I read it literally now

[benelchi]

Basil the Great commenting on the nature of the firmament:
And surely we need not believe, because [the firmament] seems to have had its origin, according to the general understanding, from water, that it is like either frozen water or some such material that takes its origin from the percolation of moisture, such as is a crystalline rock.
Hexaemeron 3-8

Here is what I found when I looked this passage up in Schaff, Early Church fathers, Hexaemeron 3-8:

"8. "And God called the firmament heaven." The nature of right belongs to another, and the firmament only shares it on account of its resemblance to heaven. We often find the visible region called heaven, on account of the density and continuity of the air within our ken, and deriving its name "heaven" from the word which means to see. It is of it that Scripture says, "The fowl of the air," "Fowl that may fly…in the open firmament of heaven;" and, elsewhere, "They mount up to heaven." Moses, blessing the tribe of Joseph, desires for it the fruits and the dews of heaven, of the suns of summer and the conjunctions of the moon, and blessings from the tops of the mountains and from the everlasting hills, in one word, from all which fertilises the earth. In the curses on Israel it is said, "And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass." What does this mean? It threatens him with a complete drought, with an absence of the aerial waters which cause the fruits of the earth to be brought forth and to grow.
Since, then, Scripture says that the dew or the rain falls from heaven, we understand that it is from those waters which have been ordered to occupy the higher regions. When the exhalations from the earth, gathered together in the heights of the air, are condensed under the pressure of the wind, this aerial moisture diffuses itself in vaporous and light clouds; then mingling again, it forms drops which fall, dragged down by their own weight; and this is the origin of rain. When water beaten by the violence of the wind, changes into foam, and passing through excessive cold quite freezes, it breaks the cloud, and falls as snow. You can thus account for all the moist substances that the air suspends over our heads.
And do not let any one compare with the inquisitive discussions of philosophers upon the heavens, the simple and inartificial character of the utterances of the Spirit; as the beauty of chaste women surpasses that of a harlot, so our arguments are superior to those of our opponents. They only seek to persuade by forced reasoning. With us truth presents itself naked and without artifice. But why torment ourselves to refute the errors of philosophers, when it is sufficient to produce their mutually contradictory books, and, as quiet spectators, to watch the war? For those thinkers are not less numerous, nor less celebrated, nor more sober in speech in fighting their adversaries, who say that the universe is being consumed by fire, and that from the seeds which remain in the ashes of the burnt world all is being brought to life again. Hence in the world there is destruction and palingenesis to infinity. All, equally far from the truth, find each on their side by-ways which lead them to error."


Who ever provided the quote you have given us seems to have turned Basil's quote on its head. I don't know how Basil could have more strongly supported the traditional understanding of raqia if he had tried.

Origen Commenting on Genesis 1:8 where the firmament is called Heaven:
Although God had already previously made heaven, now he makes the firmament. For he made heaven first, about shich he says, “Heaven is my throne.” But after that he makes the firmament, that is, the corporeal heaven. For every corporeal object is, without doubt, firm and solid; and it is this that “divides the water which is above heaven from the water which is below heaven.”
Homilies on Genesis 1.2

I have been unable to verify the source of this quote but remain very suspicious based on the distortion that was presented from Basil's well know work. It is possible that this quote came from the documents attributed to Origin discovered in June of this year (2012) but these are not widely available yet and verification of any quotes from this material would be very difficult.

And more recently, Martin Luther:
It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire
How could they be fastened to something that isn't solid?

I would like to see this quote in its entire context. Every example that I can find quotes this with an ellipsis and that usually is a sign that someone is trying to pull it out of context. Do you have the entire quote?

Well now I've given the names of 3 solid domers that predate Darwin. Can you give me some references to early scholars that viewed the firmament as the atmosphere and space?

The real quote from Basil (the only one of the three that I was able to verify seems to do a pretty good job of presenting the firmament as an atmosphere.

 

[Calminian]

I would like to see this quote in its entire context. Every example that I can find quotes this with an ellipsis and that usually is a sign that someone is trying to pull it out of context. Do you have the entire quote?

Plus look at the quote itself.

It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire

He says likely. There's no dogmatism to be sure. He's offering a speculation. Do you really believe, in light of the knowledge we have today, that Luther wouldn't have dropped solid dome cosmology when he wasn't dogmatic about it then? Why would he use the term "likely" if he really believe scripture taught it?

Philis, many of the ancients did believe in things like geocentrism and even in solid skies. And of course they're going to speculate on how they may have applied to scripture. That doesn't mean they dogmatically interpreted these things into scripture like you are. I don't recall anyone clinging to Strong's the way you have. You're more dogmatic than any ancient theologian you've cited.

Frankly, I don't understand the logic in looking at past interpretations being that we can look at the very text they looked and and reason from it. And we have better manuscripts and better understandings of the original language.

 

[Papias]

Smidlee wrote:

Then you know that chapter 37 was spoken by Elihu. Are you trying to imply everything Job's friends said was true?

Yes, Elihu. No, only that this is a situation where what is said is relevant, because God was right there. See below.

Cal wrote:

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.

When something isn't clear, remember that scripture interprets scripture. The text clearly says that God is addressing Job, and God goes on to address Job's points, showing that in 38:1, he was referring to Job, not Elihu.

Now, a lot of times in scripture, something is said, and we don't know what God thinks of it. However, this is a rare instance where something is said and God is manifest right there, and he even responds. The fact that he doesn't disagree with Elihu's pointing out that the firmament dome is hard says enough right there, and reading farther, you can see that God even goes on to reaffirm the "hard dome over a flat earth" model in 38:13 and 14.

Of course, unless you are a flat earth Christian (they do exist), I think we all agree that the earth is a sphere, and that of course God knows this, having made it himself. So why would he speak of it as flat with a hard dome here and in all those other verses I gave? Because he's talking to people in a certain time, and he needs to communicate to them. In the same way, he doesn't talk about germs, even though he repeatedly talks about disease. God of course knows about germs, but is again communicating to those at the time the scripture was written. We both agree that God never talks about germs, right?

Papias

 

[benelchi]

Yes, Elihu. No, only that this is a situation where what is said is relevant, because God was right there. See below.

When something isn't clear, remember that scripture interprets scripture. The text clearly says that God is addressing Job, and God goes on to address Job's points, showing that in 38:1, he was referring to Job, not Elihu.

Now, a lot of times in scripture, something is said, and we don't know what God thinks of it. However, this is a rare instance where something is said and God is manifest right there, and he even responds. The fact that he doesn't disagree with Elihu's pointing out that the firmament dome is hard says enough right there, and reading farther, you can see that God even goes on to reaffirm the "hard dome over a flat earth" model in 38:13 and 14.

Of course, unless you are a flat earth Christian (they do exist), I think we all agree that the earth is a sphere, and that of course God knows this, having made it himself. So why would he speak of it as flat with a hard dome here and in all those other verses I gave? Because he's talking to people in a certain time, and he needs to communicate to them. In the same way, he doesn't talk about germs, even though he repeatedly talks about disease. God of course knows about germs, but is again communicating to those at the time the scripture was written. We both agree that God never talks about germs, right?

Papias

1) Job is poetry; it is a huge hermetical mistake to try and treat it as if it were a narrative.

2) God never endorses or acknowledges Elihu.

3) The Hebrew word רקיע at the heart of this discussion isn't even used in Job.

4) I assume you are proposing a "flat earth" perspective because your English translation reads "edges?" Note, the Hebrew does not read edges, it literally reads "wings" and idiomatically means "extremities." It is always a hermetical mistake to read in all of the nuances of an English word in translation and expect that all of those nuances are reflected in the Hebrew text. It NEVER will be because words in two different languages NEVER have an identical semantic range of meaning; they are always overlapping with some portions of the meaning in the original unreflected in translation and some portions of the translation inapplicable to the original. For example, the Hebrew word זמן means "to order something" or "to invite someone" our English word "order" means "to order something" or "to command someone." The English word "order" never means "to invite," and the Hebrew word "זמן" never means "to command."

 

[gluadys]

The culture is theology.

Precisely.

All the more reason to understand the culture.

 

[gluadys]

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.

Sure, but when even the teachers of the time had no knowledge of modern Western culture and science, who is going to instruct them in these things?

The bible is written in the context of its time. It is immediately understandable to the people of its time. And that includes the most educated of the time, for only the most educated could read and write. The cosmology it presents is the cosmology the most educated knew of and found acceptable.

No doubt, if they knew of another, they could certainly have taught it. But there is no indication in scripture that this was the case.

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.

Indeed, most languages have only one word to refer to both "sky" and "heaven". English distinguishes because it added the Nordic word for "sky/heaven" to its vocabulary which already contained the Germanic root of "sky/heaven"--at first as a synonym and eventually allowing each word to specialize. (Rather like gene duplication in biology.)

So when a language has only one word where in English we discriminate two meanings, we have to be careful we don't draw distinctions based on English and apply them to the other.

We should be cognizant that at all times, in Hebrew, (modern as well as ancient) "sky" is an implicit meaning of "heaven" and vice versa. Sometimes context will favour one translation over the other; sometimes the context will be ambiguous. In the original, there is always an element of ambiguity because of the nature of the word itself.

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?




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.

Your background in the original languages is better than mine.

So, provide us with the citations on which the understanding of 'shamayim' is based and show us how they clearly refute the common ANE perception of the sky as a solid dome. (Of course, those passages in which 'shamayim' most likely means 'sky' would be most appropriate, but lets not overlook those where the translation 'heaven' is typically used, but could also include the meaning of 'sky'.)

 

[Papias]

1) Job is poetry; it is a huge hermetical mistake to try and treat it as if it were a narrative.

I'm not reading it as purely narrative, but even poetry can tell us things. Would you say the same of Genesis, which also is poetry?

2) God never endorses or acknowledges Elihu.

Explicitly? No. Implicitly, yes.

3) The Hebrew word רקיע at the heart of this discussion isn't even used in Job.

I didn't say it was.

4) I assume you are proposing a "flat earth" perspective because your English translation reads "edges?"

No, I'm talking about "clay stamped under a seal". That shows a flat earth. However, now that you've brought it up, that's relevant too.

It NEVER will be because words in two different languages NEVER have an identical semantic range of meaning; they are always overlapping with some portions of the meaning in the original unreflected in translation and some portions of the translation inapplicable to the original.

So someone reading an English Bible is reading a distorted and unreliable text?

Papias

 

[Smidlee]

No, I'm talking about "clay stamped under a seal". That shows a flat earth. However, now that you've brought it up, that's relevant too.

how does clay stamped under a seal refers to a flat planet?
Does a map refers to a flat planet?

 

[benelchi]

Sure, but when even the teachers of the time had no knowledge of modern Western culture and science, who is going to instruct them in these things?

You missed the point entirely. Clearly you recognize a teacher can communicate ideas to a culture that were not previously understood by that culture. Surely, a transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient God is a more capable teacher than any human teacher.

The bible is written in the context of its time. It is immediately understandable to the people of its time. And that includes the most educated of the time, for only the most educated could read and write. The cosmology it presents is the cosmology the most educated knew of and found acceptable.

That assumes that a transcendent God did not teach the authors of Scripture anything outside of what they already knew and that the authors of Scripture could not teach others within their culture ideas outside of what they already knew; those are not assumptions that I am willing to make because I think the weight of the evidence stands in contrast to these ideas. All one has to do is read the other creation myths in order to recognize how different the biblical account of Creation really is. The idea that a person can not know anything outside of their cultures understanding is not something taught in Scripture, it is an idea that originates with postmodern thought.

No doubt, if they knew of another, they could certainly have taught it. But there is no indication in scripture that this was the case.

As I said above, when one compares the creation stories from the other cultures of the ANE to that of Scripture, there is tremendous evidence that they understood far more about creation than did their ANE counterparts.

Indeed, most languages have only one word to refer to both "sky" and "heaven". English distinguishes because it added the Nordic word for "sky/heaven" to its vocabulary which already contained the Germanic root of "sky/heaven"--at first as a synonym and eventually allowing each word to specialize. (Rather like gene duplication in biology.)

So when a language has only one word where in English we discriminate two meanings, we have to be careful we don't draw distinctions based on English and apply them to the other.

We should be cognizant that at all times, in Hebrew, (modern as well as ancient) "sky" is an implicit meaning of "heaven" and vice versa. Sometimes context will favour one translation over the other; sometimes the context will be ambiguous. In the original, there is always an element of ambiguity because of the nature of the word itself.

But isn't the false distiction between raqia and shamayim the bases for the ANE cosmology that has been posited? My point is almost exactly the one you made here; trying to distinguish detailed specific meanings from these words is a huge mistake. Hebrew (unlike many other languages) just doesn't work this way i.e. biblical Hebrew has a vocabulary that is magnitudes smaller than our English language but with a much higher frequency of synonyms because repetition of the same ideas using different words plays such an important part in Hebrew poetry.

Your background in the original languages is better than mine.

So, provide us with the citations on which the understanding of 'shamayim' is based and show us how they clearly refute the common ANE perception of the sky as a solid dome. (Of course, those passages in which 'shamayim' most likely means 'sky' would be most appropriate, but lets not overlook those where the translation 'heaven' is typically used, but could also include the meaning of 'sky'.)

In general, shamayim refers to "sky" and similarly, "eretz" refers to land i.e. "haeretz" often refers only to "the land of Israel" or "eretz mitsrayim" would refer to Egypt. For erets or shamayim to mean "the whole earth" or "the whole heavens" the context must demand it. For example, when the words shamayim and eretz are used together the sense is the entire universe i.e. all that exists. Here is the whole list of verses that use "shamayim."

Gen. 1:1, 8-9, 14-15, 17, 20, 26, 28, 30
Gen. 2:1, 4, 19-20
Gen. 6:7, 17
Gen. 7:3, 11, 19, 23
Gen. 8:2
Gen. 9:2
Gen. 11:4
Gen. 14:19, 22
Gen. 15:5
Gen. 19:24
Gen. 21:17
Gen. 22:11, 15, 17
Gen. 24:3, 7
Gen. 26:4
Gen. 27:28, 39
Gen. 28:12, 17
Gen. 49:25
Exod. 9:8, 10, 22-23
Exod. 10:21-22
Exod. 16:4
Exod. 17:14
Exod. 20:4, 11, 22
Exod. 24:10
Exod. 31:17
Exod. 32:13
Lev. 26:19
Deut. 1:10, 28
Deut. 2:25
Deut. 3:24
Deut. 4:11, 17, 19, 26, 32, 36, 39
Deut. 5:8
Deut. 7:24
Deut. 9:1, 14
Deut. 10:14, 22
Deut. 11:11, 17, 21
Deut. 17:3
Deut. 25:19
Deut. 26:15
Deut. 28:12, 23-24, 26, 62
Deut. 29:19
Deut. 30:4, 12, 19
Deut. 31:28
Deut. 32:1, 40
Deut. 33:13, 26, 28
Jos. 2:11
Jos. 8:20
Jos. 10:11, 13
Jdg. 5:4, 20
Jdg. 13:20
Jdg. 20:40
1 Sam. 2:10
1 Sam. 5:12
1 Sam. 17:44, 46
2 Sam. 18:9
2 Sam. 21:10
2 Sam. 22:8, 10, 14
1 Ki. 8:22-23, 27, 30, 32, 34-36, 39, 43, 45, 49, 54
1 Ki. 14:11
1 Ki. 16:4
1 Ki. 18:45
1 Ki. 21:24
1 Ki. 22:19
2 Ki. 1:10, 12, 14
2 Ki. 2:1, 11
2 Ki. 7:2, 19
2 Ki. 14:27
2 Ki. 17:16
2 Ki. 19:15
2 Ki. 21:3, 5
2 Ki. 23:4-5
1 Chr. 16:26, 31
1 Chr. 21:16, 26
1 Chr. 27:23
1 Chr. 29:11
2 Chr. 2:5, 11
2 Chr. 6:13-14, 18, 21, 23, 25-27, 30, 33, 35, 39
2 Chr. 7:1, 13-14
2 Chr. 18:18
2 Chr. 20:6
2 Chr. 28:9
2 Chr. 30:27
2 Chr. 32:20
2 Chr. 33:3, 5
2 Chr. 36:23
Ezr. 1:2
Ezr. 9:6
Neh. 1:4-5, 9
Neh. 2:4, 20
Neh. 9:6, 13, 15, 23, 27-28
Job 1:16
Job 2:12
Job 9:8
Job 11:8
Job 12:7
Job 14:12
Job 15:15
Job 16:19
Job 20:6, 27
Job 22:12, 14
Job 26:11, 13
Job 28:21, 24
Job 35:5, 11
Job 37:3
Job 38:29, 33, 37
Job 41:3
Ps. 2:4
Ps. 8:2, 4, 9
Ps. 11:4
Ps. 14:2
Ps. 18:10, 14
Ps. 19:2, 7
Ps. 20:7
Ps. 33:6, 13
Ps. 36:6
Ps. 50:4, 6
Ps. 53:3
Ps. 57:4, 6, 11-12
Ps. 68:9, 34
Ps. 69:35
Ps. 73:9, 25
Ps. 76:9
Ps. 78:23-24, 26
Ps. 79:2
Ps. 80:15
Ps. 85:12
Ps. 89:3, 6, 12, 30
Ps. 96:5, 11
Ps. 97:6
Ps. 102:20, 26
Ps. 103:11, 19
Ps. 104:2, 12
Ps. 105:40
Ps. 107:26
Ps. 108:5-6
Ps. 113:4, 6
Ps. 115:3, 15-16
Ps. 119:89
Ps. 121:2
Ps. 123:1
Ps. 124:8
Ps. 134:3
Ps. 135:6
Ps. 136:5, 26
Ps. 139:8
Ps. 144:5
Ps. 146:6
Ps. 147:8
Ps. 148:1, 4, 13
Prov. 3:19
Prov. 8:27
Prov. 23:5
Prov. 25:3
Prov. 30:4, 19
Eccl. 1:13
Eccl. 2:3
Eccl. 3:1
Eccl. 5:1
Eccl. 10:20
Isa. 1:2
Isa. 13:5, 10, 13
Isa. 14:12-13
Isa. 34:4-5
Isa. 37:16
Isa. 40:12, 22
Isa. 42:5
Isa. 44:23-24
Isa. 45:8, 12, 18
Isa. 47:13
Isa. 48:13
Isa. 49:13
Isa. 50:3
Isa. 51:6, 13, 16
Isa. 55:9-10
Isa. 63:15, 19
Isa. 65:17
Isa. 66:1, 22
Jer. 2:12
Jer. 4:23, 25, 28
Jer. 7:18, 33
Jer. 8:2, 7
Jer. 9:9
Jer. 10:2, 12-13
Jer. 14:22
Jer. 15:3
Jer. 16:4
Jer. 19:7, 13
Jer. 23:24
Jer. 31:37
Jer. 32:17
Jer. 33:22, 25
Jer. 34:20
Jer. 44:17-19, 25
Jer. 49:36
Jer. 51:9, 15-16, 48, 53
Lam. 2:1
Lam. 3:41, 50, 66
Lam. 4:19
Ezek. 1:1
Ezek. 8:3
Ezek. 29:5
Ezek. 31:6, 13
Ezek. 32:4, 7-8
Ezek. 38:20
Dan. 8:8, 10
Dan. 9:12
Dan. 11:4
Dan. 12:7
Hos. 2:20, 23
Hos. 4:3
Hos. 7:12
Joel 2:10
Joel 3:3
Joel 4:16
Amos 9:2, 6
Jon. 1:9
Nah. 3:16
Hab. 3:3
Zeph. 1:3, 5
Hag. 1:10
Hag. 2:6, 21
Zech. 2:10
Zech. 5:9
Zech. 6:5
Zech. 8:12
Zech. 12:1
Mal. 3:10

 

[benelchi]

I'm not reading it as purely narrative, but even poetry can tell us things. Would you say the same of Genesis, which also is poetry?

Is there a poetic sense to Gen 1? Maybe??? Is it Hebrew poetry? ABSOLUTELY NOT! It does not reflect the style of Hebrew poetry nor does it adhere to the grammatical rules of Hebrew poetry. The rules for understanding Hebrew poetry do not apply to Gen. 1! Additionally, outside of the account of Genesis 1, the rest of the books is normal everyday narrative.

Explicitly? No. Implicitly, yes.

The only implicit acknowledgement of Elihu's words comes from a vivid imagination and not from the text of Job.

No, I'm talking about "clay stamped under a seal". That shows a flat earth. However, now that you've brought it up, that's relevant too.

Again, you are trying to read details into poetry that should not be read into poetic passages (In Hebrew or in English).

So someone reading an English Bible is reading a distorted and unreliable text?

Only when they try to read details into the text that shouldn't be read into the text; it is called bad hermeneutics. The problem isn't with the translation, it is with the misuse of the translation and it isn't the text that is unreliable, it is the interpretation of that text that is unreliable.

 

[gluadys]

You missed the point entirely. Clearly you recognize a teacher can communicate ideas to a culture that were not previously understood by that culture.

On the contrary, I already agreed that is the case. But only if the teacher has new ideas to communicate.

Surely, a transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient God is a more capable teacher than any human teacher.

No doubt. The point?

That assumes that a transcendent God did not teach the authors of Scripture anything outside of what they already knew and that the authors of Scripture could not teach others within their culture ideas outside of what they already knew;

Yes and no. Obviously one concept God taught the authors of scripture is that God is one and there is no God but God. Also that God is not to be compared with any created thing, nor any created thing used as an image of God.

These are ideas which contrast with those of other ANE cultures.
OTOH, there is no evidence that God provided these same writers with ideas contradicting commonly-held cosmology (other than to modify the concepts to agree with monotheism.)

This makes sense theologically, for no amount of factual information about the universe would provide a reason for limiting the number of gods to one---this is something humans could not learn for themselves and had to learn through revelation.


Facts about the physical universe, on the other hand, do not require revelation since they can be discovered no matter what one believes about deities.

those are not assumptions that I am willing to make because I think the weight of the evidence stands in contrast to these ideas.

I am definitely willing to weigh any evidence you choose to present.

As I said above, when one compares the creation stories from the other cultures of the ANE to that of Scripture, there is tremendous evidence that they understood far more about creation than did their ANE counterparts.

Well, yes. They understood that creation is creation and that it has a beginning. By contrast pagan creation stories assume an eternal physical presence (though in chaotic form) and are largely cosmogonies that rely on the births and battles of gods. In most pagan cosmogonies, the cosmos gives birth to the gods which then redesign the cosmos to their liking. But in the Hebrew account God transcends the cosmos, gives it its beginning and is the sole maker of everything in it.

Sure they understood more about creation.

But the more is mostly theology, not scientific information.

But isn't the false distiction between raqia and shamayim the bases for the ANE cosmology that has been posited?

I don't know what you are talking about. The distinction between raquia and shamayim is nothing like the distinction in English between sky and heaven.
According to Genesis, God makes a raqia and calls it shamayim. Shamayim here can mean sky or heaven or both. So what God calls "sky" or "heaven" (or both simultaneously) is a "raqia".

Now to understand that we need to know what a 'raqia' is.
Most biblical descriptions of both raqia and shamayim sound like a solid dome or at least a solid something (like the curtains of a tent).

In general, shamayim refers to "sky" and similarly, "eretz" refers to land i.e. "haeretz" often refers only to "the land of Israel" or "eretz mitsrayim" would refer to Egypt. For erets or shamayim to mean "the whole earth" or "the whole heavens" the context must demand it. For example, when the words shamayim and eretz are used together the sense is the entire universe i.e. all that exists.

That confirms what I already understood.

Here is the whole list of verses that use "shamayim."

So, you did not find any which speak of shamayim in such as way that it contradicts the view that the sky is a solid dome.

For if you had, you would have provided the specific references.

 

[benelchi]

OTOH, there is no evidence that God provided these same writers with ideas contradicting commonly-held cosmology (other than to modify the concepts to agree with monotheism.)

I would strongly disagree. The only way to ignore the evidence that is clearly evident in the text is to invent new definitions for Hebrew words that have a long history of being understood differently. I don't accept these new, creative definitions or the philosophical arguments that underlay these new definitions.

I don't know what you are talking about. The distinction between raquia and shamayim is nothing like the distinction in English between sky and heaven.
According to Genesis, God makes a raqia and calls it shamayim. Shamayim here can mean sky or heaven or both. So what God calls "sky" or "heaven" (or both simultaneously) is a "raqia".

Now to understand that we need to know what a 'raqia' is.
Most biblical descriptions of both raqia and shamayim sound like a solid dome or at least a solid something (like the curtains of a tent).

Actually the scholars who have proposed the "solid dome" theory believe only raqia describes a "solid dome"; they recognize that it is impossible to make that argument for shamayim because it is used much more frequently and is therefore better understood.

My point is that these words are used synonymously in the Hebrew text and neither describes a "solid dome"

So, you did not find any which speak of shamayim in such as way that it contradicts the view that the sky is a solid dome.

For if you had, you would have provided the specific references.

Actually, I provided every instances of shamayim in the OT so you could see how the word is used. If you want a specific example look at Deut 4:7 here is the translation from the NIV and the original text:

"any bird that flies in the air,"
"כל־צפור כנף אשׁר תעוף בשׁמים"

Note: The NIV translators recognized that shamayim (heavens) wasn't a solid dome, shouldn't you?

 

[Keachian]

Raqiya from raqa
Raqiya` - Hebrew Lexicon
extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
expanse (flat as base, support)
firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

raqa
Raqa` - Hebrew Lexicon
to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out, stretch
(Qal)
to stamp, beat out
one who beats out (participle)
(Piel) to overlay, beat out (for plating)
(Pual) beaten out (participle)
(Hiphil) to make a spreading (of clouds)

Yes this is BDB, however I'm pretty sure that looking at the root of the word is more telling in etymology than what is a synonym.

 

[benelchi]

Raqiya from raqa
Raqiya` - Hebrew Lexicon
extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
expanse (flat as base, support)
firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

Of course BDB has this definition. S.R. Driver (the "D" in BDB) is one of the higher critical scholars that has proposed this idea; surely you don't expect him to produce a lexicon that doesn't support his ideas.

Driver makes the same claims in "Westminister Commentaries: The book of Genesis, S.R. Driver, pg. 7, 1904"

This is why I prefer modern volumes that reflect the current work of hundreds of scholars like the NIDOTTE quoted here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7673104-15/#post61078094; rather than the outdated work of three scholars.

raqa
Raqa` - Hebrew Lexicon
to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out, stretch
(Qal)
to stamp, beat out
one who beats out (participle)
(Piel) to overlay, beat out (for plating)
(Pual) beaten out (participle)
(Hiphil) to make a spreading (of clouds)

Yes this is BDB, however I'm pretty sure that looking at the root of the word is more telling in etymology than what is a synonym.

Actually, every school of Linguistics would disagree with you. Looking at the etymology can help one see how a word evolved but it is very often a poor indicator of current meaning. Knowing what period of time a passage is written is very important in trying to understand what a passage says because word meanings do change (sometimes significantly). One of the huge mistakes made by people who use the KJV today is assuming that because they know a word's current usage, they also understand its meaning intended by the KJV translators. Many words have so significantly changed meaning that misunderstandings of the text are quite common today. This is no different in Hebrew (or any other langauge that has a long history). I gave a good example from Hebrew where the etymology won't help here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7673104-16/#post61082989

 

[gluadys]

I would strongly disagree. The only way to ignore the evidence that is clearly evident in the text

You keep mentioning what is "clearly evident" in the text, but you give no examples. Examples of this clear evidence is what I am asking for.

Actually the scholars who have proposed the "solid dome" theory believe only raqia describes a "solid dome"; they recognize that it is impossible to make that argument for shamayim because it is used much more frequently and is therefore better understood.

Granted. 'shamayim' if it had never been connected with 'raqia' might not give the impression of a solidity separating the waters above from the waters below (though we do have the phrase "windows of heaven" and some other instances of 'shamayim' that imply a solid barrier.

My point is that these words are used synonymously in the Hebrew text and neither describes a "solid dome"

And it is because they are used synonymously, that the sense of 'raqiya' referring to something "beaten out" does attach itself to 'shamayim' since it is the raqiya that is named 'shamayim'.

Actually, I provided every instances of shamayim in the OT so you could see how the word is used.

I already know that most instances where it is used give no hint of the nature of the structure. It certainly does not refer, for example, to outer space since that concept was unavailable to the writers.

So, if we want to know the nature of the structure called 'shamayim' we must use the few instances that do provide some clues and the tie with 'raqiya'.

If you want a specific example

I would even appreciate more than one.

look at Deut 4:7 here is the translation from the NIV and the original text:

"any bird that flies in the air,"
"כל־צפור כנף אשׁר תעוף בשׁמים"

Note: The NIV translators recognized that shamayim (heavens) wasn't a solid dome, shouldn't you?

It is not unusual to refer to the space within a dome as part of the structure of the dome. A bird flying from one side of St. Paul's cathedral to the other would be flying through air, but it would also be flying in the dome. No one would take that to mean it was flying through stone rather than within the bound set by the vaulted stone.

The NIV translators could have chosen a translation such as "any bird that flies through the vault of heaven". The fact that they chose a simpler translation doesn't mean the original writer was not thinking of the sky as a dome encircling and containing the air through which birds fly. (And we should not forget that those translating scripture for modern readers often use a dynamically equivalent translation which speaks more clearly to the perspective of a modern reader than a more exact translation would.)

Of course, he could be thinking something different as well.

So, in reference to what the structure of the shamayim is, the example is as ambiguous as any other.

In any case, it is not clearly evident from this what the nature of the shamayim/raqia is. It is equally consistent with unbounded air and with an enclosed dome-shaped air space.

 

[benelchi]

You keep mentioning what is "clearly evident" in the text, but you give no examples. Examples of this clear evidence is what I am asking for.

I have given plenty of examples but it seems that your definition overrules all common sense; even when dealing with words that are well understood like shamayim. NIDOTTE states that the meaning and usage for Shamayim "in the OT the sky is not deified but is simply a creation of God. It is the place, both seen and unseen, that is far above the surface of the earth, the restricted vantage point of human beings. Heb. Shamayim means sky, air, or firmament. It also refers to "the heaven as a divine sphere," as in Ezek 1:1 and Eccl 5:2. the term Shamayim is paired with other synonymous terms besides raqia (ps. 19:1[2]). The most frequent pair is shamayim-shechaqim, skies or clouds. the reverse order appears in Ps. 78:23 (skies) and Job 38:37 (clouds). Another synonym marom, height, appears in parallel with shamayim in Job 16:19, etc..."

Granted. 'shamayim' if it had never been connected with 'raqia' might not give the impression of a solidity separating the waters above from the waters below (though we do have the phrase "windows of heaven" and some other instances of 'shamayim' that imply a solid barrier.

And it is because they are used synonymously, that the sense of 'raqiya' referring to something "beaten out" does attach itself to 'shamayim' since it is the raqiya that is named 'shamayim'.

This is an extremely backwards way to approach this issue i.e. to begin with a word that is used less than two dozen times in the entire OT for which the meaning is disputed and then take that disputed meaning and try to apply that meaing to a word used hundreds of times in OT; a word for which the meaning is far better understood. Linguists would begin with the high frequency word and then look at its usage as a synonym to help understand the meaning of the infrequently used word. The only reason I can see for doing this backwards would be to advance a particular agenda that wouldn't be supported when normal linguistic methodologies are employed.

I already know that most instances where it is used give no hint of the nature of the structure. It certainly does not refer, for example, to outer space since that concept was unavailable to the writers.

So, if we want to know the nature of the structure called 'shamayim' we must use the few instances that do provide some clues and the tie with 'raqiya'.

Did they understand outer space as we know it? no. However, they clearly did understand that "the heavens" had went from lower regions to higher regions and that the birds inhabited the lower regions and the sun, moon, and start inhabited the higher regions.

I would even appreciate more than one.

Here are verses that describe the "birds of the heavens"

Gen. 1:26, 28, 30
Gen. 2:19-20
Gen. 6:7
Gen. 7:23
Gen. 9:2
Deut. 28:26
1 Sam. 17:44, 46
2 Sam. 21:10
1 Ki. 14:11
1 Ki. 16:4
1 Ki. 21:24
Job 12:7
Job 28:21
Job 35:11
Ps. 8:8
Ps. 79:2
Ps. 104:12
Jer. 7:33
Jer. 9:10
Jer. 15:3
Jer. 16:4
Jer. 19:7
Jer. 34:20
Ezek. 29:5
Ezek. 31:6, 13
Ezek. 32:4
Ezek. 38:20
Dan. 2:38
Dan. 4:12, 21
Hos. 2:18
Hos. 4:3
Hos. 7:12
Zeph. 1:3


And here are verses that describe the "stars of heaven"

Gen. 22:17
Gen. 26:4
Exod. 32:13
Deut. 1:10
Deut. 10:22
Deut. 28:62
1 Chr. 27:23

It is not unusual to refer to the space within a dome as part of the structure of the dome. A bird flying from one side of St. Paul's cathedral to the other would be flying through air, but it would also be flying in the dome. No one would take that to mean it was flying through stone rather than within the bound set by the vaulted stone.

Show me the evidence for the ANE understanding of the "heavens"

And when we start looking at the verses that talk about the heaven's containing the stars it start to look like an awfully big "dome" doesn't it.

The NIV translators could have chosen a translation such as "any bird that flies through the vault of heaven".

Only if the wanted to get the imagery wrong!

The fact that they chose a simpler translation doesn't mean the original writer was not thinking of the sky as a dome encircling and containing the air through which birds fly. (And we should not forget that those translating scripture for modern readers often use a dynamically equivalent translation which speaks more clearly to the perspective of a modern reader than a more exact translation would.)

except that we have no evidence for this understanding of heavens.

 

[Papias]

benelchi wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

I'm not reading it as purely narrative, but even poetry can tell us things. Would you say the same of Genesis, which also is poetry?

Is there a poetic sense to Gen 1? Maybe??? Is it Hebrew poetry? ABSOLUTELY NOT! It does not reflect the style of Hebrew poetry nor does it adhere to the grammatical rules of Hebrew poetry. The rules for understanding Hebrew poetry do not apply to Gen. 1! Additionally, outside of the account of Genesis 1, the rest of the books is normal everyday narrative.
​

I'm sorry, but making something bold and capital is not a substitute for an actual point. You claimed that Job was clearly poetry while Gen1 was not. However, scholars have pointed out that Gen is poetry, due to widely recognized features like symbolic names (Adam, which means "dirt", who is then made from dirt), parallelisms (see 1-3 paralleled by 4-6), and many more reasons. So there is more of that in Job?

Explicitly? No. Implicitly, yes.

The only implicit acknowledgement of Elihu's words comes from a vivid imagination and not from the text of Job.

So you are saying that God is deaf, unable to hear Elihu, even though God is manifest there and part of the conversation?



​

No, I'm talking about "clay stamped under a seal". That shows a flat earth. However, now that you've brought it up, that's relevant too.

Again, you are trying to read details into poetry that should not be read into poetic passages (In Hebrew or in English).

We both know that clay stamped under a seal is flat. God explicitly says that the earth is like that. I'm still waiting to see why you disagree with the Bible scholars who point out that Genesis 1 is poetry.




​

​

Only when they try to read details into the text that shouldn't be read into the text; it is called bad hermeneutics. The problem isn't with the translation, it is with the misuse of the translation and it isn't the text that is unreliable, it is the interpretation of that text that is unreliable.

You claimed that we can't just read the words we have in english to see what it means, but that we have to look at the original hebrew. So I asked (and am asking again), "Do you consider our English Bibles to be sufficient to give us the meaning of the text?" yes or no?

*********************************

Smidlee wrote:

how does clay stamped under a seal refers to a flat planet?
Does a map refers to a flat planet?

Because clay stamped under a seal is necessarily flat. Someone trying to convey a round planet would not say "clay stamped under seal" any more than someone trying to convey a flat planet would say "like a ball floating in the air". A map of the planet will show distortions to clearly show that it represents a round planet.

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

1) Job is poetry; it is a huge hermetical mistake to try and treat it as if it were a narrative.

Whether it is poetic or not, isn't his argument going to be based on his concept of the cosmos?
Job 37:18 Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?
Hard as a cast metal mirror may be a poetic description of the heavens, but it is poetry describing a solid firmament. Elihu is challenging Job to match God's works, it would make no sense if his challenge to match God's work did not describe what God actually did

2) God never endorses or acknowledges Elihu.

3) The Hebrew word רקיע at the heart of this discussion isn't even used in Job.

But even if Elihu's words themselves are not authoritative, the inclusion of this verse shows us two very relevant things. Firstly we see how people at that time though of the sky as a solid dome. For this discussion what is especially relevant is that we see the verb raqa being used to describe the solid heavens. It was not just etymology that connected raqa to beat or spread out with raqia the firmament, people used raqa to describe God's creation of the heavens.

 

[benelchi]

benelchi wrote:


I'm sorry, but making something bold and capital is not a substitute for an actual point. You claimed that Job was clearly poetry while Gen1 was not. However, scholars have pointed out that Gen is poetry, due to widely recognized features like symbolic names (Adam, which means "dirt", who is then made from dirt), parallelisms (see 1-3 paralleled by 4-6), and many more reasons. So there is more of that in Job?

First, no legitimate Hebrew scholar would make such a claim because the all recognize the distinct differences between the Hebrew of Genesis 1 and that of biblical Hebrew poetry. The bold and capital letters were simply a way of indicating the absurdity of such a claim.

1) Poetry in bliblical Hebrew is characterized by a parallelism of thought which is usually conveyed through synonym or antitheses, this is absent in Gen. 1.

Ref: http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad....ities_in_ancient_hebrew_verse_an_overview.pdf

2) Poetry in biblical Hebrew does not use the vav-conversive verb forms, Gen 1. uses them throughout the chapter.

Ref: New John Cook article in JHS « בלשנות

"In biblical narrative, the preterite is preserved as the special narrative tense wayyiqtol, and it also appears without the prefixed vav as a preterite yiqtol in classical poetry."


​

 

[Smidlee]

Smidlee wrote:



Because clay stamped under a seal is necessarily flat. Someone trying to convey a round planet would not say "clay stamped under seal" any more than someone trying to convey a flat planet would say "like a ball floating in the air". A map of the planet will show distortions to clearly show that it represents a round planet.

Papias

Vs 38:13 :That it might take hold of the ends of the earth ,that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
We know from other scriptures that people are living at the ends of the earth. Thus ends of the earth doesn't imply the shape of the planet.

V:14 It is turned as clay to the seal...
A seal causes low places and high places (the whole propose of a seal) so I think it just referring to the mountains and valleys and not a reference to the planet's shape. This would go along with the last verse mentioning of shaking the earth.

Scriptures uses very simple language so the message could still be understood throughout different generations and languages. For example when I read v 13 I imagine taking a Risk board and shaking my enemies off the board. Risk board is flat yet still represents the world. It would be harder to play Risk on a globe. Just because the Risk board is flat doesn't mean Parker Brothers is claiming the earth is flat.