How much of the OT do you believe is true?

[semlogo]

I couldn't care any less if the ancient Israelites believed the sky was made out of metal, glass, Tiamat's body, or pieces of the Oakland Raiders, so please don't call it apologetics. It's nothing of the sort. What it is is correcting your uninformed oversimplification. On the substantive derivations of the verb you mentioned, ???? is a qatil form derived from the root rq', which means "spread out," or "stamp." The noun thus has reference to an "extended surface." It is also related to the root rqq, which means "to make thin," and can refer to clothing, dishes, passageways, etc. The verb rq' is used in reference to God's "establishment" of the heavens (Isa 42:5; 44:24) as well as the earth (136:6, usually translated "stretched out"). It is used to refer to a solid barrier between heaven and earth that holds the waters of heavens up, but it is also used to refer to the foundation of God's throne, to a source of light held up by creatures in Ezekiel's vision, a semantic parallel to the heavens in Psalms, and the dwelling place of God. It can mean a lot of things besides "firmament," and I prefer the "expanse" or "sky" in most uses, unless cosmological concerns point to the idea of a solid barrier. As I stated previously, it's based on cosmology, not just etymology.

I consider this a pretty irrelevant point, but I'll thank you not to lecture me about Northwest Semitic lexicography and etymology, especially if you're just quoting Wikipedia. Your claim about early Israelite cosmology is myopic and generalized. I pointed out how. That that cosmology doesn't agree with what we know about the earth and sky today is not something I am going to disagree with you about. If you just want to defend your pride, then let me know.

You're getting huffy now, but you know I'm right.

[maklelan]

You're getting huffy now, but you know I'm right.

This doesn't address my concerns with any of your points.

[semlogo]

This doesn't address my concerns with any of your points.

You said I was oversimplifying. Which isn't the same as saying I'm wrong.

[maklelan]

You said I was oversimplifying. Which isn't the same as saying I'm wrong.

You were oversimplifying about the nature of early Israelite cosmology, and you were wrong in insisting there was a unified and consistent cosmology. You've never responded to those concerns, by the way. Regarding "firmament," you're just assuming it's as simple as what Wikipedia says, but it's not, and, again, the issue is really irrelevant. You just want to feel like you've scored a point.

Regarding not taking the OT at face value, I've already pointed out that I and many others have already explained that in much greater detail, and with a much more informed and comprehensive perspective. Israelite cosmology seems to be some kind of pet gripe for you.

[The_Monk]

"So, Genesis,as it left God's lips, we are to believe as true."

God dictated genesis? Truth = history and science? I don't buy either of those assumptions. Walton (below) and Peter Enns (Evangelicals and the problem of the Old Testament) both do great jobs dealing with those and similar assumptions.

As for Israelite cosmology, John Walton's The Lost World of Genesis 1 is an excellent perspective written for laypeople. Intro and 1st chapter here. I'm looking forward to the academic version from Eisenbrauns. HIGHLY recommended.

On the raqiya', see Seely, "The Firmament and the Water Above" WTJ. Link to pdf.

[semlogo]

You were oversimplifying about the nature of early Israelite cosmology, and you were wrong in insisting there was a unified and consistent cosmology. You've never responded to those concerns, by the way. Regarding "firmament," you're just assuming it's as simple as what Wikipedia says, but it's not, and, again, the issue is really irrelevant. You just want to feel like you've scored a point.

Regarding not taking the OT at face value, I've already pointed out that I and many others have already explained that in much greater detail, and with a much more informed and comprehensive perspective. Israelite cosmology seems to be some kind of pet gripe for you.

Basically your posts have been an attempt to establish your intellectual superiority. I respect that. You've studied this and you want to be recognized for it. So you spend a lot of time going over the alternative meanings for the word - all of which also denote a physical dome, changing the materials rather than the nature. But the primary meaning and connotation for firmament, both in the definition of the word and and the understanding of ancient Hebrews, is just as I originally described it.

In other words, while you're busy trying to demonstrate to the class just how smart you are, I'm still right.

[The_Monk]

The problem with "face value" is that it is a "high-context" thing. What one understands at "face value" is heavily dependent on whether you are an insider or outsider of the culture in question. One simply cannot make sweeping declarations about the value of this or that old testament text without trying to get into an Israelite's head and understanding it how they would.

[maklelan]

Basically your posts have been an attempt to establish your intellectual superiority. I respect that.

No, my posts have been an attempt to point out the fallacy of your approach to this discussion.

You've studied this and you want to be recognized for it.

No, I'm not participating because I want to be recognized for my education. I'm participating because I am interested in discussing this topic. Tell me, what would one have to say to participate on an intellectual level in this thread without appearing to you like they're showing off?

So you spend a lot of time going over the alternative meanings for the word - all of which also denote a physical dome,

As I've pointed out, they do not all denote a physical dome. You don't seem to have read that part of my post. The verb denotes a stretching out or a thinning down. The noun can be used in reference to lots of things related to those verbal actions, and even some things not related. Usage determines meaning too, not just etymology, and usage changes.

changing the materials rather than the nature.

There's nothing in the etymology that points the a dome shape fundamentally associated with the verb.

But the primary meaning and connotation for firmament, both in the definition of the word and and the understanding of ancient Hebrews, is just as I originally described it.

I've already shown how that's not the case. You ignored my comments to just assert that you were right and that I knew it.

In other words, while you're busy trying to demonstrate to the class just how smart you are, I'm still right.

While you're busy using emoticons, my concerns went entirely ignored. As your claim above shows, you either didn't read them or didn't understand them.

[semlogo]

As I've pointed out, they do not all denote a physical dome. You don't seem to have read that part of my post. The verb denotes a stretching out or a thinning down. The noun can be used in reference to lots of things related to those verbal actions, and even some things not related. Usage determines meaning too, not just etymology, and usage changes.

Yes - and that denotes a physical dome. I know you're trying to save some face here, but really, I don't think it's necessary.

[maklelan]

Yes - and that denotes a physical dome. I know you're trying to save some face here, but really, I don't think it's necessary.

No, it does not. It denotes thinning down, stretching out, or flattening. None of that denotes a physical dome. As I pointed out, it is used in reference to textiles, passage ways, dishes, and a number of other completely non-dome-like substances and structures. The verb fundamentally denotes a process of production. No dome shape is necessarily implied in any way. This is now the third time I've had to explain this very simple concept.

[semlogo]

No, it does not. It denotes thinning down, stretching out, or flattening. None of that denotes a physical dome. As I pointed out, it is used in reference to textiles, passage ways, dishes, and a number of other completely non-dome-like substances and structures. The verb fundamentally denotes a process of production. No dome shape is necessarily implied in any way. This is now the third time I've had to explain this very simple concept.

So you're not trying to refute the physicality of the firmament? Good.

But if it's stretched over a flat earth like a tent, it's going to be a dome-like structure. Unless you think the ancient Hebrews were excessively worried about bumping their heads on the firmament.

Again, the constant quibbling over insignificant details in order to save face isn't necessary. Consider your face saved.

In any case there is no such thing as a firmament.

[maklelan]

So you're not trying to refute the physicality of the firmament? Good.

The cosmological firmament is a physical object in the Israelite worldview. That has been my position since the very beginning. The word can make reference to a non-physical object, though, and making reference to a dome is something that only context can determine. Israelite cosmology provides the context whereby we can conclude the "firmament" of the creation story refers to a dome.

But if it's stretched over a flat earth like a tent, it's going to be a dome-like structure. Unless you think the ancient Hebrews were excessively worried about bumping their heads on the firmament.

Now you're retreating from your point. I never once insisted that the cosmological firmament was not a dome. What I insisted, and what you denied, is that the etymology of the word does not necessarily imply a dome-like structure.

Again, the constant quibbling over insignificant details in order to save face isn't necessary. Consider your face saved.

I already pointed out twice that this was an irrelevant point. Now that you've had to retreat from your argument you're trying to play it down. Brilliant.

In any case there is no such thing as a firmament.

That there is no solid dome-like structure separating the earth from the heavens was never in question.

[semlogo]

The cosmological firmament is a physical object in the Israelite worldview. That has been my position since the very beginning. The word can make reference to a non-physical object, though, and making reference to a dome is something that only context can determine. Israelite cosmology provides the context whereby we can conclude the "firmament" of the creation story refers to a dome.

Now you're retreating from your point. I never once insisted that the cosmological firmament was not a dome. What I insisted, and what you denied, is that the etymology of the word does not necessarily imply a dome-like structure.

I already pointed out twice that this was an irrelevant point. Now that you've had to retreat from your argument you're trying to play it down. Brilliant.

That there is no solid dome-like structure separating the earth from the heavens was never in question.

I believe this is what's known in political circles as "spin." Correct me if I'm wrong.

[thesometimesaint]

Semlogo;

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=807&letter=C&search=Cosmogony

The attempt to establish a concordance between Genesis and geology seems to do an injustice to science and religion both. The ancient Hebrews had a very imperfect conception of the structure of the universe. Gen. i. was not written to be a scientific treatise. It was to impress and to express the twin-doctrine of God's creative omnipotence and of man's dignity as being destined on earth to be a creator himself.

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=807&letter=C&search=Cosmogony#ixzz0mJvU3u00

[maklelan]

I believe this is what's known in political circles as "spin." Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong, but up to this point you've ignored all correction. Why would this instance be any different?

[volgadon]

So you're not trying to refute the physicality of the firmament? Good.

But if it's stretched over a flat earth like a tent, it's going to be a dome-like structure. Unless you think the ancient Hebrews were excessively worried about bumping their heads on the firmament.

You have a funny concept of what domes look like.

[volgadon]

No, it does not. It denotes thinning down, stretching out, or flattening. None of that denotes a physical dome. As I pointed out, it is used in reference to textiles, passage ways, dishes, and a number of other completely non-dome-like substances and structures. The verb fundamentally denotes a process of production. No dome shape is necessarily implied in any way. This is now the third time I've had to explain this very simple concept.

And I learned this early on in grade school, we had a lesson and the teacher explained the etymology of reqiah, metalworking, that it had to do with flattening out the object.

[maklelan]

You have a funny concept of what domes look like.

I let that one slide because I figured he was probably picturing this kind of tent:

[semlogo]

Semlogo;

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=807&letter=C&search=Cosmogony

The attempt to establish a concordance between Genesis and geology seems to do an injustice to science and religion both. The ancient Hebrews had a very imperfect conception of the structure of the universe. Gen. i. was not written to be a scientific treatise. It was to impress and to express the twin-doctrine of God's creative omnipotence and of man's dignity as being destined on earth to be a creator himself.

Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=807&letter=C&search=Cosmogony#ixzz0mJvU3u00

I agree. Which is why I don't think that fundamentalists should try to extract information on the origins of the earth or any other science-related matters from the OT.

[semlogo]

You have a funny concept of what domes look like.

The ancient Hebrews thought of it as a dome, despite the various alternative definitions of the word. Do you really think they conceived of the sky as a half-tent?

This forum should be renamed Nitpickers Central.

[semlogo]

You are wrong, but up to this point you've ignored all correction. Why would this instance be any different?

You haven't corrected me once. You've only tried to suggest alternative and irrelevant definitions of the word for firmament, none of which contradicted my original point anyway.

I'm here to help.

[David T]

The ancient Hebrews thought of it as a dome, despite the various alternative definitions of the word. Do you really think they conceived of the sky as a half-tent?

This forum should be renamed Nitpickers Central.

That website already exists.

Mak, and others, aren't denying that many ancient Hebrews thought of it as a dome. What they were doing was clarifying that your etymological proof for why this was true was incorrect, or misleading.

There are many faithful Mormons who use very flawed and incorrect arguments, bad history, and out of context prooftexts to try and prove True Restoration Doctrine. Just because the argument is faulty, doesn't mean the conclusion isn't.

Mak is providing better and more accurate tools for your discussions on this topic in the future.

[thesometimesaint]

Semlogo:

I am about as far from a fundamentalist as they come.

I prefer to let each speak to their own strengths. I agree with the Scriptures, not everyone's interpretation of them.

[StuddleyG]

I think that much of the O.T. is true, but that there are many exaggerations. LDS doctrine confirms that Adam and Noah were great patriarchs that held the priesthood, but I don't think we need to think of their stories as being 100% literal. Adam lived way to late in the earth's history to be responsible for producing all the races of the earth. Noah and his three sons lived even later. I think Adam and Noah were important people to the isrealites, but they were not the fathers of everybody else on the planet.

[maklelan]

You haven't corrected me once. You've only tried to suggest alternative and irrelevant definitions of the word for firmament, none of which contradicted my original point anyway.

My original comments were a correction of your misrepresentation of early Israelite cosmology. I've already explained exactly how you've been mistaken, and you've yet to engage those concerns. Your assertions don't mitigate those facts, no matter how much mileage they get in your mind.

I'm here to help.

I don't foresee a day when I or several of the other people on this thread need help in the form of Wikipedia quotes. You've contributed nothing to this thread that hadn't already been said (and said much better). Your sophomoric attempts to salvage a point here and there and then gripe about nitpicking when you're proven uninformed don't help.