----- Original Message -----
From: PHSEELY@aol.com
PS: To "break up" or "open" a fountain, as in Gen 7:11, is the opposite of
"stopping up a fountain" (2Kings 3:19) which is done by filling it up with
dirt (2 Chron 32:4; Gen 2:15). Breaking up a fountain is done by breaking up
the hard dirt and removing it. It has to do with digging through the surface
of the earth. It does NOT involve breaking open the _bottom_ of the reservoir
of water. It has NOTHING to do with the bottom of the ocean, the subterranean
crust of the earth.
AR: The Hebrew word translated as stopped in Gen 8:2 (KJV) is "cakar" a prime root meaning "to shut up." The stopping of the wells of 2 Kings 3:19 comes from the Hebrew word "satham," a prime root meaning "to stop up." This latter meaning does indeed agree with the idea of filling in of a spring or well. But "cakar" fits the idea of the closing of the windows of heaven which had been opened, "pathach" [to open wide], at the same time as the breaking up of the "fountains of the great deep." "cakar" can even be the opposite of "baqa'" [to cleave] Your association of opposites is invalid. "Satham" is not the opposite of "pathach," rather "cakar" is the opposite of "pathach'" and "baqa'." So, the windows of heaven were closed and the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep ceased.
All fountains on earth were considered "fountains of the Great Deep". All
fountains were understood to be coming up from the Tehom (the great Deep) the
ocean which lay under the earth. Thus, Gen 49:25(24) speaks of the
"blessings of the heaven above; blessings of the deep sea (Tehom) lying
below." Deut 33:13 also speaks of Jehovah blessing the land of Joseph "with
the precious dew of the heavens and with the deep sea (Tehom) lying below."
How can "the deep sea lying below" be a blessing? By being the source of the
fountains that give water for irrigation and thus agricultural blessing. Gen
7:11 is about these _earthly_ fountains. It has nothing to do with the ocean
basins.
Both of these texts can been easily understood to refer to relative elevation. The heavens are higher, the seas are lower. And we are talking about seas here, not groundwater. The seas are a blessing because of the foods of the sea and they are from which the dew of the heavens comes.
The great deep is the oceans, tehom means seas and oceans. Gen 7:11 is very clear that the fountains are of the oceans, not of the land.
<<AR: No. I am merely exploring what the Bible is actually saying.
PS: If this is what the Bible is actually saying, why is it that the ancient
Jews did not understand it that way? Your interpretation is at least as
modern as the local Flood theory and just as far if not more from the
biblical text.
AR: Who says that that is not what the ancient Jews understood? You? Were you there? And even if that is what some Jews believed, does that mean that what the they believed is what the Bible really teaches?
PS: Ps 24:2 could NOT just as correctly read "For he founded it above the
seas and established it above the waters." Within its historical context (as
seen above with regard to fountains) it certainly meant it was founded
directly upon the seas (upon the Tehom), not above the seas in the sense of
relative elevation. It is the ocean "below" the earth (Gen 49:25; Deut 33:13)
that is the source of agricultural blessing, not the salt water ocean beside
the earth with its relatively low elevation.
AR: The historical context can just as easily be read as above or below in elevation. It certainly meant that it was founded above the seas, not upon the seas. The sea is the source of all precipitation which is the source of all streams, rivers, springs and fountains.
In addition, in the other OT
verses where "found" (yasad) is used with the preposition 'al (Cant 5:15; Ps
104:5; Amos 9:6) the meaning "upon" is demanded by the context. Further, the
very nature of "founding" demands that the thing founded rest _upon_ the
foundation. Ps 24:2 is saying that God "founded," that is, firmly placed the
earth upon the seas, the seas being a foundational base--as everyone in the
ancient Near East believed. There is no biblical evidence that the Hebrews
were better educated scientifically than their neighbors. The preposition 'al
in Ps 24:2 should thus be translated "upon" as the KJV, ERV, ASV, NASV, RSV,
NEB, Berkeley, Amplified, Moffat, Jerusalem, and NIV all testify.
AR: There is Biblical evidence depending upon how the texts are interpreted. And since when is truth determined by vote?
PS: Psalm 104:9, ("You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will
they cover the earth") is NOT a reference to something which God said to Noah
in Gen 8:2. Ps 104:2-5 place verses 6-9 in a context of creation. And, the
action of Ps 104:9, "setting a boundary," fits the context of the first three
days of Genesis very well. On day one in Genesis, light is separated from
darkness: God puts a boundary between them. On day two the waters above are
separated from the waters below: God puts a boundary between them. On day
three, the waters below are gathered into one place, and separated from the
dry land. God puts a boundary between them (which is the sand of the
seashore according to Jer 5:22). Psalm 104:6-9 with its "setting a boundary"
thus fits perfectly into the context of creation.
AR: This sounds like a lot of special pleading to me. In any case, the only place where God says "never again would the waters cross the boundary is in Gen 8:21. There is no hint in Gen 1 of any such thing. To say that the waters would never cross the boundary begining in Gen 1 denies Gen 6 to 8. "Never again" implies that the boundary had been set (during Creation week), then it over flowed that boundary (during the Flood) and then God says "never again" will the boundary be over flowed.
Prov 8:29 and Job 38:4-11are parallel to Ps 104:9. Both of these passages
speak of God setting a boundary for the sea just as Ps 104:9 does, and they
speak of the foundation of the earth just as Ps 104:5 does. Their context is
creation, and they thus confirm that Ps 104:9 is a reference to creation, not
to Noah's flood.
AR: I'd say that all these combine the Creation week and the Flood in one narrative.
Finally, it is quite clear from the way the waters are described in Psalm
104:7 that the 104:9 is not referring to the Flood's waters. That is, in Ps
104:7 the waters are described as rebuked by God in such a way that they
"fled"..."hastened away", in the sense of being in a hurry or alarm. The
picture is one of waters rapidly running off, just as would have occurred in
Gen 1:9, 10 as the newly created earth emerged from below as a submarine
rising to the surface. In Gen 8:3, in contrast, the removal of the waters
of Noah's flood are described as subsiding very, very slowly, taking some
seven and one-half months to get to the place where it was dry enough for
Noah to get off the ark. The picture of waters fleeing in panic which is
given in Ps 104:7 is just the opposite of the interminably slow lowering of
the waters by draining and evaporation that is given in Gen 8:3. Psalm 104:9,
therefore, is not a reference to Gen 8:2.
The historic interpretation of the Church that Psalm 104:9 is about
creation, not the Flood, is thus very well founded.
AR: The inclusion of verse 9, is an obvious reference to the Flood, so these texts cover the major events of the early history of the earth in a single narrative.
PS: The words in the Bible mean what they meant to the people of that time.
You cannot remove them from their historical context and give them new
meanings without effectually rewriting the Bible.
AR: I see. You were there so you know what the words ment to the ancients. What you mean is that you think the ancients believed a certain way so that you can sit back and gloat about how much more intellegent and smart you are.
You have taken the fountains of the
Deep out of their biblical context wherein they are fountains on the surface
of the earth.
AR: Only a surficial study of the word Ma'yan consideres it the same as any other spring or fountain. It is associated with the reservoirs of Nephtoah.
In Psalm 24:2, you took the preposition 'al away from its
connection with the word "found." You took Psalm 104:9 out of its context of
creation, separated it from its parallels in Prov 8:29 and Job 38:4-11, and
associated it with Noah's flood---even though the removal of the Flood waters
(Gen 8:3) is just the opposite of the description given in the Psalm 104:7.
You are imposing an extra-biblical theory upon the Bible at the expense of
Scripture. The Bible says nothing, absolutely nothing, about the Flood being
caused by meteorites, asteroids, earthquakes, tsunami's, volcanic eruptions
or the collapse of a canopy. These have all been manufactured by the
imagination to support the theory of a flood that covered a spherical earth,
an earth the OT knows nothing of. The Bible knows nothing of any of these
things, and they are supported only by taking the words of the Bible out of
their historical and biblical context and redefining them at will to support
the theory.
AR: Yeah, and the Pope is Jewish.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 11 2000 - 00:00:13 EDT