Objectivity in theology?

[Mallon]

Here's a great article concerning the Hebrews' meaning of the word "firmament", btw:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/heavens.pdf

 

[philadiddle]

Here's a great article concerning the Hebrews' meaning of the word "firmament", btw:

http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/heavens.pdf

The following is one of the sources for the paper you referred to. It is a very thorough look at the word. To be honest, you can even find a criticism of it at AiG but you'll find their criticism lacking. (Sorry for the vague assertion, it's too long to give an in depth look at the article by Seely and the rebuttle by AiG but if there's a particular point anyone wishes to discuss I'd be happy to do that.)

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted...s/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf

 

[rcorlew]

Let's pretend that the Bible doesn't use the word 'firmament' and instead uses the word 'expanse'. And let's pretend that the word 'expanse' refers to the atmosphere'. How do you square that with the fact that Bible tells us that the sun, moon, and stars are within the 'expanse' (=atmosphere)?

Paul gives a clearer meaning on how the Hebrews thought of the "heavens"

First heaven is earth, the solid ground
Second heaven is the expanse, space, air, anything that is above earth (or around it as we know know)
Third heaven is where God dwells

Here is part of the dual authorship of the Bible, it is God inspired and God directed; does that mean that the author always knew exactly what he was writing at the time? Do we always know exactly what is being said? The problems (and there are many) when writing any text, especially the Bible, is trying to convey exact thoughts or ideas within the limitations of spoken or written language, especially a language that has little if any technical aspect to it. In other words, when God is conveying His message to us, He is limited by our own forms of communication, not His knowledge or ability to express it. This is another expression of the death that sin causes, a lack of direct face to face conversations with God which limits our knowledge of all things.

 

[shernren]

First heavens = earth? What on earth (hehe) does "heavens and earth" mean, if they're both the same thing? This is a curious assertion.

 

[Mallon]

Paul gives a clearer meaning on how the Hebrews thought of the "heavens"

First heaven is earth, the solid ground
Second heaven is the expanse, space, air, anything that is above earth (or around it as we know know)
Third heaven is where God dwells

Where does Paul say that?

 

[Mallon]

It is not just Paul thought, here is a summary for the thought

Nowhere in the summary you provided was heaven equated with "the solid ground", as you put it. So where are you getting this from?

You seem to be advocating some degree of accommodationism as it applies to the Scriptures, which I agree with entirely. But you're doing it in a funny way. You seem to be saying that the astronomical words were accommodated to the ancient Hebrews; whereas myself (and others) are arguing that the astronomical concepts were accommodated to the Hebrews. The Hebrews described the sky as a solid dome because that's what they believed, not simply because they didn't have a better way to describe it.

 

[rcorlew]

Nowhere in the summary you provided was heaven equated with "the solid ground", as you put it. So where are you getting this from?

You seem to be advocating some degree of accommodationism as it applies to the Scriptures, which I agree with entirely. But you're doing it in a funny way. You seem to be saying that the astronomical words were accommodated to the ancient Hebrews; whereas myself (and others) are arguing that the astronomical concepts were accommodated to the Hebrews. The Hebrews described the sky as a solid dome because that's what they believed, not simply because they didn't have a better way to describe it.

Aye yae yae, that it what I have been saying, the Hebrews only had one word for anything above them, that was heaven, however, when you understand that they would read the text to understand what was being talked about. That is my point, that is all, the Hebrews would have derived the meaning of the word by its context.

 

[shernren]

You seem to be saying that the astronomical words were accommodated to the ancient Hebrews; whereas myself (and others) are arguing that the astronomical concepts were accommodated to the Hebrews. The Hebrews described the sky as a solid dome because that's what they believed, not simply because they didn't have a better way to describe it.

How would you distinguish between the two possibilities (accommodation of words, and accommodation of concepts), given just the text?

If the text alone isn't able to discriminate between them, what other information would you have to adduce to the text to settle the question?

(For those who are wondering what the difference is, imagine me telling my younger brother that "the sun is a great ball of fire in the sky".

If just words are being accommodated, that means that I understand that the sun is actually powered by nuclear fusion, but "fire" is the closest word I can use to describe it to my younger brother.

If concepts are being accommodated, that means that I myself believe that the sun is actually fire, and in using the word "fire" I am just conveying what I believe.

Most creationists seem to have no problem with some level of accommodation of words; they argue that since we still do much the same today - e.g. sunrise, sunset - there is no primitivity, or possibility of divine error, inherent in doing so.)

 

[rcorlew]

How would you distinguish between the two possibilities (accommodation of words, and accommodation of concepts), given just the text?

If the text alone isn't able to discriminate between them, what other information would you have to adduce to the text to settle the question?

(For those who are wondering what the difference is, imagine me telling my younger brother that "the sun is a great ball of fire in the sky".

If just words are being accommodated, that means that I understand that the sun is actually powered by nuclear fusion, but "fire" is the closest word I can use to describe it to my younger brother.

If concepts are being accommodated, that means that I myself believe that the sun is actually fire, and in using the word "fire" I am just conveying what I believe.

Most creationists seem to have no problem with some level of accommodation of words; they argue that since we still do much the same today - e.g. sunrise, sunset - there is no primitivity, or possibility of divine error, inherent in doing so.)

Thank you, that it or was my point exactly. We might not be able to understand what was the actual consensus among the Hebrews, there is the distinct possibility that they could be talking towards the lowest common denominator. Just the same when speaking in public, you tailor your message to who you anticipate being in the audience, and speak to the lowest (for lack of a better term) of them without being patronizing.