Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ian Hutchesson" <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>> I think Bill has it right. rqy` comes from the verb rq`,
>> meaning " beat, stamp, beat out, spread" (BDB), all tactile actions. rqy`
>> linguistically is the result of an implied physical action.
>
>This is, of course, linguistically possible, but by no means certain. We
all
>know of plenty of noun/verb "roots" in common that are have no remaining
>semantic correspondence.

You should say this sort of thing after you've looked at the usage of the
term, not before.

Consider the merkabah material in Ezekiel 1. V26 has the throne of God on
the top of the firmament. Nice physical notion for a sky, is it not?

>> The Job reference, 37:18, says that God "spread out [rq`] the
>> skies, hard as a molten  mirror." This "spread out" obviously entails
>> beating it out.
>
>Sorry, it's not obvious to me.

The verb I thought actually entails the spreading out by beating if the
object is metallic. That's where the simile comes in.

>It's only one of many very diverse metaphors used in BH

Hmmm, a metaphor built on a simile?

>and by no means establishes the worldview of ancient "physical
>science" (see below for a couple more).
>
>> The
>> skies here are perceived as physically solid. Windows opened
>> in the heavens
>> (eg Gen 7:11) letting the waters above, which the firmanent
>> held up, Gen 1:7
>> (again the physical notion -- so I can't see Genesis helping your
>> interpretation, Dan), come upon the earth.
>
>Genesis does help. Yes, rain comes from "the windows of heaven" (Gen. 7:11;
>8:2), but so does barley and other blessings (2Kg. 7:2, 19; Mal. 3:10)!
>Doesn't that qualify as a metaphor? :)

I don't think you have done justice to your citations. Mal. 3:10 implies
rain. And 2Kgs 7:2 is a phrase of the "not in a month of Sundays" category.

>> In 1 Enoch the sun and moon
>> entered the sky through doors.
>>
>
>Enoch is much later, whether you accept it so or not, and thus has no
>bearing on the subject.

How on earth do you know??

>But regardless, it also is most likely metaphorical
>language, just like Psalm 19:5-7 (4-6). Yes, the sun here has a tent to
live
>in and races across the sky, but the language here is explicitly figurative
>as indicated by the similes describing the sun "like a bridegroom" and
"like
>a strong man."

You should happily be able to separate the similes from the main text, but
you seem to confuse the main discourse from the figurative dressing as you
seem to prefer to read things that don't fit a modern world view as being
metaphorical.

>As the modern scientist is permitted to speak of the sunrise or sunset, so
>the Hebrew language speaks of the sun "exiting [the horizon]" in the
morning
>(Gen. 19:23) or "entering" in the evening (Gen. 28:11).

Modern scientists are not particularly relevant to ancient thought. To deal
with ancient thought you need to work with other examples of it.

>The idea that the OT
>presents a solid firmament is inconsistent with descriptions of the sky
>being rolled up as a scroll (Isa. 34:4; cf. 40:22) or compared to cloth
>(Psm. 102:26).

You ignore the notion of substance in both examples. The difference is that
the rolling up of the sky is at the will of God.

>So it is inconsistent to press some metaphors as intended
>literally and then throw out the others at our own whim. (Especially when
>you select to press only those which disagree with science. One can only
ask
>"why?")
>
>Job said that God "hangs the earth upon nothing" (26:7). That's a pretty
>impressive concept--nothing we relate to on earth is like that--unless Job
>had some source of information outside of the limits of his observation and
>acumen.

There are a number of diverse notions about cosmology in the OT/HB. Let's
stick to the one at hand?


Ian