Karl,
Of course, if על modifies something that is immaterial, that thing is going to
be immaterial. No argument there. But it's not saying very much. The question
is whether or not רקיע refers to something material or not. I could use your
logic here to say that because the wind/spirit hovers על פני תהום ('over the
surface of the deep') that the תהום is immaterial. But that's simply not the
case. So your arsenal of examples don't actually accomplish very much here.
Your insistence that because רקע can refer to immaterial things (something I'm
not quite convinced of just yet), the רקיע is therefore not material, is simply
an example of totality transfer fallacy. It's like saying that because פנים
refers to a person/identity (something immaterial), all occurrences of פנים are
immaterial. It's just not the case. So you haven't closed the logical loop
here. And I'm ignoring medieval cosmology, so you should too — it's a
distraction here. The fact that you are going there to support your
disagreement with my position means nothing. This is about reading the Hebrew
texts.
You still have not demonstrated your position. I'm happy to be convinced I'm
wrong on the material nature of the רקיע, but I haven't seen any conclusive or
even suggestive evidence to that effect. All I've seen is distracting tangents
leading nowhere. It makes me suspect that asserting the immaterial nature of
the רקיע may be the result of wanting to read modern-day cosmology back into
the Bible in order to support a particular kind of inerrantist perspective. I
can't be sure of that, of course (you can confirm or deny it), but that's what
it sounds like to me. The evidence just doesn't seem to be there, so it doesn't
seem to be reading the texts on their own merit.
GEORGE ATHAS
Dean of Research,
Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
