Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

George:

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:53 AM, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:

> Karl,
>
> Of course, if על modifies something that is immaterial, that thing is
> going to be immaterial. No argument there. But it's not saying very much.
> The question is whether or not רקיע refers to something material or not. I
> could use your logic here to say that because the wind/spirit hovers על פני
> תהום ('over the surface of the deep') that the תהום is immaterial. But
> that's simply not the case. So your arsenal of examples don't actually
> accomplish very much here.
>

Sorry, this was NOT one of my examples.

>
> Your insistence that because רקע can refer to immaterial things (something
> I'm not quite convinced of just yet), the רקיע is therefore not material,


I didn’t say “not material”, rather I referred to that which is “not solid”
like a metal plate. A cloud of dust or mist is material, but not
consolidated to a solid object.

The atmosphere is a material thing, we can feel it when it moves. However,
it is a fluid, not a solid. But Genesis 1 merely mentions an expanse,
without specifying what is being expanded. The uses of רקע and its
derivatives show that many different materials can be expanded or spread
out, not limited to metals.


> is simply an example of totality transfer fallacy. It's like saying that
> because פנים refers to a person/identity (something immaterial), all
> occurrences of פנים are immaterial. It's just not the case. So you haven't
> closed the logical loop here. And I'm ignoring medieval cosmology, so you
> should too — it's a distraction here. The fact that you are going there to
> support your disagreement with my position means nothing. This is about
> reading the Hebrew texts.
>

The medieval cosmology is about reading the Hebrew texts, but according to
a faulty method. What I see is that you are using the same faulty method,
to come to the same results. That’s why I bring up the medieval cosmology.

The faulty method is based on ancient Greek philosophical texts, which is
the same basis that the JEPD theory, now known as the Documentary
Hypothesis, is founded upon.

>
> You still have not demonstrated your position. I'm happy to be convinced
> I'm wrong on the material nature of the רקיע, but I haven't seen any
> conclusive or even suggestive evidence to that effect. All I've seen is
> distracting tangents leading nowhere. It makes me suspect that asserting
> the immaterial nature of the רקיע may be the result of wanting to read
> modern-day cosmology back into the Bible in order to support a particular
> kind of inerrantist perspective. I can't be sure of that, of course (you
> can confirm or deny it), but that's what it sounds like to me. The evidence
> just doesn't seem to be there, so it doesn't seem to be reading the texts
> on their own merit.
>

The above paragraph is irrelevant, as it refers to something I never said
nor claimed.

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