- Oct 2, 2011
- 6,061
- 2,236
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Sure. As for myself, I prefer to be more careful and scholarly when I interact with others about the Bible.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sure. As for myself, I prefer to be more careful and scholarly when I interact with others about the Bible.It's a YouTube video, nor a research article. And this is the internet, not a PhD research project
[The Firmament and the Water Above Part I: The Meaning of raqiaʿ in Gen 1:6-8 -- By: Paul H. Seely | Galaxie SoftwareCan you display the text from the link and bold the relevant keywords to your point? This is a basic scholarship.
Sure. As for myself, I prefer to be more careful and scholarly when I interact with others about the Bible.
Is Apostle Paul living in you?
When I talk to my doctor they want creditable research. They are not interested in opinions. They are very careful not to take things out of context. They want to know for sure what is going to work.It's a YouTube video, not a research article.
Define Creation.
Sure. I'll take some time to quote the article for you.Can you display the text from the link and bold the relevant keywords to your point? That's what I do for others who read my posts. It is a standard in high-school scholarship. If you practice this, I guarantee you: it will improve your analytical thinking
Can you display the text from the link and bold the relevant keywords to your point? That's what I do for others who read my posts. It is a standard in high-school scholarship. If you practice this, I guarantee you: it will improve your analytical thinking
This is how to do referencing in a scholarly manner. It is standard scholarship practice:The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227-40
Copyright © 1991 by Westminster Theological Seminary, cited with permission.
WTJ 53 (1991) 227-240
THE FIRMAMENT AND THE WATER ABOVE
Part I: The Meaning of raqiac
in Gen 1:6-8
This is an internet forum. Either you're interested in reading and playing along internet style, or you're not.This is how to do referencing in a scholarly manner. It is standard scholarship practice:
- Give the name of the source.
- Provide the link of the source. It is the URL address
- Indent the quoted text.
- Bold the relevant keywords that are important to the point that you are making.
- Be concise and to the point.
This is what I do for others who read my posts. It is a standard high-school scholarship. If you practice this, I guarantee you: it will improve your analytical thinking. In any case, no one here on the internet or outside is required to do it.This is an internet forum. Either you're interested in reading and playing along internet style, or you're not.
This is what I do for others who read my posts. It is a standard high-school scholarship. If you practice this, I guarantee you: it will improve your analytical thinking. In any case, no one here on the internet or outside is required to do it.
The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227-40
Copyright © 1991 by Westminster Theological Seminary, cited with permission.
WTJ 53 (1991) 227-240
THE FIRMAMENT AND THE WATER ABOVE
Part I: The Meaning of raqiac
in Gen 1:6-8
PAUL H. SEELY
STANDARD Hebrew lexica and a number of modern biblical scholars
have defined the raqiac
(fyqr, "firmament") of Gen 1:6-8 as a solid dome
over the earth.1
Conservative scholars from Calvin on down to the present, however, have defined it as an atmospheric expanse.2 Some conservatives
have taken special pains to reject the concept of a solid dome on the basis that the Bible also refers to the heavens as a tent or curtain and that references to windows and pillars of heaven are obviously poetic.3
The word raqiac, hey say, simply means "expanse." They say the understanding of raqiac as a solid firmament rests on the Vulgate's translation, firmamentum; and that translation rests in turn on the LXX's translation stere, which simply reflected the Greek view of the heavens at the time the translators did their work.4
The raqiac
defined as an atmospheric expanse is the historical view according to modern conservatives; and the modern view of the raqiac
as a solid dome is simply the result of forcing biblical poetic language into agreement with a concept found in the Babylonian epic
Enuma Elish.5
The historical evidence, however, which we will set forth in concrete
detail, shows that the raqiac was originally conceived of as being solid and
not a merely atmospheric expanse. The grammatical evidence from the
OT, which we shall examine later, reflects and confirms this conception of solidity.
The question, however, arises in the modern mind, schooled as it is in the
almost infinite nature of sky and space: Did scientifically naive peoples
really believe in a solid sky, or were they just employing a mythological or
poetic concept? Or were they, perhaps, just using phenomenal language
with no attending belief that the sky actually was a solid object? That is,
were they referring to the mere appearance of the sky as a solid dome but
able to distinguish between that appearance and the reality?
The answer to these questions, as we shall see more clearly below, is that
scientifically naive peoples employed their concept of a solid sky in their
mythology, but that they nevertheless thought of the solid sky as an integral
part of their physical universe.
Among primitive African peoples various stories reflect their belief in a
solid sky. The Ngombe say that when the two creatures who hold the sky
up with poles get tired, "the sky will fall down." The Nyimang say that
long ago the sky was so close to earth that the women could not stir their
porridge properly with their long stirrers; so one day "one woman got
angry and lifting the stirrer pierced the sky with the upper end."7
The Dogon tell of an ancient ancestor who came down from heaven
"standing on a square piece of heaven. . . . A thick piece? Yes, as thick as
a house. It was ten cubits high with stairs on each side facing the four
cardinal points."8
On the other side of the world, among American Indians, the sky was
also conceived of as a solid dome.
Still another element reflecting the solidity of the sky is the idea of a
window or hole in the sky. This idea is so widespread that one observer
concluded it was "a general human trait."12 The Seneca, for example, told
of a woman who fell through a hole in the sky bringing some soil of the sky
with her which she had clenched in her hands while trying "to hold on to
the edge of the hole" before she fell.13 The Navaho in their story of creation
not only mention a hole in the sky but specifically describe the solidity of
the sky:
In Siberia the Yakuts say the outer edge of the earth touches the rim of
a hemi-spherical sky and that "a certain hero rode out once to the place
where earth and sky touched."17 In some districts the Buriats "conceive the
sky to be shaped like a great overturned cauldron, rising and falling in
constant motion. In rising, an opening forms between the sky and the edge
of the earth. A hero who happened at such a time to place his arrow
between the edge of the earth and the rim of the sky was enabled thus to
penetrate outside the world."18
Other stories could be cited, but it is sufficiently clear that scientifically
naive peoples around the world from the Pacific Islands to North America,
from Siberia to Africa, have perceived the sky as a solid inverted bowl
touching the earth at the horizon.
Nor is this common conception of a firmament merely myth, metaphor, or phenomenal language. It is an in-
tegral part of their scientific view of the universe.
Since scientifically naive peoples naturally conceive of the sky as solid, it
is no surprise that the records we have from the ancient East echo the same
viewpoint. Thus one observer of ancient Japan reports that the sky was
thought of as "an actual place, not more ethereal than the earth. ..but
a high plane situated above Japan and communicating with Japan by a
bridge or ladder. . . . An arrow shot from earth could reach heaven and
make a hole in it."21
Joseph Needham tells us the Chinese had three cosmological views, but
the most ancient one perceived the earth as an upside down bowl with the
heavens over it as another upside down bowl, the sky having simply a
greater diameter than the earth. The sun and moon were attached to the
vault of heaven, which rotated from left to right carrying the heavenly
bodies with it.22
In India the earliest cosmology is found in the Rig Veda, a document
from the middle of the second millennium BC. It contains a number of
passages which show that Indians of that time believed in a solid firma-
ment. In one creation hymn an unnamed god is mentioned "by whom the
dome of the sky was propped up" (10.121.5; cf. 1.154.1 and 2.12.2). An-
other hymn asks, "What was the wood. . . from which they carved the sky
and the earth?" (10.81.4). Another says, "Firm is the sky and firm is the
earth" (10.173.4). Several hymns mention people who "climb up to the
sky" (8.14.14; 2.12.12; 1.85.7). Several hymns mention the separation of
heaven and earth. One says Varona "pushed away the dome of the sky"
(7.86.1; cf. 10.82.1).25
The Sumerologist Samuel Noah Kramer described the cosmology of the
Sumerians, the founders of the first civilization, in similar terms. The earth,
they thought, was a flat disc; heaven, a hollow sphere enclosed at top and
bottom by a solid surface in the shape of a vault.28
Im about half way through, ill quote more material of value here shortly.
I think that's the unofficial motto of the Flerfies, who believe the earth is flat as a matter of rejecting what man says and going by faith. Of course, in so doing they embrace a ridiculous view of the universe which has nothing to do with either Faith or Science.Gonna have to go by faith or by what man says
The Hebrew word for "day" is the same right through the Old Testament. It is the word that is used to describe the six days of creation. It makes sense that the seventh day is the Sabbath, the day of rest. It is a 24 hour day that goes from one evening to another. It seems illogical that the first six days of creation is different from the seventh in the same narrative passage. We know that the Sabbath day is not millions of years, therefore if it is not millions of years, then neither are the preceding six days.So do I
Of course, it is the same. It is a word. And therefore, it must mean 24 hours?The Hebrew word for "day" is the same right through the Old Testament.
Yes. The meaning of the Hebrew word "yom" is a 24 hour day.Of course, it is the same. It is a word. And therefore, it must mean 24 hours?
Are you saying that in the Bible "yom" always means 24 hours with no exception?Yes. The meaning of the Hebrew word "yom" is a 24 hour day.
Yes. Why not? What is the logic behind every single example of "yom" right throughout the Old Testament means a 24 hour day, and the word meaning something else in Genesis 1-3? Doesn't make sense. What's the point of changing the meaning of a Hebrew word, just to support a unproven theory dreamed up out of Darwin's head?Are you saying that in the Bible "yom" always means 24 hours with no exception?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?