From the Mailbag: Why would God allow scientific errors in the Bible?

[LT_15]

@gbrooks9

I refuse to be drawn into a eternal “no you didn’t” discussion with someone who assesses the evidence with dogma instead of with a reasonable interpretation of the agreed facts.

No one is asking you to do that. I asked three simple question and you have refused to answer them. Why? It would have taken less time than all this stuff you have posted and it would have been on the point of the conversation.

You speak of interpreting the evidence with dogma but that is exactly what you are doing. You have decided that they believed there was a solid dome and so you read everything in light of that. That is dogma. That idea that the Hebrews believed in this solid dome or that God intended a solid dome is not from the text. It is a belief you take to the text based on what people thousands of years are claiming. If you assume that they did not believe in a solid dome or at least that God did not intend a solid dome of some sort, then you would never get it out of the text. Everything in the actual text is consistent with what we know of the natural world. So it is indeed you who is taking dogma to the evidence rather than participating in a reasonable interpretation.

Let’s ask it this way: Is it reasonable that God did not intend a hard dome but instead used clear language and figures of speech to communicate something? Of course it is reasonable, and when we look at the evidence, that is what we see: clear language that is poetic or literary in nature.

Again, it continues to boggle my mind that those who have insisted that we cannot take Gen 1 as a literal account of creation and instead should it poetically or metaphorically for a theological point all of the sudden want to insist that we take a certain literalistically rather than seeing it as poetic or metaphorical. Why the sudden change? (I am not asking gbrooks to answer that; but I would be interested in someone else giving their view.)

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@LT_15

But why are you interpreting those to mean something we know that they don’t mean when there is a poetic interpretation that makes perfect sense? That’s what I still don’t get.

Because it doesn’t make sense in the original historical context.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@LT_15

As to the definition of raqia, citing BioLogos will not be convincing to those who do not share the presuppositions that go on here, although I enjoy the few conversations I have had here.

Fine. Here is a scholarly essay by Paul Seely published in Westminster Theological Journal. https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/01-genesis/text/articles-books/seely-firmament-wtj.htm[quote=“LT_15, post:67, topic:5694”]

When you talk about Bible scholars on the definition of raqia that is a rather large discussion because the “biblical scholars” are not completely in agreement.
[/quote]

Of course they aren’t. When are scholars in complete agreement about anything? I was hoping you would point me to the scholars you are getting your information from and why you are convinced that what they say is true.

@LT_15

It might be true that the word raqia does indicate something solid and God used it metaphorically rather than literally. (It still strikes me as odd that, given the past conversations I have had here with people rushing to say Gen 1 is poetic and not intended to address actual events or demand actual beliefs, all those people are now silent and demanding that we treat this one word as literal. It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways).

I don’t understand the disconnect. It’s not “treating one word as literal.” It’s taking the majority opinion on what the definition of a word should be in the Hebrew lexicon and then using that knowledge to go about interpreting the various passages the word occurs in.

@LT_15

I don’t have time or space to develop these here but it is sufficient to show that there are legitimate options.

I’m not trying to be rude, but I don’t think I’m the only one who would say that “options” you imagined off the top of your head with no evidence to support them other than your assertion that “it is possible,” don’t count as “legitimate options.”

@LT_15

When we add to that the evidence that we all know that the expanse is not solid, there is no reason to keep arguing it is aside from some need to prove something about the Bible.

We know the sky is not solid. It is pretty clear from lots of sources that ancient people did not. So in order to be convincing, you would need to put some evidence forward that the ancient Hebrews has access to knowledge and concepts that were highly unique among their contemporaries.

@LT_15

So where do the people live and the birds fly?

On the earth and in the air. The solid raqia does not deny the existence of physical space or air for people to move in beneath the solid sky. It is a different concept than “atmosphere.” There is an image in this white paper of the three tiered universe of ANE cosmic geography. https://biologos.org/uploads/projects/godawa_scholarly_paper_2.pdf

@LT_15

He places lights in the heavens and birds fly in the heavens (which is poetically repeated in the second phrase as across the face of the expanse).

These verses fit just fine with a solid sky. The stars are set in it and the birds fly across the face of it. It may be poetic imagery, but it matched what they thought was actually happening too.

@LT_15

The only thing leading us to think it is solid is the words of biblical scholars who have nothing to gain from it aside from acceptance by critical scholars.

This is a cheap shot, and not true. It seems to me that it is usually more important (for livelihood and publishing oportunities) to remain in good standing with fellow Evangelical scholars, since it is Evangelicals who pay their checks and buy their books.

@LT_15

What is lost if we see the raqia as an expanse? I would say nothing is at stake. We know the raqia is not solid. So why keep insisting it is? .

We know the sky is not solid, that’s different. What do you lose? Just the counterproductive insistence that the ancient Hebrews had to be “right” about everything and “correct” in all their descriptions of the natural world in order for the Bible to be true and authoritative. They weren’t and the Bible is.

[LT_15]

Based on what? Based on what people thousands of years later are telling us about what people back then believed. But there is no reason to believe that the Hebrews believed that, or that God intended that. You are demonstrating my point, namely, that you are imposing a modern view back on the text.

It may well be that that’s what they thought. But there is no indication that God intended that or accommodated it. We simply don’t know. We do know that the Hebrews misunderstood many things in God’s revelation to them. We also know that if we correlate what we know of the the natural world as I have described it with the sensible and reasonable explanation of the text as I and others have given, there is no conflict.

So I return to the question, why the pursuit of a conflict? Why not acknowledge that the text is consistent with what we know?

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@LT_15

Based on what people thousands of years later are telling us about what people back then believed.

No. Based on what people thousands of years ago actually wrote.

@LT_15

So I return to the question, why the pursuit of a conflict?

It’s not a pursuit of a conflict. It’s an acknowledgment that they didn’t believe the same way we do. They though of the world in phenomenalistic terms, not scientifically accurate terms.

[Lynn_Munter]

@LT_15

… when there is a poetic interpretation that makes perfect sense?

Can you please explain what this interpretation is? It would not occur to me, with my worldview, to talk about ‘pillars of the earth,’ even poetically. I genuinely can’t think of any interpretation that explains all the strange (to us) imagery without supposing that the biblical authors were very familiar with the solid dome cosmology of their day. You could, I suppose, come up with individual interpretations for each phrase, but that’s not the simplest answer.

@LT_15

… quest to prove something about the Bible.

I’m not sure what you mean by this accusation. I’m not a Christian. (I just read the Biologos faq that said the site standard is to assume people are unless they say otherwise, so that puts the onus more on me to volunteer the info than I realized. Sorry if I should have said sooner!) I admit to being rather baffled by the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, but I have not set out to disprove it. Others on this site say that it presents no theological difficulty to allow the ancient Hebrews to be in scientific error, and I find that argument compelling.

After impugning the character of two different articles offered to you, you now present a flat statement by an author I assume you agree with, as contradiction. But there is no effort to back this up or figure out why or how Mathews has come to this conclusion. This is classic ‘argument from authority,’ i.e. you seem to expect to believe or disbelieve something based on the character of the person who has said it, rather than on assessing their logic, references, and the points they make, and it, in microcosm, represents a big gap in understanding between science and religion.

I don’t want to say that there’s no place for assessing the character of someone when you’re trying to figure out whether to believe what they’re saying, either; but I’m seeing you make a lot of blanket claims that just aren’t backed up.

I’m actually pleasantly surprised to see you admitting that it was possible the Hebrews believed in a solid firmament. It was my impression you were categorically denying that it meant that. I’ll also say I definitely don’t think God’s intent was to teach the physical structure of the heavens in Genesis or any other scripture. That’s stuff we can figure out on our own, so why ruin the fun of it?

It’s not that I’m starting with a conflict, it’s that phrase after phrase of the Bible makes more sense once you learn about the common ancient imagery of a solid firmament surrounded by waters. Scholars didn’t make it up. Even if you just want to say that the Hebrews borrowed the poetic language from cultures around them that believed this way, it still helps the Bible make more sense than otherwise!

[bren]

Some of this conversation seem surprising to me, with points boxed off from other points in a way that seems to make it easier to dismiss any given one of them piecemeal. But when put together, they seem to lead to a fairly obvious conclusion and I’m surprised the discussion has reached this point. I have not taken the time to study the Hebrew term in any great depth, but from what I’ve seen at various points in the discussion above (and a little bit elsewhere);

1. The etymology of the term is rooted in the concept of “strengthening” and “hardness”, whether or not it continued to retain that connotation (comparisons with other Semitic languages, interpretations by ancient commentators and ancient translations all lead to a common conclusion).
2. The surrounding cultures provide clear evidence that the firmament was generally understood throughout the ancient world as a solid dome, whether or not the Israelites also understood it this way, and if the Israelites quite uniquely thought otherwise, they certainly didn’t make that contrast the least bit obvious in the Bible, as evinced by this discussion.
3. It explains certain passages in the simplest, most obvious, and most consistent way, whether or not some other, less obvious explanation is technically conceivable. That an observation about the hardness of the firmament was not the main point of any given passage in the Bible is a testimony to the fact that this point of view was uncontroversial (the passages are entirely consistent with the solid dome view, and fairly difficult to make sense of otherwise), not somehow an argument against the firmament being solid. The Bible testifies to the fact that what was generally understood about cosmology in the ancient world simply wasn’t a contentious issue for the Biblical writers; there is no special effort to correct a widely held idea like the solid nature of the sky. Many passages simply stop making much sense if the common ANE conception of a solid dome is discarded. And by the way, to dismiss these passages as poetry doesn’t suddenly resolve this at all; the poetry doesn’t make sense if the solid dome is not assumed. Some examples;

a. The firmament apparently serves as a horizontal dam, used to separate and hold the waters above from the waters below (Gen 1 technically says no more than that it divides one from the other, so this interpretation may be disputed, but I think the next point decides between the two possible interpretations fairly clearly).
b. Windows open for the rain to pour down.
c. It is held up by pillars.
d. It is used in metaphors for which the explicitly stated feature is “hardness” (there is some discussion of this above, but I fail to see how this emphasis on hardness can be ignored or dismissed).
e. Ezekiel one is the clearest description of a “firmament” and it is definitely solid (like ice or crystal)

In effect, there are multiple independent lines of evidence that lead to exactly the same conclusion, and from what I can see, no real evidence that points to any other conclusion (or no one has brought anything forward just yet). In fact, the only reason it appears to be a point of discussion is that the sky is not, in fact, solid. I understand arguing that any one of these points may be debatable in isolation, but these points are not isolated, they are a part of a consistent pattern. What needs to be addressed is that they all lead to exactly the same conclusion and that the background, context and usage of this term all tell exactly the same tale. It would hardly ruin my day to discover that the ancient Israelites actually didn’t think it was solid at all, but I haven’t seen any reason at all to think this is the case.

…Well, I suppose there might be one; the Biblical writers were not wrong about anything (bypassing any arguments about accommodation, target audience, etc of course), and the sky is not solid; therefore…

[LT_15]

Seely was not a good effort. Too many assumptions without support and a failure to seriously consider alternate explanations.

I have cited scholars (including lexicons) but I don’t have time to fully document it all.

It is treating one word as literal. You are insisting that raqia cannot be poetic imagery although everything around it is.

You aren’t rude. I am not bothered by that. You are wrong however. The options are not “imagined off the top of my head.” My guess is that I have been studying this stuff in the OT longer and at a deeper level than you. I have probably read more about the OT and it’s literature than you have. Which is only to say, this is not my first rodeo.

You want me to prove that the Hebrews didn’t believe something for which there is no evidence that they did believe to begin with. In other words, you want me to disprove something that hasn’t even been proven true.

My comments are not a cheap shot at all. It is usually more important to remain in good standing which is my point. It becomes an echo chamber in which the accepted opinions ring from all over and no one is permitted to challenge them. Just look here in this informal discussion how someone who says something slightly outside the norm but supports it with actual arguments is treated with disdain by many.

I don’t think the ancient Hebrews had to be “right” about everything or “correct” in their descriptions of the natural world in order for the Bible to be true and authoritative. I don’t know anyone who does. I agree that they probably weren’t but the Bible is.

Again, thanks. Sorry for the form of this response but I don’t have a lot of time to put in it.

[LT_15]

@Jonathan_Burke

No. Based on what people thousands of years ago actually wrote.

It’s actually based on what people today are telling us what those people meant by what they wrote.

[quote=“Jonathan_Burke, post:87, topic:5694”]
They though of the world in phenomenalistic terms, not scientifically accurate terms.
[/quote]I don’t know of anyone who disputes this. No one that I know of suggests that the Bible is some sort of science textbook or that it gives precise data about science. The claim is that the Bible is true when it speaks to these matters.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@LT_15

You are insisting that raqia cannot be poetic imagery although everything around it is.

Actually he’s pointing out there’s no evidence that it is poetic, and all the evidence points to it not being poetic. It might be poetic, but the evidence points in the opposite direction. Could you be more specific about your criticism of Seely?

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@LT_15

It’s actually based on what people today are telling us what those people meant by what they wrote.

No it really is based on what the people thousands of years ago wrote, and drew. Do you have any evidence that anyone before the Greek era thought the sky above was just atmosphere and gave a false appearance of a solid dome?

@LT_15

I don’t know of anyone who disputes this. No one that I know of suggests that the Bible is some sort of science textbook or that it gives precise data about science. The claim is that the Bible is true when it speaks to these matters.

You’re disputing it. If you believe they wrote in phenomenalistic terms, how can you claim they didn’t believe in a solid raqia?

[LT_15]

[quote=“Lynn_Munter, post:88, topic:5694”]
Can you please explain what this interpretation is? It would not occur to me, with my worldview, to talk about ‘pillars of the earth,’ even poetically.
[/quote]Yes, that the world is described in poetic language, perhaps similar to the purple mountain’s majesty or the fruited plain, or perhaps sea to shining sea when we all know that the mountains aren’t purple or the plains fruited and that the seas don’t shine. We still talk about the four corners of the earth, though we know it is round. And other cultures and places have their own images for things.

My citing of Mathews was simply to show that there are scholars on the other side of the issue. It is, to some degree, an argument from authority as given here, but this isn’t really the forum for an extended discussion of it. I would encourage you to consider not just a bald statement, but rather the full arguments that are behind it.

I don’t know that I have made a lot of claims that aren’t backed up. I haven’t given a full argument here for the sake of time and the forum is not conducive for it. But the arguments are out and around.

That the Hebrews may have believed something is different than saying that the word meant something. I don’t know what they believed. I think we have enough evidence from the text and from nature to say that there is no reason to assert that the Bible taught some hard dome.

Suffice it to say at this point that it’s a bit more complex that simplistic type of discussion and dismissal that is going on here. You can notice how few have actually been willing to engage on the issues. Again, that’s the nature of the forum like this and I understand that. But it isn’t a good way to do theology or science. You can’t read a brief internet article by anyone and expect to have an informed opinion on something. Knowledge just doesn’t work that way.

Unfortunately, the world of the internet has led to people reading a few short one-sided articles and then thinking they are experts on something. It’s not a good thing.

My best to you.

[LT_15]

[quote=“Jonathan_Burke, post:92, topic:5694”]
Actually he’s pointing out there’s no evidence that it is poetic, and all the evidence points to it not being poetic. It might be poetic, but the evidence points in the opposite direction. Could you be more specific about your criticism of Seely?
[/quote]Actually, the appearance of it in Job and Ezekiel point very clearly to it being poetic. And while someone like myself who leans towards YEC would take it in Genesis 1 as non-poetic, the odd thing is that the people who insist Gen 1 is poetic are most likely to insist raqia is not poetic in Gen 1. In fact, it may be the only thing in Gen 1 that is not poetic.

Regarding Seely, I don’t have time or space to be more specific. I think he didn’t do a good job with the evidence and I think he did not do a good job with alternate viewpoints.

Do you have any evidence that anyone before the Greek era thought the sky above was just atmosphere and gave a false appearance of a solid dome?

Yes, Genesis 1 seems pretty clear to me.

If you believe they wrote in phenomenalistic terms, how can you claim they didn’t believe in a solid raqia?

I am not disputing that they were not speaking in scientifically accurate terms. I am not greatly troubled by them speaking phenomenologically. We still do it today. No one expects that to be different. But language serves different purposes. When I say, “The sun sets in the west,” people don’t respond with “No, it doesn’t set. The earth just turns away. And it’s not really in the West anyway. It’s at 264 degrees which isn’t really west.”

But suddenly when we come to the Bible, some people expect either scientific accuracy or falsehood. I think that is a false dichotomy.

I don’t know if they believed in a solid raqia. I don’t think the text gives them any reason to believe that. But we know they misunderstood things and refused to let their worldview be corrected by God’s revelation so we should not be surprised by their misunderstanding. I simply don’t find any reason to insist that the Bible was affirming that view; I think there are plenty of reasons not to think the Bible affirmed it.

Thanks for the response.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@LT_15

Actually, the appearance of it in Job and Ezekiel point very clearly to it being poetic.

How? If this was only found in poetic texts, and we found a different description in other texts, you would have an argument to make. But we don’t. We only find one description of the raqia, all through a range of different texts. Not only that, but we find the same kind of description given which non-Hebrew people also gave when they believed in a solid raqia.

@LT_15

And while someone like myself who leans towards YEC would take it in Genesis 1 as non-poetic, the odd thing is that the people who insist Gen 1 is poetic are most likely to insist raqia is not poetic in Gen 1. In fact, it may be the only thing in Gen 1 that is not poetic.

That makes your position inconsistent. For someone like myself, who reads the text phenomenalistically, the text is actually describing what was literally seen. I don’t have to resort to calling parts of it poetic.

@LT_15

Regarding Seely, I don’t have time or space to be more specific. I think he didn’t do a good job with the evidence and I think he did not do a good job with alternate viewpoints.

I’m reminded of a few thoughts I read recently. These in particular.

• “Suffice it to say at this point that it’s a bit more complex that simplistic type of discussion and dismissal that is going on here”

• “You can notice how few have actually been willing to engage on the issues”

I think you need a bit more than hand waving to dismiss the wealth of evidence brought by Seely.

@LT_15

Yes, Genesis 1 seems pretty clear to me.

Which words in Genesis 1 indicate that the Hebrews thought the sky above was just atmosphere and gave a false appearance of a solid dome?

@LT_15

I am not greatly troubled by them speaking phenomenologically. We still do it today. No one expects that to be different. But language serves different purposes. When I say, “The sun sets in the west,” people don’t respond with “No, it doesn’t set. The earth just turns away. And it’s not really in the West anyway. It’s at 264 degrees which isn’t really west.”

But you need to prove that like us, they spoke phenomenologically but actually believed something else. Where’s the evidence for this?

@LT_15

I simply don’t find any reason to insist that the Bible was affirming that view; I think there are plenty of reasons not to think the Bible affirmed it.

That’s a separate issue. If that’s all your scared of, that’s not really a big deal.

[Lynn_Munter]

But the mountains do look purple, and the seas do shine where sun or moonlight reflects off them. The fruited plain in the song is even based off of real fruit trees: https://www.google.com/amp/www.answers.com/amp/Q/What_does_above_the_fruited_plain_mean_in_America_the_beautiful?client=safari

This imagery is very much grounded in the real world, or at least in how it’s perceived. The four corners is a perfect example of borrowing an image from a less modern culture, or possibly 'cause we like flat maps, but it didn’t come out of nowhere. Poetry isn’t a license to make no sense. I ask again, what exactly is the poetic interpretation that you say “makes perfect sense?”

I was rather hoping you could provide a link to a more full argument, perhaps, if not provide more details here? I was quite impressed with Seely’s article, and I don’t really understand why you’re so dismissive of it, except that you’ve been consistently determined to stick to your viewpoint, whatever other points get raised. I don’t see most of the people here being unwilling to engage on the issues.

@LT_15

…some people expect either scientific accuracy or falsehood. I think that is a false dichotomy.

What people have said this? I don’t recall saying it, or seeing anyone else in this discussion expect it, either.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@LT_15

No one is asking you to do that. I asked three simple question and you have refused to answer them. Why? It would have taken less time than all this stuff you have posted and it would have been on the point of the conversation.

@LT_15

I have since provided you with all the relevant Biblical text. (to be found in posting #78, and re-stated below) .

The fact that this makes zero impact on your rhetoric is exactly why I’m not going to be drawn into a complete waste of time. It’s all self-explanatory. If you ask me one more time to answer questions about translating the term for “firmament”, I will assume you are not yet equipped to understand Hebrew translation. It’s all right there in black and white.

The one thing that could be made more clear in reference to prior posts by several others… is the issue as to whether the waters above the firmament itself was dome-shaped.

It appears the firmament itself is a flat layer that runs across the bottom of the sky … either being the floor of the dome, or the floor of a cylindrical space… or anything else you think you might detect in the Bible texts. It is my inclination that the scribes had “pouring clear molten mineral that hardened” as the method of construction, rather it being hammered down as it was spread out across the expanse of what would become the sky.

If you reject the dome and/or solid firmament scenarios, you’ll have to do much more than say “I don’t know”. The Hebrew had some definite ideas … and so far, the most coherent interpretation is the one where the Hebrew share many of the same prejudices and preferences of the ancient societies around them.

@gbrooks9

Gen 1:6 "Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”

Gen 1:7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so."

Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven.

Gen 1:20 "Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”

Eze 1:22 “The likeness of the firmament above the heads of the living creatures[fn] was like the color of an awesome crystal, stretched out over their heads.”

Psalm 148:4: Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, And you waters above the heavens!

Job 37:18 "With Him, have you spread out [here, “spread out” is the word for firmament used as a verb!]the skies, strong as a cast metal mirror

[Jon_Garvey]

@Casper_Hesp

Also, I do not consider that reading “prejudicial” in any way because it’s a well documented fact about Ancient Near-Eastern cultures:

I’ve been looking for all those ANE pictures for a few years, Casper - all one ever finds are nineteenth century reconstructions based on composite interpretations of disparate texts.

The Egyptian pictures show the sky as the goddess Nut, supported by a god. The Assyriologist Lambert has shown that the Babylonian cosmos was not covered by a vault (it was a Victorian mistranslation), but was flat with multiple layers, like a cake. Actual evidence gets a bit thin after that - and a case can be made that it was the Greek idea of a series of crystalline spheres that has biased modern interpreters (because they have a one-size-fits-all concept of ancient cosmography) rather than there being a continuity of conception.

Here’s a long quote from A Perry’s article on the Job passage:

The related verb to rāqîa‛ is rāqa‛. It means ‘to beat out, spread out’. It is used in metalworking, e.g. “And they did beat the gold into thin plates” (Exod 39:3). Or again, bronze censors were hammered out as a covering for the oblong altar (Num 17:4; cf. Jer 10:9). Clearly, ‘shaping’ into a dome or any other shape is not part of the meaning of the verb. But also, neither is the verb tied to metal-working:

Can you, with him, spread out the skies (shachaq), strong as a molten mirror? Job 37:18
(NASB)

Here, the skies are spread out (rāqa‛), but no vault or dome-like shape is indicated in the use of the verb.

Likewise, the earth is ‘spread out’ (rāqa‛, Ps 136:6; Isa 42:5; 44:24), but shaping is not part of the sense and neither is ‘to make solid/solidify’ or ‘to work with metal’. The verb therefore does not offer us semantic ingredients to allow us to say ‘solid dome’ is the meaning of rāqîa‛; rather, the Isaiah texts parallel the verb with ‘stretch out the heavens’ which reinforces the meaning of ‘spread out’ for the verb. If something is spread out, stretched out or beaten out, what do we say that we have in front of us? It depends on what it is, but if it was the sky or the earth (rather than a bronze plate), the natural suggestion for rāqîa‛ would be
‘expanse’.

The bronze or the gold, and the earth or the skies are not being made in the rāqa‛ texts; they are there to be beaten out or spread out. This suggests that rāqîa‛ would be used to describe a characteristic of (to use our examples) gold, bronze, the earth and the skies. This is turn shows that a question like ‘What is the firmament?’ is misconceived.

The Job text is interesting in that the ‘skies’ (shachaq, 7x) or, more likely, ‘clouds’ (shachaq, 11x) are spread out but compared to a molten mirror. They are not said to be made of metal or to be a mirror, but to be like a molten mirror. The Hebrew for ‘mirror’ is unique and is translated in the LXX by a word for ‘appearance/vision/spectacle’. The chapter in Job is about an approaching weather phenomenon. The most likely aspect being referred to is stretched-out cloud in the distance reflecting light (Job 37:15). This is an important point because the idea of the firmament as a ‘dome’ is mythopoeic, but Job is describing appearances. We can think of this contrast in terms of perspective: in Genesis is the narrator looking to the distance towards the horizon and referring to an expanse, or is he looking straight-up and describing a vault?

One might add that in the same chapter, Job speaks of the clouds being “loaded with moisture”, “watering the earth” and “hanging poised” - a complete denial of the common idea that they believed on a hard dome with “flood doors” that kept out the water.

On the other hand, in ch38 the sea is described as being shut up behind doors, even doors and bars. Either his quaint cosmology involved his never actually visiting the seaside - or he was a poet, ad GD and others have said.

[LT_15]

@Jonathan_Burke

We only find one description of the raqia, all through a range of different texts.

Have you actually read the texts? They are not all the same.

@Jonathan_Burke

That makes your position inconsistent.

Not at all. I can affirm the use of a word that may have a semantic range that involves different things.

@Jonathan_Burke

I think you need a bit more than hand waving to dismiss the wealth of evidence brought by Seely.

I am not handwaving. I simply don’t have the time. Seely operates (as many here are) from a view of raqia that is inadequate to the text. Everything is explained away, such as the discussion of what happens in the raqia which is the heavens. His definition of raqia is too narrow to account for what happens there.

@Jonathan_Burke

Which words in Genesis 1 indicate that the Hebrews thought the sky above was just atmosphere and gave a false appearance of a solid dome?

I don’t know. I am not sure where this question comes from. The text of Genesis 1 does not require a hard dome and in fact is consistent with what we know today.

@Jonathan_Burke

That’s a separate issue. If that’s all your scared of, that’s not really a big deal.

I am not scare of anything.

[LT_15]

@Lynn_Munter

But the mountains do look purple, and the seas do shine where sun or moonlight reflects off them. The fruited plain in the song is even based off of real fruit trees:

But they aren’t purple, the sea doesn’t shine; it reflectss, and the plain isn’t fruited; the trees are.

The poetic interpretation is that a word that may communicate something hard is used in Job to refer to God’s creative power. It’s used in Gen to describe the universe that is spread out like a raqia would be. It is used in Ezekiel (a book filled with imagery) to describe something magnificent. Psalm 19 is clearly poetic. In Psalm 150 we praise him “in the raqia” not on it or on the face of it.

I don’t have time to get into Seely but there are problems with it, not the least of which is his definition of raqia is not sufficient to handle the evidence of the text. When you read the texts about the raqia, you see that (1) you can’t apply one single definition for all texts (rarely can you do that with any word unless it is a technical term) and (2) things happen “in the raqia” which require space therefore eliminating some flat surface.

[LT_15]

@gbrooks9

I have since provided you with all the relevant Biblical text. (to be found in posting #78, and re-stated below) .

I didn’t need relevant texts because (1) I already knew them and (2) even if I didn’t, I could find the 15 verses in .03 seconds in Bibleworks. Listing verses isn’t the issue here. My questions did not have to do with the verses.

@gbrooks9

The fact that this makes zero impact on your rhetoric is exactly why I’m not going to be drawn into a complete waste of time.

The reason it makes “zero impact on my rhetoric” is because it isn’t relevant to anything.

You say that it appears that the firmament itself was a flat layer. And therein is the problem. There is no way in the text that it can be a flat layer. Things happen “in it,” not just on it. The raqia is an expanse in which a number of things happen according to the text. All of that has to be accounted for.

And if you go back and look at the questions, none of them had to do with a list of verses or with what you think the raqia was. Here they are again:

@LT_15

1. Where did you get your Hebrew from?
2. Why are you reading this literalistically?
3. What is the point that Elihu is trying to make here and how does your insistence on this being a solid dome make that point?