How much of the OT do you believe is true?

[maklelan]

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?

As I stated in my very first post directed at you, I don't disagree that Hebrew cosmology thought of it as a dome. I disagreed with your naive assumption that their cosmology was consistent, unified, and simple. I then disagreed with your oversimplified Wikipedia-inspired etymology. Now I disagree with your misrepresentations of our position.

This forum should be renamed Nitpickers Central.

Would you have me reduce all my discussions to Wikipedia quotes and diluted generalizations? Is it unacceptable for me to point out errors in your arguments if it involves nuance and technical vernacular? What kind of ideal are you advocating, exactly?

[semlogo]

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 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.

You appear to have overestimated the value of your nitpicking comicbook guy-esque contributions. I have been 100% correct from the start. You've tried to show off to the class, but you didn't manage to negate my original statement in the least. Every post since then has been an attempt to save face.

Hope this helps.

[Mortal Man]

There is however indirect evidence as regarding David.

I don't believe in a literal King David; however, I do believe that another guy with the same name ruled Israel during that time period.

[volgadon]

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?

Your point was that regardless of etymology, raqia means a dome. It doesn't.

That tent in the picture is not a half-tent.

The earliest understanding seems to have been of a layer of coagulated waters, stretched out. This is the understanding also in Ezekiel 1:22. I'm sorry, but despite wiki's assertions, it is not a given that raqia means crystaline dome.

This forum should be renamed Nitpickers Central.

Your motto must be never let details get in the way of a good argument.

[volgadon]

I have been 100% correct from the start.

In the words of the old Israeli song 'My Yossele':

All the soldiers on parade march on the wrong foot, only my Yossele got it right!

[semlogo]

Your point was that regardless of etymology, raqia means a dome. It doesn't.

That tent in the picture is not a half-tent.

The earliest understanding seems to have been of a layer of coagulated waters, stretched out. This is the understanding also in Ezekiel 1:22. I'm sorry, but despite wiki's assertions, it is not a given that raqia means crystaline dome.

Your motto must be never let details get in the way of a good argument.

No, my point was that the early Hebrews believed it to be, and that the word means an extended solid surface or dome.

[volgadon]

No, my point was that the early Hebrews believed it to be, and that the word means an extended solid surface or dome.

And the point of many, including myself, is that not all the ancient Hebrews believed the sky to be a crystaline dome, or even that their understanding of an 'extended solid surface' was as simplistic as you make it out to be.

In other words, you have not been %100 correct from the start.

[maklelan]

No, my point was that the early Hebrews believed it to be, and that the word means an extended solid surface or dome.

No, your original point was that the early Hebrews only believed one specific perspective on the firmament, and that the word etymologically refers specifically to a dome. In both instances your absolute terms were shown to be incorrect. Your attempt to equivocate your way out of being wrong doesn't change that. For instance, the bold portion above is not what your point was. Your point was the following:

Yes - and that denotes a physical dome.

I don't see any reference to an "extended solid surface" in that or following posts. Your point was specifically that it exclusively denotes a domed shape. You even asserted that the etymological root denotes the dome-like nature of the ????:

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 fact, the only posts that point out the "extended solid surface" denotation are mine:

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.

You're equivocating to try to make your claims overlap with the facts that I shared with you. Everyone here can see it, including you. If you couldn't, you wouldn't be changing your story.

[Yies1]

I LOVE the Old Testament. I think it is one of the most fascinating pieces of literature ever compiled and I especially love Genesis. As far as how much of it I believe is true, I'd say "all" of it in a sense. The problem is that we live in a world that is much more "literal" than the ancient world, so if we define "true" as "literal", we will become disillusioned with some of the most important lessons we have to learn. I always try to read scripture with an eye towards the lesson and not the literal, physical properties of the story. Sometimes the numbers are probably off or the events exaggerated, but I don't care.

There is a lot of wisdom in this post.

Edgar

If you can show God three of your accomplishments which each so impress Him that He exclaims in surprise, He will never be able to help becoming your God.

[semlogo]

And the point of many, including myself, is that not all the ancient Hebrews believed the sky to be a crystaline dome, or even that their understanding of an 'extended solid surface' was as simplistic as you make it out to be.

In other words, you have not been %100 correct from the start.

Please quote where I claimed that every single ancient Hebrew believed the same thing. Thanks!