Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Ishinan" <ishinan AT comcast.net>]

Dear George,

We need not read our cosmology into the text to reach the result that RQY( 
can be the non-solid atmosphere. I have for many years studied astronomical 
cuneiform tablets in connection with a study of ancient chronology, and I am 
impressed by the cosmological knowledge of the Babylonian and Selevcid 
astrologers. They looked up to the heavens, and they could identify the 
planets and the big stars. They knew that the moon changed its position 
relative to stars and constellations, and that after 18 years and 10 days the 
moon had almost the same position as previously. They knew that Venus had 
almost the same positions every 8 years, minus 4 days, and similarly with the 
other planets. These astrologers could calculate the positions of the moon in 
relation to particular stars for hundreds of year in the past and in the 
future, and they could calculate the positions of the planets in the past and 
the future as well. How many of the listmembers can distinguish between the 5 
visible planets by the naked eye? How many know the periods of the 
revolutions of the planets?

Because the astrologers knew the orbits of the celestial bodies, they could 
hardly have believed that these bodies  were fastened to a solid firmament. 
And I am not aware of any writing from Assyrian or Babylonian times which 
indicate that the people of that time believed in a solid vault with water 
above. it seems that they had many cosmological ideas that paralles our 
modern ideas.

Then bsack to Genesis 1.  In v. 8 we learn that God" called the RQY( 
"heavens," as you also say. The word $MYM are used with different references 
in Genesis. But this verse shows that there is no distinction between RQY( 
and $SYM, and the words are interchangeable. When we have the constructs of 
RQY( and $SYM in vv. 14, 20, the first word is modified by the other, or as 
you say, there is an apposition. You have not answered the question about 
your distinction between RQY( and $MYM. You wrote to to Ishnian: ""The birds 
fly through the sky, but the sky that is under the רקיע, which stands as a 
dome-like roof above everything."  From where do you get this distinction, 
and from where comes the preposition "under"? You cannot get this distinction 
from (L PNY HRQY( H$MYM in verse 40, because you have yourself given the 
literal translation "over the surface of the firmament of the sky," and NIV 
has the perfectly legitimate translation: "across the expanse of the sky."  
You use the preposition "over" and NIV uses the adverbial "across," both 
being fully legitimate. But you cannot on the basis of the words (L PNY RQY( 
insist that the RQY( has a surface. Hebrew prepositions are much too 
ambiguous for such a claim. The rendering "across" without any surface is 
excellent. So,  from where do you have the preopsition "under"? Is there any 
linguistic reason for that?

When I interpret RQY( and its synonym $MYM as the atmosphere, I am not 
reading any new idea into the old Biblical text. I do not think that the idea 
of an atmosphere (open space below the stars) would pose any problems for the 
Babylonian and Selevcid astrologers, nor to those in the past whose native 
language was Hebrew. This "open space" is an old idea and not a new one.

Out of ccuriousness, I would like to ask  you which ancient writings  you can 
refer to were  we find the idea of a solid vault above the earth with water 
above this vault.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway





Tirsdag 4. September 2012 15:01 CEST skrev George Athas 
<George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>:


  Rolf,

  I think you may have misunderstood me. The רקיע in Genesis 1 is given the 
name שׁמים (sky). We today, however, do not identify the 'sky' as a רקיע over 
our heads. We conceive of the sky as open air. Thus, there is a discrepancy 
between our concept of sky and the concept in Gen 1. We talk about birds in 
the sky and imply that they fly in open air, but in Gen 1.20 the birds fly 
across the surface of the רקיע. For the writer of Gen 1 the sky is a 
something that has a surface. It is not open air. What I'm trying to guard 
against is reading our concept of sky back into Gen 1. If we let Gen 1 say 
what it says, we will come to the conclusion that the writer saw the sky as 
something that had a surface and functioned as a roof over the everything, 
such that when birds flew, they flew across the surface of this roof. It's a 
very different way of seeing sky to our concept. If we demand that the sky in 
Gen 1 is open air, then we are, I fear, reading our cosmology back into the 
text, rather than letting the text say what it says.


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