This is the online edition of In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
(7th Edition) by Dr. Walt Brown. The online version of the book is designed to be read online.
A PDF version or hardbound print version may be ordered.
Copyright © 1995–2008, Center for Scientific Creation. All rights reserved.
Click here to order the hardbound print edition of this online book.
Why then, does Genesis 1:8a state, “And God called the expanse heaven”? Perhaps “heaven” (thought of today as atmosphere or outer space) is always the proper translation for raqia, and the Septuagint and Vulgate translators incorrectly associated solidness with it. However, the similarities of raqia ((ayqirf) with baqia ((ayqib@f) and raqa ((qarf) argue against this. [See page 365.] If raqia always means “heaven,” five questions, or apparent textual contradictions, arise.
Question 1: Why was the word raqia followed by the phrase “of the heavens” in Genesis 1:14, 15, 17, and 20? That would be redundant.
Question 2: If raqia implies a canopy, why wasn’t one of the three Hebrew words that clearly means “canopy” used?
Question 3: Genesis 1:8a defines heaven after the word “heavens” was first used in Genesis 1:1. Normally a word’s meaning is understood from the context of its first usage. Furthermore, Genesis 1:1 says that the heavens were created on the first day.19 However, if raqia always means “heaven,” then Genesis 1:8a says heaven was created on the second day.
Question 4: Genesis 1:9 states, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear.” Obviously, these are earth’s surface waters. If “heaven” and “raqia” are identical, as canopy theorists believe, why did Genesis 1:9 not read, “Let the waters below be gathered into one place”? That would have been sufficient, clear, and consistent with the phrasing of Genesis 1:7. It would also make clear that the raqia is above—not below—the surface waters. Instead, the text reads, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place.” The words “the heavens” had to be added to specify that surface waters were gathered into one place. To refer to “the waters below” (without “of the heavens” added) would point to subterranean waters.
Question 5: If raqia means “heaven,” was liquid water placed above “heaven,” as Genesis 1:7 states? Because the Sun, Moon, and stars were placed in the raqia (of the heavens) and liquid water was placed above the raqia, were all heavenly bodies inside the canopy?20
Genesis 1:8a, as typically translated and understood, seems inconsistent with many verses. Either we do not understand the true meaning of raqia and shamayim, or something is mistranslated or inserted.
After struggling to understand Genesis 1:8a for 30 years, I described several possible interpretations of Genesis 1:8a in the 7th edition of this book, 2001. (One of these is discussed in “Something to Think About: ‘Fire in Waters’ ” on page 372.) In 2005, I received independent letters from two pastors proposing an explanation.21 Before Adam’s fall, the earth was a paradise; in a sense, it was “heaven on earth.” Therefore, God called the firmament (earth’s crust) heaven. Each pastor provided different biblical reasons for his view, but both maintain that our difficulty in understanding Genesis 1:8a results largely from our inability to imagine the original paradise. If man had not fallen, no one would have difficulty with the fact that God called the earth, “heaven.”
Confirmation of this is in Randy Alcorn’s outstanding book, Heaven (2004).22 His case is so detailed, voluminous, and strong that any attempt to summarize it here would not do justice to his work. As Alcorn points out, nonbiblical stereotypes of heaven have crept into our Christian culture. I believe that this accounts for much of our confusion over Genesis 1:8a. (Every Christian should study what the Bible actually says.) The earth was created with the intention that it would be heaven. The fall destroyed that plan, and the earth was cursed. Alcorn also discusses the future “new earth.”
Those who reject this proposed understanding of expanse and Genesis 1:8a should carefully weigh the two alternatives shown in Table 22.