Re: concordance & genesis (edited)

"D. F. Siemens, Jr." wrote:
> ...
> I read your paper. I feel it looked for any basis that could be found to
> support a predetermined view, including stuff that is _not_ in the text.
> Such tendentiousness is not impressive. Some 4 or 5 decades ago, I'd have
> gone along with you. Now I have come to respect the precise declarations
> of the text.

You may not remember that Armin Held and I emphasized that we were not
giving an isolated text exegesis, but a tentative proposal for a
possible understanding of the text in a wider context. We tried to deal
with an impasse given by the fact that a YEC interpretation clashes with
science, while declaring much of Gen.1-11 to be "myth" (usually
understood in the sense of extreme source criticism) does not take
divine inspiration seriously enough. We saw the urgent need for a middle
position respecting both the Bible and science. I think we respected the
"precise declarations of the text" at least as well as other
interpreters, but we tried to show how they can be harmonized with
reality as we know it. Of course, in such an attempt, "stuff that is not
in the text" needs to be considered, as well as the flexibility of any
language. This is not prejudice or tendentiousness. We never claimed to
present _the_ only correct interpretation, but we argued that it
provides, for the moment, a better over-all view than the usual
interpretations, both so-called "literal" and mythological ones.
Repeatedly, we get falsely accused of trying to "prove the Bible" or
taking "the Bible as a science textbook" or similar nonsense, which
cannot be found in anything we wrote.

> > > ...
> > How about the root raqa^ (from which raqia^ is derived) used in
> > Isaiah
> > 42:5 for the land as well as the layer of vegetation covering it?
> > Here,
> > there cannot be any pounding or hammering, but "spreading out"
> > fits.
> > Similarly raq: (1) thin, slight, (2) a little, only; raqiq: flat
> > bread.
> >
> All your saying is what I acknowledge above, the change in root meaning.
> It is certain that Isaiah's usage is fairly late. Genesis, despite
> critical arguments, was either set down earlier or has been incorporated
> from a much earlier source. What you say does not change the problem
> unless a position has already been decided upon.

I agree that Isaiah (8th century) was written much later than Genesis.
But outside of Genesis 1, raqia^ occurs only in Ps.19 (which is not
indicative of any precise meaning), Ps.150:1 ("praise him in the raqia^
of his power!" - where God being _in_ a firmament would be rather odd),
and Eze. and Dan. (both of which are later than Isaiah). So how can you
be so sure it indicates a solid dome in Gen.1? Where else (apart from
the immediate context) than in different Old Testament usages should we
first look for direction as to the meaning of a Hebrew word or
expression?
 
> > > ...
> More special pleading. Indeed, both BDB and TWOT indicate to me that you
> have made up a meaning for _ma'or_. Adding to the problem, your
> interpretation requires that the earliest living things are fruiting
> terrestrial plants. Either paleontologists are incredibly confused or you
> are presenting nonsense.

Charges of "special pleading", without any substantial reasons, are not
very conducive to a fair discussion. The meaning we propose for ma'or is
a suggestion derived from the biblical uses of 'or, ma'or, ner, and
menorah, as well as the Gen.1-2 context. We don't require the earliest
living things to be fruiting (or any other) terrestrial plants, nor do
we require all new plants to have appeared simultaneously. It seems that
you forgot what you read in our paper, substituting what, under the
assumption of your classification scheme of Genesis interpretations, you
erroneously believe we should have said.
 
> > > Now consider v. 20. Birds fly above (_^al_)
> > > the earth and "across" (_^al_) the firmament ("across" is the
> > > translation in John Joseph Owens, _Analytical Key to the Old
> > > Testament_ (Baker), 1:4). BDB, p. 819a, gives "between the
> > firmament
> > > and the earth." With water above it, stars stuck on it, and birds
> > > flying below it, your "expanse" cannot be anything we believe in.
> >
> > With the natural "anthropomorphic" definition of raqia^ given
> > above,
> > birds can very easily be seen to fly "on" the air of the atmosphere.
> > It
> > is obvious to any observer that some fly higher, some lower, even
> > sometimes below one's one standpoint on a mountain, but all are
> > supported by the air. They fly "above" (^al) the earth and "on"
> > (^al)
> > the air of the atmosphere - or "above" that part of it which
> > supports
> > them when flying.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> This leaves out a term, _panim_, face. If birds fly _on_ the face of the
> atmosphere, then there should be a surface, like swans floating on the
> surface of a pond. But the word is plural, so all the levels at which
> fowl fly must be covered. ;-) Does this save your interpretation? No
> interpreter I find so interprets the terminology. They all seem to think
> that the implication is that birds fly below the firmament, in front of
> it. Again, you have an ad hoc interpretation to salvage an impossible
> view.

Here you caught me at a carelessness. Instead of checking the Hebrew
text myself, I was relying on what you said about it, when you used the
same preposition ^al for both the earth and the expanse, omitting pnee
in the second case (cf. above). But in fact, in our letter to PSCF nr.
3/2000, we took care of this detail. We wrote:
<<...the preposition 'al in Gen.1:20 can mean "in front of", and we
agree that the text adds pnee, "face", before raquia'. But although
pnee, when used without 'al, can mean "be-fore", "in front of", the
prepositional phrase 'al-pnee means "over", "on", "in", or "over
against", rather than "in front of". But even this translation of
'al-pnee would not indicate a solid firma-ment, "in front of" which the
birds fly. The sunlit atmos-phere looks to us like a blue backdrop, "in
front of" which we see birds flying. No matter whether they fly "on",
"over", "above", or "in front of" the "expanse" or at-mos-phere, there
is nothing in the expression to suggest a solid dome under which they
would fly.>>
You may not have read this letter, but this quote may serve to answer
the problem you mention.
 
> Note that I have not added events to the statements of Genesis 1. I have
> not claimed that the root term determines the meaning of the derived
> term. I have simply taken the express language to indicate that there is
> water above the firmament and that birds fly in front of it. I find that
> the celestial bodies are described as located below the waters and above
> the birds. All this fits ancient cosmology, which is the way it would
> originally have to have been read, but is incompatible with a scientific
> description of the universe. I cannot add, subtract, twist, warp, revise
> and deny to make things fit.
> Dave

I know that this is the prevailing dogma among many current interpreters
of Gen.1, although the text itself says nothing at all about a body of
liquid water above the expanse, nor that the celestial bodies are
located below any waters. I am not persuaded that this dogma is the last
word on the topic. Your last sentence sounds daunting, and I'm glad we
are no longer in the times when dissenters were burnt at the stake. We
were careful enough to specify our motivation for proposing a
harmonization of the text with facts, without mythologizing the text,
and without falling into the "science-textbook" trap. If you want to
prove our proposal impossible, you'll have to deal with it on its own
terms, not on yours. We did not claim to have solved all puzzles, but we
sure did not "add, subtract, twist, warp, revise and deny to make things
fit" any more than the current Gen.1-interpreters' dogma does.

Peter

-- 
Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland
<pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution
"..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)