Can fundamentalists explain Job 26:12-13 for me?

But it is not mentioned in the massive Psalms.Moses didn't mention it (Genesis-Deuteronomy).There might have been a temporary raising of the dead, but every person soon died. Then no resurrection.Joshua to Esther didn't mention it.It just wasn't mentioned.Only the very late book of Daniel and possibly Isaiah.It was a late comer.And the conservative Sadducees who ran the Temple felt the idea of resurrection was contrary to the scripture.

The 1611 King James, which many think is of divine inspiration, included the Book of Tobit.It was the first book to say the serpent in the Garden of Eden was Satan. (right? or wrong?)Then again Satan wasn't in the Old Testament (minus the Apocryphal books which were in the Septuagint and 1611 King James).

Here is lots of references to Satan and his evolution in the intertestimental period, including the identification with the serpent.A Dictionary of the Bible: Volume IV: (Part I: Pleroma -- Shimon) - Google Books

quote:

---

And you are wrong that Satan is not in the OT: I searched "Satan" at Blue Letter Bible and got:

​

1 Ch 21:1
Job 1:6-7, 12, 2:1-4, 6-7
Psalm 109:6
Zec 3:1-2

---

"Satan" simply means adversary in the Old Testament.1 Chronicles 21:1 said the adversary made David to take a census. Kings said "The Lord" made David do it.God seemed to send adversaries in the Old Testament.

quote:

---

Most liberal (unbelieving) scholars will agree with you. But many conservative scholars disagree. They see numerous hints of resurrection in the Hebrew Bible, including in Moses and Psalms. There is certainly not unanimity among scholars on your claims above.

---

Most conservative scholars disagree with you actually.Where did Moses and Psalms possible mention the afterlife?

From 2 Samuel 24

quote:

---

Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, "Go, number Israel and Judah." So the king said to Joab the commander of the army who was with him, "Now go throughout all the tribes of Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, and count the people, that I may know the number of the people."

---

The typical response to explain it

quote:

---

a. The anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David: The translators of the New King James Version believe that "He" in this sentence applies to God, because they capitalize it. Yet 1 Chronicles 21:1 tells us, Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. The best explanation is that Satan prompted King David and is the "he" of 2 Samuel 24:1. Yet the Lord expressly allowed it as a chastisement against David.

​

i. "Now the 'he' there, we assume would be the Lord. But as we find out in 1 Chronicles, chapter one, it was Satan that moved David's heart, to the numbering of the people. So God opened the door, and allowed Satan to move in and tempt David." (Smith)
Untitled Document

---

But, ask this question.What if there was no record in Chronicles or what if the Chronicles were never written?We would simply be left with 2 Samuel.The fact that both use a 3 masculine singular inflected verb allows the loophole, but I'm sure there would be plenty of other explanations by fundamentalists (and whoever else wanted an excuse).I'm still waiting for the possible allusions about Moses mentioning an afterlife ("Moses"= Genesis to Deuteronomy).I sure don't see it here.Link on Old Testament verses on afterlife
http://ancientjudaism.homestead.com/Doctrine-of-death.htmlanother Jewish site that answers questions
Just a moment...another Jewish site
AskMoses.com - Torah, Judaism and Jewish Info - Ask the RabbiThe last site has to rely on extrabiblical commentaries that Jew's hold sacred.

quote:

---

There is mention of those students who dissented from the mainstream and rejected the concept of reward and punishment. These are the Sadducees, the forerunners of the Karaites, who rejected anything not explicitly stated in the Scriptures. The talmudic sages took great efforts to rebuke these people and separate themselves from them, declaring that they had lost their share in the G-d of Israel and in the world to come.

---

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Jews try just as hard as Christians to find anything supporting an afterlife in the Old Testament.See sites. The last 3 links in my previous post to this one.

I said most conservative scholars say plainly that Moses and Psalms didn't mention a resurrection. An understatement.The response.

quote:

---

I'm not surprised that you say this. You use the term "fundamentalist" in odd ways, so I'm not surprised that you do the same to "conservative".

---

Find somebody who isn't a fundamentalist who sees "Moses" mention a resurrection.

quote:

---

I said that many conservative scholars "see numerous hints of resurrection in the Hebrew Bible, including in Moses and Psalms."
For starters, take a look at Gen 22 and read the account carefully.
Then take a look at Psalms 49 and 73.

---

You see a resurrection alluded to in certain verses in in Gen 22, Psalm 49, and Psalm 73.Here is Psalm 73
Psalms, PSALM 73 | USCCBWhere is the verse that somehow backs up you claim?Here is Psalm 49.

quote:

---

Of those who trust in their wealth

​

and boast of their abundant riches?b

​

8
*No man can ransom even a brother,

​

or pay to God his own ransom.c

​

9
The redemption of his soul is costly;

​

and he will pass away forever.

​

10
Will he live on forever, then,

​

and never see the Pit of Corruption?

​

11
Indeed, he will see that the wise die,

​

and the fool will perish together with the senseless,d

​

and they leave their wealth to others.e

​

12
Their tombs are their homes forever,

​

their dwellings through all generations,

​

They named countries after themselves

​

13
but man does not abide in splendor.

​

He is like the beaststhey perish.f

​

II

​

14
This is the way of those who trust in themselves,

​

and the end of those who take pleasure in their own mouth.

​

Selah

​

15
Like a herd of sheep they will be put into Sheol,

​

and Death will shepherd them.

​

Straight to the grave they descend,

​

where their form will waste away,

​

Sheol will be their palace.

​

16
But God will redeem my life,

​

will take me* from the hand of Sheol.g

​

....
* [49:16] Will take me: the same Hebrew verb is used of God taking up a favored servant: Enoch in Gn 5:24; Elijah in 2 Kgs 2:11—12; the righteous person in Ps 73:24. The verse apparently states the hope that God will rescue the faithful psalmist in the same manner.

​

Psalms, PSALM 49 | USCCB

---

God saving people from death is mined to refer to a resurrection.Grasping at straws indeed.What about all these verses (quoted below from one of my links a few posts above) that far more clearly (seem to) deny an afterlife?

quote:

---

Ecclesiastes or Kohelet 9:10

​

"Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do [it] with thy might; for [there is] no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest."

​

....
Psalm 6, this is what the Psalmist wrote, "Return, YHWH, deliver my soul: oh save me for Thy mercies' sake. For in death [there is] no remembrance of Thee: in the grave who shall give Thee thanks?"

​

....

​

Psalm 115:17, "The dead praise not YHWH, neither any that go down into silence. "

​

....

​

Deuteronomy 31:14-16...
"And YHWH said unto Moses, Behold, thy days approach that thou must die: call Joshua, and present yourselves in the tabernacle of the congregation, that I may give him a charge. And Moses and Joshua went, and presented themselves in the tabernacle of the congregation... And YHWH said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers..."

​

....
Hezekiah said these words in Isaiah 38:18-19, "For the grave cannot praise Thee, death can [not] celebrate Thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for Thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise Thee, as I [do] this day: the father to the children shall make known Thy truth."

​

....
Job 14

​

1. Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble.

​

2. He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and

​

continueth not.

​

3. And dost Thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment

​

with Thee?

​

4. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

​

5. Seeing his days are determined, the number of his months are with Thee, Thou hast

​

appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;

​

6. Turn from him, that he may rest, till he shall accomplish, as an hireling, his day.

​

7. For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender

​

branch thereof will not cease.

​

8. Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, and the stock thereof die in the ground;

​

9. Yet through the scent of water it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant.

​

10. But man dieth, and wasteth away: yea, man giveth up the ghost, and where is he?

​

11. As the waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up:

​

12. So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake,

​

nor be raised out of their sleep.

​

13. O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy

​

wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me!

​

14. If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my

​

change come.
....
http://ancientjudaism.homestead.com/Doctrine-of-death.html

---

It seems to me that these verses (which mention no resurrection and seem to indicate no thoughts after death) can be argued to be far more clear than the ones you referenced as ones supporting the idea of resurrection in the Psalms.Amazing it is so hard to find support for resurrection in the Old Testament before the Persians burst onto the scene.The oldest Zoroastrian texts are the Gathas.The Persian Gathas are loaded with judgment themes and the afterlife on nearly every verse.Psalms requires a lot of searching to find anything to quote that can even come within a mile of coming close to mentioning a resurrection and judgment.Same with the Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy).

I got an idea.I searched for other verses.I just say their Job 26 translation and annotations.

quote:

---

12
By his power he stilled Sea,

​

by his skill he crushed Rahab;*

​

13
By his wind the heavens were made clear,

​

his hand pierced the fleeing serpent.* f
....
* [26:12] Rahab: another name for the primeval sea-monster; see notes on Jb 3:8 and Ps 89:11; cf. also Jb 7:12; 9:13.

​

* [26:13] The fleeing serpent: the same term occurs in Is 27:1 in apposition to Leviathan; see note on Jb 3:8.

​

Job, CHAPTER 26 | USCCB

---

Amazing people deny the clear, and squint to see something that isn't there (like resurrection).

quote:

---

You complained that the Psalm 49 reference was not clear and unambiguous. Did you not read or understand what I said?!? I said that many see "hints" of resurrection in the Hebrew Bible. This means that these passages are NOT clear and unambiguous.

​

You did not find a hint of resurrection in Psalm 73. Try re-reading it again in different translations until you see it.

---

Here is the Psalm 73 translation (from my same source as chapter 49) with annotation.

quote:

---

24
With your counsel you guide me,
and at the end receive me with honor.*
25
Whom else have I in the heavens?
None beside you delights me on earth.
26
Though my flesh and my heart fail,
God is the rock of my heart, my portion forever.
27
But those who are far from you perish;
you destroy those unfaithful to you.
28
As for me, to be near God is my good,
to make the Lord GOD my refuge.
I shall declare all your works
in the gates of daughter Zion.*
....
* [73:24] And at the end receive me with honor: a perhaps deliberately enigmatic verse. It is understood by some commentators as reception into heavenly glory, hence the traditional translation, receive me into glory. The Hebrew verb can indeed refer to mysterious divine elevation of a righteous person into God’s domain: Enoch in Gn 5:24; Elijah in 2 Kgs 2:11—12; the righteous psalmist in Ps 49:16. Personal resurrection in the Old Testament, however, is clearly attested only in the second century B.C. The verse is perhaps best left unspecified as a reference to God’s nearness and protection.

​

Psalms, PSALM 73 | USCCB

---

What is wrong with this conservative source?On Zoroastrianism influence of the (very) late- Biblical period Jews, can we agree that Zoroastrianism influenced the Book of Enoch? Can we agree that it influenced Manicheanism? Manicheanism was a Gnostic Christian sect that was quite large.The Washington Post has a recent article on the award-winning (today!) Game of Thrones and Zoroastrianism.

quote:

---

WorldViews
The ancient Persian god that may be at the heart of ‘Game of Thrones’
....
Azor Ahai is a mythological figure in the books and the show, a demigod warrior from an ancient time who triumphed over darkness in a great battle while bearing a magic weapon blessed by R'hllor, a deity also known as the Lord of Light or the fire god. There's a prophecy that he will be reborn at a time of similar peril and that's where the speculation for the upcoming season comes in.
....
But in the feverish world of "Game of Thrones" fan-sites and discussion boards, a fair amount of thought has been given to the possible historical provenance of the Azor Ahai legend. Martin himself has said he developed the idea of the monotheistic, fire-worshiping faith surrounding R'llhor from Zoroastrianism, a pre-Islamic religion that emerged thousands of years ago in what's now Iran.

​

This sense of eternal struggle and combat with an evil Other is hardly unique to Zoroastrianism. But it is the most clear blueprint for the cosmic clash being set up in "Game of Thrones," where Ahura Mazda is a composite of both R'llhor and Azor Ahai, and where a righteous hero of fire will eventually take on a relentless evil from the lands of ice.

​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...e-heart-of-game-of-thrones

---

The article isn't quite correct, as it leaves out an important detail. The God is from Manicheanism. But the article has lots of links.

quote:

---

Secrets of Game of Thrones: George R.R. Martin reveals details about the World of Ice and Fire
....
In her youth, Melisandre was sold to the Red Temple of the god R’hllor, the lord of light, worshipped by a Manichaean religion that Martin says was inspired by Zoroastrianism.

​

Secrets of "Game of Thrones": George R.R. Martin reveals details about the World of Ice and Fire | Salon.com

---

Zoroastrianism (in its original form) didn't have reincarnation. It was only after influence from Christianity that some reincarnation concepts came to apply to Zoroaster (among some Zoroastrian). Zoroaster was just a prophet though. Not an Avatar/Messiah. Manicheans all accepted reincarnation and Mani was seen as an Avatar type (a reincarnation of Jesus). Manicheans were an offshoot (from 241 AD)of an offshoot(from 100 AD) of the Jerusalem church community during the (60s AD)decade of James.The religions are all full of a confused web of cross influence, with newer sects constantly rising up. Christianity and Zoroastrianism were constantly changing with new sects.ANOTHER EDIT. see this Guardian link for the reincarnation issues in the show.
Game of Thrones: every possible way Jon Snow could come back from the dead | Game of Thrones | The GuardianA character in the show previously, thought that the God was reincarnated in a previous episode as a man(it turned out to be a false messiah type of issue). The Guardian shows speculation that the dead "Jon comes back as Azor Ahai". That would be more in line with the views of early Christianity and then the entire 1000+ year life of the Manichean sect of Christianity. Not so much consistent with Zoroastrianism though there were reincarnation views among some later Zoroastrians involving Zoroaster (I don't think it combined the prophet Zoroaster with the God Mazda or did they?) The Theosophical movement of the 19th century AD was influential and the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions says that some Zoroastrians in India started to almost worship Zoroaster as an Avatar of God.It seems more along the lines of early Jewish Christianity and its offshoots (such as the Manicheans) than Zoroastrianism. The Christian God also seems to have light/darkness themes (like the Qumran Jewish sect), so this show and its religion seems more (early) Christian than Zoroastrian to me. Granted one is an offshoot of another, then the mother religion took (to some extent) reincarnation concepts from the offshoot.The Christian God (as the Gospels and New Testament show us) seems to be more an offshoot of Mazda from Zoroastrianism.But the reincarnation concept is mostly alien to Zoroastrianism. (more a Christian concept)Game of Thrones is based on Manicheanism according to the author/creator of the show. Manichenism is a Jewish Christian sect (or an "offshoot" if you want to remove it as far from its source as possible).Complicated.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Why do you characterize it as a "conservative" source? (Their notes don't seem very "conservative" to me.). Why do you only look at this one source, and refuse to look at other translations and sources?

---

Catholic Bishops have been packed packed packed with conservatives since John Paul II was Pope (the one from around 1980 to around 2005 or 2006), and Ratzinger was even more conservative.Even the 20 years (or so) of liberal Popes from the late 1950s to the late 1970s saw not so liberal Bishops appointed by them. Like John Paul II.Catholics have always been one of the conservative churches anyway.

quote:

---

I suggest looking at a number of good, modern translations (NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, HCSB, etc). Most of these can be found at BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.; the NET Bible with notes can be found at Matthew 1 | NET Bible.

---

I was attacked by a fundamentalist earlier for using the NIV for Is. 27 and the Leviathan verse.Anyway, I do use multiple translations, but I don't "translation shop".

quote:

---

How Pope Francis is stealthily reforming the most conservative institution on Earth

​

Damon Linker

​

e Roman Catholic Church is hands down the most conservative institution in the world.

​

By this I don't merely mean that it upholds a set of conservative religious ideas, although it most certainly does. I'm talking about the institution itself and the way it interacts with those ideas. With 2,000 years of tradition weighing on its shoulders, a theological commitment to defer to that tradition, an ecclesial habit of "thinking in terms of centuries," and a baroque structure of governance headed exclusively by appointees, run by often-corrupt, back-scratching bureaucrats, and lacking in even the slightest semblance of democratic accountability, the Catholic Church is one of the most sluggish, inertia-prone institutions imaginable.
....

​

Over 34 long years, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI had appointed an enormous number of conservative bishops.

​

http://theweek.com/...ng-most-conservative-institution-earth

---

The ultra right-wing Andrew Breitbart sees "liberalism" in everything not 100% right wing. He would attack callers on C-SPAN who were anti-war yet called in on the Republican line. He refused to consider any anti-war person a Republican and wouldn't respond to their comments to discredit them. Callers were shouting in protest that they were true Republicans. "liberal" "liberal" "liberal" is the mantra that site levels at anybody to the left of Atilla the Hun.

quote:

---

US Bishops Elect Conservative 'Dream Team' for 2015 Rome Marriage Summit

​

In the wake of the confusing meeting in October, the American bishops are taking no chances with next year’s conclusion to the two-part marriage summit. They have sent a strong message, electing a solidly conservative team of bishops to represent the U.S. Church.
The president and vice president of the U.S. Bishops Conference, Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville and Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, both with impeccable orthodox credentials, were a shoe-in for the team of four. Philadelphia’s Archbishop Charles Chaput, perhaps the strongest conservative voice in the U.S. episcopate, was also selected, joined by his protg, Archbishop Jos Gomez of Los Angeles, a member of Opus Dei.

​

The October summit sent mixed signals to Catholics around the world, due to a botched mid-summit message that seemed to question Catholic doctrine regarding the morality of homosexual relations and extramarital sex, and a media-driven narrative of liberal pope versus conservative bishops.

​

Now the U.S. bishops have taken matters into their own hands, leaving no room for doubt regarding where they stand.
....

​

US Bishops Elect Conservative 'Dream Team' for 2015 Rome Marriage Summit

---

Then

quote:

---

With Synod Picks, U.S. Bishops Lean Conservative - Newsweek
http://www.newsweek.com/...-philadelphia-and-l-attend-2015-m...
Nov 18, 2014 - The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) last week announced the selection of four ... The choices, whether conservative or moderate, were expected by some to shed light on how much the .... Most Read ...

---

On theological issues, the Catholic Bishops are conservative.The political stances are more complicated, but the conservative theology drives their positions on many issues.My source was conservative in every sense of the word.

Can we agree that this is a liberal source? With liberal references in his scholarship links?Jesus Never Existed, After All | HuffPost Latest NewsNow the site is politically liberal.The article is from a historically liberal person with regards to New Testament scholarship.But the site isn't exactly liberal in the way the article author is on historical and New Testament issues.It is complicated.I understand it all.

Parts of Bible may have been written earlier than expected, archaeologists say | The Bible | The GuardianParts of Bible may have been written earlier than expected, archaeologists sayUsing handwriting analysis technology, team found that a famous hoard of ancient Hebrew inscriptions were written by at least six different authorsThis would support the idea that the Hebrew Bible predated the Babylonian Exile.Is the Guardian "conservative" now?Would fundamentalists agree with The Guardian over this site below (another of which has an author that wants to deny the existence of Jesus)?Did Jesus really exist? - Macleans.caDoes that make the Guardian "conservative"John Dominic Crossan talked about the irony that he, once regarded as a "liberal", is now a "moderate", with all those around who make the case that Jesus never existed.Bart Ehrman, recently, made the case that Jesus existed and is widely referenced by fundamentalists.See this reference for an example

quote:

---

6 Shocking New Discoveries About Jesus of Nazareth
TheBlaze.com-Dec 22, 2015
However, in just the past few years archaeologists have uncovered some ... that of James the Just, the brother, step-brother or close relative of Jesus. ... including identifying Aramaic phrases embedded in the Greek texts of the ...
6 Shocking New Discoveries About Jesus of Nazareth - TheBlaze

---

I expected this fundi site below to reference Ehrman but it appears not to. I'm sure I could find a reference if I searched hard enough.Sorry! - Deseret NewsEhrman gets letters from fundi scholars saying things like, "you are doing our dirty work for us" when he argues forcefully for the evidence of existence for Jesus.

quote:

---

I'm not at all suggesting that you "translation shop". I'm suggesting that you try to understand what the text is really saying. The best way to do this is to read it in the original language (Hebrew, not KJV!). But for those who don't read Hebrew, the second best is to read the text in multiple translations. This is NOT for the purpose of "translation shopping" to pick the one that you like best; it is more for "translation averaging" and for getting an idea of the possible range of meanings of the original text.

---

Our disagreement with Psalms 49 and 73 is one of interpretation.The disagreement over Job 26:12-13 is the one where the translation of all modern scholars is being denied by some (not you though?)I have now shown that both the NRSV and Catholic Bishops support the standard modern translation of Job 26. (which fits in with the Septuagint of 200 BCE).Getting the "conservatives" to admit that Genesis 1 and the textual description there supports the notion of a universe of water held back by a firmament (whether an actual dome or atmospheric barrier to the waters above is another issue) is another issue.But, lets look at the language and what "heavens" (Hebrew shamayim can be considered plural or singular as it has a plural ending) means. It is the word in Genesis 1.And God said:
'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters.'
waters is mayim in Hebrew. A plural ending.water or waters can be the translation.Here will be links from http://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/...loads/403/jbq_403_mayim.pdf

quote:

---

Thereafter, in verses 7-8, the waters were split into the waters above and
below the expanse (raki'a); later, on the second day, the expanse separating the
waters came to be called shamayim (sky). In verses 9-10 the water below the
sky was rearranged to form sea and dry land, "the earth." Through these passages
we may rightly visualize water and soil all mixed up before Creation. Set
in the design of "chaos-order", the muddy space was subsequently divided to
expose a new substance, the earth, on which the terrestrial creatures might live.

​

Nations of antiquity regarded the expanse called shamayim (sky) as a kind of
dome supporting the water above so that it would not leak and collapse. That is
why some passages in the Bible variously describe the expanse as the pillars of heaven (Job 26:11) and the foundations of heaven (II Sam. 22:8). It seems
probable that the dome was also understood to be hard and transparent, like a
sheet of glass or a space packed with air. Ancient folk might therefore have
believed that the dome was pushing hard against the water above and the water
below, which once formed a single body but were now split as a "pair".

---

....The article goes on to explain that it makes sense if one sees the division of the waters by a firmament INTO TWO PARTS as the reason for the plural ending for the word that can be used as a singular type of word "water". A very rare situation.

quote:

---

The word shamayim (sky, heaven), which is closely associated with water in
the cosmologies and takes the same intriguing dual ending, could be explained
in the same manner. A point of interest here is that fact that the words denoting
"sky' in the Semitic languages are all spelled by prefixing s/sh to the words
meaning "water" in general.16 Simply understood, for example, shamayim in
Hebrew or Aramaic and am in Akkadian could be seen as a term combining
"of/one of which"(a) and "waters" (mayim/m). One might therefore assume
that the sky was "one of the waters/of the waters." Or, as Gerardo Sachs
maintains, since the Hebrew letter shin "placed before a three-letter root extends
the underlying idea to the utmost", sha-mayim is the superlative of
mayim, which suggests that there was water above the sky.17 This kind of idea,
though proposed by some, is usually rejected. J.A. Soggin criticizes such a
notion as a conceit of popular etymology that takes advantage of the assonance
of the words.
18 However, I would contend that popular etymology is in fact a
sensible way to figure out the development of a word circulated, verbally or
literally, among primitive peoples. As for those fundamental terms, water and
sky, their development could have been fostered by the utterly practical linguistic
exercises of the common people in their understanding of a word's form,
whatever the rules of grammar might say. A prime example discussed here is
mayim (water), which ancient folk clearly perceived and articulated as a pair.

---

It says Shamu is the Akkadian word for heavens.Sha means "one of" in Akkadianmu is the word for water in Akkadian (may plus the im plural ending makes mayim in Hebrew)Yom is the Hebrew word for day(and the word yom is also meaning "storm" in Job) and it is umma in Sumerian. Both "day" and "storm" were umma before becoming yom in Hebrew. I think day is um(U) in Akkadian but Im not sure.The strange case of the plural Hebrew word of "water" and "heaven" could be explained in this way.mayim "water" or "waters"shamayim "heaven" or "heavens"The possibility further backs up the plain reading of the text which has water above and water below the firmament.It works according to the rules of Semitic languages and transmigration of words.It fits in with the concepts the people held.It fits scripture.Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

I did a google search to see if there was any archaeological artwork. I was hoping to find Jewish artwork.GoogleI found what might be a Talmud quote in a free journal article.

quote:

---

Archaeological Discussions - jstor

​

JSTOR: Access Check

​

JSTOR

​

by WN Bates - ‎1913
Centaurs in Ancient Art. - In his Centaurs in Ancient Art Professor. PAUL V. C. .... among the monuments discovered in the Royal Tombs at Abydos and. Nagada ...... Talmud: "It seems to thee as if the sun rubbed itself across the firmament, ...... the central mass, the dome and lantern, the wide arcades in the original project ...

---

Its a long article that is flipping slowly.There is Classical Christian commentary that is quoted.Big Christian players too.These ancient comments should not be ignored. But they seem to be.