First Water?

Thank you for your response.If you mean that it is difficult to grasp Bronze Age cosmology - then, I would have to agree. Brad. Please read that bit again. Psalm 104 verses 6 thru 9. I think you have misunderstood the meaning. Are you talking about a population explosion? This does not refer to a population boom (if that is what you are suggesting). It is a reference to the waters mentioned in verse 6, which "stood above the mountains." This seems to be about Noah's flood, although, the bit about setting a boundary on them is reminiscent of a line from the book of Job, which is talking about the limit of high tide.db

i suppose i'll agree to that.

---

אָרַח

I thought that the four corners was primitive literary device which essentially described the four cardinal points: north, south, east and west.I thought that's what was being described anyway.

well, it seems to be talking in every instance about the furthest reaches of the earth.the implication being that it stopped somewhere.

---

אָרַח

If so, then it couldn't be refering to the specific "borders" of a particular country they're residing in -- doesn't seem to make sense to me.Anyway, I don't know.I just think a lot of the Scriptural passages are written phenomenologically -- they're accurate to the extent that people would visually observe an event or object, but it's not necessarilly scientifically acurate.The sun rising and setting a good example of what I'd consider a phenomenologically accurate statement from the writer's perspective -- even though it is not scientifically true.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-24-2005 11:02 PM

Isaiah 11:12 - "four corners of the earth" where "corner" is given for the Hebrew: kanaph - Wing.Ezekiel 7:2 - "four corners of the land" where "corner" is given for the Hebrew: kanaph - Wing.In these verses "earth" and "land" are given for the same Hebrew word - erets."Corner" is given for a number of words in Hebrew and Greek; with meanings ranging from Wing, to Shoulder, to Angle, to Side, to Rib, to End. One has to examine each case individually.The cardinal points are implied at Jeremiah 49:36 - "the four winds from the four quarters of heaven;"Hope this gives y'all some food for thought.db

Thanks. It does.

erets seems to be a bit of an ambiguous word, doesn't it?this leads to a bunch of argument as to whether, for instance, the bible is only concerned with israel and judah, or the whole planet when it talks about creation...

---

אָרַח

Instead of a"deep" spreading, I had edited out "the heavens etc." It was because the first part of verse nine ("the bounds") were what triggered me to think, I might not have correctly read the passage in the past. Perhaps I am wrong and you are correct(my point was we didnt understand the straight line of the Earth correctly even today (aka Galileo but leaving that aside for this side comment on interpretation) but:1)do you mean to say that "they" in verse nine refers only to Noah water (if that must be the case the "water" I was refering to on Earth would be different but still could indicate need for more rational thought)?2)If I read from verse 2 the "turning" refers to verse seven "they" that fled, hasted away, in the verse next went up and down ON THE EARTH.??As I try to read it again I think it was because I wrote out "deepLY" which triggered you to verse 6. Is that a case? That was an obscure word only to cover anything that was coverable (light as with a garment ,chambered beams(incidently what Newton was doing with light) IN the waters(verse3), spirits and fire symbols for material ministers and angels across some space (verse4), the foundations @ the planet(verse5) and the crucial for me what I thought was a "bound" "Strechest out the heavens like a curtain"v2).Am I really misunderstaning this text? or was it an error in my communication??This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-25-2005 06:22 AM

Not nearly so much if one removes the expectation of "Planet" form its meaning. Modern Israel calls itself "Eretz Israel" i.e. the Land of Israel. As far as I know, they do not use the word to represent planet earth. Help us ye students of Israeli Hebrew. Indeed. My personal opinion is that the first account refers to the "universe" such as they imagined it; and the second account refers to a specific location (Eden) within the larger context.There is simply NO justification for assuming that Bronze Age philosophers imagined Earth as a rotating ball in orbit of the sun (aside from certain geniuses who were discounted in their own time and whose ideas are definitely not represented in the Bible).db

I believe the poet is describing the Great Flood and saying that there will not be such a terrible flood again.db

well, that's exactly what i mean. they didn't think of a big round planet -- they were only concerned with a land. especially their own. but sometimes other peoples as well. i'm going to disagree, in part. i don't see genesis 2 as being within the context of genesis 1 at all. they are two contradictory accounts of approximately the same length and detail. the stories are evidently independent, as well -- they refer to god differently.HOWEVER, your point of focus is indeed correct. genesis 2 is only really concerned with israel, whereas genesis 1 is concerned with everything. genesis 2 is localized. well, yes. some greeks knew it.although, i'm pretty certain that none of the bible was written in the bronze age. i caught contracycle on this earlier (a position that he never acknowledged was in error). at the very earliest by all traditional accounts, moses was the first biblical author who's account was imparted by god. moses is more of less right on the boundary for bronze age/iron age in the middle east, at about 1250 bc. we know, however, that this not the case and that genesis was written much later.many anachronisms in the text indicate an early (to middle?) iron age authorship for most of the old testament, notably including descriptions of the working of iron.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-25-2005 07:18 AM

---

אָרַח

OK, sounds good!

Neither do I. Localized yes, but not in the land of Israel. Rather in the Middle East.Genesis 2 seems to depict the origin of Hebrew ancestors who worked the plantations of Mesopotamia. I do not believe it is inteded as a description of the origin of the universe. Mention of the creation of "heaven and earth" may be a way of suggesting that the story happened a long, long time ago: In the Beginning (of OUR story). Alternatively: "heaven" and "earth" may be understood metaphorically as government and constituency. There are several lines of evidences which lead to this interpretation.Note that the plant life is "of the field" and the animal life is apparently livestock (Adam names them all).The LORD God is apparently a king: a class of gods called: "Lord;" which, in English, indicates the ruling class (in the Bible, members of the ruling class were called gods). Genesis 2 flatly states that the LORD God "planted" this "garden" "in the East." He "made" a man of Adam; put him to work on the farm. The Tree of Life might well have been a benefit package which included medical, dental, and retirement incentives. What the heck?! If we can't relate the Bible Story to reality then we must relegate it to fantasy.At any rate: The Bible never speaks of Earth as if it were a Planet. Planets are points of light in the sky. Not according to the Bible. Clearly, Genesis was published around 600 BC; but the origin of its mythology is Sumerians, dating to at least 2000 BC. I have no doubt of it. You realize, of course, that these clues indicate the time of final edit rather than when these things became part of the Hebrew's oral tradition.db

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

sure. it (well, later parts in genesis) describe the origins of many specific peoples in the middle east. my favourite bible starts out, "when god began to create..." etc. i like that. and i've heard it's more accurate to the hebrew grammar. that i'm not sure on. i'd have see something. i know heaven and earth are used alot as parallels to kings and commoners. but i don't know if it specifically applies to genesis that way. part of the story seems to draw from babylonian legend, and i've heard it reflects the line of babylonians kings back to creation, starting with adapa - adam. i was thinking about this yesterday. only a mild contradiction in this case. but it's still fun to piss the fundies off with. here's another thought. genesis 2 and 3 together seem to be about the origin of AGRICULTURE. and so it explains how man goes from living a lush garden - the fertile crescent - to farming a desert with a bunch of goats. this specifically is part of adam's curse: he is to till the soil fruitlessly. and then he's kicked out of the garden.tell me, did the fertile crescent become un-fertile at any point? cause part of certainly seem pretty dry now. but i'm not that up on my geography. if it's the case it dried up, we might have a historical basis for the story, which would be incredible. except that the bible only calls god "lord" a suprisingly small number of times. the LORD in uppercases in a replacement of his name, out of reverence. but yes, that way of referring to him is a bit kingly. but i do not suspect they are portraying him as a physical, earthly, or mortal king.kings the region were called "sons of gods." these guys make their appearances a few times in the bible. we might even say that the son of god in job called satan was some sort of king, i suppose.but i don't think that's what they're doign with god. sure. yes, i do. and i'll even go a step further and suggest that genesis is NOT a compilation of oral history -- it's the compilation of WRITTEN tradition. the redactor seems far too concerned with internal accuracy, and the bits don't line up well enough for it to be oral and vague. he COPIED them from somewhere.however, the internal anachronisms can still be used to date the texts. maybe the mention of kings in israel was added as a side note later, but camels seem to be pretty important to the story isaac and rebekah.and on top of that, MANY of the mythologies have a specifically babylonian ring to them. both creation accounts, the flood... but let's look at one story especially.the tower of babel. bab-el was a real temple in babylon. it's several thousand years old, and the first time it was build, it's construction failed. there was a local legend, apparently, that the gods had cursed it. over the years, many people tried to rebuild it. many failed.know who succeeded? nebuchadnezzar, in 623 bc. suspiciously close to my date for the authorship of genesis. so is the tower of babel bit a coincidence, or part of a campaign against their babylonian captors, distorting their legend and shoving it in their face? i'd heard it set roughly at 1200 bc. my date could be wrong.i do suspect some of genesis came from traditions that were oral before then. but written after then.

---

אָרַח