(1) I have been saying that “windows of heaven,” understood in a literal-historical way, has great explanatory power in the context of Genesis 7: windows of heaven provide a literal-historical mechanism by which the literal-historical waters above the literal-historical dome of raqi’a/heaven are able to come to the surface of the earth and flood it in a literal-historical way.
Does a literal-historical interpretation of the windows of heaven have any explanatory power for an ancient Hebrew reader who believed in an ancient Near East cosmology? I’m not asking whether, in the light of what we know about science now, it is the only viable interpretation. I am simply asking whether an ancient Hebrew might reasonably have interpreted the windows in a literal-historical way.
(2)
Why are you afraid to answer this question, John? You have twice dodged this question.
Of course, you are not obliged to answer it. You do not answer to me, but to one who is far, far higher than I. (As do I.)
At the same time, everyone who reads this thread must by now have come to the conclusion that you do not have a good answer to the question–otherwise you would have given it already.
I don’t think there is much choice here … I believe the Hebrew writers BELIEVED the cosmological model that the best thinkers of the Ancient Near East constructed … which was seriously entertained for more than 1000 years…
“The Hebrew people, like other Ancient Near Eastern people, had a cosmology like that pictured in the diagram above and the Bible reflects this cosmology consistently throughout its pages. Scripture does not give us clues to later scientific discoveries such as the earth being a globe.”
" The Israelites, like their ANE neighbors, saw the earth as a relatively flat, circular disk. This is how it appears to anyone phenomenologically, as we scan the horizon. This disk is covered by a “vault” or “firmament” that appears as a rounded dome over the earth (imagine a snow globe). Beneath the land, upholding the “circle of the earth” are the “pillars of the earth.” There are “waters under the earth” that feed the surface waters, and “waters above the firmament” that are sometimes released upon the earth through “the windows of heaven.” The clouds and the heavenly bodies, the sun, moon, and stars, have been placed in firmament above."
" There are several other details, but these will suffice to make our point. When Warren quotes Isaiah 40:22 as saying, “God is enthroned above the sphere of the earth,” he translates and interprets the text in contradiction to how all major English versions understand the Hebrew word chûg. What Isaiah said was that God’s throne sits above “the circle of the earth.”
“Isaiah is portraying God as sitting above the circular disk of the land below or perhaps beyond the rounded dome of the firmament (see the diagrams). Whichever it is, either interpretation reflects ANE cosmology and has nothing to do with earth being a spherical globe. God did not reveal that thousands of years ago through special revelation. Scientists came to understand it in their study of his general revelation.”
It is relevant to the story of the flood and to the story of creation in the very same way:
It shows how the priestly scribes can relate a view of the world that may appear quite VIVID to them… and yet we know in hindsight that they had no special knowledge of the natural world.
I would suggest that knowledge of spiritual truths does not automatically translate into knowing the truth about the natural world.
One of the few New Testament references I have made on these boards is Jesus spitting into a handful of dirt and applying this stew of micro-fauna into the eyes of a man whose eyes are already compromised.
I would maintain that Jesus, while in his human form, had no real knowledge of germ theory … or of any other principle of natural science that God himself would know.
The stories of Genesis are told from the limited knowledge of humanity of the day.
I suppose someone could say this is CONCEIVABLE. But the cosmology of that period is not so obscure that this is much of a guess.
The stars were said to be in charge of these “windows”… and once you have “waters ABOVE the firmament” - - does it really matter whether clouds are part of the windows or not?
I would say “windows” is not the controversial part of the system… the CONTROVERSY centers on whether there is an ocean above the firmament or not.
Once you state that the ancient Hebrew account in Hebrews 7 is not scientifically accurate, you would also have to concede that the ancient Hebrew accounts in Genesis 1 - 3 might not be scientifically accurate as well. Correct?
It’s only a concession if you thought Scripture was supposed to be “scientifically accurate” in the first place. That is not an assumption everyone starts with.
I would find it most surprising if there were waters ABOVE the firmament and WINDOWS… and that the writer did not expect the waters to be there for a reason…
… which, as I’ve pointed out, is consistent with Job’s references to “treasures/storehouses” of meteorological relevance…
If the windows are figurative, the water is figurative? Really? Who says? And Why?
So if a person says it was raining cats and dogs, since the cats and dogs aren’t literal, neither is the rain?
Silliness!
You take one example of figurative language and use it to invalidate the clear teaching of the rest of chapters 6-8 and call that good hermeneutics?
What is this? Biologos style logic?
[Oh that’s right. There are posters here from all different kinds of backgrounds and the thoughts posted here do not necessarily represent the views of Biologos. But still, it is thinking like this that the Biologos style of interpretation encourages.]
You seem not to have read the whole thread, given that you cited only the very first post. The basic point is that a literal-historical interpretation of “windows of heaven” has great explanatory power, given a literal-historical waters above the raqi’a/dome of heaven and a literal worldwide flood. See this comment for a more detailed discussion, and this comment for an exploration of ancient Near East cosmology.
A literal interpretation of “dogs and cats” has zero explanatory power for rainfall. In fact, I remember being puzzled as a kid the first time I heard the phrase. How can dogs and cats fall like rain?
Thus your chosen example of figurative language does not seem relevant to the discussion of Genesis 7, where a literal-historical interpretation of windows has great explanatory power.
I would suggest that the only reason you don’t perceive the seriousness of the issue is that you approach it from the perspective of someone who, at least to a large extent, believes the consensus view of 21st-century science. Are you suggesting, @tokyoguy111, that the original readers of Genesis 6 - 8 shared your beliefs in 21st-century science?
What do you think are the clear teachings of Genesis 6 - 8, Tokyo Guy?
If you believe that those chapters are a literal-historical account, though, I would suggest that it is you who might be invalidating the account, by accepting modern man’s hypotheses about science rather than God’s clear word. Besides, there is no need to accept modern man’s hypotheses; you just have to approach scientific observations with Biblical presuppositions rather than man’s.
Of course, you can understand the words, you can understand the syntax, you can understand the meaning behind words. That is not what I mean. That is not the point. But to understand the significance or the validity is a different thing.
If you tell a story about Alladin and the magic lamp, you can understand the story. But the difference between it being true, or merely a tale, is that if it were true, you might begin to look for various lamps with genies, and begin to rub them, thinking about the possibilities. If it is just a tale, you will not begin to look for “genie lamps” or flying carpets.
This seems pretty backward reasoning, in my mind. On the one hand you are suggesting that they wrote the story simply as a made up allegory of some idea they had of God and sin and beginnings, and then on the other hand, you are saying they deliberately mixed things up to make sure we knew it was just a story? This really confuses things, especially when people start arguing about a dome that they apparently thought really existed (but could not see)… furthermore, it is one of the few (only) examples of “backwards” sequence; if this were so important, why not do it thru the whole piece… by creating man first, and then creating everything else for his environment. No, I don’t think this is a good hypothesis.
This is a type of generalization, Eddie, which is contra-logic. Are you claiming then to be an ancient mind, since you seem to understand this ancient writing? I believe the modern mind can understand the ancient writing, and that we should not underestimate the knowledge or common sense of the ancient mind either. Our increase in knowledge has made us more technologically aware, but the modern world is as foolish in many ways as the ancient world was, perhaps more so.
Well, this is certainly true. But the issue is not modern science vs lack of it. The issue is merely whether it is real or true, vs being a dramatic tale, an allegory, a unsubstantiated myth, an imaginary concoction, a parable, or an illustration. No one is arguing that scripture is a scientific textbook; that is simply a false dilemna. The argument is merely that scripture is consistent with reality.
I am sorry if you think I have dodged this question. I thought I had explained several times the difference between the phrase and the story.
A metaphor is more or less a simile without the preposition, so it is inherently understood as a simile. When Jesus said he was the vine, he was implying the simile that he was like a vine and we are like the branches, connected together, with the branches depending on the vine that connects everything to its food and water supply. If the vine dies, the branches die.
So if the windows in heaven are figurative, they imply that something like the windows of heaven opened to permit and cause the rain. If you want to apply that type of figurative language to Genesis from the creation to the flood, you are going much beyond a mere figure of speech. You are saying that the creation of the world is like this, and man’s sin is like this, and man’s difficulties are like this, and man’s sins are so great that they deserve a flood like this. You can try to do this of course, but the benefits and necessity for the level of detail in Genesis 1-11 do not fit with such a figure of speech… it becomes merely an entertaining tail with only occasional snippets of value. This seems an extravagant way to make the point, with a whole bunch of unnecessary extraneous material.
On the other hand, if the details are accurate, or reasonably accurate, and the figures of speech are reasonable, and enhance rather than confuse the main story, then it makes sense that the story should include all the detail that it includes.
Many many historical true stories can still be told with the use of numerous figures of speech such as metaphors and hyperboles and similies and understatements. These figures of speech do not detract nor destroy the actual story.
Evolutionists understand this when they attempt to align Genesis 1 with evolution by saying that evolution is the way that God created, and some TE say that the seven days simply represent various periods of time. But then they have to find ways of amalgamating man’s responsibility for sin with “survival of the fittest, death and destruction” right up to the time that man was created… in the evolutionary scenario, that means that death of humans occurred right up to the time that God established his covenant with Adam the first, and so Cain’s murder of Abel was not a unique event at all, and not a result of Adam’s sin, but just a natural happening. So the message of this too is lost, because the significance of Cain’s conversation with God? why is this murder so special? why does it deserve attention?
I guess bottom-line tho, is that metaphors are common in true stories, and so your question really is rather illogical. Your question does not fit with literary common sense. So while I understand you want your question to be answered, it really does not require an answer in terms of comparing a metaphor within a story to the entire story.
and don’t you think it is a bit ironic that you would make the “windows of heaven” literal, but then make the entire story figurative? Doesn’t that seem a bit strange?
Or maybe that’s a reasonable counter to someone who claims to “take the whole text literally” rather than evidence of the scientific legitimacy of Genesis 1…
