RufusAtticus

Okay. Let me back up for a second. I'm not really asking about how you, as a modern Christian, interpret the passage. I see it as less of a theological discussion and more of a historical one. It is difficult to take our modern interpretations and force it on earlier writings because we have much more information about the world around us. We must gauge it on what they knew at the time.

The original issue, as far as I can tell, is how did the ancient Hebrews who composed Genesis view the world. If we take their writings at face value it seems that they did believe that the sky was a solid dome. Do you disagree with this?

Edited to add: The NIV translates it as "floodgates."

Okay here is a comparison of various english translations of Genesis 7:11, via Bible Gateway.

NIV: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

NASB: In the (1) six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all (2) the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.

AMP: In the year 600 of Noah's life, in the seventeenth day of the second month, that same day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up and burst forth, and the windows and floodgates of the heavens were opened.

NKJV: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

NLT: When Noah was 600 years old, on the seventeenth day of the second month, the underground waters burst forth on the earth, and the rain fell in mighty torrents from the sky.

ESV: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.

CEV: Noah was six hundred years old when the water under the earth started gushing out everywhere. The sky opened like windows, and rain poured down for forty days and nights. All this began on the seventeenth day of the second month of the year.

KJ21: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, that same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

ASV: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

YLT: In the six hundredth year of the life of Noah, in the second month, in the seventeenth day of the month, in this day have been broken up all fountains of the great deep, and the net-work of the heavens hath been opened,

DARBY: In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that same day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

VULGATE: anno sescentesimo vitae Noe mense secundo septimodecimo die mensis rupti sunt omnes fontes abyssi magnae et cataractae caeli apertae sunt

RUFUS TRANSLATION OF VULGATE: In the sixthhundredth year of Noah's Life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of (that) month, all the great fountains of the abyss were broken and the watergates of the sky were opened.


Edit to add more:

The word that is translated as either "windows/floodgates" is 'arubboth (Strong's 699). According to this page, it can mean "lattice, window, sluice." Since we are dealing with water here, it appears that "sluice" is the best translation. However, it appears that "lattice" is it's original meaning. Since it derives from a verb meaning "to ambush/lurk," I suspect that it might is came to mean "lattice," because of the nets that hunters used to use.

~~RvFvS~~
P.S. In case anyone is confused, a sluice is a floodgate.

Thomas Cassidy

Asked and aswered. See my previous post with accompanying scripture references.Where does the bible say the flood was global? If you can show me a bible reference to the flood of Noah being global, I will tell you whether I believe that to be literal or metaphorical.Once again you assume facts not in evidence You claim I have not "dived into the true origins" of Gensis, but, of course, I have. I have simply come to a different conclusion than you did. As to knowing what is real and what isn't real, I don't think that is the question. The question is "does the bible use metaphorical language." I contend that it does, and that understanding when metaphore is used is something we may all differ on, yet agree it is used.Well, I subscribe to the documentary hypothesis for the origin of Genesis, but Moses is, never the less, the single author of the homogeneous book of Genesis, and editor of those earlier accounts, with some obvious exceptions, so I am not sure what you mean by "multiple origins." If by that you mean the creation myths of other cultures, I would disagree. Or, if you mean The Graf-Wellhousen JEPD hypothesis, I would again disagree. So, before I can give you a difinitive answer, I will have to ask for a definition of your term "multiple origins."You will have to be more forthcoming on which Gunkel you are refering to. I have works by David Gunkel, Lutz Gunkel, and Gina Gunkel. However, if you mean Hermann Gunkel, I disagree with his conclusions. I don't believe the "earlier" accounts are the source of the book of Genesis, but rather, are based on the same source as the book of Genesis.The same thing I use to understand all language. Intellect, education, and experience. Just like you.

Bubba

I would agree. I know a lot of well spoken and thoughtful PHD's in religion.

I was suprised and pleased to see a response in the II library refuting someof the claims of one of my old prof's, Winfired Corduan.

Bubba

Bubba

Also, I'm totally unsure of how I understand Genesis myself. However, I think Rufus might be right with his interpretation of the actual Latin. Sometimes it seems like we do violence to the actual text when we discard the actual worldview of the ancient Hebrews.

Bubba

scigirl

Edited because I keep getting off topic!

sorry,

scigirl

Thomas Cassidy

I agree. It is important to apply the historical hermaneutic to any ancient writings. What the words meant to the author at the time is how we should understand them. However, there are instances in the bible where the writer was seemingly ignorant of what he was writing about, but wrote it anyway.Yes and no.

I agree their views may have been far different from the truth (as I see it, of course!), but neither do I believe they composed and wrote Genesis. I believe they were inspired by God to write what He wanted to communicate to mankind. Whether or not they understood it at that time, is quite debatable.I agree that "windows" is probably the better translation of ‘arubbah. And even "lattice" was probably a reference to an opening in a wall to allow smoke from cooking fires to escape which was covered with lattice work to keep animals out, which I would probably still call a "window" vice chimney or something.

And I stand corrected on the word "floodgates." I don't use the NASB or NIV much, and was not aware those versions used that word. You know me! I tend to stick to the English Versions based on the Byzantine textform.

RufusAtticus

Scigirl,

I think you're getting ahead of yourself. Let's first concentrate on the issue of whether the ancient hebews who wrote Genesis believed that the sky is a solid dome or took it methaphorically. Then we can see how this affects issues like infalibility, literalness, etc.

scigirl

Sorry I keep getting off topic.

scigirl

RufusAtticus

So you believe that it was intended by God to be metaphorical because we know that it is not accurate. Okay then. Does this hold true for other parts of Genesis? Did Noah exist or is he part of a didactic story that teaches piety? What about Adam and Eve? The story of Bable? I'm just trying to determine how much you apply that heuristic.

Did you say that right? I was saying that "floodgates" was probably the best translation.

Coragyps

Ooh! Ooh! Haeckel, get back! Its NOT human fetuses that have gill arches! It's our souls after we die! I sure am glad you cleared that up!