The Waters Above: Reading Genesis Through Ancient Eyes

 

Understanding the Expanse and Waters Above in Genesis 1:6-8

"Then God said, 'Let there be an expanse between the waters, separating water from water.' So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above the expanse. And it was so. God called the expanse 'sky.' Evening came and then morning: the second day." —Genesis 1:6-8 (CSB)

The concept of the expanse (firmament) and the "waters above" in Genesis 1:6-8 has been a subject of theological and scientific discussion for centuries. In the mid-20th century, Young Earth Creationists (YEC), such as Henry Morris, posited the existence of a water vapor canopy encircling the earth, the collapse of which was thought to have triggered the Great Flood. (1) However, scientific advancements have demonstrated the untenability of this hypothesis, leading some modern YEC proponents to suggest that Genesis 1:6-8 refers to a layer of ice particles at the edge of the universe. (2)

Long before the rise of Scientific Creationism, early Jewish and Christian writers interpreted the "waters above" within their own cultural and cosmological frameworks. Therefore, a closer examination of ancient Near Eastern thought and literature offers valuable insight into this passage's original meaning.

Ancient Cosmology and the Literary Framework of Genesis

It is crucial to note that Genesis was not written in isolation from its historical and cultural context. The biblical authors were not miraculously endowed with modern scientific knowledge, and neither they nor their audience would have comprehended such information. Rather, Genesis was composed using literary conventions and concepts familiar to the ancient Near East, particularly within the genre of creation myths.

The stylistic and structural parallels between Genesis and ancient Near Eastern creation narratives strongly indicate that it was composed as a deliberate theological rebuttal to the prevailing mythologies of neighboring cultures. Recognizing this is crucial to interpreting Genesis 1-2—not as a scientific treatise but as a theological polemic. Rather than presenting a literal, scientific account of creation, Genesis serves as a counter-narrative that challenges and redefines the cosmological beliefs of surrounding civilizations, affirming Yahweh's supreme authority over the cosmos

The Expanse and the Waters Above: An Ancient Perspective

Ancient Near Eastern civilizations—including those of Egypt, Ugarit, and Babylon—conceived of the sky as a solid dome that acted as a barrier, holding back a vast cosmic ocean. The ancient Hebrews, like their contemporaries, envisioned the earth as a flat disc resting on foundational pillars, which extended into the underworld. Above this disc lay the raqia (רָקִיעַ), a firmament separating the earthly waters from the waters above.

The etymology of raqia further reinforces this conceptual framework. The term derives from the Hebrew root raqa (רקע) meaning to spread out or hammer thin, often used to describe the process of beating metal into plates (e.g., Exodus 39:3). This suggests that the Hebrews conceptualized the firmament as a solid, metallic-like structure—a belief consistent with other ancient cosmologies.

Several biblical passages provide additional evidence:

• Job 37:18 describes the sky as being "hard like a cast metal mirror."

• Ezekiel 1:26 compares the firmament to lapis lazuli, a valuable blue stone, indicating a solid, structured expanse.

• Revelation 4:6 describes God's throne resting upon a transparent, crystalline surface, reflecting Greco-Roman cosmological developments, which envisioned a spherical earth encased within solid celestial spheres.

Additionally, the Apocryphal Book of Baruch (c. 586 BC) describes a solid sky in its retelling of the Tower of Babel account, while rabbinic writings reveal that the concept of a sky-dome persisted well into the 6th century AD.

Ancient Observations and Their Logical Conclusions

For pre-scientific cultures, cosmological understanding was rooted in observable phenomena and human experience. The sky appeared blue by day and dark at night, resembling the color changes in large bodies of water. Rain fell from the sky, which ancient peoples interpreted as water passing through openings in a solid heavenly barrier (e.g., Genesis 7:11, which speaks of the "windows of heaven" opening). Consequently, they logically inferred that the sky must be a solid boundary holding back an immense cosmic ocean.

Genesis 1:6-8, therefore, reflects this ancient conceptualization, depicting God as constructing the raqia to divide the "waters above" from the "waters below," shaping the cosmos according to the prevailing worldview of the time.

Inerrancy and the Accommodationist Approach to Genesis

Given the apparent scientific inaccuracies in Genesis, how should we reconcile them with biblical inerrancy? The key lies in correctly identifying Genesis 1-2’s genre.

If we assume Genesis is a modern historical and scientific narrative, we may feel compelled to either assert that Genesis contains errors or force scientific explanations onto the text—neither of which properly considers the cultural, linguistic, and literary context.

However, if Genesis is recognized as a polemic, we need not apply modern scientific paradigms to its interpretation. Instead, Genesis provides a theological argument against the mythologies of its time. The crucial message is not the precise mechanics of creation but rather who created the universe, why He created it, and why He alone is sovereign and worthy of worship.

In this view, God did not supernaturally encode modern scientific knowledge into the ancient text to prove Himself to contemporary readers. Rather, He communicated within the understanding of ancient peoples, meeting them where they were—a concept known as accommodationism.

As Paul writes in Romans 1:19-20, "What can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made."

Conclusion

Genesis 1-2 reflects the cosmological worldview of the ancient Near East rather than a modern scientific account of creation. Its literary style and theological focus indicate that it was written as a polemic against surrounding pagan mythologies, affirming Yahweh's sole sovereignty over creation.

Rather than providing a literal, scientifically precise depiction of the universe's formation, Genesis emphasizes the theological truths of divine authorship, purpose, and authority. By understanding Genesis in its original historical and cultural setting, we can more fully appreciate the timeless message of God’s creative power and ultimate dominion.

My Journey Out of YECism

 

My journey away from Young Earth Creationism (YECism) began with a simple yet profound question: Is YECism supported by Scripture?

I was raised in a YEC environment, and my only exposure to apologetics came from Answers in Genesis. As a result, I believed evangelism meant convincing people that evolution was false and that YECism was true. To me, Christian apologetics was synonymous with young-earth apologetics.

However, after witnessing close friends and family deconstruct their faith one after another, I was compelled to study apologetics more deeply—focusing on the essentials, particularly the evidence for Jesus and His resurrection. This naturally led me to explore topics like textual criticism, the reliability of the New Testament, and the cultural context and literary genres within Scripture.

Much to my surprise, I discovered that the evidence for my faith was far stronger than I had ever known, based on what I had been taught by AiG. This realization prompted me to apply the same principles I used in studying the New Testament to my YEC beliefs. At the time, I was still committed to YECism and approached the question with a genuine desire to determine whether the teachings I had accepted and had shared with others were truly supported by Scripture.

I was not questioning whether the Bible was true or authoritative—I already believed it was. Nor was I seeking to reinterpret Scripture to accommodate a secret fascination with evolution or millions of years. Rather, I wanted to ensure that the things I had claimed about Scripture were indeed biblically grounded. If they were not, I understood that I needed to adjust my thinking to align with God's Word.

Applying the same critical criteria that had confirmed the reliability of the New Testament and using the logic I had previously employed to challenge non-YEC interpretations, I soon became convinced that the Bible did not support YECism or many of the claims I had once made about it. As a result, I changed my stance.

My departure from YECism was not based on accepting evolution or scientific evidence imposed onto Scripture—it was rooted in a deeper understanding of the text in its original context.

Contrary to the claims of AiG and other YEC organizations, there is a fundamental difference between asking, "Is the Bible true?" and "Does the Bible support a particular teaching?" The former is often a question of trust—whether the Bible is reliable on a given point. Someone asking this question may ultimately rely on their own judgment, potentially dismissing Scripture if it contradicts their preconceived ideas.

Conversely, someone asking whether the Bible supports a specific teaching is engaging in discernment. They are more likely to allow Scripture to shape their conclusions, adjusting their understanding if their initial beliefs prove to be inaccurate.

As Christians, we should strive to be in the latter category—approaching Scripture with humility and a willingness to be shaped by God's truth rather than filtering it through our own biases. Instead of seeking confirmation for our existing beliefs, we must allow the Word to refine and correct us, growing in wisdom and understanding.

The Theology of Death: Reconciling God's Sovereign Plan with Creation

 

The discussion surrounding animal death in God’s creation has long been a point of contention, particularly among those who adhere to young earth creationism. Some argue that death—especially animal death—contradicts the redemptive work of Christ, while others maintain that Scripture presents animal death as part of God’s intended design rather than a tragic consequence of sin.

Dr. Timothy Mortenson asserts:

"To accept millions of years of animal death before the creation and Fall of man contradicts and destroys the Bible’s teaching on death and the full redemptive work of Christ." (1)

Similarly, Ken Ham states:

"So to believe in millions of years is a gospel issue. This belief ultimately impugns the character of the Creator and Savior and undermines the foundation of the soul-saving gospel." (2)

Yet, despite these concerns, the Bible itself does not present animal death as intrinsically evil or contrary to God’s plan.

Was Christ's Sacrifice an Afterthought?

Some argue that death could not have existed before the Fall because Christ's sacrifice was meant to counteract sin and its consequences. However, even leading YEC proponents at Answers in Genesis acknowledge that Christ’s sacrifice was foreordained before the world was created.

Steve Ham explains:

"As the One who is before all things, He (God) providentially rules over all things as He pleases. Christ is the sovereign Lord. He does not make choices willy nilly; nor is He surprised by anything that happens on earth—even Adam’s original sin. He is the unchangeable God, and what He purposed before the world was created will certainly happen. Nothing can change those plans. No, Jesus went to the Cross exactly as God had intended before the world began. ‘This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men’ (Acts 2:23). Jesus is the very design and accomplishment of God’s eternal wisdom. The plan of redemption was not a necessary afterthought to remedy a plan gone wrong. Jesus Christ had purposed to redeem us from eternity past. His work on the Cross is nothing short of the pinnacle of the revelation of God’s eternal and sovereign wisdom." (3)

This understanding reinforces the idea that God’s plan was never disrupted. If Christ’s sacrifice was foreordained, then the existence of death—even before the Fall—was anticipated and accounted for in God’s divine wisdom.

Does the Bible Actually Teach That Animal Death Came Through Adam?

YEC often relies on four main proof texts to support the premise that animal death came through Adam: Romans 5:12, 6:23, 8:19-23, and—though less frequently—1 Corinthians 15:21. However, a closer examination of these passages challenges YEC assumptions:

1. 1 Corinthians 15:21 is clearly referring only to human beings, as the surrounding context is focused on the resurrection of the dead.

2. Romans 6:23 explicitly states that "the wages of sin is death," referring to human spiritual death, not the death of animals.

3. Romans 5:12 states that death spread to all humans because all humans sin, but does not clarify whether this applies to all of creation.

4. Romans 8:19-23 states that creation was subjected to frustration (mataiotēti, ματαιότητι) and decay (phthoras, φθορᾶς), not death.

The word mataiotēti can be translated as futility or vanity, possibly alluding to Ecclesiastes, which emphasizes the futility of a life without God. Phthoras, translated as decay, can also mean corruption—which aligns with Paul’s focus in Romans on spiritual and moral corruption rather than physical death. Additionally, while some translations insert the word “death” into Romans 8:21, the original Greek does not include it. Instead, Paul seems to allude to the broken world-system created by fallen humanity rather than a universal death curse placed on all creation. Furthermore, we find no explicit reference to such a curse in Genesis 3, though that is where one might naturally expect it.

Ultimately, nothing in Scripture explicitly states that the creation was cursed with death because of Adam’s sin. While Romans 8 describes creation's groaning, it points toward the brokenness of the human condition and our ultimate redemption.

As uncomfortable as it may be for modern readers, the biblical authors did not view animal death as evil. Many passages in Scripture present animal death as part of God's provision, even as a good thing:

• Psalm 104:21, 147:9, and Job 38:41-49 praise God for providing carnivores and scavengers with food.
  
  

• Psalm 104:25-30 glorifies God as the giver and taker of life, including His care for Leviathan.
  
  

• Job 1:20-22 and Matthew 10:29 recognize God’s sovereignty over life and death.

The Bible also presents animal sacrifice as a good thing, not only for atonement but for thanksgiving and praise (Leviticus 7:11-38, 23:24-25, Psalm 116). Furthermore, God Himself permitted humans to eat animals—implicitly through the dominion verbs kabash (כָּבַשׁ) and radah (רָדָה) in Genesis 1:28, and explicitly in Genesis 9:3, when God reaffirmed His covenant with Noah after the Flood.

Was Creation "Perfect" Before the Fall?

Contrary to common assumptions, Genesis 1 does not say that creation was perfect. It states that God called it "very good" (towb meod, מְאֹ֑ד ט֖וֹב), meaning it functioned according to His plan. However, it does not use the Hebrew word for perfect (tamim, תָּמִים).

Old Testament scholar, Dr. John H. Walton explains: 

"Our modern Western system of ideas, which historians and philosophers call humanism, is based on the belief that human happiness constitutes the highest value and therefore the highest good. Happiness in turn is generally defined in terms of an absence of pain, such that our word evil is synonymous with human suffering. ...The cognitive environment of the ancient Near East, however, did not hold human happiness as the highest ideal. Their highest ideal is probably best described by our English word order. For ancient Near Easterners, a thing was good not based on the extent to which it produced human pleasure or alleviated human suffering, but to the extent to which it was functioning as it was intended to. ...This was part of the cognitive environment of the ancient world and was what ancient writers meant when they used the word that translators render in English as good." –The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, pp. 21, 22

Throughout Scripture, things God creates—including angels, Adam, and Eve—are not perfect in the same sense that God Himself is perfect. By imposing modern standards of perfection onto the Genesis account, YEC inadvertently judges God’s creation by flawed human logic rather than biblical truth.

Conclusion

Understanding death within God's creation challenges long-held assumptions, but it also invites us to see divine wisdom in a new light. If Christ’s sacrifice was foreordained from eternity, then death—even before the Fall—was neither a disruption nor an accident, but rather part of God's sovereign design. Instead of perceiving animal death as a tragic flaw in creation, Scripture reveals a tapestry of divine provision, order, and purpose.

Perhaps the discomfort surrounding death stems more from human limitations than from theological necessity. Modern perspectives often equate suffering with injustice, yet biblical wisdom points to a greater reality—one in which life and death are woven into the fabric of God's perfect plan. The question, then, is not whether death negates God's goodness, but whether our own expectations of perfection align with the way God Himself defines "very good."

Instead of asking whether death contradicts God's creation, perhaps we should consider whether our understanding of life and eternity is broad enough to embrace God's wisdom beyond human comprehension. As Isaiah 55:8-9 reminds us: "... my thoughts are not your thoughts, and your ways are not My ways. This is the Lord’s declaration. For as heaven is higher than earth, so My ways are higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts."

In the end, God's design may not conform to our expectations, but His wisdom far surpasses anything we could ever grasp.

See Also:

Six Non-Essential Doctrines Connected to the Age of the Earth