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.
Yes, I agree with your statement here. What's the issue?While the Hebrew Bible appears to describe Sheol as the permanent place of the dead, in the Second Temple period (roughly 500 BCE – 70 CE) a more diverse set of ideas developed.
Are we reading the same article?
Where is your quote?
Your question here is like asking, if the events of the Bible predate the Hebrew language, which they do, then how is it possible that the Bible might be written in Hebrew?How is that possible.
If the events of the Bible predate Egyptian cosmology... which it does, then it does not contain ancient near east cosmology.
What a contains may be far from ancient near east cosmology, but then, as has happened, people familiar with myths, can, and have said, well look, the Bible is describing ancient near east cosmology.... only because they interpret the text based on their belief that it is ancient near east cosmology.
I never said that.No. That does not worry me. That is exactly what I said.
What some people claim however, is that the Egyptian cosmology predates the history.
In fact, I know a certain individual who was arguing that moments ago.Has that changed?
Nope. There is indeed a difference.There is no difference.
One says that the farthest event in history didn't predate the Egyptians, but events after did predate the Egyptians.
That is the same thing as saying, The most historic event did not happen until after the Egyptians, and hence, no event after that happened prior to the Egyptians.
Nope. I'm not sure why you're having a hard time with this.It's a case of one wanting their cake, and eating it too.
Nope. These other texts do not have Adam even in them. But they can share cultural concepts with one another, such as language. Right, Egyptians could write in Hebrew if they wanted to. And so could Moses. They can share ideas and cultural context.If one claims that Genesis copied from Mesopotamian or Egyptian creation texts, then yes, it is to claim that Adam is a myth, borrowed from earlier texts.
I'm not ignoring this. But the Bible shares this ancient cosmology with Egyptian texts. So we know that it's not false. [I should clarify here, ancient cosmology is not scientifically accurate. What I mean to say is that the Bible is not a science textbook, and the Bible doesn't intend to reveal scientific revelation, and thus, the Bible is not falsified by referencing ancient cosmology. Just like of Satan were to tell a lie in the Bible, the Bible may reference that event but it doesn't teach it as truth, and thus the Bible is not falsified by containing a lie. Reference is not revelation.]If one dismisses the history of Israel, and their "cultural ideas", and ignores the fact that the people that left true worship, from which Egypt was born, had ideas based on false worship, that one is not treating the Bible as relevant to the topic, and that evidence is not important enough to affect that one's beliefs.
I understand why you do not see.
You are making so many posts, one after the other, I can hardly keep up, and then you go back, and address what I said, and I lost track on which post is which. It should be clear, I think.
Take for example, your next post.
Consider how it starts.
That doesn't make sense.Isn't is as if you ignored what is being repeated... which is key - vital to the truth?
Did the Bible not give us the reason for some similarities, and did I not take the time to repeat this, very slowly, and in baby steps... and what did Job 33:6 do?
I believe if one admits that the Egyptians were born from a people that deviated from true worship, to worship false gods, one has no choice but to admit the the Egyptian cosmology is false, and contrary to the original, even though some elements remain.
I think one would also have to admit that it is evidence against the interpretations that would make the Bible's account agree with the false beliefs.
Paul wrote, theologically, in accordance with the holy Spirit. But he simultaneously absolutely did write in accordance with his culture and age. He wrote in Greek for example. He would have worn Greek clothes. He spoke of things like ah, I'll give an example...Thank you for agreeing to that.
If Paul wrote based on culture, we would not be encouraged to live according to God's high moral standards.
Paul wrote under direction of holy spirit, and did not let culture dictate what he wrote.
Only if you assume that the Bible is trying to teach you something about the shape of the earth. But if you understand that the Bible can say things, without those things necessarily being scientific, then you don't need to hold that assumption.I don't get what you are saying here.
However, if the Bible did described the Earth as flat, would we all not see it?
Would you have a problem with it, if you could see it was a matter of how persons interpreted the text, based on their beliefs?
Everyone interprets the text based on their beliefs.Would you have a problem with it, if you could see it was a matter of how persons interpreted the text, based on their beliefs?
Not when used in metaphorical speech, no.Floods and waves are water, are they not?
That iis your opinion, which leads to interpreting the scriptures, based on your beliefs.The underworld is among the waters of the deep.
Coupled with a presumed belief, which one wants to support, yes, I can why it would make sense.I just want to point out too that, there is more to this. It actually makes a lot of sense if you spend time in reading or in study of ancient near east literature.
So, do you believe I actually swam in death, and enjoyed it?The sea is death. The sea is destruction. It is chaos. It is, tohu wa bohu. It is the...it's like, the absolute opposite of God. It is death. And you will often see this kind of interplay between the underworld and the deep waters, throughout the old testament.
That's some interpretation.One of the most popular examples of this is when Jonah is thrown into the deep, tehom, and he sinks and sinks and, the ropes wrap around him and the bars close over him.
He cries out to God.
He didn't merely drown or go for a swim. Jonah went the furthest away from God, imaginable. To the extent that he went to sheol. He died the fullest death imaginable. And in 3 days, he was delivered.
Jonah 2:2 ESV
[2] saying, “I called out to the Lord, out of my distress, and he answered me; out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice.
Jonah 2:3, 5-6 ESV
[3] For you cast me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the flood surrounded me; all your waves and your billows passed over me.
[5] The waters closed in over me to take my life; the deep surrounded me; weeds were wrapped about my head [6] at the roots of the mountains. I went down to the land whose bars closed upon me forever; yet you brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God.
You'll also notice that the term "the pit" is used in this passage. The pit is also a common term for sheol in the old testament.
Isaiah 14:15 ESV
[15] But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit.
@CoreyD
But this cannot clearly be seen, until someone dives into the ancient culture.
A lot of people read Jonah, and they think of the giant fish and Jonah going for a swim. But, if you know the background context, it is a far deeper story, theologically. Not just in terms of how Jesus reflects on this story. But in its own ancient cultural context. But you have to see things like ancient cosmology, to help illuminate that meaning.
And that's why you'll find these passages about sheol and the waters below, used in various ways. The deep. Or here is another one:
Job 26:5-6 ESV
[5] The dead tremble under the waters and their inhabitants. [6] Sheol is naked before God, and Abaddon has no covering.
The departed spirits, the shades, or the spirits of the dead, they are "down there". Trembling under the waters. The rephaim.
And this is the same reason that Samuel talks about waves and torrents and floods of death. It's a play on words that is correlating the underworld with the waters of the deep. And no, I'm not kidding about any of this. If anything, I would hope you are kidding by responding with some sort of disbelief. Instead of fighting me on these things, you should let me show you the way.
I'm sorry you misinterpreted my question, but I realize you do not understand.Your question here is like asking, if the events of the Bible predate the Hebrew language, which they do, then how is it possible that the Bible might be written in Hebrew?
I don't see how your logic works here.
The ancient near east cosmology is part of the context of the Hebrew speaking authors and audience of the old testament.
You have made a claim, but can you prove it?Everyone interprets the text based on their beliefs.
How can you claim that you take the Bible literally, and then with the same breath claim that you don't take it literally?Personally, I take the Bible literally.
Job 37:18 ESV
[18] Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?
The ancient authors described the sky as though it were solid, and I take them at their word.
I don't actually believe that the sky is hard. But I am aware that this is just a common concept of ancient near east cosmology. This doesn't make the Bible false. Nor does it change what Christ did for us on the cross. It's just that, the old testament really is old. It is older than I think most people realize. And with that, it contains some very very ancient perspectives on the cosmos. And that's ok. It's just a reminder that God can use anyone at any time, to share His message. Even if they aren't advanced scientists like Stephen Hawking.
Yes, that's the whole point, it's metaphorical.Not when used in metaphorical speech, no.
Similar to ropes, for example.
2 Samuel 22:5, 6;
5 “For the waves of death encompassed me; The floods of destruction terrified me;6 The ropes of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.
Looks like you've ignored the rest of my post.Job 36:8 - "If they're bound in chains, caught in ropes of affliction,
Psalm 18:4, 5
4 The ropes of death encompassed me, And the torrents of destruction terrified me.5 The ropes of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.
Psalm 119:61 - The ropes of the wicked bind me, but I won't forget your Law.
Proverbs 5:22 - His own wrongdoings will trap the wicked, And he will be held by the ropes of his sin.
No one who is reasonably, and sincerely using the scriptures, will reason that Sheol is ropes, would they? Would you do that?
Then why do so, with waves and floods?
You can see that the use of these terms is metaphorical, can't you?
They are the same.
2 Samuel 22:5, 6;
5 “For the waves of death encompassed me; The floods of destruction terrified me;
6 The ropes of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.
Psalm 18:4, 5
4 The ropes of death encompassed me, And the torrents of destruction terrified me.
5 The ropes of Sheol surrounded me; The snares of death confronted me.
There are two word that begin with the letter R - Reasonable, and ridiculous.
It is preferred that the latter be something we avoid. Is it not?
The waves of death, and the ropes of death, are not used to describe literal or material aspects, but metaphorical or figurative aspects. That is reasonable.
That iis your opinion, which leads to interpreting the scriptures, based on your beliefs.
This is a good demonstration of that.
Coupled with a presumed belief, which one wants to support, yes, I can why it would make sense.
A lot of arguments for a flat earth, do not make sense, when looking at the facts.
Then when each person adds their ideas, that differ from the model, it gets more confusing.
For example, the guy in your video, messed up, by using Exodus 20:4, to claim that the concept is in the Bible, when it uses the term, "the waters beneath".
Yet these waters beneath, refer to oceans, where there are fish and ocean dwelling creatures.
Not Sheol.
Now you are claiming that the scriptures refer to Sheol as waters, when it does not.
So, each individual, in seeking to find support in the scriptures, for their flat earth theory, just tend to run the theory into a lake, as they come up short.
The theory has many problems, that do not address the facts.
Do meteorites actually crash on earth, and how is this possible, if the firmament is a solid sky dome?
Why has no one actually sailed every direction from the continents, and seen a solid barrier that keeps the oceans impounded... and if they got so close, why are the stars not any bigger there?
It would be expected that the closer one gets to this solid firmament, the closer to the stars, sun, and moon, they would get.
Do you have answers to these questions?
So, do you believe I actually swam in death, and enjoyed it?
The see actually helped my vision, and was a great health benefit.
How can the sea be death?
Death is an enemy, according to the scriptures. Not a friend. 1 Corinthians 15:26
Furthermore, death is a state.
That's some interpretation.
I'm only sorry that it is based on your belief.
If the Bible were the basis for your understanding, that would be truly wonderful.
Job 17:13, 14 reads...
13 “If I hope [ - qavah: To wait, to look for, to hope, to expect] for Sheol as my home, I make my bed in the darkness;
14 If I call to the grave, ‘You are my father’; To the maggot, ‘my mother and my sister’;
The early writers of the Hebrew scriptures, understood Sheol to be the grave.
While the Hebrew Bible appears to describe Sheol as the permanent place of the dead, in the Second Temple period (roughly 500 BCE – 70 CE) a more diverse set of ideas developed.
Also, see Hebrew Bible.
Interpretation
Even within the realm of Jewish thought, the understanding of Sheol was often inconsistent. This would later manifest, in part, with the Sadducee–Pharisee ideological rift which, among other things, disagreed on whether relevancy should lie more prominently in the world of living or in the realm of an afterlife. The lack of a clear belief structure surrounding Sheol lends the idea to a number of interpretations: namely, one which imagines Sheol as a concrete state of afterlife, or one which envisions Sheol as a metaphor for death as a whole. To the latter's end, certain editions of the Bible translate the term Sheol as generic terms such as "grave" or "pit" (KJV, NIV, etc.), while others (NAB, NASB, etc.) preserve it as a proper noun. Distinguishing Sheol between a realm and a metaphor is the crux of several unanswered questions surrounding its nature.
Perhaps owing to the evolution of its interpretation, certain elements of Sheol as described in the Hebrew Bible appear contradictory.
The origins of the concept of Sheol are debated. The general characteristics of an afterlife such as Sheol were not unique to the ancient Israelites; the Babylonians had a similar underworld called Aralu, and the Greeks had one known as Hades. As such, it is assumed that the early Israelites apparently believed that the graves of family, or tribe, all united into one, collectively unified "grave", and that this is what the Biblical Hebrew term Sheol refers to: the common grave of humans.
..and you want to show me the way... to Sheol?
Since there are maggots there, and we "shall go down to the bars of Sheol, When once there is rest in the dust." Job 17:16, I don't want you to lead me there, and certainly, I am not eager to die.
So, I don't want you to show me the way.
Seriously though, down in the dust with the maggots, is describing the grave - the pit, where all the dead go.
Even those dead in the sea, go to the dust. Even those cremated, go to the dust. Everything organic, goes to the dust.
As the Bible says, "From dust you are. To dust you will return." Genesis 3: We wall return to the dust. Psalm 146:4
Even Jesus went to Sheol - the grave, or pit.
Psalm 16:10
For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol; Neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption.
See Acts 2:27
However, that is another topic.
I'm sorry you misinterpreted my question, but I realize you do not understand.
Perhaps, try reading it this way:
If the events in history, predate ancient near east cosmology, then how can those events in history, contain ancient near east cosmology?
Since the events in history - the subject, were not written down until later, as you acknowledged, then those events do not contain ancient near east cosmology.
If you interpret what is later written down, as ancient near east cosmology, then it's your interpretation that assumes a record of ancient near east cosmology.
Is that any clearer.
You have made a claim, but can you prove it?
Can I ask you to prove what you claimed here?
If so, please do so. Otherwise, the claim is invalid. It's a mere assertion.
How can you claim that you take the Bible literally, and then with the same breath claim that you don't take it literally?
You quoted a text that says "Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?", and said "The ancient authors described the sky as though it were solid, and I take them at their word. I don't actually believe that the sky is hard"
Is that not taking what you want as literal?
So, it's not hard, but...
Why then did you use the verse? What are you trying to say?
How can you claim that you take the Bible literally, and then with the same breath claim that you don't take it literally?
You quoted a text that says "Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?", and said "The ancient authors described the sky as though it were solid, and I take them at their word. I don't actually believe that the sky is hard"
Is that not taking what you want as literal?
So, it's not hard, but...
Why then did you use the verse? What are you trying to say?
Fish don't swim beneath the earth. And nobody is arguing for a flat earth. I know that earth is a sphere. Rather the Bible is describing ancient cosmology, there is a difference.Coupled with a presumed belief, which one wants to support, yes, I can why it would make sense.
A lot of arguments for a flat earth, do not make sense, when looking at the facts.
Then when each person adds their ideas, that differ from the model, it gets more confusing.
For example, the guy in your video, messed up, by using Exodus 20:4, to claim that the concept is in the Bible, when it uses the term, "the waters beneath".
Yet these waters beneath, refer to oceans, where there are fish and ocean dwelling creatures.
Not Sheol.
When Exodus 20:4-5 says "under the earth" that is literally what it means. It means, below your feet.Fish don't swim beneath the earth.
Exodus 20:4-5 ESV
[4] “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. [5] You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,
Nobody is worshipping fish as idols. It's talking about false gods of the underworld.
It doesn't say, don't worship fish in the sea. It's saying, don't worship idols, under the earth. Literally under the earth.
Because the aspects of ancient cosmology in the text, are not historical. The references to cosmology are not events of history. It's just part of cultural reference.I'm sorry you misinterpreted my question, but I realize you do not understand.
Perhaps, try reading it this way:
If the events in history, predate ancient near east cosmology, then how can those events in history, contain ancient near east cosmology?
That's true that the events do not contain cosmology. But the Bible does. And that's the difference. Because the Bible is not a straight history or science textbook.Since the events in history - the subject, were not written down until later, as you acknowledged, then those events do not contain ancient near east cosmology.
If you interpret what is later written down, as ancient near east cosmology, then it's your interpretation that assumes a record of ancient near east cosmology.
Is that any clearer.
I'll even correct myself here. It is not that the hebrew cosmology and hebrew language is found "in the Bible", rather the Bible in and of itself is in Hebrew, and likewise, the Old Testament is written in and through the context of that Hebrew-speaking author and audience.Because the aspects of ancient cosmology in the text, are not historical. The references to cosmology are not events of history. It's just part of cultural reference.
For example, in Genesis 7:11 and 8:2, you'll read about flood gates opening and closing to release the waters above.
That's not historical. Nobody actually believes that the sky has windows or doors or gateways in it that open and close to release and restrain water. That's just part of the reference to historical cosmology.
The actual event, is a heavy rainstorm. It's not the cosmological details backgrounding or contextualizing that event.
Here is the NASB, it's a very conservative word for word translation. Read it closely:
Genesis 8:2 NASB1995
[2] Also the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained;
It's not a historical event to say that there were gates in the sky that closed and restrained rain.
That's not the historical event. That's reference to cosmology. The historical event was something like a heavy rain. But that historical event is written through and within the ancient cultural context.
It's like how the event is described in Hebrew. The Hebrew language in and of itself is not an event. It is the cultural context and filter that the event is described through. The event is real, but it is described through the world and culture and perspective of the Hebrew speaking author.
And so just as Hebrew is found in the Bible, so too is Hebrew cosmology. Even though the events of the Bible predate both Hebrew and the cosmology of the Hebrew speaking audience.
Maybe I should repeat this. Read it a few times over.
Or like with Jonah, he says that he cries out from the belly of sheol. He's not saying that the fishes stomach is the underworld. That's not a historical event. That doesn't even make sense that a fishes stomach would be the underworld. It's figurative language. He sank down to the land who's doors and bars closed over him? That's not history, that's poetry. There is no underworld at the bottom of the ocean that you can swim down to.
That's true that the events do not contain cosmology. But the Bible does. And that's the difference. Because the Bible is not a straight history or science textbook.
It's true that the event of Noah's flood didn't actually contain ancient cosmology of windows and doors opening and closing in the sky.
But were talking about the context of the Bible and what it says. And it does in fact describe Windows opening and closing to release and restrain water.
And that's the part that is the cosmology of the ancient near east.
Ok, we covered the first part. The waters under the earth are not talking about oceans. See referenced posts above.
Then when each person adds their ideas, that differ from the model, it gets more confusing.
For example, the guy in your video, messed up, by using Exodus 20:4, to claim that the concept is in the Bible, when it uses the term, "the waters beneath".
Yet these waters beneath, refer to oceans, where there are fish and ocean dwelling creatures.
Not Sheol.
Now you are claiming that the scriptures refer to Sheol as waters, when it does not.
So, each individual, in seeking to find support in the scriptures, for their flat earth theory, just tend to run the theory into a lake, as they come up short.
The theory has many problems, that do not address the facts.
Do meteorites actually crash on earth, and how is this possible, if the firmament is a solid sky dome?
Why has no one actually sailed every direction from the continents, and seen a solid barrier that keeps the oceans impounded... and if they got so close, why are the stars not any bigger there?
It would be expected that the closer one gets to this solid firmament, the closer to the stars, sun, and moon, they would get.
Do you have answers to these questions?
The sea is tohu wa bohu. We can pick this back up later. You're not thinking in terms of chaos kampf. When I say that the sea is death or desruction, what I'm saying is that, these terms are used to describe these things. sheol is not just straight up water, but sheol is described in watery terms. Death and sheol are paralleled with one another, and with tehom, the deep, in several places in scripture as noted above.So, do you believe I actually swam in death, and enjoyed it?
The see actually helped my vision, and was a great health benefit.
How can the sea be death?
Death is an enemy, according to the scriptures. Not a friend. 1 Corinthians 15:26
Furthermore, death is a state.
If you accept that water and ropes are used metaphorically, then it has nothing to do with water, or ropes, but rather, is describing the feeling one gets from as when washed away by a flood of water, or waves, and the feeling of being tied by ropes.Yes, that's the whole point, it's metaphorical.
Just because something is metaphor, doesn't somehow remove the fact that it's using metaphors about water.
I did?Now let's see how you respond to the rest of my examples.
Looks like you've ignored the rest of my post.
No. I actually covered that when I referred to Job 17:13, 14, and the fact thatJob 26:5-6 ESV
[5] The dead tremble under the waters and their inhabitants. [6] Sheol is naked before God, and Abaddon has no covering.
Did you ignore the part here about the dead trembling under the waters?
Are you reading the actual words of Jonah Chapter 2?Yes.
And Jonah calling out from the belly of sheol, where he sank down to the pit where the bars, and waves, and floods enclosed over him forever.
It's not that hard to see. Sheol, the underworld, where the dead are, is oftentimes associated with waters of the deep because the underworld is in the midst of the deep, the waters beneath the earth. That's what makes up the underworld.
You believe that God is commanding the Israelites not to make thing that are in the underworld, and bow to them or worship them?Fish don't swim beneath the earth. And nobody is arguing for a flat earth. I know that earth is a sphere. Rather the Bible is describing ancient cosmology, there is a difference.
Exodus 20:4-5 ESV
[4] “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. [5] You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,
Nobody is worshipping fish as idols. It's talking about false gods of the underworld.
It doesn't say, don't worship fish in the sea. It's saying, don't worship idols, under the earth. Literally under the earth. The underworld.
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?