The idea that “stars” are alive seems quite likely… this is mentioned, though I suppose rather obliquely… in some of the Dead Sea Scrolls…
I actually don’t believe the firmament was ‘firm’. At least some Egyptian cosmological notions included heavens made of water, without a solid structure. Of course, some Egyptians did believe in a solid sky, I won’t deny, but I find the Genesis Raqia fits the former better than the latter.
http://www.kevinstilley.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Creation-Myths.pdf
How odd that you doubt the resurrection of Jesus (“lack of proof”)… but you will throw yourself on the sword of “the firmament is firm enough to be an orbiting ocean of water… but not firm enough for anything else” (< my attempt at paraphrasing your prior posting).
But @Reggie_O_Donoghue, if it is an orbiting body of water … I think it doesn’t matter how additionally firm the firmament is… it’s still based on the ignorance of the Ancients.
1 Like
I don’t disagree. I think we’ve well established that stars are not living beings, mountains don’t extend into space and the sea does not supply rivers and lakes from below.
2 Likes
I explain my views here:
Why do you keep doing this to yourself? You have explained nothing of consequence in the “Rider on the Clouds” article of 27 March 2018. But you have done a marvelous job of taking 20 minutes from my life that I will never get back.
You keep returning to the theme of “heaven” being something that includes “the sky” … and then you pretty much do an Irish jig with one or two verses… and then walk away. You have replaced the term “firmament”
with the term “expanse” - - virtually “an expanse of nothing”.
A credible treatment, to permanently mold the English Speaking world’s understanding of the meaning Raqia, must do the following:
- Describe the separation of waters into the waters above the sky and the waters below the sky.
- The raqia, however it is to be characterized, is not water itself; it holds the Celestial Waters up above.
- The raqia, whether it includes “the open sky” or not, is completely irrelevant to the Raqia’s prime function - to hold the celestial waters at bay.
For someone who doubts the sufficient evidence of a resurrection, it escapes my powers of observation (though not perfect, they are not trivial either) to identify why you will do almost anything to explain away the “firmness” of the firmament - - And it is here that you end your discussion?
For someone who has demonstrated considerable facility in working with ancient texts, this is a tremendous let-down. Yes, let us, by all means, set aside the term dome. It offends my heart and mind to even imagine a “dome”. But what is “all this” about the “expanse” ? The “nothing”?
As you can see in this extract from Strong’s (Blueletter Version), each time the word “expanse” is used, it is associated with the term of something that means something solid:
“extended surface (solid), expanse…” or “expanse (flat as base, support)” - There is even an explanatory note: “considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting ‘waters’ above”.
Strong’s translates H7549 17 times. And each time it is translated with the English neologism: “firmament”, derived from the Latin for something “firm”… like a “floor”… or a “ceiling”.
Replace the Firmness with the Nothingness
But your approach is hardly a new idea. I have provided 15 quotes from the various bibles conveniently extracted in the Blueletter tool. 8 of these quotes have removed the word and the meaning of “solid” or “firm” from the verse entirely. The translators clearly didn’t want to make it look like the scribes of Genesis didn’t know how the solar system worked. So instead of suggesting that there was something solid that separated the waters… they simply said “the expanse” separated the waters! Now we just have waters up there … all on their own. Does that improve the reading?
8 Translations for Gen 1:7 that replace “firm/firmament” with an “expanse of nothingness”:
NET: New English Translation
So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. It was so.
NLT: New Living Translation
And that is what happened. God made this space to separate the waters of the earth from the waters of the heavens.
NASB: New American Standard Bible
God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the [fn]expanse from the waters which were above the [fn]expanse; and it was so.
HNV: Hebrew Names Version
God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse, and it was so.
CSB: Christian Standard Bible
So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above the expanse. And it was so.
YLT: Young’s Literal Translation
And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which are under the expanse, and the waters which are above the expanse: and it is so.
DBY: Darby Translation
And God made the expanse, and divided between the waters that are under the expanse and the waters that are above the expanse; and it was so.
ESV: English Standard Version
And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
.
.
.
.
Okay, @Reggie_O_Donoghue, how did “empty expanse” separate the waters? Is this just a magic trick? And if there is literally nothing solid up there, holding up the waters, how does this solve your problem? We are still stuck with all that water up there!
But let’s look at the 7 versions that admit that there is something solid up there…
7 Translations for Gen 1:7 that explicitly state there is something up there holding up the waters
KJV: King James Version
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which wereunder the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
RSV: Revised Standard Version
And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so.
NKJV: New King James Version
Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which wereunder the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so.
NIV: New International Version
So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.
ASV: American Standard Version
And 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.
WEB: Webster’s Bible
And God made the firmament; and divided the waters which wereunder the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
VUL: Vulgate
et fecit Deus firmamentum divisitque aquas quae erant sub firmamento ab his quae erant super firmamentum et factum est ita
.
.
.
.
But what is this “solid” stuff? Exodus 24:10 suggests that it is a brilliant, clear, blue stone!
All these verses say there is a pavement of something like a stone up there … and you
have replaced this pavement with an “expanse of nothingness”:
[ Click on the Image to make text more legible ]
.
.
.
.
Below is your “corrected depiction” of the firmament with a Correction to the correction:
You boldly X-d out the entire image. But really, all you have done is removed the “firmament” which in your illustration was a very thin black line that the stars were appended to. Now the stars just hang there, along with the water. There… no more firm firmament… just stars under an ocean of celestial waters…
No it doesn’t. The Palace of Baal is described in almost exactly the same terms. I see no reason to think it is the floor of the sky.
Ordinarily I would allow for this parallel possibility… the the pavement just “looking like the sky”… instead of being placed in the sky.
But Ezekiel refers to this same stone… and it is in the sky … … twice… once it is “in” the firmament, the 2nd time it is “above” the firmament.
Eze 1:26
And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire H5601 stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it.
Eze 10:1
Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire H5601 stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne.
Ezekiel has clearly moved the EL throne-room from a recess in “the mountain” to a place in the sky!
Ezekiel is visionary language, it may not be intended to represent a scientific reality.
Also, everything in Ezekiel’s vision can be found in Babylonian astrological imagery (astrology was not something the Israelite’s approved of), if anything, all it tells us is how the Babylonians viewed the sky.
It may not be.
So… are you going to explain why you think it matters whether there is a “dam” in the sky holding back the waters… or that the waters are up there without any visible means of support?
It’s the same question as the warehouses full of snow and hail.
What keeps everything from falling down … if there isn’t something to hold onto up there?
Actually, Ezekiel was equally influenced by Persian metaphysics as Babylonian. Ezekiel’s reference to bones and skeletons is a veiled reference to the Persian method of disposing of the dead.
I’m talking about his vision in Ezekiel 1
I know… and I’ve already said I could go along with your view on that … if you just answer one question convincingly:
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.