Paul,
I believe you are making far more of what the ancients probably
understood by 'the firmament' than is warranted. You say:
"YEC's, to my knowledge, always reject the solidity of the firmament on
the basis of modern science. Like the "local" Flood interpretation, no
one did that until modern times. Interpreting the firmament as
atmosphere (or space) is just as much a rationalizing "interpretation"
as are the rationalizing interpretations of the OEC's. Similarly, the
sea above the firmament (above the sun, moon and stars) is almost never
accepted by YEC's in a straightforward way. It too is rationalized away
on the basis of modern science."
In my experience, no translation of the Hebrew of Gn.1:6,7 confronts one
with the notion of a solid firmament. It follows that, unless one is a
Hebrew scholar and aware of Ez.1:22, the problems you pose simply don't
arise. But, in any case, surely the information conveyed by the Creator
to Moses would have been the truth - as it is known by us today. Of
course, the 'separation of waters' in Moses' experience would,
necessarily, have involved the use of solid containers, so his choice of
'raqia' is simply explained - and, in the circumstances, may be
forgiven. However, let us observe that the misunderstanding takes
nothing away from the unfolding narrative, for the nature of the barrier
of separation was surely of little consequence. What really mattered was
the truth that 'up there' was a gigantic reservoir of water - supported
in some way - which would later descend as torrential rain to flood the
earth.
In your concluding paragraph you say: "Purity of heart is of the essence
in Christianity." Another essential Christian attribute, of course, is
'love of truth'. That is why I am surprised that you appear to be
completely dismissive of the message in the numerics of Gn.1:1/Creator's
Name. Have you not considered that while men may tamper with Hebrew and
Greek semantics, they can do nothing about the arithmetic and geometry
conveyed by the same words? It is that which makes these self-evident
truths so significant, and worthy of closer investigation by the stout
(and pure) hearted.
You may like to comment on some of the other matters raised in my
earlier posting.
Sincerely,
Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com
PHSEELY@aol.com wrote:
>
> Vernon wrote:
>
> << In respect of myself, as a YEC, I believe I am justified in reading
> the whole of the biblical data in a straightforward manner - at the
> same time, rejecting the scientific 'evidence' based on
> 'interpretation' and 'opinion'. For others, the reverse will obtain>>
>
> By and large, it is true that YEC's accept a straightforward
> interpretation of Gen 1-11 and that OEC's are more prone to
> reinterpret these chapters based on scientific findings. However, this
> is not entirely the case. YEC's, to my knowledge, always reject the
> solidity of the firmament on the basis of modern science. Like the
> "local" Flood interpretation, no one did that until modern times.
> Interpreting the firmament as atmosphere (or space) is just as much a
> rationalizing "interpretation" as are the rationalizing
> interpretations of the OEC's. Similarly, the sea above the firmament
> (above the sun, moon and stars) is almost never accepted by YEC's in a
> straightforward way. It too is rationalized away on the basis of
> modern science. And, like the solidity of the firmament this too was
> the historic interpretation of the Church.
>
> But, are these descriptions of the sky with the sea above it a
> revelation from God or an accommodation to the science of the times?
> [Don't forget that inspiration does not rule out accommodation (Matt
> 19:8)] The description of the universe in Gen 1 exactly matches the
> description given in the science of the times. If, nonetheless, you do
> not accept the idea that Gen 1 is an accommodation to the science of
> the times, do you literally accept God's making a solid sky as told in
> Gen 1:7? Ezek 1:22 shows that a firmament is solid. (Most
> commentaries on Ezek 1:22 say or clearly infer this including Keil and
> Delitzsch. Of 32 commentaries on Ezek 1, I did not see even one that
> doubted the solidity of the firmament in that passage; so, seeing a
> solid firmament in Ezek 1:22 is the straight forward interpretation of
> that verse.)
>
> Rev 4:6 associates the solid firmament in Ezekiel with the firmament
> in Gen 1. The firmament in Ezek which looked like "ice" was understood
> in ancient times (cf. the LXX) to be a reference to its being made of
> "crystal." It is associated with "four living creatures" (Ezek 1:5
> ff.) which are merged with wheels that are "full of eyes" (Ezek 1:18).
> The firmament in Gen 1 has a "sea" (tehom) above it, the one in Ezek a
> "throne". Revelation 4:6 pulls these two firmaments together saying,
> "and before the throne, as it were a_sea_ of glass like _crystal_;
> and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, four
> living creatures full of eyes before and behind." Rev 4:6 thus proves
> that the raqia' in Genesis 1 is to be identified with the solid raqia'
> in Ezek 1; and more than one commentator has noticed this connection.
>
> So, IF you will say that you accept the statements in Gen 1 that the
> sky is solid and has a sea above it, I can accept that you are
> "reading the _whole_of the biblical data in a straightforward manner."
> But, if not; (and I have yet to hear you say clearly that you do
> believe the Bible is correct and that you believe the sky is solid
> with a sea above it ), then you are rationalizing away the Bible just
> as much as any OEC; and you are doing it on the basis of
> "interpretations of modern science." Purity of heart is of the
> essence in Christianity. I see duplicity in your approach. I am not
> seeking to judge you; but, you must face up to the fact that you are
> doing the very same thing you are looking askance at others for doing.
>
> Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 19:40:35 EST