The pillars of the earth.

[philadiddle]

here is an article saying they are probably mountains.

That link explains the mountains as part of an ancient cosmology quite nicely. This is another example of how God uses ancient cosmological views to express more important points.

 

[philadiddle]

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?

I find it kind of scarey that someone would try to read so much science into a theological book. I don't think it's necessary to try to relate a solid dome to anything via physics/chemestry, or whatever. God didn't write a science textbook. Seems some people find it crucial to make ancient cosmological views into literally read scientific fact. Sorry for being so argumentative, it just seems odd to me.

 

[HypnoToad]

do you have some sources with more detailed information?

1. http://www.ldolphin.org/tablethy.html
2. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Crete/6111/pneumatikos/wiseman.htm
3. http://www.creationism.org/lang/LangGenScience/index.htm - in the list of topics, "Tablet Theory" is in the center column, just short of half-way down. The topic then continues through the heading "Positive Antidote".
4. http://www.ancientdays.net/mosescompgenesis.htm

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

See the links above.

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

I'm saying humans, including the Israelites, are capable of drawing false conclusions.

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.

Quite far from "wishful thinking". See the links above.

 

[juvenissun]

I find it kind of scarey that someone would try to read so much science into a theological book. I don't think it's necessary to try to relate a solid dome to anything via physics/chemestry, or whatever. God didn't write a science textbook. Seems some people find it crucial to make ancient cosmological views into literally read scientific fact. Sorry for being so argumentative, it just seems odd to me.

May be I can assume you are not in the field of science. If not, of course you would not be used to this way of seeing things. However, I would still challenge any science oriented person in this forum to respond to my "simple" interpretation.

 

[Deamiter]

May be I can assume you are not in the field of science. If not, of course you would not be used to this way of seeing things. However, I would still challenge any science oriented person in this forum to respond to my "simple" interpretation.

I can take that challenge! I guess I too am a little taken aback at the speculation you're throwing around -- particularly by your apparent assumption that the Bible was intended to include 'easter eggs' that would not be understood by the original authors or audience.

I've got a degree in physics, and hopefully another in optical engineering in the next few weeks so I'm firmly a scientist (I don't really think like an engineer despite my latest degree title). Just as I wouldn't go looking for hidden descriptions of current advanced scientific knowledge in the Illiad or in the Epic of Gilgamesh, I think it's a mistake and a waste of time to try to fit an ancient understanding of the universe to our current understanding simply to try to appease those who would reject truth in the Bible because it includes ancient misunderstandings.

It seems that you're making the same mistake that many atheists make in their rejection of scripture. Simply, you're assuming that God communicate through an ancient culture but was not just communicating timeless spiritual truths but scientific understanding as well. What really convinces me that the view is wrong is your random searching for CURRENT scientific understanding in scripture. Why should we assume that the Bible conform to our current understanding when we know that we will know so much more and be able to correlate so much more information just 50 or 100 years from now?

I don't agree with you or militant atheists who claim that God could only have imparted spiritual truths along with correcting any incidental misunderstandings of nature. The truths in the Bible are certainly timeless, but why should we assume that it was written to conform to every culture's understanding of nature? We have to go to the original culture to translate metaphors and figures of speech (not to mention the words themselves) so we know the text isn't inherently timeless. Why should details unrelated to the timeless truths also be timeless?

Just my scientific 2 cents (Canadian)

 

[gluadys]

May be I can assume you are not in the field of science. If not, of course you would not be used to this way of seeing things. However, I would still challenge any science oriented person in this forum to respond to my "simple" interpretation.

Actually, I find it difficult to see your proposal as "scientific".

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.

This begs the question of why Moses would describe a liquid or air using the analogy of a metal. In the first place the text implies that the firmament/expanse/sky is separating the waters from the waters, holding up the waters above the firmament.

So what we would see as "empty space" Moses apparently sees as filled with water. In fact, it used to be taken for granted that "Nature abhors a vacuum" and until the early 20th century it was proposed that space is not empty but filled with a substance which was called "ether".

In the second place, why does Moses need an analogy at all if he is describing air or an air-like ethereal substance? The expansion and contraction of air (e.g. as in a bellows) was not unknown to the ancients.

So why a convoluted analogy to a metal? He could have depicted the creation of an air-like firmament as a bubble expanding into the surrounding waters above and below.

It makes most sense to suppose that Moses used a term alluding to beaten metal because he thought of the firmament as being more like a sheet of beaten metal enclosing air than like an air bubble itself.

I really don't see the point of trying to save literalism by such far-fetched linguistic and "scientific" gymnastics. There is so little of value remaining in such "literalism" that it is not worth the effort.

To me this just makes a fetish of literalism. A sort of idolatry of the letter. Is literalism more important than God?

 

[philadiddle]

May be I can assume you are not in the field of science. If not, of course you would not be used to this way of seeing things.

Harsh. I will use that reply on you in other threads when you totally skip over scientific evidence that contradicts the interpretation you've forced onto the bible.

 

[Digit]

Out of interest, what happens if the pillars are spiritual pillars? Or if it turns out they are the mountains, or crust or actual cylindrical pillars? What then?

Digit

 

[Deamiter]

Out of interest, what happens if the pillars are spiritual pillars? Or if it turns out they are the mountains, or crust or actual cylindrical pillars? What then?

Digit

Pretty much the same as if Genesis 1-2 is mythological rather than factual/historical in nature. The truth of the Bible remains, only details related to our hermeneutic changes.

Incidentally, I don't see a ton of evidence in the Bible itself for the argument that the pillars held up the firmament. Maybe I missed a verse or two, but it just isn't obvious to me. Of course, Hebrew scholars at the time wrote about it at least once that I've read, but I'm not all that invested in this understanding of pillars. As Warfield put it, ancient understanding of the universe has never been the point of these passages -- the occasional misunderstandings they used as illustrations hardly invalidates the points they are attempting to illustrate!

The only response to the numerous lines of evidence for the solid definition of firmament seems to be a logical argument that assumes quite a few unevidenced details. In particular, it assumes that Genesis 1 must have been written directly by God for the sole reason that some are unwilling to accept that mythology and storytelling has any place in the Bible. Further, it assumes that because God wrote it directly, he would not or could not have used mythology and must have recorded a factual account. This seems quite a lot to me like forcing our assumptions about God and scripture into our interpretation of the Bible itself. Unless I have a significant reason to do otherwise, (i.e. I'm unlikely to agree with Luther that the Bible says the sun revolves around the Earth because I find heliocentrism to be rather well evidenced) I really do value a Bible-first mode of interpretation although I am unwilling to claim a Bible-only hermeneutic since I feel that past Holy-Spirit inspired interpretation has a very important place in my personal road to truth.

 

[Digit]

Gen 1/2 I feel as being different, since they are referenced throughout the Bible in various ways. Whereas this isn't really, at least that I know of. But yeah, I agree with you I think in this respect. I am leaning more towards indecision as opposed to adopting a particular view, more so because of the time invested in fully understanding all positions, but also I don't feel it's important in my relationship with God, although it does help to convey that to others in a solid form. Sort of changed that viewpoint a little recently.

Digit

 

[Critias]

There is so little of value remaining in such "literalism" that it is not worth the effort.

To me this just makes a fetish of literalism. A sort of idolatry of the letter. Is literalism more important than God?

Probably good, though, that one would take that Jesus rose from the dead as a literal statement, don't ya think.

Ok, I'm just picking on you. You know I miss our arguments...sometimes.

 

[gluadys]

Probably good, though, that one would take that Jesus rose from the dead as a literal statement, don't ya think.

Ok, I'm just picking on you. You know I miss our arguments...sometimes.

Thank heavens, juvenissum hasn't yet tried to stretch that one beyond recognition.

 

[juvenissun]

This begs the question of why Moses would describe a liquid or air using the analogy of a metal.

I do not know. But I imagine they have experience with metal, but not having much understanding on things they do not play with, which is air, or space.

In the second place, why does Moses need an analogy at all if he is describing air or an air-like ethereal substance? The expansion and contraction of air (e.g. as in a bellows) was not unknown to the ancients.

There is a difference. They surely knew the "flow" of fluid. But they might not know the "expansion" of fluid. There is a big big difference in mechanism.

So why a convoluted analogy to a metal?

This is personal. You like to describe my "interpretation" as "convoluted". I would like to ask you to define that term so I can evaluate if it is justified criticism. Just describe it as been "twristed beyond recognition" is not correct. Even I twristed the meaning, I always try to maintain a solid logic connection. I am a scientist, not a poet.

I really don't see the point of trying to save literalism by such far-fetched linguistic and "scientific" gymnastics. There is so little of value remaining in such "literalism" that it is not worth the effort.

This is the same argument. I do not think I am doing a "far-fetched linguistic gymnastics". If you think I did, then, make an analysis on what I said and try to convince me.

 

[juvenissun]

Out of interest, what happens if the pillars are spiritual pillars? Or if it turns out they are the mountains, or crust or actual cylindrical pillars? What then?

Digit

And one more:

What does a "spiritual pillar" mean? It is even harder to understand than the real pillar.

 

[juvenissun]

As Warfield put it, ancient understanding of the universe has never been the point of these passages -- the occasional misunderstandings they used as illustrations hardly invalidates the points they are attempting to illustrate!

This is a point definitely worth to argue for. No. we could not tolerate error in the Scripture. Not a single one. Otherwise, the authority of the Bible collapses. The words in the Bible were "inspired". Who put these words down does NOT have to understand the deeper (even surficial) meaning of the words. We definitely should not evaluate the Scripture with the wisdom those authors had. How would one manage to write something which maintains valid through thousands of years? And do not forget we are talking about the scientific part of it. I don't think any ancient scientific writing could stand under the scrutiny of modern science. Except those written in the Bible.

Yes, the Bible is not a book of science. But it is a book with a lot of scientific information. The knowledge of sciences was written thousands years ago. And we still do not understand some of them now.

This seems quite a lot to me like forcing our assumptions about God and scripture into our interpretation of the Bible itself.

Nobody is "forcing" anything in the interpretation. For thousands of years, people continute to give different interpretations. We are only giving a contemporary one. I give mine and you may give yours. I am sure there would come better one at later time as we discover more on sciences. Every historical versions of interpretation could fit what the Scripture says on a contemporary basis. For example, the sun orbits the earth. Why should they know the earth is self-rotating at that time? (the rest of the story is political). That is how the scientific message in the Bible could sustain forever. No human being could write message in such a manner. Only God, Who knows the truth from the beginning to the end, could tell things in this way.

 

[juvenissun]

Harsh. I will use that reply on you in other threads when you totally skip over scientific evidence that contradicts the interpretation you've forced onto the bible.

Please do me a favor by picking it up. I will thank you very much for doing that.

 

[Deamiter]

This is a point definitely worth to argue for. No. we could not tolerate error in the Scripture. Not a single one. Otherwise, the authority of the Bible collapses. The words in the Bible were "inspired". Who put these words down does NOT have to understand the deeper (even surficial) meaning of the words.

How in the world do you logically justify this? "If there is a single error in the Bible, the authority of the Bible collapses?" So you connect authority not only to the message in a passage but to all incidental cultural misconceptions about the universe?

This is the ultimate easter-egg interpretation of scripture. You're asserting that God dictated every word of scripture not simply inspired, as those who he authored through couldn't have understood all the easter eggs he was hiding throughout scripture. Further, you're asserting that after God hid these little eggs for future generations to find, the future generations would (with utterly no scriptural basis) decide to go looking for hidden facts in the word-choices and phrases.

I mean, you're essentially admitting that the cultural understanding of firmament -- even to the author himself -- could have been of a solid dome, but you claim that God actually meant something else when God himself dictated scripture. But what's wrong with the idea that God inspired the main points and didn't go about correcting incidental cultural misunderstandings that were unrelated to the inspired points? What's wrong with the assertion of many churches that "the Bible is inspired, inerrant and authoritative on every matter which it speaks?" Or do you claim that a reference to God's glory through the firmament means that firmament must be scientifically accurate -- not simply a use of a cultural understanding to demonstrate God's glory?

 

[gluadys]

I do not know. But I imagine they have experience with metal, but not having much understanding on things they do not play with, which is air, or space.

That's pure imagination. Why would you think they used water or air any less than metal or that they would be any less familiar with their properties?

Space they would not know because they were confined to the surface of the earth. The best they could even imagine was flying like birds.

There is a difference. They surely knew the "flow" of fluid. But they might not know the "expansion" of fluid. There is a big big difference in mechanism.

The example you gave was of dumping a bucket of water on the floor. I am certain they knew what to expect when this happened.

This is personal. You like to describe my "interpretation" as "convoluted". I would like to ask you to define that term so I can evaluate if it is justified criticism. Just describe it as been "twristed beyond recognition" is not correct.

Convoluted refers to something that twists and turns through logical arguments like pathways in a maze so that you end up turned around from where you began. Each step seems logical and straightforward, but it introduces a subtle shift in perspective and eventually the direction is changed altogether. With practice one can easily show that "black" can mean "white".

I don't believe God intends that scripture require such interpretation. I really have a lot of sympathy for more conventional literalism here. I do think any interpretation of scripture needs to begin with the basic plain meaning of the words as they would be understood in ordinary conversation in the culture of the time. From that one can go on to additional meanings that are readily derived from the basic meaning.

For example I agree with the statement earlier in this thread that in referring to "pillars of the earth" the biblical writers were invoking the image of a temple, suggesting that the earth is God's temple.

Even I twristed the meaning, I always try to maintain a solid logic connection. I am a scientist, not a poet.

I can only say that it is a very peculiar logic. I don't consider an interpretation that says solid=liquid=air very logical. Or very scientific.

This is the same argument. I do not think I am doing a "far-fetched linguistic gymnastics". If you think I did, then, make an analysis on what I said and try to convince me.

look, I am an English teacher. I love playing with words and I know you can't pin down words to particular meanings easily. One of the fascinating things in language is watching how poets and writers do extend the meanings of words. Historically, some words do actually flip-flop in their meanings. When the KJV was written "let" meant "hinder, prevent". Today it means "allow, permit". And if you don't know that you get a totally wrong impression from a passage in the bible (sorry I don't remember the exact verse) where the KJV translates God as saying he will do something and "no one will let me".

Similarly, like many children raised on the KJV I wondered for years why the Psalmist did not want the Lord as his shepherd. "Want" in modern English means "desire, wish for" . So "The LORD is my shepherd I shall not want" is hardly a good way to describe what the Psalmist (and the KJV translators) really meant. In their day "want" meant "to be in need". To want something and to need it meant basically the same thing, whereas today we often oppose them identifying some things as what we want, not what we need.

Nevertheless, this sort of turn-around in word use is something that happens without people consciously shifting the meaning. It is a communal thing that evolves through time. It does not require that anyone use the term in a radically different way than their contemporaries use it.

What I see you doing is a more individualistic thing, rather like Humpty-Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland. You are using words idiosyncratically to mean whatever you personally want them to mean. This destroys the very function of language which is to communicate.

If Moses wanted to convey the idea that the sky was like air, he could have done so and should have done so. He wanted to convey the idea that the sky was like finely beaten out metal because, in his day and age, that is how he and most of his contemporaries thought of it. It wasn't his task to provide scientific enlightenment to the Israelites. It was his task to proclaim God, and God alone, as Creator of heaven and earth. For that task, what the sky is made of is irrelevant.

 

[Digit]

And one more:

What does a "spiritual pillar" mean? It is even harder to understand than the real pillar.

Really? I don't think so. I sounds like the spiritual supports of the world.

Digit

 

[juvenissun]

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.

And Gluadys said:

look, I am an English teacher. I love playing with words and I know you can't pin down words to particular meanings easily. One of the fascinating things in language is watching how poets and writers do extend the meanings of words. Historically, some words do actually flip-flop in their meanings. When the KJV was written "let" meant "hinder, prevent". Today it means "allow, permit". And if you don't know that you get a totally wrong impression from a passage in the bible (sorry I don't remember the exact verse) where the KJV translates God as saying he will do something and "no one will let me".

Similarly, like many children raised on the KJV I wondered for years why the Psalmist did not want the Lord as his shepherd. "Want" in modern English means "desire, wish for" . So "The LORD is my shepherd I shall not want" is hardly a good way to describe what the Psalmist (and the KJV translators) really meant. In their day "want" meant "to be in need". To want something and to need it meant basically the same thing, whereas today we often oppose them identifying some things as what we want, not what we need.

Nevertheless, this sort of turn-around in word use is something that happens without people consciously shifting the meaning. It is a communal thing that evolves through time. It does not require that anyone use the term in a radically different way than their contemporaries use it.

What I see you doing is a more individualistic thing, rather like Humpty-Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland. You are using words idiosyncratically to mean whatever you personally want them to mean. This destroys the very function of language which is to communicate.

If Moses wanted to convey the idea that the sky was like air, he could have done so and should have done so. He wanted to convey the idea that the sky was like finely beaten out metal because, in his day and age, that is how he and most of his contemporaries thought of it. It wasn't his task to provide scientific enlightenment to the Israelites. It was his task to proclaim God, and God alone, as Creator of heaven and earth. For that task, what the sky is made of is irrelevant.

Very good illustration. Thanks and I understand your argument.

I think the major misunderstanding lies on the different perspective of view. I look at the verse in question from a scientist point of view, and explain my idea with a simplified description. As a result, my view could look pretty alien to you. That is why you said my interpretation is very convoluted (as the way you define the word). In fact, you do not see what I tried to say.

Get back to the topic, somehow my interpretation gave you the impression which is: Quote/ " solid = fluid = air " /Quote. I never try to mean that, but that was what you read out of my message. That is the key point. You do not quickly grasp the mental picture of a mechanism which is very clear in my mind. I think it should be attributed to my negligence on the detail and the accuracy of my explanation.

If you read one more time on the quote at the top of this message, you should see clearly I do not mean solid = fluid. But I said that ONE property found in A SPECIAL TYPE of soid is the same as ONE property found in fluid. However, you did not see the link on the particular property and criticized it as a distortion.

I think this is a good example to explain why are there so many arguments going on back and forth in this forum. There are much much more miscommunications than to-the-point debate. However, I should say, it is similar to the case that one plants apple seed, but harvests cucumber. I do get something back and learnt. Thanks to the Lord on this miracle.