Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Even what you said is true, one can only do that within a certain limit, which is not much. The meaning of any word has to be interpreted, the "literal meaning" of a word SHOUD include all "possible" interpretations. Again, the options are not that many at all.
For example, in the "pillar" of the earth, the pillar could be varied in material, color, temperature/pressure, size or orientation. As long as the identify is in a shape similar to a pillar, you may say it is literally true.
So, the "water" could be treated as having a literal meaning of "non-solid" and include substance like air (vapor or not).
Now that I'm studying Hebrew, I'm looking at Genesis a bit differently. I'm noticing some interesting things.
Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (erets). 2 And the earth(erets) was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters (mayim).
I never noticed this before, but erets (the earth) was not originally spoken of as distinct the waters. Mayim, (the waters) were merely used to describe a characteristic of erets (the earth). Earth at that time was simply the waters. But after verse 9 this changed.
Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear
From this point on, the waters are never descriptive of the earth. They are now descriptive of the seas. A new term, dry land is now descriptive of the earth, established by God's very decree.
"And God called the dry land Earth (erets), and the gathering together of the waters (mayim) He called Seas."
The earth (erets) was once, apparently, a formless mixture of water and landa mud of some sort.
No, it doesn't bother me at all. What the original authors were referring to was the sky;
not some modern idea of the atmosphere and outer space. It is simply what their idea of the sky was. It is a mistake to try and work it somehow in with modern scientific discovery.
In the end, the passage is there to tell us what God was responsible for creating, not exactly how it was created. Trying to manipulate the obvious meaning of the language to suit our modern ideas is bad hermeneutics, and could lose the original intent of the passage.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Could be properly translated:
"And God made the atmosphere, and separated the waters which were under the atmosphere from the waters which were in, or throughout, the atmosphere: and it was so."
After all, how do you know that the heavens are actually not a firmament?
Even what you said is true, one can only do that within a certain limit, which is not much. The meaning of any word has to be interpreted, the "literal meaning" of a word SHOUD include all "possible" interpretations. Again, the options are not that many at all.
So, the "water" could be treated as having a literal meaning of "non-solid" and include substance like air (vapor or not).
If "earth" and "water" are really two different words that describe one undifferentiated whole before Genesis 1:8, why bother using two different, normally non-synonymous words? I assume that there is a perfectly usable Hebrew word for "mud".I don't think you understand. The firmament is heaven. Genesis 1:8. Scripture doesn't say the firmament is in heaven, nor that it divides heaven and earth. Rather it is heaven. I didn't understand the rest of your post.
Personally I'm don't think this is a warranted interpretation. The writers had no idea what an atmosphere was. Atmosphere is a very technical term and there is no equivalent ancient hebrew term. Furthermore it is said that God set the sun and moon in the firmament which we know not to be the case. Heaven is a better term as it sums up everything into an expanse that the birds fly on the face of and the moon and stars exist in. Heaven is simply the upward expanse. No other detail is implied.
shernren has somewhat beat me to the punch already, as many of his objections to your interpretation of the firmament are both brought up in the article I cited and shared by me. I'll be curious to see how you addess his contentions. But I would also appreciate your take on the following issues raised in Lamoureux's article:I skimmed through it. Why don't you go ahead and cite the points you think are of substance and try to argue them.
Even aside from the etymology of the word, the Bible describes the firmament as being "hard as a mirror of cast bronze" (Job 37:18) and crystaline or "sparkling like ice" (Ezekiel 1:22).quote]
37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? No bronze here.
Even aside from the etymology of the word, the Bible describes the firmament as being "hard as a mirror of cast bronze" (Job 37:18) and crystaline or "sparkling like ice" (Ezekiel 1:22).quote]
37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? No bronze here.
The passage is probably clearer in non-KJV translations; however, the original text implies a surface of mirror.
You ignore the passage in Ezekiel. Note that the passages below it which talk about the angels below the surface, and God's throne above it. Definitely gives the impression of solidity.
The passage is probably clearer in non-KJV translations; however, the original text implies a surface of mirror.
You ignore the passage in Ezekiel. Note that the passages below it which talk about the angels below the surface, and God's throne above it. Definitely gives the impression of solidity.
That is the whole point of the verse in Job; to describe the firmament as likened to a sort of large, mighty, mirror; which during the daytime it certainly is. The sun shining on it from above gives it the reflective 'silver backing' necessary in glass mirrors. It reflects and diffuses light from all sources within and below it. Absent the sun, at night it becomes clear, revealing the vastness of space, stars, etc. Very ingenious of God to design it that way.
I did respond to Ezekiel 1 but it failed to post. This 'frosty' firmament is only above the heads of the creatures, and is part of the whole strange apparatus. It is not descriptive of the entire "firmament of heaven".
owg
That is the whole point of the verse in Job; to describe the firmament as likened to a sort of large, mighty, mirror; which during the daytime it certainly is. The sun shining on it from above gives it the reflective 'silver backing' necessary in glass mirrors. It reflects and diffuses light from all sources within and below it. Absent the sun at night it becomes clear, revealing the vastness of space, stars, etc. Very ingenious of God to design it that way.
I did respond to Ezekiel 1 but it failed to post. This 'frosty' firmament is only above the heads of the creatures, and is part of the whole strange apparatus. It is not descriptive of the entire "firmament of heaven".
owg
I agree that the former is using simile; however, doesn't this support Lamoureux's point? The idea of the solid firmament was a commonly held belief of the times, and the use of such simile would make the text more understandable to the reader of the time.
Where I think it gets taken too far is when the metaphor is extended to try and match some scientific truth. The firmament was not meant to mean the atmosphere, and it is a mistake to try and make the connection - it can only lead to misunderstanding of the meaning of the original text.
Even aside from the etymology of the word, the Bible describes the firmament as being "hard as a mirror of cast bronze" (Job 37:18) and crystaline or "sparkling like ice" (Ezekiel 1:22).quote]
37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? No bronze here.
Oops I can see where you might misread the AV here. It is not molten-looking glass, looking like melted glass, but a 'molten' looking-glass. Unlike King Jame's time when mirrors were made of glass (which is where looking glasses go the name), when the bible was written they were made of solid metal. We find the same word molten used to describe the huge brass bowl or 'molten sea' in 1Kings 7:16. 'Molten' refers to cast metal, usually bronze or brass, which is where Mallon's NIV gets its translation.
But the issue is the hardness of the sky in the description not the precise metallurgy. Interesting the way 'strong' or 'hard' comes in front of the simile "hard as a mirror of cast bronze". They may not have thought the sky was really a bronze mirror, but they did think it was a hard as one.
Incidentally it is interesting how perceptions change. We think of mirrors as fragile, easily broken, in biblical times a brass mirror was probably one of the toughest items in the household.
The firmament was not meant to mean the atmosphere, and it is a mistake to try and make the connection - it can only lead to misunderstanding of the meaning of the original text.
Oops I can see where you might misread the AV here. It is not molten-looking glass, looking like melted glass, but a 'molten' looking-glass. Unlike King Jame's time when mirrors were made of glass (which is where looking glasses go the name), when the bible was written they were made of solid metal. We find the same word molten used to describe the huge brass bowl or 'molten sea' in 1Kings 7:16. 'Molten' refers to cast metal, usually bronze or brass, which is where Mallon's NIV gets its translation.
But the issue is the hardness of the sky in the description not the precise metallurgy. Interesting the way 'strong' or 'hard' comes in front of the simile "hard as a mirror of cast bronze". They may not have thought the sky was really a bronze mirror, but they did think it was a hard as one.
Incidentally it is interesting how perceptions change. We think of mirrors as fragile, easily broken, in biblical times a brass mirror was probably one of the toughest items in the household.
I agree that it was a description for its day and time. What is interesting is that it is likened to a mirror, which it actually is kinda/sorta in that in the daytime it traps and reflects light.
owg
I agree that it was a description for its day and time. What is interesting is that it is likened to a mirror, which it actually is kinda/sorta in that in the daytime it traps and reflects light.
owg
Interesting.
If "earth" and "water" are really two different words that describe one undifferentiated whole before Genesis 1:8, why bother using two different, normally non-synonymous words? I assume that there is a perfectly usable Hebrew word for "mud".
The fact that two different words are being used shows that your thesis is untenable. Even if the physical separation of water and earth is only accomplished in verse 8, the ontological separation of water and earth has already been accomplished from verse 2
There is already a "heaven" in existence before the creation of the firmament in vv. 7-8, some kind of heaven which has properties not contingent upon the firmament, and in which the firmament is later set. vv. 7-8 clearly mean that the firmament is set in heaven - the firmament is heaven insofar as it is located in heaven. How can I know that? Because both qualifiers are used in tandem later on:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?