to personal interpretation. For centuries, most believers have understood “firmament” to mean the sky or heavens above without conceiving that they are a solid metal dome holding back a cosmic sea. And yet others do hold to this idea, thinking the ‘firm’ in ‘firmament’ must mean “solid.”
Likewise, an expanse can be anything that’s spread out, such as metal, canvas, or space. We obviously need more information.
The Hebrew word being translated as firmament/expanse is rāqîa‘. What is the definition of rāqîa‘? According to some of the most popular Hebrew lexicons, rāqîa‘ can mean an extended surface, a solid expanse, firmament, an expansion of plates (as if beaten out), an expanse of atmospheric space above the earth, sky, and the vault of heaven.
The good news for FSIPs is that several of the possible meanings of rāqîa‘ include solidity, which indicates that their interpretation is possible. Yet here are several lexical definitions of rāqîa‘ that don’t imply solidity, which means we cannot simply assume or limit the word’s semantic meaning.
As Dr. Jason Lisle explains, “When we look up a given word in a dictionary, more often than not, it will have several different definitions. Each definition is called a ‘lexical definition.’ However, within a given proposition, a given word will have only one meaning. It will generally be one of the lexical definitions. Which definition applies is always determined by context — the surrounding words.”[4]
In order to know which definition or definitions apply to the rāqîa‘ of creation, we must examine it in its biblical context, for, as Lisle says elsewhere, “Context always determines the meaning.” [5]
What we’ll find is that the authors of Scripture are equivocal about many aspects of the rāqîa’s physical characteristics, simply speaking about its appearance rather than its essence, leaving it up to the reader to fill in their own details when those details are unnecessary or unimportant to the author’s purpose.
As J.P. Holding writes, the authors used “the only terms available to [them] in [their] language to describe natural phenomena,” while providing “the vaguest, most minimal descriptions of those phenomena, thereby leaving nearly everything unsaid about their exact nature.” [6]
This ambiguity unnerves some. They want the Bible to provide us with comprehensive details about everything. But just as the Bible doesn’t give us the exact nature of water (its chemical composition), the human body (its vital physical components), or the dry land (its material make-up or structure), neither does it provide us with all of the details of the rāqîa‘.
The question we must ask is, “What details does the Bible give us about the rāqîa‘?” Let’s look more closely.
First, how is the rāqîa‘ described in the creation account?
And God said, “Let there be a rāqîa‘ in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” And God made the rāqîa‘, and divided the waters which were under the rāqîa‘ from the waters which were above the rāqîa‘; and it was so. And God called the rāqîa‘ Heaven. (Gen 1:6–8 KJV)
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the rāqîa‘ of the heavens…” Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the rāqîa‘ of the heavens to give light upon the earth… Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the rāqîa‘ of the heavens.” (Gen 1:14-20 NKJV)
According to these verses, the rāqîa‘ is something created by God on the second day (v. 8) that separates the waters above the earth from the waters beneath (v. 6). The waters beneath are “the seas” or oceans (v. 10).
What are the waters above? We’re not told. The most natural reading would be that “the waters above” are clouds, since clouds are made almost entirely of water and are “above” the surface of the earth.
As Keil and Delitzsch summarize, “The waters under the firmament are the waters upon the globe itself; those above are not the ethereal waters beyond the limits of the terrestrial atmosphere, but the waters which float in the atmosphere, and are separated by it from those upon the earth, the waters which accumulate in clouds, and then bursting these their bottles, pour down as rain upon the earth.” [7]
So, the rāqîa‘ is the space or area above the seas in which the clouds reside.
Additionally, God placed the sun (the greater light), the moon (the lesser light), and the stars (v. 16) in the rāqîa‘.
We’re also told that birds fly across the face of the rāqîa‘ (v. 20). The birds fly across the part of the rāqîa‘ that faces the surface of the Earth.
Lastly, we’re told that God called the rāqîa‘ “heaven” (šā·mǎ·yim) (v. 8).
This is all the information we’re given in Genesis. Please note that there’s nothing about the size, shape, or nature of the rāqîa‘ included in Genesis itself.
Other Uses of rāqîa‘
What about verses outside of Genesis? What if we turned to the other uses of the noun rāqîa‘ in the Bible (Ezekiel 1:22–26; 10:1; Psalm 19:1; 150:1; Daniel 12:3)? Do they provide any additional details about the rāqîa‘ of creation?
Daniel writes, “Those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky [rāqîa‘] above” (Dan. 12:3 ESV). From this, we can see that the rāqîa‘ looks bright and is above us. There’s nothing here about its shape, size, or nature. Nor is there anything to be learned about the rāqîa‘ from Psalm 150, which exhorts us to praise the Lord in his mighty rāqîa‘.
In Psalm 19 we read, “The heavens [šā·mǎ·yim] declare the glory of God, and the sky above [rāqîa‘] proclaims his handiwork.” We see here the use of synonymous parallelism where the šā·mǎ·yim and the rāqîa‘ are synonymous terms.
David poetically announces that the šā·mǎ·yim / rāqîa‘ displays the magnificence of the Lord through what He’s made. He continues…
Day to day [the šā·mǎ·yim / rāqîa‘] pours out speech, and night to night [the šā·mǎ·yim / rāqîa‘] reveals knowledge… Their [the šā·mǎ·yim / rāqîa‘s] voice goes out through all the earth, and their [the šā·mǎ·yim / rāqîa‘s] words to the end of the world.
In them [the šā·mǎ·yim / rāqîa‘] he has set a tent for the sun, which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and, like a strong man, runs its course [through the šā·mǎ·yim / rāqîa‘] with joy. Its [the sun’s] rising is from the end of the heavens [the šā·mǎ·yim / rāqîa‘] and its circuit to the end of them [the šā·mǎ·yim / rāqîa‘].
David’s poetic meaning is clear: the šā·mǎ·yim / rāqîa‘ and what happens in it reveal God’s glory.
What do we learn about the nature of the rāqîa‘? This seems like a somewhat naïve question. Since this Psalm is poetic, it’s not intended to be taken in a literal fashion. David’s poetic imagery is phenomenological. That is, it’s descriptive of the phenomena he experiences. To attempt to draw literal, scientific descriptions from the phenomena he portrays is unwise at best.
Should we really derive from these words that the rāqîa‘ literally speaks with an audible voice? Should we then assume it has vocal cords? What words does it use? Are they Hebrew or something else? Is David really telling us that there’s an actual tent somewhere in the rāqîa‘ where the sun goes to bed at night? Of course not.
Rather, David is poetically describing some of the natural phenomena he sees in the rāqîa’ from his perspective on the Earth’s surface. This language of appearance frequently occurs in Scripture. The Bible’s authors describe things as they appear to them (phenomenologically) from their perspective on Earth. The sun appears to rise and to go down, and so they describe it that way (Gen 15: 12; Ps 104:5; Ec 1:5; Nah 3:17). Likewise, from wherever David or his readers are, they can watch as the sun rises at one end of the rāqîa’ (the eastern horizon) and runs its course across the rāqîa’ to the other end of the rāqîa’ (the western horizon).
While we’re on the topic of portraying things based on what they look like from our vantage point on the surface of the Earth, the sky looks like an arch or dome from every location on Earth’s surface. I don’t think anyone would disagree with this. If one were standing in a field in the middle of Kansas or in the Middle East, looking out at the horizon, they could turn in a circle, a full 360°, and the sky would look like a dome in every direction. This is why many of the ancient Hebrews thought it was a “gigantic heavenly dome.”[8] When visible, from our perspective on the surface of the Earth, the sky appears to be dome-shaped, like a vault.
And so we might expect it to be poetically described as something that looks like a circle, a vault, and/or a dome (Is 40:22; Job 22:14; Amos 9:6).
The sky also looks like it’s solid, so we might also expect it to be poetically pictured this way.
For instance, in Job 37:18, Elihu asks, “Can you, with Him, spread out the skies [šeḥāqîm], Strong as a molten mirror?”
Now, this verse isn’t talking about the rāqîa’. I cite it because it’s a favorite verse of FSIPs and a great example of the use of phenomenological language to poetically describe something’s appearance from Earth’s surface. The word for ‘sky’ here is šeḥāqîm (the plural of šaḥaq). It appears four other times in the book of Job (35:5; 36:28; 37:21; 38:37), each time referring to clouds.
In 36:27-29, as a part of his reproof of Job, Elihu says,
“For He draws up the drops of water,
They distill rain from the mist,
Which the clouds [šeḥāqîm] pour down,
They drip upon man abundantly.
“Can anyone understand the spreading of the clouds [‘āb],
The thundering of His pavilion?
Notice that Elihu is poetically drawing upon the imagery of weather phenomena (clouds, rain, and lightning) to illustrate God’s sovereignty. He continues into chapter 37 with the same weather metaphors (lightning, thunder, rain, snow, storm, ice).
“Also with moisture He loads the thick cloud [‘āb];
He disperses the cloud [‘ānān] of His lightning.
“It changes direction, turning around by His guidance,
That it may do whatever He commands it
On the face of the inhabited earth.
“Whether for correction, or for His world,
Or for lovingkindness, He causes it to happen. (Job 37:11-13)
He then says,
Listen to this, O Job,
Stand and consider the wonders of God.
“Do you know how God establishes them,
And makes the lightning of His cloud [‘ānān] to shine?
“Do you know about the layers of the thick clouds [‘āb],
The wonders of one perfect in knowledge,
You whose garments are hot,
When the land is still because of the south wind?
“Can you, with Him, spread out the skies [šeḥāqîm],
Strong as a molten mirror?
Elihu’s entire analogy has been about God’s control of weather phenomena, illustrating His sovereignty. He’s used three synonyms for clouds. It’s God who spreads out the clouds, looking as strong as a molten mirror, blocking out the sun. And it’s God who makes them disperse, spreading out a clear, blue sky behind them, which also looks as strong as a molten mirror.
This entire section is filled with poetic imagery, utilizing phenomenological (not scientific) language about weather conditions that illustrate God’s power.
Again, this is simply another example of how biblical authors sometimes use experiential language to describe the appearance of natural phenomena from their vantage point on Earth. And this is what David is doing in Psalm 19.
There isn’t even the slightest hint of David or Job intending to describe the fundamental nature of the rāqîa‘ of creation.
What about the two passages in Ezekiel? Many FSIPs cite these passages as “proof” that the rāqîa‘ is a solid dome.
In his book, Ezekiel records several prophetic visions that he’d seen (Ezk 1:1). In the first vision, he sees “the likeness of” four living creatures, each creature having four faces (a human, lion, ox and eagle face–what, no clock face?), four wings, human hands, and calves’ feet.
Beside each of these bizarre creatures, Ezekiel sees a wheel within a wheel with tall rims that are full of eyes. And above the heads of these creatures, Ezekiel sees “the likeness of” a rāqîa‘ “shining like awe-inspiring crystal, spread out above their heads,” with a likeness of a throne above it (Ezk 1:22).
And from this highly symbolic vision, we’re supposed to understand the shape and nature of the rāqîa‘ in Genesis? Really?! Is this a good way to interpret Scripture? Is this a good example of Scripture interpreting Scripture? Are we also to understand from this vision that wheel rims have multitudes of eyeballs? And that seraphim have four heads with human, lion, ox, and eagle faces? That there’s a literal, material throne resting on top of the rāqîa‘ on which sits a human with a metal torso and legs of actual fire?
William Barrick writes, “[I]t would be a very erroneous interpretation to try to use the vision that Ezekiel saw to understand the nature, location, and relationship of the raqiya‘ [sic] with respect to other physical things in the time-space-matter world described on Days 2, 4, and 5 of Creation Week.”[9]
This is a prime example of the outrageous lengths that FSIPs will go to make the Scripture fit their beliefs.
But even if we did misapply these passages in Ezekiel to the rāqîa‘ of creation, what would we learn? (1) That something with “the likeness of a rāqîa‘“ shines “like awe-inspiring crystal” (1:22). So, it’s something that looks shiny, just like in Daniel. (2) It’s something “spread out” (nātāh). (3) It’s overhead (a.k.a above). So, even if we misapplied this passage to the rāqîa‘ of creation, we’d learn no new details about what the rāqîa‘ fundamentally is.
As it turns out, the other uses of the noun rāqîa‘ in the Bible do not increase our understanding of the shape or nature of the rāqîa‘ of creation.
The Etymology of rāqîa‘
What about the word itself? Is there anything additional we can learn by looking at its etymology?
The noun rāqîa‘ derives from the Hebrew verb rāqa‘, which has several meanings depending on the context in which it appears. For instance, rāqa‘ refers to hammering a thin layer of metal (Ex 39:3; Num 16:38-39), to stamping one’s feet (Ezek 6:11; 25:6), and to David stamping his enemies “down like the mire of the streets” (2 Sam 22:43). It’s also used for spreading out the earth (Ps 136:6; Isa 42:5; 44:24).
Please note the distinction between the action and the object of that action in these passages. They hammer (action) the metal (object of the action). They stamp (action) their feet (objects of the action). The verbal action doesn’t determine the meaning of the object nor its physical properties like shape, size, or nature. The verb rāqa‘ only describes what is happening or has happened to the object.
As commentator Herbert Livingston writes, “The emphasis in the Hebrew word raqia is not on the material itself but on the act of spreading out or the condition of being expanded.”[10]
Therefore, it’s the action of rāqa‘ that ought to inform our definition of rāqîa‘.
As Dr. Danny Faulkner explains, “In any language, when a noun is created from a verb, as is the case with rāqîa‘, it is the action of the verb that gives the meaning to the noun, not some property of what, in some cases, may be the object of the verb. For instance, consider the English verb expand. This verb, imported from French, came first, and then later the noun expanse developed. An expanse is something that has been expanded. In the meaning of the noun expanse, there is no hint of any property of something that has been expanded. Rather, the meaning of expanse is derived entirely from the action of the verb expand. In similar manner, it ought to be obvious that the meaning of the Hebrew noun rāqîa‘ comes from the action of the Hebrew verb raqa‘, not from some property of what is sometimes the object of the verb… This is why many more modern translations of the Bible render raqa‘ as expanse rather than firmament.”[11]
Therefore, etymologically, the closest definition of rāqîa‘ is “something spread out or expanded; an expanse.”
Dr. Henry Morris writes, “The English word ‘firmament’ in the Bible is a translation of the Hebrew raqia, meaning ‘expanse.’ Its meaning is not ‘firm boundary’ as biblical critics have alleged, but might be better paraphrased as ‘stretched-out thinness’ or simply ‘space.’”[12]
Martin Luther comments, “The Hebrew word rāqîa denotes ‘something spread out,’ from the verb raqa‘, which means ‘to expand’ or ‘fold out.’”[13]
Interestingly, the šā·mǎ·yim (God called the rāqîa‘ “šā·mǎ·yim”) is poetically described as having been “spread out” or “stretched out” (nātāh) by God in numerous places (e.g., 2 Sam 22:10; Job 9:8; Ps 104:2; Isa 44:24; Jer 10:12; Zec 12:1).
In these descriptions, the šā·mǎ·yim is likened to a curtain or tent (lit. gauze) rather than metal. So is the sky metallic or cloth? Or is the point about the action of spreading?
John Gill notes, “God ordered a firmament to be, or an expanse; something stretched out and spread like a curtain, tent, or canopy: and to this all those passages of Scripture refer, which speak of the stretching out of the heavens, as this firmament or expanse is afterwards called”.[14]
But aren’t all of these substances that the rāqîa‘ / šā·mǎ·yim are poetically likened to solid? Yes, because these substances were common items that the Hebrews regularly saw being spread out. Writers use everyday items in their metaphors so that their readers can understand what they’re getting at.
Again, the emphasis is on the action, not the object of the action. But couldn’t Moses’ readers have inferred something solid? After all, some of the lexicons state that the rāqîa‘ was “regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it,”[15]
This brings us to other reasons for the FSIPs’ belief in a solid dome.
The Beliefs of Moses, the Hebrews, and their Neighbors
As I said earlier, the other reasons why FSIPs believe in a solid dome are because 1) they believe Moses (and the rest of the Hebrews) must’ve believed this, and 2) because the Hebrews’ neighbors believed it. And so, although a solid, dome-like rāqîa‘ is nowhere depicted in the Bible, it’s implicitly assumed by Moses and the Israelites.
As FSIP Paul H. Seely writes, “The basic historical fact that defines the meaning of raqiya‘… is simply this: all peoples in the ancient world thought of the sky as solid.”[16]
“[T]he Hebrews were influenced via the patriarchs by Mesopotamian concepts and via Moses and their time in Egypt by Egyptian concepts,”[17] says Seely.
Indeed, the idea that by using the term rāqîa‘ in the Ancient Near Eastern world, Moses must’ve intended to communicate a solid sky and his readers would’ve understood a solid sky has been (and still is) the supposition of many liberal and evangelical scholars alike.
And yet, this argument is faulty on several levels.
First, the entire argument is based on conjecture. We must assume what Moses was thinking and then read that assumption into his words.
As J.P. Holding writes, “The cosmology has been kept so basic and equivocal that one must force certain meanings into the text and analyze what the writer ‘must have been thinking.’”[18]
Why do they believe Moses was thinking this? Is it because we have extrabiblical writings from Moses that proves this? No. Is it then because we have a plethora of extrabiblical writings demonstrating that all of the Hebrews at the time of Moses believed this? No, there aren’t any such writings. As Dr. Terry Mortensen notes, “We have no way of knowing what the ancient Israelites, especially at the time of Moses when Genesis was written, believed about the earth, the raqiya‘, the heavenly bodies, etc. Apart from Scripture, the Israelites wandering in the wilderness with Moses left no records.”[19]
Where do we get this idea from, then? It’s because their pagan Mesopotamian neighbors believed it. Since the Egyptians and Babylonians held these cosmological ideas, according to Seely, it’s “all the more historically probable” that Moses and his readers did too. Seely says elsewhere, “The writer and first readers of Gen 1 also inherited Mesopotamian concepts about the natural world from the patriarchs and no doubt were influenced by Egyptian concepts during their stay in Egypt. Moses, in fact, was ‘educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians’ (Acts 7:22; Ex 2:10).”[20]
Now, on the face of it, this “genetic” argument seems to make sense. I vividly recall viewing a museum exhibit about the daily lives of the ancient Hebrews. Among the artifacts were dozens of household idols. Apparently, many of the Hebrews walked out of Egypt believing in and worshiping a veritable pantheon of gods and goddesses, each associated with different aspects of nature, human life, and the cosmos.
When Moses was up on Mount Sinai, the Israelites “refused to obey him, but thrust him aside, and in their hearts they turned to Egypt, saying to Aaron, ‘Make for us gods (ʾĕlōhîm) who will go before us.’” (Ex 32:1, 23: Ac 7:39-40)
There is certainly some validity to their bringing the beliefs of the Egyptians with them.
Does that mean that Moses did, too? That after leaving Egypt, he continued to believe in multiple gods? And so, when Moses used the term ʾĕlōhîm (a plural noun) in his writings, he was actually communicating polytheistic beliefs?
In the beginning, ʾĕlōhîm created the heavens and the earth… And ʾĕlōhîm said, “Let there be a rāqîa‘… And ʾĕlōhîm made the rāqîa‘… And ʾĕlōhîm called the rāqîa‘ Heaven. (Gen 1:6–8 KJV)
It’s “probable” that many of the Israelites of Moses’ day would’ve thought about the vast pantheon of Egyptian gods and goddesses when they read the word ʾĕlōhîm. Does that mean all of them did? Just because some Hebrews interpreted ʾĕlōhîm as multiple gods doesn’t mean all of them did, nor that it’s what Moses intended. And just because some Hebrews interpreted rāqîa‘ as a solid dome doesn’t mean all of them did, nor that it’s what Moses intended.
Mortenson writes, “While that might possibly be true of pagan idolatrous Israelites, there is no sound reason to think that it is true of Israelites who clung to God’s Word.”[21]
Some of Israel’s neighbors believed that the god Marduk created the heavens and the earth by splitting the carcass of the goddess Tiamat in half, “making the firmament from the top half to hold back the upper waters from flooding the earth. From the bottom half he made the mountainous foundations of the sea.”[22]
Should we then assume this is what Moses must’ve been thinking and was really intending to communicate?
In his book The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature?, author and expert on ancient pagan cultures and literature John Oswalt explains that when comparing the biblical worldview with those of ancient pagan cultures, they differ “not merely slightly, but diametrically.” He continues, “I am simply saying that any straightforward comparison must conclude that beneath any possible surface similarities are radically different ways of thinking about reality.”[23]
As Dr. Noel Weeks, a professor of Ancient History at the University of Sydney, says, “In its rejection of polytheism biblical cosmology is of necessity radically different to its surroundings.” [24]
Richard D. Phillips writes, “It is very doubtful that the Israelites would have simply imbibed the cosmology of their pagan neighbors, since their religion strongly emphasized both physical and metaphysical separation from idolaters.”[25]
J.P. Holding concludes, “This argument is very weak indeed. The patriarchs worshipped God and believed His Word, not Mesopotamian myths. There is absolutely no indication in Scripture that they held any such beliefs.”[26]
That last sentence is worth repeating: “There is absolutely no indication in Scripture that they held any such beliefs.” What is going to be our authority in this discussion? What some people believe Moses might’ve been thinking because of his pagan environment? Or his actual words and what they reveal?
We ought to heed the wise counsel of John Sailhamer who once said, “[W]e must be careful to let neither our own view of the structure of the universe nor what we think to have been the view of ancient people to control our understanding of the biblical author’s description.”[27]
It’s entirely possible that many of Moses’ contemporaries did read their preexisting pagan cosmologies into Moses’ words, because the Bible, as Seely says, “is often unconsciously interpreted in terms of the reader’s own culture, time and beliefs.”
As Holding says, “Perhaps the ancient readers of this text did envision a solid dome with an ocean above it, but if so, they read things into the inspired and equivocal language of the text.”[28] [emphasis mine]
Indeed, many have done exactly this throughout the centuries. It’s precisely what happened when Jewish scholars translated the Septuagint (LXX).
As J.B. Payne explains in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, “In pre-Christian Egypt confusion was introduced into biblical cosmology when the LXX, perhaps under the influence of Alexandrian theories of a ‘stone vault’ of heaven, rendered rāqîaʿ by stereōma, suggesting some firm, solid structure. This Greek concept was then reflected by the Latin firmamentum, hence KJV ‘firmament.’”[29]
It’s difficult not to let the prevalent cultural views unconsciously influence one’s interpretation. But just because people can and have done this doesn’t change the fact that rāqîa‘ isn’t described like this by Moses or any of the biblical authors. That’s the point. It’s not what someone could envision or read into the text, but what the text actually says that matters.
The entirety of the biblical description of the rāqîa‘ of creation is that it’s an expanse called “heaven” (šā·mǎ·yim) created by God on the second day that separates the waters above the earth from the waters beneath, in which the sun, moon, and stars also reside and the birds fly across its face. Thus, it’s a wondrous display of God’s glory. The rest of the details are left up to the reader.
As J.P. Holding writes, “[T]he description of the raqiya‘ is so equivocal and lacking in detail that one can only read a solid sky into the text by assuming that it is there in the first place.”[30]
It’s like the “dry land” that God created on the third day. There, too, we’re given minimal details, leaving what one believes about its shape, size, and exact nature up to them.
Therefore, from a biblical perspective, we are free to interpret rāqîa‘ as an extended surface, a solid expanse, a firmament, an expansion of plates (as if beaten out), or an expanse of atmospheric space above the earth. All of these lexical definitions fit within the biblical details of the rāqîa‘ being something created by God on the second day that separates the waters above the earth from the waters beneath, in which the sun, moon, and stars reside and across whose face the birds fly.
So, can FSIPs read their solid-dome beliefs into the rāqîa‘ without contradicting this information? Yes!
Can someone, with as much justification, say that it squares exactly with the current understanding of earth’s atmosphere and a universe that stretches billions of light-years in every direction? Yes. Whether the “waters above” are clouds or are cosmic waters at the edge of the physical universe, both models fit within the information we’re given.
OR
As J.P. Holding concludes, “Truly enough, one can indeed read Genesis 1 and say that a solid sky is in mind. But one can also, with as much justification, read Genesis 1 and say rather that it comports exactly with what we know today of the atmosphere and the solar system, with or without adjustments made for phenomenological language, and this is because of the utterly equivocal nature of the language used in Genesis 1.” [31]
We simply need to recognize that we’re reading our extrabiblical beliefs into the Bible, not getting them from the Bible. We cannot–indeed, we must not–assert that passages like Genesis 1 teach or even imply our beliefs about the nature and shape of the rāqîa‘. What we can say is the Bible accommodates our beliefs about these things because of its ambiguity concerning them.
Once again, we see how FSIPs are reading their beliefs into the Bible in an attempt to justify their positions. And once again, we see that their FSIP beliefs are nowhere to be found there. The most serious problem with this is that they’re lying about God’s Word by alleging that it says something that it doesn’t. In so doing, they not only slander the Word of God but malign the God of the Word.
In our final article, we’ll take a look at corners, pillars, and circles; oh my!
[1] The word firmament appears in the KJV, NKJV, ASV, and Geneva translations.
[2] Some versions that render pā·ně as surface are the NIV, NLT, NASB, TLV, LSB, CSB, CJB, HCSB, ISV.
[3] Phillips, R. D. 2023. Genesis (Reformed Expository Commentary) (p. 81-83). Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing.
[4] Lisle, Jason. 2015. Understanding Genesis: How to Analyze, Interpret, and Defend Scripture (p. 108). Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
[5] Ibid. p.108
[6] Holding, J. P. 1999. Is the raqiya’ (‘firmament’) a solid dome? Equivocal language in the cosmology of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a response to Paul H. Seely. CEN Technical Journal 13(2): p. 45.
[7] Keil, C.F. and Delitzsch, F. 1976. The Pentateuch: Three Volumes in One, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes (1:53-54) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
[8] Koehler, L. et al. (1994–2000) The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
[9] Barrick, W. D. 2013. Four Views on the Historical Adam (p. 201–202). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.
[10] Livingston, G. H., et al. 1969. Beacon Bible Commentary, Volume 1: Genesis through Deuteronomy (p. 32). Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press.
[11] Faulkner, D. 2019. Falling Flat: A Refutation of Flat Earth Claims (p. 282). Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
[12] Morris, H. M. 2010. The third firmament. Days of Praise (October 17). https://www.icr.org/article/third-firmament/.
[13] Luther, M. 1958. Luther’s Works, Volume 1: Lectures on Genesis Chapters 1–5 (G. Schick, Trans., J. Pelikan, Ed., p. 24). St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.
[14] Gill, J. 1810. An Exposition of the Old Testament (Volume I) (p. 5). London: Mathews and Leigh.
[15] Whitaker, R. et al. (1906) The Abridged Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament: from A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Francis Brown, S.R. Driver and Charles Briggs, based on the lexicon of Wilhelm Gesenius. Boston; New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company.
[16] Seely, P. H. 1991. The firmament and the water above – part I: the meaning of raqiya’ in Gen. 1:6-8. Westminster Theological Journal 53: 227-240.
[17] Seely, P.H. 1997. The geographical meaning of ‘earth’ and ‘seas’ in Genesis 1:10. Westminster Theological Journal 59(2): 236.
[18] Holding, J. P. 1999. Is the raqiya’ (‘firmament’) a solid dome? Equivocal language in the cosmology of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a response to Paul H. Seely. CEN Technical Journal 13(2): 46.
[19] Mortenson, T. 2020. The firmament: what did God create on day 2? Answers Research Journal 13 (August 19): 113–133.
[20] Seely, P.H., 1997. The geographical meaning of ‘earth’ and ‘seas’ in Genesis 1:10. Westminster Theological Journal 59(2): 246.
[21] Mortenson, T. 2020. The firmament: what did God create on day 2? Answers Research Journal 13 (August 19): 113–133.
[22] Ryken, L., et al. 2000. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (p. 169). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
[23] Oswalt, J. N. 2009. The Bible among the Myths: Unique Revelation or Just Ancient Literature? (p. 63). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.
[24] Weeks, N., The Hermeneutical Problem of Genesis 1–11, Themelios 4(1): 12–19, 1978.
[25] Phillips, R. D. 2023. Genesis (Reformed Expository Commentary) (p. 81-82). Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing.
[26] Holding, J. P. 2000. Is the ’erets (earth) flat? Journal of Creation 14 (December): 51–54. https://creation.com/is-the-erets-earth-flat
[27] Sailhamer, J. H. 1992. The Pentateuch as Narrative (p. 89). Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.
[28] Holding, J. P. 1999. Is the raqiya’ (‘firmament’) a solid dome? Equivocal language in the cosmology of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a response to Paul H. Seely. CEN Technical Journal 13(2): 50.
[29] Harris, R. L., et al (Eds.). 2003. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press.
[30] Holding, J. P. 1999. Is the raqiya’ (‘firmament’) a solid dome? Equivocal language in the cosmology of Genesis 1 and the Old Testament: a response to Paul H. Seely. CEN Technical Journal 13(2): 44.
[31] Ibid, p. 45.