The pillars of the earth.

[juvenissun]

Pillar is a thing which supports significant load.
Pillar could be in any shape as long as it has the supporting function
Pillar could move as long as the supporting function exists
Pillar is a thing which is identified as a different object than its surrounding material
Earth could mean land

You say a few things that "could" be, but is that what the original hebrew is saying? I'm willing to go along with these definitions, as long as you provide the hebrew words and definitions, as well as other evidence in the bible.

I thought we are talking about science. Is your original question asking the scientific validity of the verse? Scientific understanding improves with time. If you asked me to stick with the level of scientific understanding at the time when Moses wrote the verses, then I have nothing to say. Otherwise, you should not ask me to confine the scientific interpretation to the original content of the Hebrew words.

Bible records some words which the authors did not really understand the complete meaning of them. Is it possible? If yes, then how is it possible? Did the author recognize the meaning of words he used? If yes, how could the same words mean more at later time?

 

[theIdi0t]

In the Bible, it states that the Earth is round and that the skies are expanding. We recently discovered these things when it was in the Bible the whole time. By the way, it's Isaiah 40:22.

I'm always been skeptical about those who provide interpretations of a single verse, and yet not quote the verse.

Isaiah 40,22:

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

It seems that Isaiah sees a flat earth and a solid sky. And unless you're saying that tents expand over time, your interpretation is hogwash. Isaiah sees a solid sky covering the earth and compares it to a tent that someone has already stretched/setup for him and he sees himself as one living in the tent, but the tent is not expanding. You should be weary of those who give you such far fetched and false interpretations of such verses because most likely their theology is just as appalling.

 

[HypnoToad]

... wouldn't it be more accurate to suggest that over the hundreds of years that the old testament was compiled, there just might be forms of poetry with slightly different grammar ...

Just floating guesses? Well, why not just a form of prose with slight differences?

I find this a strange concept. In any language, how does the grammar of poetry differ from the grammar of prose.

Both use sentences. In both the sentences contain subjects and verbs and modifiers of subjects and verbs.

Where is the grammatical difference?

That was already addressed in post 36.

... As you said, the mentioning of an ancient cosmological view in the bible doesn't mean that it is God saying that's how it is. Why is it so hard to apply the same reasoning to the creation account? ...

Since I believe God did write Genesis 1, the view there IS God saying how it is.

 

[philadiddle]

Since I believe God did write Genesis 1, the view there IS God saying how it is.

So you don't believe God wrote the passages about the earth being on pillars?

It seems you've created a double standard, where you apply one method of interpretation to one passage reguarding an ancient cosmology, and not to another. How do you decide?

The word firmament in Genesis also refers to a solid dome, so I guess the sky is a solid dome, since that's what God wrote.

 

[HypnoToad]

So you don't believe God wrote the passages about the earth being on pillars?

I believe He inspired them, not that He penned them.

It seems you've created a double standard, where you apply one method of interpretation to one passage reguarding an ancient cosmology, and not to another. How do you decide?

Context.

The word firmament in Genesis also refers to a solid dome, so I guess the sky is a solid dome, since that's what God wrote.

I don't see anywhere in Genesis 1 that says it's a solid dome. Does God say this, or is this others' interpretation of it?

 

[Deamiter]

I don't see anywhere in Genesis 1 that says it's a solid dome. Does God say this, or is this others' interpretation of it?

Most convincing to me is the phrase:

This article discusses in detail the ancient understanding of the universe and would be worth a read if you are interested in the subject. Some quotes:
(pdf warning)
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted...s/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf

Most convincing to me is this first bit -- the root of the word for firmament:

If the writer wanted to communicate the idea of a nonsolid divider, his
choice of the word raqiac was particularly unfortunate since its verbal cog-
nate raqac ("stamp, beat, spread out") is used of hammering metal into thin
plates (Exod 39:3) and hence suggests that a raqiac was something ham-
mered out, an idea consonant with both Egyptian and Sumerian views of
the sky. In addition a Phoenician cognate (mrqc) means "plating."46

When the original readers of Genesis 1 read the word raqiac they thought
of a solid sky. And so did virtually everyone else up to the time of the
Renaissance! After the time of Christ there were occasional dissenters, but
by and large Jews and Christians, Greeks and barbarians all believed the
firmament was solid.
Jews speculated as to what material the firmament was made of: clay or
copper or iron (3 Apoc. Bar. 3.7). They differentiated between the firmament
and the empty space or air between it and the earth (Gen. Rab. 4.3.a; 2 Apoc.
Bar. 21.4). They tried to figure out how thick it was by employing biblical
interpretation (Gen. Rab. 4.5.2). Most tellingly they even tried to calculate
scientifically the thickness of the firmament (Pesab. 49a).
Christians speculated as to whether it was made of earth, air, fire, or
water (the basic elements of Greek science). Origen called the firmament
"without doubt firm and solid" (First Homily on Genesis, FC 71). Ambrose,
commenting on Gen 1:6, said, "the specific solidity of this exterior firma-
ment is meant" (Hexameron, FC 42.60). Augustine said the word firmament
was used "to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that
it constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the
waters below" (The Literal Meaning of Genesis, ACW 41.1.61).

 

[HypnoToad]

Most convincing to me is the phrase:

This article discusses in detail the ancient understanding of the universe and would be worth a read if you are interested in the subject. Some quotes:
(pdf warning)
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted...s/Text/Articles-Books/Seely-Firmament-WTJ.pdf

Most convincing to me is this first bit -- the root of the word for firmament:

All of that is what others' have interpreted the term to mean. None of it is God, Himself, saying that's what it is.

 

[Tinker Grey]

All of that is what others' have interpreted the term to mean. None of it is God, Himself, saying that's what it is.

Whoa, dude. Didn't you say just two posts ago that God inspired them but did not pen them?

Shouldn't God have inspired a better word choice?

(This is a serious question driving at, I guess, just what do you mean by inspired, then.)

 

[HypnoToad]

Whoa, dude. Didn't you say just two posts ago that God inspired them but did not pen them?

Depends which portion are you talking about. The ones from Psalms, Job, and Samuel would be what that comment refers to.

But, as already stated, I believe God did write Genesis 1.

Shouldn't God have inspired a better word choice?

Well, for that, first there must be another word to choose from. Did the ancient Hebrews have another word that referred to the same thing?

Second, I don't see why you'd hold God responsible for people's assumptions.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If it is God that is communicating, wouldn't that communication be the best it could be?

 

[Deamiter]

Depends which portion are you talking about. The ones from Psalms, Job, and Samuel would be what that comment refers to.

But, as already stated, I believe God did write Genesis 1.

Forgive my extensive quote, but I fear that if you are unwilling to read the article (or as it's a detailed article, if you simply don't have the time) a short quote of conclusions would be too easy to dismiss as unevidenced. Do understand that there is strong support in the article that answers these good criticisms (that I'd have myself if I were doubting the solidity of the Hebrew understanding of "firmament.) Note that the article is much more readable than my cut-and-paste. If you were to decide to dive into the article, I suggest skipping this so as to avoid eye-strain.

Inasmuch as the throne mentioned was apparently sitting on this firma-
ment (cf. Exod 24:10) and the firmament looked like crystal or ice, it is
apparent that the firmament is solid and is certainly not mere atmosphere
or space or simply phenomenal language. Nor does anyone to my knowl-
edge doubt that it was solid. Even conservatives admit the firmament in
Ezekiel 1 is solid. Having then this clear definition of a raqiac as a solid
divider, one is hermeneutically bound to interpret the raqiac in Genesis as
solid unless there is some clear reason to differentiate the one from the other.
As it turns out there is no reason to differentiate the raqiac in Ezekiel 1
from the raqiac in Genesis 1. On the contrary, there is good reason to
identify the one with the other. For we can see in Ezekiel that above the
firmament is the throne of God in glory (vv. 26-28) just as above the
firmament of heaven described in Genesis is the throne of God in glory (1
Kgs 22:19; Ps 2:4; 11:4; 103:19; Isa 6:1; 14:13; 66:1). Also the firmament in
Ezekiel looked like it was made of crystal, exactly the substance that prim-
itive peoples believed the sky was made of.48 These two similarities between
the firmament in Ezekiel and the firmament in Genesis could hardly be
coincidental. The firmament in Ezekiel 1 must be related to the firmament
in Genesis 1, and a number of commentators have made the identifica-
tion.49 Eichrodt, for example, calls the firmament in Ezekiel a "copy of that
vault of heaven." The NT confirms the virtual identity of the firmament in
Ezekiel and the firmament in Genesis by combining them into one image
(Rev 4:6; 15:2).50
We ought then on both biblical and hermeneutical grounds to interpret
the nature of the raqiac in Genesis 1 by the clear definition of raqiac which
we have in Ezekiel 1, and all the more so since the language of Genesis 1
suggests solidity in the first place and no usage of raqiac anywhere states or
even implies that it was not a solid object. This latter point bears repeating:
there is not a single piece of evidence in the OT to support the conservative
belief that the raqiac was not solid.51 The historical meaning of raqiac, so far
from being overthrown by the grammatical evidence, is confirmed by it.
The historical-grammatical meaning of raqiac in Gen 1:6-8 is very clearly
a literally solid firmament.
It is to the credit of E. J. Young that, although believing in biblical
inerrancy as much as any other conservative, he alone did not alter or
rationalize the historical-grammatical meaning of raqiac. In his Studies in
Genesis One he defined raqiac as "that which is hammered, beaten out" and
noted that "the LXX stere<wma and Vulgate firmamentum are satisfactory
renderings."52
Additionally and finally, the historical-grammatical meaning of raqiac
possibly illustrates the words of B. B. Warfield, who said as he defined
biblical inerrancy, that an inspired writer could
share the ordinary opinions of his day in certain matters lying outside the scope
of his teachings, as, for example, with reference to the form of the earth, or its
relation to the sun; and, it is not inconceivable that the form of his language when
incidentally adverting to such matters, might occasionally play into the hands of
such a presumption.53
Certainly the historical-grammatical meaning of raqiac is "the ordinary
opinion of the writer's day." Certainly also it is not the purpose of Gen 1: 7
to teach us the physical nature of the sky, but to reveal the creator of the
sky. Consequently, the reference to the solid firmament "lies outside the
scope of the writer's teachings" and the verse is still infallibly true.

Well, for that, first there must be another word to choose from. Did the ancient Hebrews have another word that referred to the same thing?

Indeed there is another word -- the word for "Heavens" which actually includes the firmament:

Does any statement or phrase appear in the OT which clearly states or
implies that the raqiac is not solid? Does anything in Genesis 1 state or imply
the raqiac was not (or was) solid? The fact that it was named "heaven(s)"
in Gen 1:8 and birds fly in the heaven(s) (Deut 4: 17) seems to imply the
raqiac was not solid. But the word samayim (heaven) is broader in meaning
than raqiac. It encompasses not only the raqiac (v. 8; Ps 19:6; 148:4) but the
space above the raqiac (Ps 2:4; 11:4; 139:8) as well as the space below (Ps
8:8; 79:2). Hence birds fly in the heavens, but never in the raqiac. Rather,
birds fly upon the face or in front of the raqiac (Gen 1:20).

I really do strongly encourage you to spend a bit of time and at least quickly read over the article I cited. It's not hard to follow and while long, it isn't long-winded. If a bit of guilt might help, I've read every article you've cited (that I noticed anyway) and although I certainly don't expect people to read all the articles I cite, this is just one of those times where I'd strongly encourage it since it is likely to answer all your objections (even if, in the end, you do not find the answers convincing).

 

[HypnoToad]

If it is God that is communicating, wouldn't that communication be the best it could be?

The original probably was.

 

[HypnoToad]

Forgive my extensive quote, but I fear that if you are unwilling to read the article (or as it's a detailed article, if you simply don't have the time) ...

Um, yes, I already looked at the article and already addressed it in post 47.

Indeed there is another word -- the word for "Heavens" which actually includes the firmament:

But we're not talking about all of the heavens, or something that "includes" the firmament, we're talking about just the firmament.

 

[Deamiter]

Um, yes, I already looked at the article and already addressed it in post 47.

So you're honestly not willing to accept any hermeneutic and scriptural-based arguments? You're simply looking for a written-in-stone dictionary lying around somewhere? I mean, if we cannot use our understanding of Hebrew and other Hebrew writings (especially other Biblical texts) how can we interpret ANYTHING?

I should note that the understanding that firmament suggests a solid crystal hemisphere is not solely TE. Young translated it thus and the article points out how another conservative theologian (whit-something?) allowed for cultural scientific misunderstandings as long as the incidental scientific point was not the main purpose of the passage.

But we're not talking about all of the heavens, or something that "includes" the firmament, we're talking about just the firmament.

Wait, I was answering your specific question which I thought was , "is there another word for 'sky' that does not invoke an understanding of a solid surface that God could have used?" I thought you were asking because you were thinking that if there was not a better word, then God would have HAD to have used firmament even though it wasn't entirely accurate.

As there is indeed a word that does not in any way suggest a solid surface, the argument that God MEANT atmosphere but had to use a word for 'solid surface' due to linguistical limitations is not valid.

 

[philadiddle]

I believe He inspired them, not that He penned them.

Whoa, dude. Didn't you say just two posts ago that God inspired them but did not pen them?

Depends which portion are you talking about. The ones from Psalms, Job, and Samuel would be what that comment refers to.

But, as already stated, I believe God did write Genesis 1.

Could you please clarify? Are you saying that God inspired Genesis 1 or penned it?

I don't see anywhere in Genesis 1 that says it's a solid dome. Does God say this, or is this others' interpretation of it?

Genesis 1 doesn't need to say that it is a solid dome, because the word itself means it's a solid dome. The word is also used in Ezekiel when talking about a platform. Deamiter already posted about it, and you claim to have responded, but you didn't really say anything of substance. I'll give you a quote about the firmament from this book. (don't know how to do a proper reference so the link will work.) It's on pages 158-59.
The spelling mistakes, if any, are mine. I added to bold to the points i thought were important. It talks about the myths at the time, how they tie in with Ezekiel and Genesis, and how the word raqia' means a solid dome.

2.8 Firmament. Egyptian texts have the concept of a vault that prevents the waters from flooding the earth. This vault is less solid than in the Mesopotamian view (Allen, 4-5). If it is not the sky god Shu who is portrayed as holding up the sky, staves that resemble tent poles are depicted (Hoffmeier, 7). In Mesopotamia, Enuma Elish 4.139 reports a "skin/hide" (Akk. masku) That is established to hold back the waters of Tiamat, who has just been divided to be set up as the waters above and below. We also learn from Babylonian texts that they believed in three levels of heaven. Each one had a different type of stone for its pavement (Horowitz, 4-11), though these pavements were not understood as holding back the primal waters. In the Bible this pavement concept is represented in Exodus 24:10, where the elders have a vision of God in which he is walking on a sapphire (= lapis lazuli) pavement. The Babylonian texts say the middle heavens are paved with saggilmud-stone, which has the appearance of lapis lazuli. This was believed to give the sky it's blue color. The lower heavens are said to have a platform of jasper, usually associated witha a glassy, translucent or opaque appearance. This is a paralleled in Ezekiel's vision in which the platform of the mobile chariot-throne is identified as being of the same quality (Ezek 1:22).

The platform in Ezekiel is called a raqia', the same word used in Genesis 1:6-8 (NIV: "expanse"). Despite the NIV's attempt to mitigate the meaning of this word in Gensis 1 through an ambiguious translation such as "expanse" and the attempt of others to make it scientifically precise through the translation "atmosphere," Seely has amply demonstrated that, structurally speaking, the raqia' was perceived by the Israelite audience, as by nearly everyone else until modern times, as a solid dome (Seely 1991, 1992). This conclusion is not based on false etymologizing that extrapolates the meaning of the noun from it's verbal forms ( which have to do with beating something out) but on the comparison of the lexical data from OT usage of the noun with the cultural context of the ancient Near East. In Genesis 1:17 the heavenly bodies are set in the raqia'. In Mesopotamian understanding, the stars were engraved on the jasper surface of the heavens, and the entire surface moved. In astronomical texts (Mul-Apin series) the thirty-six principal stars were divided into three segments known as the paths of Anu, Enlil and Ea. These fixed stallar paths occupied the northern, southern and equatorial bands of the sky (Horowitz, 170). In the omen series known as Enama Anu Enlil, the gods Anu, Enlil and Ea established the positions, location and paths of the stars (Horowitz, 146-47). In Enama Elish Marduk sets up the Stations of the stars (Horowitz, 114-15) Thus the idea of setting the heavenly bodies in a solid background is the common perception. ...The text is using ancient conventional thinking about structure to communicate other, more important issues.

All of that is what others' have interpreted the term to mean. None of it is God, Himself, saying that's what it is.

Actually it is God Himself saying that's what it is, because that's what the word raqia' means. It's you who has interpreted the term in a different context, a context which you have not yet provided support for.

Second, I don't see why you'd hold God responsible for people's assumptions.

I don't hold God responsible for your assumptions.

 

[crawfish]

"Neither can we say that Genesis 1 or 2 is poetic in form. The Hebrew form of the verb is exactly the same as is routinely used for Hebrew narratives. Furthermore, Hebrew poetry seldom if ever uses the the Hebrew indicator for the direct object, whereas Genesis 1 and 2 do. There are additional grammatical and syntactical forms in Genesis 1 and 2 that can only be found in prose literary genre, not poetry. Thus these accounts may not be listed under poetry. ... The accounts have more in common with narrative prose than anything else." (Walter Kaiser, Ph.D; "Hard Sayings of the Bible", p.89)

You can also read more on it here:
http://www.ldolphin.org/genmyth.html

I'd buy that Genesis 2 is prose. I have an incredibly difficult timesseeing any way that Genesis 1 cannot be poetic.

I read through the links on that page. It seems the author makes the mistake that often gets made by YEC's about the word "day" - that because that word is meant literally, it implies that the entire account is literal. Instead, if the words are taken in the framework of a poem, then they are still literal in the sense of what they mean within the poem, but not in the sense that the poem itself is not literal.

 

[Digit]

There are three places in the bible that talk about the earth being on pillars.

Job 9:6 - He shakes the earth out of its place, and its pillars tremble;
1 Samuel 2:8 - ...“For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and He has set the world upon them.
Psalm 75:3 - The earth and all its inhabitants are dissolved; I set up its pillars firmly. Selah

Since many ppl here insist that we must take God at His word, please tell me where these pillars are. I"d like to quote from a previous thread. I could have responded in that thread but I felt this was worth a new thread.



AV1611 is talking about interpreting the creation account and insists we can only use scripture. So, if the verses talking about the pillars that the earth are standing on are not literal, you can only use scripture to support your claim, as per the rules set by some of the YECs on this board. If you cannot explain, using only scripture, how those verses are allegorical, then you must reject all of science that says the earth isn't on pillars, and trust God's word that the earth is resing on pillars.

In context the verses are talking about spiritual pillars, the verses are not talking about the cosmological make up. We already know from scripture that the Earth "hangs upon nothing".

Digit

 

[Digit]

Actually the meaning of raqia is unknown, yet it was translated in the KJV version as something with a solid structure but it can also mean "expanse".

In addition there is another view that at that stage, God had created paradise on Earth, and as such it was heaven. If this is the case, then no one would have any issue with it being referred to as solid.

Digit

 

[philadiddle]

In context the verses are talking about spiritual pillars, the verses are not talking about the cosmological make up. We already know from scripture that the Earth "hangs upon nothing".

Digit

How do you know that the context is saying that? Can u give references for what ur saying? Where does it say the earth hangs on nothing?

Actually the meaning of raqia is unknown, yet it was translated in the KJV version as something with a solid structure but it can also mean "expanse".

Actually, as I demonstrated with examples and references, it is known. Do you have a source for raqia' meaning "expanse"?

 

[Digit]

How do you know that the context is saying that?

Read it. It's dealing with spiritual issues and spiritual matters, not cosmological ones.

Can u give references for what ur saying?

You need a source to tell you that something when taken in context with writings addressing spiritual matters, is spiritual? There is another view which is that it is talking about the crust of the earth:

=========
This word in 1 Samuel 2:8 is translated "pillars" in the KJV and "foundations" in the NIV and others. The word in the Hebrew is masuq. It is used only twice in the Bible. Let's look at the way it is translated in each of these Bibles the only other time it is used, in 1 Samuel 14:5:
KJV: "The forefront of the one was situated northward over against Michmash, and the other southward over against Gibeah."
NIV: "One cliff stood to the north toward Mic mash, the other to the south, toward Geba."
The word masuq means "something narrow," which the KJV translators decided would be like a column, or pillar. However the Bible was ahead of the scientific knowledge of that time, for the rocky crust of the earth is indeed narrow. It is also our foundation and we are situated upon it.
=========

Where does it say the earth hangs on nothing?

Job 26:7

Actually, as I demonstrated with examples and references, it is known.

That is not true. The meaning is not truly known, it is merely suggested.

Do you have a source for raqia' meaning "expanse"?

This is a non-issue.

Digit