What the Bible doesn’t actually say… you use “Supposed Poetic Dynamics” to make a case?
There were two ancient schools of thought regarding the blueness of the sky:
it was from the blue colored stone of the firmament … or
it was from the blue waters above a clear firmament.
Clouds were white. And the bible refers to them as “bottles” (or, more appropriately, Water Skins), filled up at appropriate locations in the firmament.
How would you fill a water skin with water if the firmament itself was clouds? How would that work?
They were apparently aware of some form of the water cycle. Old Testament wisdom literature (Including Job 26:8) is poetic in nature, so need not always be taken literally.
The Babylonians were also possibly aware that clouds were formed from water vapour. Babylonian texts mention rain clouds being made from the saliva of Tiamat.
Yep… I would agree, they had the sense of one … but they didn’t have it all figured out. They could see that some clouds were created from rising mists. But it was still miraculous… that’s why rain figures so heavily in Job, right?
And whether the sky was blue because of tons of water, or blue because of tons of gem stone … the sky was a heavy son of a gun!
If the firmament was clouds… what were the windows of the sky built into?
There is nothing about this text from Job that suggests the firmament is some loosey-goosey layer of foam in the sky:
Job 37:14
"Hear this, O Job; stop and consider the wondrous works of God.
Job 37:15-16
Do you know how God lays his command upon the clouds, and causes the lightning of his cloud to shine? Do you know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge?
Job 37:17-18
You whose garments get very hot when the earth is still because of the South Wind? Can you, like him, spread out the skies, firm as a molten mirror?
Here Job is reminded of feeling the heat badly just from the South Wind, while God himself poured the entire sky like it was a giant mirror made of molten metal. If the firmament was just a layer of clouds, this would be completely unintelligible. - George
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Here we go around again … this is the 3rd time I have had to paste a new copy of this list … because you continue to move your objections to a new thread:
To Summarize Once again … in our new Thread Location:
The Ten Talking Points Regarding the Biblical Firmament
Regarding Job 37:18. Like I said before, it is possible, perhaps even probable that the Hebrews believed the floor of heaven was made of solid blue stone (perhaps colouring the sky blue), BUT, this needn’t have anything to do with the firmament of genesis 1 or the apparent location of heavenly bodies, rather the rationale was likely the fact that it was a floor for the heaven of heavens, and all floors were solid.
It is however, worth noting that the word ‘Shachaq’ literally means clouds,
A big problem I see with the idea of the heavenly ocean, aside from it’s absence from any near eastern text I’ve seen, and the evidence that at least some ANE people them knew full well that rain clouds were formed from water vapour, is the fact that the heavens in ANE cosmologies were seen of as flimsy objects which had to be supported, not exactly well suited for holding back water!
Regarding it’s virtual absence from ANE cosmology. Until I see an unambiguous reference to windows in the heavens which allow rain through in extra-biblical ANE texts, I see no reason why the ‘windows of heaven’ cannot be figurative.
Did you just say what I thought you said? If the Hebrew believed in a massive sky of solid blue stone, it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the Firmament mentioned in Genesis 1? Okay. But it still leaves us with
a massive sky of solid blue stone!
Either one is a problem for an inspired literature, right?
As for ‘Shachaq’ literally meaning clouds, you then appear to be proposing this sense of the text:
Job 37:17-18 You whose garments get very hot when the earth is still because of the South Wind? Can you, like him, spread out the clouds [originally: skies], firm as a molten mirror?
Once again, either way, the sky has this massive, solid object (made, it would seem, from vast quantities of a molten substance). Do you think your translation makes the sentence more clear?
I think you have been up to your chest in swamp water with too many gators for too long. You are losing the point of the discussion. The discussion is not trying to focus on what the firmament was or wasnt… it’s trying to focus on did the writers of the Old Testament have a reasonable idea of the nature of the sky, the troposphere, lower orbital space, upper orbital space, and so on.
Comets and Stars appear to have a similar size and scale. A falling star (based on experience with meteoroids) could land on the Earth and people would be amazed. But a real falling star would have destroyed everyone long before the star ever touched earth.
Stars were a “host” of minions because everyone could see them move in lock step in the heavens… they were clearly were informed of a military-like obedience, compared to “the Wanderers” (i.e., the Planetes) who took their leave of seemingly any part of the sky they wanted.
But, all in all, no matter what the ancients came up with, including the Hebrew, it was pretty much wrong. So what exactly, @Reggie_O_Donoghue, are you trying reclaim from your understanding of the Old Testament’s cosmology?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Vocabulary Digression - Clouds, Shakhak
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Strong’s agrees with you that it can mean something other than “skies”… but I’m not sure “clouds” is the correct choice here:
Strong’s H7834 = shachaq (Pronunciation shakh’·ak )
Root Word (Etymology), From שָׁחַק (H7833).
KJV Translation Count — Total: Used 21 times.
The KJV translates Strong’s H7834 in the following manner:
cloud (11x),
sky (7x),
heaven (2x),
small dust (1x).
Strong’s Definitions שַׁחַק shachaq, shakh’-ak; from H7833; a powder (as beaten small);
**by analogy, a thin vapor; ** by extension, the firmament: —cloud, small dust, heaven, sky.
If we look at the etymological source, H7833 we read:
shachaq (Pronunciation shä·khak’ )
KJV Translation Count — Total: 4 Times.
The KJV translates Strong’s H7833 in the following manner:
beat (3x), wear (1x).
To rub away,
Beat fine,
Pulverise
To rub away:
of incense, of stones
of enemies (fig)
שָׁחַק shâchaq, shaw-khak’; a primitive root;
to comminate (by trituration or attrition):
— beat, wear.
[Not your everyday word: Comminate = to threaten with divine punishment or vengeance.]
[Also Trituration = threshed or ground to a fine powder.]
Suddenly we see that the “clouds” you think are implied in the verse are not watery clouds, but powdery clouds! Seemingly the fine dust one can see in the air when viewing it in a beam of strong sunlight.
And when not “dry”, the meaning of being “worn away” seems just as likely a meaning. Out of the four times that the second kind of “shakhak” is used in the Bible, three times it is used to mean something along the lines of “beat fine”:
Exodus 30:36
And thou shalt beat H7833 some of it very small, and put of it before the testimony in the tabernacle of the congregation, where I will meet with thee: it shall be unto you most holy.
2Sa 22:43
Then did I beat H7833 them as small as the dust of the earth, I did stamp them as the mire of the street, and did spread them abroad.
Psa 18:42
Then did I beat H7833 them small as the dust before the wind: I did cast them out as the dirt in the streets.
In the odd-ball use, we find it related to water, but in a wearing or destructive context:
Job 14:19 The waters wear H7833 the stones: thou washest away the things which grow out of the dust of the earth; and thou destroyest the hope of man.
You make the assumption that I am a biblical literalist/inerrantist. I am neither, and I thought I made that clear in my original post. My argument is that Biblical Hebrew cosmology was no more advanced than that of it’s neighbours, yet at the same time it was not exactly the same as how we commonly perceive it.
The more you post, the less I understand about your views.
In my view, “how we commonly perceive” Hebrew cosmology is to frequently give it the benefit of the doubt. And in the process, it comes across as coherent and even persuasive from an archaic point of view.
But when you have finished your fiddling and adjustments, Reggie, I find your interpretation of Hebrew interpretations has produced a world view that has lost its gleam and shine … it is now rather fuzzy and odd around the margins … and no longer has the appeal our “common re-working” once gave it.
So maybe your interpretation is the more realistic… that we should not idealize the Hebrew mind and Hebrew imagination. We should mix it up and leave it a little confusing.
But you shouldn’t entertain the idea that you are doing the Hebrew any favors.
I think we’ve touched on this before. Is there a specific article in Hebrew, like in Greek, that means “in”, as opposed to:
above, around, near, over, under, etc. etc. ? And if so, is it found in that sentence?
Hhhm, after reading this passage from Wayne Horowitz’ Mesopotamian Cosmology, I no longer view the Non-differentiation between atmosphere and heavens to be a serious problem:
"Heaven is the upper of the two halves of the universe. In ancient Mesopotamia, as in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the heavens include both visible areas, where the stars, Sun, Moon, and planets are seen, and higher regions above the sky, where gods of heaven dwell. Only the lists of KAR 307 and AO 8196 and Enuma Elish provide clear evidence that the heavens consist of the sky and more than one level above the sky… The area between the earth’s surface and the stars is not listed in KAR 307 or AO 8196 but is part of the heavens in other texts. For instance, numerous passages speak of birds, clouds, and winds in the heavens (See CAD S/I 345-47), so the region of the universe we call the “atmosphere” or “sky” was clearly part of heaven in ancient Mesopotamia…"
There you go, (did you catch that AiG?), the Hebrews were hardly unique. Likely they didn’t differentiate because they didn’t have words to do so. (Though then again they sometimes do speak of between heaven and earth)
Still, for now I still hold to a non-solid view because of how birds are implied to fly in the waters above just as fish dwell in the waters below.
That wasn’t exactly the case with the Babylonians (who believed the Stars had to ‘enter’ the heavens via gates. Their rationale was that they were the floor for the dwelling place of the gods.
I’m not sure this changes any thing you and I were discussing, @Reggie_O_Donoghue.
You refer to the Babylonians. Yes, I suppose they could have some different views. On the Jewish side, the Dead Sea Scrolls includes a sentence that asserts that the most Righteous members of the Assembly will, after dying, become eligible to become a Star !!! (I do not remember which of the scrolls had this reference.)
How would a righteous man take his position amongst the other holy figures already installed in the Heavens? I can imagine going through a door or gate, and being directed to an empty glass bench, with a view of the Earth below, and the perfect vantage for all the humans below to see his righteous glowing being assume his position in the heaven above.
Well, @Reggie_O_Donoghue, Daniel 12:3 could certainly be used to justify such a belief:
Dan 12:3
And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
The Revised Standard Version is a little easier to read:
Dan 12:3
And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.
An adjustment to word order would also help:
“…those who are wise, and those who turn many to righteousness, shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; like the stars for ever and ever.”
In Nicholas Thomas Wright’s book, The Resurrection of the Son of God (page 58), we read:
“The idea that after death humans (or some of them - it can be thought of as a reward for special virtue) actually become stars goes back behind the Socratic period to Pythagorean philosophy and Orphic religion, and is found also in Babylonian and Egyptian sources.”
FN 146: See e.g. West 1971, 188; for an early Egyptian origin, cf. Kakosy 1969.
On page 111, the author scans some of the Jewish texts:
FN 114 4 Macc.9.22 speaks of the oldest son, during his torture, ‘as though transformed by fire into immortality’…
1 Enoch 58.3 ‘the righteous shall be in the light of the sun, and the elect in the light of eternal life which has no end, and the days of the life of the holy ones cannot be numbered’…
Page 157
"The Testament of Moses speaks of Israel being exalted to the heights, and fixed firmly in the starry heaven… This seems clearly dependent both on Daniel 12:3 (the righteous shining like stars) and on Isaiah 52:13…
Page 159
The Testament of Levi predicts the coming of a new priest, to replace the wicked ones upon whom judgment has fallen, and declares that ‘his star shall rise in heaven like a king’, and that he ‘will shine forth like the sun in the earth’…
Page 160
Fourth Ezra consists of a series of vivid visions…There follows a description of the stqate of the dead before the final judgment, in which one of the delights of the faithful is that it will be shown to them ‘how their face is to shine like the sun, and how they are to be made like the light of the stars, being incorruptible from then on’ - yet another allusion to Daniel 12."
Page 161
"The final apocalypse to be considered here is the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, known as 2 Baruch…[after 51.5 giving] rise to a remarkable passage about the new forms the righteous will take:
“They will live in the heights of the world and they will be like angels and will be equal to the stars… the excellence of the Righteous will then be greater than that of the angels.”
