Re: Creation Ex Nihilo

From: Vernon Jenkins (vernon.jenkins@virgin.net)
Date: Wed Jan 24 2001 - 17:19:13 EST

  • Next message: gordon brown: "Re: Creation Ex Nihilo"

    Dave,

    In response to my doubting the reading of 'raqia' (Ez.1:22) as a solid
    canopy, you wrote:

    You are overlooking the key word, "firmament" or "expanse," which is
    like crystal or ice. How can something that is stretched out looking
    like ice be something other than solid? In Strong's, the number 7549
    represents "firmament." It is derived from 7554, which basically means
    "to pound" along with the results of pounding, something hammered flat.
    This last is related to 7555, "beaten out, plate." Ezekiel has to be
    reporting what would look to us like a heavy, clear, solid glass canopy.
     
    In the standard New Brown-Driver-Broggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon
    it speaks of a solid extended surface. I also note that Genesis 1:20
    that the birds do not fly in the firmament, but in front of it. The
    firmament is not the atmosphere and whatever lies beyond it, which last
    we moderns append.

    My response:

    Clearly, I have to bow to the opinions of those who have made a close
    study of these matters. But, having conceded the point, I am unable to
    confirm your comment "(in) Genesis 1:20...birds do not fly in the
    firmament, but in front of it." (see AV and NASB). However, in my
    exchanges with Paul Seely, the real point at issue was whether the
    cosmological understanding of these early peoples was at all relevant to
    our reading of the Flood narrative.

    Thanks for explaining 'eisegesis' (odd that it doesn't appear in
    'Chambers'!). With regard to Rev.13:18, I believe my approach is one of
    exegesis. If you disagree, perhaps you would explain why.

    Regards,

    Vernon



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 24 2001 - 17:19:19 EST