The Second Day Of Creation: The Firmament

[kafka]

I'm working on my own commentary of the seven days of Creation in the book of Genesis.

Some of my basic beliefs are:

* Sacred Scripture is infallible and inerrant on all matters including science. And that there is some limited expressions of 'how' things came to be which agree with scientific discovery.

* The creation account of the seven days contain both literal and figurative elements, in some expressions the literal and figurative elements are seemlessly united.

* The days are symbolic of vast periods of time, and the events described within the days are a summation of what unfolded or came to maturation within a particular vast period.

* The Sacred Author was inspired by God by means of supernatural visions into the past, present and future (as strange as this sounds). I just learned that the views of some Fathers of the Church and Saints were similar, yet in addition I think the Sacred Author saw into the future, based on my understanding of what the sixth and seventh days are. So there is a mystical element to this account.

* The seven days of Creation are an ordered summation of all of salvation history from the beginning of the universe to the consummation of the first world-age and beyond.

* The seven days can only be fully understood with faith and reason, reason including the modern scientific discoveries. I think the Fathers of the Church and other commentators struggled in the past to unlock some of the figurative elements, not for lack of grace, wisdom, understanding, scholarship etc. but for lack of scientific knowledge. I realize this also sounds like a strange conclusion, but it is partially based on a passage from Divino Afflante Spiritu, an encyclical of Pope Pius XII. And we do approach Divine Revelation with faith and reason. Fides et Ratio.

So the Second Day of Creation:

{1:6} God also said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide waters from waters.”
{1:7} And God made a firmament, and he divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament. And so it became.
{1:8} And God called the firmament ‘Heaven.’ And it became evening and morning, the second day.

My basic interpretation is that the firmament a symbol for our solar system. The waters are a symbol for the gases of a molecular cloud (a stellar nursery), and also for the elements which eventually accrue into the planets. The scientific evidence based on obersvation and measurments is that the solar system was formed as a set. But the process of how the planets formed around the Sun is still somewhat of a mystery, though the scientists are coming closer to a better explanation under the guidance of the nebular hypothesis, astrophysics and the observation of protoplanetary disks in the Orion Nebula recently captured by the Hubble Space Telescope and other stuff. I trying to research these things to augment my commentary.

But basically I think the second day is a summary of the event of the birth and maturation of our solar system. The third day begins when the Earth was young. I am working on a detailed commentary on why I think the firmament and waters are fitting symbols for the unfolding of this event, as well as the meaning of the dividing of the waters, above and under. But I just posted this here, because I need some encouragment from time to time. Or some kind of comments would be nice. I really dont have anyone to share this stuff with.

Edited December 19, 2010 by kafka

[rkwright]

hmm I will be watching this thread...

It would be interesting if you could add some other sources as well. I think Augustine did a very interesting commentary on the 7 days. I remember reading it a while back, but have forgotten most of it.

[kafka]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1292866059' post='2193637']
hmm I will be watching this thread...

It would be interesting if you could add some other sources as well. I think Augustine did a very interesting commentary on the 7 days. I remember reading it a while back, but have forgotten most of it.
[/quote]
I wont be adding much to the thread unless in response to comments or questions. The details will end up in my book. This is just a teaser. And I was hoping for a little encouragement. But hopefully it will all come together in the book well.

I might add an indirect spiritual insight Augustine had into the seperation of the lightness and darkness, but for the most part I am aiming at my own original commentary as a Roman Catholic living in the 21st century.

Saint Augustine started three literal commentaries on the Creation account in different stages of his life, but they all ended up turning into figurative interpretations. His overall conclusion places his interpretations in the Idealist category: simultaneous creation, though in the second commentary I think he considered the days could possibly be figurative for vast periods of time. (the differences in interepretation or so varied over the centuries that there are actual categories of interpretations!)

Here is a good article from newadvent/Catholic encyclopedia (1909)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07310a.htm

from this article I learned that some Fathers and Saints (Chrysostom, Ambrose, Basil, Gregary of Nyssa) all in some way suggested either Adam or the Sacred Author of the account was inspired by visions into the past. I just about lept for joy when I learned this, because I came to this conclusion independently. Yet I take it even further based on some insights I have come up with. I have a lot of confidence in the gift of inspiration and in God's word.

Edited December 20, 2010 by kafka

[rkwright]

well I do have a question... what do you mean by "inerrant on all matter scientifically"?

I'm not sure what this entails. Take for example the 7 days; science tells us 7 days are 7, 24 hour periods. Later you say that these are "vast periods of time". So I'm missing something here - I don't think you're inconsistent, its probably more that I am not understanding your terms.

[phatcatholic]

Here are some online commentaries on Gen 1 that may be of help to you:

[url=http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis1.htm]NAB footnotes[/url]:
[indent]The abyss: the primordial ocean according to the ancient Semitic cosmogony. After God's creative activity, part of this vast body forms the salt-water seas (Genesis 1:9-10); part of it is the fresh water under the earth (Psalm 33:7; Ezekiel 31:4), which wells forth on the earth as springs and fountains (Genesis 7:11; 8:2; Proverb 3:20). Part of it, "the upper water" (Psalm 148:4; Daniel 3:60), is held up by the dome of the sky (Genesis 1:6-7), from which rain descends on the earth (Genesis 7:11; 2 Kings 7:2, 19; Psalm 104:13). A mighty wind: literally, "a wind of God," or "a spirit of God"; cf Genesis 8:1.[/indent]

[url=http://groups.google.com/group/dailyword/browse_thread/thread/11a0705ee8bffd8d/a21349130f4260bf]Navarre Bible Commentary[/url]:
[indent]In line with the culture of their time, the early Hebrews thought that rain came from huge containers of water in the vault of heaven; when trapdoors were opened, the rain poured down. When it says here that God separated the water which were above the firmament from those below, what is really being taugt is that God imposed order on the natural world and is responsible for the phenomenon of rain. It is also making it clear from the outset that the firmament must not be thought to involve any divinity (as was believed in the nations roundabout Israel); the firmament is part of the created world.[/indent]

[url=http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id327.html]Haydock's Douay-Rheims Bible Commentary[/url]:
[indent][b]Ver. 6.[/b] A [i]firmament[/i]. By this name is here understood the whole space between the earth and the highest stars. The lower part of which divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds. (Challoner) --- The Hebrew [i]Rokia [/i]is translated [i]stereoma[/i], solidity by the Septuagint., and expansion by most of the moderns. The heavens are often represented as a tent spread out, Psalm. ciii. 3. (Calmet)

[b]Ver. 7. [/b][i]Above the firmament[/i] and stars, according to some of the Fathers; or these waters were vapours and clouds arising from the earth, and really divided from the lower waters contained in the sea. (Calmet)[/indent]

Also see the following articles:
[list][*]Fr. William G. Most: [url=http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=81]Commentary on Genesis[/url]
[*]Fr. William G. Most, [i]Basic Scripture[/i]: [url=http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=6&ChapNum=10]Chapter 9 - "The Book of Genesis"[/url]
[*]St. Victorinus of Petau: [url=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0711.htm]On the Creation of the World[/url]
[*]Msgr. John F. McCarthy: [i]A Neo-Patristic Return to the First Four Days of Creation[/i]
[list][*]Part 1: [url=http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt45.html]Response to a Form-Critical Interpretation[/url]
[*]Part 2: [url=http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt46.html]The Literal Sense of Gen 1:1-5, The First Day of Creation[/url]
[*]Part 3: [url=http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt47.html]The Days of Creation According to St. Augustine[/url]
[*]Part 4: [url=http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt48.html]The Second Day of Creation[/url]
[*]Part 5: [url=http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt49.html]The First Four Days According to St. Thomas[/url]
[*]Part 6: [url=http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt50.html]The Creation and Formation of the Physical Universe[/url][/list][/list]

I hope that helps.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

Edited December 21, 2010 by phatcatholic

[kafka]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1292886654' post='2193689']
well I do have a question... what do you mean by "inerrant on all matter scientifically"?

I'm not sure what this entails. Take for example the 7 days; science tells us 7 days are 7, 24 hour periods. Later you say that these are "vast periods of time". So I'm missing something here - I don't think you're inconsistent, its probably more that I am not understanding your terms.
[/quote]
Sacred Scripture is totally inspired by God. Total inerrancy and total infallibility on all matters without expection proceeds from total inspiration. So any scientific assertions expressed in Sacred Scripture are inerrant and infallible for all times straight through modern times and the modern scientific discoveries. Sometimes fallen and sinful human persons read Sacred Scripture and for various reasons see apparent scientific errors. When in fact it is their own understanding which has erred and not God. Part of the reason some people do this is perhaps they lack belief in inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility. In addition they perhaps do not understand that the Sacred Authors often use figurative expressions, at times even combining literal and figurative elements. In addition some people think Sacred Scripture is naive, simple, stuck in the past, mythological, a product of culture, etc. when in fact it is inspired by God and so much more. Profound, sophisticated, complex, transcending space, time, culture, and so on.

But in general we are all fallen and sinful so we need grace to guide us in understanding Scripture. But grace does not exist apart from reason.

But the Catholic teaching is total inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility. Here is one Magisterial teaching:

"When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine [total inspiration, inerrancy and infallibility], by which such divine authority is claimed for the "entire books with all their parts" as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, [b]whether in the domain of physical science [/b]or history, as "obiter dicta" and - as they contended - in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules. (Adam, Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 1)"

As far as the days are concerned. Its been a debated over the centuries on whether or not the Sacred Author used the day as a literal or figurative expression. I am firmly convinced the day is used as a symbol or figure of speech for a vast period of time, and not used to represent a literal day 24 hour day. I explain in detail why I think this in my commentary, but one reason I do is simply because science has firmly concluded with a vast collection of evidence and measurement that the universe as well as the earth develeped over billions of years. The age of the universe and earth is old, very old. Therefore the days must be figurative. But there are more reasons.

Understanding the days as figurative expressions for vast periods of time is in my opinion one key for an integral and organic commentary which will unlock the meaning of this profound, sweeping, accurate and radiant account of Creation, God has given us.

[quote name='phatcatholic' timestamp='1292892963' post='2193699']
Here are some online commentaries on Gen 1 that may be of help to you:

I hope that helps.

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic
[/quote]
thanks, I've browsed some of those, they might help. I am aiming at my own original commentary as a Roman Catholic in the 21st Century, in a Living Tradition which has developed over centuries, in the spirit of Pius XII's call in Divino Afflante Spiritu:

“Moreover we may rightly and deservedly hope that our time also can contribute something towards the deeper and more accurate interpretation of Sacred Scripture. For not a few things, especially in matters pertaining to history, were scarcely at all or not fully explained by the commentators of past ages, since they lacked almost all the information which was needed for their clearer exposition. How difficult for the Fathers themselves, and indeed well nigh unintelligible, were certain passages is shown, among other things, by the oft-repeated efforts of many of them to explain the first chapters of Genesis. . . "

Edited December 21, 2010 by kafka

[kafka]

Hey Phatcatholic. I like some of the insights Msgr. John F. McCarthy comes up with in part six of his commentaries. Some are similar to mine. I like the fact that he is taking science into account. Excellent. He is more of a scholar than I am though. Mine will be a little more simple.

Edited December 21, 2010 by kafka

[kafka]

db

Edited December 21, 2010 by kafka