BibleForums Christian Message Board
Bible Talk => Just Bible => Topic started by: Jemand on September 08, 2025, 01:39:25 AM
-
Why is Genesis 1-11 written in a genre of literature that is not found anywhere else in the Bible?
-
Why is Genesis 1-11 written in a genre of literature that is not found anywhere else in the Bible?
Want to expand on that?
-
Why is Genesis 1-11 written in a genre of literature that is not found anywhere else in the Bible?
Because we don't meet the first Jew until Genesis 12?
-
Why is Genesis 1-11 written in a genre of literature that is not found anywhere else in the Bible?
Because we don't meet the first Jew until Genesis 12?
Thank you for your reply! Yes, Abraham is introduced in Genesis 12:1 and we have in this verse the beginning of a long, consecutive account of the Israelites up through the death of Joshua and Eleazar the son of Aaron. This long, consecutive account of the Israelites is in stark contrast to the many short stories that we read in Genesis 1-11 and thus we have two distinctly different genres of literature in Genesis 1-11 compared with the rest of Genesis (and the rest of the Hextateuch). This long, consecutive account belongs to the genre of Biblical literature commonly known as the Historical Narrative.
But . . . how about Genesis 1-11? To what genre of literature do these chapters belong? Some scholars of Genesis use the term “mythological narrative” thereby attributing the stores in Genesis 1-11 to myths. It is true that this genre of literature is found in epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends, but does that mean that the stories in Genesis 1-11 are merely epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends? I am confident that they are not. I believe that the stories in Genesis 1-11 are the inspired word of God given to us by God in the genre of literature found in epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends to bring to our attention that the stories are not to be understood as literal, accurate accounts of past events, but rather fundamental spiritual truths clothed in literature that could be understood by the original recipients of the stores.
-
Some scholars of Genesis use the term “mythological narrative” thereby attributing the stores in Genesis 1-11 to myths
Myth doesn't mean "not true", cf. N.T. Wright. You pretty much say this with:
"I believe that the stories in Genesis 1-11 are the inspired word of God given to us by God in the genre of literature found in epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends to bring to our attention that the stories are not to be understood as literal, accurate accounts of past events, but rather fundamental spiritual truths clothed in literature that could be understood by the original recipients of the stores."
Maybe you'd prefer a term like "mytho-history"?
-
Some scholars of Genesis use the term “mythological narrative” thereby attributing the stores in Genesis 1-11 to myths
Myth doesn't mean "not true", cf. N.T. Wright. You pretty much say this with:
"I believe that the stories in Genesis 1-11 are the inspired word of God given to us by God in the genre of literature found in epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends to bring to our attention that the stories are not to be understood as literal, accurate accounts of past events, but rather fundamental spiritual truths clothed in literature that could be understood by the original recipients of the stores."
Maybe you'd prefer a term like "mytho-history"?
Thank you for sharing with us!
Personally, I would not use the term “mytho-history” because there is no use of figurative language in Genesis 1-11, neither is there any use of poetical or allegorical language. Indeed, the language in Genesis 1-11 is purely literal, but it does not tell the reader of actual, historical events. The days (יוֹם) are real 24-hour days; the dome (רָקִיעַ) is a real, strong solid structure that separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome; and the windows (אֲרֻבָּה) are real, solid structures that function as floodgates.
-
Personally, I would not use the term “mytho-history” because there is no use of figurative language in Genesis 1-11, neither is there any use of poetical or allegorical language. Indeed, the language in Genesis 1-11 is purely literal, but it does not tell the reader of actual, historical events. The days (יוֹם) are real 24-hour days; the dome (רָקִיעַ) is a real, strong solid structure that separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome; and the windows (אֲרֻבָּה) are real, solid structures that function as floodgates.
Very curious
-
But . . . how about Genesis 1-11? To what genre of literature do these chapters belong? Some scholars of Genesis use the term “mythological narrative” thereby attributing the stores in Genesis 1-11 to myths. It is true that this genre of literature is found in epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends, but does that mean that the stories in Genesis 1-11 are merely epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends? I am confident that they are not. I believe that the stories in Genesis 1-11 are the inspired word of God given to us by God in the genre of literature found in epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends to bring to our attention that the stories are not to be understood as literal, accurate accounts of past events, but rather fundamental spiritual truths clothed in literature that could be understood by the original recipients of the stores.
It's uh, not clear to me what you're trying to do here. What prevents those stories form being literal? Why can't they be literal and also contain fundamental truths about the human condition?
-
I'm not sure what Fenris might say, but I see these stories as setting the history of the fledgling Israelite nation. Assuming the typical YEC history of 6000 years, the first 11 chapters cover about a third of all human history.
There is so much common imagery with other ANE stories, but radically different, particularly with respect to the monotheism and the placement of humanity within the created order, which stands against many other contrmporary myths.
There are certain things like Noah being instructed about taking clean and unclean animals well before these were defined for the Israelites that suggest at least a later collation and editing of probable oral history.
-
Thank you for sharing with us!
Who is "us"?
Personally, I would not use the term “mytho-history” because there is no use of figurative language in Genesis 1-11, neither is there any use of poetical or allegorical language.
There most certainly is poetic language in Genesis 1-11.
A great example in Gen 4:
Lamech said to his wives,
“Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
wives of Lamech, hear my words."
That's poetic langauge.
Indeed, the language in Genesis 1-11 is purely literal, but it does not tell the reader of actual, historical events. The days (יוֹם) are real 24-hour days; the dome (רָקִיעַ) is a real, strong solid structure that separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome; and the windows (אֲרֻבָּה) are real, solid structures that function as floodgates.
So it's "purely literal" when it describes objects, but not "purely literal" when it describes historical events? How do you know this?
"יוֹם" does indeed mean day, but how do you know that it's 24 hours?
רָקִיעַ can be translated many ways, but none of it means that it's a "solid dome". KJV of the pertinent verses: And God said, Let there be a firmament (רָקִיעַ) in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament (רָקִיעַ) Heaven.
Or the NIV: And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.”
Or in the original Klingon, I mean, Hebrew: וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי רָקִיעַ בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּיִם, וִיהִי מַבְדִּיל, בֵּין מַיִם לָמָיִם.
וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הָרָקִיעַ, וַיַּבְדֵּל בֵּין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת לָרָקִיעַ, וּבֵין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מֵעַל לָרָקִיעַ; וַיְהִי-כֵן
וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָרָקִיעַ, שָׁמָיִם
The "firmament" or "vault" is the sky itself, as the text makes clear. Not a "solid dome".
I can go to the beach and look at the ocean, and the heavens, and there is no solid dome separating them.
and the windows (אֲרֻבָּה) are real, solid structures that function as floodgates.
Gen 7:11 says "וַֽאֲרֻבֹּ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם נִפְתָּֽחוּ" "the windows of the heavens opened up". In English we might say that "It was raining cats and dogs", which doesn't mean that actual mammals are falling from the sky. It's an expression, just like "the windows of the heavens opened up".
-
I'm not sure what Fenris might say, but I see these stories as setting the history of the fledgling Israelite nation. Assuming the typical YEC history of 6000 years, the first 11 chapters cover about a third of all human history.
But interestingly enough, written history goes back about 6000 years.
I'm not saying that the stories need to be read literally or not literally. But the OP wants the language descibing objects to be read hyper literally while the language discussing history to be read as completely figurative. Without explaining why this should be so.
-
Now, in a more general sense, if we're going to say that the Hebrew Bible is the story if the Jewish people, (and it is!) then anything prior to our main characters coming onscene is going to be backstory, and more vague by design. Which doesn't mean that it doesn't have anything interesting or important to teach is, because it does.
-
(and the rest of the Hextateuch)
Whoops, I just noticed this. This is a modern term, only coming into use after 1870 or so. I'm not aware of any Jewish or Christian sects who believe that the book of Joshua is part of the five books of Moses.
-
Why is Genesis 1-11 written in a genre of literature that is not found anywhere else in the Bible?
Because we don't meet the first Jew until Genesis 12?
First Hebrew that is ;)
-
First Hebrew that is
I confess that the term is anachronistic, but it is also very descriptive. And so I use it.
-
But . . . how about Genesis 1-11? To what genre of literature do these chapters belong? Some scholars of Genesis use the term “mythological narrative” thereby attributing the stores in Genesis 1-11 to myths. It is true that this genre of literature is found in epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends, but does that mean that the stories in Genesis 1-11 are merely epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends? I am confident that they are not. I believe that the stories in Genesis 1-11 are the inspired word of God given to us by God in the genre of literature found in epic tales, sagas, myths, and legends to bring to our attention that the stories are not to be understood as literal, accurate accounts of past events, but rather fundamental spiritual truths clothed in literature that could be understood by the original recipients of the stores.
It's uh, not clear to me what you're trying to do here. What prevents those stories form being literal? Why can't they be literal and also contain fundamental truths about the human condition?
At least as early as the third century Christians were observing and writing that what they could see with their eyes and touch with their hands did not agree with what they were reading in Genesis 1-11. Indeed, Andrew Louth has given to us a full volume of selected quotes from the writings of the Fathers of the Church on Genesis 1-11 beginning with Clement of Rome late in the first century up through Theophylact of Ohrid in 1100. St. Augustine spent much of his adult life attempting to reconcile the first three chapters of Genesis with what he could plainly see to be the reality in which he lived. Late in his life (415 A.D.), he published a 400 page unfinished work entitled De Genesi ad litteram (The Literal Meaning of Genesis) in which he strenuously attempted to do but failed to do that which is, in fact, impossible. The biodiversity that we have today in land animals would necessarily have been aboard the ark in order for us to have it today. This biodiversity is so immense that the ark as described in Genesis would have been only a tiny fraction of the required size. Then there are all the marine and fresh water animals that would have perished in such a flood—not to mention the 369,054 species of vascular plants (tracheophytes) and the 17,000 species of bryophytes—most of which that would have perished in such a flood. Did I mention the dinosaurs, mammoths, ground sloths, and saber toothed cats?
-
I'm not sure what Fenris might say, but I see these stories as setting the history of the fledgling Israelite nation. Assuming the typical YEC history of 6000 years, the first 11 chapters cover about a third of all human history.
There is so much common imagery with other ANE stories, but radically different, particularly with respect to the monotheism and the placement of humanity within the created order, which stands against many other contrmporary myths.
There are certain things like Noah being instructed about taking clean and unclean animals well before these were defined for the Israelites that suggest at least a later collation and editing of probable oral history.
I like what you wrote but I disagree with the YEC history of 6000 years.
-
Thank you for sharing with us!
Who is "us"?
Personally, I would not use the term “mytho-history” because there is no use of figurative language in Genesis 1-11, neither is there any use of poetical or allegorical language.
There most certainly is poetic language in Genesis 1-11.
A great example in Gen 4:
Lamech said to his wives,
“Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
wives of Lamech, hear my words."
That's poetic langauge.
Indeed, the language in Genesis 1-11 is purely literal, but it does not tell the reader of actual, historical events. The days (יוֹם) are real 24-hour days; the dome (רָקִיעַ) is a real, strong solid structure that separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome; and the windows (אֲרֻבָּה) are real, solid structures that function as floodgates.
So it's "purely literal" when it describes objects, but not "purely literal" when it describes historical events? How do you know this?
"יוֹם" does indeed mean day, but how do you know that it's 24 hours?
רָקִיעַ can be translated many ways, but none of it means that it's a "solid dome". KJV of the pertinent verses: And God said, Let there be a firmament (רָקִיעַ) in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament (רָקִיעַ) Heaven.
Or the NIV: And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault “sky.”
Or in the original Klingon, I mean, Hebrew: וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי רָקִיעַ בְּתוֹךְ הַמָּיִם, וִיהִי מַבְדִּיל, בֵּין מַיִם לָמָיִם.
וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-הָרָקִיעַ, וַיַּבְדֵּל בֵּין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מִתַּחַת לָרָקִיעַ, וּבֵין הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר מֵעַל לָרָקִיעַ; וַיְהִי-כֵן
וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָרָקִיעַ, שָׁמָיִם
The "firmament" or "vault" is the sky itself, as the text makes clear. Not a "solid dome".
I can go to the beach and look at the ocean, and the heavens, and there is no solid dome separating them.
and the windows (אֲרֻבָּה) are real, solid structures that function as floodgates.
Gen 7:11 says "וַֽאֲרֻבֹּ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם נִפְתָּֽחוּ" "the windows of the heavens opened up". In English we might say that "It was raining cats and dogs", which doesn't mean that actual mammals are falling from the sky. It's an expression, just like "the windows of the heavens opened up".
Yes, Genesis 4:23 is an example of poetry in Genesis 1-11.
The meaning of "יוֹם" is determined from the context.
Gen. 1:6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. (KJV)
The Hebrew Masoretic text of Genesis 1:6-8 expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”
1:6 ויאמר אלהים יהי רקיע בתוך המים ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים׃
1:7 ויעשׂ אלהים את־הרקיע ויבדל בין המים אשׁר מתחת לרקיע ובין המים אשׁר מעל לרקיע ויהי־כן׃
1:8 ויקרא אלהים לרקיע שׁמים ויהי־ערב ויהי־בקר יום שׁני׃
The Septuagint also expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”
Gen 1:6 Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Γενηθήτω στερέωμα ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ ὕδατος καὶ ἔστω διαχωρίζον ἀνὰ μέσον ὕδατος καὶ ὕδατος. καὶ ἐγένετο οὕτως.
Gen 1:7 καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα, καὶ διεχώρισεν ὁ θεὸς ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος, ὃ ἦν ὑποκάτω τοῦ στερεώματος, καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ ἐπάνω τοῦ στερεώματος.
Gen 1:8 καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ στερέωμα οὐρανόν. καὶ εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς ὅτι καλόν. καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί, ἡμέρα δευτέρα.
The Latin Vulgate also expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”
6. dixit quoque Deus fiat firmamentum in medio aquarum et dividat aquas ab aquis
7. et fecit Deus firmamentum divisitque aquas quae erant sub firmamento ab his quae erant super firmamentum et factum est ita
8. vocavitque Deus firmamentum caelum et factum est vespere et mane dies secundus
The NRSV correctly translates the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ as “dome.” The evidence for the correctness of this translation is found in the use of this word in ancient Hebrew literature. Based upon this usage, the Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs published by Oxford University gives us the following meaning of it in Gen. 1:6, 7, and 8, “the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it.” (p. 956)
The KJV correctly translates the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ (râqı̂ya‛) as “firmament”, but most modern readers of the KJV are unaware of the meaning of the word “firmament,” and do not realize that it came down to us from the Latin present active infinitive (firmāre) of the Latin verb firmō, meaning “I make firm, strengthen, harden, or fortify” and that it expresses the concept of the strong, solid dome that supported the water above the dome.
In the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, we find an excellent article (Vol. III, pp. 568-569 [two lengthy columns of fine print per page] on the word רָקִיעַ. Of special importance is the following from the article,
The verb רָקַע, raká, means to expand by beating, whether by the hand, the foot, or any instrument. It is especially used, however, of beating out metals into thin plates (Exod. xxxix, 3, Numb. xvi, 39), and hence the substantive רַקֻּעַים “broad plates” of metal (Numb. 16:38). (The italics are theirs).
John Skinner, the late Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature at Westminster College, Cambridge, in his commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis, writes,
6-8 Second Work: The Firmament.—The second fiat calls into existence a firmament, whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments. The “firmament” is the dome of heaven, which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a material structure, sometimes compared to an “upper chamber” (Ps. 104:12, Am 9:6) supported by “pillars” (Jb 26:11), and resembling in its surface a “molten mirror” (Jb 37:18). Above this are the heavenly waters, from which the rain descends through “windows” or “doors” (Gn 7:11, 8:2, 2 Ki 7:2, 19) opened and shut by God at His pleasure (Ps 78:23).
-
(and the rest of the Hextateuch)
Whoops, I just noticed this. This is a modern term, only coming into use after 1870 or so. I'm not aware of any Jewish or Christian sects who believe that the book of Joshua is part of the five books of Moses.
The book of Joshua is part of the Hextateuch—the first six books of the Tanakh.
-
Pardon me if I check out of this.
I’m traveling today to the edge of the earth to slay a dragon…
-
I'm not sure what Fenris might say, but I see these stories as setting the history of the fledgling Israelite nation. Assuming the typical YEC history of 6000 years, the first 11 chapters cover about a third of all human history.
There is so much common imagery with other ANE stories, but radically different, particularly with respect to the monotheism and the placement of humanity within the created order, which stands against many other contrmporary myths.
There are certain things like Noah being instructed about taking clean and unclean animals well before these were defined for the Israelites that suggest at least a later collation and editing of probable oral history.
I like what you wrote but I disagree with the YEC history of 6000 years.
I am most certainly not a YEC adherent.
-
At least as early as the third century Christians were observing and writing that what they could see with their eyes and touch with their hands did not agree with what they were reading in Genesis 1-11.
That doesn't make anything you've said true, or correct, or canonical.
Indeed, Andrew Louth has given to us a full volume of selected quotes from the writings of the Fathers of the Church on Genesis 1-11 beginning with Clement of Rome late in the first century up through Theophylact of Ohrid in 1100. St. Augustine spent much of his adult life attempting to reconcile the first three chapters of Genesis with what he could plainly see to be the reality in which he lived. Late in his life (415 A.D.), he published a 400 page unfinished work entitled De Genesi ad litteram (The Literal Meaning of Genesis) in which he strenuously attempted to do but failed to do that which is, in fact, impossible. The biodiversity that we have today in land animals would necessarily have been aboard the ark in order for us to have it today. This biodiversity is so immense that the ark as described in Genesis would have been only a tiny fraction of the required size. Then there are all the marine and fresh water animals that would have perished in such a flood—not to mention the 369,054 species of vascular plants (tracheophytes) and the 17,000 species of bryophytes—most of which that would have perished in such a flood. Did I mention the dinosaurs, mammoths, ground sloths, and saber toothed cats?
So, you have a choice. Either you believe that the bible is the inspired word of God, or you believe that it's up for grabs. If it's up for grabs, you can make it mean anything that you like. Feel free to do so. But don't tell other people that they have to ascribe to your beliefs system.
-
I'm not sure what Fenris might say, but I see these stories as setting the history of the fledgling Israelite nation. Assuming the typical YEC history of 6000 years, the first 11 chapters cover about a third of all human history.
There is so much common imagery with other ANE stories, but radically different, particularly with respect to the monotheism and the placement of humanity within the created order, which stands against many other contrmporary myths.
There are certain things like Noah being instructed about taking clean and unclean animals well before these were defined for the Israelites that suggest at least a later collation and editing of probable oral history.
I like what you wrote but I disagree with the YEC history of 6000 years.
I am most certainly not a YEC adherent.
This poster is merely playing copy pasta. Their reply above to Fenris is lifted from https://creation.com/jesus-right-on-genesis, as well as a couple of other forums. I'm debating closing this thread as the user is effectively stealing other people's content by failing to attribute.
-
Yes, Genesis 4:23 is an example of poetry in Genesis 1-11.
Wow! So you mean that there are parts of the bible actually are poetic?
The meaning of "יוֹם" is determined from the context.
No, the word simply means "day".
The Hebrew Masoretic text of Genesis 1:6-8 expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”
1:6 ויאמר אלהים יהי רקיע בתוך המים ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים׃
1:7 ויעשׂ אלהים את־הרקיע ויבדל בין המים אשׁר מתחת לרקיע ובין המים אשׁר מעל לרקיע ויהי־כן׃
1:8 ויקרא אלהים לרקיע שׁמים ויהי־ערב ויהי־בקר יום שׁני׃
I can read the Hebrew just fine, and it says nothing about a "flat earth covered with a dome".
The Septuagint also expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”
I don't know who translated the Septuagint and don't consider its translation to be correct or binding.
The Latin Vulgate also expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”
I don't consider the Latin to be authoritative or binding either.
The NRSV correctly translates the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ as “dome.”
You consider it "correct" because it supports your contention, not because it's the actual, correct translation.
The evidence for the correctness of this translation is found in the use of this word in ancient Hebrew literature. Based upon this usage, the Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs published by Oxford University gives us the following meaning of it in Gen. 1:6, 7, and 8, “the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it.” (p. 956)
I don't care what Oxford university says, either.
The KJV correctly translates the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ (râqı̂ya‛) as “firmament”, but most modern readers of the KJV are unaware of the meaning of the word “firmament,” and do not realize that it came down to us from the Latin present active infinitive (firmāre) of the Latin verb firmō, meaning “I make firm, strengthen, harden, or fortify” and that it expresses the concept of the strong, solid dome that supported the water above the dome.
None of which has any bearing on what the Hebrew word actually means.
In the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, we find an excellent article (Vol. III, pp. 568-569 [two lengthy columns of fine print per page] on the word רָקִיעַ. Of special importance is the following from the article,
The verb רָקַע, raká, means to expand by beating, whether by the hand, the foot, or any instrument. It is especially used, however, of beating out metals into thin plates (Exod. xxxix, 3, Numb. xvi, 39), and hence the substantive רַקֻּעַים “broad plates” of metal (Numb. 16:38). (The italics are theirs).
John Skinner, the late Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature at Westminster College, Cambridge, in his commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis, writes,
6-8 Second Work: The Firmament.—The second fiat calls into existence a firmament, whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments. The “firmament” is the dome of heaven, which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a material structure, sometimes compared to an “upper chamber” (Ps. 104:12, Am 9:6) supported by “pillars” (Jb 26:11), and resembling in its surface a “molten mirror” (Jb 37:18). Above this are the heavenly waters, from which the rain descends through “windows” or “doors” (Gn 7:11, 8:2, 2 Ki 7:2, 19) opened and shut by God at His pleasure (Ps 78:23).
All you're doing is cherry picking from the vast volume of literature that's been written on the bible and finding commentators who say what you want.
I'll again direct your attention to verse 8: "And God called the firmament Heaven" וַיִּקְרָ֧א אֱלֹהִ֛ים לָֽרָקִ֖יעַ שָׁמָ֑יִם which by your interpretation means that heaven is a physical dome.
-
I'm not sure what Fenris might say, but I see these stories as setting the history of the fledgling Israelite nation. Assuming the typical YEC history of 6000 years, the first 11 chapters cover about a third of all human history.
There is so much common imagery with other ANE stories, but radically different, particularly with respect to the monotheism and the placement of humanity within the created order, which stands against many other contrmporary myths.
There are certain things like Noah being instructed about taking clean and unclean animals well before these were defined for the Israelites that suggest at least a later collation and editing of probable oral history.
I like what you wrote but I disagree with the YEC history of 6000 years.
I am most certainly not a YEC adherent.
This poster is merely playing copy pasta. Their reply above to Fenris is lifted from https://creation.com/jesus-right-on-genesis, as well as a couple of other forums. I'm debating closing this thread as the user is effectively stealing other people's content by failing to attribute.
The work is my own! I wrote a letter to Shaun Doyle at Creation Ministries International and, without my permission, he published it verbatim it in an article. I have posted similar work on Christian Forums and the Baptist Board. As you can see for yourself, when I quoted from John Skinner and others scholars, I always gave them credit for their work.
-
I couldn’t find a dragon this morning….
Can you point me to the side where they are hiding?
-
Yes, Genesis 4:23 is an example of poetry in Genesis 1-11.
Wow! So you mean that there are parts of the bible actually are poetic?
The meaning of "יוֹם" is determined from the context.
No, the word simply means "day".
The Hebrew Masoretic text of Genesis 1:6-8 expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”
1:6 ויאמר אלהים יהי רקיע בתוך המים ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים׃
1:7 ויעשׂ אלהים את־הרקיע ויבדל בין המים אשׁר מתחת לרקיע ובין המים אשׁר מעל לרקיע ויהי־כן׃
1:8 ויקרא אלהים לרקיע שׁמים ויהי־ערב ויהי־בקר יום שׁני׃
I can read the Hebrew just fine, and it says nothing about a "flat earth covered with a dome".
The Septuagint also expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”
I don't know who translated the Septuagint and don't consider its translation to be correct or binding.
The Latin Vulgate also expressly describes the creation of a flat earth covered with a dome that “separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome.”
I don't consider the Latin to be authoritative or binding either.
The NRSV correctly translates the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ as “dome.”
You consider it "correct" because it supports your contention, not because it's the actual, correct translation.
The evidence for the correctness of this translation is found in the use of this word in ancient Hebrew literature. Based upon this usage, the Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs published by Oxford University gives us the following meaning of it in Gen. 1:6, 7, and 8, “the vault of heaven, or ‘firmament,’ regarded by Hebrews as solid, and supporting ‘waters’ above it.” (p. 956)
I don't care what Oxford university says, either.
The KJV correctly translates the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ (râqı̂ya‛) as “firmament”, but most modern readers of the KJV are unaware of the meaning of the word “firmament,” and do not realize that it came down to us from the Latin present active infinitive (firmāre) of the Latin verb firmō, meaning “I make firm, strengthen, harden, or fortify” and that it expresses the concept of the strong, solid dome that supported the water above the dome.
None of which has any bearing on what the Hebrew word actually means.
In the Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, we find an excellent article (Vol. III, pp. 568-569 [two lengthy columns of fine print per page] on the word רָקִיעַ. Of special importance is the following from the article,
The verb רָקַע, raká, means to expand by beating, whether by the hand, the foot, or any instrument. It is especially used, however, of beating out metals into thin plates (Exod. xxxix, 3, Numb. xvi, 39), and hence the substantive רַקֻּעַים “broad plates” of metal (Numb. 16:38). (The italics are theirs).
John Skinner, the late Principal and Professor of Old Testament Language and Literature at Westminster College, Cambridge, in his commentary on the Hebrew text of Genesis, writes,
6-8 Second Work: The Firmament.—The second fiat calls into existence a firmament, whose function is to divide the primeval waters into an upper and lower ocean, leaving a space between as the theater of further creative developments. The “firmament” is the dome of heaven, which to the ancients was no optical illusion, but a material structure, sometimes compared to an “upper chamber” (Ps. 104:12, Am 9:6) supported by “pillars” (Jb 26:11), and resembling in its surface a “molten mirror” (Jb 37:18). Above this are the heavenly waters, from which the rain descends through “windows” or “doors” (Gn 7:11, 8:2, 2 Ki 7:2, 19) opened and shut by God at His pleasure (Ps 78:23).
All you're doing is cherry picking from the vast volume of literature that's been written on the bible and finding commentators who say what you want.
I'll again direct your attention to verse 8: "And God called the firmament Heaven" וַיִּקְרָ֧א אֱלֹהִ֛ים לָֽרָקִ֖יעַ שָׁמָ֑יִם which by your interpretation means that heaven is a physical dome.
Paul H. Seely, in an article in The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227-40, correctly writes,
STANDARD Hebrew lexica and a number of modern biblical scholars
have defined the raqiac (fyqr, "firmament") of Gen 1:6-8 as a solid dome
over the earth.1 Conservative scholars from Calvin on down to the present,
however, have defined it as an atmospheric expanse.2 Some conservatives
have taken special pains to reject the concept of a solid dome on the basis
that the Bible also refers to the heavens as a tent or curtain and that refer-
ences to windows and pillars of heaven are obviously poetic.3 The word
raqiac, they say, simply means "expanse." They say the understanding of
raqiac as a solid firmament rests on the Vulgate's translation, firmamentum;
and that translation rests in turn on the LXX's translation stere<wma,
which simply reflected the Greek view of the heavens at the time the trans-
lators did their work.4 The raqiac defined as an atmospheric expanse is the
historical view according to modern conservatives; and the modern view of
the raqiac as a solid dome is simply the result of forcing biblical poetic
language into agreement with a concept found in the Babylonian epic
Enuma Elish.5
The historical evidence, however, which we will set forth in concrete
detail, shows that the raqiac was originally conceived of as being solid and
not a merely atmospheric expanse. The grammatical evidence from the
OT, which we shall examine later, reflects and confirms this conception of
solidity. The basic historical fact that defines the meaning of raqiac in Gene-
sis 1 is simply this: all peoples in the ancient world thought of the sky as
solid. This concept did not begin with the Greeks.
The question, however, arises in the modern mind, schooled as it is in the
almost infinite nature of sky and space: Did scientifically naive peoples
really believe in a solid sky, or were they just employing a mythological or
poetic concept? Or were they, perhaps, just using phenomenal language
with no attending belief that the sky actually was a solid object? That is,
were they referring to the mere appearance of the sky as a solid dome but
able to distinguish between that appearance and the reality?
The answer to these questions, as we shall see more clearly below, is that
scientifically naive peoples employed their concept of a solid sky in their
mythology, but that they nevertheless thought of the solid sky as an integral
part of their physical universe. And it is precisely because ancient peoples
were scientifically naive that they did not distinguish between the appear-
ance of the sky and their scientific concept of the sky. They had no reason
to doubt what their eyes told them was true, namely, that the stars above
them were fixed in a solid dome and that the sky literally touched the earth
at the horizon. So, they equated appearance with reality and concluded
that the sky must be a solid physical part of the universe just as much as
the earth itself.
-
But you still won’t tell me where the dragons hide on the edges…
Darn…
-
I'm not sure what Fenris might say, but I see these stories as setting the history of the fledgling Israelite nation. Assuming the typical YEC history of 6000 years, the first 11 chapters cover about a third of all human history.
There is so much common imagery with other ANE stories, but radically different, particularly with respect to the monotheism and the placement of humanity within the created order, which stands against many other contrmporary myths.
There are certain things like Noah being instructed about taking clean and unclean animals well before these were defined for the Israelites that suggest at least a later collation and editing of probable oral history.
I like what you wrote but I disagree with the YEC history of 6000 years.
I am most certainly not a YEC adherent.
Excellent! I now much more accurately understand your post. Thank you!
-
Paul H. Seely, in an article in The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227-40, correctly writes,
STANDARD Hebrew lexica and a number of modern biblical scholars
have defined the raqiac (fyqr, "firmament") of Gen 1:6-8 as a solid dome
over the earth.
Modern biblical scholars. Great. That doesn't mean that they're right, or that this is how the words were understood in ancient times. As I have already said, there are no mainstream Jewish or Christian sects that understand the word that way. It doesn't matter how many "modern scholars" you quote.
-
scientifically naive peoples
The bible isn't here to teach us science. We can discover that by ourselves. It's here to teach us moral and ethical lessons and give our lives meaning.
-
I'm not sure what Fenris might say, but I see these stories as setting the history of the fledgling Israelite nation. Assuming the typical YEC history of 6000 years, the first 11 chapters cover about a third of all human history.
There is so much common imagery with other ANE stories, but radically different, particularly with respect to the monotheism and the placement of humanity within the created order, which stands against many other contrmporary myths.
There are certain things like Noah being instructed about taking clean and unclean animals well before these were defined for the Israelites that suggest at least a later collation and editing of probable oral history.
I like what you wrote but I disagree with the YEC history of 6000 years.
I am most certainly not a YEC adherent.
This poster is merely playing copy pasta. Their reply above to Fenris is lifted from https://creation.com/jesus-right-on-genesis, as well as a couple of other forums. I'm debating closing this thread as the user is effectively stealing other people's content by failing to attribute.
The work is my own! I wrote a letter to Shaun Doyle at Creation Ministries International and, without my permission, he published it verbatim it in an article. I have posted similar work on Christian Forums and the Baptist Board. As you can see for yourself, when I quoted from John Skinner and others scholars, I always gave them credit for their work.
You'll notice my complaint was about the copy-pasta without attribution, not that you were attributing those you attributed. You may know yourself to be jemand, but to us you're niemand. We just don't know you, and so all I see is copy-pasta referencing other accounts on other forums, content on other websites, etc. And in addition, bizarre references to "us", ignoring Fenris' rebuttal re: poetical/allegorical language, and so on. So it comes across like, you're plagiarising yourself to reply to people just to ignore them just to get the point you wrote 4 years ago.
Y'know
-
Dragons….
Pfffffffff
-
Paul H. Seely, in an article in The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227-40, correctly writes,
STANDARD Hebrew lexica and a number of modern biblical scholars
have defined the raqiac (fyqr, "firmament") of Gen 1:6-8 as a solid dome
over the earth.
Modern biblical scholars. Great. That doesn't mean that they're right, or that this is how the words were understood in ancient times. As I have already said, there are no mainstream Jewish or Christian sects that understand the word that way. It doesn't matter how many "modern scholars" you quote.
Paul H. Seely, in an article in The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) 227-40, correctly writes,
STANDARD Hebrew lexica and a number of modern biblical scholars
have defined the raqiac (fyqr, "firmament") of Gen 1:6-8 as a solid dome
over the earth.
Modern biblical scholars. Great. That doesn't mean that they're right, or that this is how the words were understood in ancient times. As I have already said, there are no mainstream Jewish or Christian sects that understand the word that way. It doesn't matter how many "modern scholars" you quote.
Dismissing out of hand as wrong the views of scholars representing a very wide spectrum of theological thought (Jewish, Islamic, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, etc.) simply because their views are different than yours (whatever that view may be—you have not told us) does not mean that you are right and that they are wrong. Indeed, all that we have gotten from your posts is that they are wrong with no Hebrew lexica, commentaries on the Hebrew text, peer reviewed journal articles, etc., to support the claim that they are wrong. I, on the other hand, have provided direct quotes from all of the above.
The article that I referenced above by Paul Seely is a detailed peer reviewed journal article that supports the view that the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ is correctly translated as “dome” in the context of Genesis 1:6-8. Do you have any evidence that the view that he supports is wrong?
-
Dragons….
Pfffffffff
I do not understand your posts.
-
Proponents of a flat earth always have a dragon stashed on the edge where you fall off if you go too far…
-
Proponents of a flat earth always have a dragon stashed on the edge where you fall off if you go too far…
Wait a second... do you think The Thing's spacecraft crashed into the side of the earth?
-
Dismissing out of hand as wrong the views of scholars representing a very wide spectrum of theological thought (Jewish, Islamic, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, etc.) simply because their views are different than yours (whatever that view may be—you have not told us) does not mean that you are right and that they are wrong.
I'm an observant Jewish guy on a devout Christian forum. Believe me, I have no problem listening to views that are different from mine. My issue is something different: specifically, that you are citing scholars who are trying to overturn religious orthodoxy, both Jewish and Christian. Just because someone is a "scholar" does not give them the authority to do that, but you grant it to them anyway.
I didn't see that you cited any religious Jewish sources, and why would I care if you cited Muslim ones? They have no standing in either Judaism or Christianity.
Indeed, all that we have gotten from your posts is that they are wrong with no Hebrew lexica
Yes, because I learned the bible in Hebrew. I didn't need a "scholar" to explain it to me. I went straight to the source.
The article that I referenced above by Paul Seely is a detailed peer reviewed journal article that supports the view that the Hebrew word רָקִיעַ is correctly translated as “dome” in the context of Genesis 1:6-8. Do you have any evidence that the view that he supports is wrong?
You can't just cite some obscure source and dare me to disprove it. I have no idea who Paul Seely is, why should I believe anything that he says? Because you're commanding me to?
-
Wait a second... do you think The Thing's spacecraft crashed into the side of the earth?
Oooo the plot thickens!
-
Some scholars of Genesis use the term “mythological narrative” thereby attributing the stores in Genesis 1-11 to myths.
I have more questions.
Where does the "myth" end? Once you open up the bible for analysis in this way, it's all up for grabs.
There are those who say that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are mythological characters. So are their 12 sons. There's no historical evidence for Joseph as the prime minister of Egypt under the name "Tzafnas Paneah". Moses, Joshua, and David and Solomon are also considered myths by some. The first biblical king for whom we have extra-biblical historical evidence is Hezekiah, whom the Assyrian king Sennacherib claimed to have shut up in Jerusalem "like a bird in a cage". But some say that the entire Pentateuch was written in Babylon, so it's all myth. There are those who say that Jesus and his disciples are myths. Maybe "Big Mo" Mohammed was real, so we should be following him? Surely Joseph Smith was real, so should we all be converting to LDS?
Where does it end?
-
It ends in destruction.
It ends at Utah Valley.
It ends with Judges and every man doing what is right in his own eyes.
-
I hear that. "Biblical scholars" aren't any different from scholars who study Shakespeare. Looking at writing style and use of language is fine when dealing with a secular book. It's fine when you do it with a religious book also, so long as you don't get so caught in the weeds that you miss the overall message of the book. Which our OP seems to be doing.
-
I hear that. "Biblical scholars" aren't any different from scholars who study Shakespeare. Looking at writing style and use of language is fine when dealing with a secular book. It's fine when you do it with a religious book also, so long as you don't get so caught in the weeds that you miss the overall message of the book. Which our OP seems to be doing.
It depends on the scholar, but yeah, there's a vein of scholarship that treats it as an ancient, historical text, just as any other ancient, historical text is. Homer, the Jewish Scriptures. Old, special in a way because they're old, but nothing transcendent.
-
The OP appears to have been frightened off by all of our questions. Perhaps he just wanted to lecture us and not have a back-and-forth discussion.
-
The OP appears to have been frightened off by all of our questions. Perhaps he just wanted to lecture us and not have a back-and-forth discussion.
You occasionally get those who see the board as a pulpit to teach from, rather than a forum for meaningful dialogue.
-
The OP appears to have been frightened off by all of our questions. Perhaps he just wanted to lecture us and not have a back-and-forth discussion.
You occasionally get those who see the board as a pulpit to teach from, rather than a forum for meaningful dialogue.
I remember the name from the old BF days.
-
The OP appears to have been frightened off by all of our questions. Perhaps he just wanted to lecture us and not have a back-and-forth discussion.
You occasionally get those who see the board as a pulpit to teach from, rather than a forum for meaningful dialogue.
And sometimes the very opposite is true. However, a meaningful conversation between a rude, unbelieving Jew and a conservative, evangelical Christian may not be possible.
-
The OP appears to have been frightened off by all of our questions. Perhaps he just wanted to lecture us and not have a back-and-forth discussion.
You occasionally get those who see the board as a pulpit to teach from, rather than a forum for meaningful dialogue.
And sometimes the very opposite is true. However, a meaningful conversation between a rude, unbelieving Jew and a conservative, evangelical Christian may not be possible.
A meaningful conversation between a narcissistic condescending arrogant jerk who knows it all and is steeped in academic pride and a conservative loving Jew may also not be possible
-
unbelieving Jew
I believe in many things. One of the reasons that I am here is because believe that Christians are a sibling faith to Judaism, and we share many of the same goals. The most important of which is that our mission here is making the world a place in which God can dwell. And that's what we should be working towards. Together.
-
The OP appears to have been frightened off by all of our questions. Perhaps he just wanted to lecture us and not have a back-and-forth discussion.
You occasionally get those who see the board as a pulpit to teach from, rather than a forum for meaningful dialogue.
And sometimes the very opposite is true. However, a meaningful conversation between a rude, unbelieving Jew and a conservative, evangelical Christian may not be possible.
A meaningful conversation between a narcissistic condescending arrogant jerk who knows it all and is steeped in academic pride and a conservative loving Jew may also not be possible
Do you believe that you are better than such an imaginary person? Have you contributed anything but insults to a discussion about Genesis 1-11?
Is a thirst for knowledge and the truth characteristic of someone who thinks he knows it all? I am not the one who refuses to study the Tanakh and studies of it because he thinks he already knows all there is to know about it? I am not the one who belittles and insults Christian Biblical scholars whose beliefs are based upon objective facts rather than upon silly superstitions.
I believe “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
4. that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,
5. and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.” (From 1 Cor. 15:3-7 in the RSV)
Fenris denies all of these things!
Let’s discuss the topic of this thread rather than each other.
-
Fenris denies all of these things!
If all you guys do is talk about me, does this discussion fail the Bechdel Test?
-
Fenris denies all of these things!
If all you guys do is talk about me, does this discussion fail the Bechdel Test?
I prefer hollandaise over bechamel.