@gbrooks9 @Edward_T_Babinski I thought you’d appreciate this:
https://riderontheclouds.wordpress.com/2018/06/28/yes-jp-holding-the-raqia-was-a-solid-dome/
1 Like
I sent it to Holding, to see what he thought
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
So I wrote an blogpost where I set out my case for a solid Raqia, in response to an article by JP Holding (who I used to like until now) for AiG. I sent the blogpost to Holding, and in return he publicly mocked me on Theology web:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?10140-Ultimate-Screwballs-Thread/page343
So I understand that I did something wrong here. Can anyone provide some constructive criticism of my post here:
https://riderontheclouds.wordpress.com/2018/06/28/yes-jp-holding-the-raqia-was-a-solid-dome/
What is wrong with it?
This matters because if the Hebrews did not think the sky is solid, then Genesis ‘is’ a work of science, and the TE/EC view of Genesi (as well as evolution as a whole) is jeopardised.
1 Like
Reggie, I can’t help you with your specific comments at the moment because I don’t have time… But I think this sounds like a false dichotomy to me. Even if the firmament with some kind of fluid type of thing it doesn’t mean at all that Genesis is a work of science.
Let’s take a deep breath here it’s going to be OK!
I am curious though how you came to these conclusions where every single possible interpretation that someone (who acknowledges evolution as being well supported by evidence) of the early chapters of Genesis is therefore null and void.
Do I need to create an account o access that page?
EDIT: As @pevaquark noted, it’s going to be okay dude !
because everyone else in the ancient world thought the sky was solid.
Need a little more from you here and what you’re thinking. I’ve got a few quick thoughts:
- Does a non-solid raqia eliminate all the other similarities from the ANE? Nobody is arguing that they just copied stuff from others in the ANE, but rather were part of the same world. Each culture developed their own unique take on things in the world and so there will always be things that aren’t the same as the surrounding groups.
- It’s obviously not a scientific account given everything else and clearly serves multiple other purposes. One thing we see with ancient documents is that if you interpret bits and pieces certain ways, you can squeeze them into modern scientific perspectives. People do the same thing with the Quran, Rig Veda, finding bits and phrases and saying ‘ooh, ahh, science.’
So what was the Raqia and the waters above then, if not literal waters above a solid dome?
@Reggie_O_Donoghue and @pevaquark
My position is that the scribe of Genesis erroneously believed the firmament was firm.
Why is this so hard to believe? The Genesis scribe was wrong about “poof” creation too!
It is currently my position too, but I’m told that my evidence is completely wrong.
My positive evidence is:
- The Raqia is created ‘in the midst of’, the deep with deep water above and below it.
- The Raqia is a stretched out expanse, which matches the stretched out sky which holds back water in the Enuma Elish.
The problem here is that you are using the word EXPANSE… when that is the alternate terminology used by translators who assert the Hebrew word for “firmament” means “empty expanse”!
Read in the Hebrew, a better understanding of raqia is ‘expanse’. You can read my translation and commentary here. If you don’t want to read through the whole commentary, here’s what I wrote about this word:
Many English translations render the Hebrew noun רָקִ֖יעַ (raqia) as ‘firmament’ (notably the English translation of the Septuagint, the LXA) while others render raqia as ‘expanse’. The latter translation is arguably more reasonable given that its verbal root, רָקַע (raqa), has a connotation of flattening, say, as a ball of dough is flattened by a rolling pin. In Exodus 39:3 the RSV renders the verb as “beat thin”, and in Jer 10:9 as “spread into plates”. The idea, therefore, of flattening an object and denoting its sheetlike appearance as an ‘expanse’ seems more reasonable than ‘firmament’. Also supporting this view, is the occurence of raqia in verse 1:20, where flying creatures are commanded to “fly-about over the land above the surface of the raqia of the skies”. In this verse, I believe that ‘expanse of the skies’ may make more sense than ‘firmament of the skies’.
I would also offer a general practice when puzzling over a difficult translation: the ancient Hebrews experienced the same ‘sky’ we do today. It’s unlikely, therefore, that the author, knowing that the sky was not solid, would represent the sky as such unless such a representation served another purpose, say, a more artful description. In other words, the author was representing the sky as a huge expanse, as if God had pounded a ball of ‘sky’ into an infinite plane of blue. Just a thought.
Cheers,
1 Like
Thank you for sharing Michael! Also @Reggie_O_Donoghue, @Edward_T_Babinski and @gbrooks9 I’ve merged the most recent Raqia thread with the same topic from last week to get all the recent discussion in one place.
1 Like
I disagree with you for a few reasons:
- We know that all other Ancient peoples thought the sky was solid, and the Ancient Egyptians and Babylonians thought there was water above. In the case of the Babylonians, these waters were not rain, since the creation of rain clouds is discussed later on in the Enuma Elish.
- With that in mind, since most scholars argue that Genesis 1 and the Enuma Elish mirror each other, as both texts mention ‘waters’ in conjunction with the creation of the sky, it is very likely that their waters are the same.
- Finally (and most importantly), the raqia is created ‘in the midst of’ the waters, which presumably are ‘the deep’, so there is deep water above and below.
Still, I agree that ‘expanse’ is the correct translation of Raqia, and I believe this refers to the skin which is stretched out to hold back the waters in the Enuma Elish.
Thanks for the response. It should be noted that many professional / academic translations that advance different understandings are not without merit. It’s an ancient language that largely disappeared by the time Jesus was born. The translation of raqia is similarly contentious. Anyway, I’d be interested in any comments you may have about this translation and exegesis of 1:6-7 before I respond to your post.
Thanks, and blessings
She is blue … AND appended to her are the stars!
If we compare all the leading English translations, there are is a branch of them which interpret raqia as “an empty expanse”…
… and another branch which interprets raqia as a “solid expanse” which makes an empty expanse possible.
The word “expanse” has been taken captive by both sides!
Ask JP Holding directly for constructive criticism. It’s worth a shot. But don’t expect him to cease mocking since he usually remains in his Theology Web hangout and mocks. He even has mocking videos on YouTube if you search under “flatearthery” (one word) in which he claims that the flat storied cosmos assumed by biblical authors was no such thing like other ancient assumptions of a flat storied cosmos. He says “fundy atheists” are the ones making such a connection: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYUE9NijJWFY_ztMDKXBUQt3WCcuRcclA