Dear George, We need not read our cosmology into the text to reach the result that RQY( can be the non-solid atmosphere. I have for many years studied astronomical cuneiform tablets in connection with a study of ancient chronology, and I am impressed by the cosmological knowledge of the Babylonian and Selevcid astrologers. They looked up to the heavens, and they could identify the planets and the big stars. They knew that the moon changed its position relative to stars and constellations, and that after 18 years and 10 days the moon had almost the same position as previously. They knew that Venus had almost the same positions every 8 years, minus 4 days, and similarly with the other planets. These astrologers could calculate the positions of the moon in relation to particular stars for hundreds of year in the past and in the future, and they could calculate the positions of the planets in the past and the future as well. How many of the listmembers can distinguish between the 5 visible planets by the naked eye? How many know the periods of the revolutions of the planets?
Because the astrologers knew the orbits of the celestial bodies, they could hardly have believed that these bodies were fastened to a solid firmament. And I am not aware of any writing from Assyrian or Babylonian times which indicate that the people of that time believed in a solid vault with water above. it seems that they had many cosmological ideas that paralles our modern ideas. Then bsack to Genesis 1. In v. 8 we learn that God" called the RQY( "heavens," as you also say. The word $MYM are used with different references in Genesis. But this verse shows that there is no distinction between RQY( and $SYM, and the words are interchangeable. When we have the constructs of RQY( and $SYM in vv. 14, 20, the first word is modified by the other, or as you say, there is an apposition. You have not answered the question about your distinction between RQY( and $MYM. You wrote to to Ishnian: ""The birds fly through the sky, but the sky that is under the רקיע, which stands as a dome-like roof above everything." From where do you get this distinction, and from where comes the preposition "under"? You cannot get this distinction from (L PNY HRQY( H$MYM in verse 40, because you have yourself given the literal translation "over the surface of the firmament of the sky," and NIV has the perfectly legitimate translation: "across the expanse of the sky." You use the preposition "over" and NIV uses the adverbial "across," both being fully legitimate. But you cannot on the basis of the words (L PNY RQY( insist that the RQY( has a surface. Hebrew prepositions are much too ambiguous for such a claim. The rendering "across" without any surface is excellent. So, from where do you have the preopsition "under"? Is there any linguistic reason for that? When I interpret RQY( and its synonym $MYM as the atmosphere, I am not reading any new idea into the old Biblical text. I do not think that the idea of an atmosphere (open space below the stars) would pose any problems for the Babylonian and Selevcid astrologers, nor to those in the past whose native language was Hebrew. This "open space" is an old idea and not a new one. Out of ccuriousness, I would like to ask you which ancient writings you can refer to were we find the idea of a solid vault above the earth with water above this vault. Best regards, Rolf Furuli Stavern Norway Tirsdag 4. September 2012 15:01 CEST skrev George Athas <[email protected]>: Rolf, I think you may have misunderstood me. The רקיע in Genesis 1 is given the name שׁמים (sky). We today, however, do not identify the 'sky' as a רקיע over our heads. We conceive of the sky as open air. Thus, there is a discrepancy between our concept of sky and the concept in Gen 1. We talk about birds in the sky and imply that they fly in open air, but in Gen 1.20 the birds fly across the surface of the רקיע. For the writer of Gen 1 the sky is a something that has a surface. It is not open air. What I'm trying to guard against is reading our concept of sky back into Gen 1. If we let Gen 1 say what it says, we will come to the conclusion that the writer saw the sky as something that had a surface and functioned as a roof over the everything, such that when birds flew, they flew across the surface of this roof. It's a very different way of seeing sky to our concept. If we demand that the sky in Gen 1 is open air, then we are, I fear, reading our cosmology back into the text, rather than letting the text say what it says. 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
