Evad

The Bible is often mistaken as having stated in some way that there was a solid dome structure above the surface of the earth. This is based upon the ideas popular in Europe during the dark ages. At that time illustrations in Bibles and encyclopedias were presented of this solid dome with sluice holes which allowed rain to fall through.

The Hebrew raqia, meaning "spreading out" was translated into the Greek stereoma in the Septuagint and into the Latin firmamentum in the Vulgate, both of which mean a firm, solid structure because the root for the Hebrew raqia, raqa, usually denotes some sense of being beaten out, either literally or figuratively.

When Elihu asks if God can beat out (Hebrew tarqia) the skies at Job 37:18, the Hebrew word for skies, shachaq, doesn't’t imply something solid because the word for sky, shachaq, means "dust or film or clouds" Elihu was comparing the skies to a molten mirror in a figurative sense. (Daniel 12:3 / Isaiah 40:15 / Psalm 18:11)

When Elihu describes the water cycle at Job 36:27-28 he describes it in a scientifically accurate description with no mention of sluice holes in a metal dome. When Jehovah tells the Israelites that disobedience would lead to their skies becoming copper (brass, KJV) and the earth iron it is obviously a metaphorical referance to intense heat and drought. (Deuteronomy 28:23-24)

It should also be noted that even the KJV has a marginal reading of "expansion" where firmament appears. The following are some translations where expanse is used instead of firmament. Genesis 1:6 Amp, DBY, ESV, NASB and YLT.

spin

Raqia (רקיע) comes from the verb (רקע), which means to beat (to shape) as a goldsmith does. רקיע is formed by adding a yod into the verb, as in the case of messiah (משיח) from the verb (משח). Messiah indicates that which is anointed, as Raqia means that which is beaten. The Hebrew is quite explicit as to the solid nature of the Raqia. Its task in the Genesis context is to separate the waters, ie it is something solid. The choice of word and the purpose it is used for makes the writer's intention clear.

avi

Thanks for that. Now I can do some searching....

avi

ApostateAbe

Evad, how would you translate Job 37:18? The translation that entails a solid sky dome seems to have contextual credibility--that is what the people of the time apparently believed.

Evad

I briefly considered Job 37:18 in my post, I don't believe the writers of the Bible expressed any belief in a solid dome, and in fact the thinking of a solid dome comes from the dark ages rather than Biblical times.

ApostateAbe

I think that a solid sky would seem to be a sensible explanation to an ancient thinker, though of course it seems to be absurd to us today. The ancients knew nothing of heavenly bodies except that they would continually circle the earth in the sky. Why would they not fall? What keeps all of the stars fixed relative to each other, even as they all moved about the earth? The explanation was that they were fixed in the sky dome. Some ancient thinkers proposed many concentric spheres instead of just one.

There is an online report about the "firmament," with a chapter on ancient Greek thought, here:

http://vinyl2.sentex.net/~tcc/FIRM/R...ge=fgreek.html

I don't know exactly what the ancient evidence claims, so there is room for doubt. How do you propose that ancient Biblical authors like the author of Job thought of the sky? If you had the opportunity to retranslate Job 37:18, what would it say?

spin

You seem to be retrojecting into the text. The solid nature of the firmament is displayed in the language and use to hold the waters apart.

Its solid nature was understood by the church father Augustine, who said, "We may understand this name as given to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and that it constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below." (See for example here.)

Evad

Well, first off I think we tend to grossly underestimate the ancient thinker. Like I said in my post, when Elihu talks about the water cycle at Job 36:27-28, saying "For he draws up the drops of water; They filter as rain for his mist, So that the clouds trickle, They drip upon mankind abundantly." there isn't anything about a solid dome or sluice holes that later became the way of thinking in the Dark Ages. And God wouldn't say, at Deuteronomy 28:23-24, that the sky would become metal (metaphorically) if it already was thought to be (literally).

Isaiah 40:22 has the earth as a circle and Job 26:7 said it was hanging upon nothing, long before that was the general thinking.

It would say: "With him can you beat out the skies hard like a molten mirror?"

The reason most translations I checked used the word expanse instead of firmament is that expanse signifies a spreading out, which comes from the Hebrew tarqia (beat out). If you want to know what ancient people thought like they thought that God spread out the heavens just as they would have beaten out some solid metal object, but it is a mistake, I think, to assume they thought the sky was a literal metalic object which God spread out literally by beating.

stephan huller

I have never understood why American Christians feel the need to assume the Pentateuch is immaculate and perfect. If you are arguing there are no flaws, enigmas and contradictions in this narrative you're not being honest with yourself.

Indeed from a theological perspective I don't understand why this is so hard for you to accept. If the Torah was already perfect what was the purpose of revealing the gospel?

And please don't tell me about the bringing of the promise to the Gentiles ...

The Muslims at least preserved the right formulation from antiquity. The revelation needed to be made for the sake of 'perfection' - the 'perfect religion' - as opposed to what is 'good' or 'very good.'

Christianity doesn't need a perfect Pentateuch. I'd argue it can only function and only makes sense with the opposite assumption.

ApostateAbe

I think that is a worthy translation. Why not take it literally? What makes you think that it was only metaphorical?