-1

We read in Genesis how God created heavens, earth and light :

"In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light." (Gen 1: 1-3)

Everyday science tells us that without light the temperature of the universe would be Absolute Zero, which means that everything including water that existed prior to creation of light would be in a frozen state. That could be the reason why Verse 1 says that the earth was a formless void. But Verse 9-10 go on to state :

“Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. "

That implies that water attained fluidity after the creation of light.

My question therefore is: In what form did water exist before the creation of light ? Inputs from any denomination are welcome .

Peter Turner
  • 34,505
  • 19
  • 118
  • 289
Kadalikatt Joseph Sibichan
  • 12,463
  • 5
  • 43
  • 87
  • So, this is a Physics question about the various states that are possible for H2O to exist in, whether solid (ice), liquid (water), gas (water vapour) or . . . . . dissociated. The last, fourth, state is called a plasma and I think that that answers your physics question about the states of H2O. However I dispute the timeline you are attempting to adopt for Genesis 1:1-2, but that is an entirely different question which is duplicated, over and over on the site, in more ways than I care to list. – Nigel J Aug 19 '21 at 11:18
  • 1
    Does this answer your question? How can the sun be created after day and night? – Nigel J Aug 19 '21 at 11:21
  • Simply imagine an earth that was a formless void and the darkness the covered the face of the deep. You will appreciate what the point my my question is. Was it not possible that permafrost covered the whole earth in uneven shapes ( just as what we find in Antarctica in night time ) before the warmth of light softened the ice ? – Kadalikatt Joseph Sibichan Aug 19 '21 at 11:45
  • And the deep ? Deep what ? Deep ice ? No sun. No stars. No light. No spectrum. No photons. – Nigel J Aug 19 '21 at 11:49
  • If God can create a planet out of nothing, then he can certainly do so with enough initial heat that it doesn't immediately freeze. – curiousdannii Aug 19 '21 at 12:55
  • @curiousdannii Indeed. The question has not even begun to consider the earth's inner core. The temperature at the inner core's surface is estimated to be approximately 5,700 K (5,430 °C; 9,800 °F), which is about the temperature at the surface of the Sun. Earth's inner core - Wikipedia. – Nigel J Aug 19 '21 at 13:05
  • There is, in fact, an interesting and compelling hypothesis that the Earth (and all other planets) did in fact start out not only as 100% H₂O, but all in the same orientation. Reportedly, this hypothesis accurately predicts the magnetic fields of the planets, in some cases even before they were known. This hypothesis would seem to further imply much of this initial water being transmuted into other elements. – Matthew Aug 19 '21 at 13:10
  • 2
    @Matthew, please provide references for this "interesting and compelling hypothesis". The expression "There is" could simply mean that your brother-in-law thought it up last week. – Ray Butterworth Aug 19 '21 at 13:14
  • "Let there be light" doesn't necessarily imply creation. For instance, it could be as simple as thinning the cloud layer to allow the Sun's light to penetrate to the surface of the Earth. See my answer to hebrew - Genesis 1:3, Did God Make Light? - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange. – Ray Butterworth Aug 19 '21 at 13:19
  • @RayButterworth, the original paper (which I haven't actually read, I've just seen references to it) appears to be "The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields", by Dr. Russell Humphreys. See also this article which is probably where I came across it. – Matthew Aug 19 '21 at 13:22
  • I think this is a very good and important question that highlights and exposes the need to a Biblical worldview otherwise any other explanation bankrupts the text. This forces the read to pick God’s Biblical or Secular anti-God cosmology. There is no middle ground. There is not harmonizing the two and this questions exposes this very truth. I have already upvoted this question – Autodidact Aug 21 '21 at 13:40
  • @KadalikattJosephSibichan I'd rather not see yet another tag get created for asking questions that we don't allow, like "pan-denomination" if you want an overview, please ask specifically "what is an overview of Christian denominations". Requesting answers from multiple perspectives is a close reason, the idea is that there should be one top answer. I think you're asking a hermenutics question more than anything - that's OK - just not here – Peter Turner Aug 24 '21 at 16:09

1 Answers1

0

The words for ice קרח and vapor הבל exist in Hebrew, therefore since it says that the Spirit was over the waters it means it was liquid

The OP claims

That implies that water attained fluidity after the creation of light

That is not correct chronologically

“The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:2‬ ‭

Spirit of God was on the face or surface of the waters. It is only after this that light was spoken and called forth in verse 3

“And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:3‬ ‭

It’s also disheartening to see in the comments section modern secular cosmological being imposed onto Biblical cosmology. Earth in the Bible is not a planet, in fact planets cannot exist in Biblical cosmology. The earth is a plane with the underworld not a globe spinning and a molten core.

I suspect the OP is trying to understand why the water was liquid, if it was liquid. But that’s probably because he too is thinking in terms of modern cosmology and vast empty space. The water was liquid because even if it would freeze eventually given the circumstances, it was so fresh, therefore it was liquid. This is another point towards the beginning being on the first day in verse 1 and not eons prior.

The OP sin the comments has asked a question that in part if scientific and factual but comes from a theoretical framework that is unrelated to the Cosmology of the Bible.

Seeing the current temperature of the universe (which he imagines is a vast empty vacuum of space, meaning modern, anti-God, secular, cosmology propaganda) how could water be liquid at second one, minute one, hour one, day one? I stop at day one because for him it’s sufficient for a light to exist for the waters to warm up or what actually occurred they maintained water.

Since this is a Biblical question it will have to be answered exegetical Ku and hermeneutically from the perspective of the author who inspired it and described His own creation and from the perspective of those who at the time believed the revelation description and the God who describes it.

While still remaining in the confines of scientific integrity but not restrained by modern cosmology that among other things demands for example a 13+ Billion year time span, whereas the Bible claims we are approaching according the Essence calendar the year 7,000 from day one of Creation, I will endeavor to explain why the waters were and remained liquid within a Biblical cosmology.

If there is nothing, meaning not even a space to place it in, then that nothing which doesn’t exist has no temperature. Heat transfers, but heat does not transfer through or into nothing. Beyond the universe God created which is not as massive as modern cosmology wants us to believe (you can continue to believe what you like, I’m describing Biblical cosmology and the answer to a Biblical cosmology question must be answered from a Biblical cosmological framework). Beyond this universe there is nothing. Heat cannot transfer into nothing.

Therefore this heat in this limited space, heavens (made of waters) and the earth as verse 1 indicates is confined to it.

Here is the point

When God decided to create something like waters and earth, he didn’t have to create them cold. He could have created them warm or hot. Therefore the waters within this limited space called Biblical universe were liquid, because they were created warm and they filled the space. Heat could not be lost.

Above and outside the universe (don’t think millions of light years away) think hundreds, possibly thousands of miles away) outside of this material thing, in the realm of nothing was the Spirit of God hovering over that something. He was hovering over waters or over the heavens that had not yet been separated. And if there is no separated heaven, then there are no heavenly bodies or beings to place those angelic creatures into. The universe (waters and earth) were that fresh. And therefore water could be liquid

All this could be so much easier to describe to someone who (even if they don’t accept Biblical Cosmology) understands Biblical Cosmology

Please don’t ask anymore questions on Biblical cosmology, research it yourself. There is plenty of material on the subject.

Autodidact
  • 1,123
  • 8
  • 17
  • 2
    What do you mean that planets cannot exist in Biblical cosmology? – Mike Borden Aug 20 '21 at 11:30
  • I think you ought to study the cosmology first @Mike because my response to your question will not make sense if you’re still thinking in terms of modern secular cosmology. And when you do then your question will answer itself – Autodidact Aug 20 '21 at 12:08
  • Do you know the story of the 3 blind guys encountering an elephant (The first man happens upon its leg, and concludes it's a tree. The second man bumps into its trunk, and concludes it's a snake. The last blind man feels its tail, and concludes it's a broom). Is the statement "Elephants don't exist in blind guy cosmology" similar to what you are saying? – Mike Borden Aug 20 '21 at 12:31
  • That’s not how revelations works @Mike. When God describes the earth and all the OT writers describe it in the same way, it doesn’t matter what the CGI and distorted lens of a modern camera says. I’m actually glad I didn’t try answering your question. You are too blind (by your own admission, even though you’re trying to bundle me in with you) to even realize what the elephant looks like. My suggestion was simple enough. Look into it and it will be self explanatory. I promise you it will be that easy. You don’t even have to accept Biblical cosmology to understand what it is. – Autodidact Aug 20 '21 at 13:13
  • Average temperature of the universe as on date is (-) 270.42 C, that is just above Absolute Zero. In spite of all the stars like sun to warm up the universe, it remains cold ! Imagine what it would have been before the creation of light ! – Kadalikatt Joseph Sibichan Aug 21 '21 at 09:56
  • Firstly it is clear you’re not thinking Biblical cosmology, because the sun is not a star. And stars are not sun-like and the universe is not a massive empty space. Secondly @Kadalikatt before the first second there was nothing, so there was nothing to put anything into and if there was nothing then it was not hot NOR cold. The moment God decided to create the waters(heavens) and the earth, they occupied a space (much smaller than what you think) and He could have created them warm or hot. So the waters could not lose temperature because the heat had no where to transfer. – Autodidact Aug 21 '21 at 12:17
  • Why am I stressing Biblical Cosmology? Because modern secular (anti-God) cosmology doesn’t, cannot and will not corroborate with the Cosmology described in the Bible. Every now and again they appear to intersect but that’s an illusion. Modern cosmology is intended to discredit the existence of God and discredit the Bible. Just like modern theory of evolution, just like Big Bang, just like so many other theories. When your eyes are open you will see it, until then, stop twisting the Bible to fit modern cosmology. Let the Bible say what it says, either accept it or reject it, but don’t change it – Autodidact Aug 21 '21 at 12:24
  • @Autodidact Here's what I'm seeing so far: 1) The Earth itself is flat and immovable, encompassed by a circle (like a coin), and set on a foundation of pillars. 2) Above the Earth stands a "firmament" (later thought to be a system of crystalline spheres), a few hundred (or at most a few thousand) feet above the Earth, on which the stars, planets, sun and moon revolve. – Mike Borden Aug 22 '21 at 12:34
  • @Autodidact 3) Heaven or the realm of God is a set of chambers just above the firmament. 4) Above the firmament and the heavenly chambers lies the upper seas or the "waters above the firmament"; below the Earth and the underworld lie the lower seas or the Great Deep. – Mike Borden Aug 22 '21 at 12:35
  • @Mike, in your cliff note version of Biblical cosmology we insert your question ”What do you mean that planets cannot exist in Biblical cosmology?” there are no planets because they don’t exist and cannot exist. Stars are not billions of light years away, there are not asteroids, meteors, galaxies (constellations yes), wondering stars are still stars but they have taken their own course and they are just lights not gaseous giants. The sun is local, the moon and stars are too. They never set, they merely circle past the vanishing point where there is a convergence and an optical perspective – Autodidact Aug 22 '21 at 12:59
  • Saturn doesn't exist? – Mike Borden Aug 22 '21 at 16:04
  • It exists as a light but not how it’s depicted in the CGI and I’ve been in government telescopes and seen it for myself @Mike – Autodidact Aug 22 '21 at 19:45
  • Have you been in the Hubble telescope, which circles planet Earth? – Mike Borden Aug 23 '21 at 12:03
  • @MikeBorden Don’t speak about what you don’t know. And let’s stick to the subject not stray down unrelated paths. This is about Biblical cosmology not what Hubble claims to have seen. Because even if the CGI from Hubble were real it doesn’t change the fact that in Biblical cosmology there cannot be planets, asteroids, meteors, gaseous mega-giant spheres and the likes. And that’s the point not proving or disproving modern fabricated secular cosmology. – Autodidact Aug 23 '21 at 12:20
  • I'm not sure what's happening here. Do you think the earth is flat? Should we slide over to chat? – Mike Borden Aug 23 '21 at 12:24
  • We can chat if you want. That’s not the point. Hermeneutics and proper exegesis demands you read cosmology in the context of their cosmology not your own. You don’t have to agree with their cosmology but you have to interpret their writings in their cosmological context @Mike – Autodidact Aug 23 '21 at 12:52
  • We must be aware of it so that we can properly incorporate it in our hermanuetic but we don't have to obey it. Psalm 103:12, according to biblical cosmology, means our sins are taken away a finite distance, whereas "as far as the east is from the west" intends infinite distance. – Mike Borden Aug 24 '21 at 11:42