The pillars of the earth.

[philadiddle]

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

That's right, the ancient cosmology is just a backdrop for the spiritual truths that are being stated. As was said in article i quoted;
"The text is using ancient conventional thinking about structure to communicate other, more important issues."

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

Suggested very strongly, so strongly, that any other interpretation is grasping at straws. I really don't know why you are arguing this point. You've already said that there are greater spiritual truths that are the point of the passage. There is no problem with being a Christian and seeing that "firmament" refers to a solid dome.

This is a non-issue.

All you've really done here is go "nuh uh" and then when asked for some references to back up your claims you say it's a non-issue.

 

[Deamiter]

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

Well of course -- the ancient meaning of NO word is truly 'known.' However, as we have shown in a number of detailed articles by experts on the subject, the use of raqia is always either ambiguous or in reference to a solid structure -- never ever in reference to an open expanse or structure.

Yes, it can mean 'expanse' but not an expanse of empty space. There is simply no currently used word in the English language that has the same meaning (firmament comes very close but is no longer used in contemporary English) so translations have to stretch to find suitable words.

Spiritually and theologically, 'expanse' is just fine since like you said, the scientific description of the sky was never the point. When looking closely at the original text, however, understanding the actual meaning of the word throughout Hebrew writings (both in and outside of the Bible) is certainly worth investigating.

 

[Digit]

Well of course -- the ancient meaning of NO word is truly 'known.' However, as we have shown in a number of detailed articles by experts on the subject, the use of raqia is always either ambiguous or in reference to a solid structure -- never ever in reference to an open expanse or structure.

Yes, it can mean 'expanse' but not an expanse of empty space. There is simply no currently used word in the English language that has the same meaning (firmament comes very close but is no longer used in contemporary English) so translations have to stretch to find suitable words.

Spiritually and theologically, 'expanse' is just fine since like you said, the scientific description of the sky was never the point. When looking closely at the original text, however, understanding the actual meaning of the word throughout Hebrew writings (both in and outside of the Bible) is certainly worth investigating.

I've looked into this quite a bit, and come across several theories of which I can't find any holes in. The only one that contains an issue is when we use it to mean a solid seperation between the ground and the heavens. To me this is a red herring and doesn't prove anything one way or another as we can easily adopt several meanings each of which are true and viable and backed up by science, scripture and scholars, it's just another one of those things non-believers like to bring up as a supposed magic-bullet to bring down Christianity.

I think that some words have much clearer definied meanings than others, whereas this one is really ambiguous.

Digit

 

[gluadys]

I've looked into this quite a bit, and come across several theories of which I can't find any holes in. The only one that contains an issue is when we use it to mean a solid seperation between the ground and the heavens.

Yet that is the one with the best attestation as to the actual meaning the writers intended.

To me this is a red herring and doesn't prove anything one way or another as we can easily adopt several meanings each of which are true and viable and backed up by science, scripture and scholars,

Indeed, it would seem that the only reason not to adopt the "solid dome" interpretation is to make the scripture conform to science.

Why would you consider that necessary?

 

[Digit]

That's right, the ancient cosmology is just a backdrop for the spiritual truths that are being stated. As was said in article i quoted;
"The text is using ancient conventional thinking about structure to communicate other, more important issues."

Suggested very strongly, so strongly, that any other interpretation is grasping at straws. I really don't know why you are arguing this point. You've already said that there are greater spiritual truths that are the point of the passage. There is no problem with being a Christian and seeing that "firmament" refers to a solid dome.

All you've really done here is go "nuh uh" and then when asked for some references to back up your claims you say it's a non-issue.

What I did is say that you can pretty much conform that passage to anything that you wish it to mean, and as such it becomes a non-issues because those that want it to be a firmament and have it disprove the whole Bible will take it as such, those that want it to mean the Earth's crust will choose that view, those that want it to be spiritual will make it so and those that want it to be a result of influential cosmology will do so as well.

Hence, it's a non-issue! If you think the word is clearly defined then go for it. It all depends on your source, we seem to all act like we are Biblical scholars yet all we do is google up articles and read them and adopt those which fit our beliefs. I'm kinda sick of the whole charade really.

Digit

 

[philadiddle]

What I did is say that you can pretty much conform that passage to anything that you wish it to mean,

So why has no one on this thread except for me and deamiter posted any other sources for the meaning of the word?

and as such it becomes a non-issues because those that want it to be a firmament and have it disprove the whole Bible will take it as such,

Well it makes sense now. You don't want to accept perfectly valid reasons for my interpretation because you've convinced yourself that if I'm right then the WHOLE bible is wrong. Find your nearest 3 bible colleges/universities and phone up the OT profs. Ask them if they are Christian and ask them what the word firmament is refering to. You'll find that anyone educated in the area of heurmenutics isn't afraid of such translations. It doesn't threaten the bible's integrity. It only threatens your own made up version of reality.

Hence, it's a non-issue! If you think the word is clearly defined then go for it. It all depends on your source, we seem to all act like we are Biblical scholars yet all we do is google up articles and read them and adopt those which fit our beliefs. I'm kinda sick of the whole charade really.

Depends on my source? How about sourceS. I didn't use google. I got my information from a good old fashioned book, which is also used as a pentatuech text for some bible colleges. It's a compendium of different scholar's works so it's not bias. It has great detail about the sources and offers different views if something is a little iffy.

If we don't study things in context then we are defenseless against the JWs and LDSs. I find in the General Apologetics section that atheists are constantly misquoting scripture, it's important to be able to put it in context for them. I'm sure you would do the same if dealing with an atheist, at least it seems you would until that context threatens your own interpretation, at which point you'll say it's a non-issue.

 

[HypnoToad]

So you're honestly not willing to accept any hermeneutic and scriptural-based arguments?

Sure, but Scriptural arguments for what?

First, the Scriptural evidence is all shakey. Your source has plenty of "suggests" and "implies"; quotes from poetry like the Psalms; quotes from prophetic visions like Ezekiel and Isaiah.

Second, I think you are not understanding what my position is. When I talk about "others'" interpretation of "firmament", I'm talking about anyone other than God - that includes the Israelites. Even if they DID understand it to be solid, it's not because God said so.

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.

I'm asking about another word that refers to the exact same thing "firmament" refers to, not something that just "includes" the firmament. And what is that word, which you say there is?

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

I'm saying that I believe God wrote Genesis 1; like the way He wrote out the law on stone tablets for Moses.

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. ...


... Seely has amply demonstrated that, structurally speaking, the raqia' was perceived by the Israelite audience, ...

And, again, I'm not concerned with how the Israelites "perceived" it, I'm concerned with what God ever actually said it was.

And just because the word's roots mean something solid does not necessarily mean the word itself means something solid.

And even if the word "raqia" does specifically mean something solid, it wouldn't matter, as it's not the original language. Being written by God on a stone tablet and given to Adam, it wouldn't have been Hebrew, but likely something similar to cuneiform. It was then later translated into Hebrew by Moses when he compiled Genesis. And as the original language and word are unknown, we can't say it has the exact same connotations as "raqia".

... Instead, if the words are taken in the framework of a poem ...

Which the grammar and syntax indicate it isn't. And it doesn't rest on the word "day" as you suggest. It may be part of the argument, but it isn't the main issue.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm saying that I believe God wrote Genesis 1; like the way He wrote out the law on stone tablets for Moses.

On what do you base this?

And, again, I'm not concerned with how the Israelites "perceived" it, I'm concerned with what God ever actually said it was.

If God were communicating in my language I would expect him to choose a word that most closely conveys the idea. But you cover this below.

And just because the word's roots mean something solid does not necessarily mean the word itself means something solid.

How else shall we determine a word's meaning? Sometimes we can compare contemporaneous documents for a sense of a word. Sounds as if all the things that can be done to assess raqia have been done. What's missing?

And even if the word "raqia" does specifically mean something solid, it wouldn't matter, as it's not the original language. Being written by God on a stone tablet and given to Adam, it wouldn't have been Hebrew, but likely something similar to cuneiform.

It may interest you to know that some orthodox jewish writings I've run across assert just that -- that the original language was, in fact, Hebrew. (I don't believe this, but ...)

It was then later translated into Hebrew by Moses when he compiled Genesis. And as the original language and word are unknown, we can't say it has the exact same connotations as "raqia".

These are rather bold assertions given the lack of any evidence of this. I grant that IF someone other than Moses wrote Genesis 1 (and prior to Moses -- that is, if we ignore theories suggesting an exhile/post-exhilic writing of Genesis) in a language other than Hebrew, there may be a translation problem.

But, you have to admit that that is a rather large IF.

Which the grammar and syntax indicate it isn't. And it doesn't rest on the word "day" as you suggest. It may be part of the argument, but it isn't the main issue.

Which the grammar and syntax indicate that it is! (Isn't this fun, I say "A", you say "B", ad nauseum.)

Smart-aleckiness aside, Assyrian or someone (was it already in this thread?) has posted scholarly articles demonstrated the poetic nature of it.

Do you have articles that say something other than "nuh-uh"?

 

[Deamiter]

I'm asking about another word that refers to the exact same thing "firmament" refers to, not something that just "includes" the firmament. And what is that word, which you say there is?

If the other word referred to exactly the same thing, it too would refer to a solid dome. The truth is that if God didn't want to invoke the idea of a beaten out surface (like a bronze bowl) he could easily have used the word for 'heavens' as used as "the birds fly in the heavens" vs. the word for firmament as in "the birds fly on the firmament." If God was trying to invoke the understanding of atmosphere there was a good word for that. If God was trying to invoke the idea of a solid dome, there was a good word for that. Of course, if God inspired the spiritual truth and didn't particularly care how the Hebrew people thought the sky and heavens were structured, then the precise word choice wasn't God's to begin with.

We have evidence in the root-word, in Hebrew writings, in other Biblical passages all of which suggest a solid surface as the firmament. In response, you've suggested without a shred of evidence that Genesis 1-2 was written on a stone tablet by God, and that firmament must mean atmosphere because otherwise God doesn't agree with our current understanding of science.

This seems an odd reversal of roles as I usually must spend my energy trying to explain how God's revelation in nature can fit with an inspired (but not dictated) scripture that included sometimes inaccurate understandings of scientific details. This is the first time I've come across this role-reversal and my only advice is that you consider that God may not have dictated every detail but only inspired the main points in scriptures (except of course where God is quoted directly as you mentioned). This was certainly the very conservative B. B. Warfield's position and has the advantage of not assuming utterly unevidenced details (not in tradition, in scripture, in nature etc...) like God's writing of Genesis 1-2 in stone for Adam and Eve.

 

[crawfish]

Which the grammar and syntax indicate it isn't. And it doesn't rest on the word "day" as you suggest. It may be part of the argument, but it isn't the main issue.

I didn't suggest it all rested on the word "day". I just pointed out that the arguments were the same; essentially, they focus on the details and ignore the bigger picture.


The chapter is unlike any other OT poetry, it's true. It's also unlike any other OT prose.

 

[Digit]

So why has no one on this thread except for me and deamiter posted any other sources for the meaning of the word?

Well it makes sense now. You don't want to accept perfectly valid reasons for my interpretation because you've convinced yourself that if I'm right then the WHOLE bible is wrong. Find your nearest 3 bible colleges/universities and phone up the OT profs. Ask them if they are Christian and ask them what the word firmament is refering to. You'll find that anyone educated in the area of heurmenutics isn't afraid of such translations. It doesn't threaten the bible's integrity. It only threatens your own made up version of reality.

Depends on my source? How about sourceS. I didn't use google. I got my information from a good old fashioned book, which is also used as a pentatuech text for some bible colleges. It's a compendium of different scholar's works so it's not bias. It has great detail about the sources and offers different views if something is a little iffy.

If we don't study things in context then we are defenseless against the JWs and LDSs. I find in the General Apologetics section that atheists are constantly misquoting scripture, it's important to be able to put it in context for them. I'm sure you would do the same if dealing with an atheist, at least it seems you would until that context threatens your own interpretation, at which point you'll say it's a non-issue.

Dude, please go back and look at my post. There has been a link to where I got that information from since the begining and I quoted scripture too to answer your other question.

Asking me to call up some authorities on the Bible will yield numerous results I'm fairly confident, just as I can search in Google and get numerous results, in fact I would wager it depends on which exact authorities I call. Anyhow asking for sources is rather redundant because when a source comes along that says otherwise, people just go, "Naaaah, that's not science." and to be honest any idiot can put a webpage up. Hence why I said I'm pretty tired of the whole - "Show me proofs! From teh internetz!" because it's not going to change anything one way or another, 'proof' is a pretty flexible term when people quote stuff from wikipedia anyhow and you will still be stuck here arguing about non-issues. If you want to actually understand why I prefer to think of the pillars as spiritual, or for example some other church elders think of raqia as the Earth's crust (which actually isn't something I've ever considered before) then just go spend a few minutes reading posts in the Outreach forum. It's important, because every non-believer and his mother hits on these issues as a means to discredit the entire Bible. I've experienced God, and I don't need an argument to justify His existence and works to me, THEY do.

Astounded.

Digit

 

[Deamiter]

Dude, please go back and look at my post. There has been a link to where I got that information from since the begining and I quoted scripture too to answer your other question.

Asking me to call up some authorities on the Bible will yield numerous results I'm fairly confident, just as I can search in Google and get numerous results, in fact I would wager it depends on which exact authorities I call. Anyhow asking for sources is rather redundant because when a source comes along that says otherwise, people just go, "Naaaah, that's not science." and to be honest any idiot can put a webpage up. Hence why I said I'm pretty tired of the whole - "Show me proofs! From teh internetz!" because it's not going to change anything one way or another, 'proof' is a pretty flexible term when people quote stuff from wikipedia anyhow and you will still be stuck here arguing about non-issues. If you want to actually understand why I prefer to think of the pillars as spiritual, or for example some other church elders think of raqia as the Earth's crust (which actually isn't something I've ever considered before) then just go spend a few minutes reading posts in the Outreach forum. It's important, because every non-believer and his mother hits on these issues as a means to discredit the entire Bible. I've experienced God, and I don't need an argument to justify His existence and works to me, THEY do.

Astounded.

Digit

Interesting -- actually I think I do agree with you about the pillars (though I haven't really been following your position closely enough to say, I don't think Hebrew texts really make it clear that the pillars were holding up the raqia). I'm actually more interested in which church elders think of raqia as earth. Do they justify this or are they simply speaking as authorities in a local church?

 

[HypnoToad]

On what do you base this?

It's part of the Tablet Theory.

If God were communicating in my language I would expect him to choose a word that most closely conveys the idea.

But where did that "idea" come from? From what God said, or from their own ideas after the fact?

It may interest you to know that some orthodox jewish writings I've run across assert just that -- that the original language was, in fact, Hebrew. (I don't believe this, but ...)

But why do they think that? Are you saying they think Adam and Eve spoke Hebrew? Or is it because they think Moses was the original writer, as opposed to the compiler?

But why even bring it up, since you already reject that idea?

Which the grammar and syntax indicate that it is! (Isn't this fun, I say "A", you say "B", ad nauseum.)

Smart-aleckiness aside, Assyrian or someone (was it already in this thread?) has posted scholarly articles demonstrated the poetic nature of it.

Do you have articles that say something other than "nuh-uh"?

Um, yeah, already posted them. Unless you don't think people like Kaiser are scholars on the subject.

In response, you've suggested without a shred of evidence that Genesis 1-2 was written on a stone tablet by God

First, I have presented evidence of the Tablet Theory in other threads. Second, it was not 1-2, only 1. 2 was written by Adam.

I didn't suggest it all rested on the word "day".

Since it was the sole argument of your reply, yes you did certainly suggest that.

 

[Digit]

Interesting -- actually I think I do agree with you about the pillars (though I haven't really been following your position closely enough to say, I don't think Hebrew texts really make it clear that the pillars were holding up the raqia). I'm actually more interested in which church elders think of raqia as earth. Do they justify this or are they simply speaking as authorities in a local church?

Heya Deamiter,

I'm not sure, they are:

Pastor Diego Rodriguez first suggested this in a letter on 10 January 2005. Pastor Bob Enyart’s independent proposal was sent on 23 February 2005.

From the link in my other post.

I haven't looked into it further than that as he mentions no real specifics. But it's a different view which I hadn't thought of before, it does seem like they are just offering it as church pastors, rather than lets say, scholars or researches of any kind. But I think that's my point with this, in that based on what we know, we can fit a few different meanings to it which don't conflict and can all be true. The most obvious to me is that they are spiritual pillars as to be honest that's how it reads to me. When I first saw this question asked in the Outreach forum, and I read the passage I was like, "Wait... what's the problem here." there only seems to be a problem if you accept the pillars to be literal pillars of stone which is out of context.

What's that saying again? A text without a context is a pretext or something? Oh well, there ya go.



Cheers!
Digit
====

P.S. Hows married life - and does everyone keep asking you how married life is? Drove me nuts.

 

[philadiddle]

If you want to actually understand why I prefer to think of the pillars as spiritual

Fine, i'll go along for a with that for a couple of posts. I'd just like to know why God didn't just say "spiritual pillars". Also, what is their purpose? Why was that information included in the passages?

 

[philadiddle]

It's part of the Tablet Theory.

do you have some sources with more detailed information?

 

[Digit]

Fine, i'll go along for a with that for a couple of posts. I'd just like to know why God didn't just say "spiritual pillars". Also, what is their purpose? Why was that information included in the passages?

Wow, searching on Google brought up this thread... eerie.

Anyhow, from an AiG article that is rebuking a Washington Post article that does the usual job of saying the Bible isn't so because of X fact.

"You will find this word (pillars) used in conjunction with the earth in Samuel (as part of Hannah's prayer), in the Psalms and Proverbs (it is also used of Heaven) however, in context, these are not dealing with a cosmological account but are dealing with spiritual issues talking about spiritual pillars�these passages have nothing to do with describing the actual physical earth and how it is constructed."

I dunno if they changed their search engine recently, but I've not been able to find anything useful on their site for a while. >_> It used to bring up loads of articles. Oh well, if you're not much of an AiG fan then here is an article saying they are probably mountains. Heres a fairly long article (which I only skimmed) that seems to say there are dubious points, and we do run into difficulties with some words because ANE cultures lacked scientific knowledge and terms we are used to, but by and large it says we understand it to not be literal.

For kicks you may want to read this, which google thought I should obviously read... *glares at google*

Sorry if my posts earlier were a little harsh.

Digit

Edit: Oh, google slapped me again. And I thought we were friends. But yeah, see my dilemma here is that you can possibly understand these passages in numerous ways. I would go with something that is easy to understand and that makes sense in context of the passages, which is that they are spiritual pillars. It's easy to understand, isn't contradictory anywhere and helps non-believers grasp the point pretty easily and clearly without too much digging.

 

[juvenissun]

As I understand from what's been said, the original word of firmament contains the following meanings: solid, expanse, and may be dome (?). And most of the translations are "air". I hope I am correct on this fundamental understanding.

There is one possibility for the interpretation: the air or the space in fact has a nature similar to a solid. While this is not impossible, but as we can see it from classical physics, it does not apply.

In order to make a sense out of these understandings, I realized that there could be another way of so-called "literal" understanding of the Scripture. This is what our Lord oftenly used in the Book of Matthew, the parable. In science, we also use the same method to simplify the presentation of an idea or a mechanism. We call it analogy.

Use analogy to explain things should be different from using figurative description. In the sense that the real event and the analogy should have similar or parallel mechanism or function. The parallelism of the two should almost be identical in logic.
The picture and the function I have from the two critical properties of firmament: solid and expanse or expansion fit the extendibility property of a amenable metal such as gold. In trying to find an analogy between this property and the property of air or space, we should understand the mechanism on how does a amenable metal expand. "Use another analogy" to explain it, the extendibility of, for example, gold, is very similar to the spreading of a bucket of water on floor. The molecules simply slide sideway and expand. It is indeed amazing that Moses used the idea of metal expanding (assume he knew it as a property of copper) to describe the air or space expanding.

Now, it is clear how could we apply this mechanism of extendable solid to fluid. It is the same mechanism, only acts on material of two (or three) different physical states. To use one as an illustration to another is NOT a figurative description, but is the one next closest to the actual literal description.

Have we found a solution acceptable to you?

 

[Digit]

As I understand from what's been said, the original word of firmament contains the following meanings: solid, expanse, and may be dome (?). And most of the translations are "air". I hope I am correct on this fundamental understanding.

There is one possibility for the interpretation: the air or the space in fact has a nature similar to a solid. While this is not impossible, but as we can see it from classical physics, it does not apply.

In order to make a sense out of these understandings, I realized that there could be another way of so-called "literal" understanding of the Scripture. This is what our Lord oftenly used in the Book of Matthew, the parable. In science, we also use the same method to simplify the presentation of an idea or a mechanism. We call it analogy.

Use analogy to explain things should be different from using figurative description. In the sense that the real event and the analogy should have similar or parallel mechanism or function. The parallelism of the two should almost be identical in logic.
The picture and the function I have from the two critical properties of firmament: solid and expanse or expansion fit the extendibility property of a amenable metal such as gold. In trying to find an analogy between this property and the property of air or space, we should understand the mechanism on how does a amenable metal expand. "Use another analogy" to explain it, the extendibility of, for example, gold, is very similar to the spreading of a bucket of water on floor. The molecules simply slide sideway and expand. It is indeed amazing that Moses used the idea of metal expanding (assume he knew it as a property of copper) to describe the air or space expanding.

Now, it is clear how could we apply this mechanism of extendable solid to fluid. It is the same mechanism, only acts on material of two (or three) different physical states. To use one as an illustration to another is NOT a figurative description, but is the one next closest to the actual literal description.

Have we found a solution acceptable to you?

"You" as in me or "you" as in him? (Phiddlediddle).

Digit

 

[Tinker Grey]

It's part of the Tablet Theory.

That's nice. On what do the promulgators of this theory base this assertion?

But where did that "idea" come from? From what God said, or from their own ideas after the fact?

Are you suggesting that the ideas God had are inadequately conveyed by the language in which He chose to convey them?

But why do they think that? Are you saying they think Adam and Eve spoke Hebrew? Or is it because they think Moses was the original writer, as opposed to the compiler?

But why even bring it up, since you already reject that idea?

I have no idea why they think that. The assertion I've run across is that Adam and Eve spoke Hebrew.

I brought it up as a point of interest. It is a point that contradicts yours. But without evidence, I dismiss both your idea and theirs.

I may have heard of the Tablet theory before. But, as best I recall, it is wishful thinking. It is idle "what may have been."

I welcome the opportunity to become better informed.

Um, yeah, already posted them. Unless you don't think people like Kaiser are scholars on the subject.

Ok. I'll have to go back and look.

Is there any particular reason why your particular specialist should be believed over the contradicting specialist?