Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandering Traveller
spin:
Quote:
|
And don't try this fudging about all the references being figurative. Those so-called figurative references clearly make sense with a solid raqiya. Live with it, don't try to sweep it under the carpet.
|
Fudging?! 'So-called' figurative references?! Let's examine Psalms 78 and 104 and see what else you insist on interpreting literally.
- God is a rock (Psalm 78:35)
- Men are a passing breeze (Psalm 78:39)
- The clouds are a chariot which God rides in (Psalm 104:3)
- The wind has wings, which said chariot rides on (ibid.)
- The waters hear God's thunder and consciously take flight (Psalm 104:7)
- The sun consciously knows when to go down (Psalm 104:19)
Need I go on? The Psalms (including these two) are obviously rife with figurative references. |
You need to stick to the point, not change the subject. Your attempt is to show that you don't like the basic meanings of various phrases used by Hebrew writers because they conflict with your world view. That's understandable, because they are part of a different world view. You need to argue from the evidence that something is "figurative language" not assume just because something appears to your world view as such. So, what evidence do you have that
raqiya is used in a figurative way, or that "the windows of heaven" is figurative language?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandering Traveller
(By the way, with reference to the 'four pillars' idea, cf. Job 26:7 - "he suspends the earth over nothing," NIV.)
|
Why do you assume uniformity of ideas through a long collection of works by different authors?? Just look at the fact that there are two different creation accounts at the beginning of Genesis and fragments of others in different other parts, though some of it deals with YHWH's slaying of the chaos dragon who has been sublimated in Gen 1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandering Traveller
I contend that in the uses of raqiya' outside Genesis 1, 'expanse' makes more sense than 'firmament' as a translation even from the perspective of an ancient world-view.
Then why is the raqiya' called shamayim in Genesis 1:8?
Because the subjective cosmological beliefs of the ancient Hebrews are a different question to what Genesis 1 actually says.
I would be very interested indeed to see you point them out.
Now then, the Bible verses you cite in your subsequent post (with the exception of Genesis 7:11 and 8:2, see below)...
"the construction of a tall tower to reach Heaven in Genesis 11:4"
The NIV translates this as "a tower that reaches to the heavens." Other translations (e.g., Young's Literal) give a similar rendering. And there is nothing in the context that indicates the men were literally trying to reach heaven (in the sense of God's dwelling place, rather than a position high up in the air).
|
Slave to the translation.
Hebrew:
MGDL WR)$W B$MYM
Literal: "a tower whose head (be) in heaven" (no verb)
Greek:
turgon h kefalh estai ews tou ouranou
English: "a tower whose head will be unto (or up to) heaven"
Latin:
turrem cuius culmen pertingat ad caelum
English: "a tower whose peak reaches to heaven"
Ancient translations had no problem with being literal about the Hebrew. As I indicated they are unsullied with modern science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandering Traveller
"celestial warehouses for snow and hail in Job 38:22"
Obviously figurative. Verse 23 continues: "which I reserve for times of trouble / for days of war and battle" (NIV). Clearly, snow and hail don't only come in times of war and battle. If we're interpreting Job 38 literally, then according to it the sea burst forth from a womb (verse 8), there are literal gates of death (verse 17), darkness and light have dwelling places (verse 19), drops of dew are fathered (verse 28), and frost is given birth (verse 29). Quite obviously, imagery is being used here.
|
What is obvious to you is guesswork, based on the retrojection of modern ideas into an ancient context. For example, your problem with the gates of death, or better Death, require you to know that in ancient Canaanite religion dead people came under the control of Mot (the god of death and the name literally means death, a god known from Ugarit) in his kingdom, so there is nothing particularly figurative about the gates of Death. If god created light and darkness, then why can't an ancient writer see that they have dwelling places? Dew and frost engendered? By the creative act of god.
This is not to say that the Hebrew writers didn't use figurative language, but that the distinction is not based on modern scientific views of the world. You need to justify claims of figurative language, not merely impute it along erroneous grounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wandering Traveller
"the sky as a strong crystalline material in Job 37:18 and Ezekiel 1:22"
Beyond 'it is figurative' I really don't have much further to say.
|
Yes, you do. You have given no evidence. You have merely made an assertion.
Hebrew is a language which was small on words and precision. The writers therefore took advantage of the lack of vocabulary to reemploy words so that they spread their meaning through allusion, somewhat like Anglo-Saxon. This will mean that sometimes words will have that secondary usage, while at other times they will have their primary significances. This of course will have problems for both readers and writers in distinguishing the way their words are being used, but then, if you were from the culture, it wouldn't matter, because you would be familiar with the semantic ranges of terms. However, for us we have to justify each claim of figurative language, for if you don't you can make wild claims about a text that you may not understand. When the claim of figurative language is based on modern science, you should extra careful that the problem with the literal meaning is not just your problem.
spin
10-22-2007, 03:54 PM
