Hebrew Cosmology

[philadiddle]

Hi Solarwave,

You do realize, I'm sure, that the first plate is an artwork done by a Michael Paukner. From all I could tell, he isn't Jewish. What you are doing is exactly what evolutionists generally do. You are passing a picture, done by some modern day artist, and claiming that it is the reality of how Jews understood the universe. No, my friend, Mr. Paulkner, has read enough Scripture to be dangerous and has sat down on his art table and conceived this rendering of what the Jews 'must' think the creation looks like based on 'his' interpretation of the Genesis account.

Much like the evolutionists who pass off the drawing of an ape over 5 or 6 frames going from a true ape and beginning to walk upright until he becomes a true man. All of that is just someone's conception of what 'they' think the evolutionary sequence 'would' look like if it were true.

You have been deceived, my friend. Be careful.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

Christian theologians accept the ancient cosmological view and apply it to bible. It's a given. This is just what Christian theologians do. It's the fundamentalist laymen who worships his interpretation of scripture more than God who needs convincing that this is ok. This understanding of ancient cosmology is supported by every text and artifact from that time, it doesn't just come from the bible.

 

[juvenissun]

Well if I was unclear then sorry and I'll explain better if you want just as I'm asking you to.

What interpretation are you refering to? I looked back and I wasn't sure what you ment.

How do the pictures i showed express a true situation?

They paint a picture of a universe in which 'The earth is flat with hell literally under the earth, the sky has a physical dome above it (man hasn't gone to space then?) and there is water surrounding the sky of the earth. Then quite literally above that is God.' And this is a literal physical understanding of the universe, a physical on, not metaphorical. Sure it can be interpreted metaphorical and that is the point I make all the time to YCE but they disagree.

Post #12 is my interpretation to verse 2.

You described the picture. You did not explain possible errors in the description. If you like to hear my idea, you may start to criticize any of the described feature. For example, you many think that the earth's surface should not be represented by a nearly horizontal line.

 

[granpa]

my guess is that 'shamim' originally meant 'shield' and referred to the atmosphere shielding us from meteorites raining down on us.

It appears to me that by the time the hebrews translated these stories into hebrew a lot of ancient knowledge had been lost and they were forced to reinterpret and even rearrange some of the scriptures.

 

[Papias]

Solarwave wrote:

They paint a picture of a universe in which 'The earth is flat with hell literally under the earth, the sky has a physical dome above it (man hasn't gone to space then?) and there is water surrounding the sky of the earth. Then quite literally above that is God.' And this is a literal physical understanding of the universe, a physical on, not metaphorical. Sure it can be interpreted metaphorical and that is the point I make all the time to YEC but they disagree.

Seems like it. Plus, it explains so much else in whichever Bible one chooses. The many verses in Job and elsewhere, the tree in Daniel, the mountain in Matthew, and so on.

It makes perfect sense of the Tower of Babel, because then the tower truly is an attempt to get to heaven by force (a real threat). If the tower story isn't set in the Hebrew Cosmology as you describe, (and instead is set in a world where there's nothing up there but miles of air, then space) then the easiest response of God to the Tower whould have been "Oh, who cares? Have a fun time!".

and so on.

Papias

 

[Papias]

Plus, it all speaks directly to people's real world experience, as a God would want to do.

In the bronze age, think of what a person saw that was big and blue, you saw the sky, of course, but you couldn’t reach it to see what it was made of. You saw large lakes, and the ocean that were big and blue. You may have seen bird that was blue, or a bead or bauble, but the only things that were big and blue (especially things you saw out in nature, not made by humans), were water. From that, you look up and see the big, blue sky, and even though you can’t touch it to check, it’s obvious that it is made of water. Why doesn’t the water come crashing down, like any other water thrown up into the air? Well, God must have made a clear, hard dome to keep it there. This must have been as obvious as the observation that fires are hot and that rocks are hard. Similarly, it must have been obvious that the Earth is flat (go out and look if you aren’t sure) and that the sun went around the earth (go out and look if you aren’t sure).

Hence the clear description that the firmament holds up the water.

Papias

 

[solarwave]

Plus, it all speaks directly to people's real world experience, as a God would want to do.

In the bronze age, think of what a person saw that was big and blue, you saw the sky, of course, but you couldn’t reach it to see what it was made of. You saw large lakes, and the ocean that were big and blue. You may have seen bird that was blue, or a bead or bauble, but the only things that were big and blue (especially things you saw out in nature, not made by humans), were water. From that, you look up and see the big, blue sky, and even though you can’t touch it to check, it’s obvious that it is made of water. Why doesn’t the water come crashing down, like any other water thrown up into the air? Well, God must have made a clear, hard dome to keep it there. This must have been as obvious as the observation that fires are hot and that rocks are hard. Similarly, it must have been obvious that the Earth is flat (go out and look if you aren’t sure) and that the sun went around the earth (go out and look if you aren’t sure).

Hence the clear description that the firmament holds up the water.

Papias

This makes alot of sense

 

[marktheblake]

So I'll try to interpret Genesis one like this and tell me what you think:

The Hebrew trait of thinking function instead of form does not mean you read everything as idiomatic or mythology.

My position is that Genesis 1 remains a literal account of creation, because that is how it plainly reads. Understanding the hebrew thinking processes can help to understand it better.

Now what you did also is convert the english language names to what you thought the function was. You cant do that plainly from Western thinking, you should get the Hebrew meanings from the root word and each letter.
(each letter in hebrew has a meaning, so each word has a very descriptive meaning)

For example you would never have figured out that "Deer" or "Oak" means strong leader.

Obviously God did not tell us everything, but what he did tell us, was there for a reason.

Take Genesis 2, as it describes the physical location of Eden. Seems to be quite frivulous information at first.

The name of the first [is] Pison: that [is] it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where [there is] gold; And the gold of that land [is] good: there [is] bdellium and the onyx stone.

Pison = Hope
Havilah = Suffering

and what happens when you mix pure gold into water?
it turns the water red.

So we may now read this verse as "Hope flows through suffering where the water turns to blood"

Now how many future events can be linked to water turning to blood? Hebrew people would recognise this as a sign that Hope flows through Suffering.

 

[Papias]

blake wrote:

Take Genesis 2, as it describes the physical location of Eden. Seems to be quite frivulous information at first.

The name of the first [is] Pison: that [is] it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where [there is] gold; And the gold of that land [is] good: there [is] bdellium and the onyx stone.

Pison = Hope
Havilah = Suffering

and what happens when you mix pure gold into water?
it turns the water red.

So we may now read this verse as "Hope flows through suffering where the water turns to blood"

Now how many future events can be linked to water turning to blood? Hebrew people would recognise this as a sign that Hope flows through Suffering.

Collodial gold (tiny gold particles) are red in liquids if small enough (not just water, but anything, such as alcohol, hexane, etc.). At slightly larger sizes, it's kind a straw yellow. I'm not sure the rest of your suggestion follows (for instance, then what about the other two materials?, or about the other rivers, the Gihon, Tigris and Euphrates?).

Anyway, maybe start a thread on all that if you think something is there?

Papias

 

[solarwave]

The Hebrew trait of thinking function instead of form does not mean you read everything as idiomatic or mythology.

My position is that Genesis 1 remains a literal account of creation, because that is how it plainly reads. Understanding the hebrew thinking processes can help to understand it better.

Now what you did also is convert the english language names to what you thought the function was. You cant do that plainly from Western thinking, you should get the Hebrew meanings from the root word and each letter.
(each letter in hebrew has a meaning, so each word has a very descriptive meaning)

For example you would never have figured out that "Deer" or "Oak" means strong leader.

Obviously God did not tell us everything, but what he did tell us, was there for a reason.

Take Genesis 2, as it describes the physical location of Eden. Seems to be quite frivulous information at first.

The name of the first [is] Pison: that [is] it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where [there is] gold; And the gold of that land [is] good: there [is] bdellium and the onyx stone.

Pison = Hope
Havilah = Suffering

and what happens when you mix pure gold into water?
it turns the water red.

So we may now read this verse as "Hope flows through suffering where the water turns to blood"

Now how many future events can be linked to water turning to blood? Hebrew people would recognise this as a sign that Hope flows through Suffering.

I don't know if what you have said is the right interpretation but it sounds good.

The problem I have here is that this means the average person can't read the Bible properly and so means only those who know ancient can understand it. Does sound much like a book which is ment to be understood by the world and not just jews.

 

[philadiddle]

The Hebrew trait of thinking function instead of form does not mean you read everything as idiomatic or mythology.

My position is that Genesis 1 remains a literal account of creation, because that is how it plainly reads. Understanding the hebrew thinking processes can help to understand it better.

Now what you did also is convert the english language names to what you thought the function was. You cant do that plainly from Western thinking, you should get the Hebrew meanings from the root word and each letter.
(each letter in hebrew has a meaning, so each word has a very descriptive meaning)

For example you would never have figured out that "Deer" or "Oak" means strong leader.

Obviously God did not tell us everything, but what he did tell us, was there for a reason.

Take Genesis 2, as it describes the physical location of Eden. Seems to be quite frivulous information at first.

The name of the first [is] Pison: that [is] it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where [there is] gold; And the gold of that land [is] good: there [is] bdellium and the onyx stone.

Pison = Hope
Havilah = Suffering

and what happens when you mix pure gold into water?
it turns the water red.

So we may now read this verse as "Hope flows through suffering where the water turns to blood"

Now how many future events can be linked to water turning to blood? Hebrew people would recognise this as a sign that Hope flows through Suffering.

How could Genesis be referring to any currently existing rivers (or locations)? Wasn't the surface of the earth completely revamped during the flood?

 

[solarwave]

How could Genesis be referring to any currently existing rivers (or locations)? Wasn't the surface of the earth completely revamped during the flood?

Wow I never thought of that.

 

[juvenissun]

How could Genesis be referring to any currently existing rivers (or locations)? Wasn't the surface of the earth completely revamped during the flood?

Why should the rivers be "current" for whatever reason? To make a river disappear is not that hard.

And, yes. The Flood MUST be accompanied with some major crustal changes.

 

[philadiddle]

Why should the rivers be "current" for whatever reason? To make a river disappear is not that hard.

That's my point, they shouldn't be currently existing rivers. Yet some people try to relate the garden of Eden to rivers that we know of in today's world.

You seem to be agreeing with me.

 

[marktheblake]

I'm not sure the rest of your suggestion follows (for instance, then what about the other two materials?, or about the other rivers, the Gihon, Tigris and Euphrates?).

Have not looked into that.

The problem I have here is that this means the average person can't read the Bible properly and so means only those who know ancient can understand it

Surely you get the gist of it? God created us, we stuffed it up, God redeems us, God sets it right again. So yes, we do understand it. But we can understand it better, and maybe kill of all those contradictions that uninformed skeptics wax lyrical about.

Now you have to remember that the bible was written in high context for hebrews (meaning that there is stuff in there that the author assumes his audience knows). We humans are now used to reading low context documents, meaning the context is made clear to us.

Consider the statement from Jesus,

Birds have nests, Foxes have holes, but the son of man has no place to rest his head.

Most people assume that means Jesus was homeless (Form thinking) but consider this further. What do Birds do in nests and Foxes do in holes?
(this is hebrew fucntional thinking), and how does that impact this verse?

How could Genesis be referring to any currently existing rivers (or locations)? Wasn't the surface of the earth completely revamped during the flood?

Yes. It is not unreasonable for the descendants of Noah to re-use place names. It actually makes sense for them to do so, given that there would be no ambiguity over locations, because as you said 'completely revamped'.

 

[juvenissun]

That's my point, they shouldn't be currently existing rivers. Yet some people try to relate the garden of Eden to rivers that we know of in today's world.

You seem to be agreeing with me.

Not entirely. Two out of the four named rivers are still there. Although I am not sure about the matching of the geographic location due to other considerations.

Now, use your favorite argument of historical interpretation: Why would ancient Hebrews "make up" the two non-existing rivers? if everyone lived in that area knew the landform, how could this old script be even credible to ancient Jews? Add these two imaginary rivers to the Scripture is absolutely not necessary, factually or spiritually. Nobody will do that today and nobody will accept it today. So, like it or not, there must be something else involved in these verses.

 

[Assyrian]

Yes. It is not unreasonable for the descendants of Noah to re-use place names. It actually makes sense for them to do so, given that there would be no ambiguity over locations, because as you said 'completely revamped'.

Umm, no. The revamping is a modern creationist idea from Georgy McCready price and Whitcomb & Morris who came up with it to try to explain the fossil record and the geological column. It would not have so obvious to people in the bible who hadn’t come across this idea.

 

[marktheblake]

Assyrian, you are making your point based on Noahs flood being allegory or myth, and therefore irrelevant.

 

[Assyrian]

Assyrian, you are making your point based on Noahs flood being allegory or myth, and therefore irrelevant.

Where did I assume that?

 

[marktheblake]

Where did I assume that?

Here

"It would not have so obvious to people in the bible who hadn’t come across this idea"

 

[Assyrian]

Here

"It would not have so obvious to people in the bible who hadn’t come across this idea"

What has that got to do with 'Noahs flood being allegory or myth'? I was talking about Georgy McCready Price and Whitcomb & Morris's flood geology, which isn't mentioned in the bible. They are the ones who came up with the idea of the earth being completely revamped, but before McCready Price came along, people could read Genesis, take it at face value, but not see any refernce to a complete reconstruction of the earth's surface in the text. Prehaps what you need to do is read the text and see what it actually say, not what Morris and Price tell you happened.