Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

Thanks for pointing out the basic methodological issues here, Don. The 
conceptuality, motifs, and devices used in one piece of literature do not 
necessarily transfer to another piece of literature. Thus, because there is a 
metaphor in Deuteronomy does not mean Genesis must also be a metaphor.

Furthermore, in this case, one can understand the metaphor more readily in 
terms of its inception and use when one realises that the ancients generally 
did conceive of the sky as a hard panel up there. And, as you point out, 
Genesis sees it as holding back a body of water which, in the flood 
narrative, is unleashed on the earth below in an act of uncreation — an 
unseparation of the waters.


GEORGE ATHAS
Dean of Research,
Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia


From: Donald Vance <donaldrvance AT me.com<mailto:donaldrvance AT me.com>>
Date: Saturday, 1 September 2012 12:44 AM
To: "TedBro AT aol.com<mailto:TedBro AT aol.com>" 
<TedBro AT aol.com<mailto:TedBro AT aol.com>>
Cc: George Athas 
<george.athas AT moore.edu.au<mailto:george.athas AT moore.edu.au>>, B-Hebrew 
<b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org<mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] sky

In all this discussion, the salient fact that the raqia separated the waters 
by lifting them implies a solid entity. The metaphorical language is evident 
in the Dt passage, but that doesn't preclude the conceptualization of the 
raqia as a solid entity, and a metaphorical explanation ignores the 
capability of lifting the water. Read Enoch. The sleuce gates/windows are 
taken quite literally.


Donald R. Vance, Ph.D.
Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature
Oral Roberts University
dvance AT oru.edu<mailto:dvance AT oru.edu>
donaldrvance AT mac.com<mailto:donaldrvance AT mac.com>