Hi, I'm Becca. I'm a follower of Jesus who decided to write a blog one day. Please leave comments and tell me what you think.
"The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things" (Acts 17:24-25 NASB).
God named the dome ‘sky.’ So there was evening, and there was morning. Day
The dome receives the name “sky” in this verse. The
word translated “sky” (שָׁמָיִם, shamayim) is also
translated “heavens”—as in the traditional translation of Genesis 1:1 (“God
created the heavens [שָׁמָיִם] and the earth”). This is only the second time that the word שָׁמָיִם has occurred in the Genesis 1 text. So far, Genesis 1:1 is the
only other place we’ve seen it.
I still remember conceiving of the sky as a “dome”
myself when I looked up at night in my backyard as a small child—and this was
even when I was well aware that the earth is spherical.
Obviously, because the earth is spherical, we now
know why the sky appears to be dome. But
the ancients only observed what little God had revealed to them. Perhaps there
was some ancient people who realized that the earth was actually spherical, but
that isn’t the point of this passage anyway.
This is a poetic account of God creating and naming
all that exists, culminating in his creation of us (verses 26–30) to enjoy and
care for what he has created.
That this account is poetry should already be
evident by now, especially with the refrain “and there was evening, and there
was morning,” which we’ve also seen in verse 5.
So to recap:
Day one: God creates light and separates the light
form the darkness, calling the light “day” and the darkness “night.”
Day two: God creates a dome separating the waters
above from the waters below, calling it “sky.”
Stay tuned for more!
Lend Me Your Thoughts
Do you think this is a poetic account or a
scientific account? If you think it’s a scientific account, please point out
why you think so. If you agree that it’s a poetic account, please point out any
areas you might think I missed.
Do you think it matters whether we see this account
as poetic or scientific? If so, why?