Creation 6 day literal? Or Not

[rogue06]

If you're interested, I did a blog post on this subject a couple years ago looking at modern OT scholar's views on this subject, as well as demonstrating that some of the early church fathers had a view of the firmament much like our own (see the view that Augustine mentions where he describes a firmament made of water vapor). I've seen oxmixmudd bring up that Seely article a few times in the past, and it simply isn't the only game in town.

Um, Augustine said that the firmament was solid in his De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis") saying that the word firmament was used "to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below."

IIRC, in his Confessiones ("Confessions") he wrote about the lights (stars) being affixed to the firmament which would again suggest that he saw it as a physical, solid structure.

[Adrift]

Um, Augustine said that the firmament was solid in his De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis") saying that the word firmament was used "to indicate not that it is motionless but that it is solid and constitutes an impassable boundary between the waters above and the waters below."

IIRC, in his Confessiones ("Confessions") he wrote about the lights (stars) being affixed to the firmament which would again suggest that he saw it as a physical, solid structure.

I'm not sure if you actually read my blog post, but the details are there. Here it is for you to read if you like,

Source: http://lexiconangelos.blogspot.com/2012/07/not-so-firm-ament.html

From an apologetic standpoint, Augustine, it seems, questioned the material makeup of the firmament, and found a "praiseworthy" theory,

But what is the firmament? Is it that heaven which extends beyond all the realm of air and above the air's farthest heights, where the lights and the stars are set on the forth day? Or is the air itself called the firmament? - The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Volume 1, Book Two, Chapter 1

A certain commentator has made a praiseworthy attempt to demonstrate that the waters are above the heavens, so as to support the word of Scripture with the visible and tangible phenomena of nature. First of all, he establishes the easiest step in his argument by showing that the air about us is also called "sky" or "heaven." This is true not only in our ordinary speech, in which we refer to "a clear sky" or "a cloudy sky," but also in the usage of Holy Scripture, in which there is mention of the birds of heaven (it is obvious that the birds fly in this air about us); and our Lord, when He spoke of the clouds, said, You know how to read the face of heaven. We often see the clouds gather also in the air near the earth, and in that case settle on the slopes of hills so that most of the mountain peaks tower above them.

The commentator referred to above, having proved that the atmosphere near us is called heaven, wished it also to be designated by the term "firmament," for the simple reason that he divides its space between water in a vaporous state and water in a denser state that flows to earth. The clouds, according to the testimony of those who have walked through them in the mountains, have this vaporous appearance, formed, as they are, of the most minute drops which are gathered and rolled together. And if further condensation takes place, so that one large drop is formed out of many small ones, the air, unable to support it, yields to its weight as it travels, down, and this is the explanation of rain. Hence, from the existence of the air between the vapors that form the clouds above and the seas that stretch out below, our commentator proposed to show that there is a heaven between water and water. This painstaking inquiry is, in my opinion, quite praiseworthy; for the theory advanced is not contrary to the faith, and it makes it possible for one to accept the evidence at hand. - The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Volume 1, Book Two, Chapter 4

© Copyright Original Source

I go into quite a bit of material in that blog post. Too much to include here. I'm not really interested in taking up this debate, but I thought Quantum Weirdness would appreciate it. I probably should have mentioned it in a PM instead.

[jordanriver]

if the "raqiya`" is supposed to be solid , how does one explain a few verses later

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

maybe "solid" needs to be defined, if birds and insects and other flying creatures can fly in it...

[Adrift]

if the "raqiya`" is supposed to be solid , how does one explain a few verses later

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

maybe "solid" needs to be defined, if birds and insects and other flying creatures can fly in it...

This comes up pretty often in these debates, and the rebuttal is typically that the Hebrew preposition al-P'nëy (which literally translates "upon" [`al] "the face" [paniym]) is best translated "in front of" or "before" the raqia. The implication is that birds are flying in front of a solid dome, but cannot fly in it.

OT scholars like Claus Westermann (who actually supports the solid dome reading) and Randall Younker point out that there are other ways to interpret the passage though. So, for instance,

Source: Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary by Claus Westermann pg. 137

P describes the living space by using the preposition עַל in two different ways: "Let birds fly above (עַל) the earth, across (עַל) the firmament of the heavens." It is very difficult for us to render the preposition here as it has such a broad scope; what is intended is, over the earth and under the vault of heaven. Hebrew had to use some such roundabout expression because it had no word for space or atmosphere, where the air was, but only for air in motion (L. Kohler, ZAW 32 [1912] 12).

© Copyright Original Source

[klaus54]

if the "raqiya`" is supposed to be solid , how does one explain a few verses later

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

maybe "solid" needs to be defined, if birds and insects and other flying creatures can fly in it...

Then how does one explain the ra'qia separating the waters above and below. And the birds flew "in the face of the ra'qia".

Also there's that Exekiel thing.

And phenomonology.

And the ANE culture.

Why aren't you interested in truth?

It's hard "to kick against the pricks", ain't it?

K54

P.S. "Ezekiel" - not the former "Ekiel". LOL

[jordanriver]

This comes up pretty often in these debates, and the rebuttal is typically that the Hebrew preposition al-P'nëy (which literally translates "upon" [`al] "the face" [paniym]) is best translated "in front of" or "before" the raqia. The implication is that birds are flying in front of a solid dome, but cannot fly in it.

OT scholars like Claus Westermann (who actually supports the solid dome reading) and Randall Younker point out that there are other ways to interpret the passage though. So, for instance,

Source: Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary by Claus Westermann pg. 137

P describes the living space by using the preposition עַל in two different ways: "Let birds fly above (עַל) the earth, across (עַל) the firmament of the heavens." It is very difficult for us to render the preposition here as it has such a broad scope; what is intended is, over the earth and under the vault of heaven. Hebrew had to use some such roundabout expression because it had no word for space or atmosphere, where the air was, but only for air in motion (L. Kohler, ZAW 32 [1912] 12).

© Copyright Original Source

ok, i'll give you that...
........ALSO.........

I'll give you that that ancient verse can ALSO be translated "in front of" or "upon"

But I can show its ALSO been shown to be translate INTO

for one, the KJV translation which I've already just posted.



the NIV and the Revised Standard Version translates to yet another version "across" (what , under? through and across?, who knows)
the NIV:
Genesis 1:20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”

RSV
Genesis 20:1 And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens.”


the Catholic's (that I know of) Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition OTOH , the "fowl" do not penetrate the "raqiya`"
Genesis 1:20 God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.

I find a Greek Septuagint translation to English saying
Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth reptiles having life, and winged creatures flying above the earth in the firmament of heaven, and it was so.
(google translate of "
"Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Ἐξαγαγέτω τὰ ὕδατα ἑρπετὰ ψυχῶν ζωσῶν καὶ πετεινὰ πετόμενα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κατὰ τὸ στερέωμα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως."
google translated this part "ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κατὰ τὸ στερέωμα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ." to "on earth during the firmament of heaven"
google translated this part "γῆς κατὰ τὸ στερέωμα τοῦ οὐρανοῦ" to "earth in the open firmament of heaven"

so I looked at the Latin Vulgate
20 dixit etiam Deus producant aquae reptile animae viventis et volatile super terram sub firmamento caeli
google translated it to "And God said, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures of heaven,"

.......the Russians
Russian Synodal Version (RUSV)
Бытие 1:И сказал Бог: да произведет вода пресмыкающихся, душу живую; и птицы да полетят над землею, по тверди небесной.

google translated "And God said, Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures; and let birds fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."

(I know red is supposed to be Jesus' words' color, but Russians always make me think of red)

so neither side has a 'solid' case here.

[jordanriver]

Then how does one explain the ra'qia separating the waters above and below. And the birds flew "in the face of the ra'qia".

a few thousand years later and we got all kinds of translations. take your pick

oh, define the water that was "above" and the water that was "below", do you have a definition

define solid while you're at it.

YOU GOT NO CASE, nobody does.

I know how desperately you want to destroy the Bible, but better luck next time.

[klaus54]

a few thousand years later and we got all kinds of translations. take your pick

oh, define the water that was "above" and the water that was "below", do you have a definition

define solid while you're at it.

YOU GOT NO CASE, nobody does.

I know how desperately you want to destroy the Bible, but better luck next time.

Well, I DO have a case based on phenomology and the fact the Hebrews 4000 years ago had no idea of spherical Earth or what the "sky" was.

BTW, do you have anymore "literal" interpretations of the Genesis stories that fit your anti-"Darwinist" scientifically ignorant philosophy?

Or do you want to make the early Genesis chapters outright lies?

K54

[jordanriver]

Well, I DO have a case based on phenomology and the fact the Hebrews 4000 years ago had no idea of spherical Earth or what the "sky" was.

so what?

God knew what He meant.
Paul informs me and other Christians that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..."

so I have no problem with the prophet/or scribe writing it down wondering what it means.

I believe that you do not believe there is a God , or if there is some god somewhere, he had nothing to do with inspiring anybody to write anything, especially The Bible that the Christians use.

Or do you want to make the early Genesis chapters outright lies?

pot kettle black

[klaus54]

so what?

God knew what He meant.
Paul informs me and other Christians that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..."

so I have no problem with the prophet/or scribe writing it down wondering what it means.

I believe that you do not believe there is a God , or if there is some god somewhere, he had nothing to do with inspiring anybody to write anything, especially The Bible that the Christians use.



pot kettle black

And God lisped in a way the ancient Hebrew could understand. The important thing is THAT God creates not how.

How arrogant you "literalists" are, assuming that God wrote to us today in accurate scientific terms when they would have meant nothing to the audience it was intended.

And you "literalists" are stinking hypocrites since there are MANY "literal" interpretations of the Genesis creation stories cherry-picked to fit weak-faithed "Bible-believing Christians that require a scientifically accurate interpretation to assuage your biblidolatry.

Wake up and concentrate on what's important.

K54

[jordanriver]

And God lisped in a way the ancient Hebrew could understand. The important thing is THAT God creates not how.

How arrogant you "literalists" are, assuming that God wrote to us today in accurate scientific terms .......

K54

WHERE KLAUSE??

WHERE??????????

Where do you fine ONE OF MY POSTS that claim the Bible is a scientific textbook?

I am the one who says it isn't

[JonathanL]

And God lisped in a way the ancient Hebrew could understand. The important thing is THAT God creates not how.

How arrogant you "literalists" are, assuming that God wrote to us today in accurate scientific terms when they would have meant nothing to the audience it was intended.

And you "literalists" are stinking hypocrites since there are MANY "literal" interpretations of the Genesis creation stories cherry-picked to fit weak-faithed "Bible-believing Christians that require a scientifically accurate interpretation to assuage your biblidolatry.

Wake up and concentrate on what's important.

K54

I don't believe that the creation account in Genesis was written using "accurate scientific terms", but reading this frothing-at-the-mouth piece you just produced I might be tempted to take up the position just for the sake of seeing just how furious I would be able to make you. You might be more correct than what the "the Bible was written using accurate scientific terms"-crowd is, but they certainly seem more emotionally stable than you are.

[Adrift]

I don't believe that the creation account in Genesis was written using "accurate scientific terms", but reading this frothing-at-the-mouth piece you just produced I might be tempted to take up the position just for the sake of seeing just how furious I would be able to make you. You might be more correct than what the "the Bible was written using accurate scientific terms"-crowd is, but they certainly seem more emotionally stable than you are.

Yeah. I'm certainly not an anti-Darwinist, but I know that if I were, if I was talked down to, and called a weak-faithed hypocrite, it certainly wouldn't motivate me to examine his perspective on the issue.

[rogue06]

I'm not sure if you actually read my blog post, but the details are there. Here it is for you to read if you like,

Source: http://lexiconangelos.blogspot.com/2012/07/not-so-firm-ament.html

From an apologetic standpoint, Augustine, it seems, questioned the material makeup of the firmament, and found a "praiseworthy" theory,

But what is the firmament? Is it that heaven which extends beyond all the realm of air and above the air's farthest heights, where the lights and the stars are set on the forth day? Or is the air itself called the firmament? - The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Volume 1, Book Two, Chapter 1

A certain commentator has made a praiseworthy attempt to demonstrate that the waters are above the heavens, so as to support the word of Scripture with the visible and tangible phenomena of nature. First of all, he establishes the easiest step in his argument by showing that the air about us is also called "sky" or "heaven." This is true not only in our ordinary speech, in which we refer to "a clear sky" or "a cloudy sky," but also in the usage of Holy Scripture, in which there is mention of the birds of heaven (it is obvious that the birds fly in this air about us); and our Lord, when He spoke of the clouds, said, You know how to read the face of heaven. We often see the clouds gather also in the air near the earth, and in that case settle on the slopes of hills so that most of the mountain peaks tower above them.

The commentator referred to above, having proved that the atmosphere near us is called heaven, wished it also to be designated by the term "firmament," for the simple reason that he divides its space between water in a vaporous state and water in a denser state that flows to earth. The clouds, according to the testimony of those who have walked through them in the mountains, have this vaporous appearance, formed, as they are, of the most minute drops which are gathered and rolled together. And if further condensation takes place, so that one large drop is formed out of many small ones, the air, unable to support it, yields to its weight as it travels, down, and this is the explanation of rain. Hence, from the existence of the air between the vapors that form the clouds above and the seas that stretch out below, our commentator proposed to show that there is a heaven between water and water. This painstaking inquiry is, in my opinion, quite praiseworthy; for the theory advanced is not contrary to the faith, and it makes it possible for one to accept the evidence at hand. - The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Volume 1, Book Two, Chapter 4

© Copyright Original Source

I go into quite a bit of material in that blog post. Too much to include here. I'm not really interested in taking up this debate, but I thought Quantum Weirdness would appreciate it. I probably should have mentioned it in a PM instead.

I'll have to read your blog for the full context (perhaps over the weekend if I remember) but it seems that Augustine is discussing the "praiseworthy attempt" by a "certain commentator" there (IIRC this was very likely Basil of Caesarea). Moreover we still have Augustine's direct statement that the firmament "is solid and constitutes an impassable boundary."

[rogue06]

Yeah. I'm certainly not an anti-Darwinist, but I know that if I were, if I was talked down to, and called a weak-faithed hypocrite, it certainly wouldn't motivate me to examine his perspective on the issue.

In a sense this is why the atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse has said that folks like Richard Dawkins are in a way those who oppose evolution greatest allies.

Source: Fighting the Fundamentalists: Chamberlain or Churchill?

The creationists and the ID supporters simply love Dawkins and his ilk. They pray that they will say more and more. Every time the atheists open their mouths they win converts to the literalist cause. The creationists have been saying all along that Darwinism equals atheism, and now the Darwinians apparently agree! Americans in the middle—meaning, generally, religious Americans in the middle—get the message that science, and Darwinism particularly, threatens their faith. Dembski once wrote to Dawkins: “I know that you personally don’t believe in God, but I want to thank you for being such a wonderful foil for theism and for intelligent design more generally. In fact, I regularly tell my colleagues that you and your work are one of God’s greatest gifts to the intelligent design movement. So please, keep at it!”

© Copyright Original Source