Syler Kite

BDB entry with links to places where the word is used:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/...ion=kjv#Legend

seven8s

Either or, it's all the same to me.

spin

Yeah, Jack. Use Strongs at your own peril. It's a heap of, ummm... apologetics, written so long ago that there was no linguistic theory to give a scholar any way of being reasonable.

The traces that we have of the Hebrew language found in the bible (and there isn't too much linguistic variety to give us a good idea of the language) suggest that Hebrew was a very tangible language. The idea of empty space would not have been a common one (more meaningful to us than them -- remember how long it took us to develop the notion of zero?), but tactile ideas are so frequent in the language. Hebrew poetics comes from the use of tactile ideas in new contexts. This is the case with RQ(. You start with a very tactile notion of beating out metal and you look at the way the metal spreads. The result is something having been spread and that is the image used frequently with regard to god's creation of things.

This problem of ruling out "empty expanse" needs to be turned around: someone must justify its use, given the biblical evidence which doesn't support such a notion. If you cannot justify a meaning from the language of use then the meaning has no validity in the context. The only way someone can inject an empty expanse into the Hebrew is from a modern scientific understanding of the world and they want to make the bible fit that understanding. They are perverting the text in so doing.

You can try to show that each use of RQY( indicates that it is something perceived as tangible, ie not empty.

• Dan 12:3 the brightness of the firmament (if it's bright it is something)
• Ezek 1:22 the likeness of a firmament, like the color of the terrible ice (the simile indicates that it is perceived as solid)
• Ps 19:1 the firmament shows his handiwork (it's something to see)

Gen 1:20 was mistranslated in the KJV. Let birds fly over the face of the firmament of heaven, (L-PNY RQY( H$MYM. The birds don't fly in the firmament. That's just a translator trying to make sense of the Hebrew. However the same notion in Hebrew is found in Gen 1:2 when darkness was over the face of the deep, (L-PNY THWM. From the point of view of the observer in Gen 1:20 the birds skim the surface of the firmament. Again it is a solid object.

God physically made the firmament in Gen 1:7, as implied by the verb ($H (rather than BR), as in Gen 1:1). You roll up your sleeves with ($H.

All the linguistic evidence is that RQY( is something solid, tangible. The empty expanse idea is alien. If reasonable people can't justify it, then they stop using it.

If people are prepared to abnegate their responsibilities to think, you have little chance of communicating with them using reasoned argument.


spin

lee_merrill

Is that Strong's again, though? Here is an excerpt from TWOT:

"... and that farther expanse of sky in which God placed 'the lights... for signs and for seasons' (vv. 14,17, referring apparently to their becoming visible through the cloud cover; the stars, sun, and moon presumably having been created already in v. 3), i.e. empty space (ISBE, I, p. 315), over which, as Job said, 'He stretches out the north' (Job 26:7)"...

"In pre-Christian Egypt confusion was introduced into biblical cosmology when the LXX, perhaps under the influence of Alexandrian theories of a 'stone vault' of heaven, rendered 'rakia' by 'stereoema,' suggesting some firm, solid structure. This Greek concept was then reflected by the Latin 'firmamentum,' hence KJV 'firmament.' To this day negative criticism speaks of the 'vault, or "firmament," regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting "waters" above it' (BDB, p. 956); cf. the rendering of Job 37:18, 'The skies, strong (uzim) as a molten mirror' (cf Psa 150:1) their 'mighty expanse', changed by the RSV to read, 'the skies, hard.' Babylonian mythology recounts how Marduk used half of Tiamat's carcass to from the heavens (shamamu) held in place by a crossbar (!). In the OT, however, Isaiah insists that God 'stretches out the heavens [lit.] like gauze (doq, Isa 40:22).'"

spin

No. This seems to be Strong's.

What has been done with BDB is that it has been redone to include Strong's numbers, so that when you access via the Strong's number you get the BDB definition. This isn't a bad system, because BDB without the numbers is quite difficult to find words you don't know, because BDB groups words around Hebrew roots. If you wanted to find out about MQD$, miqdash, you mightn't know to look for QD$ (holy) to find it, but the Strong's number in the index at the back will help you locate it. Once you found it you'd see that MQD$ meant sanctuary (ie that which is holy).

The link Syler Kite provided is an abridgement of BDB.

1. extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
2. expanse (flat as base, support)
3. firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
   (considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above)

On with lee_merrill's material!...

"... and that farther expanse of sky in which God placed 'the lights... for signs and for seasons' (vv. 14,17)

Given the significance of RQY( you can see the problem with the preposition "in" in the KJV translation, can't you lee_merrill?

referring apparently to their becoming visible through the cloud cover; the stars, sun, and moon presumably having been created already in v. 3), i.e. empty space

This is now plainly apologetic, pushing an erroneous idea not derived from the text, ie "empty space". You can see that can't you, lee_merrill, given the significance of the verb RQ(, literally "to beat out" (with a hammer) and used metaphorically "to spread out". Obvious "spread out" implies something to spread out, not an empty space. You would agree that arguing today that RQY( based on its biblical usage means anything like "empty space" is simply dishonest, wouldn't you lee_merrill?

empty space ... over which, as Job said, 'He stretches out the north' (Job 26:7)"...

This has nothing to do with raqiya.

Job 26:7, "He stretches out [N+H not RQ(] the north over the empty space (THW should be "chaos"), and hangs the earth over nothing."

Nothing to do with the sky or the firmament, but a cosmological view in which the earth is hung from the north over chaos and emptiness. The sky is not under the earth.

"In pre-Christian Egypt confusion was introduced into biblical cosmology when the LXX, perhaps under the influence of Alexandrian theories of a 'stone vault' of heaven, rendered 'rakia' by 'stereoema,' suggesting some firm, solid structure. This Greek concept was then reflected by the Latin 'firmamentum,' hence KJV 'firmament.' To this day negative criticism speaks of the 'vault, or "firmament," regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting "waters" above it' (BDB, p. 956); cf. the rendering of Job 37:18, 'The skies, strong (uzim) as a molten mirror' (cf Psa 150:1) their 'mighty expanse', changed by the RSV to read, 'the skies, hard.' Babylonian mythology recounts how Marduk used half of Tiamat's carcass to from the heavens (shamamu) held in place by a crossbar (!). In the OT, however, Isaiah insists that God 'stretches out the heavens [lit.] like gauze (doq, Isa 40:22).'"

The writer seems happy to ignore what raqiya means in order to impute that earlier translators are wrong because they understood the term to mean something solid. The writer attempts to shift the error onto a Greek translation of the Hebrew in an Egyptian context. Obviously the writer doesn't like the implications of the literal text of Gen 1 in light of modern science, implications which clouds understanding of the text. Citing Job 37:18 doesn't help either. It simply demonstrates that the verb RQ( deals with solid things: the sky is spread out like a molten mirror. I'm sure, lee_merrill, that you can see the errors in the material that you posted. The solidity is in the word: it is not an erroneous importation.


spin

mountainman

From here <the Rig Veda>
This may be relevant to one or two of your many questions relating
to how ancient authors viewed "their firmament".

An earlier "equivalent creation hymn":

<remove off topic material>
[/indent]

Gudjonsson

Here are three great scholarly articles about the meaning of the firmament, earth and seas. When I read this myself about a year ago, it changed my entire perspective. (These articles contributed towards my deconversion, even though the author is a Christian, and they appear in a Christian journal. They are very good,)


The Geographical meaning of "earth and "seas" in Genesis 1:10
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_...thSeas_WTJ.pdf


The Firmament and the water above:
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_...mament-WTJ.pdf


The Firmament and the water above part II: (addresses the Young Earth Creationists canopy theory)
http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/seelypt2.pdf

Dlx2

You'd argue that RQY doesn't share etymology or, at the very least folk etymology, with the Akkadian MRK? Because in this context, I'd say there's an association.

Toto

This is the Rig Veda. How does this relate to the ancient Hebrews?

spin

You mean RQY( or RQ( (both with a final ayin)? How would you justify this association linguistically? They share in common just one consonant. Even folk etymologies are built on more substantial similarities.


spin