The pillars of the earth.

[dana3262]

The pillars of the earth could be the word of God,that which hold humanity up?!?!?!?!?

 

[crawfish]

In the Bible, it states that the Earth is round and that the skies are expanding. We recently discovered these things when it was in the Bible the whole time. By the way, it's Isaiah 40:22.

Sorry to differ, but:

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

By "spreads", does the author mean "expanding", or "placed"? I think it means the same as spreading out your picnic supplies - you're setting things in place.

The verse works strongly as metaphor; it does not work as a literal reading.

 

[philadiddle]

It's not a deflection. It shows how you don't understand what a literal interpretation entails.

Context.

You still haven't adressesd the OP, just gave some other examples of figures of speech. Please explain how your examples apply to the question in the OP. If context is how you can detect a figure of speech, then I see no reason to think that pillar is a figure of speech. To put the verse in context means we have to think of the cosmological view held at that time, and the author would have thought the earth was literally on pillars.

 

[HypnoToad]

To put the verse in context means we have to think of the cosmological view held at that time, and the author would have thought the earth was literally on pillars.

IF that were the way to view it, then still all you have is how SOME PEOPLE understood the earth, not a statement by God explaining the physics of the solar system.

It's akin to saying God approves of incest, since Scripture records Lot having sex with his daughters.

 

[crawfish]

IF that were the way to view it, then still all you have is how SOME PEOPLE understood the earth, not a statement by God explaining the physics of the solar system.

It's akin to saying God approves of incest, since Scripture records Lot having sex with his daughters.

I don't know. It's a slippery slope when you start viewing the bible contextually.

 

[philadiddle]

IF that were the way to view it, then still all you have is how SOME PEOPLE understood the earth, not a statement by God explaining the physics of the solar system.

The key here isn't that SOME PEOPLE viewed the earth that way, it's that the AUTHOR OF THE PASSAGE viewed the earth that way.

And you're right, it's not a statement by God explaining the physics of the solar system. It's a statement by God explaining theological truths, namely, that God made the earth and is responsible for it's existence. The role that the cosmological view plays is that it is a backdrop to the theological truths, and not the point of the passage.

In the same way we can read the creation account, as it explains many theological truths, with an ancient cosmological view as a backdrop. God is not trying to give a scientific explanation of the universe. It's a theology book, not a science text.

It's akin to saying God approves of incest, since Scripture records Lot having sex with his daughters.

Because the incest the Moabites and Ammonites were made. What role do they play in history? Were there consequences of the incestuous act?

 

[HypnoToad]

The key here isn't that SOME PEOPLE viewed the earth that way, it's that the AUTHOR OF THE PASSAGE viewed the earth that way.

Inconsequential hair-splitting.

And you're right, it's not a statement by God explaining the physics of the solar system. It's a statement by God explaining theological truths, namely, that God made the earth and is responsible for it's existence. The role that the cosmological view plays is that it is a backdrop to the theological truths, and not the point of the passage.

In the same way we can read the creation account, as it explains many theological truths, with an ancient cosmological view as a backdrop. God is not trying to give a scientific explanation of the universe. It's a theology book, not a science text.

No, because now we're changing contexts. The sections that have the figure of speech about "pillars" are not themed about the creation of the universe, whereas the creation account is. And there's nothing in the text indicating anything other than a simple, historical account.

Because the incest the Moabites and Ammonites were made. What role do they play in history? Were there consequences of the incestuous act?

How is that relevant on whether or not God approves of incest?

 

[philadiddle]

No, because now we're changing contexts. The sections that have the figure of speech about "pillars" are not themed about the creation of the universe, whereas the creation account is. And there's nothing in the text indicating anything other than a simple, historical account.

There's nothing in the text indicating anything other then simple, literal pillars.

BTW, you still haven't explained, using only the bible and no outside sources or views, how the pillars are meant to be figurative. That was after all, the question in the OP.

How is that relevant on whether or not God approves of incest?

Which verse does it say God approves of incest in the story of Lot? I think that seeing what the consequences are would tell us whether or not God apporved of it. It was a relevant question.

 

[gluadys]

Sorry to differ, but:



By "spreads", does the author mean "expanding", or "placed"? I think it means the same as spreading out your picnic supplies - you're setting things in place.

The verse works strongly as metaphor; it does not work as a literal reading.

It's a more specific metaphor than that. A picnic suggests spreading a cloth on the ground or on a table. But the text says the heavens were spread out "like a tent to live in."

So it is more like the earth is the land and the heavens are the tent erected above it. A round tent to fit the circle of the earth, rather like a tepee or a Mongolian yurt.

Of course, for the author that did come very close to a literal description of what he thought the actual relation of earth and heaven was. But it certainly does not fit our view of a sphere hurtling through space around a local star.

What I like about it is the truth that the earth was made by God to be inhabited, to be a place to live in.

 

[HypnoToad]

There's nothing in the text indicating anything other then simple, literal pillars.

BTW, you still haven't explained, using only the bible and no outside sources or views, how the pillars are meant to be figurative. That was after all, the question in the OP.

Are you serious?

Your source quotes are:

1. Job - a book of poetry
2. Psalms - a book of poetry
3. 1 Sam.2:8 - part of "Hannah's Song" - more poetry

Are you seriously wondering why these should be viewed as poetry?

Which verse does it say God approves of incest in the story of Lot?

Um, yeah, my point is that there is no such verse.

Just as the mere mention of it does not mean support, neither does a person mentioning their view of solar system mechanics mean it is God saying that's how it is.

 

[philadiddle]

Are you serious?

Your source quotes are:

1. Job - a book of poetry
2. Psalms - a book of poetry
3. 1 Sam.2:8 - part of "Hannah's Song" - more poetry

Are you seriously wondering why these should be viewed as poetry?

So the fact that the creation account is a wonderfully written Hebrew poem means what exactly?

Just as the mere mention of it does not mean support, neither does a person mentioning their view of solar system mechanics mean it is God saying that's how it is.

You mean this reguarding Genesis right? Seriously though. It's so obvious to you that the passage about pillars isn't about pillars, it's about a greater theological truth. It's obvious to you because you know that the earth isn't on pillars. Had you read it 2500 years ago, you would have thought the earth was literally on pillars, but you still would recognize the theological truths contained in the passages. As you said, the mentioning of an ancient cosmological view in the bible doesn't mean that it is God saying that's how it is. Why is it so hard to apply the same reasoning to the creation account? Think about it. The authors who used imagery of the earth being on pillars meant it literally, because that's what they honestly thought, so it could be read literally. However, we can see what God was trying to say through them, even though He used an ancient cosmology as a backdrop. If we apply the same reasoning to Genesis, it works just the same. The author of Genesis talks about the firmament and expanse between waters and 6 day creation because that is what he thought, based on the mythologies of the time. So to us, it would read literally. However, we can see what God is actually trying to say, and that He is just using the ancient cosmology as a backdrop to let us know things like that He is the only God, He is the only thing worthy to be worshipped, He made everything, He gives us a prescribed pattern for the sabbath, etc.

And as I already mentioned, the creation is a written as a poem, which according to you means it shouldn't be taken literally (at least that's what you hinted at).

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Fair enough.

But if its a figure of speech, what exactly is it a figure of speech, what exactly is 'pillar' a figure for?

Gravitation and electromagnetic force?

Boy, I sure would like this question answered.

 

[HypnoToad]

So the fact that the creation account is a wonderfully written Hebrew poem means what exactly?

Probably not much, since it is not poetry. The grammar used is that of Hebrew prose, not verse.

 

[philadiddle]

Probably not much, since it is not poetry. The grammar used is that of Hebrew prose, not verse.

That was a question I just sort of threw out there. The real points I was trying to make were in the rest of my post. Interesting that you ignored that part though. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you didn't have time to respond to the whole thing at once, so I'll await your response with much anticipation.

 

[Deamiter]

Probably not much, since it is not poetry. The grammar used is that of Hebrew prose, not verse.

Eh? I've seen some argument that the verb-subject order is the primary indication of poetry in Hebrew literature, but that's not what I've read in most discussions of Hebrew genres.

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/Genesis_texts.html

Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a poetic text. It is metered, and probably the writer(s) intended for it to be sung as a hymnic chant. Rhyme is not all that important in Hebrew poetry, but Hebrew poems commonly use repetition, chiasmus, parallelism, and other rhetorical schemes and tropes. The Genesis 1 text uses "high style" and those artistic devices common to Hebrew poetry--especially catachresis, anaphora, and parallelism. To indicate these artistic qualities here, most NIV translations reproduce the text with hanging indentation to mark the poetic structure. Each section begins with an anaphora: "And God said . . ." Each section ends with epistrophe: "And there was evening, and there was morning--the . . . day." Likewise, after the first two days, we have the artistic repetition of the phrase "And God saw that it was good," leading up to a final crescendo, "and it was very good" in Genesis 1:31. This structure is high poetry in the best Hebrew style.

 

[HypnoToad]

That was a question I just sort of threw out there. The real points I was trying to make were in the rest of my post. Interesting that you ignored that part though. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you didn't have time to respond to the whole thing at once, so I'll await your response with much anticipation.

What is it I have supposedly ignored?

Eh? I've seen some argument that the verb-subject order is the primary indication of poetry in Hebrew literature,

It's grammar and syntax together. I wasn't going into a lot of detail.

"Neither can we say that Genesis 1 or 2 is poetic in form. The Hebrew form of the verb is exactly the same as is routinely used for Hebrew narratives. Furthermore, Hebrew poetry seldom if ever uses the the Hebrew indicator for the direct object, whereas Genesis 1 and 2 do. There are additional grammatical and syntactical forms in Genesis 1 and 2 that can only be found in prose literary genre, not poetry. Thus these accounts may not be listed under poetry. ... The accounts have more in common with narrative prose than anything else." (Walter Kaiser, Ph.D; "Hard Sayings of the Bible", p.89)

You can also read more on it here:
http://www.ldolphin.org/genmyth.html

 

[Deamiter]

"Neither can we say that Genesis 1 or 2 is poetic in form. The Hebrew form of the verb is exactly the same as is routinely used for Hebrew narratives. Furthermore, Hebrew poetry seldom if ever uses the the Hebrew indicator for the direct object, whereas Genesis 1 and 2 do. There are additional grammatical and syntactical forms in Genesis 1 and 2 that can only be found in prose literary genre, not poetry. Thus these accounts may not be listed under poetry. ... The accounts have more in common with narrative prose than anything else." (Walter Kaiser, Ph.D; "Hard Sayings of the Bible", p.89)

You can also read more on it here:
http://www.ldolphin.org/genmyth.html

Yeah, I've read it. It seems pretty weakly based on a very abbreviated list of what constitutes Hebrew poetry. Given all the other similarities between Genesis 1 and Hebrew poetry that are not found anywhere else in Biblical historical narratives, wouldn't it be more accurate to suggest that over the hundreds of years that the old testament was compiled, there just might be forms of poetry with slightly different grammar (i.e. epic vs. rhyming poems in modern literature) but with the same type of meter, catachresis, anaphora, and parallelism that are very indicative of Hebrew poetry?

 

[shernren]

So how do you detect a figure of speech? When the weather report tells you "Tomorrow at sunrise there will be showers", how do you tell what it actually means?

Context.

So what exactly in the context of "Tomorrow at sunrise there will be showers" tells you that the weatherman (weatherperson?) isn't a closet geocentric? After all, no weathermen I know preface their announcements with "When I say 'sunrise', I actually mean when the rotation of the earth brings the sun's position over the horizon", so I don't see anything in the context of the weatherman's statement to show that he is not being literal.

And if he is not being literal when he says "sunrise", how do I know that he is being literal when he says "tomorrow" - that he doesn't mean in the future in general (as in the song "Tomorrow"?) And how do I know that he is being literal when he says "showers" - that he doesn't mean showers of blessing, or bridal showers?

 

[gluadys]

Probably not much, since it is not poetry. The grammar used is that of Hebrew prose, not verse.

I find this a strange concept. In any language, how does the grammar of poetry differ from the grammar of prose.

Both use sentences. In both the sentences contain subjects and verbs and modifiers of subjects and verbs.

Where is the grammatical difference?

 

[philadiddle]

What is it I have supposedly ignored?

This

It's so obvious to you that the passage about pillars isn't about pillars, it's about a greater theological truth. It's obvious to you because you know that the earth isn't on pillars. Had you read it 2500 years ago, you would have thought the earth was literally on pillars, but you still would recognize the theological truths contained in the passages. As you said, the mentioning of an ancient cosmological view in the bible doesn't mean that it is God saying that's how it is. Why is it so hard to apply the same reasoning to the creation account? Think about it. The authors who used imagery of the earth being on pillars meant it literally, because that's what they honestly thought, so it could be read literally. However, we can see what God was trying to say through them, even though He used an ancient cosmology as a backdrop. If we apply the same reasoning to Genesis, it works just the same. The author of Genesis talks about the firmament and expanse between waters and 6 day creation because that is what he thought, based on the mythologies of the time. So to us, it would read literally. However, we can see what God is actually trying to say, and that He is just using the ancient cosmology as a backdrop to let us know things like that He is the only God, He is the only thing worthy to be worshipped, He made everything, He gives us a prescribed pattern for the sabbath, etc.

And as I already mentioned, the creation is a written as a poem, which according to you means it shouldn't be taken literally (at least that's what you hinted at).