RE: Firmament and the Water above was [asa] Re: Slug

A question for Terry then For Paul and George M, and a response to Georges
converting to concordism message and Michael Roberts,

Terry, the 4 post limit is somewhat meaningless. If I pack 40 kbytes into a
single post, those with slow dialups still have to download 40 kilobytes. If
I put it out in 20 posts of 2 kilobyte emails, the time is just about the
same. What exactly are we really saving by doing the 4 posts per day? They
aren't saving download time, they just feel better and they mess up the
threading.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On Behalf Of Paul Seely
> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 11:15 AM
> To: D. F. Siemens, Jr.
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu; Philtill@aol.com; glennmorton@entouch.net
> Subject: Re: Firmament and the Water above was [asa] Re: Slug
>
> Dave wrote,
> <<Ptolemy fl. 2nd cent. CE. I did not use AD because it begins
> /anno/which can't be a century.>>
>
> Well, that helps quite a bit. Since Ptolemy is that late, we have the
> clear testimony of the Septuagint before that. It translates the
> Hebrew raqia'with the Greek word stereoma, clearly solid.

Paul, this doesn't help a bit. Aristotle, arguably the most influential of
the Greek philosophers, was already out there before the Hellenistic greeks
translated the Septuagint 20-120 years after Aristotle's death. The idea of
the crystal spheres was, at that time, one of the new ideas of the
intelligentsia. So, the translation of the Septuagint as stereoma may not be
independent of the Greek influence from the greatest Greek philosopher

"Since, then, we cannot reasonably suppose either that both are in motion or
that the star alone moves, the remaining alternative is that the circles
should move, while the stars are at rest and move with the circles to which
they are attached. Only on this supposition are we involved in no absurd
consequence." Aristotle, On the Heavens, Book II, Chap. 8, line 30-35 in
Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 8, (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica,
1952), p. 381
 
solidity of the sphere--Aristotle uses the lack of noise to argue that the
stars are fixed to something solid.

"Bodies which are themselves are in motion produce noise and friction: but
those which are attached or fixed to a moving body, as the parts to a ship,
can no more create noise, than a ship on a river moving with the stream. Yet
by the same argument one might say it was absurd that on a large vessel the
motion of mast and poop should not make a great noise, and the like might be
said of the movement of the vessel itself. But sound is caused when a moving
body is enclesed in an unmoved body, and cannot be caused by one enclosed
in, and continuous with, a moving body which creates no friction. We may
say, then, in this matter that if the heavenly bodies moved in a generally
diffused mass of air or fire, as every one supposes, their motion would
necessarily cause a noise of tremendous strength and such a noise would
necessarily reach and shatter us. Since, therefore, this effect is evidently
not produced, it follows that none of them canmove with the motion either of
animate nature or of constraint." Aristotle, On the Heavens, Book II, Chap.
9, line 15-25 in Great Books of the Western World, Vol. 8, (Chicago:
Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952), p. 382

All of this was before the Septuagint. When someone concludes what you did
above, you need to be sure that you have actually found the source of the
crystal sphere belief. It wasn't Ptolemy. Ptolemy got it from Aristotle. I
have perused Plato looking for the crystal sphere idea and cant find an
explicit statement to his belief in that.

So, If the concept came from Aristotle, can ou demonstrate that the
Pre-Aristotle Hebrews believed in the same meaning for raqiya as the post
septuagint ones did?

And you have yet to explain my analysis of the other Biblical uses of
raqiya. Here it is again. Why am I wrong?

Daniel 12:1 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the
firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever
and ever.

Well, the solid dome is not always bright. At night it is quite dark. So,
this verse seems to indicate an alternative meaning to raqiya than the
commonly held view of a solid dome.

Psalms 150:1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in
the firmament of his power.

Praise him in the solid dome of his power? I could understand 'expanse' of
his power. But Dome? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Sounds like they are
talking about heaven, not a dome.

Here from Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly
the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in
the open firmament of heaven

The bird flies *in* the open solid dome? Clearly this Genesis usage is not a
solid dome because birds don't fly inside material, so why must we believe
what the raqiyaologists say?

George Murphy wrote:
>Accepting as evidence pseudo-historical scenarios which in practice can
>never be tested is an even easier way.

Actually George, my views can be tested. An oil well core in the Nile delta
pulling some interesting artifact up from the Miocene Pliocene boundary
would confirm the concept. I didn't say it would be easy. I would also
point out that much of modern physics is in the same boat being very
difficult to test (one may need a galaxy sized particle accelerator to
create the conditions at 10^-43 seconds)--but they are testable in principle
and thus are science. The wag may say that both theories will be confirmed
at the same time, but it is testable. So I would ask that you withdraw your
statement that it can never be tested or explain why an oil well core
bringing up an artifact wouldn't be a test of my views. I am not confident
you will answer this issue.

And if you don't like my views, develop a competing set which would allow an
alternative reading of the Bible which would give the Bible historical
truth like Dick is trying to do. The fact that you won't try is evidence
that you don't believe the Bible can be observationally true. Thus, my
statement yesterday that you want it to be observationally false stands. If
you didn't want it that way, you would work to change the situation. That
is what people do when they don't like the status quo--they try to change
it.

I would add this, George, at least I am taking the risk of being 100%
disconfirmed in my views. Science could decide there was not Mediterranean
infilling and that a subaqueous process deposited the salt. They could find
humanlike activity 10 million years ago and that would kill my views or at
least hurt them. The only way one can be demonstrated true is by risking
being wrong.

 The accommodationalist approach, as far as I can see has no way to be
disconfirmed even in the slightests. That is what this entire series of
threads has been about. If one says, "This verse represents the true
theology of man that God is trying to communicate to us" how do I disprove
that statement? Do I slap God with a subpoena, put him under oath and ask
him if this is true? Do I beat Him with rubber hoses to get the truth out
of Him? If you tell me that a particular passage is the greatest theological
statement of all, how do I measure that? You had tried in a previous post
to use meaningfulness of Christianity to the lives of people, but I can't
see how to verify that a Christian life is more meaningfully lived than the
life of a Buddhist. I would be interested in hearing any way to actually
verify this system of thought, but one can't verify things if one uses
subjective terms like 'meaningfulness'. The reality is that only some form
of concordism allows one to verify anything.

But after deciding that parts of the Bible are false, you refuse to draw the
obvious conclusion/worry that we might be no better than the Mormons with
their laughable archaeology who also fail to draw the conclusion/worry that
they might not quite have the true religion. They too will be at church
today in spite of their silly archaeology..

I will also answer George's converting to concordism here. George wrote:

>The texts I'm referring to are ones that speak of God's creative work in
connection with the defeat of a great sea monster,
>Rahab (Ps.89:8-13, Job 26:12-13), sometimes called Leviathan (Ps.74:12-17).
Even conservative scholars have often
>treated these texts as mere poetry or "accomodation" to Babylonian or
Canaanite myths. But they are history.

This concept that we concordists are saying that EVERYTHING must be 100%
literal is nothing but a strawman of Biblical proportions--a boogey argument
to try to scare people away from any form of concordism. It is also a very
weak argument.

This is what I am speaking of George. Given a choice between two ways to
read the Bible, one that makes it false and the other which might make it
ok, you chose the path that makes the Bible false. I looked up Rahab, it
is, as you say a reference to a sea-monster--a phoenecian sea monster. Now,
is that what it means? If I say the dragon is on the ascendancy? Do I
believe in dragons? If you want me to be false, you will say definitely
yes. But, if I am referring to China, then what I say has nothing to do
with real dragons, but a name for a country.

If you look at both Brown-Driver-Briggs and Strong's they note that the word
is used as a reference to Egypt. It can be read as nothing more than the
eagle had better beware the bear, but the bear fears the dragon's growing
power. But you chose the meaning that makes the bible appear in the worst
possible light--Q.E.D.

I would note from the Jewish encyclopedia web site:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=70&letter=R

"It must be noted that the Jewish exegetes deprived the word "Rahab" of its
mythological character, and explained it as merely an equivalent for
"arrogance," "noise," or "tumult"-applied both to the roaring of the sea and
to the arrogant noisiness and proud boasting of the Egyptians"

This is from BDB for Rahab
1) pride, blusterer
1a) storm, arrogance (but only as names)
1a1) mythical sea monster
1a2) emblematic name of Egypt

This is from Strong's
H7294 The same as H7293; Rahab (that is, boaster), an epithet of
Egypt:-Rahab.

I would note that at least according to these two dictionaries, you went
down the list rather than consider the first meanings.

And you know, if someone referred to the Phoenicians as a seamonster, that
would be right. That seafaring nation was quite a power.

Now, you are going to try to say that reading it this way is to
'accommodate'. Not in the sense of God inspiring false stories about
nature. No concordist, except those in your mind and maybe a few very
ultra-extreme people would claim that every word in the Bible is to be taken
according to the most literal definition.

Concordism means concording to reality. It is not a synonym for being
stupid, as you seem to think.

To conclude, I think you have provided me with an excellent example of why I
don't think you want the Bible to be true. You always seem to chose the
path that puts the Bible in the worst possible light, and then illogically
turn around and say how true the theology is. So, is your goal to tell
everyone how false the Bible is (like the atheist) or is your goal to tell
people what is right with the Bible?

All that being said, I will do, what Michael Roberts won't do, and answer
tough questions. If I did what he does, I would tell him his dragon is worth
no more than to be stepped on and then ignore the question. But his
question is a good one even though he delights in this passage where he
thinks there is Biblical error (why people delight in that I don't really
know).

He asked about the Job 41:18--the fire breather. I can't explain that one
in any way shape or form. No animal fits it and I would say that that is the
best piece of evidence the accommodationalists have--God is talking about
nonsensical/nonexistent animals. But I would still have the question, why
should we listen to a God who talks nonsense when there may be another one
out there who isn't talking nonsense. The only possible way to explain it is
as in a Veggie Tale those children's videos where there is a song about God
being bigger than the boogey man.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jun 18 18:13:52 2006