Re: concordance & genesis (edited)

Peter,
Since I doubt that we will come closer together, this will be my last
post on the topic. I understand the motivation behind your view: The
Bible speaks according to what science allows, and must be interpreted to
demonstrate this meaning. Consequently, you look for some more or less
plausible meaning within the Hebrew vocabulary to match this commitment.
Such motivation underlies various interpretations that are held within
the Christian community. In contrast, I hold that the ancients held that
things are as they appear to be, and wrote from that viewpoint. Thus, we
know that there is no bowl overhead, that the blue sky appears simply
because light of different frequencies is acted on differently by the
atmosphere. To the ancients, it looked like a bowl so it was a bowl. When
one sees the moon or Venus during the day, it looks like something
attached to the blue bowl. As close as one can look toward the sun, it
appears that the bowl holds it. To recognize that the celestial bodies
are far beyond the stratosphere requires greater sophistication than the
ancients possessed. I try to understand the passage as the ancients would
have understood it, holding that that is what was revealed. This fits the
standard I find in the traditional confessions: scripture presents the
rule for faith and practice, or all that is needed for salvation. This is
a position I have been forced to over more than 50 years by the evidence,
step by grudging step, for I was taught YEC. I am committed to making my
views conform to the scriptures rather than fitting the scriptures to
what I want them to say.
Dave

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 06:48:55 +0100 Peter Ruest <pruest@pop.mysunrise.ch>
writes:
>
> "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)
>
>
Received on Fri Dec 19 14:34:14 2003