Hi Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: <PHSEELY@aol.com>
To: <adam@crowl.webcentral.com.au>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 4:06 AM
Subject: Re: Methane in the late Archean
> Adam wrote
>
> << As is a necessity when pre-modern psychology states our thoughts are in
our
> hearts, that the Earth is flat, that the Sun moves around us, that hail
has
> storehouses like the winds, and so forth...
>
> I think Glenn's scenario tries to get geo-history straight but I'm not
sure
> his hermeneutic works when faced with all the other pre-scientific
trappings
> of Scripture. Do we defend the rising of the Sun to guarantee the rising
of
> the Son?
> >>
>
> Right on.
>
Thanks... Gerhardus Bouw defending geocentricism was my inspiration for that
line. I think the solidity of the firmament is something no one in their
right-mind would defend even though it is well-attested in Scripture.
Another point is "four-legged insects" in Leviticus, though I wonder if the
Ancients didn't think, by analogy with humans, the first two limbs were
"arms" and not legs.
So how did the Ancients imagine the firmament? The impression I have is that
they conceived of rainwaters being above it in some sort of reservoir.
> <<Who knows what the order is in Job? I'm not sure the book is even by
pure
> monotheists since some passages are awfully suggestive of Sun-worship [Job
> 37:21,22.] Is Job about Yahweh or Shamash?>>
>
> I thought you were correlating Job with Gen 1; but, you are right, Job
could
> have a different order or more likely no order in mind. Job 37:21 sounds
> like it is speaking of the sun, but v. 22 says it comes "out of the north"
> not likely to refer to the sun. I would have to have something clearer
than
> that before believing a canon which overall eschews idolatry includes a
book
> giving Shamash any billing.
>
"Out of the North" is frequently used to described the direction of the
Sun's rising AFAIK... so "north" doesn't mean our North.
> to my
>
> >There may have been more than one idea of what the firmament was made of.
> > metal or rock. But, the rock concept seems to dominate historically.
The
> > rock, however, is transparent, crystal, looking like "ice" Ezek 1:22.
> (The sapphire seems to be the throne above the firmament, Ez 1:26)>
>
> You replied,
>
> <<But then see Exodus 24:10...>>
>
> I have neglected this Scripture because it does not contain the Hebrew
word
> for "firmament" so those who do not want to admit the solidity of the
> firmament reject it; but, the "brickwork" mentioned is certainly a
reference
> to the firmament for its position beneath the feet of God is parallel to
its
> position in Ezek 10:1. The stone of which it is made, however, is
described
> not as crystal , but as sapphire (probably lapis lazuli). Perhaps the
idea
> is that the sapphire color of the throne of God above comes through the
> translucent crystal, making it look like lapis lazuli. Or, it could just
be
> a variation. In intertestamental times, some Jews were still wondering
what
> the firmament was made of, and were pondering if of clay, copper or iron.
> So, the only sure thing is that everyone agreed it was solid.
>
An interesting cross-cultural parallel exists here in Australia since many
shamans ["clever men" in Aboriginal terminology] speak of visiting Baiame on
his crystal throne - and it's hard to understand why he has a throne in a
culture without furniture. Makes me think of the OT prophet who visited the
court of Heaven.
> <<A good point. But then how do we apply any of the pre-scientific moral
> philosophy of St Paul, especially since his "conscience" idea came from
the
> Greeks?>>
>
> I do not know the complete answer to this very good question; but, I spent
a
> year studying the way Jesus used Scripture; and I came to the conclusion
> that, like the rabbis, he looked for patterns of revelation, or we might
say
> topics that are individually woven together. I also like to check
empirical
> reality since God is the creator. I am confident that we can also inquire
of
> the Spirit even though our relationship to God is not as pure as that of
> Jesus. And, what has the Spirit said through the ages to the Church. In
> short, I see in Scripture itself, and perhaps in the Council at
Jerusalem's
> approach most clearly, that for theological questions we should look not
just
> to Scripture (which the Council brought in only at the end), but also to
> empirical reality (experience), and the voice of the Spirit--both to us
and
> to the Church as a whole.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Paul
I tend to agree with your approach, Paul, but I wonder how we can reach
believers in the double-bind of wanting to believe in a God of Truth even if
his revelation's medium is flawed?
Hence I tend to side with Dick Fischer's scenario and watch the development
of Glenn's. Covering all bases - which definitely isn't a strong base for
apologetics... *sigh*
Adam
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 16:59:12 EDT