No Christy, I did not say that - the act is described poetically (with obvious poetic licence) - I had already stated that when you and I (and anyone else for that matter) looks at the sky, we perceive a dome like feature. But seriously, are you now saying that a mirror (which must be flat to reflect an image) is also a dome?
What annoys me is the ease with which great lines like these are rapidly twisted into "what they believed then!!!). I do not think the writer (and myself come to that) would give a fig if Greeks thought the sky was made of crystal, or bronze. These lines are clear and obvious, the writer wishes to express his feelings and outlook towards the Creator God. Avoiding this obvious meaning makes comments appear banal and pointless. The terms, lines, similes, metaphors, and so on, are the devices the writer has used to do so.
It is not all that difficult (even for Hebrews) to say, I believe God made the sky out of bronze as a dome, and I had better try and understand why it rains - as a plain statement. I cannot find such a statement - boo hoo if that is so .
What? Iâm not saying anything at all like that. Iâm trying to understand how you think the simile in question is using something other than hardness as the point of comparison. Hardness is the only thing the sky and the bronze mirror have in common according to the simile as written. That is how similes work. If I say you are as sly as a fox, slyness is the only characteristic in focus. The simile does not imply you have a bushy tail.
Nobody is saying the true meaning of the verse is âthe ancients thought the sky was solid.â Yes, it is clear and obvious the author wishes to express his feelings and outlook towards the Creator God. Pointing out that the ancients referred to the sky as hard, and drawing a conclusion about their worldview based on this is not the same thing as proposing the meaning of the verse. Itâs just making an observation.
Atheists think they can play a gotcha game with Christians by pointing out verses like this as âerrorsâ or evidence of how silly and ignorant and untrustworthy the people who wrote the Bible were. This is a stupid game that only works with people who are committed to a very strict and linguistically simplistic form of inerrancy.
I am not an atheist. I donât think the Israelites were silly or ignorant. I think they wrote lovely poetry. I am not committed to strict and linguistically simplistic inerrancy. The objective in pointing out something like âthe ancient Hebrews thought the sky was solidâ is that it is interesting and worthwhile to make observations about their culture and worldview so you can better get to the actual meaning of what they said. Someone who concludes that either the sky must be solid or the Bible must be untrustworthy is being ridiculous and not internalizing the actual meaning of the verse.
âIs there any way imaginable how this would not be an explicit reference to the skies as a solid dome?â
This portion of Job referred to does not say that. I tried to point this out, and if you disagree with this, make that clear to me.
We may discuss why a bronze mirror (which is flat) may be an appropriate simile, but that is beside the point discussed.
I agree that atheists make lots of straw from such lines, but Christians should read with greater care. And I most certainly do not think you are an atheist, but you are well qualified to read passages such as Job without getting âof the trackâ with domes and what may be inferred as cosmology (or what have you). The ancients may, or may not, have a perception of the sky you mentioned, but such an inference cannot be drawn from the passage in Job - there are many instances in the Bible, in which figurative language is used, and most (of the top of my head) can be understood as a âTempleâ or âspace of Godâ (awkward) - such as for example, âthe heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstoolâ.
I am making a point on this forum - and it is this: with so much an emphasis on ToE and how science may be touted as another âbookâ for Christians, some people get over-enthusiastic with terms in the Bible that they decide fits some view of other derived from science. I am a scientist, but I do not share in such enthusiasm. Much of the Bible is magnificent writing and this should be enjoyed and appreciated by both Christians and non-Christians, without adding pointless narratives.
It doesnât ? I guess you arenât offering up one of those dry points of humor that folks across the pond are so good at doing.
Here is the verse from Job:
King James Bible Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Here is an image of an ancient metal mirror:
But letâs add some more context to this sequence of texts in Job:
Job 37:14-16
Hearken unto this, O Job: stand still, and consider the wondrous works of God.
Dost thou know when God disposed them, and caused the light of his cloud to shine?
Dost thou know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him which is perfect in knowledge?
Job 37:3
He directeth it under the whole heaven, and his lightning unto the ends of the earth.
Job 37:5
God thundereth marvellously with his voice; great things doeth he, which we cannot comprehend.
Job 37:6
For he saith to the snow, Be thou on the earth; likewise to the small rain, and to the great rain of his strength.
Job 37:9-10
Out of the south cometh the whirlwind: and cold out of the north.
By the breath of God frost is given: and the breadth of the waters is straitened.
Job 37:11-13
Also by watering he wearieth the thick cloud: he scattereth his bright cloud:
And it is turned round about by his counsels: that they may do whatsoever he commandeth them upon the face of the world in the earth.
He causeth it to come, whether for correction, or for his land, or for mercy.
Job 37:17-18
[Dost thou knowâŚ] how thy garments are warm, when he quieteth the earth by the south wind?
Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Ra-kah [ (Hast thou with himâŚ) spread out , from âstretchâ, âoverlayâ, âto make a spreadingâ ]
sha-chaq [ the sky, from âcloudâ, âvaporâ, from sha-khak âincense smokeâ ]
cha-zaq [ strong/mighty , from strong, hard, firm, stout ]
Ya-tsaq [ and as a molten, from âcastâ, âpour outâ, âto stiffenâ, âgrow hardâ, âoverflowâ, etc. ]
rehâee [ looking glass, i.e. mirror, from raâah to âseeâ, âlookâ, âwatchâ, etc ]
If we want to boil this pithy verse down to essentials, it would be:
Raqa: [Hast thou] poured out Cha-zaq: the strong Sha-Khaq: sky Ya-Tsaq: as a poured metal Reh-ee: mirror ?
GJDS, your version of this would be something like ?
[Hast thou] spread out the strong sky like one would a spreadable mirror?
Does that sound better to you? Do you think that is the superior interpretation?
Here, letâs add the âGJDS translationâ to one other amazing interpretation of Job 37:18 - found in the âNew Living Translationâ - - which focuses on the Heat of the sky!
New Living Translation >> focuses on the HEAT of the sky! âHe makes the skies reflect the heat like a bronze mirror. Can you do that?â
But if we peruse the other translation, virtually all of them concur that the point
of the comparison is the hardness of a poured metal mirror! . . . and perhaps
even a suggestion of how the writer thinks God actually did it (by melting the
firmament into hot liquid and then poured over the sky to harden as it cooled!).
New International Version
âCan you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?â
English Standard Version
âCan you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?â
New American Standard Bible
âCan you, with Him, spread out the skies, Strong as a molten mirror?â
King James Bible
âHast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?â
Holman Christian Standard Bible
"Can you help God spread out the skies as hard as a cast metal mirror? "
International Standard Version
âCan you spread out the skies like he does; can you cast them as one might a mirror?â
NET Bible
"Will you, with him, spread out the clouds, solid as a mirror of molten metal? "
New Heart English Bible
âCan you, with him, spread out the sky, which is strong as a cast metal mirror?â
GODâS WORDÂŽ Translation
âCan you stretch out the skies with him and make them as firm as a mirror made of metal?â
JPS Tanakh 1917
âCanst thou with Him spread out the sky, Which is strong as a molten mirror?â
New American Standard 1977
âCan you, with Him, spread out the skies, strong as a molten mirror?"
Jubilee Bible 2000
âHast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong and as a molten looking glass?â
King James 2000 Bible
âHave you with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten mirror?â
American King James Version
âHave you with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?â
American Standard Version
âCanst thou with him spread out the sky, Which is strong as a molten mirror?â
Douay-Rheims Bible
"Thou perhaps hast made the heavens with him, which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass. "
Darby Bible Translation
âHast thou with him spread out the sky, firm, like a molten mirror?â
English Revised Version
âCanst thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong as a molten mirror?â
Websterâs Bible Translation
âHast thou with him spread out the sky which is strong, and as a molten looking-glass?â
World English Bible
âCan you, with him, spread out the sky, which is strong as a cast metal mirror?â
Youngâs Literal Translation
âThou hast made an expanse with Him For the clouds â strong as a hard mirror!â
Wow - I would try some humour but I am speechless.
Can you find any translation that does NOT (oops I used capitals George) refer to actions of creation and the writer is emphasising what God does and mankind does not? Can you point out any translation that states the sky is a dome of (or similar) to bronze? Can you tell me why the language is NOT figurative and poetic license is appropriate?
George, where were you when I wrote my verses? Were you staring at a polished bronze mirror?
This is the BioLogos position exactly! And yet ⌠you are not able to bring yourself to the final conclusion. Genesis, with its creation of humans from mud, makes as much sense as thinking the firmament is like a poured out piece of metal.
But now that we have orbited the earth, we can see that the ancient explanation âjust aint soâ.
And now that we know how animal forms change over millions of years, we can see that the ancient explanation of people made of clay is also âjust aint soâ.
The Persians believed that humanity was created from rhubarb! - - because of the red veins in rhubarb. Itâs a nice image ⌠but it too âjust aint soâ.
Job closes the lid on the sky dome - - Genesis has errors of natural fact. But weâll all survive it.
George, the most charitable comment I can make (and perhaps the most useful) is to encourage you to appreciate great literature and poetic genre - it may be a game changer to you. My impression is that you are so impressed by pictures from outer space (of the earth and the galaxy) that you may have embraced the poverty of factual observations and avoided embracing the riches of faith and how great intellects (with equally great talent) have expressed their faith. Seek these riches first, and the narratives and mundane observations will fall into place.
I think that is indeed a charitable comment! And for the most part I agree with you completely.
The only difference between you and I is that I look for (and expect) the magic of the Universe to be observable in its appearance and its operations ⌠and then, at last, by deduction from these appearances and operations.
I am inclined to God ⌠to a Cosmic Intelligence.
When some part of the Biblical narrative conflicts with my first-hand witness of the Book of Nature . . . my first guess is that the writer (as we all) suffered from a limited awareness of what was truly out in the Cosmos.
The idea that all the wonder of the Universe is correctly and collectively apprehended in a book written four or five thousand years ago â at a time with vastly limited means and potentials - - is just not very credible to me.
The Book of Job has several discussions about the natural wonders that God has wrought - - and it seems pretty clear that the Book doesnât have any idea of how nature truly works. The author of Job probably wrote Genesis⌠or was his uncle.
3.[quote=âjohnZ, post:13, topic:5694â]
that there are waters above a solid dome above the Earth, even describing it as being like a cast metal mirror (Job 37:18),
[/quote]
3.[quote=âjohnZ, post:13, topic:5694â]
Sure, and just as the statement (a single verse) says âasâ a mirror, knowing yet that it is not, you want to argue against Genesis 1 on the basis of something like this? Really? Scraping the bottom of the barrel⌠So does this mean that this is not a metaphor then? just a mistake? And an incorrect concept of the ancients about the sky thus invalidates the message of scripture that God created in seven days (which has no dependancy on any ancient perception)? Nor have you explained how they perceived clouds, which clearly brought rain, and clearly were known to bring rain, and clearly seen to move against the sky, and to change as they moved. All of a sudden these clouds are irrelevant, because one verse talks about a âdomeâ, which is supposed to be impenetrable (and this not taken as a metaphor?).
[/quote]
Woah there. âArgue against Genesis 1?â Isnât that where it says God put the firmament (or dome) in the midst of the waters, and it divided the waters below from the waters above? You might find it interesting to look up the etymology of âfirmament:â it really does mean firm. The original Hebrew word even alludes to hammering out a bowl.
Iâm sure that if you are determined enough you can handwave this into some meaning other than the sky being a hard dome. My point is only that the Job example is one of many which make sense in the context of an ANE worldview, not some aberration that flies in the face of everything else in the bible. Even a common phrase like âthe ends of the earthâ predates our modern understanding of the earth as a globe. We still use it because it sounds cool, but it does not reflect modern views. That said, no one here is arguing the central point that God created and brought order to the Earth.
As for clouds, I am fairly sure they would have been perceived as existing under the dome (and under the sun, moon, and stars for that matter) and therefore presented no difficulty to the idea of an impenetrable dome, which in any case was mentioned during Noahâs flood to have gates.
Speaking of clouds and sky, It appears Isaiah was unaware of the water cycle in 55:10 :âFor as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return
there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed
to the sower and bread to the eater,"
Some versions differ a little which gives a little wiggle room, but the ESV which is more word for word does not. Again, the bottom line is that the Bible is not a science book, so why should we look for science in it. I have to admit that I am guilty of doing so too if I do not watch myself, thinking such things as the whole Cain story showing a population outside of Eden.
GJDS, I appreciate great literature and poetry and I think the Bible has a lot of it. But I also think the ancient Israelites like the rest of their neighbors thought the sky was solid with an ocean above it. This idea is reflected in their literature and poetry. Is it your contention that because you think that the parts of Gen. and Job that talk of the sky as solid are poetic, that therefore the Israelites did not think the sky was solid?
LT-15, you are right the Bible does not teach a solid dome, it just assumes one. Itâs not really teaching to tell a person something they already know. Teaching should involve new information or understanding. The Bible was written by and to people who thought the sky was a solid dome. To let them continue to think so would not be teaching, i.e. giving them new information. For God to reveal modern scientific ideas would be teaching them something new. However, God does not divinely reveal scientific ideas, humans must come by this knowledge without revelation.
The way I see it is that the Bible is not âteachingâ a solid sky, but it is not correcting a mistaken idea that the sky is solid. The idea that the sky was a solid dome is not a basic Biblical doctrine. So the problem is not that the Bible teaches errors but that it allows them to go uncorrected. To correct all the errant ideas of the people of the times that the Bible was written, would have made it impossible for them to read it.
This discussion has consistently missed the point - the section quoted does not show a writer who is concerned with the composition and workings of any type of sky, so why draw such conclusions from it? The Hebrews may (and it is likely they had) various perceptions about the sky, earth, clouds and so on - we all have as we look at what is around us.
For comments to be valid on how anyone in Israel may have viewed nature, or the hills and clouds, you and others should point to a Hebrew systematic description of these matters, just as we look at Egyptian, Hellenic, Babylonian descriptions, and focus on those that are described as some type of system. Poetic expressions may or may not draw from such systems, but they rarely (if ever) replace them or become substitutes. The Bible at best describes the universe as heaven and earth, as the Creation by God. There is little more to it, and figurative language is used as part of religious expression.
There is a world of difference (pun intended at this point) between language that is poetic and a systematic description of objects of nature - even during the pre-science days. I am more impressed by the absence of such a system from the Hebrews (unless I have not heard of such a system); it may be that they were careful not to indulge in the cultures and beliefs of pagans, and they avoided such things - again this is speculation.
So let us stick to the point - no one can draw a description of nature or the sky from the passage in Job. Other sections of the Bible describe waters and other elemental aspects of the creation, and they do not strike me as semi-scientific attempts at any type of natural philosophy. Again, this is repeated ad nausea - the Bible is not a scientific or semi-scientific book.
Why would you look up the etymology word âfirmamentâ? Etymology doesnât really tell you much about the word very often. It is better just to look at what the word means and how it is used. Based on that, there is no reason to suspect some solid dome idea. It means an expanse.
@tomr, There is no evidence that the Bible assumes a solid dome. That is you (and others) reading your interpretation back on it, insisting that it must do that because you say it should. But that does not mean it does. The teachings of the Bible are completely consistent with the world as we know it regarding the heavens.
Seriously? This is intended to be a serious contribution to this discussion?
I donât want to be too pedantic or too obvious, but have you ever seen it rain upward or snow upward? I am not talking about hail (which ultimately ends up on the ground), nor about blowing snow, but about the cycle itself. Evaporation is not âraining upwards.â Isaiah is perfectly correct: The rains and snow come down and water the earth causing it to grow.
Your reading of this in this way seems exactly the problem you are trying to combat, that of trying to read the Bible as a science book that must say everything about a subject rather than actually just reading it and understanding what it says.You say we shouldnât read the Bible as a science textbook while doing exactly that to try to prove it wrong.
There are some hard passages and issues. This is not one of them.
I look up etymology whenever Iâm curious about nuances of a wordâs meaning, and usually I find it to be relevant and interesting! In the case of âfirmament,â I thought it would be particularly useful because itâs a word that is rarely used outside of the context of the Bible, and because it has been used in the Bible for over a thousand years. To find out if people a thousand years ago used and understood it the same way we do, etymology is extremely useful!
But letâs look at what it means. The dictionary tells me it means the vault or arch of the sky or heaven. The original Latin word meant âsupport.â In each case there is the implication of something solid. I also see it translated as space or expanse, but I think these are probably newer meanings based on the older ways the word was used. You can clearly trace a continuity of meaning from âfirmâ or âstrengthâ to âsupportâ or âpropâ to âarchâ or âvaultâ to âspaceâ or expanseâ: the meaning shifts, but in each case itâs clearly related to the previous meaning.
So how is it used? Again, this word is something of a special case because most modern uses of the word clearly originate with the Biblical meaning. I find it an intriguing hint, however, that God says âlet it divide the waters,â as though it had the physical ability to do this.
Again, Iâm not saying itâs absolutely necessary to interpret it this way, just that it is not an unreasonable interpretation!
@Lynn_Munter, But etymology doesnât give you nuance. It gives you history and it is quite often irrelevant because the meaning of a word depends on its usage in its context, not on what it meant in the past at some point. Putting great dependence on etymology can be a entry-level error in linguistics. It is related to the issue of synchronic vs. diachronic meaning. Moises Silvaâs Biblical Words and Their Meaning is indispensable for someone who wants to discuss these things meaningfully. Etymology can be helpful but it is limited. Nuance is discovered by the lexical domain and a particular context of usage.
Diachronic meaning (across time) can be helpful but communication really deals with synchronic meaning. Take, for instance, our English word gay. Itâs etymology wonât help us determine what it means in a given usage. Other considerations are necessary.
Furthermore, looking up âfirmamentâ wonât help much anyway because you are already removed from the text by one language. We need to look up the Hebrew word.
You say it is translated as expanse or space, but then you discount that. Why? Is it because it contradicts your whole point? In other words, you canât accept that meaning because it undermines the point you are trying to make.
If it means âspaceâ or âexpanse,â then it is quite easy to understand how it divides the waters above from the waters below. I look at my window this morning and see an expanse doing exactly that ⌠with water above (coming down at times but at the moment stopped) and water below. Why is it so hard to grasp that? Again, is it because you want to make a point and that points depends on a certain meaning regardless of what other explanations are possible and even more reasonable?
Lastly, it is odd to me that you (among others) are saying we shouldnât interpret the Bible in an overly literal way that would lead to scientific conclusions while doing exactly that. You insist that raqia had some precise scientific meaning to the ancients (a hardened dome or vault) but they should not have been that scientific and neither should we. But thatâs exactly what you are doing it seems.
I would be grateful for a âserious student of Godâs words and worksâ to interact, though I would reject the notion that you are the serious one while I am not. What do you have in response? What is it that you disagree with and what is your basis for that disagreement?
.
