Steve said:
You make some interesting points and ill freely admit i dont know much at all about the Hebrew language however,
And for Hebrew, I'm dependant on the insights of others as well
.
Steve said:
You say one reason its poetic is because of the way the words relate to each other
Actually, I listed a good number of elements to Hebrew poetry. However, when you break it down, all poetry comes down to the way words relate to each other. Either in strict versification, such as is the case with Greek poetry (study enough Homer, and you'll get sick of doing -- -^^ -^^ -- -- -^ lol). All poetry is is prose with special rules on how to relate words together, so your criticism there would apply to every definition of poetry, much less the more loose ones.
Steve said:
But does this mean that any time someone writes about somthing in hebrew that it is poetic because the words relate. While many different words may be derived from each other in the hebrew language (and i may be wrong
, im just going by the examples that have been presented) does that mean that whenever this language is used for communication of somthing it should be considererd poetic?
If that alone, probably not, but there are a whole set of things that match in Genesis 1. It's a little different animal than when it's just one element. After all, every culture does poetry in a completely different manner. We do it principally by stress and rhyme, the Greeks did it by vowel length, and the Hebrews apparently did it through schemas of wordplay.
If you want you can present a Hebrew text that has 1). Parallelism 2). Heavy repetition and 3). Those sorts of plays on words where things sound so similar. I doubt you will find one that isn't poetry, but you're welcome to try.
Steve said:
I found the following at
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~aletheia2/Translat.pdf
The word firmament used by the KJV is a bad choice of words as it is based upon a false view of the universe. H. Vos says of this word. "The firmament is a mistranslation due to the false astronomy of the Greeks of the third century B.C., who believed that the sky was a solid crystalline sphere. Hence the Hebrew word rakia was rendered stereoma in the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
and this from
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/...rom-Genesis.pdf
Actually, the word "firmament" is the unfortunate translation of the Hebrew raqia, which means an "expanse" (Davidson, 1963, p. DCXCII) or "something stretched, spread or beaten out" (Maunder, 1939, p. 315). Inaccurately, the Septuagint translated raqia with the Greek word stereoma, which connotes a "solid structure" (Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 774). Those uninspired men probably chose that word because it reflected the current astronomical conception.
Im glad you brought this up, because it illustrates exactly my point in that we shouldnt base our interpretation of the bible on current scientific views or ideas because mans theorys can be fallible, we should let the bible interpret our current scientific views and ideas. And like i said befor, there are plenty of scientists out there that reject evoltion in support of creation because of the evidence not inspite of it.
www.answersingenesis.org is a prime example.
There are a couple of problems in what you say. First, the LXX was the Bible of the apostles and Early Church. It was produced in antiquity when they had more Hebrew texts to work with (whole books that no longer exist). Lastly, you surrender significant ground on important doctrines like the Virgin Birth. I wouldn't want to dismiss the LXX too easily if I were you.
Now, on
raqia, I can't name a translation that treats it the way you do, and I own a copy of Langenscheidt's small Hebrew dictionary. Here are the listings for our word: "to stamp, to beat, to expand, to crush, to hammer out, to overlay." It also has a note on a similar form as a noun,
rikkua, "plate, beaten-out metal."
I don't read Hebrew, but I have a couple of things. First, I have the English translations. They seem to all use firmness. Then I have the LXX, which says the same basic thing. Lastly, and with the least force by far, I have the pocket dictionary that asserts that it is compatible ("hammer out," "stretch out," and very similar to a word that means "plate, beaten-out metal"). That says a lot to me, especially the LXX.
Your articles, though, come from sites, whose credibility I cannot evaluate. Contradict the facts I know, and which have as their purpose advancing a literal interpretation of Genisis, and thus, reason to distance themselves from the sort of interpretation I have proffered. Could you give me an citation from a source that we would both consider credible? A mainstream commentary or scholar would do nicely here.
Steve said:
Your question about how literal we should take the bible is a good one and i admit that it can get tricky sometimes
, but there are some clear lines and themes throughout the bible. Id say that if someone is trying to say that God used death and suffering to bring about the existance of all that we see now it goes directly against the God that the bible makes clear. The bible says that
"The last enemy to be destroyed is death." - 1 Corinthians 15:26
Now to say that the God of the bible used death to create all the life we see now, i belive in light of the bible is absurd.
Or how about a view that since angels had already sinned before us, death had already come, and Adam was placed in a "garden," a protected area. I could further this by saying that Adam was already aware of what death was. I don't need to assert that death was part of God's original plan, so there is no absurdity in my claim there.
EDIT:
I might also point out your second source doesn't help your argument on Gen. 1.6. I can't believe I didn't see that at first glance. He says "
ctually, the word "firmament" is the unfortunate translation of the Hebrew raqia, which means an "expanse" (Davidson, 1963, p. DCXCII) or "something stretched, spread or beaten out" (Maunder, 1939, p. 315). Inaccurately, the Septuagint translated raqia with the Greek word stereoma, which connotes a "solid structure" (Arndt and Gingrich, 1967, p. 774). Those uninspired men probably chose that word because it reflected the current astronomical conception." The problem with that is that the LXX chose the term specifically because it could be used to denote something firm that was "stretched, spread, or beaten out," kind of like metal
.
The definitions provided there actually help my case.
