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

OK, I will give George the last word but I am NOT going to waste all the
work I put into the Rig veda by ceasing right now. Sorry. . And if I post
this, it wouldn't be fair not to let Paul Seely respond. I will let Paul
have the last word. I will not respond to Paul, even though that probably
won't be fair to me. Clearly people are more interested in stopping
discussion by posting limits (which do no real good) and stopping threads.
If people don't like the threads, they don't have to read them, but people
are still posting to this issue which means an unantural cessation.
 
I must say, I am extremely disappointed by the way this list has chosen to
go the direction of always limiting debate especially when new things are
being thrown around. This problem could be easily solved by using new
technology but we seen to be a group of scientists who don't like any new
technology, or different ideas. The ASA list serve is becoming a limit the
debate place and given the trouble I have had getting the last two articles
accepted, I think the journal is in danger of becoming a single theology
journal as well.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [ <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu> mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
On Behalf Of Paul Seely
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 12:47 AM

> Glenn wrote,
> <<You have only looked into western sources all of which
> are post Aristotle.>>
>
> Is that right? Then how did the quote from the Rig Veda get
> into my 1991
> paper on the firmament?

OK, I will amend my statement. In relation to this question of EVERYONE (as
you said) believing in a domed universe, you only looked at Western sources.
If you had looked at Eastern sources you would have seen that NOT EVERYONE
believed in a domed universe and that makes it an interesting question where
the domed universe came from.

But let's look at your citations of the Rig Veda in your 1991 paper. I will
contend that if you were not reading it looking for that dome you wouldn't
find it. Indeed, there are some verses that say precisely the opposite of
what you say it says. First your quotation from your 1991 paper:

"In India the earliest cosmology is found in the Rig Veda, a document from
the middle of the second millennium BC. It contains a number of passages
which show that Indians of that time believed in a solid firmament. In one
creation hymn an unnamed god is mentioned "by whom the dome of the sky was
propped up" (10.121.5; cf. 1.154.1 and 2.12.2). Another hymn asks, "What was
the wood.from which they carved the sky and the earth?" (10.81.4). Another
says, "Firm is
the sky and firm is the earth" (10.173.4). Several hymns mention people who
"climb up to the sky" (8.14.14; 2.12.12; 1.85.7). Several hymns mention the
separation of heaven and earth. One
says Varuna "pushed away the dome of the sky" (7.86.1; cf. 10.82.1).(25)
    "Equally important, the hymns of the Rig Veda distinguish the firmament
from the "middle realm of space," i.e., the space between the earth and the
firmament (10.190.3; 8.14.7). Indeed, the "realm of space" and the "sky"
were created from two different sources (10.90.14). The atmosphere is also
distinguished from the solid firmament (2.12.2; 10.139).(26) As W. N. Brown
concluded, the universe of the Rig Veda "was considered to be composed of
the earth surface, the atmospheric region, and the sky surface."(27) Paul
Seely, "The Firmament and the Water Above, Part 1: The Meaning of raqia( in
Genesis 1:6-8," Westminster Theological Journal 53:2 (Fall 1991): 227-240
page unknown.

We will go through each of your citations, only I will place them out here
for all to see. I would comment upon your use of the word firmament. That is
a prejudicial word. It is syncratically inputting a Christian concept into
another religion. It also biases the Christian reader of your Westminster
article. It was a bad thing to do. Here is why:

 
In Sanskrit, the word translated as firmament is akasha which dictionaries I
have found in the internet say is sky or space. But there is no indication
in the word that it is solid.

I would also note that the Hindus beleive that

Everything in the universe is Brahma. and that Brahma is infinite. This
leads to an easy conclusion of no small universe. I would also note that
today one could say that we hold to some form of a domed sky because we
speak of the horizon to the universe in astronomy, so it can be easy to
mistake the concept.

Here is the first citation

Rig Veda 121:5 By him the heavens are strong and earth is stedfast, by him
light's realm and sky-vault are supported:
By him the regions in mid-air were measured. What God shall we adore with
our oblation?

I know that you take this supported to mean pillars, but another reading
could be no more ominous than that God sustains the sky. Yes, there are
mid-air regions, which you make a big deal of, but we will also see that
there are regions of light and that one can travel to other worlds. Below is
a citation that says there is no prop for the sky--something dome believers
usually have, e.g. pillars of Heracules. But the Veda doesn't need them.

Rig Veda 10:49:1,2 SAVITAR fixed the earth with bands to bind it, and made
heaven stedfast where no prop supported.
Savitar milked, as 'twere a restless courser, air, sea bound fast to what no
foot had trodden.
2 Well knoweth Savitar, O Child of Waters, where ocean, firmly fixt,
o'erflowed its limit.
Thence sprang the world, from that uprose the region: thence heaven spread
out and the wide earth expanded.

There is no hint of a dome here. The heaven spread out? Sounds rather
modern actually. And you must recall that the water is the fundamental
ur-stuff of Hindu cosmology. It has no bounds. I will quote a passage from
the Rig Veda which talks about its unfathomable depths which basically
means it isn't contained and the universe isn't finite.

Rig Veda 1:154:1 1. I WILL declare the mighty deeds of Visnu, of him who
measured out the earthly regions, Who propped the highest place of
congregation, thrice setting down his footstep, widely striding.

Now, the highest place of congregation does not necessarily mean the dome of
the sky. It only means that if you assume it means that and are reading the
Veda with the idea that everything must fit into the domed concept.
Congregation is not sky.

Rig Veda 2:12:2 He who fixed fast and firm the earth that staggered, and set
at rest the agitated mountains,
Who measured out the air's wide middle region and gave the heaven support,
He, men, is Indra

The first part of the above sounds like the earth after an earthquake. But
then what does it mean to give support. Hindu interpretors give a different
view of giving heaven support:

"He is further, like Vishnu, Indra, and Varuna, the supporter of heaven and
earth, and of gods and men;"http://library.flawlesslogic.com/ved_rel.htm

So, does he hold up men and gods as well as the earth and sky? This is not
so clear cut as you would have us beleive.

Rig Veda 10.81.4 What was the tree, what wood in sooth produced it, from
which they fashioned out the earth and heaven?
Ye thoughtful men inquire within your spirit whereon he stood when he
established all things.

Isn't this merely a question of what is the fundamental matter out of which
the world was made? Isn't physics still trying to find out the answer to
this question? What does this question have to do with a domed sky

Rig Veda 8:14:14 The Dasyus, when they fain would climb
by magic arts and mount to heaven,

In your article you didn't tell us that climbing to heaven was accomplished
by magic arts. That changes the meaning of this entirely.

Rig Veda 2:12:12 Who with seven guiding reins, the Bull, the Mighty, set
free the Seven great Floods to flow at pleasure;
Who, thunder-armed, rent Rauhina in pieces when scaling heaven, He, O ye
men, is Indra.

This is the only place where the term scaling heaven appears in the Rig
veda. Scaling heaven is not necessarily equivalent to scaling a pillar to
heaven or scaling a mountain to heaven or scaling Indra to heaven or Scaling
a ladder to heaven. Also no one knows who Rauhina is. Many think he is a
draught demon and not human at all so that may not mean men can climb to
heaven as you suggest.

Compare: Rig Veda 10:90:16 Gods, sacrificing, sacrificed the victim these
were the carliest holy ordinances.
The Mighty Ones attained the height of heaven, there where the Sidhyas, Gods
of old, are dwelling.

If scaling heaven is trying to attain the height of heaven from within
heaven, then that would not support your view at all.

Rig veda 1:85:6,7 Protect us, Heaven and Earth, from fearful danger.
7 Wide, vast, and manifold, whose bounds are distant,--these, reverent, I
address at this our worship,
The blessed Pair, victorious, all-sustaining. Protect us, Heaven and Earth,
from fearful danger.

Let's consider the bounds of heaven. Today we also beleive there is a bound
to the heavens it is the horizon of General relativity where the space is
speeding away from us faster than the speed of light. Now, they had no
concept like this, but if their bounds to heaven were of equivalent size
(supported by the fact that all that is, is Brahma who is infinite) then
that would still not be the same as your domed universe of ANE cosmology.

Rig Veda 10:173:4 Firm is the sky and firm the earth, and stedfast also are
these hills.
Stedfast is all this living world, and stedfast is this King of men.

This sounds more like the firm here has the meaning of steadfast kind of
'firm' rather than terra firma kind of 'firm'. To me saying that this
supports a solid sky is a bit of a stretch.

Rig Veda 7:86:1 WISE, verily, are creatures through his greatness who
stayed ever, spacious heaven and earth asunder;
Who urged the high and mighty sky to motion, the Star of old, and spread the
earth before him.

You say this means that Varuna pushed the sky away. That is not what this
translation says. And in that same citation you say compare 10:82:1

Rig Veda 10:82:1 . THE Father of the eye, the Wise in spirit, created both
these worlds submerged in fatness.
Then when the eastern ends were firmly fastened, the heavens and the earth
were far extended.

Paul, this says that the eastern ends of the worlds were firmly fastened. I
don't see that this is the sky and earth being fastened. And even if you
say that this is the heavens and the earth (and that could be a valid
reading of the word "worlds' here) the problem is that it has the geometry
of this: OO with the earth on one side and the heavens on the other. That
is not a dome

Rig Veda 10:190:3 3 Dhatar, the great Creator, then formed in due order Sun
and Moon.
He formed in order Heaven and Earth, the regions of the air, and light.

For this one, you wrote: "Equally important, the hymns of the Rig Veda
distinguish the firmament from the "middle realm of space," i.e., the space
between the earth and the firmament"

Now, you list 3 items, space(air), earth and firmament. But the passage
lists 4 regions, Heaven, Earth, (both are places), the region of the
air(which is also a place) and [as I read it the region of the] light. It
isn't heaven, it isn't earth, it isn't the air. It is something else. Could
it be the region in space with light and no air? One could read a
remarkably modern view into this passage. But it doesn't prove a dome even
if there are only 3 regions. Where is the word dome except in your
prejudicial word 'firmament'

Rig Veda 8:14:7 In Soma's ecstasy Indra spread the firmament and realms of
light,When he cleft Vala limb from limb.

In this passage the realms of light are differentiated from the firmament
and that affects the interpretation of the passage above which lists 4
regions.

Visiting all worlds in a vimana? Below, the word translated car is a vimana.
It is the transport vehicle that appears in much of Hindu writing. I think
I posted that vimanas traveled to the moon.

Rig Veda 9:44:1-3 WHEN beauties strive for him as for a charger, then strive
the songs like soldiers for the sunlight.
Acting the Sage, he flows enrobed in waters and song as 'twere a stall that
kine may prosper.
2 The worlds expand to him who from aforetime found light to spread the law
of life eternal.
The swelling songs, like kine within the stable, in deep devotion call aloud
on Indu.
3 When the sage bears his holy wisdom round him, like a car visiting all
worlds, the Hero,
Becoming fame, mid Gods, unto the mortal, wealth to the skilled, worth
praise mid the Ever-present,

Rig Veda 1:22: 2 We call the Asvins Twain, the Gods borne in a noble car,
the best
Of charioteers, who reach the heavens.

Now, it is hard to ride a vimana through the solid dome, yet they can reach
heaven in their airborne vehicles. Other passages in other books have the
vimana come from the sky, not from the ground.

>
> <<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
> mind>>
>
> You are making a modern Western interpretation of the Mahabharata. In
> ancient thought, the moon is below the solid dome, so this
> proves nothing.

The infinite universe does prove that there is no dome (and this illustrates
that you haven't really looked at eastern sources in regards to this
question. I would contend that you have read into them). And it is a wee
bit pedantical to make the argument you are.

> Planets would also be below the solid dome, so this proves
> nothing. Not to
> mention that the Bhagavad Gita was written *after* Aristotle.
> (E.Americana:
> earliest date of composition is 2nd century BC)

This is a strange argument. The BG, which doesn't believe in a domed
universe but in an infinite universe, was written late enough to be
influenced by Aristotle who believed in a domed universe and that proves
that everyone believed in a domed universe--in spite of the fact that the BG
says precisely the opposite? That is what you are saying with the above.
Your argument here sounds illogical.

I might point out that in spite of Alexander conquoring parts of India, his
influence upon that society was short and shallow. If Arisotle had
influenced them I would expect the Bhagavad Gita would speak of a domed
universe--but it doesn't.

>
> <<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.>>
>
> Notice that "the world is infinite." Surely the earth is
> included in the
> world. So, "infinite" whatever it meant to them, did not mean
> not solid.
>
> <<The Hindu's also believe in an infinite universe and thus
> no solid dome>>
>
> Same as with the Jains, proves nothing.

Yeah, it would deep six your theory about the views of ancient man to accept
this, so it must be rejected at all costs. Close eyes, and repeat like a
mantra "everyone believed in a solid dome, everyone believed in a solid
dome...." Open eyes, problem disappeared.

> What do they mean by "whole universe"? It could mean one
> world after the
> other each having its own solid sky. This weak quote proves
> nothing as to
> whether they thought the earth had a solid sky.

Sigh, and you say you have looked at Eastern sources. This is a real
stretch Paul. The concept of the cosmic ocean runs throughout the Hindu
thought. It is that in which everything is immersed and it isn't solid, it
is liquid if it is anything substantial.

>
> As for the Bible verses you cited, go to a theological
> library and read the
> explanations of what they mean by biblical scholars. Not a
> one of your verse
> proves the raqia' is not solid. They don't even infer it.

Well, one of the things I have learned is that if people hold things that
are illogical, they are probably wrong. Praise God in the raqiya of this
power doesn't sound much like a solid dome. It sounds illogical to believe
that we are to praise god in his solid dome of power.

>
> Next time you want to prove something from the Bible, give me
> quotes from
> qualified biblical scholars, or do not expect me to answer.

And by 'qualified biblical scholar' you mean someone who agrees with you.
And by this procedure you present a great argument from authority--one can't
question what an authority says therefore the questions are not worth
answering. Also is anyone who disagrees is not a qualified Biblical scholar?
Arguments based upon authority are really among the weakest arguments one
can present. And if that is what you want conversation may be brief. I
question everything. Apparently you don't.

&&

Bill Hamilton wrote:

>>

I think this is faulty reasoning, Glenn. There are more things for
Christians to do than try to develop interpretations of Genesis that match
scientific knowledge. One has to prioritize. I appreciate your and Dick's
efforts, but I couldn't live on a steady diet of your and Dick's efforts
alone. George has valuable insights, and I would rather see him continue to
develop and flesh out his insights than spend a lot of time developing a
scientifically respectable reinterpretation of Gen 1-11.<<

My point was that if he thinks mine or Dick's views flawed but claims to
want a true Bible, he could try to do it differently. I still stand by that
regardless of how your stomach would fare from the food. I guess I find it
very strange to say one wants the Bible true but only in a fashion which has
no connection with observational reality save in one unverifiable event.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jun 20 21:55:02 2006