[quote=“Casper_Hesp, post:106, topic:5694”]
Isn’t this clearly a definition of sky in the cosmological worldview of the biblical author?
[/quote]Why isn’t it a definition of the raqia? The raqia is called “heaven” and then he proceeds to talk more about what is found in the heaven which is the raqia. How does that not help us understand what the raqia is and what it is like?
Well that’s a bit naughty. He showed it was not covered by a domed ceiling, but rather covered with multiple flat ceilings. So instead of one solid raqia, they actually had several. This really hammers home the point that ANE cultures believed the sky was solid.
Lambert argued that the raqia of Genesis 1 was solid, and corresponded to the “skin” ceiling of Enuma Elish.
‘All water known to man either comes down from the sky or up from the ground. Hence, the sky must be water. The first chapter of Genesis provides the closest parallel to the division of cosmic waters. On the second day of the week of creation, God put a ‘firmament’ between the upper and lower waters, which corresponds to the ‘skin’ in Enūma Eliš IV 139.’, W. G. Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 171.
Lambert was a member of my community, so I’m very familiar with what he wrote on Genesis, in addition to his massive scholarly contributions.
Oh dear. I know Andrew Perry personally (he’s also a member of my community). His entire article is very typical of his approach; lots of hand waving and dodging around the issue. Do you know his final conclusion is that we just don’t know what the raqia is or what the Hebrews thought of it? It’s hardly surprising that unlike Lambert he has not submitted his work on the raqia to professional scholarly peer review.
1 Like
I don’t.
I am not sure what you mean by “inspiration” or what all you think is involved in it. I do believe there is orality as well as textuality involved in the precursor to the written text, but the written text is inspired by the God who cannot lie. That has to shape our view of the text.
But this question seems to me to be unanswered: Why is everyone operating from the assumption that raqia means something that is clearly wrong? What if God’s description of the raqia in Genesis 1:6-8 as something that contains things is the correction to the worldview? What is God’s description of the raqia in Psalm 19 which declares his glory is the correction of that worldview?
In other words, it is entirely possible (actually quite probable) that the very argument you are making is the answer to the argument you are presenting. Remember, there is no incontrovertible reason to demand that raqia only mean a hard or solid layer. The semantic domain is broader than that. When we take that semantic domain to the text, we see that God may in fact use an idea that ancients believed and then correct it by pointing out his creation that fills that raqia. At the very least we see that God defines the raqia as the heavens, and then fills it with things. It may well be that the connection is the spreading–as a metal worker spreads metal by beating it out, so God spread the heavens. The similarity is in the spreading, not the nature of what has been spread.
Read for instance, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament for a brief scholarly discussion.
1 Like
@Jon_Garvey… yes, but if you look at all the other references to “the sky” or “the heavens” it becomes clear that the Firmament is not the sky itself… but the upper limit of the Sky.
If the Bible had expanded more on the one use of “firmament” = “sky” - - you would have a case. But it doesn’t.
Fine, Jon
So however else we disagree, we agree on a few things:
(1) The idea of a single “ANE cosmology” is refuted by Lambert.
(2) The Babylonian cosmology looks nothing like the usual “ANE cosmology” representations, as in Peter Enns, or even John Walton, for example.
(3 Lambert parallels the biblical raqia with just one of the Babylonian flat layers (not a vault) - at least as described in the atypical Enuma Elish - and chooses a skin ceiling, not a hard metal shell (seems to reflect the biblical “stretching out the heavens like a tent” as much as any other text). How justified Lambert’s parallel is, I personally doubt - the skin is that of Tiamat, split in two like a flat fish as a covering for heaven, rather than an expanse created by God to “separate the waters from the waters”. And nothing in the biblical text suggests the raqia is skin, but then we agree that nothing in Enuma Elish suggests it’s a solid dome. A flat tent keeping out a vast cosmic ocean is hardly intuitive phenomenology, and certainly not a solid metal vault.
(4) The matter is controversial enough that even Christadelphians can’t agree amongst themselves.
That’s 4 points we agree on.
By the way, in an earlier post you mentioned ancient visual representations of the solid raqia as evidence of the ANE worldview. I wonder if you’d be so good as to provide links to some, as I’ve never been able to find a single one.
Try a word study on the name of the firmament, “Shemayim”. Like that of the equivalent name for dry land, “Eretz” it expands upon it quite extensively.
These are very minor semantic quibbles - it’s perfectly proper to describe something ‘shining in the sun’ and ‘shiny’ means ‘reflective’ - which don’t really help your case that poetic imagery allows non-obvious interpretations to supersede more obvious imagery.
- It’s more common for a rare word to have a narrower definition, but I am open to hearing more about what texts require another definition.
- I thought we had clearly established that ‘in the raqia’ presents no more problem than it would to say something is in a bowl, in a dome, or in a vault.
If this is the strongest point you can make for your case, or if you haven’t time to get into it further, perhaps there is nothing to be gained by further discussion. I have genuinely enjoyed the chance to examine these issues with you, and I wish you all the best!
Hi Jon,
I’d have to disagree strongly with the arguments you offer here. Chazaq is clearly a feature of the firmament as understood by the Hebrews, and you seem to agree, but you refuse hardness or firmness as a reasonable translation for reasons that I have trouble identifying.
I don’t know where you get the assessment that it is “never hard”, since “hard” seems to be an extremely compelling translation for Ex 3:-8-9 (“harder than flint” seems almost as clear as you can get!) and most lexicons and translations seem to view this translation as fairly uncontroversial. Not only that, but it strikes me as quite obvious that the chazaq that the firmament and the mirror are supposed to have in common is not their mightiness (never seen a mighty mirror) or some sort of metaphorical toughness, let alone their loudness or their heat. In fact, there is only one obvious way in which the mirror can answer to this description. On the whole, I think it is stretching it and avoiding the obvious to try to find some other shared feature that can keep the raqia from being identified as something firm or hard.
I recognize that you profess to not be concerned either way, and that you are open to the conclusion that the firmament is hard, but I don’t think you have made the case that there is no evidence for this conclusion. I would also note that the conclusion harmonizes quite well with other passages, including the apparently solid nature of the firmament discussed in Ezekiel 1, the admittedly poetic description of the pillars of the earth (to hold up what?), and the bursting open of the floodgates of the sky. For this last, you have tried to make a case that this does not refer to openings in the sky, but the parallelism with the openings in the earth through which the water emerges, the general usage of this word to refer to a chimney, a sluice with an opening for water, a window, or a lattice (multiple openings) and the simple fact that it refers to the “opening” of the sky makes any such effort extremely implausible. The idea that the waters above do not seriously parallel the waters below and that the passage in Gen 1 only in fact refers to “water vapor” seems anachronistic and intrinsically unlikely. On the whole, I’m not sure what else is needed to reach the conclusion that the firmament is solid, though I think that more could be said. What am I missing here? What is the counter-evidence that can increase the probability of an alternate conclusion?
2 Likes
I might have overreacted a bit there, excuse me for that. Often I add personal qualifiers to my words when I want to emphasize that I’m not speaking with any kind of scholarly authority on a particular topic. It saddens me when it appears people use that caution “against” me. But this was not your intent here.
As for the distinction between how the ancients “saw” and how they “interpreted” things, I think the border is very fuzzy at best, or even non-existent. This is so even within a culture, but when translating it to another culture that becomes even worse. Something that might have been obviously seen by them can require extra interpretation by us (and vice versa). An additional point would be that the blue expanse of the heavens is very easy to “see”. Besides the fact that you can’t touch it, the phenomenology is equivalent to that of a sea (mostly its exquisitly blue color but also its extent).
Our worldview goggles are a huge influence when we try to assess whether something is “intuitive” or “deductive”. That’s why I would like to highlight the following two quotes from what you wrote:
I think these sentences from your writing show where the largest amount of cultural baggage is imported in your line of reasoning. Why do you get to decide what counts as intuitive or deductive? Isn’t that a typical case of begging the question if we’re trying to understand what was intuitive to people living in ANE cultures?
As an aside, a solid dome is phenomenologically equivalent to a tent, as long as it keeps those heavenly waters up in the air ;).
That’s my two cents.
Casper
2 Likes
LT-15,
Christy wrote:. Here is a scholarly essay by Paul Seely published in Westminster Theological Journal.
Your reply was: Seely was not a good effort. Too many assumptions without support and a failure to seriously consider alternate explanations
I would like to know if you read the whole article and if you did why do you think the Westminster Theological Journal would publish it. Westminster strongly supports Biblical inerrancy why would they publish an article that could challenge that position if it was “not a good effort”.
Later you wrote: Regarding Seely, I don’t have time or space to be more specific.
I think you should take the time. If you could produce a better effort than Paul Seely to to refute his article, I am sure Westminster would love to publish it.
1 Like
Thank you George, that last comment of yours really helped to clear some final things up. I think I can agree with you. The downside is that we have nothing left to quibble about now 
.
This is misleading. Who’s talking about “a single ANE cosmology”? Lambert confirms, with a host of other scholars, that ANE cosmologies shared a number of features, one of which was the widespread concept of a solid firmament.
No, that isn’t true at all.
This is even more misleading. Lambert’s argument is that the Hebrew raqia is solid, just like the Babylonian firmaments, and like the solid firmaments of other ANE cultures. A skin is a solid object, just like a mirror is a solid object and a tent is a solid object.
No. That’s like saying “Whether the KJV is the only inspired Bible is so controversial that even Christians can’t agree amongst themselves”. That’s particularly bad sleight of hand.
Behold.
1 Like
Interesting. So are you saying the ancient Hebrews probably agreed with their closest cultural neighbors that the sky was solid, but God used the word raqia in Scripture to specifically teach them it wasn’t solid, that is to teach them a previously unknown scientific fact? I thought everyone had previously agreed the Bible did not and does not contain science lessons.
How is it God using the word raqia, not the Hebrew author using the word raqia? People have to communicate using the available lexicon, and the available lexicon just serves to trigger concepts held in common in a speech community. There is no way God (or the author) could have used a different word for ‘sky’ that connoted “atmosphere” because it wasn’t a concept in the speech community. Firmament is a bad translation for modern English because modern English speakers don’t have a shared concept for what exactly the word is attempting to trigger. Sky is good for us, but we have to admit that the concept triggered by sky in the mind of a modern English speaker is probably different than the concept triggered by raqia in an ancient Hebrew.
Take another scientific fact that the Hebrews had misconceptions about–what happens in pregnancy. The ancient people conceived of reproduction as a man planting his “seed” in the “soil” of a woman’s womb. There was no concept that infertility could ever be a male’s problem, and they didn’t understand that women contributed an ovum to the whole process. Infertility was always chalked up to the woman’s womb being “barren.” God never once corrected this worldview or introduced the concept of gametes. He was fine accommodating a scientifically inaccurate view of reproduction. Are you going to insist that speaking of a father’s seed and a woman’s barrenness were purely metaphorical and we can draw no conclusions about the ancient Hebrew’s concept of reproduction from the way they described it?
1 Like
@Jon_Garvey Here is my word study on “Shemayim” … in connection with its related usages in Genesis!
The most interesting texts listed below is Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:6
Genesis 1:1 is where God creates the “high thing(s)” [i.e. Shamayim = Heaven] and Earth.
And Gensis 1:6 is where Strong says a Raqiya is a base of support, like a floor, and he says
it was literally believed to exist by the Hebrew! And it is all capped off by Genesis 1:8 where
the King James God calls the Firmament “shamayim” - - which can also be translated into “sky”, “clouds” or - - as mentioned just above: “a high” (or lofty) “thing”.
Gen 1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven [ Hebrew 8064, shamayim,
from the root for “high things” ] and the earth.
Gen 1:6
And God said, Let there be a firmament [Hebrew 7549, raqiya, from “hammered out”, “poured out”]
in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Strong’s notes on Hebrew 7549: raqiya,
I. Extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
A. Expanse (flat as base, support)
B. Firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
i. Considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting ‘waters’ above.
Gen 1:8
And God called the firmament [ Hebrew 7549, raqiya, from “beat out”, “poured out” ]
Heaven [ Hebrew 8064, shamayim, “lofty thing” like “clouds” mentioned in Psalm 36].
And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Deu 33:26
There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven [ Hebrew 8064, shamayim ]
in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky [Hebrew 7834, sha-khak] .
Job 37:18
Hast thou with him “spread out” [Hebrew 7554, raka-ing]
the sky [Hebrew 7834, sha-khak], which is strong . . . as a molten looking glass?
Psalm 36:5
“Thy mercy, O LORD, is in the heavens [ Hebrew 8064, shamayim ];
and thy faithfulness reacheth unto the clouds [Hebrew 7834, sha-khak, “sky” in Deut and Job].”
**Listing of the Translations of Genesis 1:20 where **
the English is Sometimes Firmament and Sometimes Sky/Heaven
Genesis 1:20
"Across/Under the Firmament
4 = RSV, NKJV, VUL, LXX
RSV
And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.”
NKJV
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.”
VUL
dixit etiam Deus producant aquae reptile animae viventis et volatile super terram sub firmamento caeli
LXX
“καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός ἐξαγαγέτω τὰ ὕδατα ἑρπετὰ ψυχῶν ζωσῶν καὶ πετεινὰ πετόμενα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κατὰ τὸ στερέωμα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως.”
Where " κατὰ τὸ" means “near” or “at” and “στερέωμα” [stereoma] translates into “firmness, steadfastness, constancy”.
“On, Across or Under the Sky/Heavens”
5 = HCSB, NIV, YLT, ESV, NET
HCSB
Then God said, “Let the water swarm with[fn] living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.”
NIV
And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”
YLT
And God saith, ‘Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature, and fowl let fly on the earth on the face of the expanse of the heavens.’
ESV
And God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds[fn] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.”
NET
God said, “Let the water swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.”
“In the Open Firmament”
3 = KJV, WEB, ASV
WEB
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
KJV
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
ASV
And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
“In the Open … Sky/Heavens”
3 = HNV, DBY, NASB
HNV
God said, “Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the eretz in the open expanse of sky.”
DBY
And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living souls, and let fowl fly above the earth in the expanse of the heavens.
ASB
Then God said, “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.”
Have you seen how the Hebrew Bible uses raqia and sheymayim differently?
1 Like
Thanks for that picture Jonathan.
Can you provide a link? thanks
[quote=“Lynn_Munter, post:129, topic:5694”]
These are very minor semantic quibbles - it’s perfectly proper to describe something ‘shining in the sun’ and ‘shiny’ means ‘reflective’ - which don’t really help your case that poetic imagery allows non-obvious interpretations to supersede more obvious imagery.
[/quote]Exactly. Now why doesn’t that apply to the Bible and the discussion of raqia? Why can’t it be described as being like something beaten out without actually being being out?
[quote=“Lynn_Munter, post:129, topic:5694”]
- It’s more common for a rare word to have a narrower definition, but I am open to hearing more about what texts require another definition. 2) I thought we had clearly established that ‘in the raqia’ presents no more problem than it would to say something is in a bowl, in a dome, or in a vault. [/quote]It is somewhat of a rare word but it stretches across almost 1000 years of usage. And the texts present a full enough picture to discount it being a hard and firm surface.
With that I really need to move on. Thanks for the exchange.
It does. Ancient mirrors were not beaten out… .they were poured out … and then polished…
There is nothing in the Bible verses that makes Raqia into a non-solid entity.
At the very least, it means metallic. And similarly it means solid.
What isn’t solid is the sky does not have an ocean above it … and Job’s depiction of hail and snow being stored above sky is patently false.
It’s not how the world works…
[quote=“Christy, post:135, topic:5694”]
So are you saying the ancient Hebrews probably agreed with their closest cultural neighbors that the sky was solid, but God used the word raqia in Scripture to specifically teach them it wasn’t solid, that is to teach them a previously unknown scientific fact?
[/quote]No, I am not saying that, though it might be true. I tend to think it is more likely that God is either (1) not saying anything about it, or (2) teaching a different view while using the same word. For comparison, consider the word 'el, for God. Pagan nations had a concept of God and used the same word for God, but they did believe the same thing about God.
[quote=“Christy, post:135, topic:5694”]
I thought everyone had previously agreed the Bible did not and does not contain science lessons.
[/quote]I didn’t agree to that, although I am not sure this is a science lesson. The agreement is that the Bible is not a science textbook. It does contain lessons from many different fields, however.
[quote=“Christy, post:135, topic:5694”]
How is it God using the word raqia, not the Hebrew author using the word raqia?
[/quote]I have no idea. I am not sure who you are responding to here. The human author used the word God inspired him to use.
[quote=“Christy, post:135, topic:5694”]
Firmament is a bad translation for modern English
[/quote]It was actually a bad translation for older English and Latin as well.
[quote=“Christy, post:135, topic:5694”]
Are you going to insist that speaking of a father’s seed and a woman’s barrenness were purely metaphorical and we can draw no conclusions about the ancient Hebrew’s concept of reproduction from the way they described it?
[/quote]No. A point that can be made about one issue cannot necessarily be made about another. That doesn’t invalidate the point. Clearly, ancient peoples misunderstood a lot of stuff. That doesn’t invalidate the fact that they did understand some stuff. In the end, we have no idea what individual Hebrews or the nation believed. We can only read the words and interpret them. When we do that fully, seeing everything that is said about raqia, we can deduce that the Bible does not teach that the raqia was a solid barrier or firm flat barrier of some sort.
As always Christy, I appreciate your kind interaction even though we disagree. I need to move on from this conversation. Life is taking place around me and I need to be taking my own place in it here. Thanks again.
1 Like
#/media/File:Geb,_Nut,_Shu.jpg){kind=link}