In the previous study we dealt with the ‘first day’ of the first account of origins, which I claimed set in motion the diurnal cycle necessary for life on this Earth. Today we will deal with the ‘second day’ found in Genesis 1.6-8. We will see that this day also plays a role that contributes to the life sustaining properties of the Earth.
Hebrew text:

6 וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים יְהִ֥י רָקִ֖יעַ בְּת֣וֹךְ הַמָּ֑יִם וִיהִ֣י מַבְדִּ֔יל בֵּ֥ין מַ֖יִם לָמָֽיִם׃

7 וַיַּ֣עַשׂ אֱלֹהִים֮ אֶת־הָרָקִיעַ֒ וַיַּבְדֵּ֗ל בֵּ֤ין הַמַּ֙יִם֙ אֲשֶׁר֙ מִתַּ֣חַת לָרָקִ֔יעַ וּבֵ֣ין הַמַּ֔יִם אֲשֶׁ֖ר מֵעַ֣ל לָרָקִ֑יעַ וַֽיְהִי־כֵֽן׃

8 וַיִּקְרָ֧א אֱלֹהִ֛ים לָֽרָקִ֖יעַ שָׁמָ֑יִם וַֽיְהִי־עֶ֥רֶב וַֽיְהִי־בֹ֖קֶר י֥וֹם שֵׁנִֽי׃

Transliteration:
6 way·yō·mer ’ĕ·lō·hîm, yə·hî rā·qî·a‘ bə·ṯō·wḵ ham·mā·yim; wî·hî maḇ·dîl, bên ma·yim lā·mā·yim.
7 way·ya·‘aś ’ĕ·lō·hîm ’eṯ- hā·rā·qî·a‘ way·yaḇ·dêl, bên ham·ma·yim ’ă·šer mit·ta·ḥaṯ lā·rā·qî·a‘, ū·ḇên ham·ma·yim, ’ă·šer mê·‘al lā·rā·qî·a‘; way·hî- ḵên.
8 way·yiq·rā ’ĕ·lō·hîm lā·rā·qî·a‘ šā·mā·yim; way·hî- ‘e·reḇ way·hî- ḇō·qer yō·wm šê·nî.
NIV:

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”

7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.

8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Study:
The ‘second day’ of origins begins with God saying, “Let there be a vault…” The word translated ‘vault’ is רָקִיעַ (raqia), which means ‘a canopy’, ‘an extended surface’, or ‘an expanse’ and we find English translations using some of these.
The word רָקִיעַ (raqia) is used only 17 times in the entire Old Testament, 9 times in Genesis 1 of which the last 4 occurrences include the phrase ‘of the heavens’ where the word שָׁמַיִם (shamayim) is used. Rick Lanser does a brilliant job analyzing the different occurrences of רָקִיעַ (raqia), arguing against a position that states that רָקִיעַ (raqia) means the Earth’s crust. However, he proposes the view that it refers to the farthest reaches of the observable universe, a view that would have been quite unintelligible to the author of Genesis.¹ While I accept his grammatical and semantic analysis, I reject his conclusion as just another attempt to harmonize the biblical text with the current claims of science.
David Read correctly argues that, in light of v. 8, where God calls the רָקִיעַ (raqia) שָׁמַיִם (shamayim), we should understand it to mean ‘the sky’.² However, Read argues that divine inspiration means that the author was not influenced by his surroundings – the Babylonian culture in this case. I find this argument untenable since the Christian faith is a historical faith as a result of which we must do everything we can to root our scriptures in their historical contexts.
Read does a good job tracing the history of translation of רָקִיעַ (raqia), showing how the Septuagint, which used στερέωμα (stereoma), influenced the Vulgate, which used firmamentum, which in turn influenced the King James Version, which used firmament. And despite my earlier objection, I should observe that he argues convincingly that the idea that the Ancients believed that there was a physical separation in the sky is unsupported by evidence.
Interestingly, Read concedes that the Babylonians believed there was a physical separation. However, Jonathan Homrighausen takes the opposite view that the Babylonians did not believe there was a physical separation but that the Hebrews did!³ I find that both of them easily concede the view that one culture believed that there was a physical separation.
I differ with both of them. I believe the idea that the Ancients held absurd beliefs – in this case a physical separation between the sky and the earth is just another element of Enlightenment propaganda to make us believe that humans were clueless prior to the works of Hume, Locke, Spinoza, Voltaire and their likes. None of the texts unambiguously refers to any physical separation. It is only translators who have introduced this idea and have then said, “See? There it is!” This is circular reasoning.
The simple fact of the matter is that, while the Ancients did not have access to modern scientific methods, they were not blind! Their cosmology was based on observations. And while they may have had a geocentric cosmology, probably in most places very similar to that proposed by Ptolemy,⁴ they could clearly observe that there was no physical barrier that could be a separation. It is unlikely that any ancient author actually thought there was a physical separation. They may have used words like ‘dome’ to explain what is observed – the celestial bodies do appear to be in a dome when viewed from the Earth with the naked eyes. And they may have used words like ‘firmament’ simply to underscore their belief that these celestial bodies are not going to fall to the Earth and wreak havoc. To come to the conclusion that they used these words in a literal, physical sense is a prejudicial view based on a faulty notion that science and scientific endeavors actually make us more intelligent rather than simply better informed.⁵
But our text is poetic in nature. And so we should refrain from pressing the meanings of any words too far lest we lose out on the poetic elements that the author chose to use. The point of vv. 6-8 is that God separated waters that are below the רָקִיעַ (raqia) from waters that are above it. The emphasis is not on how the separation is done nor on what the barriers consists of.
Rather, the point is that there are waters below, presumably referring to the oceans, seas, rivers, stream, geysers, hot springs and the like, and waters above, presumably referring to rain, snow, hail, and the like. Both these sources of water are essential for life on Earth. The Ancients knew this. Plants, including cultivated crops, rely on rains in its proper seasons while birds and land animals, humans included, require fresh water daily.
The point of vv. 6-8 is that God has set in motion that processes that allow for regular fresh water for those creatures that need it, salt water for those creatures that need it and rains for the plants that need it. In other words, rather than telling us that there is a barrier – physical or otherwise – that separates the waters above from the waters below the text is telling us how God has provided water, including the seasons of rain that were and are to critical to life on the Earth.

Prayer:
Our gracious God, who provides us with life sustaining water and the regular seasons without which life on this planet could not exist, we pray that you would open our eyes to see the daily evidences of your grace and provision to us. Enable us each day to be awestruck by your provision and not fall into the trap of seeing you only in what is out of the ordinary. Help us to see that you are the God who provides for and sustains us every moment of our lives. We pray this in the name of Jesus. Amen.

---

^{1. Lanser, Rick. Genesis 1 and the Raqia. (Accessed on 29 December 2018)↩}

^{2. Read, David. Raqia: ‘Expanse’ or ‘Vault’? (Accessed on 29 December 2018)↩}

^{3. Homrighausen, Jonathan. Jerome on the “firmamentum” in Genesis 1:6. (Accessed on 29 December 2018)↩}

^{4. Jones, Alexander Raymond. Ptolemaic System in Encyclopedia Britannica. (Accessed on 29 December 2019). Note that the article does a good job of placing Nicolaus Copernicus in a proper historical context since he actually for quite some time accepted and worked with the ptolemaic system and even used the idea of spheres to account for the spacing between planets just a Ptolemy had.↩}

^{5. As an aside, Sir Isaac Newton would not have been able to understand Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity. But that does not mean Einstein was more intelligent than Newton. Einstein just had access to more data and information than Newton did. In a similar manner, Vincent van Gogh, who lived after Newton, probably did not understand Newton’s law of gravity. However, it would be quite incorrect to say that Newton was, therefore, more intelligent than van Gogh. It is easy to confuse information for intelligence when they are actually two quite distinct notions. And it is easy to prejudice certain kinds of intelligence when, in fact, there are many.
↩}