Hebrew Cosmology

[Assyrian]

Showing where and why "vault" would be used with corresponding verses where it has been alluded to as such.

Sorry Greg, that sentence make no sense at all.

The word translated is "agudda" which means "band"(noun and verb app) or "troop". Amos 9:6 Hebrew Texts and Analysis. Strong's Hebrew Dictionary: 92. aguddah. The vulgate also uses "bundle"."qui aedificat in caelo ascensionem suam et fasciculum suum super terram fundavit qui vocat aquas maris et effundit eas super faciem terrae Dominus nomen eius"

Not surprised you are trying an alternative translation there, though I don't think the latin vulgate is the best source for modern Hebrew scholarship. I don't know any modern translation that follows the Vulgate's interrpetation of aguddah being a bundle, most either translate it as vault or leave it untranslated. Your Strong's link though, confirms what aid about vault being a vaulted dome.

 

[Greg1234]

Sorry Greg, that sentence make no sense at all.


Not surprised you are trying an alternative translation there, though I don't think the latin vulgate is the best source for modern Hebrew scholarship. I don't know any modern translation that follows the Vulgate's interrpetation of aguddah being a bundle, most either translate it as vault or leave it untranslated. Your Strong's link though, confirms what aid about vault being a vaulted dome.

Strong's link lists the translations used in the NASB. It also gives the definition of the word.

 

[Mallon]

Calminian,

You're doing a good job of demonstrating the plasticity of YEC hermeneutics. In your opening statement, you said that "the bible writers avoided detailed descriptions of the structure of the universe." I've since cited several passages that detail the Hebrews' understanding of the universe that you acknowledge refer to the firmament (at least the one's I've taken the time to quote for you). Except, instead of interpreting them at face value, as YECs regularly insist upon, you simply chalk them up to phenomenal language (e.g., the Job passage), to symbolic language (e.g., the Genesis passages), or to vague visions that don't really mean anything (e.g., the Ezekiel passage). It appears, then, that what you initially meant to say was that the Bible does, in fact, describe the structure of the firmament in some detail, but that you simply don't accept those numerous, independent descriptions at face value.
That's fine. I also accept that the Bible's descriptions of the cosmos use a phenomenal language -- that is, I apply an accommodationist hermeneutic. The funny thing is that by accepting the same hermeneutic when it comes to Job's description of the firmament, for example, you open yourself up to the same criticism that YECs so often level against evolutionary creationists -- that is, by not reading the Bible using a concordist hermeneutic, you are not taking it seriously ("If we can't believe what Job says about the firmament, how can we believe what the rest of the Bible says?"). I expect I'll never hear that line from you. Interestingly, you also do away with many of the verses that YECs cite in support of scientific concordism (e.g., Job's description of a round earth [26:10] that hangs on nothing [26:7], the water cycle [26:8, 36:27-28], the division of light [38:24], etc.). I don't expect I'll ever hear you cite the first 39 chapters of Job in defense of scientific concordism, either.

I'll also point out that your interpretation of the firmament is inconsistent. In your last post you compared the firmament to the atmosphere that covers the earth like a canopy. Yet earlier, you said that the firmament encompasses the sun, moon, and stars, too. These do not occur within the earth's atmosphere. Your interpretation is not internally consistent.

Finally, for those interested, there's an excellent article about the meaning of the firmament by Bible scholar Denis Lamoureux here:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/heavens.pdf
He dispels many of the misconceptions Calminian has about the firmament, and examines the many biblical passages that describe it (as opposed to citing one passage repeatedly, as Calminian does). He also goes into some detail about the historical interpretation of the firmament.

 

[Assyrian]

Strong's link lists the translations used in the NASB. It also gives the definition of the word.

Does it agree with what I said about vault or not?

 

[Calminian]

Calminian,

You're doing a good job of demonstrating the plasticity of YEC hermeneutics. In your opening statement, you said that "the bible writers avoided detailed descriptions of the structure of the universe." I've since cited several passages that detail the Hebrews' understanding of the universe that you acknowledge refer to the firmament (at least the one's I've taken the time to quote for you).

I'll have to stop you there because the fallacies abound.

You keep trying to make this a YEC issue, but it's not. There are non-YEC's that also reject the notion that the Bible teaches solid sky cosmology when read exegetically. This is an association fallacy.

Also, you are conflating "hebrews" with the "bible writers." Many biblical authors were hebrews, but the vast majority of hebrews were not bible writers. This is an equivocation fallacy. I'm trying to help you understand basic logic so you can put together coherent arguments. Advocates of biblical solid dome cosmology need a lot of help in this area.

Genesis chapter 1 was not written by a hebrew, as they were not a people back then. Moses later compile the genesis account, but he obviously was not the original author. What I'm trying to get you to do, is look to the text itself to acquire definitions of terms (rather than from hebrew cosmologists thousands of years later). We have 3 basic terms very clearly defined in Genesis 1— the earth (the dry land), the sea (the oceans) and the heavens (the firmament).

For some reason, solid dome advocates try to separate the heavens from the firmament, and then refer to all kinds of latter hebrew literature to support this. They do it to show the text in Genesis is not reliable when read literally. The irony is, they ignore what the text literally says.

This is precisely what you're doing. You're trying to use vague biblical references and extra biblical sources instead of actually reading the text's own explicit definition of "firmament."

All of your arguments seem to rest on this basic fallacy. I realize you've probably never heard this before as most solid dome advocates, which you're probably reading, completely ignore the heaven firmament 1-to-1 correspondence. Once you get this and accept this simple truth, you'll see the fallaciousness of all these pseudo technical arguments.

 

[Mallon]

I'll let you have the last word and leave it to the readers to decide for themselves whose argument is more cogent, Calminian.

 

[Calminian]

Amazing verse, thanks. It is a beautiful illustration of Hebrew cosmology. Not sure why a non material vault would need to be supported on the earth though.

It's not that the vault is non-material. Something can be material, yet not solid. Biblical writers called clouds a canopy. Clouds are material, yet not solid.

The vault is simply the atmosphere that arcs over the land. Nothing about this passage implies a solid mass.

Again this is a case of solid dome advocates reading things into the text in an attempt to prove the text is not accurate. There's an amazing irony there.

 

[Greg1234]

It's not that the vault is non-material. Something can be material, yet not solid. Biblical writers called clouds a canopy. Clouds are material, yet not solid.

The vault is simply the atmosphere that arcs over the land. Nothing about this passage implies a solid mass.

Again this is a case of solid dome advocates reading things into the text in an attempt to prove the text is not accurate. There's an amazing irony there.

Or even a vault. The three remaining passages where it was used also followed the definition. It is correctly translated as a "troop" or a "band" [of people] more preferably God's chosen or Israel in this passage. Reading the entire chapter in context and you see it even more clearly with a minor recapitulation in verse 15.

 

[gluadys]

All of your arguments seem to rest on this basic fallacy. I realize you've probably never heard this before as most solid dome advocates, which you're probably reading, completely ignore the heaven firmament 1-to-1 correspondence. Once you get this and accept this simple truth, you'll see the fallaciousness of all these pseudo technical arguments.

Well, I don't get it. To me, the 1-to-1 correspondence of firmament and heaven is an argument in favour of the solidity of the sky as perceived in ancient times.

 

[Calminian]

Well, I don't get it. To me, the 1-to-1 correspondence of firmament and heaven is an argument in favour of the solidity of the sky as perceived in ancient times.

Please explain how this argument goes.

 

[gluadys]

Please explain how this argument goes.

God made light and called it day.

The darkness he called night.

God made dry land and called it earth.

God gathered the waters together and called them seas.

God made the firmament and called it sky (heaven)

What is day? Light

What is night? Darkness

What is earth? Dry land

What are seas? Water

What is the sky/heaven? Firmament.

You are arguing that to know what the firmament is, we should look to see what heaven is. But the structure of Genesis 1 is the reverse. "Firmament" defines what heaven (or the sky) is, just as "light" defines what day is, "darkness" defines what night is, "dry land" defines what earth is and "water" defines what sea is.

And every mention of the firmament, indeed the very word, indicates a solid structure, as do several references to heaven.

 

[Calminian]

And every mention of the firmament, indeed the very word, indicates a solid structure, as do several references to heaven.

Please share these examples, where heaven is described as a solid structure.

 

[granpa]

Artistic license - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Artistic license (also known as dramatic license, historical license, poetic license, narrative license, licentia poetica, or simply license) is a colloquial term, sometime euphemism, used to denote the distortion of fact, alteration of the conventions of grammar or language, or rewording of pre-existing text made by an artist to improve a piece of art.

Artistic license often provokes controversy by offending those who resent the reinterpretation of cherished beliefs or previous works.[7] Artists often respond to these criticisms by pointing out that their work was not intended to be a verbatim portrayal of something previous and should be judged only on artistic merit.

you do realize that many of the writings of the prophets were actually songs.

 

[Calminian]

God gathered the waters together and called them seas.

What are seas? Water

There's actually a small logical fallacy here. Not sure where you were going with it, but I'll point it out in case it's a part of your argument.

From the writers statement, while it logically follows that seas are waters, it does not follow that waters are seas. Seas is the name of the waters God gathered together. But a glass of water is not the sea.

The same with the other examples. Heaven is an expanse, but not all expanses are heaven, say the expanse between mountain ranges or canyon edges.

For a more close to home example:

I call this building "my home." What is my home? a building. What is a building? my home. The last answer is obviously false. A building can be other things besides my home.

These fall under if-then fallacies.
1. Affirming the consequent (If P, then Q. Q. Therefore P.). 2. Denying the antecedent (If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore not Q.) 3. Converting a conditional (If P, then Q. Therefore if Q, then P.) 4. Negating antecedent and consequent (If P, then Q. Therefore if not P, then not Q.)

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

Originally Posted by gluadys

And every mention of the firmament, indeed the very word, indicates a solid structure, as do several references to heaven.

Please share these examples, where heaven is described as a solid structure.
​

At least it's good that you see that the very word firmament indicates a solid structure.

Papias

 

[Calminian]

At least it's good that you see that the very word firmament indicates a solid structure.

What we do know, is, the firmament of Gen. 1 is heaven. Thus all we have to do is gather data about the nature of heaven, and we'll have our data on the firmament.

It's obvious you believe heaven is a solid dome as described in scripture. So now let's see if you can back that up with scripture, if that is, you want to climb out on this limb. But after the rhino limb, something tells me you're going gun shy.

 

[gluadys]

Please share these examples, where heaven is described as a solid structure.

Assyrian has already done so. Re-read his posts

There's actually a small logical fallacy here. Not sure where you were going with it, but I'll point it out in case it's a part of your argument.

From the writers statement, while it logically follows that seas are waters, it does not follow that waters are seas. Seas is the name of the waters God gathered together. But a glass of water is not the sea.

No, it is not part of the argument that all water is sea water. But it is indisputable that the sea is water. What was called sea is water. What was called day is light. What was called heaven is the firmament.

What we do know, is, the firmament of Gen. 1 is heaven. Thus all we have to do is gather data about the nature of heaven, and we'll have our data on the firmament.

The grammatical structure is the other way around. What we know is that what was called heaven is the firmament made on Day 2. Heaven is what the firmament is. Just as the sea is what water is and dry land is what earth is. So what we need to do is gather data on the nature of the firmament and we'll have our data on heaven.

 

[Calminian]

Assyrian has already done so. Re-read his posts.

So, you're going to pass, huh?

Couldn't you just point out one single passage or even reference? Just the one that's most convincing that heaven is a solid structure?

I mean come on. If this is a view you feel passionate about, you'd think at least one passage would come to mind.

The grammatical structure is the other way around. What we know is that what was called heaven is the firmament made on Day 2. Heaven is what the firmament is. Just as the sea is what water is and dry land is what earth is. So what we need to do is gather data on the nature of the firmament and we'll have our data on heaven.

Oy! You've got this painfully backwards.

Example.

I call this building Taj Mahal. Therefore, to find out the structure of the Taj Mahal, we just need to find data on buildings?

The last sentence wouldn't logically follow, since there are other buildings that are different. If you want to find data on a specific building, you'll need to look at that specific building. You're stumbling over the same fallacy.

You see the names that are attributed to various things in Genesis are for specific things. God called specific waters, seas, those gathered in verses 9-10. A specific expanse is called heaven. Therefore to find out what that specific expanse is, we need to find data on heaven, for God said he called this firmament heaven. This is a sound and valid statement.

If we want to find out the structure and nature of the sea, do we study glasses of water, a rain drop, or the sea itself?

But regardless, you claimed there are several passage that say heaven itself is described as solid. So, why not break them out? All of the sudden you're stonewalling.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Paul to Timothy:
" The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm."

"Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, 2 older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity."

"Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will."

 

[shernren]

Oy! You've got this painfully backwards.

Example.

I call this building Taj Mahal. Therefore, to find out the structure of the Taj Mahal, we just need to find data on buildings?

Why not?

The Taj Mahal is a building,
and all buildings are solid.
Therefore the Taj Mahal is solid.

Of course, this does not encode all the information about the Taj Mahal, but it does encode some. And a similar syllogism follows with the heavens and firmaments:

Heaven is a firmament.
If firmaments are solid,
then Heaven is solid.