The implausibility of the heavenly-sea interpretation increases because of its lack of contact with ordinary experience. There is no providential experience of a heavenly sea, whereas there is providential experience of rain descending from clouds. ![]() 1 teaches about creation using analogies from providential experience. 1:6-8 as a reference to a heavenly sea violates the key principle that Gen. May we ask whether this interpretation is plausible?įinally, we may observe that an interpretation of Gen. 1:6-8 mentions the first and the third, even though the third is irrelevant, while leaving out the second, which is continually relevant for crops and for herds. Once we acknowledge that Israelites knew that rain comes from clouds, a modern theory about the heavenly sea has to postulate not two bodies of water, but three: the sea on earth, the water inside the clouds, and the heavenly sea. In fact, introducing a heavenly sea creates interpretive problems rather than solving them. The alleged heavenly sea is irrelevant, and so it must be rejected as not pertinent to interpreting 1:6-8. Thus Genesis 1:6-8 is speaking about water above, such as Israelites received from clouds. In Genesis 1 as a whole and in Genesis 1:6-8 in particular God speaks about acts of creation that not only evoke praise but have practical interest to human beings. Genesis 1 speaks about things relevant to Israelites.In general, the Old Testament instructs Israelites about things that affect their lives.Israelites thought of dew as another form of provision of moisture “from heaven,” more or less parallel to rain.In a manner analogous to the heavens being “shut,” the Old Testament may describe rain as coming when the heavens are “opened.”.The Bible uses language about the heavens being “shut” to describe a situation with lack of rain. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |