Don wrote,
<< Jim writes: What truth is communicated by "God separated the waters?"
While the question is certainly not directed at me, I would first ask anyone
who knows, what word was used in Aramaic to describe gaseous forms?
As with many languages, the root for water I would presume to be similar if
not the same as gas.
Although I speak 3 foreign languages, Aramaic is not one of them.
Insight please. >>
Neither Hebrew (the language of Genesis), Sumerian nor Akkadian has a word
for atmosphere. At that time they did not seem to have the concept of a gas
as such, only if moving, i.e, wind. Wind is the same word as for spirit, and
for breath, namely ruach. It may have been used occasionally as we use the
word "air", e.g., Job 41:16 "no ruach can come between them." but this is
rare.
On the other hand, Hebrew has half a dozen words for "cloud"; so a visible
gas could have been called a cloud.
Water(s) is mayim, a completely different word. The root is not the same as
for ruach.
The concept in Gen 1:7 is separating a literal physical sea, the primeval
sea, the Deep (Hebrew, Tehom). The act of separating the primeval waters and
putting half of them above the sky is only found in two creation stories: the
Babylonian and the Hebrew. In the Babylonian account, the main god separates
Tiamat, a goddess of waters; and the root behind her name and behind Tehom is
the same: the triliteral thm, which simply means "sea." That fact along with
the same relative order of creation is what ties Gen 1 so closely to the
Babylonian creation account---so far as the physical side of making the
universe is concerned. The theology (what the story tells us about God and
his nature) is completely different. See E. A. Speiser's commentary on
Genesis for further explication.
Some think the account originated while the Jews were in exile in Babylon;
and, it was probably edited at that time; but, I think it came into Israel
originally from Abraham, who was a pagan from Babylon before his call, and he
would have just naturally accepted the scientific view of the universe of his
day. In contrast with Ruest and Held, I do not believe it either can or
should be closely correlated with modern science because the correlations
usually change the meaning which the Bible has in context. See
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF6-97Seely.html#The Bible and
Science
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 14 2002 - 02:19:10 EST