You always get hung up on this point of roots, a compounded word has a different meaning than the root word which is why the writer used it instead of the root word.
quite. i know this is true. however, the etymology can often be used to help determine what exactly people are talking about. and this case, we're just dealing with a NOUN CASE of a VERB. i was looking at the meaning of verb so that we might know more about what the noun could mean. and they're only one letter different.
My point was that even non rigid things can be made firm without being made rigid, to show what it is a figure of speech.
yeah, sure. like cake, or jello, or any number of cooking things -- all of which are still solids, btw. jello might even be a particularly good example, since it starts as a liquid.
yes gases can be made firm too, by being bonded to surfaces, encapsulated and other processes. So even humans can make gases firm
uh. what?
To try to say that the Bible literally states that the sky is metal, is like the YECs who prowl through science books looking for things to try to support YEC. They grab a phrase here or there while ignoring the fact that they are taking it out of context and that their interpretation of it runs counter to what the author is trying to say. You are taking a phrase and a poetic expression out of context and misinterpreting in a way that conflicts with the overall biblical description of the subject.
and you're still missing the context that the flood is basically un-creation. the water involved has to be the same water from which everything was created. there's a good deal of symbolic meaning there, that just disappears if you say they're talking about clouds.
you're also missing the cultural context, which directly lines up with the genesis account, and depicts a metal dome as the sky. it can be demonstrated that redactors of genesis was not concerned with literal accuracy or even internal consistency. they were trying to preserve their cultural history, whether or not it fit the real world. and so to include an out-of-date (even at the time) wolrdview common to people around them is not suprising.
Yes that is my point, it is Hebrew poetry, it is not a literal description! You accept that both the casting and stretching are figurative, yet you insist that a literal metal is being referred to.
figurative of what, though? what is it talking about?
The reason for that is simple, you are clinging to your belief that the Bible teaches primitive thoughts of man and is not the Word of God.
my argument is the same of your's, only in reverse. you're clinging to the belief that the bible is the word of god (and by implication literally accurate) and not the thoughts of the people who actually wrote it. it can be THOROUGHLY demonstrated that the bible is not even internally consistent, let alone accurate.
if it's the word of god, and i think it is in some respects, then it deals with GREATER truths than whether or not god made the sky out of metal. that's not the point of genesis. the point of BOTH genesis accounts of creation, even if they contradict each other, is that there is something of god in us. genesis 1 says we are made in the image of god. genesis 2 says our life -- our souls -- came from the breath of god. this is what the authors of genesis were concerned with, not describing the real world.
however, that does not mean that we can't use the text to see how they thought of the world.
This is part of the justification for your belief system, to see this point would put a crack in your foundation, so you refuse to see it because you can't afford to. I am trying to make you see something that is in the center of one of your blind spots, unless you shift your viewpoint a bit, you will never see it.
this is not a blindspot, or a viewpoint. it can be objectively proven that the bible is fallible on many accounts. prophesies fail, and are later interpretted out of context. stories contradict each other. jesus's teachings are only loosely based in the old testament, and paul's teachings often contradict jesus. it's simply not one consistent book, written by one consistent author, let alone a perfect and omniscient one. if it was, why no quantum physics? sure, they wouldn't have understood it at the time, but we would have now. want the best proof you're just plain looking at the book wrong?
quote:
Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
now, do you think proverbs is part of god's definitive philosophy on how we should live our lives? or is a collection of traditional sayings of the people of ancient israel and judah? if it's the first option, why couldn't god give us a clear answer on whether we should ignore fools or rebuke them? or at least when to do one, and when to do the other? in fact, one of these sayings seems to be the ANSWER to the other one, doesn't it?
if it's the word of god, we have a real problem in this verse. god can't make up his mind! if it's the words of men, we don't have too much of a problem, do we? it's just some sayings they had. and they're both SORTA true, aren't they? maybe the truth in both statements comes from god, but the words themselves do not.
Wow! Good point! But no, that still doesn't make the Jews Babylonians any more than Americans are British. The point of Gen 11:31 is that they left Ur and became a separate people with their own identity and beliefs which were different from the Chaldeans.
no they didn't. chaldeans didn't exist until almost 1000 years later.
also, the jews RETURNED to babylon, didn't they? genesis seems to have been written under babylonian captivity. the fact that chaldeans didn't existed until 1000 years later is part of that proof, btw. i have heard some apologist readings, and they might have a point. however, the text still contains a bunch of other anachronisms that put it at about 600 bc. and all of the babylonian similarities put the people who wrote it in babylon, where most of judah was anyways. like i said, no suprises.
The independent accounts that Moses put together in writing the book of Genesis included the oral or written records handed down through the Flood
moses could not have written genesis. point of fact.
quote:
Gen 36:31 And these [are] the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the children of Israel.
because there were no kings in israel until well after moses
it is from these early accounts that the Babylonians stories draw their information. The Babylonian accounts have been changed, but the common source is still obvious as you pointed out.
the epic of gilgamesh, containing the flood story, predates the traditional creationist view of the world. in other words, this story's "older than sin." not to mention the hebrew people. i think your suppositions about who got what from who are reversed.
Gen 36:31 isn't a problem, it was written by Moses who also wrote (Genesis 35:11) ". . .and kings will come out of your loins."
will. one is future tense, the other is passed. if i said "before america had presidents" do you suppose i wrote it before the revolutionary war or after?
Deuteronomy
quote:
Deu 1:1 These [be] the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness...
deuteronomy even says moses couldn't have written it. it starts with a speech given to people when they just enter the promised land. moses did not enter the promised land. he died in the wilderness. the text had to, at the VERY least, be written by someone on the other side. more importantly, deuteronomy seems to be this book:
quote:
2Ki 23:24 Moreover the [workers with] familiar spirits, and the wizards, and the images, and the idols, and all the abominations that were spied in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, did Josiah put away, that he might perform the words of the law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the LORD.
the things that josiah does are in accordance with a set of laws that previously judah did not have. then they "found" this book in the temple somewhere, and enacted a bunch of stuff. one of the key points is that they shut down EVERY temple in judah in except the temple in jerusalem. it's on this standard of jerusalem being the ONLY house of the lord that every king of israel is judged as unrighteous in the book of kings: this is the sin of jereboam.
quote:
Deu 12:13 Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place that thou seest:
Deu 12:14 But in the place which the LORD shall choose in one of thy tribes, there thou shalt offer thy burnt offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee.
no other book in the torah has this. the evidence, quite frankyl, is that dueteronomy is an outright forgery from the reign ot josiah designed in part to point a finger at israel as idolators. if you want to debate that concept, i had thread about that that died from inactivity, so take it
there.
Moses knew that Israel would one day have kings, it was common knowledge to him
actually, moses seems to have thought that israel would be ruled by prophets. the person who succeeds him is... a warrior prophet. the people who succeed him are theocratic judges. now SAMUEL seemed to think that israel needed a king -- everyone else sort of disagreed if i recall.
Also consider that no one thought that is was an error, until people began to doubt God' word and started to look for excuses not to believe.
actually, considering how NO ONE HAD dueteronomy until the reign of josiah, nobody cared. there were no references before then to indicate that there "would be" kings.
Considering how much you have bragged up the JPS I am surprised that they have this wrong. Look at what Strong states on the Hebrew word used in this verse.
Strong's Number: 7834
Transliterated: shachaq
Phonetic: shakh'-ak
Text: from 7833; a powder (as beaten small): by analogy, a thin vapor; by extension, the firmament: --cloud, small dust, heaven, sky.
that's great!
one problem: wrong word.
we're looking for 8064 (
שמים) and 7549 (
רקיע).
although the job verse in question does use that word, it's still talking abotu something that is strong like metal. but sure, i'll agree they're using that figuratively. they're saying god made something the know is composed of gasses and such strong.
And as shown by Psalm 148:4 the Hebrews viewed the waters above as still being there, and as shown by many scriptures, they knew water came from the clouds, hence the water above was the clouds.
does not follow. two different waters. we could use this argument to proclaim that rivers don't really exist, since they obviously know that the waters of the earth are oceans.
Not inconsistent, the clouds are above the Hebrew heaven, they are the water above. As to where the water went, it is still here, the sealevel was lower in the Ice Age.
no, it's inconsistent because in one place, you're claiming the waters above are the heavens, and in other, you're saying the waters are above the heavens.
and clearly, since the sun and moon and stars are IN the heavens, and clouds are not above them, this argument is wrong.
The two accounts don't conflict.
yes. they do.
quote:
Genesis 1:12-13
And the earth brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of ever kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that this was good. And there was an evening and there was a morning, a third day.
quote:
Genesis 2:4.5-5
When the LORD God made earth and heaven -- when no shrub of the field was yet on the earth and grasses of the field had not yet sprouted...
it goes on too. animals are made after people, too. the orders are OPPOSITE. and it refers to god differently. genesis 1 refers to god as "elohym" and genesis 2 refers to god as "yahweh elohym." different stories, different authors.
Don't you think Moses; or who ever you think actually wrote it, wouldn't have noticed?
yes, actually, i do think the redactor noticed. i just think he didn't CARE.
Why are all of these 'contradictions' only apparent to modern critics and were invisible to earlier readers?
no, people have known for thousands of years that these stories don't line up. it's only when the people who insist that bible has to be the word of god and literally accurate came around that people started to care about this fact. earlier, it simply didn't bother anybody. these weren't the points of the stories.
I mean if I was the complier of the Genesis account, and I mean for it to be interpreted as you do, I certainly would have corrected the 'contradiction'.
which simply proves that you did not compile the genesis account. heck, i would have done it too. but it tells us something about the philosophy of the person who DID compile it. let's look.
The fact that this error wasn't corrected despite how plainly obvious it would have been, can only mean that it isn't an error.
you're right in some respect. see, the people who compiled genesis were compiling a holy text. they KNEW it was a holy text. and they knew it came from holy texts. genesis is not a book, it's a collection of books, just like the bible. they didn't add anything to sources, or take anything away, or change anything. to do so would have been a greivous sin. these guys are just scribes, arranging pre-existing texts in chronological order. who are they CHANGE the word of god?
and so they kept the internal accuracy of the texts without rectifying them against one another, just as WE do with the new testament and the old testament. imagine if we tacked on a couple extra books, and then to make everything line up nicely, we went and CHANGED the older books? how upset would people get?
their priority was keeping the texts intact, not making them one consistent book.
And the only way they could not have viewed it as an error is if the days referred to, were not literal.
no, this is a false logical conclusion. the stories certainly mean what they say literally. they're often INTERPRETTED metaphorically, but the stories themselves are never metaphors in genesis. the only way they could not have viewed the inconsistency as an error, is if the stories were both accurate to the originals. and they were. maybe they had some sort of apologistics in place. but they probably just didn't care, and gather other, more meaningful things from the stories.
that is what they do now. you see, i don't think the people who wrote the bible were "primitive" at all. quite the contrary, i think they were suprisingly modern, and just trying to record their traditions, which have roots in the primitive.
we're examining the primitive roots, here.
I meant all of the major conflicts with the fossil record. Most of the other contradicts are problems of your interpretation and are not real.
really? who's jesus's grandfather on joseph's side?
if you give me the stock answer that one of them was really mary's dad, that's an interpretation. the text has contradictions in it, plain and simple. the people who apologize for it, and try to bend the texts to fit each other are interpreting, not the people who point out that the text says two very different things.
The Hebrews certainly knew that you can't grow plants without light, ever wonder how they understood the account? Obviously your interpretation is flawed.
so there was no light before the sun? funny, god divides light and dark on day one, which starts with a night and then has a daytime. the sun doesn't come about until day four, if memory serves. four daytimes -- no light. hmm.
now, do i honestly think the people in 600 bc judah thought that it was just a coincidence that the sun was always out in the daytime? no, probably not. but their ancient legend implies the two are not related. i'm not saying these people were stupid -- i'm saying that they have a record of ancient legends that don't seem to fully understand the universe they live in, and they have accurately kept those legends intact for more than 2600 years.
אָרַח
™ Version 4.2
