Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good grief, they were wrong. They had a wrong understanding of the cosmos and that wrong belief is contained in the Bible. The Bible puts forth a wrong understanding of the cosmos. What do you not understand about this?
your understanding is limited because you do not speak or hear or understand the language of what is being conveyed, and the context in which it is given. (just like use of the words sunset and sunrise do not accurately convey understanding and context of how the words are used.)
Here is an example for instance of what firmament (rakia) refers to, as seen from a perspective which you probably have not considered. "On the Second day of Creation, separation of the higher waters from the lower waters was introduced. In the Torah, this is called the firmament (rakia)" and it discusses further what that is describing.
your understanding is limited because you do not speak or hear or understand the language of what is being conveyed, and the context in which it is given. (just like use of the words sunset and sunrise do not accurately convey understanding and context of how the words are used.)
Here is an example for instance of what firmament (rakia) refers to, as seen from a perspective which you probably have not considered. "On the Second day of Creation, separation of the higher waters from the lower waters was introduced. In the Torah, this is called the firmament (rakia)" and it discusses further what that is describing.
My understanding is based on what academic biblical scholarship says about it. It is a fact that the ancient peoples had the same general belief of a flat earth covered by a solid dome. While there is some variance, this is the general belief among all ancient peoples, including the ancient Hebrews.
The firmament to the Hebrews was a solid dome which kept the cosmic waters above the firmament from the waters that are below the firmament.
Again, the ancient peoples had no reason not to believe what their eyes told them. To use your own example, since to the eye the sun seems to rise and set, the ancient peoples believed that it did. We today know better but the ancient peoples did not. They believed what their eyes told them and that includes their belief that the sky is a solid dome over the earth.
And there was no second day of creation. Or first, third, forth, fifth or sixth. Both Genesis creation stories are just that - stories.
The ancient world, including the ancient Hebrews actually believed that there was a solid dome covering the earth because to the eye the sky appeared to be an inverted bowl over the earth. The sky was blue because of the water above the firmament. They had no reason to not believe what their eyes saw. Genesis one places the sun, moon, and stars IN the firmament (in the solid dome which covers the earth. Unlike modern science, the ancient peoples did NOT know that the sun was many millions of miles away. They thought the sun was a light that God had placed in the solid dome (firmament).
you have beliefs, about what "the ancient world believed" and "what the ancient Hebrews believed." However here is another example. It has more depth and nuance, and provides greater understanding than a superficial (lacking depth) reading of words without considering the context. just as sunrise and sunset are misleading when the context is not understood.
it is simplistic and reductive and superficial (lacks depth) to view everything as right or wrong, when the nature of a holy book is that meaning is layer upon layer upon layer of meaning. to be wed to a literalist view of words on the page, is to judge those who use the words sunrise and sunset as being "wrong" because the sun does not move.
"Job (26:7) writes that God “suspends the earth upon nothingness.” Thus, the Torah clearly asserts that the world is not being “held up” by pillars – nor is it floating on water or in any of the other bizarre configurations ancient man envisioned. The world is suspended in space.
"Regarding the Talmudic passage (Hagigah 12b) which implies otherwise – that the land stands on pillars, which stand on water, which rests on mountains, etc. it is clear though that Gemara (a section of Talmud) is Aggadic and intended metaphorically. See the Talmud’s conclusion that the world rests on a single pillar whose name is “tzaddik” – righteous one – meaning that the righteous are the foundation of the world. The Talmud is thus clearly presenting a Kabbalistic discussion of the world’s purpose rather than its astronomic positioning."
My understanding is based on what academic biblical scholarship says about it. It is a fact that the ancient peoples had the same general belief of a flat earth covered by a solid dome. While there is some variance, this is the general belief among all ancient peoples, including the ancient Hebrews. The firmament to the Hebrews was a solid dome which kept the cosmic waters above the firmament from the waters that are below the firmament. Again, the ancient peoples had no reason not to believe what their eyes told them. To use your own example, since to the eye the sun seems to rise and set, the ancient peoples believed that it did. We today know better but the ancient peoples did not. They believed what their eyes told them and that includes their belief that the sky is a solid dome over the earth. And there was no second day of creation. Or first, third, forth, fifth or sixth. Both Genesis creation stories are just that - stories.
If you see the Bible as "stories" then you can not extrapolate from "stories" what anyone in another period of history believed. That is not rational behavior. It's like insisting that JRR Tolkien believed there is a ring that makes the wearer invisible, and the people in his town were elves and hobbits. Nor is it rational behavior to insist stories must include science. That's like watching Star Trek and complaining because there are no devices sold on Amazon to beam you up to your star craft from other planets.
And if you believe the Bible is just "stories" then "academic biblical scholarship" carries no more weight than people dressed in costumes at a Trekkie convention. And you are the person walking around the Trekkie convention insisting "this is wrong, admit it, this is not true." I don't see that as rational behavior.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 04-28-2024 at 06:19 PM..
If you see the Bible as "stories" then you can not extrapolate from "stories" what anyone in another period of history believed. That is not rational behavior. Nor is it rational behavior to insist stories must include science. That's like watching Star Trek and complaining because there are no devices sold on Amazon to beam you up to other planets from your star craft.
And if you believe the Bible is just "stories" then "academic biblical scholarship" carries no more weight than people dressed in costumes at a Trekkie convention.
The two Genesis creation stories are not historical nor literal. And they contradict each other on certain points. One extra-biblical Jewish book, the name of which I don't remember has one character advocating piercing the sky with an awl to see if the sky is made of clay or some other material. That story conveys a belief held by the ancient Hebrews that the sky was a solid dome.
The simple fact that I'm conveying is that the Bible's cosmology is wrong. And again, academic biblical scholarship recognizes this regardless of your personal feelings on the matter. You may choose to believe fables but I prefer reality.
The people who wrote Scripture, I believe were generally "smarter" than most people today. Many of them could speak multiple languages, and they knew how to survive the harsh environments. Many of us would fold like a cheap suit if we lived in the conditions they did. Though ultimately these who were ignorant about what we know today, and those who trust what they passed along (the scriptures), I believe will be given ultimate knowledge that scientists search so desperately for. They will know why we exist and who we are.
You don't really know anything about a person or people who lived BC,
You are just grasping at fables.
Start worrying more about principles than a history you can never prove.
The two Genesis creation stories are not historical nor literal. And they contradict each other on certain points. One extra-biblical Jewish book, the name of which I don't remember has one character advocating piercing the sky with an awl to see if the sky is made of clay or some other material. That story conveys a belief held by the ancient Hebrews that the sky was a solid dome.
The simple fact that I'm conveying is that the Bible's cosmology is wrong. And again, academic biblical scholarship recognizes this regardless of your personal feelings on the matter. You may choose to believe fables but I prefer reality.
if it is a story, which you have said it is. and it is wrong and not true, which you have said it is. and it is not historical and not literal but is fables, which you have also said it is. Then it demonstrates a marked lack of critical thinking to insist that is what people believed. That is like insisting that JRR Tolkien believed in rings that make you invisible. And insisting that fans of George Lucas Star Wars movies believe in the Jedi Knights and travel about the Galactic Empire.
you have beliefs, about what "the ancient world believed" and "what the ancient Hebrews believed." However here is another example. It has more depth and nuance, and provides greater understanding than a superficial (lacking depth) reading of words without considering the context. just as sunrise and sunset are misleading when the context is not understood.
it is simplistic and reductive and superficial (lacks depth) to view everything as right or wrong, when the nature of a holy book is that meaning is layer upon layer upon layer of meaning. to be wed to a literalist view of words on the page, is to judge those who use the words sunrise and sunset as being "wrong" because the sun does not move.
"Job (26:7) writes that God “suspends the earth upon nothingness.” Thus, the Torah clearly asserts that the world is not being “held up” by pillars – nor is it floating on water or in any of the other bizarre configurations ancient man envisioned. The world is suspended in space.
"Regarding the Talmudic passage (Hagigah 12b) which implies otherwise – that the land stands on pillars, which stand on water, which rests on mountains, etc. it is clear though that Gemara (a section of Talmud) is Aggadic and intended metaphorically. See the Talmud’s conclusion that the world rests on a single pillar whose name is “tzaddik” – righteous one – meaning that the righteous are the foundation of the world. The Talmud is thus clearly presenting a Kabbalistic discussion of the world’s purpose rather than its astronomic positioning."
The book of Job is not part of the Torah. The Torah is only the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.
The Hebrew Bible is more than just the Torah and the Hebrew Bible is not univocal. The biblical writers did not always agree. You point out that Job 26:7 asserts that the earth is not being held up by pillars but even the book of Job itself states elsewhere that the earth does have pillars (Job 9:6). And in Job 38 the earth has foundations and its bases are sunk into some unnamed thing. So, in Job, the earth is not hanging from anything but it is supported on pillars. Also, understand that the Jewish rabbis were constantly arguing various viewpoints.
The ancient peoples did NOT have a modern understanding of the cosmos. And yet again, the creation story in Genesis has the sun, moon, and stars as a part of the solid dome firmament. There is no metaphorical sense to this. The Bible is simply giving a false cosmological view of the world.
if it is a story, which you have said it is. and it is wrong and not true, which you have said it is. and it is not historical and not literal but is fables, which you have also said it is. Then it demonstrates a marked lack of critical thinking to insist that is what people believed. That is like insisting that JRR Tolkien believed in rings that make you invisible. And insisting that fans of George Lucas Star Wars movies believe in the Jedi Knights and travel about the Galactic Empire.
Your arguments don't make any sense. The stories reflect what the ancient peoples believed. And again, the Genesis creation stories do not present an accurate or historical view of creation.
as it is just fables to you, then there is nothing to discuss because it is dismissed as not true and not science. And since you have also said there is nothing metaphorical in the bible, then there is no meaning in any of it beyond literal text words. So then that relegates JC to the same category as Pinocchio, or Humpty Dumpty. Just stories. And you have stated you do not believe fables.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 04-28-2024 at 07:28 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
