I read it literally now

[Philis]

You know Philis, we could go back and forth, but let me just use this to try to make a point about human nature and our natural drive to defend our views. I'm looking at this response and you've now made the assertion that the Bible authors viewed the structure of the universe as an upside down bowl on a table, in which the earth is now wider in diameter than the bowl.

sigh, you missed the point completely

But isn't this moving the goal posts? Is that really what the ancients believed? Did they view the earth as going beyond the heavenly dome? I've never heard this notion.

I wasn't trying to say the earth was wider than the dome, please take the time to try to understand me. I was explaining that if something is under something else, that doesn't mean that it is "in" it. You also ignored the question of why it would even matter for the earth to be within the firmament. You implied it was some kind of roadblock but didn't explain how.

Now, I'm guilty of cutting out chunks of your posts but I gave three quotes of theologians who viewed the dome as solid. I'd appreciate a response to that, as well as a list of theologians from before Darwin that thought the firmament was actually the atmosphere and space.

And finally, you had accused me of being dogmatic and I'd still like to know how I am being dogmatic.

Thanks

 

[gluadys]

While I commend the work of men like Seely and Walton who make good arguments for looking at the understanding of the ANE when interpreting Ge. 1, I cannot accept their conclusions because they have failed to recognize that a transcendent God (as described in Scripture) can provide new revelation that goes beyond the understanding of the people in the culture to whom he has spoken.

I disagree entirely with the part in bold. A revelation that is not understood is not heard and certainly not preserved in a culture the way the teachings of the bible were for hundreds of years. A revelation that people treasure and keep and teach to their children has to make sense to them. That is why understanding the ANE culture is so important to understanding what the biblical writers were saying.

As far as their claim about raqia being understood as something "solid" and distinctly different than shamaim (heavens). I think the weight of the evidence stands against that claim. Here are some reasons I would reject that claim:


1) In Ge. 1:8 raqia is called shamaim. (the are equated)

2) In Ge. 1:14,15 the Sun, the Moon are said to be "in" the Raqia. Ge. 1:17 places the Sun, Moon, and stars in the raqia; Ge. 22:17, 26:4, Ex. 32:13, Duet. 1:10 all place the stars in the heavens (shamaim). In Duet. 4:19 the Sun, the Moon, and the starts are in the heavens (shamaim).

3) In Hebrew, synonyms are very common because Hebrew poetry is characterized by parallelism (using synonyms) or occasionally antithesis; it is not characterized by rhyme is it often is in English. In Ps. 19:1, this parallelism is clearly seen with raqia and shamaim being used as synonyms.

And what, in scripture, tells you they did not think of the shamayim as a solid dome?

You are assuming that 'raqiya' does not mean a solid thing because your modern view of "sky" or "heaven" is limitless space. But you cannot impose your modern view of "sky" or "heaven" on people whose view of the cosmos was different. You have to study what their view was.

You are right that 'raqiya' and 'shamayim' are used synonymously, but that doesn't mean synonymously to a modern view of what 'shamayim' is. It means that they understood the 'shamayim' to be like a 'raqiya'. So what does a study of Hebrew and of ANE culture tell us a 'raqiya' was, for then you have a description of their view of the 'shamayim'.

 

[Greg1234]

I disagree entirely with the part in bold. A revelation that is not understood is not heard and certainly not preserved in a culture the way the teachings of the bible were for hundreds of years. A revelation that people treasure and keep and teach to their children has to make sense to them. That is why understanding the ANE culture is so important to understanding what the biblical writers were saying.

The culture is theology.

 

[benelchi]

I disagree entirely with the part in bold. A revelation that is not understood is not heard and certainly not preserved in a culture the way the teachings of the bible were for hundreds of years. A revelation that people treasure and keep and teach to their children has to make sense to them. That is why understanding the ANE culture is so important to understanding what the biblical writers were saying.

The idea that humans cannot understand anything that is not already known in their culture is a demonstrably ludicrous. We have teachers, that present new unknow ideas to people and cultures all the time and they have no difficulty learning entirely new concepts. Our understanding of biology, quantum physics, astrophysics, etc... is vastly different than it was only 200 years ago and many of the concepts scientists understand today are not understood by the general culture, but are easily learned when people are given this new information. To suggest that a man can convey new, culturally unknown information to his culture, but God cannot is placing God in a very small box and in a way exalting man to a place higher than God himself.

And what, in scripture, tells you they did not think of the shamayim as a solid dome?

First, there is no Hebrew scholar that would even suggest such an understanding of Shamayim; not even the very few scholars that make suggestion about raqia. The reason is that while raqia is an infrequently used word (only 15 times in the entire OT) and speculation can be made because it is not as well understood, shamayim is used over 400 times in the OT and is very well understood.


Second, I read biblical Hebrew fluently and very much understand how this word is used. Because of this I recognize that this word is frequently translated as "sky" in English.

You are assuming that 'raqiya' does not mean a solid thing because your modern view of "sky" or "heaven" is limitless space. But you cannot impose your modern view of "sky" or "heaven" on people whose view of the cosmos was different. You have to study what their view was.

In my studies, I have spent hundreds of hours reading the liturature of the ANE. I read biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and some Greek, and have translations in English of thousands of pages of Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian, etc... documents from the ANE. My assumptions are based on many hours of studies of the ANE literature. What is the basis for your assumptions?

You are right that 'raqiya' and 'shamayim' are used synonymously, but that doesn't mean synonymously to a modern view of what 'shamayim' is. It means that they understood the 'shamayim' to be like a 'raqiya'. So what does a study of Hebrew and of ANE culture tell us a 'raqiya' was, for then you have a description of their view of the 'shamayim'.

Again, shamayim is well understood in Hebrew and its related cognates. If you accept them as synonymous, as the evidence strongly suggests, then you must abandon the hard dome theory.

 

[Calminian]

I wasn't trying to say the earth was wider than the dome, please take the time to try to understand me. I was explaining that if something is under something else, that doesn't mean that it is "in" it. You also ignored the question of why it would even matter for the earth to be within the firmament. You implied it was some kind of roadblock but didn't explain how.

Now, I'm guilty of cutting out chunks of your posts but I gave three quotes of theologians who viewed the dome as solid. I'd appreciate a response to that, as well as a list of theologians from before Darwin that thought the firmament was actually the atmosphere and space.

And finally, you had accused me of being dogmatic and I'd still like to know how I am being dogmatic.

Thanks

In a twist of irony, I think you missed my point, while making it at the same time.

 

[Calminian]

Then you know that chapter 37 was spoken by Elihu. Are you trying to imply everything Job's friends said was true? While God dealt with Job directly his friends were wrong about God.(Just because Job's wife said in Job 2:9 to "curse God and die" doesn't mean it's good advice.) Even though Elihu was a young man he seem to have a better view of God than the rest of Job's friends. Notice God spoke well of Job and not his friends or Elihu. Job were wrong about a lot of things which is why God rebuke him.

The whole thing about Elihu was he was not a wise old man just a young lad listening to the conversation between Job and his friends.

Was it Elihu in chapter 37? It's been a while since I read Job. I knew it was't God talking. But there is a rebuke to a counselor in verse 2. He's speaking to Job, but it's a smack to a counselor by his side.

“Who is this who darkens counsel By words without knowledge?"

IOW's he's asking Job about a counselor that is before him. You see Job was asking a lot of questions and as is human nature, people rose up and attempted to answer. And so God spoke to Job and asked Job, who is this guy you're listening to? Who is this that is trying to counsel without any real understanding. You see, I don't think that comment can't be directed toward Job, as he's the counselee. Then, interestingly God offers a rebuke to human understandings of cosmology. Now I'll have to look at it closer, but that seems to be a direct rebuke to Elihu's cosmology arguments that immediately preceded. God immediately ask where were you on creation day? Rhetorically Job was not there, nor was any other human being, including Elihu. How could they possibly make arguments from cosmology?

Elihu was young, I'm not sure how young. God seems less offended by him than the others. But the bottom line, Elihu was not speaking under inspiration, nor were the other 3 counselors, nor Job himself. This is why quoting Job 37 to prove biblical solid dome cosmology is so misguided.

Here's a commentary I came across that gives another angle though along the same lines.

We believe that God did indeed ignore Elihu, not only refusing to mention his name, although mentioning the names of all others named in the book, God also interrupted and terminated Elihu's remarks with a question addressed to Job, "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge"? (Job 38:2). Such an evaluation as that cannot be applied to Job's words, because God Himself said that, "My servant Job has spoken of me the thing that is right" (Job 42:7,8). Moreover, God specifically stated that the three friends, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar had spoken "folly" (Job 42:8); and Elihu's words, in almost every particular, are the same as those of the three, only more vituperative and derogatory toward Job. There is no way that we could accept Elihu's long and ridiculous speeches as any kind of a proper introduction to what the Lord would say out of the whirlwind. God answered Job and his friends by name, and ignored Elihu altogether, except in the derogatory words in the Lord's opening question to Job.​

Stydylight.org

Again, the folly of using Elihu's words to prove anything.

 

[BobRyan]

In Genesis 1 - 2:3 God makes all life on earth, forms the earth so that it functions, makes the Sun and the moon as the "Two great lights" of Day 4.

The "He made the stars also" identifies Him as their maker but does not make them one of the TWO lights made on Day 4.

In Ex 20:11 it is summarized this way "In SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth the seas and the springs of Water".

Paul speaks of 3 heavens.

In Genesis 1 - the birds fly in the midst of the first heaven.

yes it is literal - but let the Bible interpret itself.

I don't think Paul means literally 3 heavens, if you look at the the significance of the Number Three .

There were twelve disciples and 12 tribes of Israel. - even if you look at the significance of the number 12.

There were 3 disciples with Christ in Matt 17 on the mount of transfiguration - even if you look at the significance of the number 3.

In 2Cor 12:2 Paul is caught up to the 3rd heaven. The only thing he is unclear about is whether he was seeing that place in vision or whether he was physically taken to that place.

The only way that can be an issue -- is if that place really exists as such.

So here again -- it is real.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Philis]

In a twist of irony, I think you missed my point, while making it at the same time.

2 simple question:

So could you please explain what roadblocks I'm hitting, you haven't been clear on this?

If solid domers are really just TEs trying to smuggle in darwinian philosophy, why can I name at least 3 of them that predate darwin, and you can't name any theologians that predate darwin that think the firmament was the atmosphere and space?

 

[benelchi]

Philis,

One of the most respected theological dictionaries of the OT is the NIDOTTE; Its five volumes are composed of articles from over a hundred contributors from the world's leading schools in Semitic studies including Bruce Waltke, Paul Wegner, Gordon Wenham, Bill Arnold, Peter Cotterell, Jerome Lund, etc... It defines raqia as a:

"term often rendered as firmament, is translated as expanse (Gen. 1:6; Ezek 1:22; 10:1, etc.), skies (Ps. 19:1[2] shamayim, heavens), or heavens (Ps. 150:1; Dan 12:3) in NIV. In Gen 1:8, God called the expanse, shamayim. The term is hyponymous to expanse of the sky (Gen. 1:14, 15, 17, 20). Cf. Akk. burumu, firmament (of the heavens) (CAD B:344-34)."; NIDOTTE vol 3, pg. 1198.

 

[Philis]

Philis,

One of the most respected theological dictionaries of the OT is the NIDOTTE; Its five volumes are composed of articles from over a hundred contributors from the world's leading schools in Semitic studies including Bruce Waltke, Paul Wegner, Gordon Wenham, Bill Arnold, Peter Cotterell, Jerome Lund, etc... It defines raqia as a:

"term often rendered as firmament, is translated as expanse (Gen. 1:6; Ezek 1:22; 10:1, etc.), skies (Ps. 19:1[2] shamayim, heavens), or heavens (Ps. 150:1; Dan 12:3) in NIV. In Gen 1:8, God called the expanse, shamayim. The term is hyponymous to expanse of the sky (Gen. 1:14, 15, 17, 20). Cf. Akk. burumu, firmament (of the heavens) (CAD B:344-34)."; NIDOTTE vol 3, pg. 1198.

Why didn't you include the second part of the definition?

 

[benelchi]

Why didn't you include the second part of the definition?

Because it was the verb form and we were dealing with the noun form

 

[Calminian]

2 simple question:

So could you please explain what roadblocks I'm hitting, you haven't been clear on this?

If solid domers are really just TEs trying to smuggle in darwinian philosophy, why can I name at least 3 of them that predate darwin, and you can't name any theologians that predate darwin that think the firmament was the atmosphere and space?

Oy, Philis. Again, you completely missed the point. But I'm also amused how you've moved from the undecided seeker pretense to the advanced TE apologist and dogmatist What happened to the innocent undecided seeker?

By any chance did you read JP Holding's article on equivocal language in Genesis? Plus I've explained it in just about every post at some point. The problem is, you're no longer trying to acquire knowledge but have moved into defense mode. You're merely trying to save face. I could explain it again, I suppose, but I you've not acknowledged a single point I've made. It's starting to hurt my feelings. At this point, I'm wondering if you're in a place right now where you can actually hear any opposing arguments. I'll admit it could be me. I can be a little abrasive and brash. I fully own that. But for whatever reason, my basic points and premises are not getting through.

 

[benelchi]

Oy, Philis. Again, you completely missed the point. But I'm also amused how you've moved from the undecided seeker pretense to the advanced TE apologist and dogmatist What happened to the innocent undecided seeker?

By any chance did you read JP Holding's article on equivocal language in Genesis? Plus I've explained it in just about every post at some point. The problem is, you're no longer trying to acquire knowledge but have moved into defense mode. You're merely trying to save face. I could explain it again, I suppose, but I you've not acknowledged a single point I've made. It's starting to hurt my feelings. At this point, I'm wondering if you're in a place right now where you can actually hear any opposing arguments. I'll admit it could be me. I can be a little abrasive and brash. I fully own that. But for whatever reason, my basic points and premises are not getting through.

I think the issue is that Philis has misunderstood some very critical parts of the arguments against her position because she does not understand the language well enough to recognize some of the liberties taken by the scholars who have proposed the “solid” firmament understanding of רקיע; this is evident in her question about why I had not copied the information about the verbal form of the word from the NIDOTTE. The verbal meaning is the basis for the argument made by the scholars that support the “solid” firmament understanding but what they don’t tell you is that it is quite common for noun forms of a root to have very different meanings when compared to their verbal forms and looking to the verbal form may lead someone in the wrong direction when trying to understand the noun form of the same root. Generally, roots are related but often not in ways we would think about in English and sometimes the relation remains uncertain today. [FONT=&quot]רקיע [/FONT] (heavens, sky, firmament) and [FONT=&quot]רקע[/FONT] (to strike, to spread) is only one example where the connection between a verbal form and a noun form is uncertain. The majority of scholars are unconvinced by the arguments for understanding a “solid” firmament based on the verbal use of the root in its relation to the beating of metal in the metallurgy of the ANE. A similar example of a root that has a very different meaning in its verbal form and its noun form can be seen in the very common root [FONT=&quot]לחם[/FONT]. This is the noun that is used in the name of the very famous city Bethlehem ([FONT=&quot]בית לחם[/FONT]) meaning “house of bread.”

If I say, using [FONT=&quot]לחם[/FONT] as a noun, in Hebrew:

“[FONT=&quot]האיש אכל לחם מן השולחן[/FONT]”

it would translate as “The man ate bread from the table,”

but if I say, using [FONT=&quot]לחם[/FONT] as a verb,

“[FONT=&quot]האיש לחם את החיה[/FONT]”

it would translate as “The man fought the beast”



Note: I would usually write these sentences a little differently i.e. “[FONT=&quot]אכל האיש לחם משולחן[/FONT]” which also says “the man ate bread from the table” but I wanted something that google’s simplistic translation engine could translate properly so those who do not read Hebrew could check the translation and verify the validity of what I have posted. The first two examples will translate correctly using google’s translate. Here is a link with the text already posted. Google Translate

The point is that good linguists will tell you that usage always take precedence over etymology when trying to understand the meaning of a word. This rule applies to every language, not just Hebrew. If I were to look at the etymology of the word “gay” to try and determine its meaning in a 2012 news paper article, I would come to very wrong conclusions about its meaning. This is the exact same mistake being made by the scholars who have looked at the etymology of [FONT=&quot]רקיע[/FONT] to come up with the meaning "solid dome."

 

[Calminian]

.......The point is that good linguists will tell you that usage always take precedence over etymology when trying to understand the meaning of a word. This rule applies to every language, not just Hebrew. If I were to look at the etymology of the word “gay” to try and determine its meaning in a 2012 news paper article, I would come to very wrong conclusions about its meaning. This is the exact same mistake being made by the scholars who have looked at the etymology of [FONT=&quot]רקיע[/FONT] to come up with the meaning "solid dome."

Well said. This is the essence, IMO of the rayqia([FONT=&quot]רקיע[/FONT]) debate. The Genesis author defines the term explicitly. And yet instead of looking to the word shamayim for answers, they look to obscure passages in Ezekiel and ANE etymology to come to grips with the word. It boggles the mind.

But thanks for the hebrew info on the verb vs. noun issue. Good contribution.

 

[Philis]

Oy, Philis. Again, you completely missed the point. But I'm also amused how you've moved from the undecided seeker pretense to the advanced TE apologist and dogmatist What happened to the innocent undecided seeker?

I'm not advancing theistic evolution at all, I'm looking at how theologians have understood the creation account. Why do you keep calling views other than you own "theistic evolution"? How can you call the views of Origen, Augustine, and Luther "theistic evolution"?

By any chance did you read JP Holding's article on equivocal language in Genesis? Plus I've explained it in just about every post at some point. The problem is, you're no longer trying to acquire knowledge but have moved into defense mode. You're merely trying to save face. I could explain it again, I suppose, but I you've not acknowledged a single point I've made. It's starting to hurt my feelings. At this point, I'm wondering if you're in a place right now where you can actually hear any opposing arguments. I'll admit it could be me. I can be a little abrasive and brash. I fully own that. But for whatever reason, my basic points and premises are not getting through.

I feel like I could repeat this back to you pretty much word for word.

I think the most important thing for both of us to do is to recognize that it not as simple as saying "This is what it means, period." There's so much to it and there are many different legitimate Christian views of the creation account. I'm disappointed the most in the fact that you don't see other views as being Christian views that have existed for centuries, instead you keep branding other views as "theistic evolution" which is an absurd title for a view of the creation account that has existed since the early church fathers.

It's ok with me to agree to disagree, the reason I get defensive is because you, Mark Kennedy, and other take legitimate Christian theology and try to call it "darwinian philosophy". It's offensive, we are all saved by the blood of Jesus and we'll be in heaven together, no matter how convicted you feel about your origins view.

 

[Calminian]

I'm not advancing theistic evolution at all.....

Sorry, I couldn't get past this sentence.

 

[benelchi]

I'm disappointed the most in the fact that you don't see other views as being Christian views that have existed for centuries

It is fair to say that the Early church was divided on how Creation happened and that there were many in the Early church that rejected a belief in a literal 6 24 hour day creation.

It is unfair to say that theories about a "hard dome" or Theistic evolutionary views or modern Old Earth creation theories have existed for centuries because they haven't. While the debates of the early church regarding how Genesis is to be understood should help us to understand that no one interpretation was accepted and there is a whole lot of room for discussion. The specifics details of most theories today (even YEC) were unknown during the period of the early church.

 

[Philis]

Sorry, I couldn't get past this sentence.

Why not? How am is quoting early church fathers the same as advancing theistic evolution?

 

[Philis]

It is fair to say that the Early church was divided on how Creation happened and that there were many in the Early church that rejected a belief in a literal 6 24 hour day creation.

Exactly, it's not a cut and dry "us vs darwinism" debate. It's theology, and that's it.

It is unfair to say that theories about a "hard dome"....have existed for centuries because they haven't.

Yes, they have, see the quotes I gave in post #130

It is unfair to say that theories about...Theistic evolutionary views ...have existed for centuries because they haven't.

I never said they did.

It is unfair to say that theories about...modern Old Earth creation theories have existed for centuries because they haven't.

I never said they did. My view doesn't say what the age of the earth is. The view in the OP leaves up up to whatever age of the earth science tells us, whether that's 6,000 years or a trillion years, it doesn't really matter.

While the debates of the early church regarding how Genesis is to be understood should help us to understand that no one interpretation was accepted and there is a whole lot of room for discussion. The specifics details of most theories today (even YEC) were unknown during the period of the early church.

Exactly, it's not an issue of literalism vs theistic evolution, it's an issue of Christian theology vs Christian theology.

 

[Calminian]

I never said they did. My view doesn't say what the age of the earth is. The view in the OP leaves up up to whatever age of the earth science tells us, whether that's 6,000 years or a trillion years, it doesn't really matter.

Exactly. You've denied scripture as historical narrative. (BTW, even Augustine didn't do this. He believed Genesis was historical narrative.) You've replaced special revelation with uniformitarianism and scientism. So even though the authors revealed creation as a historical narrative, you've rejected that so that science can be your guide to history.

Problem is, again, science can't detect nor discern historical miracles. Uniformitarian timelines will always be off in the wake of a miracle.

Exactly, it's not an issue of literalism vs theistic evolution, it's an issue of Christian theology vs Christian theology.

Frankly, it's an issue of christian theology vs. uniformitarian philosophy (perhaps greek determinism).