Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] ] A VISUAL EXPRESSION OF A THEOLOGICAL IDEA OF THESKY/HEAVEN ( Rolf's Response 2)

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Ishinan" <ishinan AT comcast.net>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] ] A VISUAL EXPRESSION OF A THEOLOGICAL IDEA OF THESKY/HEAVEN ( Rolf's Response 2)
  • Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 16:21:17 -0500


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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page