Clivedurdle

Archimedes Mirrors

Some ancients had worked out the sun was hot, and used it as a weapon!

Clivedurdle

Uriel's Machine .

mod note: the above is a link to Amazon UK, and they don't have the book. American bookbuyers can use this link:

Uriel's Machine - NEW in paperback: Uncovering the Secrets of Stonehenge, Noah's Flood and the Dawn of Civilization

Here's how to construct Amazon links: Amazon

Haran

That's because the words for water and heaven are written in plural form in Hebrew...

Much of what you have said about the heavens, firmament, vault, what-have-you is pretty standard knowledge, seminary or otherwise. The same information is found in standard Greek and Hebrew lexicons.

If your paper is intended as an argument against Judaism or Christianity, then you will probably also want to address the notion, inter alia, of "progressive revelation".

gregor

Clive

I think the Mythbusters had a great segment reflecting that the claim of a concave mirror raising temperatures above 451 degrees was impossible.

CJD

A lot of replies; will have to sift through and answer what I can.

I think this is irrelevant to what the author sets out to do, namely, show one obvious aspect of Genesis 1 (even for English readers only) — that of the parallels between the days (1&4, 2&5, etc.). The other stuff written is interesting but neither here nor there.

I for one do not deem either the early compilers or final editors of the TNK to be imprecise in their use of language. One must understand how a text reads before one actually reads it. This includes form (things like inclusio, janus, chiasm, etc.). Understanding narrative poetics on even just an elementary level makes the parallels between the days in Gen. 1 scream out.

I think we have to start with conceding that even using the word cosmology with Gen. 1 is barely valid. I think it's a polemic against the religion of the Syro-Palestininian Levant. I don't start there, but even the most radical of documentary hypotheses have the earliest material being early enough for that. What really gets me there has nothing to do with cosmology; it has everything to do with theology: YHWH, not Baal, was not just the giver of life, but the creator of life too.

First, the author is taking into account some rather obvious contours of the narrative (from a form-critical perspective). Second, we have no right to simply assume the editors/writers were idiots, incapable of seeing blatant contradictions, incapable of using literary devices and narrative poetics.

Since you've posted like three times to my one, I must go on and include some of your later posts here.

Yes. Though again, fragmented material quite possibly existed prior, with implied author editing it and arranging it accordingly.

No, they were not convinced, as their recorded history (Josh.–Chron.) shows. They apparently made flirting with Baal and others their pastime.



My point is that I a disagree with literalists (and skeptics who adopt their arguments) that the finer details point to the things they want them to.

I'm not sure I understand your second point about Noah or whether or not it conflicts with what I've state above.

Noting the subjective qualities of your distaste for my explanation, I must still say that the details are given in such a way that screams literary framework (days 1&4, 2&5, etc.). I'm not sure why you think this detracts from its complexity as a creational theology.

To me, it can't be any more obvious:

There were 8 creative acts delineated in this narrative, and not surprisingly, the structure of the days works literarily.

On Day 1, there is one creative act. Same with Day 4. The same goes for Days 2 and 5. On Day 3, two creative acts are delineated, and on Day 6 two are accomplished.

Moreover, on Day 1 and Day 4, "light" and "lights" are delineated

On Day 2, the sea and sky are created; on Day 5 the fish and birds are (to fill the sea and sky, no doubt).

On Day 3, the land and vegetables are made, and Day 6 the land animals and humans are created (vegetation=life for those land-dwellers).

Now, the days I suppose could be literal, but such a literary construct as this points me in another direction, namely that the enumeration serves a Sabbatical purpose. This narrative, in other words, served (among other things — see above) as a creational theology for humanity's (and specifically, Israel's) Sabbath; they were to follow God's lead and rest on the Seventh day (work six, rest on seventh).

I don't know what it would take for me to see this narrative as a literal cosmology. I can't fathom an argument that could deconstruct the literary structure of this pericope.

Best,

CJD

CJD

Of course you can. I'm not offended, nor am I saying I have nothing to learn from anyone less than a scholar in this stuff (though, when you actually work in this field, it's hard to be humble ).

See above statements about biblical "cosmology," and how tendentious that can be.

Because there is something called "reading responsibly." One doesn't read poetry the same one reads proverbs, nor does one read historical narrative the way one reads prophetic literature, etc., etc. And while Genesis 1 may look like straightforward historical narrative (in English Bible's especially), it clearly has elements that suggest something more.


Ever hear of the "etymological fallacy"? To stop doing it, one must stop quoting Strong's every chance they get. Context is king. Context determines the meanings of words. Lexicons are helpful, but not definitive.

Again, no argument from me on this one. My point is that you may be misunderstanding what that "literal fashion" entails.

I think it's simply that which serves as the archetype for the replica — "high heaven" if you will. Your various citations only show it further, to me. For example, Neh. 9:6 — "Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens [everything, the abode of god and his heavenly court included—though possibly not god himself], with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee."

But you're right, the details are never spelled out in these texts.


It is my understanding that the post-exilic period understood "kingdom of heaven" to mean "kingdom of God." The two are used interchangeably in the NT. This obviously has less to do with "up there" than "everywhere."


Where I see "heaven of heavens," I tend to see the highest heaven, or the divine court.

I simply deduce it from the multiple references to the divine court or dwelling place of divinity, and how things like, for example, the tabernacle and the temple are laden with art and symbols that supposedly replicate 'heavenly' archetypes.

Firstly, the dwelling place of Israel's god is heaven's glory ("The heavens are the LORD'S heavens, but the earth he has given to the children of man" (Ps. 115:16).

Secondly, it is invisible, not "up there" but right before man's eyes when opened: Gen. 28:16–17; 2 Kgs. 6:17. These texts imply that "the kingdom of heaven/god" is right there in front of us, and can be seen, god permitting.

I simply do not understand the reader who demands reading poetry such a ridiculous, cemented fashion. Is this Psalm nothing more than a poetic description of how YHWH is Lord over all creation (in that he created it, thus "riding on the wings of wind" making "clouds his chariots")?

No one is denying that 'anan exists. It's simply that the Hebrew in Gen. 1 signifies that the "expanse" separates the source of rain from the waters on earth. It's nonsense otherwise, whether modern or ancient thinking is the standard. The idea seems clear to me: The firmament occupies the space between the earth's surface and the clouds (how that firmament is actually conceived of is another matter).

By the reading with the context in mind. Jesus here is clearly referring to Daniel 7. He is referring to the Son of Man's assumption of dominion described in Daniel. Therein, the son of man is "presented" to the Ancient of Days (presumably in a court, where angels are chilling). The scene is obviously one of dimensions — not "up," but where the Almighty sits in judgment.

Etymologically, raqiya` does indeed mean to "stamp, spread out," "to spread out by hammering," "to spread out hard as a molten mirror," etc. The noun is rare outside of Gen. 1. Ezek. 1:22 and Daniel 12:3 describe the firmament as shiny. So, was it a glass dome? Since most of the descriptions occur in poetic texts, can we not be cautious that this language may indeed by figurative? Again, it is my understanding that Gen. 1 is not concerned about defining the nature of the firmament; rather, it is concerned with asserting God's sovereignty over the waters. It seems the Enuma elish and Gen. 1 are the only ancient texts concerned with control over the waters, but I'm not sure again that precedence must be given to the notion that the pertinent texts are discussing the nature of a thing (i.e., the firmament) versus the theology of creation itself.

I still think the analogy works: things are described phenomenologically — both by us and the ancients, and unless you can provide hard and clear evidence to the contrary (other texts like Genesis 1 won't do for the same reason for same reason Gen. 1 won't do).

Most interpretations do not end in a stalemate. Often, one is more plausible than the other. I'm not so sure this is one of those cases.

CJD

CJD

Language for god's abode is also clearly used for spatial dimensions not as neatly delineated as "up". The point (with "up" meaning "higher than" — ontologically) is that god is transcendent.

Not the best translation/interpretation of that particular pericope. The women in Gen. 6:1–2 are those who were taken and ravished by the tyrannical successors to Lamech who gathered harems. They were, as the text implies, royal usurpers influenced by dark divinity. That's the text and the context. It's best to be sure when being sarcastic not to base that sarcasm on infantile interpretations of the text.

I am not disagreeing with this picture; I am saying that the theological meaning of the text is obscured when these pictures are given precedence.

You're just flat wrong about other dimensions and other planes of being. They not only were aware of them; they believed in them much more strongly than we moderns do.

I'm sorry, what ancient Israelite artwork leads you to say this so definitively?

As if six days with obvious literary parallels and a narrative rife with poetic devices is not clear? Besides, I'm not saying they meant it all as metaphor (mythical, in the non-fictional sense of the word, to be sure); I'm saying that Gen. 1 enumerates days as literary framework to polemicize 1) against any other creation account; 2) against Baal and any other Canaanite deity; and 3) against not keeping the seventh day holy.

In other words, if it's not spelled-out for you, then the simplest reading, no matter how ludicrous, is the preferred reading? This is not Occam's razor; this is stupidity.

The latter. Does this conflict with what I've said?

CJD

infidelguy

Hmm.. I see your point CJD, by the time the NT writers came about.. Heaven did transform quite a bit. Kingdom of Heaven does appear to be quite different than the Heavens discussed in the OT. I'll bring this up to Ed.. and see if he is willing to challenge this. As it stands, I am wiling to change or strike out that particular statement. Not to mention... the article was basically supposed to focus on early beliefs.. by the time of Jesus, the concept of heaven went through many changes indeed.

EDIT: Okay.. I added [literally] next to your objection. To indicate that in a more modern context, the meaning may be used differently that what the ancients would have conceived.

Thanks for helping me make this essay water tight.

Steven Carr

Jesus clearly ascended to Heaven in the Ascension. He went up. The Bible says so, and that's what was understood. The idea that Heaven was up was widespread. Even Muhammad ascended to Heaven.

As for the Kingdom of Heaven being on Earth, (so Heaven was not a place other than earth...), this is a metaphor. It doesn't mean that Heaven was literally here on Earth in some vague invisible way.

It really just means the Kingdom of God. The phrase 'Kingdom of Heaven' is mostly used in Matthew, who doesn'y always use the term God, and quite often uses euphemism for God (such as Father).

At any rate, 'Kingdom of Heaven' and 'Kingdom of God' seem to be interchangeable in the NT.

andrewcriddle

As Steven Carr rightly says.

'Kingdom of Heaven' in the NT is a reverent way of saying 'Kingdom of God' without lightly using the name of God. It means the same thing.

Andrew Criddle