Dear Ted,
You have made many good observations, and I do not think I should give more
comments on the issue. But I would like to point out what the real issue is.
And dear listmembers, please keep in mind that my comments below are
descriptive and not normative. This means that I am observing and not arguing
in favor of something.
The tenth commendmend (Exodus 20:17, "You shall not covet nour neighbor's
house... wife.. etc") could only be enforced by a superhuman entity who could
read the hearts of human beings." So it implies God. Throughout the Tanakh the
writers claims that they got messages from God. Moses claims that he got the
law from YHWH; Ezekiel claims that he got visions, and the prophets used to
say, "Thus says YHWH." The claim of God's hand is found throughout the Tanakh.
And similarly with the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2. No part of this
account could have been seen by humans. So the implication is that the account
was given the writer by God—it is a part of the law that Moses claimed came
from YHWH.
Please note: I am not here arguing for anything, I just point out the real
issue. This means that the creation account cannot be based on human
observation, and therefore we cannot explain any part of it as such. Either
its origin is mythological, it is a guesswork by the writer, or it is given the
writer by God. And here we have a real clash between the scientific method
where metaphysics is excluded, and the Tanakh that is full of metaphysics—God
is everywhere. The farthest a person can go while upholding the scientific
methodology, is to ask whether we, on the basis ic lexicon, grammar and syntax
and historical comparisons can point out mythological elements in the creation
accoun; or whether the whole account can be given an interpretation that
accords with all we know about the earth and the universe. This is what I have
done. And the result is that that clash is now between the creation account
that in every detail literally accords with what we know about the earth and
the universe and the scientific method that a priori excludes God.
Best regards,
Rolf Furuli
Stavern
Norway
Mandag 10. September 2012 18:28 CEST skrev [email protected]:
Hi, All:
Members of this list have done a good bit of research on this issue,
turning up some fresh ground. Much appreciated since I have studied this issue
for 30 years and thought I had a handle on all the relevant texts and
arguments.
Here's what I believe is clear and what the open issues are:
1) RQ( is a metallurgical term meaning beaten into a smooth surface. It is
not clear to me that this implies, as someone wrote, that small bits are
hammered into a plate, creating an analogy with droplets of water being
hammered into a hard surface.
2) One issue that has not been discussed is: How do we understand
anthropomorphic descriptions of G-D in the Hebrew Bible? If YHWH has a
physical
body with eyes, nose, etc, then it would seem to follow that descriptions of
God as builder, erecting pillars, stretching out the measuring line,
hammering, etc, would tend to be intended as literal descriptions.
Contrarily, if
we see all these terms as intended metaphors, then what is hammering when
used to depict an act of God? If there is no literal hammer, why would there
need to be a literal hammered surface?
3) Someone has suggested that (l pny must refer to a physical, touchable
surface. Not sure why that follows. Since the birds appearing "in heaven",
ditto the stars, is a visual phenomenon, then it is not touching but seeing
that is at issue. When we look up, the sky does have an apparent surface.
Could the HB language be taking an observational perspective without intent
to speculate on what the sky is made of?
4) Since various Bible writers describe different substances that the sky
is made of depending on weather, isn't it clear that they were not to
concerned with the substance of the sky or how it got from copper to
turquoise to
ice, etc?
5) This same question can be asked of other ANE texts. In one Egyptian text
the goddess Nut is depicted arched over the earth, fingertips on one
horizon and toes on the opposite horizon with stars on her belly. It is hard
to
see any of these descriptions as ANYTHING but metaphor.
Regards,
Ted
In a message dated 9/9/2012 3:31:51 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
None of this gets around the basic exegetical fact: In Gen 1, the birds
fly across the surface of the רקיע, just like the spirit/wind hovers across
the surface of the waters. If it has a surface, it is perceived as
something that could be touched. That's what the text says.
Whether the ancients understood this as a metaphor is another issue, but
one which inevitably sees us importing extra-textual considerations, into
the equation. In other words, the argument that the רקיע is not actually
something that could be touched is invariably a foray into tangential
considerations that take us away from what the writer of Gen 1 actually wrote.
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
