Re: [asa] The Hebrew for the Making of Man

Just to be accurate, let me point out that on Day 4 the author purposely avoided the ordinary Hebrew words for "sun" and "moon" and instead use a term (transl. "luminaries") that is never used for sun or moon anywhere else in the entire Scriptures.? By the parallelism to Day 1, we should know that the author is dealing with the phenomenon of light and darkness.? On the first triad of days in that week God is separating things from one another (such as light from darkness) and on the last three days God is populating the same domains that he has just separated out from one another.? Thus, by context we should know that God is populating distinct "lights" in the domain of light and darkness, both in the domain of light that he has called "day" (it says the domain of light is "ruled" by the greater light) and on the dark domain that he has called "night" (it says the dark domain is "ruled" by the lesser light).? This is in no way dealing with?hard objects attached to a firmament
  since through-and-through everything is about the phenomena of light and darkness including to tell us that the purpose for these phenomena is human time-keeping (not for seeing or keeping warm, both of which were known to the Hebrews).? And as already pointed out, Moses uncharacteristically avoided the ordinary terms for the objects "sun" and "moon".? To say that the author was dealing with solid objects is to impose the very ideas from ANE mythology that the author was intentionally adapting, but to impose them in a way that the?author himself was avoiding.? Day 4 is clearly dealing with phenomonology rather than ontology.? Therefore, it is not a fair criticism to say that the author was scientifically wrong about Day 4 on that account, since it is at least possible that the distinct lights did not appear as phenomena ("lights") in the sky (below the dome and thus where the birds fly as the text says) until after land-plants had first begun to grow.? But that is where the
  
 real debate lies.? It's not fair to simply say that Moses was talking about solid objects attached to the firmament on Day 4 and therefore it is merely poetic on that account.? Moses was clearly using ANE ideas, but his intentional choice to avoid the Hebrew words for "sun" and "moon" imply some sophistication that exceeded the origins of ANE mythology from several millenia earlier.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
To: dopderbeck@gmail.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 6:22 pm
Subject: Re: [asa] The Hebrew for the Making of Man

I cannot respond to the grammatical question, except to note that Payne's approach seems to assume that what he thinks the text should say is exactly what the text does say. The text says that the sun, moon and stars are attached to the firmament, which has water above it. (Heard's picture in the second listing is good.)?This requires that?the heavenly bodies are all at least approximately equidistant from where we live on the surface of the earth. When Payne demonstrates this "fact" (it's revealed by God!), then his argument will have relevance. I have noted that the verses cited by Creationists seem to be restricted to those that fit their view. For example, when did you hear that Adam and Eve could have lived forever after eating the forbidden fruit? But note Genesis 3:22.

Dave (ASA)

________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 1 00:50:41 2008