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

For Paul and George M.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Seely
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 2:05 PM
> To: asa@calvin.edu; Glenn Morton
> PHS: Your original question (6/17 1:08)only mentioned Ptolemy
> and the Jews.
> My answer was to that question.
> Now, you are raising a new question, namely,

I guess I figured people knew that Ptolemy got the idea from Aristotle and
Aristotle from Pythagoras. Besides that, when a new question is asked, one
should examine it from all angles, not just the obvious one.

And as to the meaning of Hebrew words from 1000 BC I was informed by my
favorite theologian (name withheld to protect him from being associated with
this old heretic) that

"The earliest extant non-Biblical Hebrew texts that use Classical Hebrew
date from about the twelfth century B.C., but we're talking about two clay
sherds consisting of four lines of text...not much text. There was also
some very useful extra-Biblical Hebrew in the Qumran documents, such as
commentaries in Hebrew on the Old Testament Prophets. Some of the scrolls
date to 250 B.C. while others are more recent. The Dead Sea Scrolls, as I
understand them, shed a lot of light on the study of Classical Hebrew.
Prior to their discovery I think the knowledge of it was much sketchier. "

But all of this was post Aristotle and thus doesn't play a role in what the
original meaning might have been of raqiya

> PHS; As I said in my original response to your first
> question, there is no
> extant Jewish literature from before 350 BC except the OT
> (and hence none
> from before Aristotle). However, as I also mentioned in that
> post, the fact
> that later Jews believed in an ocean above the firmament
> testifies that they
> got their view from the OT not Aristotle.

Can you cite the place you got that idea? Somehow I can't see the Talmud
actually saying "I got my belief in the solid dome from the Torah and not
from Aristotle." I would be curious as to your source for this assertion.

 But, the crux of the issue
> historically is that the available evidence, which is
> considerable, shows
> that EVERYONE before Aristotle believed in a solid firmament.

Once again, evidence please. I would contend that this is a very Eurocentric
view of the world. You have only looked into western sources all of which
are post Aristotle. And given his influence one can't rule out that the
meaning of the word raqiya was changed to match the knowledge of the Greeks.
We know that the Septuagint made the earth a bit older.

Now, why do I say Eurocentric? Because if one looks at the Mahabharata, an
ancient Indian poem, they believed in flying machines that could go to the
moon--leading to the logical conclusion, no solid dome in those guys minds.
So, not EVERYONE believed in the solid dome. Only those you have looked at
in the western world. Here is what they felt about the planets--they were
places like earth:

Long before Aryabhata (6th century) came up with this awesome achievement,
apparently there was a mythological angle to this as well -- it becomes
clear when one looks at the following translation of Bhagavad Gita (part
VIII, lines 16 and 17), "All the planets of the universe, from the most
evolved to the most base, are places of suffering, where birth and death
takes place. But for the soul that reaches my Kingdom, O son of Kunti, there
is no more reincarnation. One day of Brahma is worth a thousand of the ages
[yuga] known to humankind; as is each night." Thus each kalpa is worth one
day in the life of Brahma, the God of creation. In other words, the four
ages of the mahayuga must be repeated a thousand times to make a "day ot
Brahma", a unit of time that is the equivalent of 4.32 billion human years,
doubling which one gets 8.64 billion years for a Brahma day and night."
http://www.hvk.org/articles/0802/214.html

How about the Jainist? They believed the universe was infinite--no solid
dome:

"The ideas of the mathematical infinite in Jaina mathematics is very
interesting indeed and they evolve largely due to the Jaina's cosmological
ideas. In Jaina cosmology time is thought of as eternal and without form.
The world is infinite, it was never created and has always existed. Space
pervades everything and is without form.
"http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/HistTopics/Jaina_mathematic
s.html

The Hindu's also believe in an infinite universe and thus no solid dome.:

"The Christians believe that only by accepting Jesus Christ as the Son of
God can we go to heaven. Muslims similarly hold that we must believe in the
Prophet-hood of Muhammad to avoid eternal condemnation. Now, the adherents
of both of these religions were born on this earth. So, theoretically, if
there is any life on some other planet besides our own, how do the people on
those planets attain salvation? Obviously, the Bible and the Koran are based
on a geocentric notion of the Universe or they preclude the existence of any
intelligent life in our infinite universe - something that would be an
anathema to both modern scientists, as well as Hindu sages. The Hindu
scriptures clearly declare that the Universe is infinite and there is life
in different forms throughout the whole Universe. This seems closer to the
truth." http://www.hinduweb.org/home/dharma_and_philosophy/vvh/vvhtrans.html

And this is what is bothering me about the approach to Christian
apologetics. It looks only at what is close at hand, not at the wider world.

> So, it would
> be highly improbable that the Jews before Aristotle did not
> believe in a
> solid firmament. The evidence is so strong, I do not believe
> you can find
> evidence of anyone before Aristotle believing in a non-solid
> firmament.

Just did it. The easter documents are older than Aristotle, older than the
earliest Torah and is among the oldest Indo-European works of literature.
So you are wrong when you say everyone believed in a solid dome. They
didn't. Pythagoras put that concept into the west and I worry that that
influence extended to the Septuagint and then to the Talmud, in that
temporal order.

> 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.>>
>
> PHS: The firmament here is clearly a reference to the sky,
> and the non-solid
> sky is also dark at night, So, I make no sense of your argument.

Well, the word firmament is RAQIYA. That makes the case of this being a
solid dome unworkable.

>
> GRM: 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.
>
> PHS: The firmament is the sky which visually comes down all around to
> apparently touch the earth, hence a dome. And why not a solid
> one? To be
> "in" the firmament is to be in the space below the dome, as
> they say in
> Seattle, "We watched the football game in the Kingdome."

Aren't you just reading a solid dome into the verse twisting it as you crush
the toes into the shoe?

> 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?>
>
> PHS: The language can be explained as above, they fly in the
> space below the
> dome.

They call that eisegesis what you have done. It doesn't say below the
raqiya. It says in the raqiya.

In addition, this is a mistranslation of the Hebrew.
> The Hebrew says
> the birds fly in front of the face or surface of the raqia',
> that is, with
> the blue sky in back of them visually. See Gordon Wenham's
> comment in his
> commentary on Genesis. Note also that the mention of the
> surface of the
> raqia' is more apposite to a solid dome than a non-solid one.

Maybe it is a mistranslation or maybe that is what it must be in order to
fit your viewpoint.

The fact that the Hindu's didn't believe in a solid dome shows
1. that the ancients could have understood the truth
2. That if it is an accommodation by God, God is letting untruth be placed
in the book he wants us to pay attention to.

George M wrote:

 -----Original Message-----
> From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 7:36 AM
> To: Glenn Morton; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: Firmament and the Water above was [asa] Re: Slug

{I had said "Accepting as evidence pseudo-historical scenarios which in
practice can
never be tested is an even easier way." Did you not see the qualification
"in practice"?}

But in practice it can be tested. I saw it and I think you are utterly
wrong. Please tell me why a core couldn't verify my views. I asked that
before but you don't seem to want to answer that question in detail. And
quite frankly there is enough of the Plio-miocene boundary uplifted to the
surface in Italy, Sicily and other places that something could indeed turn
up there--testing my theory. So I would have no problem if you said, today
no data confirms my theory, but that isn't what you want to say. You want to
say it can't be tested. Well it can. Please tell me why examining the
Mio-pliocene boundary in those places on land wouldn't constitute a test? I
will freely admit no confirmation to date, but once again, you are saying
things that are flat out false.

{If you'll read my recent PSCF article you'll see that I explicitly do not
commit myself to any particular date at which the 1st humans, in a
theological sense,
appeared. In fact, I cite your arguments about Bilzingsleben in note 41.}

I saw that, but, if you agree to Bilzingsleben, what about earlier times
when mankind might have had simpler, less durable temples? We do see art at
1.6 myr ago and recognized facial characteristics in a pebble at 3.2 million
years ago. What do we do with those? Do all altars have to leave evidence
of themselves? Copses condemned in the Scripture don't.

{Sorry but this doesn't tell me anything. Your "theological position is
that religion better be TRUE"? Any Muslim, Hindu &c would say the same.
That's at best a meta-statement of your philosophy of religion. You're a
Christian "because [you] think it might actually be true"? What is "it"? I

don't know what you think it means to be a Christian other than that the
Bible is "true" & a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon would endorse that
statement.<<<

GRM: George, you seem to be saying that unless I tell you a theological
position that you can categorize and then disect, my views aren't worth
anything? Come on.

And by true, I think you know what I mean. It must match reality. If you
don't understand that by now, either you haven't been listening or I am an
absolutely atrocious communicator. I am sure it is the later.

{Let me show you where I'm trying to go with this. A person who holds
anything like traditional Christian faith believes that because of the life,

death & resurrection he is freed from fear of death, his guilt is taken
away, or his life is given meaning - or some combination of the 3. (I'm
following Tillich's analysis.) Christians even claim to have some
"knowledge" that such things are the case. Why? There is historical
evidence related to those claims - about Jesus & the history in which he's
embedded - but not historical evidence for the faith claims made about the
meaning of Jesus for the person who believes in him. & if a person holds to

your criteria, he/she can never accept those faith claims!}

Not so. What I would prefer to see is that like scientific theories where
some things can be verified, but others can't, one can get enough confidence
from some of the verifications to undergird the rest.. Example: the
standard theory of particle physics. They have lots of confirmations, of
lots of things, but they still lack the Higgs boson. The exact size of the
particle accelerator required for verification of the Higgs boson (which is
central to the modern theory being correct) depends upon the mass of that
particle. The larger the mass, the less likely it is that it will ever be
seen because of the energy requirements for the accelerator. So, modern
physics has believable theories in which the central figure (Higgs boson)
can't be verified, but everyone feels comfortable and accepts that it is
quite likely that the particle exists.

That is the model I would like to see for Christianity. This concept that
so much of the Bible is factually false but it is still the true theology
would not fly in any science. If all the particles predicted by the
Standard model didn't exist but physicists still believed in the Higgs
boson, they could be rightly criticized for having fideism.

{What you seem to do is to focus singlemindedly in public on historical
evidence for Genesis, rejecting any reference to the meaning conveyed by
distinctively Christian claims.}

Yeah, because those are objectively verifiable or falsifiable. The other,
distinctively Christian things are no more verifiable than this account of
flying humans in about 3000 BC.:

""Devas from their cloud-borne chariots, and Gandharvas from the sky,
Gazed in mute and speechless wonder on the human chiefs from high!"
http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/extra/bl-mahabharata8.htm
MAHABHARATA BOOK VIII: BHISHMA-BADHA

  {Then, having convinced yourself that you're
the only one holding to a tough & objective religious position you privately

believe things that you simply can't get to in your tough & objective way. }

So, tell me how we verify the resurrection with the things available to us
today? We have an account, but we can't judge the veracity of it because we
don't really know the character of the writers. Maybe they were out to get
rich by collecting donations. We can verify or falsify particular flood
theories, and particular parts of creation. And frankly the Hindu accounts
are far more in line with modern views than are those of the Bible, at least
if they are taken on face value as traditionally read.

{Or maybe not. Maybe you really do think that Christianity is a collection
of true historical facts & that's it, though I hope that's not the case.}

Why do you hope that Christianity isn't a collection of true historical
facts. I proudly hope that. Here is the definition of fact from my desk
dictionary:

"Fact noun 1. something known to have happened, to be true, or to exist."

Am I to read into your amazement at my desire to have a set of historical
facts that you want something that isn't known to have happened, isn't known
to be true and which doesn't exist? Come on, that isn't what you want,
.....is it?

Are we to view the resurrection as something that didn't happen but we
believe it is a great gig so we collect money from little old ladies in the
pews?

Given that that post was about Rahab, and I didn't see a mention of Adam, it
is hard to see how it is a parody of Adam. Maybe I am congenitally dumb,
but Rahab as a proxy for Adam seems a wee bit of a post hoc stretch. Maybe
it went over my head; maybe you didn't communicate worth a bucket of warm
spit.

{Or maybe you're tone deaf when it comes to literature. You've said before
that you don't appreciate fiction - I recall long ago you mentioning The
Lord of the Rings in particular. You're smart, you understand the words,
but you just don't get the music. (I know that "literature" is a grandious
term for my little joke but it's technically correct.) It would be
interesting to know how many others who read my "converting" post did or
didn't realize that it was a parody. (Others, email me privately if you
wish.)}

I guess you didn't communicate your concept very well. Sorry. But the
greatest literature, if it doesn't convey its message isn't worth much. If
Shakespeare really intended Romeo and Juliet to be a comedy, he failed.

{Did you actually believe that I thought that stuff was true? A mutant
intelligent dinosaur?}

No, what I thought you were doing was claiming that was something I had to
accept because I am a concordist. I bet you didn't think I would take it as
a reductio ad absurdam attempt on your part. I saw that mutant intelligent
part as sarcasm, not parody---see you didn't get your message across, at
least to me. Call me dumb, but that is the way it was.

{& I think that's part of your problem in reading the Bible. All the signs
of hyperbole, humor, &c in Jonah go right past you. It can't be "true" if
it's "just" fiction

The parody was of your _method_. & BTW, I don't think that the Rahab
passages are "accomodation" in the sense in which we've been using the term.

That was part of the setup for the parody.}

Well if you say it was parody. It sounded more like sarcasm, at least to me.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jun 19 22:31:44 2006